Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Nowhere357 · 04-14-2003, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fatherphil
unfortunately the surrender of japan was not forthcoming without it.

It's easy to second-guess.

Suppose we dropped the bombs in the sea of Japan, and sent a note saying the next ones are for real.

Any chance that may have worked?

fatherphil · 04-14-2003, 09:30 PM

one problem with that is the fact that we really did not have that many of those things. & maybe we were not as sensitive back then. look at the destruction we did to bikini atoll. glad those days are behind us.

Nowhere357 · 04-14-2003, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fatherphil
glad those days are behind us.

Man I hope they are.

Mageth · 04-15-2003, 09:03 AM

I'm not asking about 58 years ago. I'm asking you how you'd like to have a nuclear bomb fall on your head today.

Thanks for illustrating my point.

CALDONIA · 04-15-2003, 09:18 AM

I wonder if it is almost pointless to debate whether we "should have" used the A-bomb on Japan. The weapon was developed to be used, it was not meant to be brandished as a threat (as it often is today).

However, it is important to look to what lessons can be drawn from the 'event' so that such weapons are never used again by any nation anywhere under any circumstance.

Loren Pechtel · 04-15-2003, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jinto
Let's see: using nuclear weapons on civilian targets, thereby killing thousands of innocent non-combatants, in order to change a conditional surrender (they wanted to keep their emperor) to an unconditional surrender. Yeah, real ethical.

We didn't have pinpoint boming back then anyway. Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't the worst-bombed cities of the war.

Loren Pechtel · 04-15-2003, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by Mageth
The question is, in my opinion, was it necessary to drop the bomb? And, after Hiroshima, was Nagasaki really necessary? And why drop the bombs on cities, and not, for example, on one of the relatively uninhabited regions of one of Japan's northern islands? Or even ten or twenty miles off the coast of Tokyo?

Nagasaki wasn't neccessary but that was our misunderstanding. We dropped Hiroshima and waited to see what would happen. When they didn't get the point we dropped Nagasaki. What we didn't realize is that it was so outside their experience that the 3 days we gave them wasn't enough.

Offshore isn't a viable solution. We had to blow up something so they could see the power of the bomb. I don't know about the northern islands.

Loren Pechtel · 04-15-2003, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
We did not know that the A-bomb was the ultimate weapon until the results were seen.

Umm, we tested the bomb before we used it. I think we knew going in what kind of effect it would have on a city.

Nope. All we knew was that it made a big boom. We didn't know the secondary effects.

Loren Pechtel · 04-15-2003, 05:08 PM

One other thing: I think that the destruction of at least one city was a major benefit to the world. We saw the horrors of nuclear war in a limited context. If it hadn't been used I think it would have been a lot more likely for a nuclear conflict to be fought later--with far more bombs..

Vorkosigan · 04-15-2003, 06:32 PM

The a-bomb is currently being discussed here

Vorkosigan

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-14-2003, 09:30 PM	#22
fatherphil Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: burbank Posts: 758	one problem with that is the fact that we really did not have that many of those things. & maybe we were not as sensitive back then. look at the destruction we did to bikini atoll. glad those days are behind us.

04-15-2003, 09:03 AM	#24
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I'm not asking about 58 years ago. I'm asking you how you'd like to have a nuclear bomb fall on your head today. Thanks for illustrating my point.

04-15-2003, 09:18 AM	#25
CALDONIA Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sunnyvale,CA Posts: 371	I wonder if it is almost pointless to debate whether we "should have" used the A-bomb on Japan. The weapon was developed to be used, it was not meant to be brandished as a threat (as it often is today). However, it is important to look to what lessons can be drawn from the 'event' so that such weapons are never used again by any nation anywhere under any circumstance.

04-15-2003, 05:05 PM	#27
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by Mageth The question is, in my opinion, was it necessary to drop the bomb? And, after Hiroshima, was Nagasaki really necessary? And why drop the bombs on cities, and not, for example, on one of the relatively uninhabited regions of one of Japan's northern islands? Or even ten or twenty miles off the coast of Tokyo? Nagasaki wasn't neccessary but that was our misunderstanding. We dropped Hiroshima and waited to see what would happen. When they didn't get the point we dropped Nagasaki. What we didn't realize is that it was so outside their experience that the 3 days we gave them wasn't enough. Offshore isn't a viable solution. We had to blow up something so they could see the power of the bomb. I don't know about the northern islands.

04-15-2003, 05:08 PM	#29
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	One other thing: I think that the destruction of at least one city was a major benefit to the world. We saw the horrors of nuclear war in a limited context. If it hadn't been used I think it would have been a lot more likely for a nuclear conflict to be fought later--with far more bombs..

04-15-2003, 06:32 PM	#30
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	The a-bomb is currently being discussed here Vorkosigan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.