Hiroshima?

There are usually mentions of it on television news media, and on television history programs.

Nothing too big, though.

It's also on the CNN homepage. It's a tragedy.

Quote:

Original post by Marmin It's also on the CNN homepage. It's a tragedy.

That's debateable. The bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are of course horrible. However, you could say they also prevented a lot of suffering. Japan refused to surrender.

Imagine what would have happened if the US Army tried to invade Japan. I think, more causalties would have fallen on both sides, including thousands of civilians.

One hand, it's just terrible what happened, and how the aftermath of the bombs are still affecting humans and soceity over there(People that lived in/around the city at the time of the bombings are still treated as paria's). On the other hand, the bombs probably saved the world from more suffering and death.

It's a difficult happening. Japan is both the purpetrator, and victim at the same time.

Toolmaker

Quote:

Original post by honey is it just my feeling or does the US media ignore the 60. anniversary of the first nuclear bomb used against people? in europe it is hard to find a newspaper or online magazine that does not mention it, looking through major US newspapers i couldn't find even a hint most of the time (online). did i just miss it?

Yes, you did. I see articles in the online versions of USA Today, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal. You won't find anything in the print versions until tomorrow because the event itself happened too late in the US day (4 AM) to allow editors to print it. The New York Times also has a link to the AP/Reuters article.

Quote:

Original post by Toolmaker Quote: Original post by Marmin It's also on the CNN homepage. It's a tragedy. That's debateable. The bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are of course horrible. However, you could say they also prevented a lot of suffering. Japan refused to surrender.

Ok, tell that to a victim.

If someone aproaches you and says: hey, i'll take your life, but in return one hundred other lifes will be saved. Will you do it? And that is taken into account that you even have a choise to say no.
The victims had no choice, even.

Quote:

Original post by Marmin Quote: Original post by Toolmaker Quote: Original post by Marmin It's also on the CNN homepage. It's a tragedy. That's debateable. The bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are of course horrible. However, you could say they also prevented a lot of suffering. Japan refused to surrender. Ok, tell that to a victim. If someone aproaches you and says: hey, i'll take your life, but in return one hundred other lifes will be saved. Will you do it? And that is taken into account that you even have a choise to say no. The victims had no choice, even.

It was war.

It was ugly, horrible, and a terrible thing. I think the point that was being made was as bad as the act was, those bombs ended the war. There is obviously no way of knowing for sure, but many, many more lives could have been lost on both sides had the war gone on longer. No victims never have a choice, thus the term victim is used, rather than martyr.

Quote:

Original post by Marmin Quote: Original post by Toolmaker Quote: Original post by Marmin It's also on the CNN homepage. It's a tragedy. That's debateable. The bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are of course horrible. However, you could say they also prevented a lot of suffering. Japan refused to surrender. Ok, tell that to a victim.

i dont see the difference between levelling german cities or japanese. if you use wave after wave of conventional explosives or one big bomb really doesnt make any difference from an ethical pov.

what was the fuss all about again?

Quote:

Original post by Eelco i dont see the difference between levelling german cities or japanese. if you use wave after wave of conventional explosives or one big bomb really doesnt make any difference from an ethical pov.

Convention explosives tend to either kill people outright or seriously injure them in such a way that rest and time will heal their wounds. Atomic bombs kill people outright too, but a substantial number of them die slowly over weeks, months, or years from the irreversible radiation damage. In effect, it is a torture device.

Quote:

Original post by honey is it just my feeling or does the US media ignore the 60. anniversary of the first nuclear bomb used against people? in europe it is hard to find a newspaper or online magazine that does not mention it, looking through major US newspapers i couldn't find even a hint most of the time (online). did i just miss it?

It was on TIME Magazine here in Canada.

Kab00m!

Quote:

Original post by Marmin Quote: Original post by Toolmaker Quote: Original post by Marmin It's also on the CNN homepage. It's a tragedy. That's debateable. The bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are of course horrible. However, you could say they also prevented a lot of suffering. Japan refused to surrender. Ok, tell that to a victim. If someone aproaches you and says: hey, i'll take your life, but in return one hundred other lifes will be saved. Will you do it? And that is taken into account that you even have a choise to say no. The victims had no choice, even.

Of course, it's unexplainable to the victim. One of hand, everyone will try to save their own life, despite the lives of others. That's human nature, that's how nature programmed us. But let's change the odds a little bit.

Will you choose life if you know that 100,000 people will die if you choose? I'd choose death, how hard that decision would be.

I never said the usage of the atomic bomb was good or whatnot. It's a horrible device, but it DID end the war. Also, even the Americans didn't know how much horror these bombs would cause.

I followed some documentary on a TV channel over here on it, and some American Japan scientist said similar things, and how it still affects soceity. But the blood baths between the Americans and Japanese over a few island already was horrible. Not to mention the death rates after a full-scale invasion of the main land. It would probably been worse.

Toolmake

I have a feeling that, had the atomic bombs not been dropped on Japan, and had not had a real human impact, instead of just experimental, then there may have been a greater chance that such weapons would have been used at a future time instead. Perhaps in the Cold War instead of WW2, and if such weapons had been used in the Cold War, well, most people would probably be dead.

Yes, it was a terrible thing that happened, but in a way, I think it was good to put a human face on the victims of such weapons. Had that not happened, I think we may have been more likely to use them in the future, where technological developments like missiles would make them entirely more destructive.

Ideally, there would be no nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

Do US-media show the results of the bombs or only the "victory cloud", the bomber and the bomb?

If anyone wants to see a good documentary, watch the Fog of War. It's not solely about A-bombs but has some very interesting insights.

Its strange, bring up Hiroshima and Nagasaki and you'll usually get the classic american defense of the bombs. While they say its 'terrible', the argument basically boils down to innocent civillians are expendable in order to prove your point or get a country to surrender to your own wishes. And then use the classic, "its war, bad **** happens, get over it."

Bring up 9/11 and get an entirely different one. You get the "war on terror".

edit: I'm not saying that about anyone in this thread. But I've definately noticed it with "average joe" on the street. That's if they even know what Hiroshima and Nagasaki are in the first place.

edit: Fog of War is excellent by the way.

Quote:

Original post by Toolmaker That's debateable. The bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are of course horrible. However, you could say they also prevented a lot of suffering. Japan refused to surrender. Imagine what would have happened if the US Army tried to invade Japan. I think, more causalties would have fallen on both sides, including thousands of civilians.

The bombs (let's also remember Nagasaki) saved the lives of at least 500.000 U.S. soldiers. But the Hiroshima bomb claimed the lives of 40.000 children in 15 seconds. And I'm just mentioning the children.

Japan refused to surrender, but they were already defeated. Nothing justifies those bombs - except the fact that they were thrown to start a new war - the cold war - as a means of intimidation to the extinct URSS.

Son Of Cain

Dropping those bombs was the best way to clean up the tail end of that war, however, WHERE they dropped them was totaly wrong.

The point to them was to say "Here, sit down, shut up, you lost. If you don't do that, your pretty little islands are going to become radioactive waste lands!"


Dropping nukes on one or two UNPOPULATED islands (or ones with pure military targets) would have made the point just as well, if not better. Killling civilians is a great way to push a country closer to really fighting to the death.

Also, no US soldier would have ever been required to set foot on the mainland Japan. Last I heard, Japan had no oil, and lacked production for many of the things they were becomming dependant on. A complete naval blockade of the islands, while taking longer, could have produced the desired results with little to no loss of US life, and very little civilian life.

Is it just me, or has the US military forgotten the simplest form of war with all their advancements in weaponary? The seige. Why shoot someone to kill him, when their lack of food does it just as nicely, and they may even just surrender if you wave a loaf of bread at them.

Quote:

Original post by Talroth Is it just me, or has the US military forgotten the simplest form of war with all their advancements in weaponary? The seige. Why shoot someone to kill him, when their lack of food does it just as nicely, and they may even just surrender if you wave a loaf of bread at them.

Well we try not to starve people. Even though that was what the whole world was yelling about as to the Iraq Sanctions. Starving people and Denying them medicine. War is disgusting. There is not really a nice way to go about it.

Quote:

Original post by Talroth Is it just me, or has the US military forgotten the simplest form of war with all their advancements in weaponary? The seige. Why shoot someone to kill him, when their lack of food does it just as nicely, and they may even just surrender if you wave a loaf of bread at them.

Remember if from their point of view, they were at the end of WW2, do you think people would want to drop a bomb and end it or let it drag out in a long protracted seige?

Quote:

Original post by Son of Cain Japan refused to surrender, but they were already defeated. Nothing justifies those bombs

Not even that it probably saved more Japaneese than it killed? Remember these were the guys who spent a few days in tunnels under an island the US had taken from them just to pour out in a suicidal strike to kill as many as possible. Does that really sound like a mindset that would've surrendered easily?

Quote:

Original post by Talroth Dropping nukes on one or two UNPOPULATED islands (or ones with pure military targets) would have made the point just as well, if not better.

I doubt that. First of all there I'm pretty sure there were no islands that had pure military targets. Hiroshima housed a major military base for the Japanese and hadn't really been touched at all throughout the war. If the Japanese were not ready to surrender after that bombing and all the lives lost what makes you think they would care if it went off on a deserted island? The Japanese and their concept of honor would have prevented them from surrending for quite a while if such a display of force had not been displayed.

Quote:

Also, no US soldier would have ever been required to set foot on the mainland Japan. Last I heard, Japan had no oil, and lacked production for many of the things they were becomming dependant on. A complete naval blockade of the islands, while taking longer, could have produced the desired results with little to no loss of US life, and very little civilian life.

There would be loss to US life. They would contiue fighting until they had absolutely nothing left to fight for. I doubt they would have ran out of oil in a few days much less a few months.

Quote:

Is it just me, or has the US military forgotten the simplest form of war with all their advancements in weaponary? The seige. Why shoot someone to kill him, when their lack of food does it just as nicely, and they may even just surrender if you wave a loaf of bread at them.

This may have worked against some enemies but I think you need to learn a little bit more about Japanese culture before you make those kind of statments. Their pilots, for example, were quite happy to crash their plane into an enemy ship if they ran out of ammo or were low on fuel.