Keep in mind the distortion of hindsight. The bombs dropped on Japan were viewed as just better city destroying bombs, not "WMDs". They were only in the small kiloton range. We were in the city destroying business in full swing regardless of the technology. Radiation poisoning, fallout, birth defects only became a concern after the war. Only decades after the war did the scary transformation occur of atomic bombs evolving into nuclear fusion civilization destroying devices. It took some time to see and moderate the worrisome result of having weapons that are too good. It will take more time to realize we can defend ourselves with vastly less weaponry than what we have now. So what really matters? Is it HOW you kill 100,000 civilians that matters more or the political/military/cultural system in place that seeks to kill 100,000 civilians using whatever works? A lot of effort went into the fire bombing of Tokyo to achieve a significantly higher body count than either a-bomb achieved. To me, that is more bothersome than the A-bombs since so much more effort went into figuring out how to maximize death.
I'm sure the guy with radiation burns would take the soviet occupation in place of the injuries.. No one knows for sure how the war would have played out without dropping the 2 bombs and killing civilians. President Eisenhower felt that a Japan was about to surrender without dropping the bomb. Certainly they would have surrendered after just one bomb. I guess diplomacy never worked back than. Japan had an embargo and of fuel. They could not get planes in the shy to fight without fuel. It was just a matter of time.
The 2 things that come to mind is that Germany killed 6 Million Jews during WW II mostly innocent civilian people and the USA killed about 200,000 innocent civilian people dropping the bomb. War is hell. Recently we almost went to war against Iraq for killing innocent civilians. Some people line up civilians on military targets to bait public outcry when targets are hit.
I see that world history is not your strong point. Stalin would have killed more Japanese in occupied Japan that Americans did in nuclear explosions. He was only a slightly better guy than Hitler. Japan was not ready to surrender after the first bomb. It took 2 of them.
We did go to war in Iraq already. Did you mean Syria? That is war in proxy. We support Al-Qaeda guys, Iran supports the government.
We do not support Al Qaeda Eisenhower who was a General at the time said a Japan was about to surrender and was negotiating a conditional surrender and we wanted unconditional. It was just a matter of time. No food and gasoline
Ummm... It depends Bra... officially... on occasion = oh yeah... and there is proof in the records... just saying...
Hard pressed to believe we support an organization founded by bin laden that waged holy war on the USA. Al-Qaeda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Unfortunately we do, even if indirectly. It's also not a secret we supported Saddam Hussein and Taliban back in 1980's. We even protected Saddam from UN when he used chemical weapons against Iran.
Watched 60 minutes 2 Sundays ago the head of the CIA says they are supporting resistance in Iraq but not Al Qaeda. That was the show they interviewed Assad
After the Iran hostage crisis in the 70's we did support Sadam against Iran. Then he messed up and attacked Kuwait Cuba was once an Allie to
Oh shoot... I thought this was about inadequate protection of an unintended nuclear detonation... and that we, as a Nation, haven't done that.
Not directly, anymore. But remember the old adage, "The enemy of my enemy is ... ". Don't forget our support for the mujahideen during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. At that time, Eisenhower was not yet Commander In Chief, and was commanding forces in Europe, not the Pacific. Truman, the actual Commander In Chief, would have been getting opinions from many military and diplomatic leaders, not just from Eisenhower.
The bomb that fell on NC that the OP was talking about was on an episode of Diggers. The two guys that take their metal detectors and search for stuff went there to find parts of the bomb. They were successful.
Fuzzy you are Fuzzy again. I know Truman's title. I also know that his bombing of innocent I say it again innocent people a leveling of a city and not a military target is unpopular. Eisenhower believed the bombing of Japan was unnecessary since they were cut off from supplies, had no military's attacking power and surrender was already in negotiation. I believe Truman dropping the bomb was unnecessary Now if you want to go on record that dropping an atom bomb on Japan was necessary but I will not agree as will many others.
Remember, that some PC members are addicted to internet porn and topics that tend to go to Fred's House of Politics. They just can't help it.
The atomic bombings were 68 years ago. Not only was that before nearly any of us were born, but a totally different era. We would not repeat the use of nuking in anger unless our nation itself was threatened - it was not, although our troops definitely were. Japan today hates war instead of relishing it. Both Americans and Japanese did things they are not particular proud of and would be considered war crimes today. Some may differ on some of my above points, but the basic facts are the two nations have moved on. I'm more concerned with nuclear stockpiles that might not be secure from terrorists, or rogue states that possess them.
I do not want to give the wrong impression. I feel that killing civilians in any conflict is reprehensible and constitutes war crime and atrocity, regardless of the weapon(s) used. Sadly, the United States, throughout its history, from the Indian wars up to the present, has intentionally killed civilians, both directly and indirectly, though in more recent times, when it has become less popular, justifies it by calling it inevitable or unavoidable, by using such euphemisms as "collateral damage," and by blaming the other side by accusing them of hiding behind civilians, or by claiming the killings were "accidental." As recently as the 1980's, the US conducted proxy wars in Central America where our proxies rounded up civilians suspected of holding opinions opposed to their government, and torturing them to death. At the School of the Americas in Ft. Benning, in Georgia, Central American death squads were taught how to torture people without leaving visible marks, and during that period, the government of El Salvador, with direct support from the US, and US "advisors" on the ground, murdered a greater percentage of its civilians than even Germany did before and during WW II. The Elder Bush bombed the civilian slums of Panama City, because that was where Manuel Noriega had his political support base. (Bush had been funding Noriega, with full knowledge of Noriega's drug-running activities, until Noriega withdrew his support of America's proxy wars in the region.) The atom bombs dropped on Japan are just one more example of our willingness to slaughter massive numbers of civilians any time we believe it to be in our "interest." As others have pointed out, we have used other weapons to achieve similar death rates, and I am just as appalled and disgusted by their use as I am by the use of nukes. And the US has never renounced first use of nukes. The official US position on first use is that we will use nukes any time we feel their use will benefit more than harm us, and against any country we feel is a threat.
