Ask a Question
or
Create a Poll
  1. Home /
  2. Polls /
  3. Social Sciences
  4. / History
  5. / World War II
  6. / WWII Pacific Theater

by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on December 23rd, 2009

TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT

Poll

Help answer this question below.

the bombing of hiroshima... could you have done it?

this question is focussed for people who accept war as a sometimes necessary evil.

Embed
Share:
Other

Answers. 12 helpful answers below.

  • by Hardcore Conservative on January 26th, 2010
    voted: yes, I do not like the idea of killing civilians but it had to be done

    Hardcore Conservative

    Asker's Pick

    Selected by the asker, TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT. (What's this?)

    Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both picked as targets due to their miltiary significance. Yes, it was unfortunate that civilians were killed, but, considering what would have happened if the US had invaded mainland Japan in Operation Downfall, it was the better decision. The office of the Secretary of War estimated as high as 4 million US casualties, including 800,000 fatalities and as high at 10 million Japanese fatalties, in order for the US to conquer Japan.

    • Like
    • Report

    4 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Old School on January 24th, 2010
    voted: yes, I do not like the idea of killing civilians but it had to be done

    Old School

    I have vacillated about whether the US should have dropped the atomic bombs on Japan.

    It's hard to know how history would have played out. While it's commonly known that the US was preparing for brutal and difficult invasion of the Japanese home islands, I've also read some sources that indicate the Japanese government was on the verge of suing for peace before the atomic bombs were dropped.

    As I write this, I support the decision for 3 primary reasons:

    1) The US was very sick and tired of war by mid-1945. I cannot fault the decision-makers of the time trying to bring WW II to an end by whatever means they had.

    2) The atomic attacks, while horrific, were not necessarily more horrific than mass conventional bombings done to cities like Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo and the like. Just because it took hundreds of planes and thousands of bombs doesn't make the result any more humane than one plane with one bomb.

    3) It was probably for the best (this is speculation on my part) that the horrific nature of atomic weapons was revealed to world at time when only a few such weapons existed.

    It seems plausible to me that confrontations like the Korean War and the Cuban Missile Crisis might have taken a very different (and deadlier) path if the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not in the back of decision-makers minds.

    This was perhaps one of history's toughest "The Lesser of Two Evils" dilemmas.

    • Like
    • Report

    7 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Wynper on November 11th, 2010

    Wynper

    I cannot pick an answer from you list because none are right for me.

    I think you ought to have asked this question with a caveat; given what was known at the time or in hindsight. Of course that is a point of debate too....what the highest level of the U.S. and the Japanese government truly knew we as citizens will never know.

    Everything is different now...speed of communication on a global scale, censorship (here now and then), propaganda...there were many unknowns even to those making the decisions at the time even the power of "The Bomb" was unknown.

    Were I POTUS at the time (given what information is now publicly known) I would have dropped the first bomb. I am not sure I would have dropped the second days later but that is hindsight. The world is a different place...communication could have stopped it but one has to want to communicate.

    The world now knows the power of nukes and because one may beget another I earnestly hope no one considers it an option ever again. I am disgusted by those who condemn in hindsight the United States for the first atomic bomb and also disgusted by those who cavalierly advocate dropping another atomic bomb again. Knowing what we do now it is obscene to imagine it is the right thing to do now.

    We cannot begin to understand now what we did then although I think it is essential that we try and try again to learn from our past and not repeat those mistakes. It's a trite phrase but we all know it...."those who don't know their history are destine to repeat it"

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by Simply Pengu on November 11th, 2010
    voted: yes, I do not like the idea of killing civilians but it had to be done

    Simply Pengu

    WAR IS STUPID. I WISH IT DID NOT BEGIN AT FIRST. THE QUICKEST WAY TO END WAR IS TO GIVE THE OPPONENT NO CHANCE OF WINNING.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by Nightwatchdog on November 11th, 2010
    voted: yes. they were the enemy, alls fair in love and war

    Nightwatchdog

    Yes I could have "done it"....back in my service days one of the ships I served on could have made 50+ little Hiroshima's all by it's self - and I was one of the techs that made sure those warheads were ready to go at all times.

    But the moral dilemma which asks us SHOULD they be used on predominantly civilian targets is something I had a great deal of trouble dealing with.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by futureMarine on June 24th, 2010
    voted: yes. they were the enemy, alls fair in love and war

    futureMarine

    i think it was justified they attacked t peal harbor and the cities both had military signifigance. though i've read a lot about the bombing and i also somtimes think it was unnessacary becuese the amount of suffering it caused. there still are people effected by it today.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Glenn Blaylock on January 24th, 2010
    voted: yes, I do not like the idea of killing civilians but it had to be done

    Glenn Blaylock

    I seeing as I agree with the conclusion that the bombs saved lives in the end, I think that I could have dropped it. The military was preparing for an invasion of the Japanese home islands at the time we dropped those bombs. Given that the Japanese got fiercer and more suicidal the closer we got to them, just the American casualties were expected to be on the order of the number killed by the bombs. This, of course, does not include the Japanese casualties which could have been expected to be even worse.

    Then, of course, the was the Soviet Union to consider. The reason we have to deal with Kim Jung Il right now is because the Soviets "liberated" North Korea and set up a communist dictatorship there during the war. Had the war dragged on longer, then the Soviets probably would have completely conquered the Korean peninsula and have invaded Japan as well. So, in stead of dealing with a unified Japan that is peaceful and prosperous, we would quite possibly have a divided nation there with communist and free zones and a Korean peninsula that is completely under communist domination. This would have led to even more deaths as this is one of the ways communists maintain control over their populations.

    • Like
    • Report

    2 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Alienshroom on January 10th, 2010
    voted: yes. they were the enemy, alls fair in love and war

    Alienshroom

    Depends, question however is bombing of Hiroshima. I despise the atrocities the Japanese inflicted to innocent people in World War 2. So yea innocent people perhaps just as innocent in Hiroshima would be killed, but i could do it. Other cities probably not.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by b65536 on April 16th, 2011
    voted: yes. they were the enemy, alls fair in love and war

    b65536

    I love death and killing

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Anonymous on November 11th, 2010
    voted: yes. they were the enemy, alls fair in love and war

    Anonymous

    i could have, but i wouldn't need to justify it, other then to say "c'est la vie".

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on December 23rd, 2009
    voted: no, accidental civilian deaths happen in war... but destroying an entire city is not right

    TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT

    I am torn between destroying a city not being right and it had to be done. I wished we could have targeted a military or government site, but that might not have been a strong enough message... I know nukes were expencive but could we not have fired a warning shot just off their coast?

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Twisted Taco on November 11th, 2010

    Twisted Taco

    No. I also couldn't have perpetrated any of the other atrocities the US has in the name of freedom, security or whatever other crock of shit it is that they use in order to steal people's natural resources

    2 comments | Post one | Permalink

Want to attach an image to your answer? Click here.

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

You're reading the bombing of hiroshima... could you have done it?

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

Answerbag

a Demand Media company