Nuclear Arms

[Dizzy]

Quote:

Referring back to the OP's question, can you envision a time in the future when the bomb will once again be the lesser of the several difficult means of ending a war or resolving a war situation?

I think it's another situation of we don't want it to come to that, but we also can't shy away from it should the need arise. Of course in today's world I can't see us using one, but times do change rather quickly.

 

[GalleyGirl]

Just one last thing before I head off (god I wish this place counted as work!) Here is a quote from Saburo Ienaga's The Pacific War, on how civlians were unfairly caught up in the Allied bombings. This one refers to an August 7 attack:
"Bombs dropped from 20,000 feet did not distinguish between soldier and civilian. The August 7, 1945, attack on the Toyokawa Naval Arsenal was a hideous example of total war. Labor service workers and student workers were employed at the arsenal under military supervision. Between 2,000 and 3,000 civilians were killed in the air raid. Among the dead were women's volunteer corp members [my note - the name is misleading because they weren't actually volunteers], female students and more than fifty elementary school students."
About Hiroshia and Nagasaki:
"For sheer horror, nothing rivals Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Residents of those two cities were human guinea pigs in the first use of atomic weapons in warfare....Everything for 3,000 meters in all directions from the center was totally destroyed. Survivors were covered in blood and nearly naked: their clothes had been blown right off by the blast...
If the primary objective was to save American lives, Washington could have deferred both the bomb and an invasion of Japan until the Soviet offensive had run its course..."
pgs 200-201
Honestly I am biased because I have lived in Japan and I have such a hard time putting myself in the place during a time in which they were seen as the "enemy." But even if they were the current official, state-designated "enemy," I would be appalled.
Okay, now I am signing off for reals. As always, I really appreciate the viewpoints offered in these debates!

 

[Hawkeye]

Given the history and the situation of the bombing, I think it was justified. It sucks that many people died and had to go through a lot of problems with that but you know I guess the best way to say it is sometimes you have to sacrifice the few to save the majority.

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GalleyGirl Then why did they drop it specifically on a bridge in the city?

In war, a bridge is typically a priority target. Destroying bridges eliminates the ability to quickly and easily move troops, supplies, and anything else. They are always targeted and destroyed in most military campaigns.

 

[kimmy]

that video showing someone being vapourized is mystifying...it's amazing to think that humans created something that can do that, something so devastating. anyway though..

a) i don't think there was any other way to end the war with japan, not at that time. but the japanese government wasn't backing down, and they weren't planning to anytime soon. once we dropped those bombs, we showed the world that we could be pushed too far...and that says something. it kept us on top for 50+ years, and that, imho is good.
b) i think these days, they should be a last resort simply because other countries now have them too as do small terrorist/extremist cells. any country using nuclear weaponry now is just asking for a total nuclear holocaust.

 

[GalleyGirl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kimmy any country using nuclear weaponry now is just asking for a total nuclear holocaust.

This is true I think. It was safe for us to use them back in the day when we were the only ones who had them , but nowaday, the possiblity for retaliation is just to great I think to ever even consider using them.

 

[Shimmer]

we're talking about nuclear here, but what about biological / chemical?