Social Question

Sneki95's avatar

What do you think about atomic bomb?

Asked by Sneki95 (6997points) August 8th, 2016

I heard some people who think it was a good thing, that it ended a war earlier, and that Japanese killed way more than they themselves died due to the bomb anyways.

So, was it a good thing that the bombs were dropped? I think it was unfair. Sure, Japanese were not nice people, but obliterating a country with the most devastating weapon we ever knew? Why not just return the same measure, or simply battling smarter?

On a side note, if anyone ever reconsiders using the bomb again, would you agree with it?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

15 Answers

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

We have newer ways of destruction more than a that two little city’s would ever fear. I’m impressed that no atomic bombs have ever been used on citizens anymore.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

We cannot reverse the decision to drop the bombs. But it worked out OK. Japan and the United States are the best of friends today.

But everyone should understand the horror.

Please read Hiroshima by John Hersey. I was sick for a week after reading it.

elbanditoroso's avatar

What’s to think? It exists; hopefully it does not get used.

I disagree with your premise that it was unfair. From the point of view 70 years later, maybe, but in 1945 it was the best of a long list of bad choices. It’s easy to say now that it was not a great military choice, but the alternative was WW2 continuing for another couple of years and tens of thousands of soldiers being killed.

Would I agree on its use in the future? It depends. I would never rule it out completely, although the fact that it hasn’t been needed since 1945 is a pretty good indication that it wouldn’t be all that useful.

johnpowell's avatar

April 30, 1945—Hitler offs himself
August 6, 1945—Bomb dropped at Hiroshima

I just want to clarify this since so many people seem to forget that Japan kept going well after the European side was settled.

I personally, am not a fan of dropping the bombs. But I sort of get why it was done.

flutherother's avatar

The mass killing of civilians can never be justified in my opinion.

Zaku's avatar

The atomic bomb in World War II was horrible. As Jay mentioned, read Hiroshima by John Hersey. It’s a short read.

Far worse is the continued development of much more powerful nuclear weapons since then.

Another low point was George W. Fucktard Bush suggesting he might use some in his Orwellian nonsense “war on Terror”.

As for WW2 policy, the mindsets were different then. We actually caused far more civilian death and destruction by firebombing Japan and Germany, and we didn’t have the same morality about it then. I think it’s important to realize too that the imperative to take Japan out was largely about wanting to stop the Soviet Union’s advance by ending the war.

If there’s a good thing about nuclear weapons, its that the horror of the possibly using them has deterred more serious warfare, and may have improved our morality and non-violence a bit. Maybe. It’s hard to know what would really happen if history had been different.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Nuclear weapons are the tools of the gods, in the hands of infants.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

@Sneki95 We didn’t start that war. We were attacked. By the time the bomb came to fruition in ‘45, America was nearly economically tapped out. War bond drives were increasingly unsuccessful. American civilian morale was fading fast. Ammo, food stuffs and other supports were in danger of not being delivered to the front lines. Germany had been defeated, but the Japanese showed every sign of fighting down to the last man. If we were going to win that war, it had to be done as soon as possible for all the above reasons. Time was running out.

In late ‘44 and early ‘45, we were gearing up for the massive invasion of Japan. To suppliment the men already in place for the invasion, we were quickly training the few new young recruits and draftees available—the crop of ‘45— but mostly we were using experienced, exhausted men who had already fought in the European theater and had moved them home and began training them for tropicalization for transfer to holding centers in the recaptured islands south of Japan. KIA estimates were as high as 200,000 Americans in this invasion.. All because these bastards attacked us three and a half years earlier and now, surrounded, they still wouldn’t give up.

Given the choice of bombing the enemy into submission or losing up to 200,000 more men, Truman decided to drop the bomb. In hindsight, I agree with his decision 100%.

CWOTUS's avatar

I have one good comment to make about nuclear weapons: Their development and deployment by “generally rational” actors (to a point, anyway, and “so far”, at least) seems to have forestalled the beginning of the next World War. So there’s that to be said for them.

Zaku's avatar

When looking back at whether dropping the atomic bomb on Japanese cities was the best choice or not, I think one should be careful in considering what a person is actually asking. From within the mindset of the people making the choice at the time, the decision seems to have been pretty clear. Wiping out most of the people in a city was not a huge consideration then, and apparently still isn’t for many people, or else they are ignorant of how many civilians were killed by strategic bombing with other bombs during the war, which rarely gets much if any attention then or since.

Also it’s important from what moral and political context one is now re-asking that question. What value does “stopping the Soviet Union from invading Japan” have to the place you’re asking the question from? Because the third option that rarely gets mentioned, of saying, “Hey Japanese government, we don’t want to invade your country, and although we could wipe out your cities with our new super-weapon, we don’t really want to do that either. So you’ve got a choice – you can either surrender to us, or we go home and let the Soviet Union invade your country and do what they want with it. If you surrender to us, we’re going to arrange for Japan to recover and become its own country again eventually. We think that’ll be much more pleasant that letting Stalin conquer you. Which do you prefer?”

It was only a binary choice from within a certain mind-set.

jca's avatar

It was payback for their atrocities. All’s fair in love and war.

Pachy's avatar

I could live without it.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

I don’t think about it. It’s in the hands of people I have no control over. I can vote for leadership that I hope will only use it as a last resort or not at all, but that’s all I can do. So, I don’t think about it. Today is a beautiful day. The wind is coming off the Atlantic a thousand feet below me. Groups of pure white clouds are scudding across the sky like flocks of sheep. The redfish are waiting for me in the lagoon. I might even do a little snorkeling, pick some conch off the bottom. I love conch. Conch Teriyaki. My dog barks. He wants to get to work. We herd sheep. Tomorrow I have to pay some attention to the pecan orchard. Friday night, I’ll be dancing with a lovely woman at the little yacht club they have here.

Why would I be thinking about atom bombs? What good would it do?

Sneki95's avatar

@Espiritus_Corvus
I like how humanistic you are, sir.

MrGrimm888's avatar

I’ve been thinking about it. The last part of the question is whether or not nukes should be used again.

After much consideration, I don’t think they should be used again. Keeping in mind that most of the nuclear bombs in the Russian and US arsenal currently are exponentially more powerful than those dropped on Japan. Even a few going off would have a negative effect on any surrounding areas for dozens of years. A small exchange between two countries would be cataclysmic. If either the US or Russia launched everything they had, the world would be pretty much over. Those who didn’t die in the initial srikes, would wish they had.

Given the destructive force and subsequent fallout, it’s hard to imagine that any country would be allowed by the world to have them. They are a tool whose power far out weighs the intelligence of those who might use it.

My understanding of the WW2 situation, is that Truman chewed on the decision for some time, and with great thoughtfulness. He reluctantly made the call,based on much deliberation with his advisers.

Such is the weight of decisions a president of the USA may have to make. I hope Trump supporters realize the potential for global destruction that comes with the job. The mere chance that Trump may have to make decisions like that scares me beyond articulation.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther