japan deserved it. they killed way more ppl in the ww2 than wut usa did. but i still fell srry for the ppl that died

God I love youtube comments.

I still wonder why there's any debate on this issue - the US took the only course of action left open to it.

Or, in short, life sucks get a farking helmet.

farking people.

Watching that made me feel sick.

God, nuclear weapons scare the shiat out of me. Watching that gave me chills and, frankly, brought tears to my eyes. I can't believe we could do that to other human beings.

It may have been what they thought was the only course of action, but they also droppped it just to see what it would really do. It's horrifying to think that part of it was just curiosity. It may have ended the war, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't look at our capacity for destruction of our own kind, and wish it had never gotten that far.

This is a perfect example on why the US needs to nuke Tehran. Japan has become a free and very rich state since then.

Goddamn. I don't have any words to describe this. Why are so many people so spectacularly stupid?

Silvara: I can't believe we could do that to other human beings.

I agree. It's much better to attack them with swords one at a time, leaving them with festering wounds which kill them in 10 days.

The US really didn't have a choice. We attempt a landing like we did in Europe and losses would have been higher. Add that to the fact that China was then itching for payback and you don't have an invasion. You have an extermination. Sad as it is the alternative would have been bloodier.

One has to be a war advocate to support the bombing? That's a bit extreme. Note that I didn't say I support the bombing of Hiroshima, but the headline is incredibly divisive. I think pretty much everyone asks "why," but there is a myriad of complex answers to that question. But this is Fark, and it's supposed to be divisive.

PWNED!

costermonger: Why are so many people so spectacularly stupid?

Is this your first visit to the internets? You'll find lots of jewels of wisdom around these parts.

My First Fark Account: God I love youtube comments.

I like the next comment in response to that one.

"Looks like it worked out well for you, you speak english, kinda."

ThatDevGuy: I agree. It's much better to attack them with swords one at a time, leaving them with festering wounds which kill them in 10 days.

Laugh, I wasn't saying there was a better way to do it or that it shouldn't have been done. Just that the fact that it had to be done saddens me.

The atomic bombs that were dropped ended the war. And in retrospect saved more lives then they took.

ThatDevGuy: I agree. It's much better to attack them with swords one at a time, leaving them with festering wounds which kill them in 10 days.

No, you're right, a nuclear weapon with fallout that kills thousands wholesale and then further thousands from radiation poisoning and, you know, the cancers and such, not to mention all the flipper babies... totally the same class of weapon as had come before.

Yeah, swords one at a time seems a leetle more desireable to me, festering wounds and all. Too bad there ain't no goin' back.

My First Fark Account:
God I love youtube comments.
seconded

I'm probably just the right distance from DC to not be immediately vaporized if one gets dropped here, rather severely injured and radiation-poisoned with all of my belongings destroyed. Yay!

Needs more Slim Pickens.

weezbo: Yeah, swords one at a time seems a leetle more desireable to me, festering wounds and all. Too bad there ain't no goin' back.

The same science that led to nuclear bombs (chemistry) also led to cures for festering infections, which pretty much everybody had, sword fights or no.

I don't want to go back.

Would you feel better if they had died by being just plain burnt to death in a firestorm?? Two weeks earlier, one bombing raid killed more people in Tokyo than at Hiroshima. Napalm bombs caused a literal hurricane of fire, a self-sustaining burn sucking in air from miles around and spreading and all but unstoppable. It was a technique tested and perfected on the German cities of Hamburg and Dresden. Only difference was that the Tokyo firestorm required more bombers. Sorry, but in a war people die, and no matter how hard you pretend, WE DID NOT START THAT ONE. Try running the calculations sometime on how mant people the atomic bomb saved. Read about the battle for Okinawa, and multiply that by about ten thousand. And as a final thought -- yes it was a horrifying and unprecedented single blast over Hiroshima. AND IT TOOK ANOTHER ONE FOR THEM TO SURRENDER.

I hate the current war, but the concept of Japan "ready to surrender" before the bomb is not accurate. Nagasaki, that one was to scare the Soviets. Icing on the cake. But Hiroshima was really the saving grace of Japan. Better one city be wiped out than an entire people subjected to an invasion.

Should the innocent be punished with the guilty? Well, firebombing and invasion would have done that regardless. The A-bomb was simply more efficient.

kruuth: The US really didn't have a choice.

I disagree. Seeing as the Soviets were making significant progress in China, the Japanese were much more willing to surrender to us, than to be overtaken by them. In fact, the main reason they had not surrendered earlier is because America refused to allow them to keep their emperor. The surrender that was eventually agreed upon was nearly identical to one that the Japanese had wanted months before the bombing.

TheGreyPiper: AND IT TOOK ANOTHER ONE FOR THEM TO SURRENDER.

I've heard (I don't know how true) that they had actually surrended a week earlier, but either their embassy or our intelligence services mistranslated the messages, leading us to believe they were not surrendering.

Don't forget - this is 1945. It's not like the Emperor could just IM the President.

The A-bomb was just a new technology to accomplish what had been done at dozens of other Japanese and German cities with conventional bombs. Somehow unleashing the energy of the strong force is bad voodoo, but killing people with oxidation-reduction reactions is jolly good sport?

The bad thing aboutnooclear weapons now is that they allow war to start at that point with the push of a button.

PUT PEOPLE LIKE BUSH IN OFFICE, NUCLEAR WEAPONS EMERGE.

Reagan would be biatch slapping Bush right now.

Silvara: God, nuclear weapons scare the shiat out of me. Watching that gave me chills and, frankly, brought tears to my eyes. I can't believe we could do that to other human beings.

Actually, the firebombing of Tokyo (using conventional incendiaries) inflicted more casualties and did more property damage than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Trying to judge the actions of a previous generation through the moral compass of the current one is short-sighted and narrow-minded.

Also, you have to look at this in perspective. This wasn't the most devastating bombing of the Pacific War. The Tokyo firebombing killed an equivalent number of people; thousands boiled in the Sumida River, yet that doesn't get as much press. Toyama was destroyed; 2/3rds of most Japanese urban centers were gutted. To claim that Hiroshima/Nagasaki was any less moral than these due to the use of nuclear weapons is naive.

I feel sorry for the guys who had to do the actual bombing...

Tassach: Actually, the firebombing of Tokyo (using conventional incendiaries) inflicted more casualties and did more property damage than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Yes, but Americans haven't spent the past 70 years terrified that somebody is going to firebomb Podunk, Alabama. The nuclear bomb "feels" worse.

Stereolab: 'm probably just the right distance from DC to not be immediately vaporized if one gets dropped here, rather severely injured and radiation-poisoned with all of my belongings destroyed. Yay

That's why I'm glad the Blue Ridge mountains are between me and Ground Zero.

TheGreyPiper: AND IT TOOK ANOTHER ONE FOR THEM TO SURRENDER.

I like the part where Japanese scientists(under military authority, I believe) tried to convince people that the US hadn't really dropped an atomic bomb, but rather it was just a large flash bomb and wearing white clothing would protect you. The Japanese military commanders reeeeeealy didn't want to surrender.


/oh yeah, remember Nanking

Hey, do they have a really good CGI of the Rape of NanKing?

Cuz, if you need to ask 'why' that would be a good answer.

I believe this would be an appropriate answer to the why:
Rape of Nanking
And, of course, this:
Pearl Harbor

The really horrible thing about WWII, apart from the long list of other horrible things that are beyond the scope of this thread, was that destroying the infrastructure of opponents was the only way anyone involved stood a chance of winning.

At least some good came of it. Japan surrendered before being annihilated in an invasion. The allies didn't have to take the enormous losses that they would have.

It was a horrible conclusion to a horrible war. That's not an argument againstnooclear weapons or their use at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's an argument against going to war when there are viable alternatives (and in this case there weren't).

There's no point in trying to pass judgment now. Those who made that decision then didn't know what we know now, and it might have been the right decision anyway.
But, man. I don't have the stomach for that kind of stuff.

Tassach: Actually, the firebombing of Tokyo (using conventional incendiaries) inflicted more casualties and did more property damage than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

I know that, I was simply commenting on the video I had just watched. I wasn't comparing the two or anything, nor did I say it was the worst thing we'd ever done to other human beings. Just that what was contained in that particular video terrified me.

DrGunsforHands: Rape of Nanking

So because the military does something horrible, it's okay to bomb a city of mostly civilians? So you would have no problem for someone to come hook a car battery up to your testicles in retaliation for abu ghraib?

uh. cuz blowin up stuff is COOL. Hello! DUH!

ThatDevGuy: Yes, but Americans haven't spent the past 70 years terrified that somebody is going to firebomb Podunk, Alabama. The nuclear bomb "feels" worse.

Of course, over the past 70 years the power of a single nuclear weapon has doubled several times over, thus making the damage potential of a single nuclear device many, many times more devastating than aforementioned firebombing, but never mind that. You haven't let reality characterize any of your posts in this thread to this point, don't bother starting now.

Why was there no one riding that atomic bomb waving a cowboy hat?

Also, I thought the purpose of the A-bomb was to kill without destroying the surrounding buildings. Just wipe out the organic matter without knocking down structures. But in the video, it was destroying buildings. THe hell?

againstnooclear

Seriously, though? This backwards filter thing? Not actually working. Back to the drawing board.

Gannon's Remorse

You know ThatDevGuy argues points even if he doesn't agree with what he is actually arguing. Don't get so offended.

I find it quite an interesting way to see how people react to different thoughts.

/smitty!

Weaver95: life sucks get a farking helmet.

Well said and succinct.

Lackofname: Also, I thought the purpose of the A-bomb was to kill without destroying the surrounding buildings. Just wipe out the organic matter without knocking down structures. But in the video, it was destroying buildings. THe hell?

Um, you're thinking of a neutron bomb.

Weaver95: I still wonder why there's any debate on this issue - the US took the only course of action left open to it.

Somehow I get the feeling that if Iraqi insurgents managed to get their hands on nuclear weapons and blew New York City and Washington DC to hell in order to "end the war" you'd be singing a different tune about it. Might even call it terrorism...

Lackofname

Also, I thought the purpose of the A-bomb was to kill without destroying the surrounding buildings. Just wipe out the organic matter without knocking down structures. But in the video, it was destroying buildings. THe hell?

No offense, but you've got to watch some bomb test videos... the bomb doesn't just knock structures down, it vaporizes them.

...people too.

That reminds me: when does "Jericho" return again?

Lackofname Also, I thought the purpose of the A-bomb was to kill without destroying the surrounding buildings. Just wipe out the organic matter without knocking down structures. But in the video, it was destroying buildings. THe hell?

That's a neutron bomb, and even it destroys buildings. It's just that its lethal range is larger than the blast radius.

Lackofname: Also, I thought the purpose of the A-bomb was to kill without destroying the surrounding buildings. Just wipe out the organic matter without knocking down structures. But in the video, it was destroying buildings.

The initial power of a nuclear device doesn't come from the radiation. A nuclear bomb is meant to serve the same purpose as a traditional bomb, but on a larger scale. The nuclear part of that comes from the release of energy from splitting atoms which is far, far more powerful than the amount of energy you can generate using chemical or mechanical weaponry.

As such, there is still a shockwave that can destroy stationary objects and there is still a vast amount of heat that can ignite buidings, people, and surrounding vegetation.

The radiation merely follows up the blast by spreading out over a wider radius and slowly killing or incapacitating anything that isn't killed in the initial explosion (in fact, it's entirely possible to be near ground zero in such a blast and survive if you're behind or in something else that can withstand the shockwave and heat, you'll just die later of all manner of horrible afflictions from radiation poisoning).