The Republic of Heaven

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 748027.stm

Well Im bored, thought Id spark some debate, and this aint going in Q&P because I dont want it to. So, simple poll, controversial topic, go talk.

I left out Nagasaki because I dont think theres really any question about that being a ~*pineapples*~ thing to have done...or at least its much less debated, feel free to talk about it though.

Well I once wrote an essay about this, and my argument was that, yes, they were right. But I only did that because it's a lot harder to come up with arguments opposing it...
I'm against most of the US government's decisions, but I'm against war in general...so....I don't know.

They WERE in the middle of a war, so maybe that justifies it a bit...but war is hardly justified itself...

Any ideas anyone?

Hiroshima was a terrible, terrible act but it was but one act in total war. Firebombings of Japanese and European cities had caused already 11/9 events many times over, making this little more barbaric.

Nagasaki, though, was just for the sheer hell of it.

I think that there was justifacation, they were at war
but i don't think they considered the greatness of the consequences (the length of the nuclear winter)

I have always enjoyed learning of the wars and although i couldn't take it at standard grade i may take it next year (prob st.grade and maybe higher in 6th year)

Um, could there ever be any justification for killing that many innocent people? No. Could there ever really be any justification for killing any one innocent person? I like to think no. Being at war dosn't justify killing...does it? Maybe it's war itself that isn't justified but heck some people are just arses.

FACT - As long as their are humans their will always be conflict

Damn humans. Their will is always for conflict.

FACT - As long as their are humans their will always be conflict

Is that justification for it?

their (the US's) justification was revenge for pearl harbour
but intresting thought
if the U.S didn't bomb hiroshima then would that number of lives have been lost
probably but they would have been american lives lost

Revenge is bad/unjust mmmkay?

Dunno how many innocent lives would have been lost and I don't think it much matters because what ifs are not very helpful.

So you can justify targeting civilians from an attack on a military target?

If you think this use of an atomic bomb is justified, then would it be justified to use it again if a similar situation were to arise?

So you can justify targeting civilians from an attack on a military target?

If you think this use of an atomic bomb is justified, then would it be justified to use it again if a similar situation were to arise?

No, because we know the full effect of Radiation and how long the nuclear winter could last

I wasn't condoning i was meaning they thought it was justified

No, because we know the full effect of Radiation and how long the nuclear winter could last

I wasn't condoning i was meaning they thought it was justified

I don't think the American military wanted to hear about the bad effects. I think they just wanted to know if it could win them the war and to hell with the rest, but that's all speculation anyway.

Of course they're going to claim they didn't know the full effects of it before they launched it: it's the victors who write history.

I think, in the coming years, we'll find that out (if nazis like Rumsfeld have owt to do with things). I managed to get into heated discussions today, on Princes Street, both with a ~*Orcadian Village*~ who was attempting to mitigate the London attacks as being in response to injustices perpetrated against Muslims nations [1] but denouncing the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes as entirely unjustified in light of the London attacks; and a ~*Orcadian Village*~ who mistook my group's opposition to Iraq for tacit support for Muslim fundies calling for the death of Jews.


[1] Personally, I am sick of being told that young thugs... sorry... disenfranchized Muslim men feel an affinity for persecuted Muslims in Chechyna or Palestine or Kashmir. As a mere human, is my horror at the murder of other humans less palpable?

Who is "your group," Alec?

Dunno how many innocent lives would have been lost and I don't think it much matters because what ifs are not very helpful.

Id say at least well over a million at the very least would have died at least if Japan had not surrendered and the allies had had to invade (US predicted 500,000 casulaties just of their ow troops), so here what ifs are helpful. However the question is wether we could have got a surrender without an invasion, personally, Im doubtful.

It's all speculation when dealing with what ifs though. Whether 100,000 people got killed, 1 million or 1, in any circumstances, I don't reckon it's justified. No matter how many get killed. I think that's the point I was trying to make.

Not really based on solid fact and more to do with my cynical nature I don't think they dropped it to save more lives in the long run. I've always reckoned it was partly to do with the war and partly to tell the world who the new boss was.

2:45am

i voted in the ignorance option. all i know, is that this time of year (pretty much just this day of the year really, because it's the only time it ever comes up - except for recently in the news, when the chinese were protesting japanese revisionism), my mother starts railing on the japanese and how they deserved it for what they did to china and korea and the people fighting in china and korea for the sake of imperial expansion.

i don't *believe* that there's ever any justification for using that kind of weapon of mass destruction on innocent people (but here, my mom will go on about how they weren't innocent, but o, weren't the overwhelming majority of them just civilians?) and this is totally a good call for nuclear disarmament... but i wasn't there. and therefore i am ignorant.

what was the official reason for attacking hiroshima? revenge over pearl harbour or putting an end to japanese imperialism?

Who is "your group," Alec?

The chickens. No, it was the C.N.D. table which made it all the more ironic when we were accused of appeasing Muslims and allowing Iran to develop the bomb.