After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, can we really condemn North Korea?

Question

I personally think it's hypocritcal to impose UN sanctions on North Korea for a bomb test...we nuked and annhilated hundreds of thousands of japanese people in the late '40's for god's sake!

Answer 1

Are you fukcen insane??!!! What sort of reasoning is that??!!! Hell, it can't even be labeled as reasoning!!! This surely must be a prank question. I can't believe someone agreed with you earlier!!! I bet you probably think Iran is really a friendly country and we are just mean ol' monsters. Do you also think Osama Bin Laden is just trying to be reasonable about his views too? What a dumb azz! Where are you from anyway? CA or NY surely!

Answer 2

Yeah, OK, and what are you....12 or even 20 and, apparently, know little about that period of history. Just the that fact that you said it was done "in the late '40's" shows how little you know about it. Try 1945.

First, we had no idea that the atomic bomb would be as devastating, with long-lasting effects, as it was. Many soldiers who were outside and present during the above-ground testing, also developed cancers related to the radiation.

Second, would you have preferred that a million or so more servicemen lose their lives fighting the Japanese people to the death? Further, since the Japanese had been told horror stories of capture by the Allies and their culture regarded surrender as a shame on the individual and the family only redeemable by suicide, the Japanese people: the old, the young, women and children, were ready to fight "the invaders" to the death. Can you for a moment imagine how many millions of Japanese would have died?

On one of the islands preceding the dropping of the bombs which name escapes me at the moment I believe it was Okinawa.), approximately ten thousand Japanese jumped to their deaths rather than risk capture by the Americans. Dropping those bombs saved more lives than they took, hard as that may be to believe!

Let's remember why Japan was in the war and the bombs were dropped on it's mainland in the first place: They started the war by attacking us at Pearl Harbor! The bomb would never have been dropped otherwise! If you want to attack and invade other nations in a bid for world superiority, then those are the sorts of risks you undertake.

Do you know how many Chinese were murdered in Shanghai alone after the Japanese invaded? Do you know that many Korean women were taken from their homes and families to be "comfort women" for the Japanese soldiers? "Comfort women" was a nice way of saying prostitute.

So horrible was the treatment of the Japanese to the Chinese and Koreans that when the movie role for "Memoirs of a Geisha" became available, many prominent Chinese and Korean actresses refused to take the part because it would be seen as a betrayal to their people and their ancestors who suffered at the hands of the Japanese.

You really should read some history books or watch the history channel, at least, before you talk about and condemn things you know little about.

Answer 3

1) Nobody really knew what a nuclear bomb would do when they were detonated over Japan. The destruction was expected, but the long term effects of radiation and fallout were still largely unknown. This is no longer the case.

2) Although there is a lot of debate about this, I believe the decision to detonate the bombs was intended to avoid a bloody, protracted invasion of the Japanese homeland. Truman had estimates of over a million casualties, both Allied and Japanese, as a result of an invasion, compared to the roughly 100,000 casualties of the Bomb. It seems cynical to do cost accounting with human lives, but I have to admit I prefer 100,000 dead to 1,000,000. Your call there.

3) We were at war with Japan at the time, and the Japanese weren't exactly innocent. My father lost friends at Pearl Harbor. Best would have been never to have been at war in the first place. That wasn't an option, though.

4) The US has had nuclear weapons for over half a century and hasn't used them. I think that says something about our reliability. We have no such guarantees with North Korea. Add to this the fact that they promised they weren't going to build a bomb and we have some idea of their reliability.

Answer 4

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are irrelevant and worrying about who is being hypocritical is a philosophical luxury we can't afford. We have to focus on the here and now and right now it is not in the worlds best interest to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a country like North Korea.

Answer 5

We bombed to save 100s of thousands GIS lives during an invasion. We did not know all of the devastating affects that we do now. North Korea is just doing it to scare people. We give that lunatic money and he Will not test.

Answer 6

I fear for humanity when I read questions and replies like I see here.

Truman nuked Japan not long after we invaded and held Okinawa. Okinawa is a small island compared to the Japanese main islands. The fighting there was so brutal, ruthless, bloody, horrific, and so many civilians died...Truman knew we couldn't have the same thing when we invaded Japan but multiplied times one thousand.

He made the tough decision to drop the bomb. Japan didn't surrender. Truman did it again. Now Japan surrendered.

About 150,000 total died on those bombings as opposed to millions who would have died if we had invaded.

Truman saved hundreds of thousands of lives. God bless him.

Answer 7

yea we nuked em so lets let them nuke the south, yea ha lets give everyone nukes so they can nuke the world,

glowing will be cool.

As for fear in north Korea aaaahhh lets see has the South moved across the DMZ into North Korea? Ah NO.
What are they afraid of? the only thing a nuke does for North Korea is more suffering for the peasants under king Kim, as other country's will trade even less and his head swells and he desires more "prestige"

The nuke is for king Kim's fears not any other Korean.

Answer 8

I don't know - I mean seriously I think every country has a right to defend itself. Having nuclear weapons has actually ensured the peace between many nations. North Korea will probably want to use their new-found technology as a bargaining tool in some way. And if they feel safer because they have a weapon, then they might not feel so nervous about having the US supported southern neighbor close by, which might be a better condition for that region.

Answer 9

I think in defense of this whole thing is simple. Do you want to be nuked by North Korea and die? Most people have no desire to be on the receiving end of a nuclear weapon, so we go out and try to ban other country's nukes.

Answer 10

Hypocritical? Wouldn't the U.S. and Japan be the best two countries to make an educated statement AGAINST nuclear weapons? I think you need to rethink your position. Plus the nuclear weapons used in the 1940's weren't anywhere close to as destructive as the modern weapons. We have learned the evils of nuclear weapons, North Korea needs to learn from the history.