Which was worse: Iraq/North Korea POSSIBLY making nukes, or us dropping 2 nukes on civilians in Japan?

Question

We were worried Iraq might follow in our own footsteps? Same with North Korea?

We murdered innocent civilians: babies, pregnant mothers, the elderly. VERY FEW MILITARY TARGETS. The fallout killed and mutated many more people.

Yes, yes, we were at war, blah blah blah. We look at kamakazi pilots as cowards, but were they anything compared to the cowards who decided to win a war by murdering those who could not defend themselves?

For those who justify this action, you are defending the position of slaughtering non-military targets due to the lack of courage to fight a fair war. You are no better than Hitler or Stalin.

OK please THINK about what you are saying.

"It would not be easy to INVADE another country because they would fight back, and our own military targets would be killed. It was easier to drop the bombs."

Are you serious? Do you have morals whatsoever?

So you justify the use of nukes, but nobody else should have access to them because we are afraid of having it happen to us? If it is fair to use them, why not let everyone have them? What a bunch of very perverse hypocrites indeed...

Answer 1

Thank you so much for asking a question that makes such a legitimate point. You are absolutely RIGHT. One thing that a lot of people don't realize however is that the war was unofficially over when the nuke was dropped on Japan. All that was left was for the surrendering of significant others, but the USA knew that the surrender was in progress and they dropped the bomb anyway. I believe they did it callously and with forethought because they were so intent on seeing the results of a weapon that they created for just that purpose. It wasn't enough that they relocated generations of an indigenous tribe from a tropical island to test the weapon, exposed countless military personnel to testing sights hence exposure to nuclear fallout and contamination. This horrific incident in history is one of many that elevates the USA to reign supreme in hypocrisy once more.

Answer 2

Are you worried at all about how many civilian and military lives would have been lost during an invasion of mainland Japan by the US? Do you know how many civilians were killed in WWII with conventional weapons? Perhaps you have a little more to think about before you second guess those who made the decisions that eventually ended a very long and costly war.

It would not be good for a country like North Korea or Iran to have such a weapon as they would be highly likely to use it as easily as you might toss a rock, whereas the other countries that have atomic weapons seem to have respect for them and the devastation that they cause.

Answer 3

Wow. That's just terribly uneducated.

Yes, we were at war. Things need to be done to win a war. Sometimes things that are otherwise indefensible. Had we not dropped the bombs, we would have had to invade Japan. There were no longer any battlefields left to fight the war on. How many civilians would have died then? How many would have died in the years after due to the more extensive damage that would have resulted to the nation as a whole? And, even though you don't seem to care, how many Americans would have died in the invasion? This was a fair war we were fighting, and this was the best option left to end it.

BTW, just a small point: Who looks at the kamikaze pilots as cowards?

Answer 4

the kamakazi pilots were not cowards and how you can think that amazes me.

you make a statement about killing those who can't defend themselves, what on earth do you call truck bombings of citizens in iraq who are just shopping for something to eat.

I am not sure why you are mad at the world and or the united states, but consider for a moment the quality of your life. Do you not want everyone to live as well as you do? Of course you do. all rational good people want others to prosper.

there is nothing that will pacify the wounds of war. Time passes and the survivers fade from history, but you can't fight a court case when almost everyone involved is dead. You can only make sure it does not happen again.

why are you so angry and at whom are you angry?

Answer 5

I would like to point out that it would have only been 1 nuke dropped if the Japanese surrendered after the first one dropped. He did not even after we warned him of a second drop and he still did nothing. I dont know the whole story about Heroshima but the second town that got nuked was their leaders fault. Second Iraq making nukes would be going against the agreement we made in the first war against them. If he had been secretly making nukes (im not going to say if i believe he was or not) than that would mean seriously **** for the U.S. He refused to let us search so we ended up having a war and he ended up dead. Think about it. If he made nukes and decided he had enough of America's crap and nuked us, how many "none military targets" would be dead then? Hmm so I guess im no better than Hitler or Stalin in your eyes? Maybe you should get your information straight before you come on here making us out as dictators for believing in our government.


EDIT: Sorry missed a part of your question


"Yes, yes, we were at war, blah blah blah. We look at kamakazi pilots as cowards, but were they anything compared to the cowards who decided to win a war by murdering those who could not defend themselves?"

Haha are you ******* serious? Hmm couldnt defend themselves? Do you honestly think everyone at Pearl Harbor was sitting with guns ready to fight? WE WEREN'T EVEN IN THE WAR AT THE TIME! Japan was at least in the war, we were not. America was trying to stay out of it and Japan decided that it would be fun to bring us into the war. Ironicly we then turned around and used nukes on them and everyone has been yelling about it since. Yes they hit more military people than our nukes did, but honestly since we werent in the war was it any better than bombing innocent civilians?

Answer 6

We did not view kamakazi pilots as cowards. We were scared to death of them, frankly.

To invade mainland Japan would have resulted in death toll, on both sides, much higher than the loss of life in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And Feral, if you are ignorant enough to believe that innocent, defenseless civilians are not routine casualities in any war, you need to go back and study some basic history. Civilian casualties can be as high as military casualities, even higher.

It's nice to see though, that we're finally paying a little attention to our own history. But Feral, if you start a war, like the Japanese did, you have to prepared to suffer whatever consequences come as a result, including annihilation. That is true for every country in this world, including the United States. Anyone who cavalierly starts any war is a fool.

Answer 7

Something had to be done to break their resolve, otherwise we would have had substantially higher casualties as a result of having to fight the Japanese island to island. They would not have given up easily.

At the same time, there were alternatives that were never considered. Nuking Japan was more than just a means to an end - it also made the US the first nuclear superpower, which has made it next to invinceable (which shows in the arrogance of their foreign policies from the end of WWII through today).

I can see Americas justification for nuking Japanese cities, but it is still one of the most brutal acts that any country in the history of mankind has perpetrated.

If the christian 'god' is real, they are going to have some serious explaining to do on judgement day.

Answer 8

lol you need to read a book : its iran not iraq. iraq was a little bit different. it was a matter of posession not making them. thats iran....anyway

i think its ignorant to actually try and compare which is worse. both are not all that great but its kind of obvious that you suspecting danger is kind of stupid. us invading iraq was dumb as **** but any intelligent person knows that weapons of mass destruction werent the reason for our 'war on terrorism'.

as far as dropping bombs on japan. im against war in general but you have to understand that whenever there is war INNOCENT PEOPLE WILL DIE. thats whats disgusting about it. and if you knew anything about the war you would know that the japanese military were not willing to surrender at all. their own people had suffered far more casualties than our own soldiers but they did not care. even after the first bomb, japanese authority were STILL sending men to be slaughtered. so there has to be a point when you use this kind of knowledge, among other things, and consider the fact that their own government did not care about their people. would the war really have ended in the near future if we hadnt dropped the bombs? how many more american lives would be taken? and if youre that concerned ask yourself how many more japanese lives taken?

i think the bombing has its pros and cons like any other decision in war. i thin ktheres ONLY ONE pro: it ended that disgusting war... but it also brought about this american militaristic superiority complex. and no it wasnt fair because i do feel like its a way of saying whos lives are worth more : japanese or american? and bombing innocent civilians WAS unacceptable and very wrong.

but to say that its the same as planning ruthless genocide on a certain group of people? thats a pretty dumbass comment.

Answer 9

No, No, No, it's not " Yes, yes, we were at war, blah blah blah." You have to view the bombings in the context of the situation.

The supremely evil Japanese state committed an enormous number of the most bloodthirsty vicious atrocities in the history of the world, such as The Rape of Nanking and the Bataan Death March. Not to mention that they aided and abetted Hitler. All evidence shows that Japanese civilians would've fought to the death against US troops in the event of an invasion of the mainland, the only alternative to use of the bomb.

It's easy to say, from such a distance of years that we should've sacrified a million more soldiers to subdue Japan, but as the son of a WWII vet who likely would've been killed in that invasion, I don't agree.

Answer 10

Actually,Iraq wasn't making nukes.Saddam just wanted Iran to think he was.

North Korea,well.Dubya's trying to pay them off,so we better not talk about bad about them.It'll make Jesus cry.And when Jesus cries,wingers attack.

As for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,the convebtional wisdom is that it saved a million GI's.

Whatever.

The fact is,the Japanese had been trying to surrender for months,and were ignored.Additionally,many Japanese statesmen said after the war that if America would have demonstrated the Bomb on a remote island,the government of Tojo would have fell then and the Emperor would have surrendered.

But we had to let the Soviets know that not onl;y did we have the Bomb,we weren't afraid to use it.

History is written by the victors,though.

Answer 11

Anyone who has a problem with dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are showing how little understanding they have of history. It was necessary for many reasons including saving the lives of at least another million American servicemen and perhaps just as many civilians who were taught to fight to the death with what few weapons they had--even pitch forks! They were warned several times each time before the bomb was dropped and yet Imperial Japan allowed it to happen. I could go on, but someone as ignorant of the situation as you prove yourself to be tends to ignore truth and prefers to believe the nonsense they already believe, so why bother?