Little Boy dropped 64 years ago, today.

Why is it so terrible that 80,000 civilians were killed with one bomb, when the allies undoubtedly done even worse to Germany with conventional bombing and firebombs of cities?

Its was total war, people die. Suck to be them like but life goes on for everyone else.

I really don't see the big deal.
 
Makunouchi said:
People are using this phrase in this thread like it means something... it's governments that start wars, and it's the everyday man that has to die because of it. There's no such thing as total war and bombing a mainly civilian city has no justification.
Click to expand...

You think these wars are fought for fun?

It's to protect their civilians.
 
Makunouchi said:
People are using this phrase in this thread like it means something... it's governments that start wars, and it's the everyday man that has to die because of it. There's no such thing as total war and bombing a mainly civilian city has no justification.
Click to expand...

Well it did have justicication to the people at the time, the Americans hated the Japanese at this stage in the war, so the justification would have been something like "Lets nuke one of their cities, that'll teach the dirty slit eyed ******** a lesson they wont forget in a hurry!".

Can you not put yourself in the mind of someone who has been at war with a country for years, and just imagine the sheer hate you would feel for that country doing what you see as murder by the thousands to your good old boys in the army? To reinforce the point you would have been subjected to years of propaganda painting the Japanese as child eating monsters, it'd be pretty hard not to wish them dead.

Why would you care at that point if you roasted several tens of thousands of their civilians when you wish the whole country dead?
 
Makunouchi said:
People are using this phrase in this thread like it means something... it's governments that start wars, and it's the everyday man that has to die because of it. There's no such thing as total war and bombing a mainly civilian city has no justification.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the Japanese should have thought about those morals before raping and pillaging their way through China and South East Asia for the previous 10 years.
 
Dist said:
I totaly support the use of the little boy bomb, it saved many more lives than it killed. I am agaisnt the decision to use the fat man bomb though. From what I remember about the 2 bombs being dropped, the only reason the Japanese didnt give up after the first bomb was that all lines of communication were destroyed, those in charge had no clue what happened at hiroshima at first other than all communication was lost. If they gave the Japanese more time to figure out what happened and make a decision, they would have most likely given up without the need of a 2nd bomb.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. they were willing to surrender if the emperor could stay in power and I think a few other things.
They did not know what the bomb was and they questioned if the allies could do it again. They had loads of weird theorys. Including the air somehow being satiated with fuel, before being ignited.
 
Makunouchi said:
There's no such thing as total war and bombing a mainly civilian city has no justification.
Click to expand...

There is such a thing as total war and ww2 was one of them. What's was it 96% of are GPD going to the war effort and hardly any civilians. Everyone was part of the war effort. From growing food, working in the factories or transporting equipment.
 
i dont think that after pearl harbour, and the roasting on the beach landings that the US were in any mood for playing games, or trying to prove who was best man for man..they wanted it over, and they did not want to give the russians the idea that they were weak. Infact after the rush to berlin they needed to show a position of strength.
 
From what I've learnt, it wasn't necessary since the war was on the verge of ending anyway and the Axis were on their last knees by that point.

The Cold had already begun and the dropping of the bombs was mostly a show of power towards the USSR.
 
titaniumx3 said:
From what I've learnt, it wasn't necessary since the war was on the verge of ending anyway and the Axis were on their last knees by that point.

The Cold had already begun and the dropping of the bombs was mostly a show of power towards the USSR.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Japan would have fought and fought. They were asked to surrender days before Little Boy was dropped and they didn't and it was still a week after the first Atomic bomb was dropped that they surrendered.

Truman was a very ruthless man and he would have dropped more and more if they hadn't surrendered. IMO it was a good decision by the US and in the end, by the Japanese.
 
Seeing those pictures made me realise that whatever the reasoning behind dropping the bomb, who was right or wrong, the outcome was brutal.

I dont care as to if it was right or not to have dropped that thing, all I know is that it was a BRUTAL and Horrible act.
 
titaniumx3 said:
From what I've learnt, it wasn't necessary since the war was on the verge of ending anyway and the Axis were on their last knees by that point.

The Cold had already begun and the dropping of the bombs was mostly a show of power towards the USSR.
Click to expand...

Given that they were so close to surrender it is remarkable that it took two nuclear bombs to be dropped before they saw sense is it not ?
 
it wasnt necessary to end the war... Japan were screwed anyway...


there is however a very good argument that supports the fact that if it hadnt been dropped on Japan it would have been dropped in Russia, culminating in an even bigger disaster. the same argument also points to the fact that it was dropped to scare russia / Stalin off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom