• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hiroshima Bombing vs. Torture

Hiroshima Bombing vs. Torture

  • Hiroshima was worse

    Votes: 10 41.7%
  • Torture is worse

    Votes: 4 16.7%
  • Hiroshima was neseccary

    Votes: 20 83.3%
  • Torture was neseccary

    Votes: 7 29.2%

  • Total voters
    24

Saboteur

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Messages
2,315
Reaction score
134
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Like the Pearl Harbor vs. 9/11 thread. Which was a worse? Which was more necessary?
 
Last edited:
Hiroshima was infinitely worse and not necessary at all. Drop the first A-bomb in a field and politely ask for surrender. Drop the next A-bomb in a smallish town and ask less politely. Drop the last one on Tokyo. We'd probably never have had to drop the second and third bombs.

Torture was probably helpful in some cases and not in others. It sets a poor precedent, but it wasn't as devastating as the atomic bomb.
 
Hiroshima was infinitely worse and not necessary at all. Drop the first A-bomb in a field and politely ask for surrender. Drop the next A-bomb in a smallish town and ask less politely. Drop the last one on Tokyo. We'd probably never have had to drop the second and third bombs.

The US started with a town and still had to drop a second.
 
Hiroshima was necessary because the Japs refused to surrender.

Too bad for them.

Enhanced interrogation of the Gitmo detainees is necessary when they won't talk.

What's the big deal, it's not like they're human?
 
In terms of numbers, the bombing of Hiroshima was worse than torture. However, neither are a good thing. I think the atomic bombings can be justified in the war we were fighting at the time, but it's still an unfortunate evil to have engaged in and should not be engaged in lightly. Torture I think is a lot more difficult to justify because wide spread use of it will not produce much in the way of results especially when considering all which has to be done to get a few results. The Japanese government did not surrender after the first bombing, and before the atomic bombs were dropped I doubt heavily that the people were interested much in surrender. Land based assault would most likely have wielded many more casualties, especially on our side. While I can see justification for the use of nuclear weapons in that case, I also think we should understand that it's not a good thing to use such weaponry against people and keep it only as a very last resort.
 
Hiroshima was infinitely worse and not necessary at all. Drop the first A-bomb in a field and politely ask for surrender. Drop the next A-bomb in a smallish town and ask less politely. Drop the last one on Tokyo. We'd probably never have had to drop the second and third bombs.

Interesting logic not supported by a single fact.

You are aware that we had to bomb TWO jap cities before they surrendered, right?
 
You mean you already lost and now you're lying.

Anyone that takes a quick look through that thread will realize that I was the one that provided overwhelming evidence to support my case whereas you simply resorted to statements like this.
 
Like the Pearl Harbor vs. 9/11 thread. Which was a worse? Which was more necessary?
Hiroshima killed over a hundred thousand people. That's a pretty high bar on the brutality scale to top.

As for necessary....the only thing "necessary" about war is winning. Everything else is the subject of endless (and mostly meaningless) debate.
 
Anyone that takes a quick look through that thread will realize that I was the one that provided overwhelming evidence to support my case whereas you simply resorted to statements like this.

For anyone interested, the discussion started with this post of mine and ended with the one linked previously.
 
I don't see the connection between torture and exterminating an entire population...

am I missing something?
 
No, they didn't. No bomb drops were needed, as the Japanese were already willing to surrender.
And so, it took two boimbs to force the surrender, because...?

Dropping the bombs saved American and Japanese lives. That's what matters.
 
And so, it took two boimbs to force the surrender, because...?

It didn't take two bombs to force the surrender, as the Japanese were willing to surrender before the bombs were dropped, as I've already outlined in the other thread and backed up with substantial evidence.
 
It didn't take two bombs to force the surrender, as the Japanese were willing to surrender before the bombs were dropped
If you're right -- why didn't they surrender -before- the bombs were dropped?
 
It didn't take two bombs to force the surrender, as the Japanese were willing to surrender before the bombs were dropped, as I've already outlined in the other thread and backed up with substantial evidence.

If there was substantial evidence, I missed it.....
 
I don't see the connection between torture and exterminating an entire population...

am I missing something?

My thought process is that both were/are atrocities.
 
It didn't take two bombs to force the surrender, as the Japanese were willing to surrender before the bombs were dropped, as I've already outlined in the other thread and backed up with substantial evidence.

I would say that Japanese proper (the Monarchy) was willing to surrender, but the Monarch was not the decision-maker at the time. The military Generals who told soldiers and soldiers family that their duty was to protect their island.

Families and smaller villages were told that the American forces were demons coming to eat their children.

I do not think the entirety of Japan would have surrendered to the allied forces. It would have taken a joint effort to go village to village and finish off the job.


Finally, I believe that the bomb was a rush job. There were Russian plans to invade the Japanese territory and this point of the war became the beginning of the Cold war. We could not allow the Russians to take control over the Japanese mainlands; there was no time to allow diplomacy.
 
Back
Top Bottom