• 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
Inferno said:
They were willing to surrender they were not willing to surrender on our terms. They wanted it their way. So the bombs were BS>

Let be know how you feel about torture when they are doing it to our troops. Tell me then the difference between torture and torture lite.
Click to expand...


Hello?

Can you spell "N I C K B E R G"? Yes? Google it.

Duh.

So he wasn't a sojer. Does that matter? Those animals aren't human, so torture the crap out of them just for general principles.
 
Goobieman said:
That they didnt surrender is obviously -our- fault, as we demanded an unconditional surrender.

Had -we- not been so uncomprimising, the war would have been over and the bombs not been dropped.
:roll:
Click to expand...

Do you know if The Messiah has apologized to Japan for shooting Zeros at Pearl Harbor yet?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Do you know if The Messiah has apologized to Japan for shooting Zeros at Pearl Harbor yet?
Click to expand...
Give him time -- first he has to aplogize to the British for the Revolution.
 
Goobieman said:
No... it was a means to affect the defeat of the enemy.

In war, especially in a total war, you use every means available to force the other side to surrender as quickly as possible -- anything less means the war goes on longer than necessary, and more people die.

To NOT use the bombs, chosing instead to allow thw war to go on longer than necessary, resulting in the deaths of more Americans -and- Japanese, would have been irresponsible.
Click to expand...

They were already defeated. We just had to drop the bomb. They would have quit.
 
As it happens I just saw a TV movie on Hiroshima today.

The impression I got was that, despite all the movie's talk of the Japanese already being willing to surrender, there is no proof of that, and the fact is they didn't do it until we dropped the bombs. However, we killed some 200,000 people with the two bombs and probably could have prevented that by bombing an uninhabited area in Japan. We had to show the Japanese we were capable of and willing to use nuclear weapons, but we didn't actually have to use nuclear weapons, in my view. So my answer would be that the atomic bomb was necessary; Hiroshima may not have been.

As for torture- how should we know? I reserve judgement for its necessity until secret documents surrounding it have been released, and that may take up to several decades.
 
Dav said:
As it happens I just saw a TV movie on Hiroshima today.

The impression I got was that, despite all the movie's talk of the Japanese already being willing to surrender, there is no proof of that, and the fact is they didn't do it until we dropped the bombs. However, we killed some 200,000 people with the two bombs and probably could have prevented that by bombing an uninhabited area in Japan.
And the point of that would have been? We should waste a billion dollar asset on something that didn't exist in Japan, open space?

Know how many Japanese Curtis LaMay killed in one night by firebombing Kyoto? 200,000.

That was early in 1945, you can look up the date.

Did the Japanese surrender, even though we'd demonstrated complete air superiority and could wipe out entire cities at will with squadrons of airplanes?

No.

Did the Japanese surrender when we demonstrated that we had the power to wipe out entire cities with one airplane?

No.

Did the Japanese surrender when we demonstrated what we were willing to destroy as many cities as it took to get them to surrender, and there was nothing they could do about it?

Yes.


Dav said:
As for torture- how should we know? I reserve judgement for its necessity until secret documents surrounding it have been released, and that may take up to several decades.
Click to expand...

As for torture.

Well, it extracts valuable information from people who not only want us dead, but are actively working to make us dead.

That's one thing in it's favor.

The value of that information can be measured in lives saved. That's indisputable.

That's another.

So what's the problem? There's no need to quantify the number of lives saved versus number of testicles crushed, is there?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
And so, we continued to beat on them.
That's how war works -- you issue terms, and then the other side accepts or declines. If they decline, the war continues.

In this case, it meant using nuclear weapons in an attempt to hasten the end of the war and save lives.
Click to expand...

But not on terms the US demanded so your argument is moot.
Click to expand...

In other words, they weren't willing to surrender at the terms presented to them, and therefore, by definition, they weren't willing to surrender.
Click to expand...

That's the entire point; the US was more willing to kill 200,000 civilians than negotiate.
 
Dav said:
As it happens I just saw a TV movie on Hiroshima today.

The impression I got was that, despite all the movie's talk of the Japanese already being willing to surrender, there is no proof of that, and the fact is they didn't do it until we dropped the bombs.
Click to expand...
Bingo. The only certainity in the willingness of Japan to surrender is presented only by those with an agenda to impugn the US. Instead of analyzing the events and the facts in a neutral fashion and then rendering a conclusion, history and events are revised or aligned such that the predetermined goal of impugning the US' actions can be achieved. The foolish strategy assumed by many here that one can speculate with any degree of certainty about what the Japanese WOULD have done based on nothing more than an overactive imagination is truly absurd.

What you will NOT see from such people is WW2 documents, quotes, or plans that would substantiate their conspiracy theories. Instead, all that will be put forth is plausibility and speculation based on the attitudes, hindsight of today coupled with some pretty wording. I encourage everyone to recognize this anti-intellectual revisionist trash for what it is.

However, we killed some 200,000 people with the two bombs and probably could have prevented that by bombing an uninhabited area in Japan. We had to show the Japanese we were capable of and willing to use nuclear weapons, but we didn't actually have to use nuclear weapons, in my view. So my answer would be that the atomic bomb was necessary; Hiroshima may not have been.
Click to expand...
except both hiroshima and nagasaki were valuable military targets despite their populations. Whether firebombing or nuclear bombing they would be targeted in the anticipated invasion of Japan. This fact refutes the notion that hiroshima and nagasaki were bombed solely for terrorism.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
That's the entire point; the US was more willing to kill 200,000 civilians than negotiate.
Click to expand...

How many were killed in Dresden? How many were killed in Tokyo?
Negotiate? that would only lead to further conflicts in the future. We needed to totally destroy the enemies or risk WW3. Just as the Allies not fully defeating Germany in WW1 led to WW2.
 
Bingo. The only certainity in the willingness of Japan to surrender is presented only by those with an agenda to impugn the US. Instead of analyzing the events and the facts in a neutral fashion and then rendering a conclusion, history and events are revised or aligned such that the predetermined goal of impugning the US' actions can be achieved. The foolish strategy assumed by many here that one can speculate with any degree of certainty about what the Japanese WOULD have done based on nothing more than an overactive imagination is truly absurd.
Click to expand...

That's funny; many here that are arguing against my position basically admit that Japan would have surrendered, albeit not unconditionally, when they backtrack to the argument that the bombs were justified because they weren't willing to unconditionally surrender.

We needed to totally destroy the enemies or risk WW3.
Click to expand...

Then just nuke the entire island. Or perhaps assimilate it into another country and beat the natives into submission. Who cares about means?

Just as the Allies not fully defeating Germany in WW1 led to WW2.
Click to expand...

That's not wildly simplistic at all.:roll:
 
Last edited:
Khayembii Communique said:
That's the entire point; the US was more willing to kill 200,000 civilians than negotiate.
Click to expand...
The Allies has already killed far more civilians than that, and were willing to continue to do so until the end of the war.

Dropping the bombs doesnt affect that will in any way - the only differece would have been the number of planes they used to do it.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
That's the entire point; the US was more willing to kill 200,000 civilians than negotiate.
Click to expand...

No. The japs were more willing to get more of their people killed than to surrender.

Put the blame where it belongs, with the people who started the war and the same people who refused to admit that they lost the war they started.

You don't whack a mother bear with a small stick and then complain that the bear wouldn't stop when you rejected her demand for surrender.
 
Both Japan and the US were willing to lose FAR MORE than that with the expected assault on mainland Japan.
Click to expand...

Which also wouldn't have been necessary had negotiations been opened up.

No. The japs were more willing to get more of their people killed than to surrender.
Click to expand...

So that's why they were willing to surrender?
 
Then just nuke the entire island. Or perhaps assimilate it into another country and beat the natives into submission. Who cares about means?
Click to expand...
Indeed, Total victory was vital.

That's not wildly simplistic at all.:roll:
Click to expand...

Well I was just making a point, if you like to go into detail we can create another thread about it.
 
Can we all just agree that war is sick, heinous, and cruel, and just move on already?

I don't care if the bomb was "necessary" or not. It was horrendous.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Which also wouldn't have been necessary had negotiations been opened up.
Click to expand...
The demand for unconditional surrender doesnt allow for negitiations.

See, the allies had -always- extended terms to the Japanese, They were open to the idea of allowing Japan to surrender, from day one.

The Japanese simply chose to not meet the terms -- and so, the Japanese brought everything down on themselves, inbcluding the 2 atom bombs.
 
Orius said:
Can we all just agree that war is sick, heinous, and cruel, and just move on already?
Click to expand...

Not until you agree that it's also necessary.

The American colonists didn't start a revolution because it was Tuesday, you know, the independence of the colonies from the tyrants in London became imperative.


Orius said:
I don't care if the bomb was "necessary" or not. It was horrendous.
Click to expand...

It was no big deal. Where's the crying over the 200,000 LeMay killed with incedaries in one night?

Not to be heard.

Dead is dead, how the body gets killed isn't important, so get over it already.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
That's funny; many here that are arguing against my position basically admit that Japan would have surrendered, albeit not unconditionally, when they backtrack to the argument that the bombs were justified because they weren't willing to unconditionally surrender.
Click to expand...
Making unsubstantiated speculative claims based on hindsight and imaginative abilities is silly. Facts, referenced documents, and quotes give arguments persuasive power. Apparently this is forgotten when the bombing of Japan is discussed.

Then just nuke the entire island.
Click to expand...
with the production of 2 nukes per month and the possibility of a stalemate it may have come to that.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Not until you agree that it's also necessary.
Click to expand...

That's beside the point that we can still consider it heinous. Far too many people enjoy the idea of war as a solution to problems. War is a sad reality that humans have not learned to move past.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The American colonists didn't start a revolution because it was Tuesday, you know, the independence of the colonies from the tyrants in London became imperative.
Click to expand...

I don't think the glorified reasons of those days are at all comparable to the modern frontier. Most of today's wars are over the spread of globalization and regionalization. Democratic nations have, largely, betrayed the values they originally fought for.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
It was no big deal. Where's the crying over the 200,000 LeMay killed with incedaries in one night?
Click to expand...

Why do I have to be "crying" over that in order for my point to have validity? I'm not going to site every major incident in history to satisfy your ego.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Dead is dead, how the body gets killed isn't important, so get over it already.
Click to expand...

The body doesn't have to be killed to die, and it's important to a lot of people. Just because life has no value to you does not give you the right to play god.
 
Orius said:
That's beside the point that we can still consider it heinous. Far too many people enjoy the idea of war as a solution to problems. War is a sad reality that humans have not learned to move past.
Click to expand...
War is what happens when two or more sides disagree over something that neither can do without. This will -always- exist, so long as there are people.
 
Orius said:
The body doesn't have to be killed to die,
Click to expand...

Unless you intended to discuss changing someone's skin color through a dyeing process and you just misspelled the word, yes, the body has to be killed for someone to die.

Orius said:
and it's important to a lot of people. Just because life has no value to you does not give you the right to play god.
Click to expand...

I am god, I don't play god.

Refute that.

Meanwhile, dead is dead, more people were killed by conventional weapons in that war than were nuked.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom