Hiroshima: 57 years

[Guest]

Today, 57 years ago, on August 6. 1945 the United States used its massive weapon against Hiroshima, Japan. This atomic bomb, the equivalent of 20,000 tons of TNT, flattened the city, killing tens of thousands of civilians. While Japan was still trying to comprehend this devastation three days later, the United States struck again, this time, on Nagasaki.

In Hiroshima alone 140,000 civilians were killed instantly while an unknown, even larger number died from radiation poisoning.

This was one of the worst war crimes ever committed in human history. We have seen the horrific effects of nuclear weapons, yet a world-wide nuclear ban is nowhere in sight.

Perhaps we should have listened more to the stories of the survivors of Hiroshima?

[LBGS_Stewart 0]

i knew a guy who died from radiation posining. he was a salor in WW2. this shit was just off the islands when they where testing the atomic bombs they had to put on this goggles befor the bomb was droped. he had skinn cannser and part of his stumic was removed latter in life about 7 years ago or so he died. he was sueing the US govement inface he was also on dateline with a interview about all of this. even our own people in the united states (civi) have radiation poising from the testing of the A bomb from the radiation clouds that where blowen over the US. is i reamber correctly his name was Bob Bees. if people wanna try and controle the world with Nucular power or threats in time they will controle nothing because nothing will be left.

[USSoldier11B 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In Hiroshima alone 140,000 civilians were killed instantly while an unknown, even larger number died from radiation poisoning.

This was one of the worst war crimes ever committed in human history. We have seen the horrific effects of nuclear weapons, yet a world-wide nuclear <span id='postcolor'>

More people were killed and property was destroyed by conventional carpet bombing in Europe. It's a hard argument, would more innocent lives have been lost in a full scale invasion of Japan? I'm not saying that I'm an advocate on nukes, because I'm not, personally NBC weapons scare the shit out of me. Yes it was a crime, killing civilians is immoral. Pearl Harbor was a nasty operation, but a valid attack against a military target.

[LauryThorn 0]

If you are interested, I could deal you one of these.

[RedRogue 0]

Denoir,

Since it is very late here I will follow up on this later. Suffice to say for now, that is an extremely narrow minded view of those events.

[Guest]

Narrow minded that I dislike killing civilians? All the arguments that it would have been more bloody to do it the conventional way are pure speculations and IMO bullshit. Sure, it would have saved numerous us soldiers. Does that justify killing a couple of hundred thousand civilians? I don't think so.

Perhaps Truman felt that he had no choice, I don't know. In retrospect it was one of the most monstrous acts in the 20th century. If you can't see that, then I really feel deeply sorry for you.

[Eza 0]

Said by USSoldier11B

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">More people were killed and property was destroyed by conventional carpet bombing in Europe. <span id='postcolor'>

Yes that's true... but bombings of Europe happened by hundrends of bombers and thousands of bombs and in a matter of years... But Hiroshima happend in matter hours and by ONE bomber and by ONE bomb...

Thats what scares the hell out of me.

And 11B:

Isnt Killing civilians instead of soldiers against some "rules of war" etc. BS?

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Sure, the Geneva convention says you can not kill/torture POWs, you must not Kill civilians and all the other stuff, but the Genenav convention and other conventions on the rules of war are constantly ignored or abused. It is a bit sad that the Americans had to blackmail the Japanese into surrendering by killing thousands of civilians. Also, dont forget the fire bombings of Japanese cities. "Bombs away with Curtis Le May". The USAAF would drop thousands of incenderies on the wooden Japanense houses and burn down kilometres of housing. In one firebombing of Tokyo, 100,000 died, most of them burned to death. Now Im not trying to say that the Japanese were all inocent, but in the intirety of WW2, only 7 American civilians were killed(outside of Pearl Habour). This occored when a country family went out to inspect a Japanese balloon bomb(the Japanese would tie a bomb to a weather baloon or something and fly them over the Pacific at America. Not many of them reacehd there, most of them indeed up in Alaska) and it exploded. Killing Civilians is not the right way to fight a war. And what a lot of Westeners forget is the rampage of the German Army and death squads across the USSR durring WW2. Around 20million Russians were executed and many more atricites comited. One exapmple is where the SS used young children for blood transfusions for wounded SS officers, then burried them alive. Sorry to go off topic. It was a sad moment in history the use of nuclear weapons, and may it hopefuly never happen again.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 06 2002,10:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Narrow minded that I dislike killing civilians? All the arguments that it would have been more bloody to do it the conventional way are pure speculations and IMO bullshit. Sure, it would have saved numerous us soldiers. Does that justify killing a couple of hundred thousand civilians? I don't think so.

Perhaps Truman felt that he had no choice, I don't know. In retrospect it was one of the most monstrous acts in the 20th century. If you can't see that, then I really feel deeply sorry for you.<span id='postcolor'>

soldiers wouldn't be the only one dying though.Japanese put up propaganda,that America soldiers would rape their women and kill(eat) their children.Also How do you know we wouldn't have to fight japan again if they didn't do an all-out surrender.Plus there was the russians.Now i'm not saying it was right,but there was reason why they use it.

[LauryThorn 0]

Today, more civilians than soldiers die in wars.

That started in Vietnam, where the rate was approx. 1:1.

Or at least that is what I've been told.

It's sad, but it's true.

And I'm not justifying civilian killings here.

[USSoldier11B 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In retrospect it was one of the most monstrous acts in the 20th century.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, right behind the Holocaust, Stalin's extermination of millions of innocent Russians, and of course the birth of Al Gore.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ Aug. 06 2002,12:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In retrospect it was one of the most monstrous acts in the 20th century.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, right behind the Holocaust, Stalin's extermination of millions of innocent Russians, and of course the birth of Al Gore.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, absolutely (well, except for that Al Gore part). My indignation is not over the US nuking Hiroshima, but over the fact that we (the world) have seen the effects of weapons of mass destruction and still keep them around.

[Antichrist 0]

Pearl Harbour was one of the most brilliant military operations ever, and I fully support what Japanese did to Pearl Harbour and pretty much in every war movie where Japs fight Yanks I support Japs, but Hiroshima was out of hand. There was no point in doing that.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

You are the Anti-Christ! Please Americans! Do not rply, he is simply another crazy New Zealander like me, ignore him, but no me of course. But you have to admit, the Japanese ddi manage to carry off Pearl Harbour nicely, even if it was wrong. It gave Uncle Sam a boot upo the arse! Just what was needed(please IGNORE ME) Well, I would rather have the Americans around than be ruled by the Japanese(no offense ot Japansese, a lot are hnice, but its the evil ones I dont like).

[Antichrist 0]

All I was saying that Pearl Harbour was a brilliant military operations, and the are no excuses for Americans that they couldn't prevent it..........

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, absolutely (well, except for that Al Gore part). My indignation is not over the US nuking Hiroshima, but over the fact that we (the world) have seen the effects of weapons of mass destruction and still keep them around<span id='postcolor'>

Because like it or not, fear of them kept peace in Europe from the end of WW2 up to the dissolution of the USSR. It’s actually a pity that The USSR couldn’t have held together after Communism went tits up, because I happen to think that the world is a far more dangerous place now. Just look at all the small wars that have erupted since then.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Pearl Harbour was one of the most brilliant military operations ever, and I fully support what Japanese did to Pearl Harbour and pretty much in every war movie where Japs fight Yanks I support Japs, but Hiroshima was out of hand. There was no point in doing that.<span id='postcolor'>

The estimated casualty figures for Operation Olympic, the invasion of Japan were 1.5 million allied soldiers. That’s considerably more than the casualties caused by both bombs. I happen to agree that in hindsight the deliberate targeting of civilians in war is a crime, but that particular genie wasn’t let out of the bottle by the United States. By the time the Bombs were dropped it was widely accepted as a strategic option by everyone. Using nukes on cities was just a natural extension of that. In that climate, without the benefit of hindsight, what would you have done?

[Ruud van Nistelrooy 0]

THink about what would happen if nukes weren't invented. We'd probably have discovered them a few decades ago not knowing what impact they could have on human life. They'd be used eventually, it just so happens they got used on Japan killing millions. Maybe people would prefer if we nuked japan today (27million and rising people in Tokyo). Nukes would be around today if they weren't invented during WW2, only today we'd have no idea what the consequences of using them would be, plus instead of destroying a million lives, we could destroy several millions lives per city.

I mean, there comes a time when you have to stop whinging about the past and trying to be politically correct, if the A-bomb wasn't tested in Japan (Ending a war that had already killed million and millions of lives), it'd be tested somewhere else more recently where it'd kill a lot more people. Maybe they shouldn't have been invented, but hey, they were. Today they prevent wars and protect countless people, but because everyone is scared of being killed by nukes they think we should just dump a couple thousand of them underground or something (how would you prefer to be killed? killed instantly in a nuclear blast, or dying underneath your smashed up house as Russian tanks pour into your country killing everything). We need to stop whining about the past saying how awful the human race is

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ Aug. 05 2002,16:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">THink about what would happen if nukes weren't invented. We'd probably have discovered them a few decades ago not knowing what impact they could have on human life. They'd be used eventually, it just so happens they got used on Japan killing millions. Maybe people would prefer if we nuked japan today (27million and rising people in Tokyo). Nukes would be around today if they weren't invented during WW2, only today we'd have no idea what the consequences of using them would be, plus instead of destroying a million lives, we could destroy several millions lives per city.

I mean, there comes a time when you have to stop whinging about the past and trying to be politically correct, if the A-bomb wasn't tested in Japan (Ending a war that had already killed million and millions of lives), it'd be tested somewhere else more recently where it'd kill a lot more people. Maybe they shouldn't have been invented, but hey, they were. Today they prevent wars and protect countless people, but because everyone is scared of being killed by nukes (how would you prefer to be killed? killed instantly in a nuclear blast, or dying underneath your smashed up house as Russian tanks pour into your country killing everything). We need to stop whining about the past saying how awful the human race is<span id='postcolor'>

The nukes didn't kill millons. Inintial casualties were roughly 300,000, although there were more deaths from radiation poisoning.

I think the death toll was still less than a million, though you must also consider genetic damage among survivors.

Like I said, it seemed like a good idea at the time.

[VXR 9]

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/experience/the.bomb/deployment/

a good site to get a view of the test sites and what all countrys have

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

It made an end to that terrible war! And as has been said previously we dont know what amount of casualties the war without nukes would have costed.

But lets not forget that this was a 90% civilian loss, a terrible way of demoralising a nation. America was probably the only nation involved that luckily didnt pay a great price in that war!

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Aug. 06 2002,15:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It made an end to that terrible war! And as has been said previously we dont know what amount of casualties the war without nukes would have costed.<span id='postcolor'>

How happy would you have been Albert if they had nuked Germany too? That possibilty wasn't so remote.

You were only lucky that you surrendered before the bomb was finished.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Aehm Vixer, your name confuses me cause in german it either means "brushing shoes" or "wanker", so which of the two is true?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 06 2002,15:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Aug. 06 2002,15:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It made an end to that terrible war! And as has been said previously we dont know what amount of casualties the war without nukes would have costed.<span id='postcolor'>

How happy would you have been Albert if they had nuked Germany too? That possibilty wasn't so remote.

You were only lucky that you surrendered before the bomb was finished.<span id='postcolor'>

Aehm, there is a little mistake in your equation. If we wouldnt have surrendered before the bomb was ready it would have been Mr. Hitler throwing that thing. And I would have been very sad about it cause he had no moral-barriers, he would have nuked the entire world.

Throwing it on German cities? 1945, which cities were left, mmhh well let me think: Berlin:no /Hamburg:no / Dresden: no / Munich:no / Cologne: no / ...... This would have had the same effect as going fishing in a toxic lake!

[Col. Kurtz 0]

You have a pojt Kamerad, but despite the fact that the cities were bombed flat, there were still thousands of people in them. It would still have had impact. And imagine if the 3rd Riech had made the bomb first? London radioactive dust?

[bn880 5]

Well, it's very unfortunate that this weapon was ever used on civilians (what else is it good for in our wars), but I have to say, often it takes a show of force to make the "other side" wake up and realize what they are up against... Japan had a similar way of dealing with USA by pulling off Pearl Harbour, but they were not after civilians. (although I think they would probably have slaughtered most American civilians if they got a chance!

In that case America was not starting the war, they put an end to it with extreme force.

Americans, just be glad the muslim nations that you offend so much (over and over and over) don't act like you and drop a nuke on New York.. at least WTC in nothing in comparison.