| I know it is a sensitive issue, so please be nice I don't want to be banned I created this thread because people are split on this question On one hand, it literally is a crime against humanity, as it killed hundreds of innocent people on the other hand, it ended WW2 by making Japan surrender what do you think |
| It's kind of funny to see a topic about "nuking Japan" on a site where people are obviously infatuated with the culture. |
incisorr said: i love it when people start acting like some neutral almighty unbiased godly judge and they even believe their own shit, suddenly its not their thoughts and opinions anymore but the righteous justice god way, they are unbiased, non-subjective, they just are! To be honest, everyone is like this quite often, me included, but i don't forget myself and i still post a lot of personal shit which is what forums are made for , if they didn't want us to have our own style and posts it would be an article instead a forum thread. |
NekkoArc said: It's kind of funny to see a topic about "nuking Japan" on a site where people are obviously infatuated with the culture. but would we have had anime if it didn't happen ? so many questions |
Sherlupin said: This thread is giving me butterflies.NekkoArc said: It's kind of funny to see a topic about "nuking Japan" on a site where people are obviously infatuated with the culture. but would we have had anime if it didn't happen ? so many questions |
incisorr said: i love it when people start acting like some neutral almighty unbiased godly judge and they even believe their own shit, suddenly its not their thoughts and opinions anymore but the righteous justice god way, they are unbiased, non-subjective, they just are! To be honest, everyone is like this quite often, me included, but i don't forget myself and i still post a lot of personal shit which is what forums are made for , if they didn't want us to have our own style and posts it would be an article instead a forum thread. |
| It is impossible to call it a good thing, there's an argument that it was the necessary option, but that doesn't make it 'good'. As an aside: MacArthur also wanted to use nukes in the Korean war, his exceedingly retarded idea was to keep China out of the war by forming a nuclear arc around Korea, creating a nuclear wasteland that would prevent China from transporting anything into Korea. President Truman opted to nuke his own approval rating instead by firing MacArthur, and sacrificed his Presidency to (arguably) save the world. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| No. The war was already close to ending. Nuking killed more people than was necessary. |
| I wouldn't really call it a "good" thing... but yes, it was the best strategic move. If the USA had invaded Japan instead, it would have likely cost far more lives, both American and Japanese. Using the nuclear bomb was the only option to get Japan to surrender. Yes, it did kill thousands of citizens, but that's the cost of war. |
 "ᴀɴᴅ ᴛʜᴏsᴇ ᴡʜᴏ ᴡᴇʀᴇ sᴇᴇɴ ᴅᴀɴᴄɪɴɢ ᴡᴇʀᴇ ᴛʜᴏᴜɢʜᴛ ᴛᴏ ʙᴇ ɪɴsᴀɴᴇ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴏsᴇ ᴡʜᴏ ᴄᴏᴜʟᴅ ɴᴏᴛ ʜᴇᴀʀ ᴛʜᴇ ᴍᴜsɪᴄ."  |
Ivoria said: This is an interesting line of discussion. It's generally accepted in popular culture that Japanese culture was 'too proud' for their military brass to ever surrender untless they were crushed into submission by overwhelming force, but I wonder how true this actually is? Or if it's just something that is overemphasised because it makes the US look better.I wouldn't really call it a "good" thing... but yes, it was the best strategic move. If the USA had invaded Japan instead, it would have likely cost far more lives, both American and Japanese. Using the nuclear bomb was the only option to get Japan to surrender. Yes, it did kill thousands of citizens, but that's the cost of war. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| as many agree 1st nuke maybe 2nd nuke absolutely not but the U.S at that time wanted to send a message to others. Politics is a very ugly side of humanity |
| "among monsters and humans, there are only two types. Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume “Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus  |
nuking something is always a good thing |
 |
BarryManilow said: Ivoria said: This is an interesting line of discussion. It's generally accepted in popular culture that Japanese culture was 'too proud' for their military brass to ever surrender untless they were crushed into submission by overwhelming force, but I wonder how true this actually is? Or if it's just something that is overemphasised because it makes the US look better.I wouldn't really call it a "good" thing... but yes, it was the best strategic move. If the USA had invaded Japan instead, it would have likely cost far more lives, both American and Japanese. Using the nuclear bomb was the only option to get Japan to surrender. Yes, it did kill thousands of citizens, but that's the cost of war. An interesting line of discussion indeed. My history class taught me that Japan refused to surrender, even when the first nuke was dropped. Now that you bring this up, however... there might be more to the story. Regardless, the nukes did end the war. |
| "ᴀɴᴅ ᴛʜᴏsᴇ ᴡʜᴏ ᴡᴇʀᴇ sᴇᴇɴ ᴅᴀɴᴄɪɴɢ ᴡᴇʀᴇ ᴛʜᴏᴜɢʜᴛ ᴛᴏ ʙᴇ ɪɴsᴀɴᴇ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴏsᴇ ᴡʜᴏ ᴄᴏᴜʟᴅ ɴᴏᴛ ʜᴇᴀʀ ᴛʜᴇ ᴍᴜsɪᴄ." |
hazerddex said: Yep, can't discount the fact the nukes were aimed just as much at Stalin as they were at Japan.as many agree 1st nuke maybe 2nd nuke absolutely not but the U.S at that time wanted to send a message to others. Politics is a very ugly side of humanity See: Churchill's 'Operation Unthinkable' plan to invade the Soviet Union immediately after destroying Germany. The West was terrified of the Reds, and the nukes were apart of their dick-measuring contest (another part of it was the blockade around Berlin, aimed at starving the Brits/Yanks out of Germany so the Soviets could pull off a landgrab). |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| Ask yourself: "Is killing 200.000 civilians a good thing?" |
| The nuking was seen as a necessary evil; near enough everyone involved would have known the outcome and what it would have done/did do to Japan and its citizens, but the Allied forces feared that they had little choice left. In 2017 we have the hindsight and knowledge to know that nuking parts of a country is a terrible thing to do, but back in 1945, although seen as dangerous, it was also the ultimate weapon to end the war. It isn't a question of if nuking Japan was a good thing, but if the war would have truly ended without the attacks. |
 |
Nico- said: Eh, the vast majority of the people responsible for ordering Japan's war crimes got off scott free, and didn't exactly fade into the woodwork. I don't think the nukes did anything that a conventional invasion couldn't have accomplished better on the "Japan's internal politics" front.Yes. Otherwise we would have never seen Japan as it was today. The Empire was ruthless and relentless with its evil and deserved total annihilation. Ultimately, Japan reformed gracefully in the end. I wonder what would have been if not? The nukes basically sacrificed thousands of civilians to get war criminals to take a plea deal. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| Keep in mind Japan was dangerous as fuck. They had a biological weapons program with no limits, experimenting on humans freely. Unlike the Nazi experiments, Japan were efficient and focused. They actually had decent results which is why the US protected them after. So I don't know. If anyone could've fucked up the world, it was Japan. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
TheBrainintheJar said: The US certainly thought Japans experiments would have useful data, but I've read that the data was actually fairly poor. Turns out dudes who perform live vivisections generally don't adhere to the scientific method so well.Keep in mind Japan was dangerous as fuck. They had a biological weapons program with no limits, experimenting on humans freely. Unlike the Nazi experiments, Japan were efficient and focused. They actually had decent results which is why the US protected them after. So I don't know. If anyone could've fucked up the world, it was Japan. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| Helped end the war and maybe inadvertently help shape anime to what it is today, so yes good thing indeed. |
   I envy your delusion; I wish I could live in it  |
| No nukes, no yaoi So yes, absolutely |
 Nico- said: Conversations with people pinging/quoting me to argue about some old post I wrote years ago will not be entertained@Comic_Sans oh no y arnt ppl dieing i need more ppl dieing rly gud plot avansement jus liek tokyo ghoul if erbudy dies amirite |
| The nukes messed with their genes, and in the end, they created anime. Jokes apart, there are always points of view. If I was Japanese, I'd be against getting nuked, and if I was American, sure, nuke them. But you know... war never changes. (and must be avoided) |
| "I died long ago. This is just a bad dream" |
| Murdering nearly 200 000 civilians with weapons of mass destruction is never ok. |
 |
| Is this even open up to discussion? Of course it was a good thing. One nuke wasn't enough. Anime was a mistake. |
 |
| nuking ...stopped the war...but I still agree that it was never the answer...though war is ugly no matter how you see it. |
 |
| Looks like Japan has no issues with it since they are very close to america in evry way (politics) ibraheem234 said: nuking ...stopped the war...but I still agree that it was never the answer...though war is ugly no matter how you see it. Thats a shitty excuse. Then i can ask you: What about the wars they start/started themself? |
BallardoApr 3, 2017 5:15 AM
  |
Ballardo said: ibraheem234 said: nuking ...stopped the war...but I still agree that it was never the answer...though war is ugly no matter how you see it. Thats a shitty excuse. Then i can ask you: What about the wars they start themself? Like I said there was still other ways to handle it... I am not defending japan... Is just that effect of it are still seen today |
| |
ibraheem234 said: Like I said there was still other ways to handle it... I am not defending japan... Is just that effect of it are still seen today What do you mean with im not defending Japan. Was that a typo? (you meant america?) |
| |
| yes maed soviets think twice abot mesing w/ muricaaa |
| Nuking is never a good thing no matter where it hits, how powerful it is or how "responsably" it is used. I wanna say the US deserves some nukes in their ass but that'd be bad too. Don't use nukes. |
| Right now it's a really good idea to nuke USA, why is no one doing it? |
 "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us." |
Lux_Lucis said: There is no such thing as a proper war. During WWII, many soldiers were drafted young men aka they didn't have a choice in the matter. Mitigating human life because it's not women or children is the epitome of edgy.What the fuck man? Ofc it's not good. In a proper war Soldiers die. These are people who signed up for that. Nuking a city killed kids and old people who were not the initiator nor the driving force. Killing them was an act of terror and nothing else. I'd say such a question would be Sort of appropriate if USA nuked the army headquarters and a major industrial site (kill command and cease production) in a cruel Blitzkrieg move. Nuking two cities though is an asshole move and there's nothing good about it. Go be edgy somewhere else. Oh wait. No. Be edgy on MAL. My bad. That's the right place for that. |
 |
| Two times was not enough, three times is the charm. |
 |
| We did get hadashi no gen, so it's probably pretty good! |
 |
| when you look at what nuclear radiation does to everything and everyone around it, you realize that it should never be considered a good thing, should even be considered it use it in the first place. |
| You mean killing millions of our own species? That's what cannibals do! Ballardo said: Looks like Japan has no issues with it since they are very close to america in evry way (politics) No one cares about dead people and Japanese are not at all different. We people only care about ourselves or our families. People would gladly say that I love my country and all it's citizens but believe me that's not the case. People only care about themselves. |
swirlydragonApr 3, 2017 10:42 AM
Lux_Lucis said: What the fuck man? Ofc it's not good. In a proper war Soldiers die. These are people who signed up for that. Nuking a city killed kids and old people who were not the initiator nor the driving force. Killing them was an act of terror and nothing else. American and Japanese soldiers (with the exception of a small group of commanders) were not initiators of the conflict, so I fail to see any moral distinction in that respect. In response to the OP, I'd err on the side of "no", but it's a multifaceted issue. Imperial Japan was comitting war-crimes against not just the U.S., but every other nation it warred with in the region and attempted to colonize. The dropping of the A-bombs sent a message that ignoring America's demands and warnings would have dire consequences. We undoubtedly saved a lot of American lives in what we did, but we also killed a shit-ton of innocent Japanese civilians, and there exists plenty an understandable objection to that. Also, we let the world know that we possessed WMDs surpassing anything else that existed at the time, and opened the door for Soviet intelligence to steal the designs (which came within an inch of causing global catastrophe), and down the line, nutjob governments like Iran and North Korea gaining access to them. But anyway, you know about the whole "hindsight is 20/20" thing. |
| Why don't we just nuke North Korea like come on people. |
 |
LOLOLOLOL Dis guy.Dem facts mang lel What do you think? Do you even think? |
| Be thankful for the wisdom granted to you. |
it's not about me it's about you guys  |
| Obviously not. Firebombing had a much higher kill tally. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| Yes it was. They could have chosen more humane targets, but it stopped japan from further corrupting itself. In the time passing they've had the opportunity to self-reflect and gain a lot of wisdom in humbling themselves. Now Japan is one of the most peaceful countries on the planet, and only needs to fix it's broken business situation. |
❀桜舞う空〜 Cute is Power.  “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” I seek only to improve myself and others. |
| Not really because Japan already wanted to negotiate about surrender, or at least after Hiroshima they wanted to. The bomb on Nagasaki was dropped because the Japanese didn't want an unconventional surrender. They feared for the emperors' god status and American annexation plus wanted to judge their war criminals and demobillize their army themselves, which were all points the Americans didn't want. They didn't want to negotiate at all, they wanted an unconventional surrender. I'm not sure about the nuke on Hiroshima though. |
 |
| Japan is what it is today because of what happened in WW2, nuclear bombs included. And I like how Japan is right now... and not just because they gave us the gift that is anime & manga. :p It was obviously not a "good thing" seeing as a lot of innocent people died. But it's hard to deny that it was a necessary course of action, especially for people so involved in the war at the time. |
 . . . . . ✘ . . . . .DO NOT touch my rice. . . . . . I'm Asian. . . . . . |
Lux_Lucis said: Ivoria said: I wouldn't really call it a "good" thing... but yes, it was the best strategic move. If the USA had invaded Japan instead, it would have likely cost far more lives, both American and Japanese. Using the nuclear bomb was the only option to get Japan to surrender. Yes, it did kill thousands of citizens, but that's the cost of war. Lol it was far from the best "Strategic move". It was a weapon trial. That is all it was. They wanted to see how much damage it will do and how long it'll last. The command headquarters was in the mountains near Nagano and they had several major industrial zones that kept the army supplied. Best "Strategic move" was destroying these. It would have required even less flight time than reaching Hiroshima or Nagasaki (and smaller nukes if you just love the idea of atomic weapons). This would force them to surrender perhaps even faster than they did after the real nuking. = Why would that be the best "Strategic move"? Because that is Blitzkrieg and that is how Germany conquered so much and so fast. It would have required less time and effort and would accomplish the task with a certain long term "peace" (Because with no emperor and generals + no weapon production you Can Not wage war. You can with dead kids though). Killing 130k civilians, destroying homes and heritage, killing the land with radioactive fallout, causing generations of mutated babies? That's an act of terror that makes ISIS look like a harmless jape. In Germany, we did bomb industries. They simply moved the industries. You're not exactly talking strategy, you're essentially just preaching. The fact is that Japan's surrender required something to shock them out of their militaristic ideals of becoming an empire, and bombing a city of civilians was exactly that. It served another strategic purpose as well: to demonstrate to the Soviet Union the power of the nuclear bomb. Since this is about Japan, though, we'll look over that. Even if we had bombed the industrial zones, Japan likely would not have surrendered. Although, as I previously stated, this is a tricky topic. American students and Japanese students are taught different things about the bombings. So it is possible that some of the things I say are biased or incorrect. I do know, however, that defeat and surrender are not the same, because surrender is a political decision. The Japanese were defeated even before the first bomb dropped, but they refused to surrender. |
| "ᴀɴᴅ ᴛʜᴏsᴇ ᴡʜᴏ ᴡᴇʀᴇ sᴇᴇɴ ᴅᴀɴᴄɪɴɢ ᴡᴇʀᴇ ᴛʜᴏᴜɢʜᴛ ᴛᴏ ʙᴇ ɪɴsᴀɴᴇ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴏsᴇ ᴡʜᴏ ᴄᴏᴜʟᴅ ɴᴏᴛ ʜᴇᴀʀ ᴛʜᴇ ᴍᴜsɪᴄ." |
| I don't think so... First of all, America had that war well in hand. Yes it would have been a tough final push, but ultimately we'd have won, sooo... yeah. Could have won the war without nukes. Japan would have been a democracy and something tells me they'd still be amazing at drawing. Maybe DBZ would have been different lol but I'm sure they'd still come out with stuff... Japan has an amazing artistic history, it's pretty retarded to say that anime is a product of japan being nuked. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
More topics from this board
» How to get a girlfriend in 2025romanceking12 - 1 hour ago |
7 |
by Zakatsuki_
»»
2 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » It is illogical to assign articles of clothing to genderFreshell - 1 hour ago |
5 |
by Absurdo_N
»»
43 minutes ago |
|
» You become MAL's owner overnight, what are the first changes you implement? ( 1 2 )fleurbleue - Yesterday |
55 |
by mr_linear
»»
45 minutes ago |
|
» Would you want Neo?vasipi4946 - Oct 29 |
10 |
by deg
»»
49 minutes ago |
|
» Would you love it if your city became less car-centric?fleurbleue - Oct 28 |
25 |
by Spunkert
»»
50 minutes ago |