Japanese outrage at A-bomb comments

I don't understand why this is such a big deal? He stated a truth and the Japanese are a high economic power because of it. They really should get over it and be thankful.

The Japanese Army were indiscriminate as well in the Pacific during WWII. They have massacred many lives in the Pacific. The outraged victims of the A-bomb in Japan are ignorant of this fact.

Well, hell, they shouldn't have bombed Pearl Harbor.

ohhhh, but they make such nice cars now, love the toyota's and honda's! They got with the program.

Bombing Pearl Harbor was no justification for the A-bombs. They were dropped because of the high cost in US lives of a land invasion of Japan.

Using the bombs to intimidate the Japanese Empire into surrendering was a good idea, but I always wonder why they couldn't have dropped them offshore. The sight of such a powerful weapon would have had the same effect as dropping it on cities. The cities were populated by civilians who had no power in deciding Japanese policy, and therefore were murdered as pawns to US policy.

This raises the same moral questions as the firebombing of Dresden. Naturally it was necessary that the Nazis be defeated, but must so many civilians have been butchered to accomplish it?

Whatever atrocity is committed by the enemy, we in the allegedly civilized democratic nations (e.g., UK and USA) have to hold ourselves to a higher standard or we become as evil as the "bad guys".

For the same reason, we should not be resorting to the tactics of terrorists (as in GW's approving torture) in order to defeat terrorists. When circumstances give us no other choice, then civilians must sometimes be sacrificed, and drastic measures taken, but in the case of the A-bombs on Japan, there were alternative strategies available.

PretzeLogic wrote:

The Japanese Army were indiscriminate as well in the Pacific during WWII. They have massacred many lives in the Pacific. The outraged victims of the A-bomb in Japan are ignorant of this fact.

They would not have had a second A-BOMB dropped if they would have been smart enough to surrender after the first bombing. Also does any one think Japan would not have used the A-Bomb against the U.S. if they had developed it FIRST?

I would have thought that the bombs could have been dropped on some sparsely populated area, after all it was supposed to be a warning of what would happen if Japan didn't surrender. Unfortunately wars are used to try out the effects of insidious weapons and they are still being tested on people to day. I know war is disgusting to begin with but at least we should try and spare the civilian population.

I also find it strange that if you shoot civilians at point blank range it is considered a war crime, when you drop napalm on them from a thousand feet it isn't.

Dicivi - ex-military

dicivi wrote:

I would have thought that the bombs could have been dropped on some sparsely populated area, after all it was supposed to be a warning of what would happen if Japan didn't surrender. Unfortunately wars are used to try out the effects of insidious weapons and they are still being tested on people to day. I know war is disgusting to begin with but at least we should try and spare the civilian population.
I also find it strange that if you shoot civilians at point blank range it is considered a war crime, when you drop napalm on them from a thousand feet it isn't.
Dicivi - ex-military

I thought there weren't enough of those bombs around at the time. So if they missed, there wouldn't be anymore A-bombs to drop. Plus those two cities (Nagasaki and Hiroshima) were industrial cities where Japan were manufacturing war machines. So the US had to maximize the use of those two bombs.

I think World War II still continues in the form of terrorism.

Some people are retaliating their past enemies, exploiting violent people. Terrorists are just mobilized with money and with threat.

http://japansconspiracy.hp.infoseek.co.jp/01/...