|
Re: The A Bombs Of Japan: necessary ???
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedyer
What's really interesting is that the Atomic bomb gets so much more attention than the bombing of Dresden and the fire bombing of Japan. Sure the atomic bomb was a mighty weapon, but in its use it was never the deadliest one during WWII. Not to mention there is actually some justification of using the atomic bomb depending on how you view history. Anyway, this is how I see it. The US was going into some serious debt due to WWII, the Japanese had proven to be an absolutely terrible enemy, and here was this terrible weapon that could end the war without having to fight the Japan tooth and nail.
Hindsight isn't 20-20, and only the few make these kind of decisions. Whether it was right, wrong is especially hard to tell because even with hindsight there is no telling what would of or what would have not happened in this case.
|
Speedyer ya stole my thunder. Every couple of years this issue get debated on this board. I only see the A-bombs as significant in terms of the new technology. The bombings of Tokyo and Dresden by comparison were far deadlier. Perhaps a better debate would be the ethics of purposely bombing civilian population centers by whatever means they were carried out. I am more interested in the debating the strategy that evolved during WW2 that
made this barbaric practice acceptable.
__________________
"I am no Martin Luther King or Ghandi motherfucker. I have no idea what those guys were talking about. You spit on my ass, I will knock you out. No motherfucking marching and singing in the street for me." - Jim Brown, NFL Hall-of-Famer and Cleveland Browns running back, 1957-1965
|