What were some cons for using the atomic bomb on Hiroshima?

  • Thread starter Thread starter armouror2000
  • Start date Start date
A

armouror2000

Guest
Here are 3 reasons

They were EATING Australian Servicemen


They raped and Murdered Australian Military Uniformed Nurses

and in their comfort Houses Had 10 year old Girls servicing up to 50 Unwashed Japanese Soldiers

and don't use rubbish it was their culture

They Were On Our Side In WW1 so they Knew Right from Wrong and chose Wrong

the third Bomb should have been dropped in down town Tokyo
 
What were some cons for using the atomic bomb on Hiroshima? Thanks!
Any other reasons other than the radiation (which isn't too big of any issue right now) and the huge amounts of collateral damage?
 
Thousands of innocent people were killed, and people are still dying from the radiation today. Over 25% of the civilian population in Japan was killed.

from wikipedia:

Those who argue in favor of the decision to drop the bombs generally assert that they caused the Japanese surrender, preventing massive casualties on both sides in the planned invasion of Japan. An initial allied invasion of Kyūshū was set to commence in October 1945. A second invasion of the main Japanese island of Honshū was scheduled for March 1946.
Further information: Operation Downfall

Those who argue against the decision to drop the bombs characterize them as inherently immoral, war crimes or, crimes against humanity and/or state terrorism. They may also argue that they were militarily unnecessary, claiming that Japan was going to surrender anyway.

that's pretty much the whole argument in summary. I don't really know what more you would be looking for.
 
Here is the Chairman of the wartime Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral William D. Leahy:

It is my opinion that the use of the barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender....

Bomb is the wrong word to use for this new weapon. It is not a bomb. It is not an explosive. It is a poisonous thing that kills people by its deadly radioactive reaction, more than by the explosive force it develops.

My own feeling is that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

One other fact, not mentioned by Admiral Leahy: The second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki only days afterward, before the Japanese even had assimilated what had happened at Hiroshima. They certainly would have surrendered without the necessity of a second bomb.

On a completely different note, one should remember that WWII was a class of warfare known as "Total War."

"Total War" is a separate class of warfare, a conflict of unlimited scope in which a belligerent (Japan, Germany, Italy) engages in a mobilization of all available resources at their disposal, in order to entirely destroy their rival & his capacity for resistance. In a total war, there is NO differentiation between combatants and non-combatants (civilians). It views both military and civilians as a single entity.

As a member of the Axis Powers, Japan fought WWII in just such a way - consider it's conquest of China (it attacked the general population as well as its military). And Germany's attack on London & other British civilian centers in what they called the Blitz.

With Hiroshima, it could be said that the US was responding in kind to Japan. Japan did not fight by the Geneva conventions; witness their hideous treatment of the conquered Chinese, horrific medical experiments/attrocities (on a wider scale than Gernany's, and so monstrous, they are almost indescribable), as well as widespread torture of POWs and civilians. (these are things the Japanese commonly 'forget' when talking about the morality of the atomic bombs).

In a war (or battle), the point is to win as quickly as possible, suffering the least amount of losses. It is the application of force, and overwhelming force, if you have it. America had the bomb and it was used to end the war and put an end to American casualties.
 
What? You mean aside from the hideous destruction of hundreds of thousands of human lives and the subsequent deformation/retardation of the survivors' offspring? Well, let's see. How about the hideous destruction of two major cities;so violently and instantly destroyed that the images (shadows) of those incinerated were outlined on the building walls?
Okay, if not that, what about the generation upon generation of radiation polluted earth, animal, plant, air, structures?
Are you sure you're asking about CONS=arguments AGAINST using A-bomb.
PROS=arguments FOR using A-bombs.
The ones I listed are my biggest cons over A-bombs dropped on Hiroshima.
 
Back
Top