Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> should we ban or keep the bomb?, i mean the atomic bomb
the x reaper
post Dec 22 2007, 08:07 PM
Post #1



Ultimate Member


Group: Members
Posts: 502
Joined: 29-October 07
From: nowhere...
Member No.: 11058



do you think we should ban the atomic bomb?i think we shouldnt as it can end wars quickly,although there is a downside to this as it can be used as a weapon of mass destruction


--------------------
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Resurrection
post Dec 23 2007, 02:14 AM
Post #2



Love...the most powerful force on Earth
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 1212
Joined: 24-March 05
From: United States
Member No.: 1047



It depends on the attitude of the state that is in possession of the bomb, I suppose. If they are going to use it with liberality, by all means no, they should not be allowed to have WMD's. But if they are going to use it only when there is no other option, then it might be acceptable.


--------------------
Make the 99 become 100
LIES PROTRUDE FROM THE MOUTH OF MAN, BUT EVERY WORD THAT COMES FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD IS LIFE.
I AM A LIAR
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Stealth
post Dec 23 2007, 06:42 AM
Post #3



A Patriot


Group: Members
Posts: 817
Joined: 9-January 04
From: Osea
Member No.: 60



They're a necessary evil; you can't just ban them, because that means someone has to enforce it. And how are you going to enforce a ban on nuclear weapons if you don't have nuclear weapons of your own?



--------------------
IPB Image
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
the x reaper
post Dec 23 2007, 09:22 AM
Post #4



Ultimate Member


Group: Members
Posts: 502
Joined: 29-October 07
From: nowhere...
Member No.: 11058



good point,although i like the idea of no other reason


--------------------
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Marblefist
post Dec 23 2007, 01:24 PM
Post #5



Negrodamus
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 1313
Joined: 21-July 05
From: London,England
Member No.: 1545



I agree with stealth, once something is in common usage, it is nigh impossible to simply stamp it out once their is a great deal of interest or interests in it. Whether its tobacco or the atomic bomb.


--------------------
Until I force Xiitharn to make me a new sig this writing will have to suffice.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
steiner
post Dec 23 2007, 01:39 PM
Post #6



It's been too long...
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 3477
Joined: 20-November 05
From: Vivi
Member No.: 1745



Yeah, at this point in time its simply not possible to 'ban the bomb'. Bombs are, as Stealth says, a necessary evil. The real debate is how many bombs should a country make, and when should they be moved.

For example, I believe that the nuking of Japan was wrong.


--------------------
IPB Image
"Foolish. Picking fights with strangers in a place like this... I used to know someone like that. He was a loser... He refused to find beneficial ways to use his power. Instead, he'd seek out people to fight..." -Amarant Coral, FFIX
Mmmmm....Married to Garlz, Mel and KittenLittle.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
the x reaper
post Dec 23 2007, 05:33 PM
Post #7



Ultimate Member


Group: Members
Posts: 502
Joined: 29-October 07
From: nowhere...
Member No.: 11058



i belive the nuking of japan was right,they deserved it,there is a flaw-the plans may have been destroyed


--------------------
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
joesmith123
post Dec 23 2007, 07:52 PM
Post #8



Cor Blimey!
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 4028
Joined: 10-February 05
From: Guess which country I'm from
Member No.: 866



It's impossible to get rid of the technology now, but we should definitely limit who is in possession of such technology. For instance, there's no way the Western world should allow a nation like Iran to become a nuclear power. It's scary enough that Pakistan has such capabilities.


--------------------
IPB Image


Thanks again to Snake for another great sig. As always his work on my behalf is greatly appreciated.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Marblefist
post Dec 23 2007, 08:55 PM
Post #9



Negrodamus
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 1313
Joined: 21-July 05
From: London,England
Member No.: 1545



QUOTE
i belive the nuking of japan was right,they deserved it,there is a flaw-the plans may have been destroyed

They rightly deserved it? What gives you the right to make such a claim, all those people, all of those families impacted to this day. War is rarely justifiable as it is all killing for ones own interests. Perhaps the bombs were deemed necessary but we will never know whether they absolutely were as we know only one outcome. Japan was considered part of the axis of evil and did commit many atrocities but the allies allied with Russia who were as bad if not worse than any member of the axis. Just peep how many people Stalin had murdered! Do not make such narrow minded statements, READ UP!


--------------------
Until I force Xiitharn to make me a new sig this writing will have to suffice.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Stealth
post Dec 24 2007, 12:00 AM
Post #10



A Patriot


Group: Members
Posts: 817
Joined: 9-January 04
From: Osea
Member No.: 60



Russians maybe, but I don't remember the last time the Allies RAPED NANKING. The Japanese were ruthless in WWII, and no amount of pussyfooting around it will change that.

Just because you love Japan now doesn't mean that you can shift their blame on what they did during the war.


--------------------
IPB Image
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
joesmith123
post Dec 24 2007, 02:55 AM
Post #11



Cor Blimey!
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 4028
Joined: 10-February 05
From: Guess which country I'm from
Member No.: 866



QUOTE
They rightly deserved it? What gives you the right to make such a claim, all those people, all of those families impacted to this day. War is rarely justifiable as it is all killing for ones own interests. Perhaps the bombs were deemed necessary but we will never know whether they absolutely were as we know only one outcome. Japan was considered part of the axis of evil and did commit many atrocities but the allies allied with Russia who were as bad if not worse than any member of the axis. Just peep how many people Stalin had murdered! Do not make such narrow minded statements, READ UP!


The Japanese deserved it because they started the war and the quickest way to end the war with the Russians seizing as little land as possible in eastern Asia was to drop the bombs. Not to mention the estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 American soldiers that would have died in an invasion of the Japanese home islands. That's not even counting the millions more Japanese who would have died if we invaded. Technically we saved lives by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Axis of Evil is a phrase coined by President Bush for Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Japan, Germany, and Italy were known as the Axis powers.

While it's true that U.K., U.S., and company did ally with the Soviet Union which was really no better than the Nazis, sometimes such things are necessary in war. There's an old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Not to mention that the Nazis killed over a million Soviet troops and 80 percent of all German military casualties came via the Eastern front, so by aiding the Reds we helped Soviets kill Nazis and Nazis kill Soviets. Not a bad deal for the Western democracies.

His statement while poorly typed, is accurate. You should read up more yourself before telling others to do so.


--------------------
IPB Image


Thanks again to Snake for another great sig. As always his work on my behalf is greatly appreciated.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
the x reaper
post Dec 24 2007, 08:25 AM
Post #12



Ultimate Member


Group: Members
Posts: 502
Joined: 29-October 07
From: nowhere...
Member No.: 11058



although in modern times some of japans things are awsome,in ww2 they really deserved that bomb because they would not stop when the war ended and so this bomb silenced and showed them


--------------------
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Marblefist
post Dec 24 2007, 10:22 AM
Post #13



Negrodamus
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 1313
Joined: 21-July 05
From: London,England
Member No.: 1545



This has nothing to do with my 'love' for Japan!? I challenged the moral issues and impact of dropping an atomic bomb. I DID mention the atrocities that the Japanese commited, so do not assume i have no knowledge of Nanking and other horrific crimes commited.
QUOTE
Not to mention that the Nazis killed over a million Soviet troops and 80 percent of all German military casualties came via the Eastern front, so by aiding the Reds we helped Soviets kill Nazis and Nazis kill Soviets. Not a bad deal for the Western democracies.

Just because the Nazi's killed soviet troops, it does not win back the lives of innocents killed by Stalin.

QUOTE
Technically we saved lives by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Are you sure? I remember reading that in Hiroshima civilians outnumbered militia significantly. Wouldn't a large airstrike operation have achieved the same desired effect without the long term impact?


--------------------
Until I force Xiitharn to make me a new sig this writing will have to suffice.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Stealth
post Dec 24 2007, 05:14 PM
Post #14



A Patriot


Group: Members
Posts: 817
Joined: 9-January 04
From: Osea
Member No.: 60



Consider this for a moment.

You are President Truman, and are charged with bringing the war to an end, except you know the Japanese won't surrender. They will fight to the last man if need be.

You have 3 options

1. Plan out a land invasion.
Obviously this was the most conventional. Marines by that time were veteran island hoppers with the securement of Iwo Jima, and hundreds of other islands. Except because of those islands, especially places like Saipan, and Okinawa, you would know that Japan would be no easy ground invasion. In Saipan, the civilians there were KILLING THEMSELVES for fear of being captured by American forces. Japanese officers were helping them kill themselves, and telling them to jump off cliffs before the Americans came. Thousands of civilians died without us even so much as touching them.

A ground invasion of Japan would lead to catastrophic casualties on both sides, with many millions of civilians killing themselves. Millions, not just the 100,000 that died with the bombs.

2. Blockade Japan until they surrender
Now this one seems almost viable, maybe even humane. Except it isn't. Japan was already running out of food, and Japanese civilians were forced to starve to give up their foor for the army. They had very little resources, but incredible resolve. They would still not surrender. A full blown blockade of Japan would mean there would be no more food. Thousands would die per day due to starvation, and it would keep going until they surrendered. The problem again was that the Japanese would rather die than surrender. So now you face a dying enemy (by their own hands) and still refuses to surrender. You would again kill millions before they ever gave up.

3. Atomic Weaponry
The atomic bomb has never been used at all. It's a new scary weapon capable of tons of destruction based on ONE SINGLE TEST done so far. We have very little knowledge outside of that test about the bombs. They have the capability of destroying an entire city, which is a huge intimidation factor, but you only have two of them. The population of a city is roughly ~100,000 give or take, and although the cities planned for attack have civilians, they are also valuable military targets. This can end the war through sheer demonstration of power.

In terms of numbers, the atomic bombs will kill less people combined than even the firebombings over Europe; especially Dresden.

To top all of thise off, the Soviets were already in Manchuria, planning their own invasion of Japan. If you did not act soon, the communists would spread into Japan, and you can bet your ass that they were still pissed at the Russo-Japanese war. The soviets would not offer Japan any terms of surrender, and would make the rape of Nanking look like child's play.

You have the luxury of saying atomic bombs are evil, hindsight is 20/20. However these decisions aren't made easily or callously, and it's very unfortunate that it took nuclear weapons in order to stop Japan, even from themselves.


--------------------
IPB Image
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
joesmith123
post Dec 24 2007, 05:18 PM
Post #15



Cor Blimey!
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 4028
Joined: 10-February 05
From: Guess which country I'm from
Member No.: 866



QUOTE
Just because the Nazi's killed soviet troops, it does not win back the lives of innocents killed by Stalin.


I never said it did. But from a military standpoint, it was very beneficial to have the Russians doing the bulk of the killing and dying. Remember that war is never a clear black and white. Our alliance with Stalin was clearly in the gray.

QUOTE
Are you sure? I remember reading that in Hiroshima civilians outnumbered militia significantly. Wouldn't a large airstrike operation have achieved the same desired effect without the long term impact?


We saved lives by showing the Japanese the futility of resistance and thereby ending the war quicker rather than an outright invasion which would have killed around 1 million Americans and millions more Japanese as they defended the first invasion since the Mongols.

No, a regular airstrike wouldn't have had the same impact because it has no where near the same destructive power. I mean the Japanese were so stubborn then that it took 2 atomic bombs before they'd surrender and even then there was almost a military coup to keep them in the war. The bomb while horrific was necessary to end the war quickly, save lives, and keep the Soviets from claiming half of Japan for themselves.


--------------------
IPB Image


Thanks again to Snake for another great sig. As always his work on my behalf is greatly appreciated.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Saiyuki
post Dec 24 2007, 07:27 PM
Post #16



Super-Awesome Member


Group: Members
Posts: 703
Joined: 10-February 05
From: The Milky Way Galaxy
Member No.: 868



So, ummm, yeah, i'm not addressing the whole Hiroshima bombing thing you guys are talking about, but am just gonna give my opinion on the op.

Now assuming that there is a way to ban the atomic bomb, i think that we should. As you said, 'it can end wars quickly', sure i guess but do the ends justify the means? Or more specifically, does that immediate end justify the aftereffects?

What about the damage that radiation can cause to the environment and future generations? Is it worth it?


--------------------
IPB Image
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fox
post Dec 24 2007, 08:02 PM
Post #17



Ninja Fox - The Silent Menace
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 2616
Joined: 6-May 06
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 2280



Lets get one thing straight.

The people who died in the a-bomb attacks did not "deserve" it. You can say what you like about Japan and their policies and their part in the war, so you CAN argue that the attacks were necessary. But the people whio were killed that day were not military men. They did not sign up for war and plot to destroy the free world or anything like that. They were fisherman, office workers, housewives and children. How many of the kids playing in the street and got vaporized that day "deserved it"?

Yes it helped end the war and saved countless allied lives, but to say they deserved it is disgusting and just plain wrong.

EDIT: Oh and JS, Japan didn't start the war, they just dared to attack America, which before that had been wholeheartedly unhelpful to the allies.


--------------------
PSN: "corneliusfingers"
twitter: @corneliusfinger
Blog: Games Under the Knife
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
joesmith123
post Dec 25 2007, 03:22 AM
Post #18



Cor Blimey!
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 4028
Joined: 10-February 05
From: Guess which country I'm from
Member No.: 866



QUOTE
The people who died in the a-bomb attacks did not "deserve" it. You can say what you like about Japan and their policies and their part in the war, so you CAN argue that the attacks were necessary. But the people whio were killed that day were not military men. They did not sign up for war and plot to destroy the free world or anything like that. They were fisherman, office workers, housewives and children. How many of the kids playing in the street and got vaporized that day "deserved it"?


Both cities were major industrial areas where those civilians helped support the war effort via manufacturing. That's the nature of war. You strike at their manufacturing centers if possible. It's why the Allies bombed the German city of Dresden into dust. We also fire bombed Tokyo. You fight a war to win, period. Of course it's sad that those kids died, but the American soldiers who would have died invading the Japanese home islands were somebody's children as well. That's simply the nature of war. I'm not going to feel too bad for the Japanese since they treated the Chinese atrociously and were sadistic to say the least in dealing with American POW's.

QUOTE

Yes it helped end the war and saved countless allied lives, but to say they deserved it is disgusting and just plain wrong.


War is disgusting. Innocent people die in war. That's the price Japan had to pay for its aggressive militaristic actions.

QUOTE

EDIT: Oh and JS, Japan didn't start the war, they just dared to attack America, which before that had been wholeheartedly unhelpful to the allies.


While Japan didn't start WWII, they did bring the U.S. into the war and started the conflict between our two nations via their attack on Pearl Harbor.


--------------------
IPB Image


Thanks again to Snake for another great sig. As always his work on my behalf is greatly appreciated.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
BohemianAndy
post Dec 25 2007, 04:55 AM
Post #19



Dentist brah
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 8327
Joined: 28-March 05
From: Australia
Member No.: 1071



QUOTE
War is disgusting. Innocent people die in war. That's the price Japan had to pay for its aggressive militaristic actions.


Exactly, thats the very nature of war. There's no point in focussing on the moral and sad dilemma's that are faced through difficult decisions in war, when there is primarily the overall outcome to consider. Like already stated, many more would have died if the prior was chosen rather than the latter.


--------------------
<3 FT//GRG2//Sarah
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Resurrection
post Dec 25 2007, 05:49 PM
Post #20



Love...the most powerful force on Earth
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 1212
Joined: 24-March 05
From: United States
Member No.: 1047



QUOTE(BohemianAndy @ Dec 24 2007, 11:55 PM) *

QUOTE
War is disgusting. Innocent people die in war. That's the price Japan had to pay for its aggressive militaristic actions.


Exactly, thats the very nature of war. There's no point in focussing on the moral and sad dilemma's that are faced through difficult decisions in war, when there is primarily the overall outcome to consider. Like already stated, many more would have died if the prior was chosen rather than the latter.

I disagree. We MUST consider the moral dilemmas of war because as someone before said, "the end does not justify the means". You could argue that we have to consider the overall outcome for any issue, not just war. War is bad enough. We don't need to make it any worse. If we stop considering the moral dilemmas of war, we will soon stop considering the moral dilemmas of other issues.


--------------------
Make the 99 become 100
LIES PROTRUDE FROM THE MOUTH OF MAN, BUT EVERY WORD THAT COMES FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD IS LIFE.
I AM A LIAR
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 12th December 2018 - 08:40 PM


Copyright 2003-2007 FFXII.Net - All Rights Reserved - Disclaimer
Final Fantasy XII, FFXII & FF12 are registered trademarks of Square Enix Co., Ltd.