Animated map of military purpose nuclear explosions 1945-1998

[Tex]

And nobody except the USA used it against people.

Yea, well that's because the Japanese were too hard headed to surrender. Even after dropping one on Hiroshima and Nagasaki they still didn't surrender. Only after we flew hundreds of B-29's in formation over Tokyo did they surrender and before they all landed.

 

[SiberianTiger]

To be honest, the USSR once tested nuclear weapon on people too. But, in our usual crazy manner, [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totskoye_range_nuclear_tests"]on our own people[/ame].

 

[T.Neo]

Yea, well that's because the Japanese were too hard headed to surrender. Even after dropping one on Hiroshima and Nagasaki they still didn't surrender. Only after we flew hundreds of B-29's in formation over Tokyo did they surrender and before they all landed.

I don't want to think of the losses that could have occured as the result of a land invasion of Japan, on both sides.

But, in our usual crazy manner, on our own people

Yeah... that is scary. Even the USA did excersises with nukes and live troops, but I don't think it was anything like that...

 

[Turbinator]

Yea, well that's because the Japanese were too hard headed to surrender. Even after dropping one on Hiroshima and Nagasaki they still didn't surrender. Only after we flew hundreds of B-29's in formation over Tokyo did they surrender and before they all landed.

I don't want to think of the losses that could have occured as the result of a land invasion of Japan, on both sides.

Oh thanks guys, now I understand. It is not perfectly justifiable to have used a nuclear weapon to extinguish the lives of 246,000 civilians of undefended cities, in the most horrific way imaginable. :thumbup:

Why don't we nuke the Taliban in Afghanistan, while we are at it. Think of the lives we could be saving, by killing hundredths of thousands in collateral.



.

 

[Wishbone]

This thread is going nowhere, methinks. This is one topic where people will always disagree: what forced Japan to surrender etc. etc. Been there, seen that. In fact dozens of times.

 

[Turbinator]

The use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was illegal in the light of the principles and rules of International Humanitarian Law applicable in armed conflicts, since the bombing of both cities, made civilians the object of attack, using nuclear weapons that were incapable of distinguishing between civilians and military targets and consequently, caused unnecessary suffering to the civilian survivors.

 

[Wishbone]

War is a crime. Choice of weapons doesn't really matter as soon as one is mutilating, slaughtering, or torturing fellow humans (and sentient aliens, would say). BUT... the thread ain't going to benefit from a prolonged argument about Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

 

[Ghostrider]

The use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was illegal in the light of the principles and rules of International Humanitarian Law applicable in armed conflicts, since the bombing of both cities, made civilians the object of attack, using nuclear weapons that were incapable of distinguishing between civilians and military targets and consequently, caused unnecessary suffering to the civilian survivors.

Yeah, and the Japanese used bioweapons on Chinese civilians and let's not even talk about what they did to them close by.
Whoever has the idle time to blabber about "legalities" in a conflict of the WW2 proportions probably should be chronoported there for a couple of hours.
Want to find who's responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Hint: they were in Tokio, not Washington.

 

[JonnyBGoode]

Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a hard call. But faced with estimates of an invasion of Japan that predicted near a million Allied fatalities and up to 10 million civilian deaths (as it was believed the civilian population of Japan would join in the fight), Truman had little other choice. He dropped the bombs (and killed hundreds of thousands) in order to try to save millions of lives on both sides. Hard call, and I wouldn't have wanted to be the one to have had to make it, but I can respect him for it.

 

[T.Neo]

It is not perfectly justifiable to have used a nuclear weapon to extinguish the lives of 246,000 civilians of undefended cities, in the most horrific way imaginable.

I think others here put forward pretty good points.

The USA did not bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki because it was "fun" or they "wanted to see what would happen". War by it's very definition is horrible, and while I do not think the bombings of said cities was a very "nice" thing to do, it ended WWII, and accomplished its goal in the eyes of the United States at that time.

I have a strong feeling that a land invasion of Japan would have led to far more death and destruction, not only on the part of US and Japanese combatants, but civillians and peacetime facilities as well.

EDIT:

Why don't we nuke the Taliban in Afghanistan, while we are at it. Think of the lives we could be saving, by killing hundredths of thousands in collateral.

The situation is wholly different in Afghanistan to WWII Japan. The latter was an organised nation at war, for one, whereas the former is essentially a terrorist or paramilitary organisation based on zealocy and deeply ingrained into the culture and countryside of the area.

Considering that the reason for the presence of coalition troops in Afghanistan is supposed to be restoring peace and freedom from the taliban and groups like them, it wouldn't help to nuke the people you're trying to liberate.

The US wasn't trying to liberate Japan. They just needed the threat to be neutralised.

 

[JonnyBGoode]

I think the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki produced one other positive outcome, besides the potential saving of millions of civilian lives. The horrors witnessed from those events made the entire world, including the United States, more than a little reluctant to use atomic weapons again, a dread that has lasted for 65 years now.

 

[docabn]

I think the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki produced one other positive outcome, besides the potential saving of millions of civilian lives. The horrors witnessed from those events made the entire world, including the United States, more than a little reluctant to use atomic weapons again, a dread that has lasted for 65 years now.

I agree, and may it be another 65 million more years before someone thinks its a good idea.
As a proffesional pessimist I do fear that most of us will live to see the next one.
More I'm disappointed that so many were detonated on earth and not more behind an orion taking man to mars and beyond. :thumbup: that would be an excellent use of this sort of technology.

 

[Unstung]

I agree, and may it be another 65 million more years before someone thinks its a good idea.
As a proffesional pessimist I do fear that most of us will live to see the next one.
More I'm disappointed that so many were detonated on earth and not more behind an orion taking man to mars and beyond. :thumbup: that would be an excellent use of this sort of technology.

The worry is nuclear weapons being used in hatred/"terror", IMO.