• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

Should a US president visit the Hiroshima/Nagasaki memorials?

I would like to ask whether anyone here would support use of the bombs again today were it a similar situation.

Remove Harry S. Truman from this equation.
If George W. Bush were about to make the same decision, how would you feel?

Right now, I am wholeheartedly against the use of nuclear weapons, because we are no longer the only country which has them. If we decided to nuke Iran, we would find ourselves facing a nuclear attack from any one of our enemies, say, Russia? Or maybe one of the countries we believe have nuclear weapons (Iran or Syria) will go as far to nuke Israel out of retaliation, which would then cause Israel to strike back and we would end up with a cluster**** in the Middle East?

The use of nuclear weapons today would mean the end of human civilization, or at the very least, it would spell environmental disaster.
 
Okay. Take away everyone else's nuclear weapons in our hypothetical scenario and play it out the same way. I'm speaking morally here, not strategically.

To me, the rest of the world being unarmed does not make the act justified, if anything it makes it even more appalling.
 
Last edited:
But when it comes to international matters, shouldn't we think more logically then emotionally? When we make decisions with our emotions, we'll let facts and consequences slide--things that seem to just make things worse. I mean, the War on Terror created out of emotional reasoning.

Agreed. Lets just be glad I'm not in the government. I'm sure many of you do that anyway.
 
Last edited:
I say we go there and drop another Atom Bomb on' em...just for the hell of it. I love war. Now where did I park my tank?

Sincerely,
John McCain
 
Lizard, I had a similar reaction to this article. Why has no sitting US prez visited the memorials? I'm just speculating, but I think the answer is because vast numbers of Americans would not approve. It would be viewed as a significant step toward some kind of official apology, or acknowledgement of erroroneus judgment.

Especially considering the current political climate, where so many of us are so fiercely patriotic...("If you're proud to be an American, then you must wear the American flag on your lapel!") I just think that many people wouldn't understand the reasons why our President would make such a move, and his political enemies would leap at the opportunity to frame it for them as a sign of weakness, and/or a severe lack of patriotism.

We don't need to take polls to figure out that most Americans who are even aware of the bombings and their aftermath have been taught to believe in the usual mantra...the knee-jerk respone...without questioning or thinking for ourselves. Every time the discussion comes up, you'll see or hear someone spit it out, just like a damn robot.
 
Okay. Take away everyone else's nuclear weapons in our hypothetical scenario and play it out the same way. I'm speaking morally here, not strategically.

To me, the rest of the world being unarmed does not make the act justified, if anything it makes it even more appalling.

The War in Iraq can't be compared to World War 2 though, it is in no way the same war.
 
I honestly don't buy into the "necessary evil" argument.

Maybe as I get older that'll change, but as it stands, I think mutual arrogance lead to the bombings, and they could've easily been avoided for some saner course, if the US hadn't demanded the Emperor on a plate, if they had listened to the rumbles of a conditional surrender and agreed to it, etc.

So yes, I think a sitting US president should visit the bombing sites. They are owed that by a country that committed an unnecessary act and then spent 60 years revising history to make it seem like the sanest, most logical course of action.

The Japanese military wanted no surrender and was planning a coup on the emperor if he gave in. Meanwhile 200,000 Americans were set to die on a mainland invasion that would have cost many lives and lead to urban fighting that we would know much better in the rest of the 20th century as the Japanese trained their civilians to fight to the death.

It was not a sane time.
 
Okay. Take away everyone else's nuclear weapons in our hypothetical scenario and play it out the same way. I'm speaking morally here, not strategically.

To me, the rest of the world being unarmed does not make the act justified, if anything it makes it even more appalling.

You realize we are nowhere near a similar situation? Show me a war that has cost two hundred thousand American lives that involved invading an enemy as technologically advanced (beyond the atomic bomb) as we are which would have lead to thousands upon thousands of more American deaths plus countless civilian casualties in urban warfare.

Bush nuking Iran is nothing remotely like the situation.
 
some things to think about from a neutral outsider.

It is oft times easy to forget that the attack on Pearl Harbor was not exactly unprovoked. it was, as you were a "preemptive strike", as you will understand when you read about the dynamic in relationships between the Empire and the US prior to US involvement in WWII.
now, the US knew it was forcing Japan's hand, but it also had interests in, I believe, Manila ( or some other place, something about rubber production) and when it saw Japanese expansionism as a threat to it's interests it tried to choke the Empire, in effect setting in motion the events that would lead to US involvement in the conflict.
that being said, the Japanese were INSANE during the war because they had religious fervor about it, you have to remember that the History of Shinto Buddhism in Japan was strong and everyone that was in some way better or bigger or awe inspiring in anyway was "divine" in other words, they fought for their emperor who they believed was a sort of deity.
"kamikaze" means "divine wind" not "death wind" or "death from above wind" why do you think that is?
so, while it doesn't justify them, it does explain their viciousness when pursuing the expansion of the empire, ironically enough adapted from a faith that was based on the search of compassion and wisdom (sound familiar?) so they committed horrible atrocities, but, sadly, so did everyone in WWII.
everyone.
in Japan's defense though, and like The Lizard Mentioned, Pearl Harbor was a Military target and when the bomb sites for the two A-bombs were selected, military targets were also offered, but the US command deemed that civilian targets would have a greater "psychological impact" (again, that sounds familiar) and thus chose them.
and while Pearl Harbor was hideous, soldiers know war.
I've seen photos of Children charred and half-dead women, with their flesh almost falling away from their side.

It just seems like....I don't know.
I really don't.


:up:
 
I'm going to hijack this thread somewhat. :ninja:

Japan still has no formal army of its own and is under American protection. Do you think its time that we allow Japan to have its own military defense? Is there really a chance of another Pacific War? Yes, Japan still values its tradition of militarism, but it seems unlikely it would ever start another war, not with China as its neighbor.
 
I'm going to hijack this thread somewhat. :ninja:

Japan still has no formal army of its own and is under American protection. Do you think its time that we allow Japan to have its own military defense? Is there really a chance of another Pacific War? Yes, Japan still values its tradition of militarism, but it seems unlikely it would ever start another war, not with China as its neighbor.

Japanese citizens don't want to reinstall the country's military, so as far as I'm concerned there's no reason why we should force them to do so or not to do so.
 
From all those animes I've seen I'm pretty sure most average Japanese people are pacifists now anyway judging by all those long winded speeches they give against violence before getting in a giant robot suit to fight a giant nuclear powered monster.
 
The War in Iraq can't be compared to World War 2 though, it is in no way the same war.

You realize we are nowhere near a similar situation? Show me a war that has cost two hundred thousand American lives that involved invading an enemy as technologically advanced (beyond the atomic bomb) as we are which would have lead to thousands upon thousands of more American deaths plus countless civilian casualties in urban warfare.

Bush nuking Iran is nothing remotely like the situation.

I was not saying "What if Bush used nukes in THIS situation?" Obviously the situation now is completely different.

I was saying, put Bush in a VERY SIMILAR, or for the sake of argument, EXACT SAME situation. And see if some of the people who defend Truman for it don't lose a bit of sympathy for the hard decision.

How can we justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, horrible mutilations, so many cases of cancer?

I disagree with the idea that the war was unendable otherwise. If Roosevelt hadn't been so firm about an unconditional surrender, if they had accepted negotiation through Soviet channels, if they had allowed the Emperor to stay on as a puppet figure...

I don't believe the decision was made lightly, and I question whether I would have been able to say even two words if I were handed the situation.
But I'm afraid from my cozy position more than 60 years later in neither of the discussed countries, I believe it was wrong.
 
I don't know, had the Japanese got that Death Ray working, who knows how the war would have ended.
 
yes, they should and they also should say "WE'ARE SORRY, WE SHOULD NEVER HAVE DONE IT". That would be good.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"