Hiroshima, and how it affects the world today

[Hero]

My English class got into a debate about this while talking about MacBeth. Don't ask me how. Our teacher asked us if killing is ever justified. A man could walk down the street and stab another man to death and they go to jail, but another man could join the army and shoot dozens of guys and they get awarded for it. Killing is still killing, but in some instances it's ok.

A girl in my class brought up Hiroshima and said that we were justified in using the bomb. We were taught that the Japanese have a very strict code of honor and it is very very very dishonorable to surrender. They also had the kamakazie attacks where they'd crash the planes on purpose while inside to create the most damage. We were attacked on Pearl Harbor and that's what made us enter the war. Pearl Harbor was a naval base that was attacked, as was Hiroshima and (I'm not going to spell this right...) Nagasaki. Although we only lost about 1,000 civilians and they lost 100,000 civilians, I think our point got across. By using the bombs, how many lives did we save? The Japanese would never have given up and the war could have never ended until they had literally know men left to fight. That would be millions of lives lost.

After the bomb was dropped, to my knowledge, the entire world signed a treaty that said no one can possess or use an atomic bomb ever again. Don't quote me on this because I could be misinformed. So does that justify America going into Iraq to look for weapons of mass destruction? If no country, not even America or England, can half atomic bombs and terroristic countries do, is it not a wise choice to go in and take them away? American's out of the picture, do you think it would be wise for any country to go in and see if they do have them? Atomic bombs aside, do you think it's ok for other free countries to have weapons of mass destruction and communist and 'unsafe' countries are not aloud to have them? I do. The difference between England and Iraq, for example, is that England isn't going to wake up one day and decide to bomb Iraq because they don't agree with their believes. Free countries will use the bombs for defense, while 'unsafe' countries would use them for b.s. reasons like they don't agree with our culture.

That moved us into the talk about the war in the Middle East. Do you agree with troops being there and trying to stop Al Quida? Is killing anyone ever justified? How? I think that troops taking out Al Quida is justified. ONE person could walk into a building with a bomb and kill THOUSANDS of people. Killing one terrorist could save thousands of lives. I think there is a scale as to the way things work. ONE bomb killed 100,000's of people, but could have possibly saved 1,000,000's. Killing ONE dangerous person in the Middle East could save 1,000's of people.

Let me know what you think about the class debate.

 

[Kryptonite]

Atomic bombs aside, do you think it's ok for other free countries to have weapons of mass destruction and communist and 'unsafe' countries are not aloud to have them?

its not fair to group communist countries with "unsafe" countries automatically. while, as an american, i strongly disagree with communist ideas, that doesnt mean they are necessarily evil or even wrong for that matter

The difference between England and Iraq, for example, is that England isn't going to wake up one day and decide to bomb Iraq because they don't agree with their believes.

woah, wait. please tell me where and when you found out that Iraq was going to wake up some day and decide to bomb another country because they dont agree with their beliefs....and if the words "september 11th" come out of your mouth, then you are extremely miseducated. terrorists hit america, not Iraq.

Free countries will use the bombs for defense, while 'unsafe' countries would use them for b.s. reasons like they don't agree with our culture.

what's a "free" country, as opposed to an "unsafe" country?

 

[Hero]

its not fair to group communist countries with "unsafe" countries automatically. while, as an american, i strongly disagree with communist ideas, that doesnt mean they are necessarily evil or even wrong for that matter

I'm not saying that I personally believe that all communist countries are unsafe because I don't really know everything about them. I was only using them as an example because our history books made a point of communists being a big threat the the United States.

woah, wait. please tell me where and when you found out that Iraq was going to wake up some day and decide to bomb another country because they dont agree with their beliefs....and if the words "september 11th" come out of your mouth, then you are extremely miseducated. terrorists hit america, not Iraq.

That was another example I used. I even said in the post I was just using that as an example. Although, we all know Sadam wasn't the most all together person, so you never know! lol. But, I was using it as an example for the fact that American's went in there to see if he did have weapons of mass destruction. I don't think it's correct to say he might not have used them because he didn't believe with our culture because you never know and lots of the Middle East don't agree with America. However, you may know something that I don't. So instead of trying to "control what comes out of my mouth" why don't you tell me what I may be misunderstanding. If we're totally peaceful with Iraq and they pose no threat to the world at all, then yeah I'm misinformed and I'll retract my statement.

what's a "free" country, as opposed to an "unsafe" country?

Well, it's kind of obvious. America and England are free countries. We have democracies. I'm not too sure about Italy and France and all those other world power countries. What government do they have? I would classify an unsafe country as (I'm probably not going to spell this one righ teither) Afganistan. Isn't that supposed to be where Al Quida is mostly located? I know that they're spread out all over the place, but isn't that where the majority is? Did the terrorists on 9/11 come from there?

 

[Kryptonite]

I'm not saying that I personally believe that all communist countries are unsafe because I don't really know everything about them. I was only using them as an example because our history books made a point of communists being a big threat the the United States.

communism is not a threat to the US, it's just not how we believe a country should be run.

But, I was using it as an example for the fact that American's went in there to see if he did have weapons of mass destruction.

that is up for debate

I don't think it's correct to say he might not have used them because he didn't believe with our culture because you never know and lots of the Middle East don't agree with America.

ok. i never said that

So instead of trying to "control what comes out of my mouth" why don't you tell me what I may be misunderstanding.

um......what?

If we're totally peaceful with Iraq and they pose no threat to the world at all, then yeah I'm misinformed and I'll retract my statement.

once again with me not saying anything about:

a) us being totally peaceful with Iraq

or

b) them posing no threat to the world

Well, it's kind of obvious. America and England are free countries. We have democracies. I'm not too sure about Italy and France and all those other world power countries. What government do they have?

thats a total matter of your opinion. im sure someone who believes a dictatorship is the only good government would not see a democracy as a "free" country

[quote="Hero]I would classify an unsafe country as (I'm probably not going to spell this one righ teither) Afganistan. Isn't that supposed to be where Al Quida is mostly located? I know that they're spread out all over the place, but isn't that where the majority is? Did the terrorists on 9/11 come from there?[/QUOTE]

you cant judge an entire country by the actions of a fraction of 1% of their citizens, if thats even where they came from

 

[Kryptonite]

btw, not to mention the fact that the UK has a Constitutional Monarchy, they're not a democracy

 

[Hero]

woah, wait. please tell me where and when you found out that Iraq was going to wake up some day and decide to bomb another country because they dont agree with their beliefs....

That's what I thought you were trying to say there.

and if the words "september 11th" come out of your mouth, then you are extremely miseducated. terrorists hit america, not Iraq.

I know that terrorists didn't come from Iraq on 9/11. I said that I used the Iraq and England thing as an example for the sake of the debate we had in class. You pretty much said that Iraq wouldn't bomb us because of our beliefs and that I was wrong. So I said instead of telling me what can come out of my mouth, I said why not explain it to me instead of making a snotty comment like that.

you cant judge an entire country by the actions of a fraction of 1% of their citizens, if thats even where they came from.

You're missing the point, though. The 1% of the population from that country, as you say, are the threat. We are in Afganistan to take those people out. You can call me miseducated or stupid or whatever you want, but any country with people, even that 1% even though I think it's more than that, who would crash planes into buildings should be considered dangerous.

You seem to be concentrating your posts on my examples. What do you think about the questions I asked? You can share your opinion. I've said mine. What do you think about condemning and justifying different murder situations?

 

[Kryptonite]

So I said instead of telling me what can come out of my mouth, I said why not explain it to me instead of making a snotty comment like that.

you've obviously never taken debate. my comment was not "snotty". the point is to answer whatever retort you may possibly have before you even state it. and i was in no way dictating what could or could not come out of your mouth. i said "if"....leaving the choice up to you

You can call me miseducated or stupid or whatever you want, but any country with people, even that 1% even though I think it's more than that, who would crash planes into buildings should be considered dangerous.

i flat out disagree. you cannot hold an entire country responsible for one or two people's actions. timothy mcvey (sp?) bombed oklahoma. that was an act of terrorism. that makes us a country with people who are terrorist. that makes us, by your definition, "unsafe", no?

[quote="Hero]You seem to be concentrating your posts on my examples. What do you think about the questions I asked? You can share your opinion. I've said mine. What do you think about condemning and justifying different murder situations?[/QUOTE]

i dont know the entire situtation for any of this (meaning us being in Iraq or Afghanistan) so i cannot honestly say whether i agree or disagree with the decisions that have been made. i know that i dont support the death penalty because i think 99% of people who deserve it should rot in prison instead. death is getting it too easy. i am pro-life because its wrong to not give a child a chance on life, even in situations where the mother could die. you just have to let nature be nature. i support our troops and usually support the president when we go to war, simply because i dont know all the facts and trust him to make the right decision. i think that covers a majority of murder situations.

 

[BillieHunter]

I've gotta side with Hero on this one on the simple fact that I wouldn't want to leave it go and have that 1% of the popultaion cause some serious problems. NO, Iraq had NOTHING to do with September 11, but its not exctly an unknown fact that Iraq isn't very fond of the US either. Don't get me wrong I am NOT a fan of president Bush at all, but I know that I feel safer being assured that Iraq doesn't have weapons of mass destruction as if anyon were to use them against us, a country were a large amount of peopel pretty much despise the United States would. I think it was more of a reaction on president Bush's behalf in hopes it would make him look like he knew what he was doing, when in fact that backfired on him alittle.

Princess of the Universe: I'm not at all up to par on my knowledge of the government in England but isn't their Monarchy more of a traditional thing. I thought the Queen had limited power and isnt the the Prime Minister elected like in a democracy? I may be completely wrong however. Maybe someone who lives in England could explain this to me.

 

[Hero]

i flat out disagree. you cannot hold an entire country responsible for one or two people's actions. timothy mcvey (sp?) bombed oklahoma. that was an act of terrorism. that makes us a country with people who are terrorist. that makes us, by your definition, "unsafe", no?

You do have a point there. I never really heard that much information about Timothy McVey. Was I alive then? Could you explain it to me? Obviously I know he bombed something, but I don't know the details. Like when and if he was an Al Quida terrorist or what.

 

[Kryptonite]

he's all american. yes you and i (we're both 17) were alive. here's more info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

 

[BillieHunter]

I think in a way every country is unsafe. Not every person in every country is a perfect citizen. We all have our 1%. And it worries me that anyone even our own country has nuclear weapons, cause even with all the security in the world, its not impossible for some whack job to get a hold of them. But maybe I'm the only one who worries abtou things like this.

 

[Hero]

I was six-years-old, so. I think what time Barnie came on was more important to me those days than domestic terrorism. lol. Hm... You do have a point. Huhhhh... I really can't think of something to disagree. Maybe my only defense with that would be that he attacked us, not other countries. He wasn't a threat to the world, as far as we know. But you did raise a really good point.

See, at the same time it's hard for me to not say Afganistan is unsafe. I think I say that because of emotional stuff over real facts. 9/11 was terrible and I had two Uncles and an Aunt there. It was terrible for everyone and it really upsets me when they show clips of it on tv. Because of going through that, which will maybe be the defining moment of history in our lifetime, it's hard for me to say they shouldn't be considered unsafe. Do you know what I'm trying to say? Like... You know how they say one rotten something ruins the rest? It's kind of like that in a way. I don't know how to explain it. Do you know what I'm trying to say though? I know I sound confusing. lol

 

[Kryptonite]

Because of going through that, which will maybe be the defining moment of history in our lifetime, it's hard for me to say they shouldn't be considered unsafe. Do you know what I'm trying to say? Like... You know how they say one rotten something ruins the rest? It's kind of like that in a way. I don't know how to explain it. Do you know what I'm trying to say though? I know I sound confusing. lol

i get what you're saying. i definitly agree that there are people there who are unsafe for the world, as there are in all countries, but the whole country itself is not like that.

and i'll have to finish this tomorrow. im out. later

 

[teentitan]

I believe your intent of this thread was is killing justified. Short answer NO.
Circumstances around killing is and always will be the debate for justification. A citizen in a country with laws who kills another citizen can in no way be justified. But a soldier who kills that is ordered by that countries government is justified in killing a person(s). A soldier pledges an oath to protect the values, borders and security of their country from invading armies. But if that soldier kills without that order from their government then said soldier will face the laws and punishment of that country.
As for Hiroshima the rationality used in your class discussion was very realistic and logical. Japan was a country that vehemently looked at surrender as cowardice. To really understand Japan during that era rent the dvd The Great Escape (it is about the rescue of American POW's in the Phillipines during WW2) go to the extras and read the timeline. You will find it jawdroppingly educational.

 

[Schillaci]

A girl in my class brought up Hiroshima and said that we were justified in using the bomb. We were taught that the Japanese have a very strict code of honor and it is very very very dishonorable to surrender. They also had the kamakazie attacks where they'd crash the planes on purpose while inside to create the most damage. We were attacked on Pearl Harbor and that's what made us enter the war. Pearl Harbor was a naval base that was attacked, as was Hiroshima and (I'm not going to spell this right...) Nagasaki. Although we only lost about 1,000 civilians and they lost 100,000 civilians, I think our point got across. By using the bombs, how many lives did we save? The Japanese would never have given up and the war could have never ended until they had literally know men left to fight. That would be millions of lives lost.

The Japanese were already considering surrender before America nuked them. You can't possibly know if it saved more lives. Bombing Japan was more about showing Russia the power America had, than actually trying to end the war.

After the bomb was dropped, to my knowledge, the entire world signed a treaty that said no one can possess or use an atomic bomb ever again. Don't quote me on this because I could be misinformed.

Oh my, a good reason for America to invade Iran next, right?

So does that justify America going into Iraq to look for weapons of mass destruction? If no country, not even America or England, can half atomic bombs and terroristic countries do, is it not a wise choice to go in and take them away? American's out of the picture, do you think it would be wise for any country to go in and see if they do have them? Atomic bombs aside, do you think it's ok for other free countries to have weapons of mass destruction and communist and 'unsafe' countries are not aloud to have them? I do. The difference between England and Iraq, for example, is that England isn't going to wake up one day and decide to bomb Iraq because they don't agree with their believes.

America invading Iraq had nothing to do with WMD. Well, same thing with Iraq and America. Iraq isn't going to wake up one day, and decide to bomb America because they don't agree with their beliefs. Can't say the same for America.......

Free countries will use the bombs for defense, while 'unsafe' countries would use them for b.s. reasons like they don't agree with our culture.

That's just incredibly naive.

That moved us into the talk about the war in the Middle East. Do you agree with troops being there and trying to stop Al Quida? Is killing anyone ever justified? How? I think that troops taking out Al Quida is justified. ONE person could walk into a building with a bomb and kill THOUSANDS of people. Killing one terrorist could save thousands of lives. I think there is a scale as to the way things work. ONE bomb killed 100,000's of people, but could have possibly saved 1,000,000's. Killing ONE dangerous person in the Middle East could save 1,000's of people.

Let me know what you think about the class debate.

It doesn't help "killing one terrorist", when you train another two to replace him.......

 

[Hero]

The Japanese were already considering surrender before America nuked them. You can't possibly know if it saved more lives. Bombing Japan was more about showing Russia the power America had, than actually trying to end the war.

Well, that's just my opinion that it could have saved a lot more lives. Wasn't Russia on our side? The war was mainly against Germany and Japan, wasn't it? Why would we wanna show show power to them?

America invading Iraq had nothing to do with WMD. Well, same thing with Iraq and America. Iraq isn't going to wake up one day, and decide to bomb America because they don't agree with their beliefs. Can't say the same for America.......

Yes, going into Iraq had something to do with WMD. I know another reason was to take Sadam out of power. If you can find a highly credible source that says it had absolutely nothing to do with WMD, then do it.

That's just incredibly naive.

It's naive to believe America wouldn't randomly bomb a country, but people from Al Quida, I'll say now because PoTU changed my thinking about that, would bomb us? How so? What was the reasons behind 9/11?

It doesn't help "killing one terrorist", when you train another two to replace him.......

That's very true.

 

[killerdwarf]

btw, not to mention the fact that the UK has a Constitutional Monarchy, they're not a democracy

Wrong, wrong, wrong...

The "Constitutional" part of the quote above should tip you off. Democracy doesn't have to be bipartisan, like the US, to be a democracy. In Britain (and Canada) our representatives are elected from more than one party by anonymous ballots for a specific term of governance. The "monarchy" part is strictly ceremonial, paying homage to the past when the King or Queen actually made the law. The Queen is prohibited from partisan support in any way, shape or form, as well as deeply discouraged from commenting on political situations or government relations. On this fact, you needed to do more research before you judged it "not a democracy". Or at least you needed to PM Mr. Pointy for clarification...

 

[arabella]

So wait are we still for killing any country where some small percent of the population has angry feelings toward America with the intent to harm? Cause if so, we better start dropping bombs on ourselves, cause last I checked the bombing in Oklahoma and the bombing in centenial park in atlanta during the 96 olympics were both excecuted by americans who disagreed with some facet of the government.
And further if the whole point of invading Iraq was WMDs they why didn't we hit up north korea first? I mean their government has a righteous desire to take out the US and is just as likely to do it. Also if this war was actually about taking out terrorists youjd think we woulda focused it in Afganistan not Iraq. And it would then be important to note that the war should then be against al quaeda alone and not the afganistani people as a whole.
Whatever. So no I am not a fan of the killing at all, but I understand that when ALL other avenues have been explored that it is occansionally justifiable to kill another human being. And further as we are great cognitive misers, we will never fully think through the decision to kill. We can only operate on the best information that we have. Now if your information was wrong (hello mr. President) then there should be some responsibility taken by the individual or country for their action...
I'm sure none of that made sense. I ramble.

And world war II was not nearly as simple as only fighting against japan and germany. Throughout the was alliances and territory shifted.

 

[Mr. Pointy]

Although it is my personal opinion that any killing of fellow human beings is wrong, I can fully understand the justification for it in time of war. I would definitely have to draw the line at the killing of non-combatants though. Though that is the way terrorists work to spread terror, so I guess that blurs the lines even further...there are no easy answers, folks...

As for the "democracy" thing...most of our Western governments (and many others) aspire to be democracies but I would argue that there has never been a truly democratic government since large corporations started running the world...I say that most of us live in "corporatocracies" (there may be a less clumsy word for it but it's 25 years or more since I studied sociology 🙂)

WMDs - they never existed in Iraq since after Desert Storm. They were just the excuse that the "Axis of Idiocy" (Bush and Blair) needed for their oil-thirst driven invasion of Iraq. They couldn't come up with any credible connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda either...OK so they toppled Saddam but they created an even more unstable and potentially radical (i.e. anti-US) terrorist state...it beggars belief, it really does...

"Corpocracy" was the word I was after...I was close 😉 I scurried off to Wikipedia, as I often do when discussions like this pique my interest, and found a really nice (and comprehensive) list of "-ocracies"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forms_of_government

Wikipedia...friend of nerds and geeks everywhere 😉...it truly rocks! 😀

 

[Buffy Summers]

"Fun fact": The same number of people died in the Shanghai fire bombings as died due to the atomic bomb.


And the difference between Saddam's government and the government of England is that Saddam was not a rational actor. There was a really good article in the Economist a while ago about this, I'll see if I can dig it up.