yes, i've seen pictures of that catastrophe many many times.
it was horrible, but the one thing that does bother me is, the u.s. is blamed
for that bombing, (which they did it), as though nothing else happened, and they
just decided to do it for no apparent reason, and that isn't so.
I don't remember seeing anybody claim it was done for no apparent reason.... they had their reasons, I just felt they were grossly unjustified and dropping atomic bombs of civilian populated areas was over kill when at least dropping the bombs of an air base or naval convoy or some other military compound would have given the Japanese the exact same message/effect to force them to surrender.... oh well, what's done is done.
war is horrible from all sides, I hate it, but the japanese are just as responsible for their people dieing in that bombing as the u.s., as they would 'not' surrender, because of stupid 'honour' stuff, and stubbornly refused to do so, (as it was time for them to surrender), so rather than continue that horrible war right through mainland japan, the u.s. made the plan to drop the bombs, horrible, yes, but did the war immediately end, yes.
I always find it funny when people argue that they were dropped because Japan simply wouldn't surrender.
When your home is being attacked/invaded during war time, would you suddenly surrender? Did the British surrender when Germany came after them? If Russia decided to take some of Canadian territory for their own up in the arctic, or worse, invade Canada and try and take us as their own, would you accept our government's surrender and simply give up?
If we decided to fight to the bitter end, would Russia be justified in nuking us all out of existence, including women and children?
Sure one can reply back that Japan started the war with the US and thus had it coming to them, but that would suggest that using nuclear arms against someone is ok in certain situations..... in my opinion, it's never ok..... but I understand that's not always a popular stance to take.
You're fighting another country, you have them cornered and on the losing side of the war.... you demand that they surrender unconditionally, give them no other alternatives towards ending the conflict or reaching a peace deal.... and they refuse..... Do you nuke them back to the stone ages, or do you try and show some shred of humanity to them and reach a compromise that would ultimately end the conflict besides resorting to more violence and death?
The issue with the Japanese was that yes, they wanted to have a little shred of dignity left for them and didn't want to have their country occupied and taken completely out of their own control.... who wouldn't? The problem is that the US didn't even offer this, they didn't offer them a chance to keep their country in their own control, but disarm and desist in their aggression through a peace or truce deal and expected them to give up...... an enemy that was very formidable opponent to the US and was just as proud as the US..... if the shoe was on the other foot, and Japan was winning against the US and demanded the US to simply surrender..... the US would tell them to go to hell and they'd fight to their last breath..... so would it have been ok for Japan to nuke the US into surrendering?
I've heard the argument that if the US conducted a land invasion, it would have been bloody and more people on both sides would have died.... that regular Japanese citizens were being trained in how to use weapons, swords, sickles, bamboo, knives, etc..... yet how is that anymore different then the average US citizen having the right to bear arms and have arsenals in their homes for many of the same reasons?
All I see is a double standard where it's ok for us to do something because we're the "Good Guys" but they're not, because they're the "Bad Guys" or because they believe in something we don't understand or believe in.
We've been given propaganda through WWII that many of us still believe in today.... they were evil, they were brutal, they would fight to the bitter end and there was no way to communicate with them because they were blood thirsty, thought of us as a lower species, etc. etc..... but don't forget that they too had their own propaganda given to them about us.... we were evil, we couldn't be talked to, we would kill them all if given the chance, etc. etc.....
Some of it on both sides was true..... much of it was not..... but that's the problem with propaganda..... it can make the general public believe something that may not actually be true and it can be embedded into that culture for a long time.
And the worst of it all is that propaganda makes it difficult to seek out alternate solutions to a conflict other then more violence, because both sides are brainwashed into believing the enemy isn't at all like themselves and won't listen.
truman made a decision that no other leader has 'ever' made, the bomb was new, never used before during war time, so be it. The u.s. spent much time in japan after that incident, negotiated a surrender, (even then it was difficult, as they promised to leave the emperor in place to lead his people later), and the u.s. rehabilitated japan for some time, created a democracy, and over time, they became allies.
Which there was a possibility that all this could have still occurred without having to wipe out two cities full of civilians...... but at the time of WWII, nobody would accept anything less then total surrender or total annihilation. Trying to broker a peace deal or truce to end the war would have been seen as a sign of weakness on everybody's part and an insult to those who already lost their lives...... people wanted vengeance on both sides, people wanted their enemies to suffer for what they did....... so upon reflection, at the time, perhaps there was no other way for the war to end, due to people's frame of mind back then, which is unfortunate.
Though I personally still won't excuse the atomic attacks and still believe they were the wrong course of action (at the very least, it was wrong to target what they targeted) and back then, as like today, I still see no justification for vaporizing entire cities of civilians to win a war...... to me, that's no different then terrorists bombing civilians or flying planes into buildings...... if you want to fight a war, then fight those who will be conducting the war..... the military. Take out the military & government and you get new citizens...... take out the citizens and you still have to take out the military, which basically leads to extermination..... not defeat.
Afterall, what would have happened if Japan still didn't flinch and decided to fight to the bitter end? Would the US have continued to nuke all of Japan until there was nothing left but a black charred streak on the map like Earth's skid mark?
What kind of victory would that have been and more importantly...... what kind of people would you be?
Added:
Also..... in my view, Nuclear Weapons are not a part of War.... they're instruments of genocide. War consists of people and technology that are geared towards strategic operations of disabling certain targets or occupying certain areas.... it's more selective in that certain rules are applied, people in a certain area are either specifically targeted or specifically protected.
With Nuclear Weapons, it takes things to a whole new level..... a level where troops and modern combat do not apply and the scenario is simplified to pointing at a map and obliterating everything in that area..... women, children, men, buildings, animals, trees, culture..... it's like taking a chunk of the earth and humanity and wiping it from the face of the planet while contaminating that area with radioactive poison for years afterwards..... all the while those who were unfortunate enough to survive suffer from a laundry list of illnesses, mutations, and agony.
And as with the fear of the Cold War, if a war broke out where all that was used was mostly Nuclear Weapons, it wouldn't be a war.... it'd just be a mass extermination of life from this planet...... and not just human life.
