I believe the bombings were necessary, seeing as the japanese would refuse to surrender if we just invaded the mainland; and because of that, 5x as many people would have died in the invasion than the bombings themselves. . . but WW2 was a different time

the continued development of nuclear weapons is useless. . . the only thing it guarantees is mutually assured destruction

and the more nukes that exist, the more likely it will be for some whack-job to get a hold of one

Well I read in history class...that the US tried to negotiate a term or something. Japan didn't respond and what not then the US threatened them with the a-bomb. Japan didn't back down and so the US drops the bomb. Japan STILL doesn't back down, 2nd bomb dropped and so Japan emperor(was it him? can't remember..) says to give up cuz he doesn't want to lose more lives and such.

The thing is, if only Japan backed down, they wouldn't have met the destruction and so forth, but if that happened, I don't think Grave of the Fireflies would be made. I really don't think nukes and bio-weaps should be made but I don't think two countries would really be friendly politically and economically. And if weaps can protect and all... Watch Gundam Seed and Gundam Seed Destiny. They have my answers there.

@chronoculus ==>> it was emperor hirohito... gods! i'm such a history freak!

hmm... well, yeah, US made a compromise between Japan and Japan refused and everything is history. literally. but then, i'm actually against using nuclear weapons, in this case bombs, to stop a war. sure, it would cease the killing but then, the after effects of the nuclear bomb would also kill or incapacitate many people as well.

nope, i don't think we can protect something with these kind of weapons. sure, i admit, they're powerful enough to destroy one country to protect another. but wouldn't that be unfair to the innocent people of that destroyed country? protection should always be for the good of everyone, not just one race or one country. and we obviously can't control the after effects of the bomb, as i have mentioned earlier.

A thing on hiroshima just came on the discovery channel

Japan was and still is very stubborn about it. They never had a formal apology, and they don't even teach their children in school about the war. In their history books, it's just a blank. So rather than admit they were wrong, they just try to forget about it. That is one of the reasons China is so angry with them, because they did many horrible things to China during the war. My grandmother even told me some stories about her village being invaded. Very scary stuff.

Uhm wow that cleared alot of things up. What I learned at school doesn't really match up to what really happened o_o;; Well I'm sorry that my information was incorrect, thanks for fixing that :D I guess the US might be at fault for not waiting for a diplomatic solution/response etc.

{edit}
Strident's point is true also XD
I over look too many things I guess o_o;

IMO the US was (and still is) racist towards asians. . . thats probably one reason why they didnt give a damn if the japanese were used as lab-rats to test a nuke

thats 1 of the 5 things i hate about the US

Why apologize for somalia and afghanastan? we didnt do anything wrong

the somalis should apologize for brutally beating dead american soldiers; all we were supposed to do was arrest a few guys, and all these somali drugies started killing us

the afghanis should apologize (specifically bin Laden, where-ever that cowardly son-of-a-bitch is) for 9/11

Vietnam wasnt our fault either. . . if we had left vietnam alone, north vietnam still would have taken control of south vietnam

I'll ask Japan to say they are very very sorry they started a war agains US after US started blockading them

we didnt blockade before the japanese started the war. . . the attack on pearl was unprovoked; UN-FREAKING-PROVOKED!

Wow

I'm new here and the last thing I can imaging to found is a disscusion about the WW2...

As I already write in another post, I'm from Mexico and my english is too bad... but I don't like to miss this discussion.

I already read almost all the post and I see that the opinions was referened on the books. Remember the books are writen by the winners, and they try to force their truth.

In my personal case, California, Texas, New Mexico, Florida and others states was part of Mexico, the U.S.A. haved invaded that part of the country take advantage of little wars in the south of Mexico and convince people U.S.A. was a peaceful country, then go forward until Mexico City, defeat the army (of childrens because the adults was fighting in the south) killing of them. Then our corrupt president (Santana) make a deal with some americans to sale part of Mexico instead to take over, the americans acceded.

That is writen on our History Books, but on day I was seeing Discovery Channel a program about expansion of the U.S.A. in the part they talk about the invasion they said "Then México transfer part of their country to expand U.S.A." and my face was: O.o WHAT?!?

So, going back to the WW2, my tearcher told us Japan send a give up to U.S.A. 2 days before of the first bomb, but U.S.A. ignore the mail because they have to prove their power and test their bombs.

I don't know if it is the true... is only my opinion that was form by my teachers and books I read.

- Drakor

the afghanis should apologize

What a generalization! If say, the Black Panthers or the KKK were to do something horrible, would all black people or all white people be responsible and therefore have to apologize for their actions?

we didnt blockade before the japanese started the war. . . the attack on pearl was unprovoked; UN-FREAKING-PROVOKED!

The US practiced "biased neutrality" as I like to call it, and did things such as send weapons to the British, blockade oil in Japan, etc. And, Pearl Harbor was kind of a hit and run thing, and they didn't really expect to get into a war with the US over it. (I may be wrong here, this is just what I've learned/gathered from info)

Anyway, I think the A-bomb in Hiroshima was necessary, but not the one in Nagasaki. At the time, Japan was already close to an internal collapse, but just because of the way Japanese are, it would have been a "fight to the death" kind of thing. As the war in the Pacific showed, they were a tough enemy, and to invade their homeland would have been disastrous as far as casualties, on both sides. Nagasaki was pretty rushed and un-needed. All the main cities of Japan were already destroyed (Tokyo had been wiped out by fire bombs and Hiroshima was pretty much the last industrial center left) and I guess it was kind of a "let's just destroy EVERYTHING while we're at it!" kind of thing.

I don't think having WoMD will help anyone. In fact, I think it only makes mutually assured destruction scarily more possible. And, has any situation that actually required nuclear force come up since WWII? I think not. The Cold War was such an ego thing. ("Well, my weapons are bigger than yours!") The only thing WoMD have brought about are strained relations and panic, as far as I'm concerned.

/end rambling.

point? what that Japan needs to ask sorry for what they did? I see ... I'll agree to that and even bow to all of you the moment US issues an official apology about:

1. Vietnam
2. Somalia
3. Iraqui
4. Afghanistan.
5. Hiroshima and Nagasaki maihem victims

Amen. US has too much pride and refuses to back down. I don't agree with most of its military actions in the past, especially Vietnam. And I agree with the points you raised earlier also. Fortunately, my American History teachers were anything but biased so they really opened my eyes. Anyone could see that 3 days were hardly sufficient time for Japan to digest the attack on Hiroshima and act accordingly. Unless of course they were blinded by the idealogy that US is always right.

I have to agree with Caiobrz since UN had not issued any memo [is that even the right term?!] for the US to inavde any of the aforementioned countries, especially on the attack of iraq. and don't you dare go to the point where you'd say that US is called the "world police force"... sure, i agree that they ARE the "world police force" according to my politics book, but still, they do not have the right to attack a country without the issue of a memo coming from the UN secretary-general [i should know that since i'm a polsci student]...

anyways, you go, Caiobrz! ... i dislike US's too much interference with the world's issues... the only reason why Japan has an anti-war constitution is because, well, US "coaxed" them. actually, we've discussed it in class that US still has a bit of military power over Japan, seeing that they still have Army bases [and it's not the usual not-anymore-used-just-for-tourism Army bases] in Japan.

and since my country is pro-american, many history authors deliberately go biased against Japan, saying that it was their [the Japanese] fault why the bomb was dropped on Japanese soil.

Huh this discussion somehow turned into WWII and recent events and modern war ethics sort of.

Starters. Caiobrz is right. I don't know what the textbook teach in America but Americans blockaded all steel and oil export into Japan. From what I know it was due to the growing dislike towards the Japanese atrocities commited on the Chinese. Japan then was at war and of course building war machinese. Now unable to import oil and steel, they attacked the philipines to seize the oil and steel needed. But to prevent any counterattacks, it was loggical to destroy the US Pacific Fleet stationed in Pearl Harbour.

Pearl Harbour was a needless incident too. I don't know what the textbook say on the subject but the USS Ward of the US fleet sank a Japanese midget submarine outside Pearl Harbour like three HOURS before the Japanese bombing started and a warning was issued right away.. That's right the US fired the first shot against the Japanese. On top of that they had three HOURS of warning and preperation they could have used to turn Pearl Harbour into a Japanese disastor. Smart US high command don't you think?. On top of that, since a German U-boat mistakenly sank a American shipping vessal a few months before, US government was debating to enter war or not and would probably have anyway. And Pearl Harbour was a military target while Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilian cities.

And US should defintinately apologize to all those countries already said above. And besides that every single country in central and south America that the CIA totally messed up to remove "communist" governments. Thanks a lot you just threw them from having a bright future into civil war, dictatorship, debt, and poverty. And shouldn't the liberators leave Iraq now? They said they would what two months ago?
Of course Japan needs to apologize too. POW brutalities, Nanking massacure, etc.

I at first believe the A-Bombs were nessesary to win the war. Taking the casualties of Okinawa, the Japanese military buildup at the American invasion designated landing zones, and the Japanese will to fight to the end, the death on both sides would have been unbelievable. But the Japanese plan, with the type of Military buildups at the landing zone, was suppose to inflict such a high casualty on the invaders that Japanese could sue for peace on an acceptable terms. Hmm... if that did happen wouldn't there have been less deaths and no radiation poisoning either. On top of that if Japanese didn't give an unconditional surrender either... Well maybe my views are changing.

But whether it was neccessary or not, the US should definately apologize to it.

On the point of whether weapons could protect. In the real world personally, yes a bit, but on the whole no. Why? The only way weapons could protect is by silencing other weapons. A tank is about to fire on your city and if you have a anti-tank rocket launcher how do you protect your city? You fire on the tank, boom the crew of the tank's dead. Wait if this was taking place that means we are having a war arn't we. And since there is a war you would sooner or later be ordered to attack by which point it would no longer be protecting. Unless you are always on the losing side which means weapons of your enemies are not protecting they are destroying, and you are also destroying when you protect. Kira and gang does use weapons to protect, but they also needed to kill to do so. Yes Kira did kill - the Admonmon class Nuke carriers, Forbidden in SEED, and Stella in SEED Destiny. He safed a lot of lives by doing those things but if there was no war he wouldn't need to. Plus, in reality, there is no war machine that is bodily proportional to a human, 17m tall, made out of metal, and piloted by only one person. There is also no targeting system or skills that good for rapid firing. So right now if you try to silence a cannon, most likely you'll kill the crew. Let's wait a few hundred years see if someone like Kira and some machine like ZGMF Freedom will ever come along. War wize, the only good weapon is no weapon. If there's no weapon there would be no war. Besides weapons are expensive. Every country should follow the example of Costa Rica (I think, either that or Porto Rico) and totaly cut out their military and put all that money into health, eduacation, etc. I mean the number of all developed countries armies are like less than 2% of their population and they use like 15% of the GDP, or more in US case.

Well, I have read all your posts and the truth is that wars all start because of greed. Greed, greed, greed. Like some people who talked here said something about oil and they are right. If Americans invaded Iraq because of Saddam why can't they go to Zimbabwe and attack Mugabi for starving his people? I absoluetly hate wars it causes mayhem and destruction among people. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki incident shouldn't have happened, all those innocent people should have not died.

Note: You people do know about the Zimababwe issue right?

Greed, Ambition, A desire to have more than others and be better than others. Ignorance, Refuse to understand, to listen. All these start wars. There are so few numbers of war, if any at all, that are started without these as the causes. That's why, and I'm probably going to get flamed for this, I have to agree - even though that i don't want to - with Rau Le Kruuze's view on human nature. Don't get me wrong I don't think humans should be destroyed. Not all humans are like that either. But as my mother pointed out, most of the time the most extremests gets to be the top because of their strength of will(extremests). So we have people like Bush(Chairman Zala) and Bin Laden(Azaerl) trying to duel it out with each other and starting wars. *sigh* Politians are stupid, always my view (My personal definition of a polititian is a person in charge who talks 99% of the time and does less than 0.0001% of the work but also gets to make over 70% of the decision)

Now my views are completely changed, the A-Bombs are deftinately uneccesarry. It also started the nuclear arms race of the Cold War -_-|| great...

Why can't the US just stop trying to "rescue" other countries and get some oil right away - yeah the oil prices are still so high and rising. I immigrated to Canada 7 years ago and back then the price was less than 30cents a litre, now it's over a dollar - and put ALL that money, over 50% of the GDP of the strongest economy in the world, into developing better, more efficient engergy like better solar panels or Hydrogen fuel, or put some into Heathcare, and into researching a cure for cancer, malaria, and the search for destroy-virus agents. Or spent that money on their unemployed people living in proverty, which is quite ALOT. They want to get back at Bin Laden? Just make that top priority of the CIA, get them to do something good for once and stop them messing up other countries. Leave Afganistan alone and don't even touch Iraq.

I also read some polls in the newspaper that people think Bush is as much a terrorist as Bin Laden or somewhere along the line

Sorry puretaurus I don't know about the Zimabawe issue, I'm not that informed. Again Rau Le Kruuze's point, Ignorance ><

This post turned into US flaming recent event and WWII issue o.O I actually kind of like that ^^