Atomic bomb. - Page 2




View Poll Results :do u think that the use of the atomic bomb in ww2 was needed?
Yep. (why?) 25 89.29%
Not really no. (why?) 3 10.71%
Voters: 28. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
March 29th, 2006  
MightyMacbeth
 
 
yes indeed, good points
March 29th, 2006  
The Cooler King
 
Who voted no?
March 29th, 2006  
MightyMacbeth
 
 
I asked the same question myself too..

I wonder who too heh.. maybe scared of showing him or herself? I dont know 8)
--
March 29th, 2006  
Missileer
 
 
I think someone just screwed up and clicked on the wrong button and now they're ashamed to tell us they were a putz. Come on, be a man/woman and `fess up.
March 30th, 2006  
MightyMacbeth
 
 
^heh, yeah cmon, not like we going to do anything really.. We are actually going to smile and be happy for some reason lol.. Dont be shy

oh its okay
March 31st, 2006  
Fox
 
 
Yeah, just tell us who voted no. Don't worry, we won't bite you. Can you give us a reason why you voted no. We still won't bite you.
March 31st, 2006  
JulesLee
 
 
I voted yes.. saved many lives. I dont see how inhumane the bomb is.. it still bring the same result = death.. war brings death to opponents.. LeMay killed more japs with his assults than the 2 bombs.. since it gives radiation; isnt it like a chemical weapon also?
April 3rd, 2006  
Usefullidiot
 
I voted no. Now dont get your panties in a bunch i have a reason and im going to tell you what it is. Now like many of you I used to believe that dropping "Little Boy" was justified, I even yelled down my teacher and the whole social justice group once in class.

But one day I was taking a drive and listening to the radio and they were interviewing Paul W. Tibbets (man who flew the enola gay). Paul didnt have any objections to dropping the bomb and he said he would do it again if his duty called for him to do so. He then went on to tell about why he thought dropping the bomb was completely useless. When Germany surrendered Japan offered terms of her surrender with only one request, that their Emperor not be emprisoned for war crimes. The U.S. did not accept these terms, to try and force their own terms on the Japanese their dropped the first atomic bomb. After destroying hiroshima they sent Japan their new terms of surrender. Japan once again requested that the emperor not be tried. The U.S. dropped a second bomb and sent another terms of surrender to the japanese. The japanses sent back their terms requesting that their emperor not be emprisoned. Instead of dropping a third bomb the U.S. agreed and the war ended.

Now my point is Japan surrendered with the same terms it would of surrendered with before two atomic bombs were dropped so I question what was accomplished by dropping the bombs, they didnt change anything.

Please comment because i dont know if this is the truth its just what i heard Paul say.
April 3rd, 2006  
Hiridion
 
I haven't heard about Japan offering surrender *before* the bombs were dropped. The military members of the ruling 'Big Six' wanted to reject the Potsdam Decleration outright. Even after both atomic bombs had been dropped the cabinet was still split 3-3 about whether the just ask that the emperor remain in power, or to further demand that Japan handle her own disarmament, deal with any Japanese war criminals herself and that there be no occupation of Japan. It took the personal intervention of the Emperor for Japan to finally surrender.
April 4th, 2006  
tomtom22
 
 
Yes, simple answer, it saved a lot of GI lives.