Was the Nuke really necessary?

Well...like everything man-made we ended up with a good and an evil side.
When we mastered the Nuclear enrgy, we made the bomb and we made the power plants providing clean electricity for millions of people.When nuclear energy is used and controlled in a modern democratic country, things are kind of / sort of fine (France is an example: independant nuke power and power plants running since the mid 60 ies providing 80% of its electricity + exporting some + recycling its nuke waste and Germany's nuke waste + haven't bombed or threaten to bomb anybody, not even the US despite the current French bashing! :lol: )
When nuclear enrgy ends up in the hand of dictature like sytems (N Korea, former USSR...) we end up with the cold war and the Chernobyls or other impending Nuke submarines ecological disasters.
The chemical industry brough us medicine, pesticides...derivative from these products were created for harming people: chemical weapons, toxics, gases...
The creation of the car led to the tanks....the horse was raised for farming and transportation and brought to war...
You name it...every single thing man creates has a double edge....because we are both angels and devils!!! :twisted:
Look at genetic engineering...soon will see genetic weapons that will disrupt the genetic structure of the living target it is spread on....wanna bet!
So complaining about an historical fact of human life is kind of pointless.
We just have to live with it...and cross our fingers!
Remember: the only other living organism that destroys its host is...a virus! Are we virus like? :?:
If we fit the definition. We destroy others for money, land, and yes... Protection. but is it really protection, or just an excuse for poor Commanders?
Nick E said:
If we fit the definition. We destroy others for money, land, and yes... Protection. but is it really protection, or just an excuse for poor Commanders?

Good question, wich I also would want an answer too. :D
I consider this to be a silly question......and an example of skewed ethics by a modern world unaccustomed to the horrors of war. First, it saved possibly 100,000's of lives in the hard fighting that was undoubtedly ahead, had we had to take Japan with infantry, many many more on both sides would have perished. We were already killing a lot of civilians in our fire bomb attacks. Which I would argue are far more inhumane. So I would say it saved many other Japanese civilians too. I think it was the only morally right thing for a commander in chief to do given the circumstances. It would have been immoral, and irresponsible not to use it at that time.

Secondly, I would have no reservation using nuclear weapons again should it save large numbers of American lives. If you would hesitate to use nuclear weapons for the defense of your country, then why have them? Don't pick up any weapon or own one you are not prepared to use. Otherwise it becomes truly dangerous, as your enemies are more likely to test your resolve, and force you into a situation where you might have to use it. If they know for certain you will use it as soon as they meet certain conditions, they will not meet those conditions.

Third, I would argue the addition of Nuclear weapons has contributed largely to the unparallelled period of peace in modern civilizations. The problem now it appears, is that while it used to require you to have had to advance to certain modern civilization standards to have such a device. Now it's becoming accessible to even backward theological driven societies, which might not think of it as a deterrent, but rather as "gods will", and worth everlasting riches in the next life. ( I am not just refering to Islam, it coudl just as well be concieved this way in Hinduism, or Christianity).........I don't think we've really answered yet what we're going to do about that. But should any nation use them, no matter how insane the leadership. The modern world should have absolutely no reservation in using our full arsenal on that nation. If they doubt your resolve....they are more likely to bring such a horrible event about.

Also I do beleive that people are somewhat responsible for their nations leadership. No leader can survive without the "mandate of heaven" forever. Even the most ruthless of dictators must have a certain level of consent by the governed. So the idea that you can blame all actions of a nation on a single man, and claim the rest of the nation is innocent is ubsurd.
I wasnt really referring to japan, just the nuke in particular. I agree the Nuke is more humane. I'm sorry for offending you but just i'm against mass killings.
Nuking Japan was totally unecessary. Japan was negotiating surrender at the time and knew Russia planned to turn East, having disposed of Hitler.

The nuke had a threefold effect, it kept the Reds in the West away from the US, it also sped Japans surrender, and it showed the Reds the power of the A bomb. Thus began the cold war, the US had manipulated the situation in such a way that its 'ally' now faced off against its own army which had renegged on crucial Yalta plans and whose president even said "the more Russians that die the better". Yes, the US started the cold war, and led the world to the brink of annihilation. On the whole a catastrophic mismanagement of international affairs.

Unforunately getting there first enabled the US to completely bodge the surrender terms, accepting US$20 on behalf of war crime victims, and enabling Japan to retreat into a state of denial that is still preventing outstanding grievances being settled.

Lets face the truth, both Germany and Japan would have fallen to the then rampant Red Army. I believe that in the end the US need not have participated in person at all (excepting the kind lend lease donations).

Unfortunately a 'young' America continues to blunder forth in its meddlesome ways, acting without thinking.

I hope everyone here is aware that USSR would not have survived Hitler. FDR kept sending tons of weapons to the Red Army either before and after US entered war, and he sent tons of food to the inhabitants of Stalingrade during siege. Without the US help Hitler would have defeated the Red Army, or at least weakened it more.
Pretty interesting point of view there Lazza. Just a reminder, head on over to the welcoming center, and introduce yourself, and tell us about some of your qualifications as well. The moderators will appreciate it, and so will the members as well.

Sure. If it weren't for the nuke, WWII would have been dragged out further, we would have taken longer to establish our selves as a superpower, and we wouldn't have the Command and Conquer vidya game series! And we wouldn't be able to discuss whether the nuke was neccesary :D
Though dropping the bomb did haste the end of the water, I think the Russian invasion of Manchuria had a role as well. Any thoughts?
As long as America exist there is no threat from nukes. As soon as a nuke goes off on this world America will do everything in its power nomatter who to eliminate that country from the map. So that in a way keeps the world safer just the knowledge of it. And we cant just give up our nukes, I honestly think there wont be another nuke set off for at least another 50-100 years. The only reason America keeps nukes is because we seem to be the police force of the world [which i hate] and we need somthing to protect our military with becaouse 50,000 marines arent gona do too well vs a nuke.
As long as America exists everything exists, if we stop existing, the whole world stops existing.
After 2007, we don't have to fear from future Nuke-attacks, or Air attacks............. :D
ABL takes the monopol...................................
Uncle_Sam said:
As long as America exists everything exists, if we stop existing, the whole world stops existing.
After 2007, we don't have to fear from future Nuke-attacks, or Air attacks............. :D
ABL takes the monopol...................................

While I appreciate your enthusiasm for my country, what exactly are you talking about?
Basically, hes talking about the Anti Ballistic Missile Laser (ABL) system that supposed to make them missile delivered nukes toasty targets if used. 2007 is an anticipated date in which they go on line.

I'm not holding my breath, even if the system works. You can fool what you can see, as well as what you cant. And the laser platform itself is vulnerable to air attack, if its too close to a country a shooting.

Some pluses are its line of sight, and it attacks at 186,000 miles an hour. :D
The tests should culminate this or next month, not sure :? They said on the half of the 2004. The final test is shooting down ICBM(of course without real Nuke-head ;) ).
was it right to drop the nuke? I say yes sir and can we drop another one. here it could make some prime parking in that sandy place right there.