[quote name='dracula']OK a few things
The "dude", harry truman who gave the order to launch the nukes on japan, that saved far more lives that it took. It brought about the end of world war 2. The war against japan would have continued for years, if not decades.
If you saw the film "letters from Iwo Jima", that was an accurate depiction of the japanese military: the never surrendered, they would continue fighting indefinitely, with knives and sticks when they ran out of bullets.
It would have been a meat grinder, probably going on for years if not decades and costing far more civilian japanese lives. To japanese at that time, hirohito was seen as a son of God and would not stop the war until he said to.
The first bomb on hiroshima was totally justified. very few people think that the endless warfare was preferable to dropping the nuke
The japanese had plenty of warning before Hiroshima. As far as the theory that "it killed tens of thousands of civilians". Hiroshima had a large military prescence including chemical weapons factories that made mustard gas, and cyanide among other weapons used by Japan in WW2.
Japan had plenty of warning with the Postdam declaration, and they blew it off.
Hiroshima is what is called a "necassry evil." the cost of military and civilian life would have been far greater if we had not dropped the bomb.
Hirohito refused the surrender after the first bombing because one of the terms of surrender was that he would have to give up being emperor. Hirohito had $100 billion in a swiss bank account that would be lost if he lost his throne.
So 2 days after the Hiroshima bombing, Japan launched an invasion of Manchuria, resuming their quest to take over southeast Asia.
Still, dropping a second one, on nagasaki, so soon after the first, is questionable at best. should we have given japan more time? Probably. But despite the first bombing japan resumed its conquest of asia.
As for Bush, after being put in an impossible position in 2001 he has committed many war crimes in the so called "war on terror" and targetted many civilian targets with no known terrorist prescence. He was lauded as a great leader for the united states as a result.
Most americans supported these attacks on innocent civilians and voted him to remain in office in 2004.
As for the war in Iraq, Bush started the war saying that Iraq was not complying with nuclear weapons inspectors. we never found any nukes.
He kept the war going saying that he would not stop until there was a "free iraq with free elections", That hasnt happened either. Now he is saying if we stop the war it will be like Vietnam all over again.
Meanwhile, Bush and his family and cheney and his friends made tens of billions of dollars off of these wars. Cheney was the former CEO of Halliburton and owns stock in the company. bush's father runs Carlyle. Bush contracted these 2 weapons contractors initially to start the war we continue to get our weapons from these companies and others to this day.
The US government spends 12 billion dollars a month to keep the iraq war going, and much fo that money goes to the personal wealth of bush and cheney.
Bush is a war profiteer and a butcher of tens of thousands of innocent lives. To many americans, he is a great leader and a patriot. To the rest of the world, he is the worlds greatest terrorist.
He has made a series of questionable, and probably criminal decisions. Will he ever be investigated and tried for his crimes? Only time will tell.[/QUOTE]
Dude using a film as the basis for your knowledge on a subject is laughable. You can use them to discuss emotions and other aspects, but to base your knowledge of a war on a film is really not wise.
First of all the Japanese people were primed to give up. The whole idea that it would take a substantial effort to truly end the war is not all that correct. These people were down to nothing. They were out of food, the co-prosperity sphere was not providing the resouces necessary to win the war, and their force had been nearly obliterated. Japan was spread so thin that they would have had to surrender at some point anyway. They had troops all over Asia and had been fighting a hellish war in China for 15 years. Conventional weapons would have been sufficient and would have not all the reprocussions that nuclear weapons brought about.* We are still paying for the costs of dropping those bombs.
*Firebombing Tokyo killed more people than either nuclear blast.
Also I am locking this topic because the OP is retarded. This section of the boards is okay for points of view, but not for stupid shit like this. Get a brain kid.