Hiroshima: Right or Wrong?

[metimmee]

Noted for future reference, and apologies once again to all.

Good topic Kryten, keep posting!

In my view it was right. The Japanese in WW2 were fanatical and the rate of attrition was huge in the Pacific. Paradoxically it may have even saved lives on both sides in the long run.

 

[ninjarabbi]

Kryten; I am utterly confused as to why you are apologising. In my opinion everyone is entitled to their say, if it should clash with someone else's 'world view' then so be it; that's when open debate comes into effect. We seem to be heading down that twisted avenue in this country where people no longer have an opinion because they're terrified of offending someone else. Someone will ALWAYS be offended; that's the culture we have now.

I believe in free speech, in saying what I think but backing up my thoughts on the matter at hand with reasoned argument and research. I know the RAF doesn't like this which is why we have the mandatory re-education camps, sorry, courses to tell us what we must think and how we should behave.

No doubt I will have offended someone, want to have a debate about it?DT_Xtremez_28:

 

[Stevienics]

I know the RAF doesn't like this which is why we have the mandatory re-education camps

You have a sort of a point, but I don't think it's conscious on their part - "they" (as an organisation) just are a little more change and risk averse when it comes to contemporary thought.

When a junior articulated a different view to any senior, it used to be met with an instant default to the heirarchy being right, because anything else was too uncomfortable to be contemplated. Fortunately, that's changing and it's being led from the top, but that's not the problem. If you want to change the way change is met, the S/SNCO to Wg Cdr layers are the target demographic - for differing reasons. One group is not culturally atuned to change, the others have more to lose from it (you can decide which is which.

 

[Kryten]

Kryten; I am utterly confused as to why you are apologising. In my opinion everyone is entitled to their say, if it should clash with someone else's 'world view' then so be it; that's when open debate comes into effect. We seem to be heading down that twisted avenue in this country where people no longer have an opinion because they're terrified of offending someone else. Someone will ALWAYS be offended; that's the culture we have now.

I believe in free speech, in saying what I think but backing up my thoughts on the matter at hand with reasoned argument and research. I know the RAF doesn't like this which is why we have the mandatory re-education camps, sorry, courses to tell us what we must think and how we should behave.

No doubt I will have offended someone, want to have a debate about it?DT_Xtremez_28:

I guess the reason I am apologising is because on the whole I like to start threads on 'ere that encourage debate, that do not offend and are generally good natured in the way they progress; on this occasion at least two fellow Goaters have disagreed with the premise of the subject matter and with there own reasons for doing so. In the spirit of good manners I therefore feel that an apology is appropriate.

Happy to debate about whether this debate is an appropriate debate to debate whilst debating the subject of debates.

 

[ninjarabbi]

Ah, so it's a debate you want (said in a thick Oirish accent).

 

[Kryten]

Ah, so it's a debate you want (said in a thick Oirish accent).

You offering a debate like? [attempts Scouse accent, but sounds distinctly Urdu]

 

[ninjarabbi]

I'd prefer an argument, just the 5 minute one though; I can't afford the full ten minutes!

 

[Kryten]

I'd prefer an argument, just the 5 minute one though; I can't afford the full ten minutes!

Well its £1 for a five minute argument but £8 for a course of ten......DT_Xtremez_31:

 

[Ex-Bay]

US Secretary of State John Kerry has made a historic visit to the Hiroshima memorial in Japan, which commemorates the world's first atomic bombing. He is the first US secretary of state to ever visit Hiroshima, where around 140,000 were killed when the US dropped its atomic bomb in 1945.

This has apparently opened up a bit of a debate in the US: on the one hand the argument is that dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't justified; Japan was broken militarily, the use of the A Bomb was purely designed to stop Russia entering the war - with some even calling it a war crime.

On the other hand is the view that even though she was broken, Japan had vowed to fight to the end and the use of the A Bomb was thus justified in bringing Japan to its knees and negating the need for an invasion that would have been costly to both the US and Japan.

What do you think? Was the use of the A Bomb justified?

From what I understand of the end of the War and so on; YES it was justified.

Unfortunately, we get the occasional attempt to re-write History, or judge the 'then' events by today's morals.