Sixty five years ago, the US dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and dicated war against Japan. The bomb was so forceful that Japan's government decieded to raise a white flag and give up. The era of the bombings were the first of using extremly more powerful weapons then guns and cannons. This bomb destroyed Hiroshima and almost all of its citizens. The controversy of the bombings were based on killing so many people. If you think about it, it isnt that much worse than two countries at war, it wipes out many more people at one time, but in war, killing is not so fast but still a lot of people are murdered. In reality it is all bad but by wipping out all of the citizens at once was extremely more powerful and sent out a message to people not to mess with the US because their weapons are MUCH stronger than guns and knives.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm
I don't wish to disagree with you Kaitlin, but is it really just as bad as two countries fighting? Because I personally feel that the differences make this bombing much worse. In WWI it's true that both sides lost many due to the war of attrition. But in this instance, you're killing thousands in seconds. But even more important than that is the fact that you're killing innocent civilians. Can you really compare the deaths of 1000 soldiers to the deaths of 1000 civilians? Because most countries allow you to sign up for war, and frankly I feel that as a non soldier and a US citizen, I haven't done a thing that's worthy of killing me for.
ReplyDeletewell, I sort of agree with Kaitlin in that two countries at war kills just as many people and when armies attack cities, many civilians are killed as well.
ReplyDeleteBut don't you feel that there is a large difference between killing civilians and firing on soldiers? I mean I understand the fact that if you invade a city inhabited with soldiers you'll definitely injure some civilians who are in the general vicinity, but just deliberately killing citizens out of spite? I understand the idea that there will be an average death toll between the two, but can you really rationalize deaths of innocents as to deaths of fighting soldiers?
ReplyDeleteline 2: what does "dicated" mean?
ReplyDeleteline 3: *decided
line 4: *was, *the first in which... were used
line 5: *than
line 6: Hiroshima AND NAGASAKI
line 7: *was
lines 8-10: The US and Japan kind of were at war... (they attacked pearl harbor, remember?)
line 11: *wiping
line 14: Japan wasn't only using guns and knives, they had other weapons, too. however, they did not have the technology to create atomic bombs
Besides all of that, i agree with austin that killing civilians is wrong. They were completely innocent and weren't involved in the fighting. Some of them were probably even against the war itself.
You cant sit there and say "Some of them were probably against the war itself." You don't know them, they could've all been extremely nationalist for all you know.
ReplyDeleteBut are we allowed to just bomb just because they "could" be? I mean, I'm all for fighting those who attack and hurt our homeland, but can we just look at someone and assume that they'd shoot us if they had a gun in their hands? I feel that's a little hardheaded. I can understand your argument, but the US has to have better standards than that. Or else we would just shoot anyone that looked at us funny.
ReplyDelete^ mr. microsoft paper clip over here...
ReplyDeleteI agree with Austin. Killing civilians is wrong. Do you find it necessary to murder a more than likely unarmed person for no necessary reason? That is just flat out murder. Sure, if the civilians take up arms against you, you have to defend yourself, but would you kill a baby just because it was sleeping in its bed?
ReplyDelete