Hiroshima
 

Gah. bad idea.

Hiroshima was bombed on 6th August 1945. I know it's seven minutes into the seventh where we are, STEED.

Just wondering why is it Happy?

I'm sure he didn't mean anything wrong with it, but "happy" is indeed the wrong word. Let us not forget people....Remember Hiroshima...Remember Nagasaki....and let us hope that there will be NO MORE nuclear weapons used in war.

You start a topic titled "Happy" and include a picture of a injured woman over the word "yay"?

That is either a very, very poor and distasteful attempt at humor or seriously sickening.


How ever much of a military victory the bombing of Hiroshima was, it was an event of great tragedy for mankind as all wars are; however just or successful.
Further more it was an event of great tragedy for the people who suffered it.

I can not express my utter contempt and disgust at the way you have approached this topic.

Don't read it at face value. I wasn't trying to be offensive/tasteless, but maybe I should have added a :nope:

So your making a joke out of it?!?

You think we will all laugh at you because your so "wacky" that you call one of the biggest single-moment slaughter of civilians "Happy Hiroshima Day"?!

Man, Tchocky, I know your not daft enough to be trying to cause offence like that, but think a little next time! :doh:

Not making a joke at all. I watched a short documentary earlier on and it really depressed me. More so than I expected. Some guy was claiming that it was the right thing to do etc, and it didnt convince at all. I can't understand how such an act can be seen as the best course of action, maybe that was the state of mind I was looking for.
Hence the title? I don't know. I can see now exactly what was wrong with what I posted, hence the edit. I guess intent and product missed each other by a mile.

Because a lot more lives would have been lost in an invasion than in the bombing. It was the right thing to do. Not a happy event but fact.

The way I see it is thus:
If the objective of Hiroshima was to shorten the war then the same objective could have been achieved to better effect prior to Hiroshima by accepting the Japanese ceasefire agreement. Thus, any utilitarian argument supporting the bombing of Hiroshima is invalid because you can not argue in favor of shortening the war by means of nuclear weapons, but reject shortening the war even more without the use of nuclear weapons by means of the ceasefire and later surrender conditions proposed by the Japanese.
I know of no non-utilitarian arguments in favor of the bombing.

The object was an unconditional surrender of Japan, not a ceasefire and not negotiations.

Bingo! That's what makes it immoral.

Hiroshima was not an act of defence.
Hiroshima was not in the interest of American soldiers as they could have been saved by the cease fire. It was not in the interest of humanity as a whole because...err...well it destroyed a whole city of humanity!
In fact, I can't think of a single person it did benefit* who would not have benefited more from a ceasefire. I can however think of many, many people who suffered and continue to suffer as a result of Hiroshima.

*politician's carers excluded

I could've never conceived that the cartoon on the immigration thread was but a sign of probable things to come. This thread may not have been the best course of action, but it sure helps ending the war against obscurity more than any nuclear flash could ever hope to.

Here's a lesson we can all learn from it: stick to cartoons and leave the yay's and happy's out of it.

The only thing I can say is put yourself in the mindset of that time. It was a given that Japan would not surrender. With what it took to get to this point I wouldn't expect many to feel merciful.

Surrender conditions proposed by the Japanese?
After all their butchery, listen to there proposals? I think you should read up on the Japanese invasions or even just Nanking in China.
Here is a link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

Note: This is about the Japan of then, not the Japan of now.