Dropping Of the 1945 Nuclear Bombs? - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Dropping Of the 1945 Nuclear Bombs?

spikeyjacko Avatar
6y, 9m agoPosted 6 years, 9 months ago
How did this change how warfare is carried out today?
Or were there other different advances after 1845?
For History
Anyone find any webpages or links or anything?
spikeyjacko Avatar
6y, 9m agoPosted 6 years, 9 months ago
Options

All Comments

(78) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#1
1/2 term has finished, bit late to do your homework now
#2
The first wepons of mass destruction - Nuclear threat is now something we see on the news regularly with the likes of Iran and all that. Iraq war started over *wepons of mass destruction*

Warfare now, particluarly air based, is about one big bomb, to hit one specific target and destroy that target. War is no longer drop 200 bombs over the whole city. Precision, Damage and sheer power are now the prority of bombs. When we invaded Iraq - Remember the starting scenes on the news of stealth bombers dropping bombs................

The Cold war was all about Nuclear Threat (Every advanced country has nuclear bombs somewhere, even if they say they don't because If one launches a nuclear missile that hits its target, EVERYONE will launch. AKA Nuclear Winter and everyone dies. Gutted
#3
Alfonse
1/2 term has finished, bit late to do your homework now


+1
#4
Alfonse
1/2 term has finished, bit late to do your homework now


dats wat i fort
#5
splatsplatsplat;7914740
dats wat i fort

looks like someone needed extra tutoring.......:roll:;-)
#6
im da product of a tory guv-err-ment

Vote David Cameron. waznt avatar good?
suspended#7
USA bombs 2 cities, kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
USA later accuses other countries of having WMD's and invades them illegaly. (Even though a country like Israel actually does have nukes, but because they're pal's with them they get let off)
So it's a bit ironic how the US is so anti WMD's on the Middle East, when the US is the worst country for using them.
banned#8
DarkKnight
USA bombs 2 cities, kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
USA later accuses other countries of having WMD's and invades them illegaly. (Even though a country like Israel actually does have nukes, but because they're pal's with them they get let off)
So it's a bit ironic how the US is so anti WMD's on the Middle East, when the US is the worst country for using them.


They used them once to end a war - can hardly hold that against them.

Would you be comfortable with Iran having nuclear weapons?
#9
FilthAndFurry
They used them once to end a war - can hardly hold that against them.

Would you be comfortable with Iran having nuclear weapons?


I'm not comfortable with anyone having nuclear weapons. The problem is that if USA has them then their enemies (and there's a lot of them) want them as well. Too late to change history though.
#10
DarkKnight
USA bombs 2 cities, kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
USA later accuses other countries of having WMD's and invades them illegaly. (Even though a country like Israel actually does have nukes, but because they're pal's with them they get let off)
So it's a bit ironic how the US is so anti WMD's on the Middle East, when the US is the worst country for using them.


And so it begins......

The US isn't the worst, it's the only country to use them. However, they effectively ended the second world war. They are now used as a deterrent. It's highly unlikely they will ever be used by the US, except in response to one being launched at them.

Countries in the Middle East, such as Iran, are highly unstable. These countries are more likely to use nuclear weapons against others, such as Israel (remember Ahmadinejad already said he wants to wipe Israel off the map). As someone's already said, if one country launches, others will follow, resulting in millions dead etc. Do you really want this to happen???
Bear in mind that if the likes of Iran had nukes, and could reach Britain, they wouldn't stop and think "oh, DK's there, he likes us, maybe we should hold back". No, they'd just fire.....
suspended#11
FilthAndFurry
They used them once to end a war - can hardly hold that against them.

Would you be comfortable with Iran having nuclear weapons?


Well even one is bad enough, two is just despicable.
Well Iran does not have nuclear weapons, so there is nothing to worry about. And the US constantly say that the Iran has intentions towards building them, but they only have aims of using nuclear energy for normal reasons such as many other countries including ours.
Even if Iran did have nuclear weapons, they don't have the technology to fire upon either the UK or the US with them.
The US and UK invaded Iraq based on a lie about WMD's, no doubt they are trying to do the same in Iran's case.
Like i said, everybody knows Israel has nuclear weapons, why doesn't anybody invade Israel?
banned#12
DarkKnight
Well even one is bad enough, two is just despicable.
Well Iran does not have nuclear weapons, so there is nothing to worry about. And the US constantly say that the Iran has intentions towards building them, but they only have aims of using nuclear energy for normal reasons such as many other countries including ours.
Even if Iran did have nuclear weapons, they don't have the technology to fire upon either the UK or the US with them.
The US and UK invaded Iraq based on a lie about WMD's, no doubt they are trying to do the same in Iran's case.
Like i said, everybody knows Israel has nuclear weapons, why doesn't anybody invade Israel?


It's amazing how in one post you seem to have sympathies with countries in the middle east (as I do)....

but you then say it's okay because they can't hit us. It's laughable.
suspended#13
civms47
And so it begins......

The US isn't the worst, it's the only country to use them. However, they effectively ended the second world war. They are now used as a deterrent. It's highly unlikely they will ever be used by the US, except in response to one being launched at them.

Countries in the Middle East, such as Iran, are highly unstable. These countries are more likely to use nuclear weapons against others, such as Israel (remember Ahmadinejad already said he wants to wipe Israel off the map). As someone's already said, if one country launches, others will follow, resulting in millions dead etc. Do you really want this to happen???
Bear in mind that if the likes of Iran had nukes, and could reach Britain, they wouldn't stop and think "oh, DK's there, he likes us, maybe we should hold back". No, they'd just fire.....


1. Israel is the one who want's to use nuclear weapons on Iran, not the other way round.
2. If Iran had nukes, they wouldn't reach Britain.
3. Iran wouldn't be stupid enough to nuke Israel, as that would spark a retaliation from the US and then they would be destroyed, as Israel and the US are just itching to find a reason to do so.
suspended#14
FilthAndFurry
It's amazing how in one post you seem to have sympathies with countries in the middle east (as I do)....

but you then say it's okay because they can't hit us. It's laughable.


I never said it was ok for them to have nuclear weapons, i just mean that there would be no threat to our countries if it was the case.
#15
I believe the reason for dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was only partly to bring about the end of WW2. The USA knew the war would end fairly soon and in order to be respected as the great superpower they wanted to instill fear by showing what was possible if anyone trucked with them and to use that fear to maintain worldwide stability. A fine situation until someone else also has that power and then you have the struggle for supremacy. Also, many world economies need the industries of war for employment and for the money brought into the country by the export of weapons and the only way to really showcase weapons and indirectly bring business to manufacturers is through wars. It is a sad fact that wars are often engineered to either boost a governments flagging popularity or to boost a country's economy.
#16
blah blah blah. The us dropped bombs on Horoshima and Nagasaki and killed a few hundred thousand people, but ended the war. If they had not done so it is likely that they would have been forced to invade the japanese islands and the japanese would have fought tooth and nail resulting in the death of several million people...which is better?? Alowing loonies like imadinnerjacket to have even the capability of setting off a nuclear explosion is unthinkable. they would not have to send them via a rocket just get one into the US or UK or Israel and in a suicide bomber style set it off...........game over man
banned#17
DarkKnight
I never said it was ok for them to have nuclear weapons, i just mean that there would be no threat to our countries if it was the case.


Because a nuclear bomb going off anywhere in the world wouldn't have any ramifications for us or America:roll:
banned#18
FilthAndFurry
It's amazing how in one post you seem to have sympathies with countries in the middle east (as I do)....

but you then say it's okay because they can't hit us.[COLOR="Red"] It's laughable.[/COLOR]


This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I used to think it was devils advocate and a bit of banter.... but I can now see its for real!

Do I think it was wrong to use these weapons to end a bloody 6 year war? No.

Do I think it was regrettable? Yes.

Would the world be a safer place with North Korea and Iraq having Nuclear weapons and means to deliver to the West? No.

Are the US being hypocrites for having Nuclear weapons but not wanting others to have them? No. The more that have them the more danger that exists. That said, its bad news that India and Pakistan have them now.
#19
DarkKnight
1. Israel is the one who want's to use nuclear weapons on Iran, not the other way round.
2. If Iran had nukes, they wouldn't reach Britain.
3. Iran wouldn't be stupid enough to nuke Israel, as that would spark a retaliation from the US and then they would be destroyed, as Israel and the US are just itching to find a reason to do so.


1. If that's the case why did the Iranian president publicly state that he'd like to wipe Israel off the map?
2. They can't reach the UK, so we shouldn't be concerned that they could potentially destroy other countries closer to them?
3. Exactly, so if Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons then everyone's happy.

How do you struggle so much to see the flaws in your arguments?
#20
splatsplatsplat
dats wat i fort


splatsplatsplat
im da product of a tory guv-err-ment

Vote David Cameron. waznt avatar good?


loool

yeh avtar was awesome, think Gordon Brown is helping him on the sequel :p
banned#21
kingy58
It is a sad fact that wars are often engineered to either boost a governments flagging popularity or to boost a country's economy.


Oh lawd!

Not someone else claiming the US were involved in Pearl Harbor so they could join in a war they'd been strenuously trying to avoid despite having loads of ships destroyed by the German U Boats!

Please... that isn't what you meant? Is it?
banned#22
DarkKnight

3. Iran wouldn't be stupid enough to nuke Israel, as that would spark a retaliation from the US and then they would be destroyed, as Israel and the US are just itching to find a reason to do so.


You're right - they'd have to be suicidal to do something like that....oh wait:roll:
banned#23
Alfonse;7914127
1/2 term has finished, bit late to do your homework now

+10

surely the OP has heard of wikipedia / google

they sure as hell aint gonna get any real constructive input from misk!:-D

or is the OP on a wind-up of DK?
suspended#24
guv
This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I used to think it was devils advocate and a bit of banter.... but I can now see its for real!

Do I think it was wrong to use these weapons to end a bloody 6 year war? No.

Do I think it was regrettable? Yes.

Would the world be a safer place with North Korea and Iraq having Nuclear weapons and means to deliver to the West? No.

Are the US being hypocrites for having Nuclear weapons but not wanting others to have them? No. The more that have them the more danger that exists. That said, its bad news that India and Pakistan have them now.


So if one country uses 2 nuclear weapons on another country to end a war, that's ok?
Well then if that's the case then if Iran stops a war by nuking a country, you should all agree to it.

Why is the US exempted from punishment? Why is the US immune?
banned#25
DarkKnight;7915575
Well even one is bad enough, two is just despicable.
Well Iran does not have nuclear weapons, so there is nothing to worry about. And the US constantly say that the Iran has intentions towards building them, but they only have aims of using nuclear energy for normal reasons such as many other countries including ours.
Even if Iran did have nuclear weapons, they don't have the technology to fire upon either the UK or the US with them.
The US and UK invaded Iraq based on a lie about WMD's, no doubt they are trying to do the same in Iran's case.
Like i said, everybody knows Israel has nuclear weapons, why doesn't anybody invade Israel?

Maybe the imperialistic Japanese should have given in after one then!

Oh no, I've fallen into the trap...........................:w00t:

/thread for me
banned#26
DarkKnight
So if one country uses 2 nuclear weapons on another country to end a war, that's ok?
Well then if that's the case then if Iran stops a war by nuking a country, you should all agree to it.

Why is the US exempted from punishment? Why is the US immune?


We should punish the US for dropping the bombs then?
banned#27
DarkKnight
So if one country uses 2 nuclear weapons on another country to end a war, that's ok?
Well then if that's the case then if Iran stops a war by nuking a country, you should all agree to it.

Why is the US exempted from punishment? Why is the US immune?


Yes it is okay. Would you have preferred a land invasion?
suspended#28
master_chief
We should punish the US for dropping the bombs then?


I was more commentating on how stupid their logic is for saying that only the US are free to end wars with nuclear weapons.
banned#29
FilthAndFurry
Yes it is okay. Would you have preferred a land invasion?


The DarkKnight needs to join the OP in his history class I think.
suspended#30
FilthAndFurry
Yes it is okay. Would you have preferred a land invasion?


Please tell me how many wars have been won without the use of nuclear weapons?
#31
DarkKnight
So if one country uses 2 nuclear weapons on another country to end a war, that's ok?
Well then if that's the case then if Iran stops a war by nuking a country, you should all agree to it.

Why is the US exempted from punishment? Why is the US immune?


lol, how many World Wars have we had since WWII.....................:whistling:

clever as always
banned#32
DarkKnight
Please tell me how many wars have been won without the use of nuclear weapons?


Why not answer the question instead....... "Would you have preferred a land invasion?"

DarkKnight
So if one country uses 2 nuclear weapons on another country to end a war, that's ok?


In that situation, yes it was.

Well then if that's the case then if Iran stops a war by nuking a country, you should all agree to it.


Am I meant to answer this? WTF are you blubbing about?

Why is the US exempted from punishment? Why is the US immune?


Would it not be better to find a different forum to spout your obvious hatred of the US on rather than one that deals with shopping bargains? Jeez, I love a good argument, but you just sound like a f**ping nut case! (Seriously)
banned#33
DarkKnight
Please tell me how many wars have been won without the use of nuclear weapons?


That's a strange point. The nuclear weapon was the most advanced weapon of the age.

Pretty much every war is won by the 'side' who has the best weapons. So if you're talking in terms like that rather than the silly way you put it.....

lots.
suspended#34
guv
Why not answer the question instead....... "Would you have preferred a land invasion?"


Hell yes, that way less innocent people would have died.

Am I meant to answer this? WTF are you blubbing about?


I'm saying that if it's ok for the US to use nuclear weapons, then by your logic, it's fine for any country to use them to, such as Iran.

Would it not be better to find a different forum to spout your obvious hatred of the US on rather than one that deals with shopping bargains?


You're right, i'm beginning to wonder why i bother posting on this forum where the general trend of the members are extremely ignorant and unintelligent.
Thanks for the advice :thumbsup:

FilthAndFurry
That's a strange point. The nuclear weapon was the most advanced weapon of the age.

Pretty much every war is won by the 'side' who has the best weapons. So if you're talking in terms like that rather than the silly way you put it.....

lots.


Well then why hasn't the US dropped nuclear weapons on Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam or North Korea?
As these were fought after World War 2, so they are in a more advanced time.
banned#35
DarkKnight


Well then why hasn't the US dropped nuclear weapons on Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam or North Korea?
As these were fought after World War 2, so they are in a more advanced time.


Because it would be stupid. Actually, MAD is a better description (let's see how much you understand about nuclear weapons).
#36
DarkKnight

You're right, i'm beginning to wonder why i bother posting on this forum where the general trend of the members are extremely ignorant and unintelligent.
Thanks for the advice :thumbsup:


you're not wondering, you're actually looney otherwise you would frequent a forum for your particular politcal conspiracy ridden mind

FilthAndFurry
(let's see how much you understand about nuclear weapons).


lol
banned#37
DarkKnight
Hell yes, that way less innocent people would have died.


Wrong answer. Millions would have died... but I guess your hatred towards the US would make that acceptable losses for the US marines that would have perished. And the Japanese? It was a total war. You do know what that means don't you?

I'm saying that if it's ok for the US to use nuclear weapons, then by your logic, it's fine for any country to use them to, such as Iran.


To end a war that cost the number of lives that WW2 did, yes I guess that would be the case. However, Iran has already stated their intent to "wipe Israel off the map" and I hope that such a war never takes place again.


You're right, i'm beginning to wonder why i bother posting on this forum where the general trend of the members are extremely ignorant and unintelligent.
Thanks for the advice :thumbsup:


You're welcome. (I'll ignore the attempted insults, I don't think you're capable of replying without doing so.)

Well then why hasn't the US dropped nuclear weapons on Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam or North Korea?
As these were fought after World War 2, so they are in a more advanced time.


Oh brother!

So now you are complaining that the US hasn't nuked others? Its rather amusing in a sad way tbh that you cant see the difference between a "world war" and what is effectively a squabble by comparison
suspended#38
FilthAndFurry
Because it would be stupid. Actually, MAD is a better description (let's see how much you understand about nuclear weapons).


Why would it be? The US avoided more fighting by destroying two entire cities
They could have avoided more fighting in a war they was losing such as Vietnam, rather than risk sending troops into forests lined with traps.

guv
Wrong answer. Millions would have died... but I guess your hatred towards the US would make that acceptable losses for the US marines that would have perished. And the Japanese? It was a total war. You do know what that means don't you?


How do you know millions would have died?
How would you know that the Japanese wasn't going to surrender soon anyway?
The Japanese were on their back foot, there was no need to perform a massacre of civillians.
Yes i know what total war means, but using nuclear weapons is not justifiable.

To end a war that cost the number of lives that WW2 did, yes I guess that would be the case. However, Iran has already stated their intent to "wipe Israel off the map" and I hope that such a war never takes place again.


Israel has already said that they plan to use nuclear weapons on Iran (Oh wait, Israel be a bad country?, that's new :roll:)
So there should be no suprise of a retaliation from Iran.
If someone tries to attack, you always defend, unless you want to die.
So the focus should be on other countries such as Israel rather than Iran with it's no nuclear weapons.

So now you are complaining that the US hasn't nuked others? Its rather amusing in a sad way tbh that you cant see the difference between a "world war" and what is effectively a squabble by comparison


I never complained, i was just stating. As your logic is all over the place.
banned#39
DarkKnight
Why would it be? The US avoided more fighting by destroying two entire cities
They could have avoided more fighting in a war they was losing such as Vietnam, rather than risk sending troops into forests lined with traps.


Did you get the reference in my last post - that should answer your questions.:thumbsup:
banned#40
DarkKnight


How do you know millions would have died?
How would you know that the Japanese wasn't going to surrender soon anyway?
The Japanese were on their back foot, there was no need to perform a massacre of civillians.
Yes i know what total war means, but using nuclear weapons is not justifiable.



I hate using Wikipedia but I can't find the quote I was looking for.

On 30 June 2007, Japan's defense minister Fumio Kyuma said the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan by the United States during World War II was an inevitable way to end the war. Kyuma said "I now have come to accept in my mind that in order to end the war, it could not be helped (Shikata ga nai) that an atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki and that countless numbers of people suffered great tragedy." Kyuma, who is from Nagasaki, said the bombing caused great suffering in the city, but he does not resent the U.S. because it prevented the Soviet Union from entering the war with Japan.[26]

Nagasaki mayor Tomihisa Taue protested against Kyuma, and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe apologized over Kyuma's remark to Hiroshima A-bomb survivors.[27]
In the wake of the outrage provoked by his statements, Kyuma had to resign on 3 July.[28] However, the comments of Kyuma were almost similar to those made by Emperor Hirohito when, in his first ever press conference given in Tokyo in 1975, he was asked what he thought of the bombing of Hiroshima. Hirohito then answered : "It's very regrettable that nuclear bombs were dropped and I feel sorry for the citizens of Hiroshima but it couldn't be helped (Shikata ga nai) because that happened in wartime."[29]

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!