Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,647 Year: 4,904/9,624 Month: 252/427 Week: 62/103 Day: 6/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Was the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan Justified?
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1110 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 80 of 140 (623990)
07-15-2011 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Rahvin
07-14-2011 8:09 PM


Re: my unstudied view of the situation
1) the discussion of whether hostilities should have continued at all in anticipation of a possible immanent Japanese surrender is a separate discussion from whether nuclear weapons should have been used. Immanent surrender is equally a justification to forestall an invasion just as much as it is against the use of nuclear weapons.
To be fair, the topic of the thread is 'Was the use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan Justified', and the arguments given in the opening post all essentially rest on the imminent surrender of Japan. I'd say the discussion as to whether nuclear weapons or invasion were the preferable option is a secondary issue. The more important question is whether an invasion would have been necessary, had nuclear weapons not been used. I've got no idea, personally, but it seems to me that this is the question that should be settled first.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Rahvin, posted 07-14-2011 8:09 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by dronestar, posted 07-15-2011 11:06 AM caffeine has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024