digg

Join DiggAbout
See the original image at telegraph.co.uk

Anniversary of Hiroshima [PICS]

telegraph.co.uk — At 8:15am on Monday 6 August 1945 a nuclear weapon nicknamed Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • crassus, on 08/06/2008, -48/+17america the great...
    • BXRWXR, on 08/06/2008, -7/+9I don't think that is one of anyone's prouder moments.
    • warlax27, on 08/06/2008, -4/+10BOOOOOOO!!!!!
    • britblogger, on 08/06/2008, -1/+17nice sacrasm, alas I don't feel the subject matter warrants it. Even I wouldn't stoop that low to take a shot at the Yanks.

    • anillop, on 08/06/2008, -7/+15They got what they deserved. Just ask the citizens of China, Korea, Thailand, Burma, Philippines, and other south east Asian countries occupied by Japan as well as the soldiers of the US, Brittan, and Australia who were POWs. They brought it on them selves. Is nuking them something to be proud of, No. Is it something we should be ashamed of, hell no.
      • Vodd9, on 08/06/2008, -9/+4Killing hundreds of thousands innocents civilians is, indeed, something that nobody should be ashamed of.
      • polalion, on 08/06/2008, -2/+4Vodd9 forgot his sarcasm tag and is getting buried for it.

        I'm from Singapore. One of the countries that was occupied by the Japanese until the nukes went down.

        It's true the Americans could have picked a better target, but what's done is done. It's no use talking about it all the time. Ever since everyone agreed on not using WMDs and hopefully nobody uses them again.

        Of course they could come out and apologise once and for all, like the Germans did. Because as far as I can remember they haven't. The only difference between them and the Nazis was the lack of discrimination (they'll kill anyone) and the magnitude.

        But they're the ones who got nuked, so...
      • sfacets, on 08/06/2008, -4/+3Killing soldiers is one thing. When you commit genocide...
      • slstudios, on 08/06/2008, -3/+2One day it might be us getting nuked... and someone will probably also make the same claim.
      • BabyWookie, on 08/06/2008, -1/+260% of the nuking victims were children. What the ***** did they ever do?
      • toshibu, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1"They" deserved the atomic bomb? "They" were civilians, ruled by an emperor. They didn't deserve anything. America, on the other hand, is a democracy. I don't see you blaming every American for crimes committed in Iraq.

        You sir, are the definition of hypocrisy, and the true (majority of) Americans are the victims of it.
  • yellowcakewalk, on 08/06/2008, -13/+47My uncle KIA the day before. :-(
    • rrife, on 08/06/2008, -15/+2Sucks to be a day late and one nuclear bomb short.
    • WELLDOITLIVE, on 08/06/2008, -11/+58My uncle HYUNDAI tomorrow
    • dshPls, on 08/06/2008, -1/+23My Grandfather was a WW2 vet who fought in the Battle of the Bulge(i loled), marched through Paris, and many other things I've now since forgot. After he died I really felt like I should have paid more attention to his stories, wrote them down or published some online... he had some good ones. Also for the record, he was extremely anti-war because he felt that no one should have to go through the hell he did.
      • kd1s, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2Back when I was a member of a local amateur radio group we had quite a number of vets from WW II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War in the group.

        Yes indeed, war is horrendous but even in that they found humor. They used to joke that in order to start a war you had to truck in mud.
      • slstudios, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2Most of those enamored by the idea of war have never truly experienced it.
    • MrErr, on 08/06/2008, -2/+5All deaths are sad even those who died because of the bomb.
    • jzuska, on 08/06/2008, -10/+4Drop that *****. Twice.
    • aznpwnzor, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2My grandpa was drafted by the Japanese since he was in Taiwan and ended up in near New Guinea for the whole war overseeing shipments and cooking.
    • russelbutt, on 08/06/2008, -0/+3i got to visit hiroshima and nagasaki a few years ago when my family was stationed overseas.. i saw the monument that marked the hypocentre, or ground zero.. all around there were still remnants of destroyed buildings.. it was moving.. a truly sad, and eye opening experience..
    • themastersb, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2Don't worry. He's on Rainbow Road now.
  • SammyStephens, on 08/06/2008, -49/+5***** you two of my friends died in hiroshima
    • SniperZero, on 08/06/2008, -4/+3Yeah Im sure. Guess what 3 of my friends died in hiroshima.
    • WordsnCollision, on 08/06/2008, -0/+16This meme has jumped the shark.
    • OffPiste, on 08/06/2008, -5/+3I have three PS3's.
    • liljay2k, on 08/06/2008, -4/+2I wish I could drop a Digg Down bomb on you, idiot.
  • quomen, on 08/06/2008, -21/+75While it's very sad that we had to drop nukes on innocent civilians, I have a hard time sympathizing with the Japanese because of what they've done to the Korean and Chinese. They tried to erase the collective identity of all of Korea and if it wasn't for the Japanese occupation, Korea would most likely have avoided the Korean War and be a unified country right now.
    • markgl, on 08/06/2008, -17/+40if we wouldn't have dropped those bombs we would've had to send millions of troops into mainland japan to fight and hundreds of thousands of american troops would've died. So dropping the bombs prevented anymore bloodshed of american and allied troops.
      • skeez86, on 08/06/2008, -3/+0because american blood is worth more than japanese blood right?
      • chrismurphy, on 08/07/2008, -2/+0Numerous historians say other wise. The Japanese would not have made it through the winter. And the emperor had been trying to negotiate an end to the war before the bombs were dropped. Truman wanted a demonstration to get the Soviets to back off; he insisted on unconditional surrender. All the Japanese wanted was for the emperor to avoid war crimes trial and being executed. Truman maintained demand for unconditional surrender. But ultimately the emperor wasn't tried and didn't face execution. The Japanese would have surrendered on that one point alone.

        So to suggest that atomic weapons had to be dropped on a civilian population is absurd. It is yet another example of state sponsored murder, and of state sponsored terrorism. Just like all acts of war are.

        And yes I have plenty of ***** to give to the Japanese who still to this day don't like to take responsibility for their role in the war, in particular treatment of Chinese and Koreans. But at least many Japanese leaders faced trials and were hanged for their crimes.
      • EnnuiStudent, on 08/07/2008, -3/+1I haven't heard anything so absurd. Prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs, the Americans managed to completely level several other civilian cities using non-nuclear weapons. The documentary "The Fog of War" covers this extensively.

        We simply used the bombs to prove that we can, while testing the most dangerous device on the planet on innocent civilians. To this very day, we're the ONLY country dangerous enough to use a nuclear weapon on other human beings...

        A proud first from America isn't it?
      • Scaryclouds, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2@all
        If we didn't use the bombs more Japanese would have died. By the time we dropped the bombs the Japanese were starving and many would had died of starvation and malnutrition related sicknesses by the time winter came. This is ignoring the fact we would had continued bombing Japan during this entire time resulting in even more deaths.
    • Tomchei, on 08/06/2008, -4/+20The Japanese military also treated American soldiers without accord to the Geneva Conventions.
      On the other hand, the German military treated soldiers in accord with the Third Geneva Convention of 1929.
    • JKAL, on 08/06/2008, -21/+8the US did not have to, the Emperor had already notified the US of a surrender, however the US wanted to show the world their power. have you ever wondered why they dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,? not Kyoto, Osaka, Tokyo, Okinawa? it is because US corporate interests where in those placed with well invested money, but they still needed to prove a point.

      I'm not saying the Japanese are innocent on what they did during their wars, however it is easy to stand on your side of the fence and justify yourself, however step out and look at the bigger picture.

      Do you wonder what the Iraqis or Afghans think about the US, with the US going in their raping pillaging all for THEIR own good? they see you the same way the Koreans would have seen the Japanese, but that does not mean it justifies a nuclear strike on the US, nothing does, nothing did & nothing ever will.
      • Ryvenn, on 08/06/2008, -3/+3They were going to surrender, but they wanted to surrender a bit later rather than sooner. The bombs sped the process up. Unnecessary, but I can't exactly feel sorry for Imperial Japan.

        It's like a football player running around the field shiving people with a push dagger then crying foul when he gets tripped.
      • rlh1, on 08/06/2008, -1/+12You had me until you mentioned Okinawa...............the Americans had already captured Okinawa. They had already fire bombed Tokyo into oblivion. Your grasp of things seems pretty slanted.
      • KJGJ, on 08/06/2008, -2/+2We didn't drop the bomb on Tokyo becuase the city had already been firebombed to the ground.
      • polalion, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2@Ryvenn

        I don't think you can really compare a nuke with a tackle.
      • Ryvenn, on 08/06/2008, -1/+1All I'm saying is that Japan committed genocide on a scale that would make some Nazis blush, just because they were a little browner, not many westerners know; but the casualties caused by the nukes and firebombings were absolutely nothing compared to what Japan unleashed on China and SE Asia.
    • trogdor282, on 08/06/2008, -2/+7I'm sure it saved lives. The only part I lament is that it set the precedent for the use of nukes in war. There were quite a few times the cold war almost wiped out humanity.
    • luckyguy2000, on 08/06/2008, -15/+12there is no excuse to drop nukes on civilians. period.
      do you think you would accept an excuse when someone would drop a nuke on your hometown while youre away for a short trip and all your family was still there?

      there is no excuse to make war on civilians alltogether. screw the governments, its the civilians who have to suffer.

      imagine theres war and noone cares.
      • sublime8510, on 08/06/2008, -6/+6Roles reversed...

        If the Japanese had control of Hawaii, and could nuke LA, they would have done so. Not because of the population density, but because of the manufacturing power and military interests.

        Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the same. They were valid military targets that just happened to be big residential cities (like any OTHER city in the world).

        The bombs saved lives (Japanese as well, not just American) by averting a US invasion of Japan which would have cost damn near 300-400 thousand lives easy.
      • Nintendesert, on 08/06/2008, -5/+4In total war, there are no civilians. The man building the death machine is every bit as legitimate a target as the man piloting it.
      • fuze44, on 08/06/2008, -3/+2They were not just civilians. They were all being trained to fight during the expected US invasion.
      • akeldama, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Luckyguy2000: Let's just be glad that you weren't the one calling the shots in WWII, period.
    • Relikh, on 08/06/2008, -4/+3Japan is also responsible for Mao's regime to take power and allowing communism to become the dominant power in China, not to mention the rape of NanJing and all that other good stuff.

      Even then, something about dropping nukes on civilians just rubs me the wrong way. No matter what Japan did, nuking them wasn't the right way to go. Imagine you sitting at home reading digg, then suddenly find out your entire family in Chicago died while you were away because some country was sick of Bush sticking his nose in their business. While the actions of some people represent a country, the actions of a country shouldn't represent its people. Killing innocents because their army killed innocents only doubles the blow on human lives and overall peace.
      • scubajim, on 08/06/2008, -4/+3Yeah, I guess because civilians were working in industrial factories to make munitions doesn't mean anything.
      • Rivfader, on 08/06/2008, -2/+5It's like in Starcraft when you attack your opponents scvs, probes, or drones. Those things are harmless except for the fact they are harvesting and building everything that is kicking your ass. So you take those ***** out and its GG.
      • Relikh, on 08/06/2008, -2/+1Yes, and all the teachers that educated the students. The mothers that raised all their children to make munitions. The elderly that gave anecdotes on the destruction of their opponents. The babies too young to have opinions but will some day probably end up making munitions for a war that is long over. The janitors that clean the toilets in the buildings where munitions are made. The grocery stores that sell vegetables to the people that make weapons. DAMN THEM ALL!!! Clearly everybody is 100% responsible and deserve to die.
      • Nintendesert, on 08/06/2008, -3/+3Like was said earlier, those "innocent" people are building the gears that power the war machine. They aren't innocent at all.

        But let's look at this from another perspective: the conventional firebombing of Japan killed many more people than the nuclear bombings did. So it wasn't as if a more brutal method of fighting war was unleashed, the technology of the time was of such a nature that mass bombings and casualties were already the norm.

        And another justification was simply this, an invasion of the mainland to exact a total surrender from the Japanese would have resulted in many more deaths, of both Allies and Japanese. Looking at Okinawa and the number of people that killed themselves, the civilians of Japan weren't just going to give up. They would have fought or killed themselves.

        Many more would have died. And the horrible aftermath, it let the world know just how bad this new technology was. Had we not truly known just how horrible nuclear weapons were, I think the Cold War would have seen some use of them which would have been even more devastating than those that ended WWII.
    • robfrye, on 08/06/2008, -3/+6In addition to wanting to end the war and avoiding a ground fight in Japan, we as a country had some other, less noble motivations with the A-bombs. We chose Hiroshima and Nagasaki because we had not firebombed those cities. We had invested billions in the bomb, and were looking for Return on Investment. Cities that had been firebombed would have yielded less destruction. Additionally, we had a national interest in preventing Russia from attacking Japan. The Russians were mobilized on the other side of the Sea of Japan and ready to initiate a ground war with the Japanese. The Russians were our allies, but nonetheless we didn't want them occupying Japan (stated reason: Communism) We needed the Japanese to surrender so that the Russians would not have a reason to invade.

      In the end, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both horrible moments in human history. Everyone on every side was wrong in some way.
    • MrErr, on 08/06/2008, -5/+4I think we put too much emphasis on killing the bad people instead of not killing the good. When we kill innocents we become as guilty as those we are trying to stop.
    • jinling, on 08/06/2008, -1/+5To see the kind of sick game and experiments that Japanese solders used to torture civilians:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAp8bSdE5MQ

      I don't want to see innocent civilians being killed, but Japan started this first.
      Japanese solders not only murdered innocent civilians during the war. They used some of the most disgusting methods of doing so. They raped girls as young as young as the age of 3, before killing them by spearing them from the vagina using a spear gun. They killed innocent boys and man by making a competititon of beheading them. They forced parents to watch while their child is being raped or tortured before being killed themselves. That is why Japan is still hated in those parts of Asia, where the older generation just would not forget what these people have done to them. I mean, just imagine one of your family member were killed this way... Its unimaginable.

      Japanese students still to this day do not learn the truth in their text books. They only learn of the "heroic" act that some of the war criminals did to bring "glory" to the Japanese empire. The Japanese even constructed shrines for these internationally convicted war criminals in order to glorify and warship them as gods.
    • IglooBurner, on 08/06/2008, -4/+2By killing their innocents to justify them killing our innocents puts you on the same level as the killers. What makes a human being a better person is his power to forgive, and that's the only way there will ever be peace.
    • BonersMilloy, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Don't forget The Rape of Nanking.
    • diggimator, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Japan virtually had no involvement in the post-WWII Korean War (there was one then top-secret mission taken by a Japanese fleet upon orders of the occupying US forces). While the Japanese military were indeed evil, the Japanese civilians were equally victims of war as much as any other country involved. It's not like the civilians had any choice: the military dictatorship wasn't a democracy back then like it is today. Many of the victims of the Atomic bombs were not treated properly because we didn't know as much about it as we do now. For example, people exposed to residual radiation after the flash were thought to be unharmed and went untreated.
  • SniperZero, on 08/06/2008, -26/+39It sucks it happened. Then again in times of war you really do have to do what you need to do to survive. (damn that sounds long)
    • Conseal, on 08/06/2008, -8/+7"..have to do what you need to do to survive."

      It was a terror bombing. You really can't disagree on that. Truman used civilian targets in order to force the Japanese surrender. That is the definition of terror bombing. Remember that in both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians.

      The fact that some Americans today see this massacre as a great historical achievement is not a good sign for future.
      • appleseed1234, on 08/06/2008, -3/+2Keep in mind that if we hadn't used them then, they would have inevitably been used later. If nuking Japan did anything at all, it prevented the Cold War from going hot.
      • huggablejunk, on 08/06/2008, -2/+1^^ Yeah, too bad we couldn't continue the war for another 5 years killing more of our soldiers. The Japanese were so tenacious and hellbent on destroying us, this was the only viable method to get their attention.
    • repins, on 08/06/2008, -1/+1Conseal all the bombings in WW2 had very large civilian collateral damage the bombs where very inaccurate so carpet bombing was an acceptable tactic. Also if you want to talk about terror bombings in WW2 look up Dresden and Tokyo where the allies specifically used incindiary devices to start fires and basically burned cities to the gound. Those killed more people that one atomic bomb did and no seems to remember that.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_W ...
      " Approximately 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city were destroyed and some 100,000 people are estimated to have died in the resulting firestorm, more than the immediate deaths of either Hiroshima or Nagasaki."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in ...
    • bazzoola, on 08/06/2008, -3/+1Just kill everyone you know.. it's war anyway. wtf. what makes you better than a terrorist then?
      • SniperZero, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1In wartimes everyone is a fkn terrorist you idiot.

        I'll let you imagine what would have happened if the bombing never took place.
      • bazzoola, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0I can tell from your nickname who's the idiot you stupid war mofo
  • JimmySpaza, on 08/06/2008, -46/+41If the Japanese didn't want their cities destroyed, then they shouldn't have started wars. And how many of those "innocent" civilians worked in factories to help the Japanese army and navy invade, rape, pillage, kill, and destroy other countries? What goes around, comes around. Deal.
    • jackspayed, on 08/06/2008, -16/+6aaaand what sector of the military industrial complex do YOU work for?

      oh wait - you're from florida - nevermind (roll)
      • Evilena, on 08/06/2008, -2/+9See why I have to ridicule you Jimmy. I am sick of people like you, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and the Scientologists making people think that everyone from Florida is an idiot.
      • ieee, on 08/06/2008, -1/+3Just be thankful you aren't from Texas, they have a larger stigma to overcome.
      • Evilena, on 08/06/2008, -1/+3The dumber Bush brother was their Governor. They have The Alamo, we have Disney World. We have South Beach, they have Giant Jeans with "Everything is bigger in Texas" written across the ass.
      • ieee, on 08/06/2008, -0/+3Austin is an island of cool and I've met some nice people from Texas. As far as stereotypes go I see Texas as backward and violent.
    • Evilena, on 08/06/2008, -7/+14For once I can agree with you Jimmy. Or at least part of what you say. My grandfather was a Pacific World War II hero. He was scheduled to be in the first wave of troops to attack Japanese mainland. If those bombs were not dropped, I never would have been born. I hope that doesn't change your mind on this issue.

      Evilena Born July 16th - (Astrology sign: Trinity Blast)
      http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008 ...

      • ieee, on 08/06/2008, -0/+3My uncle was a foot soldier in the European theater who expected to be transferred to the Pacific.
    • rrife, on 08/06/2008, -4/+10I kind of agree. When they decided to attack us they'd have to know that we'd retaliate and their cities would be bombed and a lot of their civilians would have died. Did they expect us to just roll over and surrender after bombing pearl harbor?
      • JimmySpaza, on 08/06/2008, -4/+1Yes, that is what they were hoping for. I guess the limp-wristed more liberal politicians at the time somehow gave them that impression. Same thing today with the Islamic countries and their support of Obama.
      • BlackBob, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2What happened there Jimmy, are you feeling too lazy to type Hussein Obama this time?
      • toshibu, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1They expected you to act like a civilized people the world thought you were. Boy were they surprised, huh?
    • SEANWOOKIE, on 08/06/2008, -8/+1Just tell that to the children that died.
      • Evilena, on 08/06/2008, -1/+11Ok, How?
      • ieee, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2SeanWookie;

        I recommend that you read the history of the post WW 1 world. You will see that there were no innocent players involved on a national level. Everybody was antagonizing everyone else at some point.

        The only innocents were the civilian populations of all of the countries involved. WW 2 was the first war to take the level of death among civilians to the new and modern level.

        In regards to innocent children you should also add to your history reading list the conduct of Japan in China and Korea during WWII. The Nazis could have taken lessons from them and many of the victims were children.

        Then there are theAmerican orphans of Pearl Harbor and WWII in general

    • petebot, on 08/06/2008, -9/+20So if the tables were turned, and some Saddam loyalist had dropped a nuclear bomb on, say, Houston, that would be OK, because those people were contributing to the war effort? You ***** idiot, I can't believe your daft, ridiculous, logic-defying nonsense. Civilians do not deserve to be killed in war. period.
      • JigoroKano, on 08/06/2008, -4/+9If a military aggressor is starting wars, building an empire, and in the process raping, murdering, and torturing thousands of innocent civilians in the most brutal manners imaginable such as bayoneting infants and dissecting live human beings...

        if said country has prime locations consisting of military shipping, factories, and bases, which are surrounded by civilians of varying degrees of innocence...

        then why should one be expected "be honorable" and let more of their own soldiers die in a land invasion as opposed to bombing those targets.

        I live by a U.S. military base and if it was bombed tomorrow I personally don't believe I'd have the right to complain.
      • DemonWasp, on 08/06/2008, -2/+13But this argument can be used to justify anything; consider:

        1. The US has repeatedly used its economic and military power to exert control over as much of the world as possible, with special emphasis on the Middle East and the oil reserves there. This has resulted in thousands of deaths, with the US as the aggressor.
        2. Without their economic power, the US would be unable to inflict this on the citizens of the Middle East.
        3. By destroying the World Trade Center, the US economy would be severely handicapped.
        4. Since destroying the means of production is sufficient cause to attack civilians, the 9/11 assault on the World Trade Center is justified. By your logic, nobody should have any right to complain about that, either.

        Do you see how your logic leads to a very dangerous slippery-slope problem?
      • Ryvenn, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1How about "If the tables were turned and Japan was attacking the mainland USA."

        They WOULD commit genocide as they DID to many other nations. Japan got off very lightly for the crimes it committed.
      • JigoroKano, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2The U.S. also requires air and water to commit atrocities. But that air and water isn't created or refined for the express purpose of military aggression.

        The vast majority of the people in the WTC have nothing to do with the U.S. military, military industrial complex, etc. And nor do they choose to live in close proximity to such things.

        I simply don't follow your logic.
    • EBFoxbat, on 08/06/2008, -2/+1*That's* the reason wars are bad?
    • jinling, on 08/06/2008, -1/+4The Japanese brutally murdered and raped millions of people in Asia. Although I still feel sorry for the innocent children who were killed, Japan got what they deserved. The sad thing is, even today, the Hiroshima's museum of peace mentions mostly Japanese victims of the atomic bombing and very little of the war crimes that Japan has committed during the war.

      US President Truman said after the bombs were dropped :
      "Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.

      To see a sample of what kind of crimes Japanese have committed during the war see:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoW2WYdOsvg (Rape of Nanking)
      • petebot, on 08/06/2008, -1/+2The Japanese MILITARY brutally murdered and raped millions of people in Asia.

        Fixed.
      • JimmySpaza, on 08/06/2008, -3/+2@ Petebot

        No, many non-military Japanese, including government officials and civilians, helped murder and rape millions of people. Countless sex slaves were sent back to Japan, yes?
  • OffPiste, on 08/06/2008, -19/+6When you care enough to send the very best... say it with uranium.
  • mattcarreiro, on 08/06/2008, -11/+16makes you wonder who will be the next one to drop the bomb and who it will be against
    • petebot, on 08/06/2008, -2/+9No, no it doesn't. At the time, America didn't need to fear repercussions from anyone because no one else had the bomb. Now, several nations (many of them enemies) have the bomb. If any of them drop it, they will face retaliation from someone else. You might as well drop a nuclear bomb on yourself.
      • sfacets, on 08/06/2008, -1/+3...And then America went on and tried to force everyone to sign the non-proliferation treaty. What a joke.
    • toshibu, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1and who will be justifying it (hint: not the same justifying the japanese ones here)
  • jackspayed, on 08/06/2008, -16/+24damn these weapons - damn them all to hell!
  • MaynardKx, on 08/06/2008, -21/+52I guess joining forces with Hitler wasn't such a good idea.
    • warlax27, on 08/06/2008, -2/+9GG SUCKERS!
    • Mier, on 08/06/2008, -2/+4Just so you know, because the Japanese attacked first the axis treaty forced Germany to declare war. It was decided later at a conference of the allied powers that Germany would be defeated before going after Japan.
      • diggimator, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Nazi Germany already invaded Poland and bombed London before Pearl Harbor. Unless you are referring to something else. Nazi invasion of Poland is usually considered the start of WWII.
      • Mier, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0I'm speaking of the American entry into WW2.
    • nycmac247, on 08/06/2008, -1/+1LOL Stalin (our ally) killed a hell of a lot more than Hitler
  • Mier, on 08/06/2008, -28/+62Here come the armchair hippies to scream how we should never have done it. Well if it hadn't then I wonder how many fewer hippies of the baby boom we'd have since their daddy would have died on the landing beaches.
    • jackspayed, on 08/06/2008, -11/+1the landing beaches where? Normandy? Nope - that was in June... Iwo Jima? Cant be - that was March... Okinawa? No - March till June...

      you see where I'm going with this?
      • markgl, on 08/06/2008, -2/+21no not really. he means the mainland japan invasion that would've occured if we had not dropped the bombs and ended the war.
      • woodrow8292, on 08/06/2008, -0/+11Yes we see that you have no understanding of history since he was talking about the invasion of Japan that was inevitable since up to the dropping of the bombs the Japanese had no intentions of surrender. So the invasion of Japan would have occurred and probably cost more lives than those other beach landings.
      • BetterOffEd, on 08/06/2008, -0/+4I think Mier means that we (the U.S.) avoided a vast multitude of American casualties by simply dropping two atom bombs directly on those cities instead of forging a direct infantry attack on Japan like we did at Normandy.
      • BetterOffEd, on 08/06/2008, -0/+3Hahaha.... I love how all three of us jumped all over this poor guy at almost exactly the same time. Probably just a case of misunderstanding, but his tone kinda sucked...

        "you see where I'm going with this?"

        .
    • petebot, on 08/06/2008, -5/+7Or how many fewer armchair generals we'd have.
    • EntropyFan, on 08/06/2008, -2/+8Many people who say 'we never should have done it' look at the event with post-cold war eyes, knowing what the a-bomb currently represents. The overtones of Armageddon, the end of humanity.
      At the time, it was considered just another 'really big' bomb. When reports of radiation sickness and other effects started spreading, US scientists thought the Japanese were lying. It wasn't until they got their own people on the ground that the understood what was happening.

      Another thing to consider is the death toll from firebombing Tokyo(http://tinyurl.com/dfblm). We were already devastating huge civilian areas. We had also done so in Germany. They don't call it 'total war' because you show restraint.
    • JKAL, on 08/06/2008, -8/+2this comes from an arm chair war monger, if you are so righteous and pro-war, why aren't you there right now in the middle east?
      That is because you can not stand by your own words, you are chicken *****.
    • X9001, on 08/06/2008, -1/+1I know I likely wouldn't be here. They were about to deploy the first Porta Rican soldiers when they decided to drop the bomb so they got called back and discharged(so my Grand father never got a chance to fight)
    • LeeSoong, on 08/06/2008, -1/+3Just think:

      In an alternate time line, Germany invented the Atomic bomb first, and the USA lost, badly.

      I'm just saying - you can't blame the Victor for their victory,

      If the tables had turned a different way - the USA could have lost badly and the world would be very, very different from the one we know today.

      Think of no USSR, no Vietnam and no Korean war, no E.U. and no U.N. and Iraq and Iran wouldn't have even existed anymore - all the land and oil would belong to the Axis powers.

      WW-2 proved an age old point:
      In all major wars, having a superior technological edge over the opponent is most desirable.

      Fundimentalists want to destroy science education in the USA and replace it with Bible studies.

      They never stop for a moment to realize the USA only exists because of the science and technology that put it ahead of Native American weapons, English 'line-up and get shot' battle tactics, and continual scientific and technological advances in crop production, medical care, industry, transportation, and the military.

      Even the Internet has its roots founded in the American Military, to build a redundant and robust global communications system that would be hard to shut down with a single attack.

      Looking back at WW-1 and WW-2, the United States and every country should learn to see the seeds of war, and how to pluck out the strangling vines of conflict - long before a major nation destroying battle takes place.

      Peaceful cooperation is more enjoyable than the death and destruction of burning cities.

    • sfacets, on 08/06/2008, -1/+2What are you going on about? Not everyone here is American, or a Hippy. We're still telling you that it was F*ed up.
    • BabyWookie, on 08/06/2008, -1/+1"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."

      -Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower

      More quotes:

      "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." - Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz

      "The use of the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." - Admiral William D. Leahy

      "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." -The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey

      There's plently more too.
  • happystatic, on 08/06/2008, -6/+12why didnt they surrender after the first bomb was dropped?
    • mickstephenson, on 08/06/2008, -3/+7Because they were worried they'd have to stand trial for war crimes?
      • northernmunky, on 08/06/2008, -1/+2The united nations wasn't formed until after WWII, and the international criminal court wasn't formed until well after that. (which the U.S. still isn't accountable to!)
      • mickstephenson, on 08/06/2008, -1/+1Japanese leaders did stand trial which lead to 149 executions, so I fail to see how your comment is relevant.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Militar ...
    • fpigulski, on 08/06/2008, -6/+5good question. some people say it's because the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war. rather, the japanese surrendered because of the soviet invasion of their territory.
      • FolkTheory, on 08/06/2008, -1/+1no no, the soviet WOULD have taken most of north japan IF america hadn't ended the war abruptly by using the bombs, so in a way japan is one country nowadays thanks to the bombs instead of north and south japan like korea, and how vietnam was for a while and also east/west germany.
      • fpigulski, on 08/06/2008, -1/+1A) I'd like you to find a Japanese person that is willing to say they're glad the US used nukes.

        B) The Japanese surrendered because of the Soviet invasion so they wouldn't be split. Watch this video--this presentation made me believe.

        http://www.newamerica.net/events/2008/rethinking_n ...
    • VideoHost1, on 08/06/2008, -2/+6No honor in giving up
      • hammerpants, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1No honor in what they did at Pearl Harbor either. Many Japanese feel ashamed of that attack. The army lost their honor long before WWII.
    • JorgeGT, on 08/06/2008, -3/+14Because they thought "maybe the US just had one bomb". When they saw they had more than one, and was capable of producing more, they gave up.
    • Shivetya, on 08/06/2008, -1/+3they actually weren't planning on surrender after the second.

      It was only after guaranteeing that the emperor would still be there that they did. Even in the end they were quite willing to sacrifice millions to maintain some deluded form of honor
      • kiffar, on 08/06/2008, -0/+4Actually they were planning on surrendering BEFORE the first bomb was dropped. There were talks to actually overthrow the emperor to keep fighting.
  • Whorebane, on 08/06/2008, -10/+53Nuclear launch detected.
  • Erythroxylum, on 08/06/2008, -8/+1People were critical of me when I mowed down all of those little boys in my car. Look at the devastation they can cause. Now who's a 'very dangerous sociopath'?

    • marvin69, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2By 'mowed down' you really mean 'put my little penis in'.
      • Erythroxylum, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1That's weird. I could've sworn I really meant 'mowed down'. But, I've been wrong before, so maybe you're right. Thanks for the clarification.
  • mk3k, on 08/06/2008, -3/+14Firebombings were just as deadly. We would have firebombed them if we didn't have nukes back then, the result would have been much the same just more plains and bombs.
    • marvin69, on 08/06/2008, -1/+7firebombs are much more devastating than the nuke we had back then.
      Just ask anyone from Nuremberg or Tokyo.
    • Ryvenn, on 08/06/2008, -0/+4Very true. Firebombing is much more deadly, but an effective firebombing needs a lot of bombers.

      Not so for the A bomb.
    • LeeSoong, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2Many European cities were devastated by Carpet Bombing in World War 2:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombardment#Worl ...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpet_bombing

      Conventional weapons could have had the same end result as the atomic bomb - it would have just taken longer to fight it out - probably with the loss of several cities, instead of just two attacks.

    • nhansen, on 08/06/2008, -0/+4Firebombing Tokyo is believed to have signaled the beginning of the end - and many believe (including Robert McNamara who was Sec. of Defense for Kennedy and Johnson, and who was there at the Tokyo firebombing) that it was only a matter of time before the Japanese surrendered, and that the delay was simply because of the forthcoming cultural shift that would take place (emperor no longer a "god").

      Many believe Truman should have been patient. 100,000 civilians were burned in their sleep with a million or more injured and homeless when Tokyo was firebombed in 1945. Sorry, but the US hasn't suffered anything near as devastating. Had the US not won the war, Truman would have been tried for war crimes. It all depends on which side of victory you're on. Hindsight's a bizatch.
  • welliwonder, on 08/06/2008, -18/+13Happy Anniversary!
    • adamchristopher, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2kind of a twatty remark but it reminded me of when i visited japan a few years back. i remember seeing american families gathering up and posing in front of the ruins and landmarks, all smiling. it gave me an odd feeling.
  • yosserhughes, on 08/06/2008, -15/+87"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." DWIGHT EISENHOWER

    "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan." ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY

    "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul." HERBERT HOOVER

    "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, .... he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR

    "...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs." BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE

    http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm




    • marvin69, on 08/06/2008, -10/+22"We shale fight to the very last man, woman and child" Japanese Emperor "living god"

      The bombs were as much to stop the Japanese it was as it was to stop the Red Army from running over the whole of Asia, including Japan. Russian saw we had nukes and not just one. If Russian would have taken over Japan they would have made the rape at Nanking look like a picnic and the Bataan death march feel like a nice afternoon stroll.
      • xerexes1, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2It was the Japanese Emperor that pushed for peace. His generals wanted to keep on fighting even after both nukes were dropped.
    • JKAL, on 08/06/2008, -5/+19thank you! at last someone with common sense.
    • bmcnally, on 08/06/2008, -7/+3Hoover wasn't president. Truman was. So the fact that Hoover was against it has no bearing on anything.
    • pathouston22, on 08/06/2008, -7/+6"The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

      Had the US agreed? We didn't start that war, so its not up to us to agree to ANYTHING. They want the war over, they accept our terms.
    • Orgrimmar, on 08/06/2008, -0/+3"When I asked General MacArthur...." -General Douglas MacArthur

      So either General MacArthur spoke to himself while refering to himself in the third person.... or your quote is unresearched and *****.

      I'm going to have to go with *****.

      Do your homework.
    • defaria, on 08/06/2008, -1/+0***** 'em. They had it coming. People forget that they were responsible for Pearl Harbor. If they didn't want their people being killed then they should have refrained from killing others first.
      • yosserhughes, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2"People forget that they were responsible for Pearl Harbor."

        Not often you're right, but you're wrong this time. The women and children in both cities were not responsible for the attack.

        Yours is the logic of Bin Ladin and Al Quida: It's OK to perpetrate any barbaric act on the civilian population of a country you are at war with, any act of terror, any amount of mass killings is justified in the name of war, right?.
    • BabyWookie, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." -The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey
  • loobis, on 08/06/2008, -10/+22My dad was in WWII in the South Pacific (He had me very late in life). He was scheduled to be among the first waves to land in Japan, so I, along with many other children of returning soldiers, surely wouldn't be here right now if this didn't happen (I'm not egotistical to use this as justification, I'm just saying...)

    Anyway, the whole thing sucked. I know that my dad saw things done to captured American soldiers that he was never really able to get over. Likewise, I'm sure that he did things he wasn't proud of. The only good thing you can really say about the bomb is at least it ended everything. It's just too bad that it came to that.
    • toshibu, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Before you say such indecent things, think of the children who were not born yet but are seriously handicapped today because of the radiation. Your reaction might be: "not my fault," and you'd be correct. With a little altruism you'll extend that feeling to those Japanese still suffering today: what the imperial rulers of their fathers did was not their fault.

      The best way to remember your father is to exalt his heroism--he was true selfless hero in a time of world imperialism--and stop there. I dugg you up though, as the line is fine and your intentions were innocent.
  • nastronomical, on 08/06/2008, -19/+8Liberal revisionist cowards in 3...2...1
    • rrife, on 08/06/2008, -4/+2Everybody knows that the day the bomb was dropped Japan was planning on stopping their offensive operations the very next day and they were going to give back all of the land they took, give up their weapons and become a peaceful nation. They were even planning on bring back the dead and replacing all of the property they damaged or destroyed.
    • JKAL, on 08/06/2008, -4/+3Conservative cowards writing from behind a keyboard... put your money where you mouth is, if you are so pro-war, what are you still doing typing comments.
  • JimmyIkon, on 08/06/2008, -0/+22Good hi-res image of Hiroshima today.

    http://flickr.com/photos/nabin/2388999721/sizes/l/

    • NippleNutz, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2I'm confused. Was there no fallout? Or did the radiation dissipate very quickly?
      • z95headhunter, on 08/06/2008, -1/+10It only takes around 2 weeks for radiation levels to fall to safe levels.
    • fety, on 08/06/2008, -1/+2hey look the buildings are still standing. It was all a lie!!
  • narupo, on 08/06/2008, -20/+3But the next country to get nuked will be
    .




    USA.
  • xsecretfiles, on 08/06/2008, -12/+6Was it ever confirmed whether or not the nuclear blast gave them Super Powers?
    • polalion, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1It gave them giant boobs and anime.
    • xerexes1, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1No, but the radiation did give thousands of people cancer.
  • tokkio, on 08/06/2008, -1/+8This is about a solemn gallery associated with the anniversary of the atomic bomb. The peace memorial is about the devastation of war and the costs of waging it. No one is asking for any of your pity, sympathy or justifications; so I don't know why so many people are chiming in on it. It's a glimpse at our history and what we are capable of.
  • BetterOffEd, on 08/06/2008, -5/+1Was Seth MacFarlane in the crew of the Enola Gay?

    (Image 4 of 10, center)

    .
  • Oddog, on 08/06/2008, -13/+17one of the worst and insane thing a human brain can conceive.. stop nuclear weapons, now
    • JorgeGT, on 08/06/2008, -7/+11Maybe we should go back to swords, so we can fight those "10.000 killed this hour" old school, face to face battles. Nuclear deterrent is what prevents major countries from attacking each other. There can't be victory now, that's why there's no big wars.
      • xerexes1, on 08/06/2008, -1/+2Yeah, it's been doing a bang up job for the last 60 years.
      • bagelmaster, on 08/06/2008, -0/+3It really has when you stop and think about it. Look how many people died in Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf and in the Iraq War compared to WWI and WWII.
      • toshibu, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1That only works if everyone (not just a few) have the deterrent. Otherwise it ends up as just another means for imperialism.
  • jjohnstn, on 08/06/2008, -16/+10Fact is, dropping the atomic bombs prevented even more lives from being lost, both American servicemen and Japanese soldiers and civilians.

    Operation Downfall was the Allied plan for the invasion of Japan. It consisted of two sub-plans, Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet. The combined losses would have amounted to 400-800,000 dead U.S. servicemen and 5-10 million Japanese dead.

    By contrast, the combined dead resulting from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb drops was approximately 220,000.

    • JKAL, on 08/06/2008, -8/+5The REAL fact is, if the US had not wanted to invade and control Japan, then there would be no need to have an operation Downfall.
      This whole justification about how it prevented more deaths is only true if the US wanted to control Japan.
      If they did not then there is no justification, they could have just left.
      • jjohnstn, on 08/06/2008, -1/+4So the Normandy invasion was also unjustified?

        It's called war -- and you fight until the enemy is wiped out or surrenders. Your view is very naive.

      • bagelmaster, on 08/06/2008, -1/+3I remember this one time when they bombed one of our harbors and then were so unwilling to surrender completely that they drove their own planes and pilots into our navy ships. It wasn't really a choice. Control Japan completely or lose the war.
  • dwright99, on 08/06/2008, -8/+13America is on the karma list for this to be sure. Funny how easily we dismiss the lives of tens of thousands of innocents. Reminds of some old war monger I know who justifies all things war like and violent and cried for a week when his pet parrot died.
    • xsecretfiles, on 08/06/2008, -1/+7You mean the whole Democratic congress at the time?
      • SteveCUBE, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2Look beyond meaningless "parties," you might learn something.
    • rrife, on 08/06/2008, -1/+4You're forgetting the millions of innocents that also died before the tens of thousands.
    • thedogfatherx, on 08/06/2008, -6/+1***** off pussy.
  • radiantstorm, on 08/06/2008, -11/+7Heartbreaking. We've got to wake up. This type of crime is NOT a real manifestation of human nature.
    • Erythroxylum, on 08/06/2008, -0/+12Yeah, it's just an anomaly. The rest of humanity has been spent hugging and playing the bongos.
    • tufftugg, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1 It is written:

      For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.
  • andyb747, on 08/06/2008, -4/+8I am still surprised but very grateful that the Japanese people don't hold this against us to this day and that we live in peace with them.
    • z95headhunter, on 08/06/2008, -6/+5Hold, what? They were the aggressors, its not like we just nuked them for the hell of it.
      • Yuusaku, on 08/06/2008, -1/+2We did nuke them for the hell of it. We were just trying to show off our power to the Russians, and as others previously mentioned, the war could've been ended sooner, and by other means.
      • mk3k, on 08/06/2008, -1/+1@ Yuu
        Cold war started after that, during reconstruction.
    • Patrickdnj, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1Well, It is the same thing as we not holding a grudge (hopefully) against them for Pearl Harbor.
    • Ryvenn, on 08/06/2008, -1/+1Oh my god... Did I just hear you say that?

      Do you have any idea what Japan did in WW2?

      Do you realise the scale of genocide Japan committed in China, Korea and SE Asia?

      Will WE ever forgive THEM for EATING our ***** soldiers!?
    • toshibu, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1That pacifist generation of Japanese after the war embodied the spirit of Jesus Christ more than those war-mongering "deep-South Bible-thumpers" that got Bush elected ever will.
  • FlyCO, on 08/06/2008, -4/+13it's hard to say if the use of nuclear power in Japan was needed or not, there are no "ifs" in history. But I can't help to think killing 200k civilians was tremendous act of douchbaggery
    • Seidoger, on 08/06/2008, -3/+4It ended World War II but it also started the United States being the world's first power.
      (And well incidentally the Americans citizen started to think they're all it, getting soft-acting and obese)

    • Depravo, on 08/06/2008, -2/+4It certainly makes the 911 attack pale into insignificance.
      • richiewrt, on 08/06/2008, -4/+5No, it really doesn't. 9/11 was a sneak attack by a stateless terror group who was not involved in an active war with the US.
    • thedogfatherx, on 08/06/2008, -4/+3I don't see what's so hard to understand. It ended World War II. If the bombs were not dropped there would have been a much higher number of deaths then what the bomb did. There is no douchbaggery here. War is war. There is nothing pretty about it. Civilians are going to die in every war. Also, there is a great number of those civilians that were not so much innocent.
  • Skurt, on 08/06/2008, -8/+2I would hate to be the only White guy in that crowd...



    /just sayin.
  • xtrainsomnia, on 08/06/2008, -3/+11why on innocent civilians?!

    • VideoHost1, on 08/06/2008, -6/+8They were training for a ground invasion. Even the women and children were learning hand to hand combat. It would have been a mess either way. Just less Americans had to die.
      • xtrainsomnia, on 08/06/2008, -2/+0right.. 5 years old hand to hand combat invasion.. they have deserved nuclear bombs !!
      • Adrnshw6, on 08/06/2008, -0/+5There was a History Channel special on this and the Japanese government basically told everyone that American soldiers were horrible and would rape/murder everyone they saw. So, if we had invaded, many of those civilians wouldn't have been so innocent and we would be fighting an entire country, not just their army.
  • godfly, on 08/06/2008, -6/+1if not for the bombings, the japanese wouldnt have fascination to all things exploding and anime could have been very boring. imaging dragon ball-z without mountains getting incinirated, entire cities destroyed, tentacles...
  • NippleNutz, on 08/06/2008, -1/+13Comments from the navigator that dropped the bomb

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,368433, ...

    And the pilot

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/06/nuclea ...
    • gweller, on 08/06/2008, -2/+1Great articles. I especially like the attitude of the pilot in the 2nd one. All of the heart bleeding for civilians during war is what makes them go on forever these days.
    • sfacets, on 08/06/2008, -3/+1The biggest murderers in history.
  • rrife, on 08/06/2008, -6/+1Wonder if they'd be offended if I bought a billboard advertisement in Hiroshima that just said "POWNED!".
  • BetterOffEd, on 08/06/2008, -1/+12The *original* weapons of mass destruction?
  • britblogger, on 08/06/2008, -2/+2I was moved by the first few shots, very poignant indeed.

    The shots of the smiling Enola Gay crew didn't do much good for the tone of the subject however. More shots of the present day Hiroshima would have been far more respectful.
  • a65bugman, on 08/06/2008, -1/+10I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.

    J. Robert Oppenheimer
  • PsychoticX, on 08/06/2008, -6/+1n00b shoulda ran
  • andyb747, on 08/06/2008, -4/+4Warning Graphic Image:

    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/RM1.US.HIROSHIMA2 ...

    No additional comment necessary..............
    • HarryBauzonia, on 08/06/2008, -3/+18That looks a lot like Nanking after the Japanese left.
      ...or Manila after the Japanese left.
      ...or Singapore after the Japanese left.
      ...or Hong Kong after the Japanese left.
      ...or any Allied POW camp after the Japanese left.
      • hammerpants, on 08/06/2008, -0/+8Yeah, I think, "additional comment necessary."
      • cthielen, on 08/06/2008, -2/+1Let's not place blame and just agree as a human race that any violent act is uncivilized, detrimental, opposed to the progression of our collective spirit and should never be tolerated under any circumstances. I don't care what aggressions have occurred in the past, no living creature stays within the realm of their intellect when they decide to act against another.
      • Ryvenn, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Violence is a genetically integrated form of population control.
  • dorkino, on 08/06/2008, -9/+4don't most anniversaries that make the news usually end up being multiples of 5? like 25th or 30th

    whats up with this 63rd anniversary being significant *****?

    must be a slow news day
  • poidh, on 08/06/2008, -4/+2Player1: watch out! ur hydras! move em quick!!11
    Player2: fuk. where? oh ***** 2 l8. go drop ur siegetanks and gols on his exp.

    etc.
  • NikoKun, on 08/06/2008, -0/+5A few years back, I went to Japan around this time of year, spent 3 weeks in the Hiroshima area.
    The peace park is a powerful memorial...

    And it's a weird feeling, having been to the places in the pictures.
    • nepidae, on 08/06/2008, -0/+0I was able to spend a few days in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I recommend seeing one or both if people have a chance to go to Japan.

      I agree about the weird feeling :)
  • brokerjoker, on 08/06/2008, -2/+10strange that common media (and also this article) tells that "the bomb was dropped on hiroshima" and makes it sound as if was some higher, secret and unavoidable mechanism dropping it.
    although this is not wrong, it misses one simple, but important fact: the USA dropped the bomb on hiroshima. i don't want to argue about the why and what, but this is a simple fact and i heard three different news today, all missing this fact.

    strange, isn't it?
    • nepidae, on 08/06/2008, -0/+0Who doesn't know the bomb was dropped by the USA? In fact a majority of the people alive in the US were either young or not alive when it happened.
  • Ryvenn, on 08/06/2008, -8/+3It was unnecessary but I can't exactly feel sorry for Imperial Japan.

    It's like a football player running around the field shiving people with a push dagger then crying foul when he gets tripped.
    • thedogfatherx, on 08/06/2008, -1/+2Please explain why it was unnecessary?
    • Ryvenn, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1They were already surrendering. They were just stalling for time.
    • toshibu, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1"when he gets tripped"
      ... when his fans in the stadium (heck, just the audience in general) all get punched out--and their future children too.

      Fixed.
  • zadadka, on 08/06/2008, -0/+3Couldn't help but hear OMD's "Enola Gay" in my head as I read ....
  • thedogfatherx, on 08/06/2008, -11/+2Silly Japanese. Should of never bombed Pearl Harbor or allied with Germany.
    • Price, on 08/06/2008, -2/+3Yes, because the Japanese civilian population had a choice in who they went to war with and didn't have to follow any orders. I'm sure they all wanted their families to go off to war and be slaughtered by a far superior military force, instead of just... Giving up.
    • Ryvenn, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1Japan could have won in the Pacific. It's not so much about the quality of US soldiers but rather the US needed ships to attack and the Imperial Navy was formidable. It was a more fragile victory than it seems now.
  • bmcnally, on 08/06/2008, -3/+17It's funny: people don't realize that we killed a hell of a lot more civilians in the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo. Think a nuclear blast is bad? Imagine a fire so large that it creates massive winds, sucking back fleeing people into its inferno. You stay alive long enough to see your family burned alive. The worst part about Dresden: it was largely unneeded as Germany was about to fall.
    Tokyo was slightly different, but you figure a paper city + firebombs is going to be very bad.
  • bmcnally, on 08/06/2008, -8/+3It's funny: people don't realize that we killed a hell of a lot more civilians in the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo. Think a nuclear blast is bad? Imagine a fire so large that it creates massive winds, sucking back fleeing people into its inferno. You stay alive long enough to see your family burned alive. The worst part about Dresden: it was largely unneeded as Germany was about to fall.
    Tokyo was slightly different, but you figure a paper city + firebombs is going to be very bad.
  • Ryvenn, on 08/06/2008, -3/+8Okay, that last (no 10) image did it for me.

    I still don't feel sorry for Imperial Japan, but I do feel that the bombs never should have been dropped. Kids just like those in the last images were killed in the bombings. They did not send Imperial Japan to war and they had no power to end it.

    Not so much a statement against the Atomic bombings but rather, civilians never should have been bombed in the first place. So much for modern man becoming more civilised.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 81 of 81 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.