1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Poll: 3 to 1 say Bombing Hiroshima/Naga was the right thing to do

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Little-Acorn, Aug 4, 2009.

  1. Little-Acorn

    Little-Acorn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    The most worrisome conclusion to draw from this poll, is that 22% of Americans say we should have gone on fighting instead, losing half a million more American lives by invading the Japanese mainland (plus a million or more Japanese lives), to come to the same conclusion: Allied victory and finally an end to the fighting.

    A million and a half more deaths, is what that 22% wanted before we ended the war.

    ------------------------------------------

    http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51999

    By Nearly 3-1 Margin, Americans Say It Was Right To Drop Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima; Nearly Half of Liberals Agree

    Tuesday, August 04, 2009
    By Chris Neefus

    (CNSNews.com) – Americans agree 3-1 that it was right to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II, according to a Quinnipiac poll released Tuesday.

    Pollsters found that 61 percent of registered voters who responded said they thought it was the right thing to do, while just 22 percent thought it was wrong. 16 percent reported they did not know whether it was right or wrong.

    The question, part of a public opinion poll on a variety of current events, asked:

    “As you may know, on Aug 6th and Aug 9th in 1945, the United States dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War Two. Do you think the United States did the right thing or the wrong thing by dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?”

    Voters over 55 years old, most likely to remember the war and its aftermath, approved most strongly, 73 percent in favor and 13 percent against. Support dips as respondents get younger, with those aged 35 to 54 approving 60 - 23 percent and those aged 18-34 less certain. 50 percent of the younger demographic approves, with 32 percent disapproving and 18 percent undecided.

    Though self-identified conservatives most strongly approved of the decision with 69 percent support, nearly half of those who said they were liberals also sided with President Truman. 47 percent of that group supported the decision, while 37 percent said it was wrong and 16 percent were unsure.

    The poll was conducted by telephone and sampled 2,409 registered voters across the country from July 27 through August 3. Quinnipiac says the margin of error is +/- 2 percentage points.
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. dahermit

    dahermit New Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,921
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What I find interesting is that the people who say it was wrong to drop the A bomb on Japan cannot seem to rationalize that we had burned to death more Japanese the night before in the fire bombing (bombs constructed with incendiaries, not explosive), of Tokyo. Death by fire of innocent children, women, babies, is not significantly different than death from an atom bomb.
    To the people who say we should have not dropped the bomb, I ask: What is the difference between that and a fire storm created to kill civilians?
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    some people dont put lables on how many civilans die...American or non American. And find the use of a nuke that killed so many civilans , not military, wrong. Also there was other plans in the works that could have worked....though I do agree that yes it saved overall lives ....there argument is not without merit and is understandable.
     
  4. Little-Acorn

    Little-Acorn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    They could not have worked.

    What we did was the LEAST lethal way to end the killing.

    End of story.
     
  5. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    who is to say they dont also think we should not have done that?
     
  6. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    it is very unlikey they would not work, almost a given that they would....it would only be a matter of casulties...

    also the nukes where no sure bet as well.
     
  7. Little-Acorn

    Little-Acorn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    It is virtually certain they would not work. That's one of the reasons the Bomb was dropped.
     
  8. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    no actuly the bomb was dropped more to show the USSR then take out Japan. Japan was in fact done with already at that point, it was simply going to be a bloody mop up work
     
  9. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    There are many theories about this issue, and we will likely never know the whole truth of the matter. Probably it was a combination of all of them.
     
  10. dahermit

    dahermit New Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,921
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dahermit
    What I find interesting is that the people who say it was wrong to drop the A bomb on Japan cannot seem to rationalize that we had burned to death more Japanese the night before in the fire bombing (bombs constructed with incendiaries, not explosive), of Tokyo. Death by fire of innocent children, women, babies, is not significantly different than death from an atom bomb.
    To the people who say we should have not dropped the bomb, I ask: What is the difference between that and a fire storm created to kill civilians?

    You did not address the question.
    However:
    Because they never mention the deaths of innocent civilians by allied bombs during WWII in the context of the Atomic Bombing of the Japanese. It leads me to conclude that their objection to the use of the bomb is either based on ignorance of our bombing practices during the war, or a political correct emotional based (illogical) reaction.

    Again I ask: Why is the death by fire bombing of more civilians in Tokyo the night before less significant/ horrific, than those killed by an atom bomb on Hiroshima? Dead is dead.
     
  11. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    I think they dont bring it up becuse the nukes, where very dramatic moments that stand out more, and are more known...but ask those against the nuke, if they felt the fire bombing was any better...if they know about them, then they would say yes just as bad. also there is a more long term effect of a nuke vs a fire in the radiation.

    if you just wanted to know if I think there is a difference I would say yes there is...but I also did not say I was agianst the nuke ...
     
  12. Little-Acorn

    Little-Acorn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    (yawn)

    http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afterburn...ls_&_The_True_Story_of_the_Atomic_Bombs/1808/

    The people (half a million of them American troops) whose blood you are talking about mopping up, plus a million or more Japanese, didn't think it was a "simple" matter.

    Your viewpoint is very strange. You thought it was OK to lose that many more lives?
     
  13. Mare Tranquillity

    Mare Tranquillity Active Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,477
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I was born shorly after the end of the Second World War so all I know about it comes from people I knew who had served and from reading about it.

    My understanding was that Japan had already sued for peace through the Swiss before either of the bombs were dropped, but we had the bombs and wanted to 1) see how they worked, and 2) send a message to the Russians.

    Arguing over HOW people are killed seems inconsequential when compared to NOT killing them. At least fire bombing didn't leave the nuclear fallout that kept killing people for a long time.
     
Loading...

Share This Page