Bombing Japan Saved More People Than It Killed.

[randomblaofdoom]

What happened, to my knowledge, was that peace negations already had begun when the first bomb was dropped. Secondly, the Japanese had already agreed to surrender when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, just not unconditionally. So they dropped one on Nagasaki. The first time, debatable, no one really knows how far the Japanese were willing to give in before that, but the second one? Definately overkill in my opinion.

also: the firebombings on tokio en kyoto killed waaaaay more than the nukes, with almost exclusvely civil casualties. Neither side was 'morally'correct' tbh, it's just that one was being (quite a bit) less aweful than the other.

 

[Agayek]

That in itself is debatable. With the inevitable advance through urban territory, collateral death would've/could've been just as horrific, and with a general rhetoric among Americans that the Japanese were sub-human/monkeys/should be exterminated (more of a public rhetoric, but it would no doubt have pervaded the military as well) and among Japanese that the Americans would've come and raped their women etc., Japanese civilians would've done their utmost to help repel the invader. Perhaps invasion would've killed more civilians than the bomb. Once again, probably never know.

This is very true, but that's not the modern public perception of it. People tend to think "military operation means only military will get hurt" and "Oh god nuclear bomb, we're all gonna die". It's just the way people see the thing.

You are almost certainly right, and I'd be willing to bet Operation Downfall would have had catastrophic civilian casualties, but that's not how people tend to see such things.

 

[Viral_Lola]

It was a tough decision but one that had to be made. It was the lesser of the two evils.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

No right answer, I'm afraid. Both options are essentially on the same moral level, even though one "saved" more lives. The threat of invasion might have led to a coup, though we will never know for certain. What you also have to keep in mind is that there was little to no warning for the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At least the use of atomic weapons ensured that they would never be used again...

But hey, no point in trying to assess whether or not what was done was right. So it goes.

 

[triggrhappy94]

It saved more American lives. In the long term scheme, its hard to say how many lives in general. Japan had actually been asking for a treaty before than, but we already had the bombs and we didnt want another WW. There are more reasons behind dropping the bombs then saving lives. We wanted a complete unconditional surrender, to prevent Japan from rising up for revenge just like Germany after WW1. After the fall of Berlin, Stalin said that he'd give us one year in the Pacific, then he'd join in; the bombs dropped within days of Russia joining, so Japan would completely surrender to the US and the US would have the only say in forming post-war Japan. And finally, we dropped them just to see what it'd do to a civilian city (no military base or anything); the first one was arguably neccesary, but the second was made differently and dropped only to see what'd happen.

 

[Agayek]

We will never know for sure what would have killed less people, but now America isn't the only wielding that terrifying gun, we cannot afford for people to think there is a worthwhile excuse for nuclear attacks.

I'll be honest, if there's an option to end a war with fewer deaths, and that option involves nuclear weapons, it's still the superior choice.

It's the simple, cold math of warfare. People are going to die, no matter what you do. Minimizing that number is almost always better.

People get so scared of nuclear bombs, but they really aren't any different from any other weapon. I could drop a nuke on a city, or send a few tank battalions through it with orders to kill everything. They're roughly equivalent on the scale of damage and loss of life, but the former is always so much scarier to people, and it doesn't make any sense.

Nukes are a tool, just like any other. If it can be used to stop greater loss of life, it most certainly should.

 

[PatrickXD]

Hmm, I had never read into WWII at all so thanks for informing me!

 

[SckizoBoy]

This is very true, but that's not the modern public perception of it. People tend to think "military operation means only military will get hurt" and "Oh god nuclear bomb, we're all gonna die". It's just the way people see the thing.

You are almost certainly right, and I'd be willing to bet Operation Downfall would have had catastrophic civilian casualties, but that's not how people tend to see such things.

All the more's the pity... *sigh*

Still, agree with the posters who mention it, but the second bomb was unnecessary...

 

[Disgruntled_peasant]

I recall my old history teacher telling me this argument, although he did pose an alternative America could have used (and was an alternative they considered)

Nuke an uninhabited island or patch of land near Japan and of course give them word that something major is going to happen there so they dont miss it (they had an island in mind, the name escapes me) and give them an ultimatum: surrender or this happens to a city.

 

[Doclector]

We will never know for sure what would have killed less people, but now America isn't the only wielding that terrifying gun, we cannot afford for people to think there is a worthwhile excuse for nuclear attacks.

I'll be honest, if there's an option to end a war with fewer deaths, and that option involves nuclear weapons, it's still the superior choice.

It's the simple, cold math of warfare. People are going to die, no matter what you do. Minimizing that number is almost always better.

People get so scared of nuclear bombs, but they really aren't any different from any other weapon. I could drop a nuke on a city, or send a few tank battalions through it with orders to kill everything. They're roughly equivalent on the scale of damage and loss of life, but the former is always so much scarier to people, and it doesn't make any sense.

Nukes are a tool, just like any other. If it can be used to stop greater loss of life, it most certainly should.

Ah, but could such a situation ever happen? Due to MAD, mutually assured destruction, if one nuke is fired, all of them could be fired, causing an apocalyptic scenario.

 

[Dularn]

I completely agree that it ultimately saved a lot of lives and that the right decision was made when it was decided that they would deploy nuclear weapons.

That said, I wonder if dropping the second bomb could have been avoided if a larger window of time had been provided for the Japanese to surrender. Or even whether both bombs could have been avoided if the US had demonstrated the destructive power of the bomb on an unpopulated island with the warning that 'Tokyo is next'.

Either way, the number of casualties pale in comparison to the potential human cost had the war carried on in a conventional manner. It could even be argued that dropping the bomb played a substantial role in preventing future uses of atomic weapons as the true extent of their destructive power over a populated area had been demonstrated. I wonder whether the Cold War would have played out differently and potentially catastrophically if nuclear weapons had not been deployed during World War 2.

It is best not to dwell on what could have been or should have been. The decision was made under extreme pressure without the benefit of hindsight. Ultimately I think it could possibly have been handled better but could certainly have been thousands of times worse.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

-OP snip-

So? If the allies beached Japan, there would've been a horrific war where millions of soldiers would've died.

But that's the thing. Soldiers would've Died. Brave individuals who basically resigned their own lives for the sole purpose of protecting their country's existence. If all the men were dying off, maybe the women and children would've been conscripted. Again they'd become soldiers. Not civilians. Soldiers are supposed to die in Wars. They are ready to die, if that's what it takes.

This in no way, shape or form redeems the United States of killing 246000 innocent men, women and children who weren't soldiers. They hadn't signed their lives off for their country. Killing them is NOT the same thing as decimating an army, however large!

EDIT-Here's a test: So do you think the US should have just detonated a low-yield Nuclear warhead over Afghanistan in 2001? You know to slowly kill off the Taliban, and by proxy about a quarter of the Afghan population, through radioactive fallout, instead of losing hundreds of American and NATO troops, and thousands of Islamic extremists, in a decade long War that helped in nearly collapsing the global economy?

I'm not being smarmy or sarcastic. I also do not intend to offend. I'm just trying to prove a point.

 

[Palademon]

When I had this conversation with someone else telling me something along these lines (although they didn't mention this operation, they brought up Japan being evil with a massacre they did) I said

"Couldn't they just drop a nuclear bomb off shore and go "See that? That could be you"".

 

[Ragsnstitches]

I know that a lot of people will probably hate me for saying this, but I believe it is true. The death toll from the atomic bombs is numbered between 90000-166000 for Hiroshima, and between 60000-80000 for Nagasaki. The bombings were catastrophic, but they pale compared to the alternative.

Operation Downfall [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_downfall]: The Land Invasion of Japan.


Split into two parts, Operation Olympic, and Operation Coronet, the invasion had projected casualty rates in the millions for Allied Soldiers, and tens of millions for the Japanese.

Operation Olympic was targeted at southern Japan, specifically, the Island of Kyushu. To put into perspective how large this invasion would be, consider this: the naval armada would have been bigger than the Normandy Invasion. Operation Coronet would also be massive, with the largest seaborne invasion action in history. Coronet would land on the Kanto Plain, and make a drive inland for Tokyo.

On the Japanese side, all defenses were set on Kyushu, with thousands of Kamikaze planes hoping to overwhelm Allied Naval Forces through sheer numbers. Ten thousand kamikaze planes were built, with only two thousand deployed at the Battle of Okinawa earlier in the year. This left 8000 planes ready to collide with allied forces at Kyushu.

On the ground, the defenses numbered 900000 soldiers, or about 14 Corps. This is not factoring in the Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps, which rounded up every able bodied man in the country to act as combat support. They numbered 28 million strong at the time. Despite weapons shortages, the Japanese were ready to fight to the last man to defend Kyushu, hopefully blunting the invasion force.

Proposed weapons included gas warfare and nuclear weapons, as neither the Japanese nor the Americans had signed the Geneva Protocol banning biological warfare at the time.

Oh, and if that wasn't destructive enough, this is all without considering that the Soviet Union was also about to declare war on Japan and invade them too.

So let's recap: The Japanese were ready to fight to the last man, woman and child to defend their homeland. Every last one. Had the bombs not been dropped, Operation Downfall would have had the potential to annihilate the entire country, with millions of deaths on both sides.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki changed that. At the relatively low casualties compared to the atrocious death tolls on the Eastern Front or the Second Sino-Japanese war, the atomic bomb was probably the best solution. The other advantage is that it brought about the major awareness of the destructive capabilities of nuclear warfare, which has so far ensured that they never be used again in case of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Was the bombing morally unethical? Possibly. Was it necessary? Yes. Could it have been much, much worse? Yes.

When faced with the alternative of genocide, I choose the option that ends the war with the least amount of death.

The problem about these debates is that almost always, it turns into finger pointing.

It was a freaking WAR... the objective is to end it and be the winners. What's more, people generally on either side of the argument tend to shift the "blame" of the event in order to sooth some fantasy that there was a definitive good and bad side in that war.

Japan sank some boats, America levelled 2 cities. Many people died. Thankfully it ended, sadly it was by the first true doomsday weapon.

It's not a black and white event, all parties should feel guilt and sorrow for losses taken and given.

 

[IsraelRocks]

Facts be damned I guess.

Nobody knows better then an Israeli how little the facts matter anymore

 

[Agayek]

Ah, but could such a situation ever happen? Due to MAD, mutually assured destruction, if one nuke is fired, all of them could be fired, causing an apocalyptic scenario.

Sure it could. With proper planning and intelligence work, you could circumvent, or remove entirely, the target's potential to retaliate. Or if another war on the scale of WWII breaks out, it could easily be less costly in lives to nuke your target and take their death throes than spend years fighting them.

When I had this conversation with someone else telling me something along these lines (although they didn't mention this operation, they brought up Japan being evil with a massacre they did) I said

"Couldn't they just drop a nuclear bomb off shore and go "See that? That could be you"".

Those kinds of threats are mostly ineffective, especially for WWII-era Japan. They were almost fanatical in their desire to continue the war. A large explosion with no casualties wasn't going to persuade many of them.

Killing them is NOT the same thing as decimating an army, however large!

I just have to point out here that Operation Downfall would have done far more than decimate the Japanese army. It would have utterly annihilated it, at an extreme cost to the US armed forces.

Decimate comes from the old Roman Legions, where when rations were scarce, or discipline needed to be enforced, they would split the legion into groups of 10, who would then draw straws. Whoever got the short straw was promptly executed.

That's what decimate means; to reduce by 1/10th.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

Killing them is NOT the same thing as decimating an army, however large!

I just have to point out here that Operation Downfall would have done far more than decimate the Japanese army. It would have utterly annihilated it, at an extreme cost to the US armed forces.

Decimate comes from the old Roman Legions, where when rations were scarce, or discipline needed to be enforced, they would split the legion into groups of 10, who would then draw straws. Whoever got the short straw was promptly executed.

That's what decimate means; to reduce by 1/10th.

I didn't know that, so Thanks. But I hope you (and the OP) understood what I meant, in spite of English/Etymology/History fail.

 

[AlotFirst]

Bombing Japan was militarily unnecessary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Militarily_unnecessary

Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:
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.
Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials), and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.
"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, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
"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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman

The bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima was and still is a crime that cannot be justified in any way.

 

[zehydra]

This is a false dilemma. The US didn't have to invade the mainland, nor did the US have to drop the bomb.

 

[Sigma Van Lockheart]

Yet they seem to miss the other options I'm English so when it comes to atrocities I?m not one to talk but They could have at least tried something else like bombing and unoccupied area as a display of power and while you say it saved live remember that when a nuke goes of it does not only kill people it kills the planet if you don?t know what I mean read up on what a nuke does to the land after it has exploded and if you don?t want to then take a look at Fallout.