Bombing Japan Saved More People Than It Killed.

[teh_Canape]

I guess it can be deemed as choosing the lesser evil

 

[Arfonious]

Well, you might argue that you "saved lives" with the bombs but the casualties were civilian.
Not saying that an invasion would have been better, the whole war was terrible and basicly no decition was a "right" one

Anyway what does it serve to argue about a war that ended 66 years ago? Should we perhaps move on?

 

[Nekkie]

Dropping atomic bombs on civilians is something you don't do, even if it saves more people than actually invading the country.

Atleast those civilians(children aswell) have a choice to fight or surrender.

 

[Gashad]

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.

This is simply not true. The Japanease were already discussing negotiating a peace treaty and had made several inquiries with the Soviet Union about acquiring their help in negotiating a peace treaty. The most obvious piece of evidence for this is that the Japanese did surrender after the atomic bombs-hence it clearly shows they would surrender when the situation got hopeless.

The atomic bombs was the most ruthless and brutal way a surrender could be forced. Had the US waited a few more days the Soviet Unions entry to the war could very well have forced a Japanese surrender even without the atomic bombs. Indeed the Soviet Union invaded Manchuria only hours after the bomb on Nagasaki was dropped, the US could easily have waited and seen how the Japanese leadership would have reacted to the Soviet invasion.

Indeed it is even wrong to say that the atomic bombs were the force that forced the Japanese to surrender. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the crushing of the Japanease forces their contributed at least as much if not more to Japans surrender than the atomic bombs did. Indeed the Japanese foreign minister(or maybe it was prime minister, one of the two can't remember was some time since I studied the subject) himself remarked that the Soviet invasion(or betrayal considering the Soviet Union and Japan had a non-aggression pact) was the greatest blow that was dealt to Japan-not the atomic bombs.

Had the US merely waited and seen how the Japanese would respond to the Soviet invasion of Manchuria the dropping of the atomic bombs could very well been avoided and several hundreds of thousands of people would not have died.

Indeed not even large parts of the US high commands was convinced that the atomic bombs were necessary with members such as the Chief of staff Admiral Leahy and general Eisenhower being adamant in that it was unnecessary.

 

[ramboondiea]

dropping the bombs was a terrible thing, that is undeniable, but dont get me wrong, i am from the camp that believe america did the right thing given the circumstances, people make it seem like it was such an easy chose to drop the bomb, that no though was given to it at all, but i tell you this, i do not envy those who had to decide on it

 

[Magikarp]

The Japanese were ready to fight to the last man, woman and child to defend their homeland.

Why would civilians get involved? If they didn't, then that's a negative for the nuclear bombings, as an invasion would kill soldiers, who have committed to fight & die for their country, whereas the nuclear strikes killed innocents who had nothing to do with it.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

it makes you think, people have 'kill 1 mill people or have a 90% chance of 3 mill people dying, wwyd' threads, and some poor bastard actually had to make that choice.
at least we didnt fuck it up.

-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 thousand innocent Afghans, 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.

its not just soldiers who die in wartime. britain lost civilians in the blitz, and so did germany when we retaliated.
and a soldier who is conscripted is just a civilian with a gun. if the bombs hit naval/army bases then it would just be an attack. killing civilians makes the government realise they cant protect the country.

EDIT: and to answer your question, yes. 1000 afghans killed, but what about the ones displaced, wounded, killed and maimed with the 10 years of war, as well as the victims of the attacks in britain

 

[RagTagBand]

This is pure speculation, you cannot know either way whether it would of saved more lives (and what kind of lives, civilian or enlisted) with either action.

 

[Agayek]

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.

I did, I just suffer from a condition where, on the internet, I have to be a smartass grammar-nazi. I can no more control it than an OCD can stop washing their hands.

 

[Liam Riordan]

While many were lost in the bombs, its a fact in my mind that millions, and possibly billions more were saved by the dropping of two bombs.

How many large scale wars have happened since then? Only proxy wars between smaller nations, nuclear armed nations are too terrified of nuclear weapons, and thankfully for a good reason.

It takes one button press to potentially wipe out a billion lives within a week.

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

Every day the US was still at war with Japan, Americans were dying. The concern was never going to be about minimal damage to the Japanese people. Whatever ended the war quickly and decisively and saved US Soldiers was the right call.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

Facts be damned I guess.

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

No kidding, a friend of mine is from Israel and I'm surprised he hasn't developed a drinking problem yet from all the fact-abandoning here.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

Yes, what you are saying is true. I am just curious as to what brought your train of thought on...

 

[Vault Girl]

I completely disagree. The explanation that "It saved more lives then if we didn't do it" is just an excuse. Look at the progress the army was making. They were mere miles away from the Japanese mainland, as well as many other factors.

Those bombings should never have happened, Humanity is not ready to wield the power to flash vaporize hundred's of thousands of people in almost an instant, then cause decades worth of genetic scarring and be allowed to say that "It NEEDED to happen".

 

[Optimis Prime]

I'm History Master from Europe and I can tell you without a doubt that the bombs were not necessary. The Americans refused the initial Japanese peace offer. The Americans demanded unconditional surrender and warned the Japanese that they will retaliate with unseen might if they didn't surrendered unconditionally. The only condition that the Japanese wanted, was that their Emperor would be left untouched. That was the only condition. So the Americans dropped the bombs. The Japanese accepted the new American peace treaty without hesitation...this treaty had the condition the Japanese wanted before the bombing: the Emperor was left alone.

The Bombs were dropped for geopolitical reasons to show down the Soviets (not necessary because Stalin knew the development of the A-bombs was well underway trough espionage).

So can you Yanks drop the issue now? They did it because the people who wanted it done were playing alpha-male with the Soviets and Japan would be a perfect "England" on the Eastern side of the Eurasian landmass, something Japan also proved during the Korean War.

 

[aei_haruko]

No it fucking didn't, stop making this fucking thread every fucking month, it doesn't make you correct just because you say it again and again.

just because you say it doesn't make it right either, if you look, he has evidence, something which you mr. troll seem to lack

 

[Coldster]

You're probably right on this one. The American firebombing campaigns killed almost twice as many Japanese as the regular Japanese casualties from the war. If the United States didn't drop those bombs, the fighting would have intensified even more than it had on Okinawa or Iwo Jima. This would have lead to many more casualties on both sides and as one of the American generals stated: "Six more months of fighting and Japan would have been beaten back into the dark ages". So when you think about it, yes, nuclear bombs actually saved lives. 0.0