Bombing Japan Saved More People Than It Killed.

[Temah]

I'm pretty sure in the UK it was part of the compulsory history syllabus, so theoretically everyone should know that part.

However a lot of people don't take it comparatively, and as an incident any use of a nuclear weapon is pretty bad. It also doesn't help that it's very hard for people to understand the Japanese mentality. A lot of people in know think that in the face of a massive invasion they would have surrendered without major losses.

We learn about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but from what I remember the alternative invasion the OP mentions is never brought up.

 

[KILGAZOR]

You never purposely kill innocent civilians. You just fucking don't. It's fucking barbaric and I am ashamed of what my country did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

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

I advocated neither Germany, nor Britain for it's Civilian head count. I don't consider the Firebombing of Dresden [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II] to be any less immoral than the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

That being said, collateral damage is wholly different to purposeful bombing of civilian areas, for the effect of Morale destruction. There will always be civilian casualties in ANY battle. But the purpose of a battle is not to kill civilians. That is an inevitable side-effect.

And about Afghanistan: Dude..... what the fuck? First of all, if you think people aren't maimed, crippled, wounded and displaced by radiation?... You don't even have to bother looking up the long-term effects of the H&N bombings. Just go read up on what happened earlier this year when the Fukoshima malfunctioned and almost melt-down. Now multiply that by........ about 10000000. Give or take.

And secondly, the majority of the victims of the War on Terror are US, Nato and Taliban soldiers (admittedly the percentage might be higher for this war because of the Taliban's....tactics.) Again. Big difference between soldiers who are willing to take an IED to the face for their country.....and an Afghani child having her skin peel off from Fallout. And.... you're fine with that?

 

[Torrasque]

I'm glad that you actually got into the strategic and technical aspects of the reasoning, and did not turn out to be one of those assholes that usually go with the reasoning that is something like "because of Pearl Harbor" or "because they deserved it".
For this, I commend you sir, for actually presenting the proper logical reason for why Japan got nuked.
When I saw this topic in the side-bar, I immediately thought "ok, what asshole is asking to get banned now..." lol

I'll just add that the Japanese pretty much had a "if you can't have it, no one can" mentality towards invasion (much worse than the Russian's even), and were literally prepared to fight to the last person, for the sake of their country. The Japanese people are extremely proud people, and in war times, they are scary.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrible, but were a mercy compared to the alternative.
And yes, there could have been a better choice chosen, but the same can be said about all history, and its all too easy to look back in hindsight and say "oh, well this could have been done this way, and things would have been better"

 

[zombones]

Its so easy for everyone to say that America was in the wrong. We were at war, we chose to bomb them to avoid a full scale invasion/ Soviet take over. The bomb killed hundreds of thousands of people. Japan and its ally's mass murdered millions.

 

[gabe12301]

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.

It is correct unless you can give some citation.

 

[BoogieManFL]

Question:

Why drop two bombs? Surely one city being flattened was sufficient to make their point.

Or hey, drop a bomb outside a city. "Surrender or the next one hits the city."

Because they were instructed to surrender AGAIN after the first bomb. They refused, again, and the US warned it would do it again. They probably gambled they didn't have a second bomb.

You never purposely kill innocent civilians. You just fucking don't. It's fucking barbaric and I am ashamed of what my country did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

You have that attitude now because of those things that happened. There was less distinction before. Warfare on such a large scale was relatively new.

From what I've seen, Japan lost between 500k and 1m civilians. That's very tragic and sad, but the Soviet Union lost 12 to 14 MILLION. The Dutch East Indies (Indonesia today) lost 3 to 4 million civilians. Poland lost over 5 million. All with no atomic bomb.

People don't seem to understand ultimately the whole war was tragic, but many of the painful lessons learned has made the world a better place since.

Hindsight isn't the only way one should look at history.

 

[lacktheknack]

-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.

Um, you realize that detonating the low-yield nuke sounds like a better idea, right? Maybe it's because I put soldiers on the same level as civilians. Maybe even a bit higher.

OT: I've seen a couple people ditch these forums permanently over this debate, so I'm afraid to contribute much more.

 

[Comieman]

Bombing Japan made USSR go "oh shit oh shit oh shit" and invest into nukes, because USA were showing off their massive army-boner. As a result we get an arm race that produced weapons so powerful that both sides decided to not commit suicide, I mean, attack each other.

Soooo yep, it saved a lot of people in long term, since there was no war between USSR and USA.

 

[BoogieManFL]

-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.

A remarkably narrow view.

What you are describing is exactly what Germany did the the Soviet Union. They attacked with conventional forces and 12-14 million Soviet civilians died, along with 8-11 million of their soldiers.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

Not searching 4 pages to see if this was posted, so...

In the words of the late great Jerry Garcia, "If you're choosing between the lesser of two evils, you still choose evil."

Neither scenario had to happen, but humanity's endless hunger for destruction overwhelms rational and compassionate thought.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

Um, you realize that detonating the low-yield nuke sounds like a better idea, right? Maybe it's because I put soldiers on the same level as civilians. Maybe even a bit higher.

OT: I've seen a couple people ditch these forums permanently over this debate, so I'm afraid to contribute much more.

Do you put soldiers and Civilians on the same level?

Or do you just put all Afghans in the same level, regardless of affiliation with the Taliban?

 

[BoogieManFL]

Not searching 4 pages to see if this was posted, so...

In the words of the late great Jerry Garcia, "If you're choosing between the lesser of two evils, you still choose evil."

Neither scenario had to happen, but humanity's endless hunger for destruction overwhelms rational and compassionate thought.

I'd like the challenge that statement and those like it by saying Humanity as a whole doesn't hunger for destruction. Power hungry tyrants at the top of civilization do. Most humans are good natured beings who suffer due to the actions of a few who stand on their shoulders.

 

[inFAMOUSCowZ]

I always thought this was common knowledge, but then again going to the US we are taught this. Though most the class says we never should use nukes, and they should be destroyed. Which I completely disagree with having nukes may cause tension, but they can be used to not have a war. Example the cold war. If neither the US or Russia had nukes it may have been different. Both sides were worried of nuclear war, so that kept us safe.

 

[Ken Sapp]

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.

Little to no warning? They were warned, the US dropped leaflets over Hiroshima, Nagasaki and 31 other cities on Aug 5 1945 warning them that some or all of the cities named would be bombed in the next few days.(http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Bombing_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Prelude_to_the_bombings)

I fully believe that the bombings were the most effective way to end the war with the smallest number of casualties. I think it was the best option based on what they knew at the time and in hindsight. When the US took Okinawa there were women throwing there children from the cliffs before jumping off after them.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa#Mass_suicides)

 

[newwiseman]

Very True, that's what I was taught in school anyway. The Japanese were never going to surrender, in caves and tunnels the Japanese would fight to the last man. Even after the official surrender some areas didn't for months after, due to pride and/or lack of communication.

After the first bomb dropped the Japanese leaders didn't believe that a single weapon caused the devastation, and seeing as the US only had 3 bombs, 1 was used in a test. Trying to scare the Japanese with offshore demonstrations wouldn't have been possible.

Historians on both sides pretty much agree on all counts that ending the war was worth the cost.

 

[xPixelatedx]

Yeah killing a lot of civilians saved a lot of soldiers. This should be how we fight all our wars amiright? Total shining pinnacle of morality there.

Sorry, I don't support the killing of women and children to end any battle. Technicaly speaking, if your morals are that loose, then all our battles could be ended if we just dropped the bomb first. Afganastan? *nuke* it's over with now. Iraq? *nuke* there, gone and done with. Or better yet, lets stop beating around the bush. Next time a dictator or a bin-laden pops up, lets just find their family and murder them to 'teach them a lesson'. We can even pull psychopaths and serial killers out of prison and hire them to do it, so we don't have to get our immaculate hands dirty. We'll give those families the same slow and horrible deaths many of the bomb victims had, only without having to drop one. And it will all be morally justified, because we'll have ended a conflict and proved we were the moral superiors.

The scary thing about war is everyone has their reasons, and anything can be justified from the perspective of each side, which many here just proved.

 

[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.

A remarkably narrow view.

What you are describing is exactly what Germany did the the Soviet Union. They attacked with conventional forces and 12-14 million Soviet Civilans died, along with 8-11 million of their soldiers.

Please look up my previous comment on differentiating Collateral-damage-Casualties (which happen for ANY battle, regardless of which "team" you're on)

...and intentional morale-destroying strikes on population centers (like the H&N bombings by the USAF, The London bombings by the Luftwaffe and the Firebombing of Dresden by the RAF). There's a difference, Trust me.

 

[Cipher1]

Where there any military targets of value left by that point in the war to nuke? because from what Ive been led to belive B-29s had leveled or fire stormed anything of value by that point in the war.