Bombing Japan Saved More People Than It Killed.

[Pyro Paul]

Ok so lets say that there was no other place to bomb other than Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Why bomb both?

More importantly why bomb Nagasaki three days after Hiroshima?

That wasn't even enough time for them to comprehend what happened. I can't imagine that Japan wouldn't have surrendered after seeing one of their major cities destroyed in seconds.

What was the point of the other 80,000 lives (not including the people still suffering effects today)

military elements strongly refused to surrender, even mounting a coup d'état in an attempt to prevent their Emperor from declaring surrender... all of this happening After both nuclear bombs dropped.

Further more, Japanese military elements refused to surrender even after the fact and many continued to fight even into the 1970's...

gotta be certain.

 

[Liudeius]

Spoiler: -snip-

The fact is, invasion of Japan was never an option, they wanted to surrender even before we bombed them.

The only difference between the pre-bombing treaty of surrender and the post bombing treaty of surrender was Japan's emperor.
Pre-bombing, they wanted to surrender, but we insisted their emperor step down. Truman's own advisers told him that the Japanese would rather die than let there emperor step down (who was the human incarnation of god in their eyes), and the reason they didn't surrender was only because we insisted upon it.
Post-bombing, of course the wanted to surrender, we were worse than Al-Qaeda. We killed over 300,000 innocent civilians (about 1:5 to 1:6 were military personnel), ***** about 9/11 now...
What changed that made them surrender? Well it wasn't the bombing, the emperor was still a god to them. WE changed, Devil-Incarnate, sorry, Truman, finally listened to his advisers and we allowed them to keep their emperor when they surrendered.

Yes, you can argue that we "warned" them, but pamphlets raining from the sky aren't necessarily trustworthy, and to evacuate the 9 or so big cities we warned for an indefinite period of time would have been a huge undertaking (where do they go that isn't a big city and yet is able to support the population?) and crippled their economy.

and what proof do you have of that?

Just look at the Kyûjô Incident where the military mounted a coup d'état in an attempt to stop the surrender. even to the point of invading the Imperial Palace and imprisoning the Emperor so that he could not give the surrender order.

for a nation that 'wanted to surrender' they went to great lengths to try and prevent it...

THANK YOUUUUUUUUUUUUU!
*Smacks on back of head* That was post Hiroshima/Nagisaki!... Seriously, kids these days.
Also, they were only the military, and didn't even have the support of most of the military (which is why they failed).

 

[Pyro Paul]

sigh...

 

[Pyro Paul]

Spoiler: -snip-

The fact is, invasion of Japan was never an option, they wanted to surrender even before we bombed them.

The only difference between the pre-bombing treaty of surrender and the post bombing treaty of surrender was Japan's emperor.
Pre-bombing, they wanted to surrender, but we insisted their emperor step down. Truman's own advisers told him that the Japanese would rather die than let there emperor step down (who was the human incarnation of god in their eyes), and the reason they didn't surrender was only because we insisted upon it.
Post-bombing, of course the wanted to surrender, we were worse than Al-Qaeda. We killed over 300,000 innocent civilians (about 1:5 to 1:6 were military personnel), ***** about 9/11 now...
What changed that made them surrender? Well it wasn't the bombing, the emperor was still a god to them. WE changed, Devil-Incarnate, sorry, Truman, finally listened to his advisers and we allowed them to keep their emperor when they surrendered.

Yes, you can argue that we "warned" them, but pamphlets raining from the sky aren't necessarily trustworthy, and to evacuate the 9 or so big cities we warned for an indefinite period of time would have been a huge undertaking (where do they go that isn't a big city and yet is able to support the population?) and crippled their economy.

and what proof do you have of that?

Just look at the Kyûjô Incident where the military mounted a coup d'état in an attempt to stop the surrender. even to the point of invading the Imperial Palace and imprisoning the Emperor so that he could not give the surrender order.

for a nation that 'wanted to surrender' they went to great lengths to try and prevent it...

THANK YOUUUUUUUUUUUUU!
*Smacks on back of head* That was post Hiroshima/Nagisaki!... Seriously, kids these days.
Also, they were only the military, and didn't even have the support of most of the military (which is why they failed).

because you can't provide any factual statements which support your claim... Your statements mean nothing.

my Statement of 'they where unwilling to surrender', however, is supported with the events of the Assassination attempts of the acting Prime minister, the Kyûjô Incident, the Saipan Suicides, the events on Okinawa, and even Japanese pocket resistance which lasted even into the 1970's.

so... where is your proof?
no proof? Then shut up.

 

[KILGAZOR]

A lot of you saying that the Japanese wouldn't surrender, but in the end, that's exactly what they did. If we wanted to send a message, I think it would have made a lot more sense to nuke a couple of their military facilities first.

I'm sorry. You're wrong. Kudos for giving it a shot though. Let me give you this reference:

"..There are many stories on record of extraordinary heroism being displayed in the harakiri. The case of a young fellow, only twenty years old, of the Choshiu clan, which was told me the other day by an eye-witness, deserves mention as a marvellous instance of determination. Not content with giving himself the one necessary cut, he slashed himself thrice horizontally and twice vertically. Then he stabbed himself in the throat until the dirk protruded on the other side, with its sharp edge to the front; setting his teeth in one supreme effort, he drove the knife forward with both hands through his throat, and fell dead.."


This poor bastard illustrates my point and your inaccuracy far better than I ever could.

Yes, because a story of one insane man from the 19th century clearly proves that a whole nation of people were insane suicidal warriors /sarcasm

I'm not saying we didn't have to use the nuke. I'm saying we didn't have to use it on civilians.

 

[Liudeius]

THANK YOUUUUUUUUUUUUU!
*Smacks on back of head* That was post Hiroshima/Nagisaki!... Seriously, kids these days.
Also, they were only the military, and didn't even have the support of most of the military (which is why they failed).

because you can't provide any factual statements which support your claim... Your statements mean nothing.

my Statement of 'they where unwilling to surrender', however, is supported with the events of the Assassination attempts of the acting Prime minister, the Kyûjô Incident, the Saipan Suicides, the events on Okinawa, and even Japanese pocket resistance which lasted even into the 1970's.

so... where is your proof?
no proof? Then shut up.

They sook out the Soviet Union's help in brokering a peace treaty. I'll admit, I likely exaggerate that the only difference of the peace treaty was the emperor stepping down, but the fact is we should have negotiated more before becoming worse than Al-Qaeda will ever be.

Of course there were those who disagreed with the peace, your argument shows that even after the bombing they existed though, so clearly it was ineffective using your own logic (it wasn't entirely ineffective, but the fact remains we could have brokered a peace without bombing them, and we are worse than terrorists thanks to Truman).

There are also American's who are still Nazis, does that mean anything other than a few people are racist as hell? No, I'll tell you what it doesn't mean though, it doesn't mean America as a whole supports Hitler and needs to be bombed to hell.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

A lot of you saying that the Japanese wouldn't surrender, but in the end, that's exactly what they did. If we wanted to send a message, I think it would have made a lot more sense to nuke a couple of their military facilities first.

I'm sorry. You're wrong. Kudos for giving it a shot though. Let me give you this reference:

"..There are many stories on record of extraordinary heroism being displayed in the harakiri. The case of a young fellow, only twenty years old, of the Choshiu clan, which was told me the other day by an eye-witness, deserves mention as a marvellous instance of determination. Not content with giving himself the one necessary cut, he slashed himself thrice horizontally and twice vertically. Then he stabbed himself in the throat until the dirk protruded on the other side, with its sharp edge to the front; setting his teeth in one supreme effort, he drove the knife forward with both hands through his throat, and fell dead.."


This poor bastard illustrates my point and your inaccuracy far better than I ever could.

Yes, because a story of one insane man from the 19th century clearly proves that a whole nation of people were insane suicidal warriors /sarcasm

I'm not saying we didn't have to use the nuke. I'm saying we didn't have to use it on civilians.

However, like others have said, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets. They were large seaport cities that could house battleships.

 

[Pedro The Hutt]

The majority of the casualties were civilians though, innocent men, women and children who had nothing to do with the war. And let's not forget that radioactive fallout will have a lasting effect on the area for ages.

Part of a soldier's duty is to die for his country anyway.

 

[Bobzer77]

More importantly why bomb Nagasaki three days after Hiroshima?

That wasn't even enough time for them to comprehend what happened. I can't imagine that Japan wouldn't have surrendered after seeing one of their major cities destroyed in seconds.

What was the point of the other 80,000 lives (not including the people still suffering effects today)

Shits and giggles? *sigh*

How very noble of you to protect those 80k. The *3000k* odd who would have died without the bombs thank you, too.

I'm sure this 3 million or so would have been glad to die, either as part of a mass suicide when Allied troops walk into town (look at the devastation of Okinawa), or as a (lightly) armed resistance charging tanks with pieces of bamboo and sharply pointed chopsticks plus strongly worded opinions.

In short: don't be fucking stupid.

How am I being "fucking stupid"?

How do you know they wouldn't have surrendered with one bomb? If they wouldn't with one why would they with two? Maybe they should have dropped 10 to make sure.

Oh I see, you completely ignored my argument and went on a tangent to point out what would have happened if the Japanese hadn't surrendered.

Sorry if you're comprehension skills aren't up to scratch but what I was actually arguing was how big a show of force was necessary to make Japan surrender.

In short: don't be fucking stupid.

 

[uzo]

The Japanese people, even now after 70 years of democracy and peace, are a lot damn tougher than people give them credit.

The Japanese have balls that would give most people cancer just by being in the same room. They are a people who survived - and indeed flourished - under what was essentially a military dictatorship for nigh on 500 years. The language itself has developed to become an efficient, direct means of communication (and if anyone starts bleating about the 'politeness' of it I'm just gonna slap them), and I theorise it is significantly due to such a militaristic formative period.


And as for civil vs military targets ... as stated before in this thread but unfortunately not stated in apologetic self-loathing textbooks, Hiroshima was a HUGELY significant military target. Far more than London, or Dresden, or Tokyo; all of which experienced sustained and punishing night-and-day air raids targeted against almost entirely civilian targets.

The importance of Hiroshima is that it was the first use of a nuke in war. And sadly, I'm sure, it is just the first entry in what will eventually be a long list. But the simple fact is that only by bending the truth or assigning a 'value' to life lost can people argue against/for it.

However, I'm sure as hell not gonna say 'let's agree to disagree' because that's a bullshit passive aggressive conclusion. Let's agree that I'm right, instead.

EDIT: And as a side note ... Hiroshima is a thriving city of over a million people. If you've visited the place you'll find it a charming place without a hint of radiation clicks on your PipBoy. The people are particularly well known for a slightly peculiar form of Kansai dialect, the verb conjugations altering to be more amiable (the -jaken? finale always gets appreciative giggles from girls, plus like Osaka it has a funny mix of quirky/dangerous reputation). I personally know dozens of people who were born in Hiroshima, grew up there, and ate produce from the area over decades. One of them is about 70 now, a stunningly intelligent gent who was born in occupied Manchuria (his father was a Japanese aide during the war). The place recovered miraculously; as did Nagasaki.

Shit, the Japanese have come to terms with the nuking of these cities. Why can't anyone else?!

And Bobzer, I know the Japanese wouldn't have surrendered. Call it personal experience. See above. The US didn't have 10 bombs, either. Your rather dramatic escalation there was great, though.

Oh and btw, today will see an anniversary event in Hiroshima. The pic on the below page shows the genbaku dome in the background. I recommend everyone visit Hirsohima at some point. Nice folks and the oysters are great.

http://www.city.hiroshima.lg.jp/www/contents/0000000000000/1216809678498/index.html

EDIT EDIT: Oooh another little piece of trivia that kinda goes against what I said about Japan 'moving on' from the nukes. Remember in Starship Troopers when Mr Rasczak talks about Hiroshima being destroyed? That bit was cut in the Japanese version of Starship Troopers. Also the nuking of Megaton was removed from the J-version of Fallout 3 (I had no choice but to Amazon a US copy).

 

[Zantos]

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.

We were never taught about the exact details of the operations, but we definitely were taught that continued war would have had a much higher death toll than the bombings, which is why the Americans chose it over an invasion. Though in hindsight history is written by the winners, so it might not have played out quite how it was taught.

 

[dystopiaINC]

So was firebombing Tokyo necessary?
Was the rape of Nanking necessary?
The destruction of Coventry?
The leveling of Dresden?

Is wanton targeting and destruction of a civilian population by any faction EVER necessary?

was pearl harbor necessary?
how about the 6 million dead jews? was that necessary

 

[dystopiaINC]

The majority of the casualties were civilians though, innocent men, women and children who had nothing to do with the war. And let's not forget that radioactive fallout will have a lasting effect on the area for ages.

Part of a soldier's duty is to die for his country anyway.

i think by that point just about everybody in japan had something to do with the war, civilians are the biggest source of manufactured materials to be used in the war effort. japan was big on getting their people to devote alot of their time on what ever thay needed for the war. America too, but japan more so i think. a good book for this subject would be "Hiroshima" it's a collective telling of accounts from people who were in the city when it was hit.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

-snip-

-snip-

-snip-

I feel like the primary point of conflict in this thread/argument comes from whether you put Civilians and Soldiers at the same level (like you guys) or not (like me and the others lashing out at the OP). And I quite frankly do not know how to fight this argument. It just seems like an intrinsic, subjective, opinion that cannot be changed. It seems obvious to me, that slaughtering innocent civilians to "end a war" is intrinsically evil and immoral, damn the practicality.

Maybe it's because I'm from a country that, just 40 years ago, stood on the brink of annihilation, when another nation(kind of) invaded our nation with the plan: "Kill 3 million of them and the rest will eat out of our hands." -General Yahya Khan

THAT was (west) Pakistan's strategy to take control of East pakistan/Bangladesh. And who knows? Maybe if they DID [http://www.genocidebangladesh.org/] kill every man, woman and child who spoke Bengali, they would've won the war? Heck maybe there wouldn't have even BEEN a 9 month long war of independence [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War]; a war where the final death toll surpassed 3 million people (Indians, Pakistanis and Bangalis)......by a LOT.
The problem is: I wouldn't exist because my Mother, an innocent civilian who didn't directly take part in the war (though she did help distribute rations and ammo to the local resistance) would've been slaughtered just as surely as my father, an actual member of the resistance, just to end the war quicker.
And let's not even discuss my at-the-time 70 year old paraplegic Grandfather; a reputedly respectable and amicable gentleman.....who I never got to meet.

So yeah, that's probably why I'm biased against Genocide. It seems like a no-brainer to be biased against Genocide.....but you know, you are entitled to your opinions...... however much they disgust the hell out of me.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

-snip-

-snip-

-snip-

I feel like the primary point of conflict in this thread/argument comes from whether you put Civilians and Soldiers at the same level (like you guys) or not (like me and the others lashing out at the OP). And I quite frankly do not know how to fight this argument. It just seems like an intrinsic, subjective, opinion that cannot be changed. It seems obvious to me, that slaughtering innocent civilians to "end a war" is intrinsically evil and immoral, damn the practicality.

Maybe it's because I'm from a country that, just 40 years ago, stood on the brink of annihilation, when another nation(kind of) invaded our nation with the plan: "Kill 3 million of them and the rest will eat out of our hands." -General Yahya Khan

THAT was (west) Pakistan's strategy to take control of East pakistan/Bangladesh. And who knows? Maybe if they DID [http://www.genocidebangladesh.org/] kill every man, woman and child who spoke Bengali, they would've won the war? Heck maybe there wouldn't have even BEEN a 9 month long war of independence [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War]; a war where the final death toll surpassed 3 million people (Indians, Pakistanis and Bangalis)......by a LOT.
The problem is: I wouldn't exist because my Mother, an innocent civilian who didn't directly take part in the war (though she did help distribute rations and ammo to the local resistance) would've been slaughtered just as surely as my father, an actual member of the resistance, just to end the war quicker.
And let's not even discuss my at-the-time 70 year old paraplegic Grandfather; a reputedly respectable and amicable gentleman.....who I never got to meet.

So yeah, that's probably why I'm biased against Genocide. It seems like a no-brainer to be biased against Genocide.....but you know, you are entitled to your opinions...... however much they disgust the hell out of me.

here's the problem with sacrificing hundreds or thousands of soldiers willing to give their life: they were WILLING to give their lives.
Lets look at Minecraft (bear with me)
you come to a pit, and you have enough cobblestone to get across it, but you were mining for cobble and need all of it (cobble=citizens) but you also have a lot of gravel, which you dont need. now, to cross using all the gravel would use most of it up, but gravel is not needed except for this purpose (gravel=soldiers). you sacrifice the cobble, and you get annoyed because you lost the cobble and have to go back, you sacrifice the gravel and you dont mind: that is its key purpose.
its crude, but gets across my basic point.
a soldier who dies in war gave his life for his country, and is seen as a hero and can give more people courage to fight. a civilian who dies in war is seen as a needless sacrifice, willing the government to surrender (just like with H&N)

 

[Danpascooch]

SNIP

The one argument I would make is that the bombs hit civilians rather than military, it's like comparing a military offensive to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Which would be no different than the London Blitz, or the Allied Bombings of Dresden and Hamburg. Dresden's destruction had little to no impact on the Axis military output.

Right...so, how does that make it better?

I'm not sure if it was ethical, and I believe it saved lives, I just have trouble stomaching the military targeting civilians

 

[lacktheknack]

-snip-

-snip-

-snip-

I feel like the primary point of conflict in this thread/argument comes from whether you put Civilians and Soldiers at the same level (like you guys) or not (like me and the others lashing out at the OP). And I quite frankly do not know how to fight this argument. It just seems like an intrinsic, subjective, opinion that cannot be changed. It seems obvious to me, that slaughtering innocent civilians to "end a war" is intrinsically evil and immoral, damn the practicality.

Maybe it's because I'm from a country that, just 40 years ago, stood on the brink of annihilation, when another nation(kind of) invaded our nation with the plan: "Kill 3 million of them and the rest will eat out of our hands." -General Yahya Khan

THAT was (west) Pakistan's strategy to take control of East pakistan/Bangladesh. And who knows? Maybe if they DID [http://www.genocidebangladesh.org/] kill every man, woman and child who spoke Bengali, they would've won the war? Heck maybe there wouldn't have even BEEN a 9 month long war of independence [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War]; a war where the final death toll surpassed 3 million people (Indians, Pakistanis and Bangalis)......by a LOT.
The problem is: I wouldn't exist because my Mother, an innocent civilian who didn't directly take part in the war (though she did help distribute rations and ammo to the local resistance) would've been slaughtered just as surely as my father, an actual member of the resistance, just to end the war quicker.
And let's not even discuss my at-the-time 70 year old paraplegic Grandfather; a reputedly respectable and amicable gentleman.....who I never got to meet.

So yeah, that's probably why I'm biased against Genocide. It seems like a no-brainer to be biased against Genocide.....but you know, you are entitled to your opinions...... however much they disgust the hell out of me.

The very CONCEPT of war disgusts the hell out of me, regardless of who dies. I don't think any of them should. And I hate choosing the lesser of two evils.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

here's the problem with sacrificing hundreds or thousands of soldiers willing to give their life: they were WILLING to give their lives.
Lets look at Minecraft (bear with me)
you come to a pit, and you have enough cobblestone to get across it, but you were mining for cobble and need all of it (cobble=citizens) but you also have a lot of gravel, which you dont need. now, to cross using all the gravel would use most of it up, but gravel is not needed except for this purpose (gravel=soldiers). you sacrifice the cobble, and you get annoyed because you lost the cobble and have to go back, you sacrifice the gravel and you dont mind: that is its key purpose.
its crude, but gets across my basic point.
a soldier who dies in war gave his life for his country, and is seen as a hero and can give more people courage to fight. a civilian who dies in war is seen as a needless sacrifice, willing the government to surrender (just like with H&N)

I....uhh.... what? I'm sure that analogy made a lot more sense in your head then it did in writing sorry.

If I were to try and discern meaning from it, I would argue that Governments (minecraft players) don't have the choice to spend either soldiers (lots of cheap Gravel), or civilians (rare, valuable cobblestone) to fight a war (cross a pit). So....I don't get what you mean.

Also, I rationalize my argument with a bloody stain on my nations history; And you rationalize yours with.....minecraft? You wouldn't mind if I found that both a little sad and hilarious, would you?

 

[ShindoL Shill]

here's the problem with sacrificing hundreds or thousands of soldiers willing to give their life: they were WILLING to give their lives.
Lets look at Minecraft (bear with me)
you come to a pit, and you have enough cobblestone to get across it, but you were mining for cobble and need all of it (cobble=citizens) but you also have a lot of gravel, which you dont need. now, to cross using all the gravel would use most of it up, but gravel is not needed except for this purpose (gravel=soldiers). you sacrifice the cobble, and you get annoyed because you lost the cobble and have to go back, you sacrifice the gravel and you dont mind: that is its key purpose.
its crude, but gets across my basic point.
a soldier who dies in war gave his life for his country, and is seen as a hero and can give more people courage to fight. a civilian who dies in war is seen as a needless sacrifice, willing the government to surrender (just like with H&N)

I....uhh.... what? I'm sure that analogy made a lot more sense in your head then it did in writing sorry.

If I were to try and discern meaning from it, I would argue that Governments (minecraft players) don't have the choice to spend either soldiers (lots of cheap Gravel), or civilians (rare, valuable cobblestone) to fight a war (cross a pit). So....I don't get what you mean.

Also, I rationalize my argument with a bloody stain on my nations history; And you rationalize yours with.....minecraft? You wouldn't mind if I found that both a little sad and hilarious, would you?

yeah... my mind did a thing... i get good things in my head but dont get the words out.
what i was trying to get to was say throwing away lots of soldiers (who at the time have one key use) will eventually end the war, but if a fraction of that are sacrificed in civilians (who have many possible uses) then the problem will be solved faster
(sacrificing the lives of the people of H&N caused the japanese to surrender, ending the war quickly.)