dropping the bomb on japan? yes or no?

[farmerboy219]

as we know nuclear bombs were dropped on japan in the 40's to end the war in the pacific and mark and end of WW2. when we ask "was this right?" normally the answer is an immediate "no it killed too many people and still is killing people who were radiated".

But look at it this way, What if america invaded the Japanese mainland? surely that would result in more death? your thoughts please...

 

[maddawg IAJI]

The Japanese weren't gonna stop. We gave them a warning, they refused, we dropped the bomb. We let them look at what just happened, we asked them again and they did not listen. So we dropped another one.

You can't say we didn't give the Japanese ample warning to surrender and while I don't condone mass killings like in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I can see how it saved countless lives on both sides of the fighting.

 

[Megalodon]

Simply put, dropping the bomb ended the Japanese will to fight. This was worth it to avoid the projected death toll for a mainland invasion. It took something as drastic as the bomb to convince Japan. Remember, more people actually died in the conventional fire-bombing of Tokyo than in the nuclear attacks, but that didn't stop the war. So America was left with little alternative.

 

[CitySquirrel]

You sound like you have already made up your mind. However, I will suggest a hypothetical: iimagine a scenario where we contacted the Japanese government and told them "please observe this small uninhabited island over here." Then, BOOM. "Now, you have 24 hours to surrender or that will happen to several undisclosed locations within your country."

 

[Space Spoons]

I believe it was justified. Hirohito had made it abundantly clear that the position of the Japanese government was to fight until the end. I don't know how things would have gone if the Allies had opted for a ground assault, but I do think many more lives would have been lost, simply because Hirohito was so determined that Japan would never surrender, even in the face of being overwhelmed.

It was a position where nothing less than a horrifying show of force would end the bloodshed. Yes, it was tragic, and yes, the fact that the aftermath of it is still felt today is horrible, but it was necessary.

 

[Megalodon]

You sound like you have already made up your mind. However, I will suggest a hypothetical: iimagine a scenario where we contacted the Japanese government and told them "please observe this small uninhabited island over here." Then, BOOM. "Now, you have 24 hours to surrender or that will happen to several undisclosed locations within your country."

Had this argument with a mate a few weeks ago. Comes down to the combination that there was no guarantee it would work, and America didn't have the bombs to spare at the time. It still took two cities being leveled to convince them to surrender, I don't really think a "warning shot" would have been anything other than a "wasted" bomb.

 

[xmbts]

There is no good option for how to hurt a country until they stop. In the end we chose the faster one.

 

[Omikron009]

Dropping the bombs was necessary to avoid the even greater death toll that would have undoubtedly occurred if the Japanese home islands were invaded. Casualty projections by the American military command were in the millions for both sides, not including civilians.

 

[Ldude893]

What happened happened. The best thing we can do now is prevent anything like that from ever happening again.

 

[Hosker]

I don't believe the killing of innocent people is ever justifiable.

 

[CitySquirrel]

Had this argument with a mate a few weeks ago. Comes down to the combination that there was no guarantee it would work, and America didn't have the bombs to spare at the time. It still took two cities being leveled to convince them to surrender, I don't really think a "warning shot" would have been anything other than a "wasted" bomb.

Actually the three days between Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hardly enough time for the Japanese to comprehend what actually happened in Hiroshima, so we cannot be sure that statement is accurate.

Obviously we cannot know what WOULD have happened unless we can see into an alternate time lines, so speculation on the matter is somewhat limited in its usefulness. However, I submit that since the Japanese had no real resources of their own, and since the ones they had were running so low that they were flying their planes into their opponents in a last ditch effort to attack, we would never have needed to invade them. Simply blockade them and wait for them to run out of pretty much everything.

However, I also aware that this is a useless discussion because no one here is going to change their mind based on this discussion. People who think it was a good idea have a set of "facts" in the head that make it all justifiable, if terrible. Likewise, people who think it was inexcusable have their own "facts" that lead them to believe it was based on the abi8lity to think of the Japanese as subhuman and the desire to show the world how powerful we were.

 

[Bruin]

I don't believe the killing of innocent people is ever justifiable.

Tell that to a bunch of generals.

Or the Romans.

Or the Brits.

Or any country that's survived to the modern day.

They'll just laugh in your face.

 

[Kenko]

The Japanese weren't gonna stop. We gave them a warning, they refused, we dropped the bomb. We let them look at what just happened, we asked them again and they did not listen. So we dropped another one.

You can't say we didn't give the Japanese ample warning to surrender and while I don't condone mass killings like in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I can see how it saved countless lives on both sides of the fighting.

Both sides? You make it sound like the Americans did something noble lol. Were they takin a shortcut to end the war faster,yes. While genocide is never the right thing to do, i'd say this is a morally dark grey zone tbh. Its right in one way but so horribly fucking wrong at the same time.

 

[Furious Styles]

The Japanese would never have stopped until there was a full scale invasion, which would have caused more deaths than the bombs and resulted in a military quagmire.

It was a terrible thing, but sometimes terrible things are necessary.

 

[Lord Beautiful]

You sound like you have already made up your mind. However, I will suggest a hypothetical: iimagine a scenario where we contacted the Japanese government and told them "please observe this small uninhabited island over here." Then, BOOM. "Now, you have 24 hours to surrender or that will happen to several undisclosed locations within your country."

Had this argument with a mate a few weeks ago. Comes down to the combination that there was no guarantee it would work, and America didn't have the bombs to spare at the time. It still took two cities being leveled to convince them to surrender, I don't really think a "warning shot" would have been anything other than a "wasted" bomb.

Exactly. And seeing as we only had two at that point, not a worthwhile gamble. After all, these are the same people who had been fed so much propaganda that when they saw American soldiers they flung their babies and then themselves off of cliffs because we were supposedly going to do horrible things to them. The mainland would have been a bloodbath worse than that in Berlin.

Besides, nuking a major city didn't dissuade them; how would bombing an uninhabited island be any better?

 

[Ampersand]

They were doing the best they could in the situation they were in. Droping the bomb went a long way toward ending the war and actually resulted in far fewer deaths then conventional bombing would have.
The real issue is that the war should never have been started in the first place.

 

[Macgyvercas]

as we know nuclear bombs were dropped on japan in the 40's to end the war in the pacific and mark and end of WW2. when we ask "was this right?" normally the answer is an immediate "no it killed too many people and still is killing people who were radiated".

But look at it this way, What if america invaded the Japanese mainland? surely that would result in more death? your thoughts please...

I can't remember who said it, but dropping the bombs "would shorten the war by five years and save millions of lives."

See, if America had launched a full scale invasion, I'm fairly certain it would have been far more devastating than the bombs (which killed between 150,000-246,000, depending on what figures you use).

However, I believe that we could have found military targets rather than hitting civilian centers. I admit it was effective, but not exactly what I would call ethical.

 

[sms_117b]

I know it stopped the war and countless US losses (hardly spared both sides did it), but, I cannot say this was justifyable, civilians arn't supposed to be targets in war, yes they are constantly and there was only one place during WW2 where this rule of engagement was obeyed (North Africa, the Afrika Cors and the Brits both maintained an excellent standard of combat, both tactically and ethically, when the Germans surrendered the Brits even clapped them to their cells). But dropping a nuke on a city is just wrong, on a smaller town with a large military base, more acceptable. As far as I'm aware the nukes target had no real military force, I may be wrong, if I am, let me know.