dropping the bomb on japan? yes or no?
- Thread starter farmerboy219
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't think there's a single person on this planet that doesn't wish that could have happened. The point is, the war needed to end IMMEDIATELY. A ground invasion would have dragged on for years and would have resulted in the deaths of millions.heavymedicombo said:
That ship sailed in 1939. It's war. People die. More people died in the conventional bombing of Tokyo than in the A-Bombs. More people died in China, Germany, Russia, Britain.heavymedicombo said:
If the bomb hadn't been used on the cities it was going to be used on the beaches, that's a fact. Millions were on the line.
For the record, the Allies wanted unconditional surrender because of a little failure called the Treaty of Versailles. If you don't what that is, then you're an idiot because it's extremely relevant when talking about WWII. The Treaty of Versailles is arguably one of, if not, the biggest causes of the Second World War ? especially for the Germans. It taught the world a few things, that kicking a nation when it's down and treating it like it's completely to blame is a bad idea; why do you think Hitler was so popular? Aside from his charisma, he was promising to avenge the wrongs that were perceived to have been done against Germany and restore it to its former glory.
Aside from that, the Treaty of Versailles also kicked the Italians and the Japanese pretty hard. Both of them joined the war and expected to be given some sort of territorial award for their services. Of course, that didn't happen. They didn't get the areas that they wanted and left skulking as Germany's colonies were divided up amongst France and the United Kingdom for the most part.
As for the Americans, we get from then president Woodrow Wilson, his Fourteen Points on which the League of Nations was founded. Think of it as the precursor to today's United Nations. It basically was a diplomatic forum for countries to solve dispute between them through mediation. Which didn't work so well because neither Britain or France was willing to stick it up and actually back any of the resolutions passed which let the Italians and the Japanese skate by with their conquests in the run-up to the Second World War. Same thing happened with Germany. Remember Czechoslovakia? It was the one country that had an organized military and was actually a sort of bastion of Western thought in eastern Europe. Of course, Czechoslovakia was a conglomerate of various nationalities, including the Sudetenland which was comprised of Germans. That didn't make Hitler too happy and it took only a little effort of throwing his weight around and making some threats about armed conflict that made France and Britain bow to his wishes.
Hence why we have Chamberlain going on about a piece of paper bearing Hitler's signature and how he averted a war. Good job there sir.
In any case, I'm getting really off topic here...
While today we really wouldn't approve of dropping atomic weapons on cities filled with civilians ? but we still seem to have no problem with bombing areas that are known to have civilians in them, albeit not using atomic weaponry ? considering the time period and the frame of mind of most Japanese citizens it could be considered a necessary evil.
Forecasted casualties for an invasion of the Japanese islands was extremely high, in excess of a million American soldiers ? someone stated the statistics on an earlier page ? and that loss of life was considered to be greater than the damage caused by dropping an atomic bomb on a city. Dropping two, though, might be overkill, especially since there wasn't really a reasonable time period between the two dates. Hiroshima was bombed on the sixth of August, with Nagasaki bombed three days later on the ninth. I would have to say that maybe if the Japanese government had been given a little more time, the faction arguing for surrender would have been able to secure it; especially when the casualty rates and damage had been calculated to a more accurate degree.
However, a lot of this is mere speculation. But given the Japanese mentality, it isn't surprising that extreme measures had to be resorted to. It's similar to what happened in Germany; a lot of propaganda supporting that it was better to die in battle than to surrender and bring shame upon your nation. Both the Germans and the Japanese were subjected to a sort of brainwashing that can also be seen being utilized by Soviet Russia. The glorification of the leader to almost divine or prophetic levels, and the idea that serving them and your country loyally is the greatest honor that one can do. The brainwashing was effective; just listen to testimony given by survivors or people who lived through that time period.
Reasons for the Allies wanting a unconditional surrender: Because they were thinking of Versailles and also because they hadn't negotiated things out completely with the Russians, aka Stalin. Note that this might not be completely accurate, but from what I remember its mostly the case. There's other factors too.
Also, I'm directing this at TeeBs: How about you go Google Hiroshima and Nagasaki in accordance with 'atomic bomb' or any variation of that. Go and see what happened to the survivors or people who escaped. You obviously don't know what radiation can do or the grievous injuries that are caused by exposure to that. Radiation causes heat, heat burns. The heat from the bombs burned the patterns of women's kimonos into their skin. I'd post images but I don't think anyone but you deserves the horrors of having to see them.
This is, again, a case of whether or not the means justify the ends.
Aside from that, the Treaty of Versailles also kicked the Italians and the Japanese pretty hard. Both of them joined the war and expected to be given some sort of territorial award for their services. Of course, that didn't happen. They didn't get the areas that they wanted and left skulking as Germany's colonies were divided up amongst France and the United Kingdom for the most part.
As for the Americans, we get from then president Woodrow Wilson, his Fourteen Points on which the League of Nations was founded. Think of it as the precursor to today's United Nations. It basically was a diplomatic forum for countries to solve dispute between them through mediation. Which didn't work so well because neither Britain or France was willing to stick it up and actually back any of the resolutions passed which let the Italians and the Japanese skate by with their conquests in the run-up to the Second World War. Same thing happened with Germany. Remember Czechoslovakia? It was the one country that had an organized military and was actually a sort of bastion of Western thought in eastern Europe. Of course, Czechoslovakia was a conglomerate of various nationalities, including the Sudetenland which was comprised of Germans. That didn't make Hitler too happy and it took only a little effort of throwing his weight around and making some threats about armed conflict that made France and Britain bow to his wishes.
Hence why we have Chamberlain going on about a piece of paper bearing Hitler's signature and how he averted a war. Good job there sir.
In any case, I'm getting really off topic here...
While today we really wouldn't approve of dropping atomic weapons on cities filled with civilians ? but we still seem to have no problem with bombing areas that are known to have civilians in them, albeit not using atomic weaponry ? considering the time period and the frame of mind of most Japanese citizens it could be considered a necessary evil.
Forecasted casualties for an invasion of the Japanese islands was extremely high, in excess of a million American soldiers ? someone stated the statistics on an earlier page ? and that loss of life was considered to be greater than the damage caused by dropping an atomic bomb on a city. Dropping two, though, might be overkill, especially since there wasn't really a reasonable time period between the two dates. Hiroshima was bombed on the sixth of August, with Nagasaki bombed three days later on the ninth. I would have to say that maybe if the Japanese government had been given a little more time, the faction arguing for surrender would have been able to secure it; especially when the casualty rates and damage had been calculated to a more accurate degree.
However, a lot of this is mere speculation. But given the Japanese mentality, it isn't surprising that extreme measures had to be resorted to. It's similar to what happened in Germany; a lot of propaganda supporting that it was better to die in battle than to surrender and bring shame upon your nation. Both the Germans and the Japanese were subjected to a sort of brainwashing that can also be seen being utilized by Soviet Russia. The glorification of the leader to almost divine or prophetic levels, and the idea that serving them and your country loyally is the greatest honor that one can do. The brainwashing was effective; just listen to testimony given by survivors or people who lived through that time period.
Reasons for the Allies wanting a unconditional surrender: Because they were thinking of Versailles and also because they hadn't negotiated things out completely with the Russians, aka Stalin. Note that this might not be completely accurate, but from what I remember its mostly the case. There's other factors too.
Also, I'm directing this at TeeBs: How about you go Google Hiroshima and Nagasaki in accordance with 'atomic bomb' or any variation of that. Go and see what happened to the survivors or people who escaped. You obviously don't know what radiation can do or the grievous injuries that are caused by exposure to that. Radiation causes heat, heat burns. The heat from the bombs burned the patterns of women's kimonos into their skin. I'd post images but I don't think anyone but you deserves the horrors of having to see them.
This is, again, a case of whether or not the means justify the ends.
look above. there were other options, it's just that america was too stupid to find them.[/quote]heavymedicombo said:
Forgive me if this comes across as petty, but if America is so stupid, then why don't you give me a perfect solution?
If you were in charge, and you were told that "Unless you can come up with something, we have two options. One, engage in a land invasion with Japan. The mortality rate will be around a million for our side, even higher for Japan. Given our experience with their soldiers, we believe, with good reason, that they simply will not surrender and will fight until the last man/woman/child falls.
The second option is to use the recently developed nuclear weapons. While the civilian casualties will be high, likely in the hundreds of thousands, it has a much higher chance of success for stopping the war TODAY."
What would you do?
The Allies gave their terms to the Japanese. The Japanese refused to surrender. The Emperor himself had to intervene and order the surrender. The night before the surrender was announced, there was an attempted coup by the Ministry of War to stop the surrender.heavymedicombo said:
What more proof do you need? They weren't going to stop. It's a war. People die in a war.
And this is a twenty-first century opinion coming from one who has never lived in a country that is in a state of war. Not the war we have today, but a full-blown world war in which any day there comes the risk of being bombed. You cannot understand the mentality of the people nor do you wish to come to know perhaps why they acted the way that they did and why they chose the options that they did.heavymedicombo said:
Simply put, you don't understand and you refuse to enlighten or educate yourself on the subject. Hence, you really are an idiot.
For the record, pacifist ideals like yours are what started this entire war in the first place. There could have been time to avert the war, but people were unwilling to support another armed conflict, remembering what had become known as the Great War at the time, and politicians reacted thusly. By the time it came down to defeating Japan, no one was willing to take any chances.
How long do you think you can keep something like this quiet? How long do you think it would be before the still extant empire of Japan starts their own nulear program? How many allied soldiers would have had to die in the second pacific war of 1965-1972? How would you justify your decision to settle for anything other than total surrender when the sons of those who gave so much have to take up arms again. And when, in the alternate two thousand ten of the world in which the bombs weren't dropped, what do you think people will say, when instead of two bombs being dropped, ten are, or twenty are, not just in Japan, but on Darwin, on Guam or on San fransico.heavymedicombo said:
Perhaps none of this would have come to pass, perhaps Japan would have become peaceful. But look through Truman's eyes and ask yourself, do you turn your back on a wounded enemy just because there is a slight chance that he might not attack you?
Hirohito made it clear that he was never going to surrender. We needed to end the war. There were three options. 1: A mass invasion. 2: Nuke them. 3: Surrender.heavymedicombo said:
We knew that a mass invasion was going to cost millions of lives. We definitely did not want to surrender after what they did to the Chinese. And we knew that we needed to end the war quickly.
There is no way to fight a war without bloodshed. War is war. People die. And honestly I think they had it coming to them. People see us as assholes because we bombed them twice but look at what they did to China. If you were a Chinese captive, you were killed. If you were a Chinese captive and a woman, you were raped, THEN KILLED.
There is no way to passively deal with people like that.
I'm 99.9% positive this was considered and determined to have two low of a chance of success for it to be viable (especially given only two nuclear weapons existed). When it comes to war, you don't want to be playing a game of chance.heavymedicombo said:
As for the last part, that's more than a little naive. The scientists developing the nuclear weapon knew what they were getting into. More than that, it's proven as a strong deterrent against open war.
I'm going to repeat my point that the general point of view people hold about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is wrong. The bombs are not what caused the Japanese surrender. They contributed to it, but they achieved little more than the ddeath of hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Oh and if you read Imperial Japanese documents and communiques leading up to the surrender, none of them are about the atomic blasts, since they were much more worried about the fact that the Soviets had just declared war, opening up a second front. Combine that with the fact that their elite units in Manchuria had just been destroyed in short order by advancing Red army units and suddenly the Atomic bombs seem less war ending.
I'm going to call bullshit on this in particular. Since there was a grand total of zero American fatalities during the occupation of Japan. The people were broken, they were tired of war and tired of having their cities razed and their children gunned down by fighters. Lets be honest here, say the US was invaded tomorrow and the government surrendered, would you suddenly just stop being angry at the invaders and no-one would fight back. How about when the occupying troops start cording off entire city blocks and raping all the women, beating anyone who tries to resist and sending them to jail without trial. Now do the same thing in a hospital, and do that every week for a year. I'm surprised the Japanese don't hate the Americans after that alone.MBurner 93 said:
Oh and if you read Imperial Japanese documents and communiques leading up to the surrender, none of them are about the atomic blasts, since they were much more worried about the fact that the Soviets had just declared war, opening up a second front. Combine that with the fact that their elite units in Manchuria had just been destroyed in short order by advancing Red army units and suddenly the Atomic bombs seem less war ending.
A demonstration of power. I would have A bomb dropped 10-20 kms off the coast of osaka as a live warning. They did not know the extent of the power that america wielded. No person did. And from hindsight, I doubt many if any country would have nuclear weapons if they did not know of the damage they are capable of.[/quote]heavymedicombo said:
And when we've used up half of our stockpile and the Japanese don't care? There were holdouts that refused to believe the war had ended for thirty years after the fact, do you think that a demonstration bombing would do anything to faze them? You think they wouldn't just bunker down and prepare for the worst?
And if they didn't surrender, would you then drop the last bomb?
Hell, the only reason they surrendered in the first place was because they believed we had a limitless stockpile.
Justifiable? No. Violence is never 'justifiable'.
Necessary? Very. Sometimes we have to do bad things to prevent worse things from happening.
Necessary? Very. Sometimes we have to do bad things to prevent worse things from happening.