It seems immaterial to me. The real tragedy was the creation of the atomic bomb. Once it was already created, whether they used it or not was irrelevant, I think. I would have preferred an extra million, or two million, or a hundred million people die in an assault on Japan than the creation of nuclear weapons.
dropping the bomb on japan? yes or no?
- Thread starter farmerboy219
- Start date
Recommended Videos
And I believe that it becomes nessecary under extraordinairy circumstances, and that I believe, is the central dissagrement of this thread.Jonluw said:
Pearl Harbor was an assault on a military base. That is justifiable in war. Bombing cities with only civvies and maybe some war factorys is a war crime.thatcanadianguy said:
While I don't believe that the mass killing of anyone is ever truly "justifiable", I have to argue that if the American government had decided to use an "uninhabited" island(because of course we all know those are just lying around like the movies say they do) that the level of carnage would not have been severe enough to leave impact for the Japanese to surrender. Hell, if it were that easy, we should have just shown them the film from the test in Los Alamos. No, the issue was that the Japanese military and govt. leaders needed to see the devastation firsthand.CitySquirrel said:
In a thread close to 400 comments long, I can almost be assured that no one will read this post.
From what I have learned about Truman's decision about dropping the Bombs on Japan was this: By 1945, WWII was about to end no matter what. Japan has very few natural resources to draw upon and were running out of any options other than surrender (or annihilation). Also Hitler had been stopped from advancing for over a full year, and scholars today agree that if the Bombs didn't drop, WWII would have ended all the same.
However, at the time, WWII was approaching a decade long struggle. Truman was new to the Presidency, and was also new to the detailed specifics of the War. The Manhattan project was reaching the testing stages as he assumed the Presidency. He was reported to have feared using the Bombs at all, when he was told of their devastating power. He couldn't have possibly imagined the actual power of the bombs, as no one person really can, nor their long term impact. American reports of the Bombs dropping were as such: 'America drops a bomb on Hiroshima.' 'America receives no word from the Japanese government.' 'America proceeds as planned to drop a bomb on Nagasaki.' But Japanese officials had not heard of the attack on Hiroshima because there was simply no way for communication to leave the area.
While I believe that the atomic bomb is too strong a weapon to use to murder any human being, I can understand why its use came into play given the circumstances. Unfortunately understanding the situation in no way relieves the reality of what the American government is responsible for. It is a particular tragedy that the cities were specifically targeted for being entirely of civilian population. And to relate the issue to your specific question of "Yes or no": there is no 'yes or no'. There are events that have happened in the past, and we must deal with them in the present. The answer in reality is yes. The bombs did indeed drop. The answer in morality is no, the bombs should not have been dropped. Hopefully this did something to answer your question.
From what I have learned about Truman's decision about dropping the Bombs on Japan was this: By 1945, WWII was about to end no matter what. Japan has very few natural resources to draw upon and were running out of any options other than surrender (or annihilation). Also Hitler had been stopped from advancing for over a full year, and scholars today agree that if the Bombs didn't drop, WWII would have ended all the same.
However, at the time, WWII was approaching a decade long struggle. Truman was new to the Presidency, and was also new to the detailed specifics of the War. The Manhattan project was reaching the testing stages as he assumed the Presidency. He was reported to have feared using the Bombs at all, when he was told of their devastating power. He couldn't have possibly imagined the actual power of the bombs, as no one person really can, nor their long term impact. American reports of the Bombs dropping were as such: 'America drops a bomb on Hiroshima.' 'America receives no word from the Japanese government.' 'America proceeds as planned to drop a bomb on Nagasaki.' But Japanese officials had not heard of the attack on Hiroshima because there was simply no way for communication to leave the area.
While I believe that the atomic bomb is too strong a weapon to use to murder any human being, I can understand why its use came into play given the circumstances. Unfortunately understanding the situation in no way relieves the reality of what the American government is responsible for. It is a particular tragedy that the cities were specifically targeted for being entirely of civilian population. And to relate the issue to your specific question of "Yes or no": there is no 'yes or no'. There are events that have happened in the past, and we must deal with them in the present. The answer in reality is yes. The bombs did indeed drop. The answer in morality is no, the bombs should not have been dropped. Hopefully this did something to answer your question.
They didn't surrender when it was dropped on Hiroshima, so a small isolated island wouldn't have worked. Plus they ONLY had 2 bombs, they'd have been screwed if they did that and the surrender didn't come about as it'd have taken time to make more.CitySquirrel said:
Also, like it or not, its war and people die. I recall reading that more died in the fire bombings by B-29's then the 2 nukes, so in the grand scheme of things it was the lesser of 2 evils.
It's extremely hard to decipher and even harder to make a judgement.
For one; there has been testimonies that Japan *did* try to surrender but the USA didn't accept because they wanted to use the bombs to intimidate the USSR. It's hard to tell whether these are true because they're from ex-ministers or false to try and make Japan out as the good guys.
*If* it is false, then did the bombs actually prevent further suffering? It's not like Japan was winning the war for one. Eventually, one way or the other, they would've almost certainly lost. Were the possible loss of American lives able to justify the Japanese loss of life? After all, Japan WERE the antagonists in the war, don't they deserve the most punishment?
Personally, I think the bombs were a bad idea, purely because it's created a situation where Nuclear weapons are the greatest and most rational fear regarding wars. Nobody else had access to nuclear weapons and further more, nobody was in a rush to make them. But now, even countries that don't have a particular standing in world politics have access to them.
Although I have no illusions that it's the correct view, it's my personal belief that in the long run it was a bad move - with the possibility that the USA had no idea at the time that it would cause this domino effect.
For one; there has been testimonies that Japan *did* try to surrender but the USA didn't accept because they wanted to use the bombs to intimidate the USSR. It's hard to tell whether these are true because they're from ex-ministers or false to try and make Japan out as the good guys.
*If* it is false, then did the bombs actually prevent further suffering? It's not like Japan was winning the war for one. Eventually, one way or the other, they would've almost certainly lost. Were the possible loss of American lives able to justify the Japanese loss of life? After all, Japan WERE the antagonists in the war, don't they deserve the most punishment?
Personally, I think the bombs were a bad idea, purely because it's created a situation where Nuclear weapons are the greatest and most rational fear regarding wars. Nobody else had access to nuclear weapons and further more, nobody was in a rush to make them. But now, even countries that don't have a particular standing in world politics have access to them.
Although I have no illusions that it's the correct view, it's my personal belief that in the long run it was a bad move - with the possibility that the USA had no idea at the time that it would cause this domino effect.
People always talk about the relative death tolls of invasion and the bombs.
Isn't that kind of a false dichotomy? I mean, they were flying their planes into you, they were clearly running low on fuel and ammunition. You had crushed their navy, so why not just sit off the cost a blockade them into submission?
Besides, after you nuke a city like this:
Not many people are even able to communicate to the outside world. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that it would take days for the rescuers to arrive and figure out what the fuck happened. Perhaps that's why they didn't respond before the 2nd bomb?
Imagine if that was Houstin or Los Angeles or Chicago or even one of the European Powers' cities. It doesn't seem so favourable to me, but hey, I'm not from the USA, so I probably would say that.
Isn't that kind of a false dichotomy? I mean, they were flying their planes into you, they were clearly running low on fuel and ammunition. You had crushed their navy, so why not just sit off the cost a blockade them into submission?
Besides, after you nuke a city like this:
Not many people are even able to communicate to the outside world. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that it would take days for the rescuers to arrive and figure out what the fuck happened. Perhaps that's why they didn't respond before the 2nd bomb?
Imagine if that was Houstin or Los Angeles or Chicago or even one of the European Powers' cities. It doesn't seem so favourable to me, but hey, I'm not from the USA, so I probably would say that.
I'm either going to be put on probation or suspended for this, but you're an idiot.Andreas55k said:
I think it was necessary. To avoid the predicted cost of an invasion.
And, selfishly (if you would call it that) I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the bomb. Several accounts from both sides state that if the main Japanese islands were invaded guards would be ordered to execute remain prisoners in order to return to fight the allies. My grandfather was one of those prisoners, so in the event of an invasion would've been killed. So, for those reasons I agree it was necessary.
And, selfishly (if you would call it that) I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the bomb. Several accounts from both sides state that if the main Japanese islands were invaded guards would be ordered to execute remain prisoners in order to return to fight the allies. My grandfather was one of those prisoners, so in the event of an invasion would've been killed. So, for those reasons I agree it was necessary.
I'm amazed at how selfish people here are. They're totally OK with dropping the bombs, some of them even mentioning that this also saved relatives, but forget entirely at how the bombs affected the PEOPLE. You know, the ones that ACTUALLY SUFFERED?! No amount of anything will justify the killings of innocent civilians. If you want to attack the government then do so, but not at that cost.
War.War never changes.KeyMaster45 said:
OT: Yes. Afterall the deaths are just statistic, no drama or anything.
Any country thats doing fucked up shit should be bombed asap.
I'm still amazed USA stood still after 9/11.
I'm still amazed USA stood still after 9/11.