dropping the bomb on japan? yes or no?

[capnpupster]

The real argument against dropping the bombs isn't whether or not it would be the best and most humane way to end the war with Japan, it's about the future ramifications of showing the entire world that the Atomic bomb was a viable military weapon. Even this, however may not have been entirely negative, but it has yet to play out completely. The development of nuclear weapons may have been responsible for the lack of a World War 3, without the risk of MAD the Soviets and the west may well have resorted to more traditional warfare. Without the need for missiles to strike anywhere on the planet space exploration likely wouldn't have advanced as quickly, or at all. On the other hand if America hadn't used them, the atomic weapon might have stayed a piece of science fiction, and we wouldn't still have the threat of total annihilation looming over our heads. I could probably write a term paper on the far-reaching ramifications of the decision to drop the bombs or not, but I think I've made a clear point that the immediate war wasn't the only factor to consider.

As for dropping one of the bombs as a demonstration, there are valid arguments against it, but the most likely reason it didn't happen is less valid. There was actually a petition signed by nearly all the scientists and technicians that developed the bomb asking the President to demonstrate the weapon in an uninhabited area, but certain military men made sure it never reached him, so it was never really given any consideration.

Edit: Oh yeah, what really convinced Truman to drop the bomb was one of his advisors saying "What will future generations say when they learn that you could have ended this war, but chose not to?". I may have paraphrased that a little but it's a powerful thought.

 

[Dzil]

I wish we could have tried dropping it just outside the city.
A warning shot like that leaving a giant crater for everyone to see after impact would have caused less deaths and sent a better message to Japan. Something still along the line of "Don't F*** With Us."
...I like mind games.

I wish that would have worked too. And yet, take a look at the pickle the US is in over in Iraq and Afghanistan now. The United States CLEARLY have the destructive capability to decimate those countries. And yet, being unwilling to kill millions with a bomb, there's still resistance to the US military there nine years later. Thousands of Americans and countless (but estimated ten or hundreds of thousands) of lives lost later: I'm about convinced the US response to 9-11 should have been to simply nuke Mecca or Baghdad or Tehran and call it a day.

 

[DTWolfwood]

Sure as hell was more humane than full scale invasion of japan, or the carpet bombings we subjected them to. Not like 1500 bombers dropping conventional bombs didn't kill just as many as 1 nuke

 

[eljawa]

If we had attacked the Japanese mainland, chances are we wouldve steamrolled them. The Japanese were on the verge of surrender, they couldnt withstand war much longer. The reason we dropped the bombs was to show off to Russia, which was becoming extremely imperialistic

true story

 

[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.

So Becaus a Goverment doesnt listen.. You Kill ppl that had nothing to do with the war.. Yea it makes Sense.. Real American Tactic.. I think Pearl Harbor was a Good move.. Atleast Those soldiers died for there country.. and they Choose to be there.. But Bombing a Town full of Woman and Children is just Playing wrong :s

A country is nothing without people. The people keep the government alive. They give the army soldiers to fight, they pay for the Tanks, planes and boats that make up the armaments, they also fully supported the Japanese cause and even IF we did attack the mainland, these men,woman and children wouldn't just go peacefully, but would end up like the Vietcong. A giant millita group that would be difficult to track. In the end, the Bombs were the quickest, fastest solution and before you side with the Japanese about Pearl Harbor keep in mind the following:

1) They had sign a peace treaty with the U.S. saying they would not attack us. They deliberately broke it when they attacked Pearl Harbor. Which is why it was such a tragedy and a "Day that will live in infamy." this wasn't a normal battle. We didn't see them coming. Hell, most of our Sailors were getting ready for Christmas.

2) They also ended up hitting a few civilian buildings

3) They also launched a series of bombs at California with Balloons. While they were completely ineffective, they did lead to the deaths of 5 people. 1 woman and 4 grade school children. The Japanese may not have killed as many people as we did 5 years later, but at least we warned them.

 

[Daffy F]

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...

Who said it was wrong? To be honest, it saved at least a couple of million lives, the honour-bound Japanese would never surrender until they were entirely defeated. As in, literally every single person capable of fighting was dead. In short, it was a good thing to do...

 

[Staskala]

I'm about convinced the US response to 9-11 should have been to simply nuke Mecca or Baghdad or Tehran and call it a day.

Nuking Mecca? With that you would have created another world war, not avoided some insurgents.
And what have Iran and Iraq got to do with 9/11?

You can't really nuke Taliban hiding in some caves you don't even know the location of.

 

[Elephant Walker19]

This needs to be in R&P

Yay, a chance for high school aged self-righteous kiddies who haven't read their history to rant and ***** about how "wrong" America was for ending World War Two.

This is such a troll topic.

Anybody who has read the topic in history knows that the Japanese did the same kind of horrific shit that the Nazis were doing. Its just that no one talks about them. The Japanese were prepared to sacrifice every last man, woman and child.

You know who whines most about "big, bad America dropping an atomic weapon on poor Japan"? Those Japan-obsessed gamers and anime fans who can't separated reality from their idealized illusions.

The reality is that the Japanese were going to screw around until someone stopped them. Americans, Australians and New Zealanders fought in the South Pacific and it was a horrific war. Taking the Japanese mainland would have killed thousands of more marines from US/AUS/NZ.

So yeah, in World War Two, the Japanese got what was coming to them. Read about the experiments they did on Chinese and Koreans in Unit 731 camps before you whine about how sad it was. Read about the Rape of Nanking. Read about what the Japanese did to Prisoners of War.


Is it different now? Obviously. America stayed, rebuilt the damn country and now Japan is our friend. So its different now.

But back then, yes, absolutely necessary. It saved thousands of lives.

What you said.

and this only got to 15 pages because the word "Japan" got said.

Damn.Weeaboos.

 

[eljawa]

Yay, a chance for high school aged self-righteous kiddies who haven't read their history to rant and ***** about how "wrong" America was for ending World War Two.

This is such a troll topic.

Anybody who has read the topic in history knows that the Japanese did the same kind of horrific shit that the Nazis were doing. Its just that no one talks about them. The Japanese were prepared to sacrifice every last man, woman and child.

You know who whines most about "big, bad America dropping an atomic weapon on poor Japan"? Those Japan-obsessed gamers and anime fans who can't separated reality from their idealized illusions.

The reality is that the Japanese were going to screw around until someone stopped them. Americans, Australians and New Zealanders fought in the South Pacific and it was a horrific war. Taking the Japanese mainland would have killed thousands of more marines from US/AUS/NZ.

So yeah, in World War Two, the Japanese got what was coming to them. Read about the experiments they did on Chinese and Koreans in Unit 731 camps before you whine about how sad it was. Read about the Rape of Nanking. Read about what the Japanese did to Prisoners of War.


Is it different now? Obviously. America stayed, rebuilt the damn country and now Japan is our friend. So its different now.

But back then, yes, absolutely necessary. It saved thousands of lives.

It didnt save lives.

I remember from my AP history materials that analysts at the time said we could've ended the war easily without the bomb, Japan was that weakened from years of war and on the verge of surrender. Had they still been wicked strong, maybe, maybe it couldve been justified. But the real reason for dropping, had to do with showing off to RUssia and making sure THEY didnt do anything to help end fighting in Japan, as we were begining to get nervous over their expanding power. Ultimatly, the dropping of the bomb started the Arms race and such

Good idea? no

 

[CitySquirrel]

A lot of people are marking the argument that all is fair in war, and I wanted to point something out about this. This is a legitimate position to take. However, one also has to accept the ramifications of that position.

If war makes everything permissible, then this also has to hold true for all wars. This is because you can't say that "in some wars everything is permissible" without opening up an almost infinite set of interpretations of what is an "everything" war and what is not. Furthermore, it would be plagued by subjectivity...obviously whatever we do is justified, whatever they do is not.

Furthermore, war does not require two parties to acknowledge it... by definition war occurs when one party makes war upon another. This ignores the legal definition of war as only existing when declared because that does not reflect reality.

Now, while I know this will cause people to call me names and maybe wish violence upon me, I would like to consider this in the context of a recent tragedy: 9/11. The people who attacked the US that day were, as far as they were concerned, at war with us. Furthermore, like the US against Japan, they felt that they had been provoked. Specifically by a number of our actions in the past decades. That these were real or imagined is unimportant at this time, the point is that if they were at war with us, and all is justified in war, then what they did was justified.

Now, this also means that our counterstrike was justified. Furthermore, more force than we used would have been justified. Since, in Afghanistan, we can't really tell friend from foe, just reducing the population of the country to triple digits, rather than try to weed out the enemies, would have been justified. Going one step further, using any weapons possible would also be justified. Chemical and biological weapons would be fair game.

However, we didn't outright massacre the population, we (mostly) believe we shouldn't use chemical or biological weapons, and we don't support mass assaults on civilian populations. This is because we do not actually believe that everything is justified in war. And, we should be glad that most don't subscribe to this belief. We in the US have little to worry about because the chances of being invaded are tiny. Not only to we have the strongest military in the world (or the largest most expensive, anyway... it has happened before that a small untrained army has defeated the most powerful empire in the world...See the year 1776) but we have lots of room to see and attack coming and prevent it before it hits out soil. People in Europe and Asia, however, have a high probability of being invaded by someone if there is another large-scale war, and so they should hope that there is still some sense of decency-even-at-war if this happens.

Finally, one might say "well we know that now, but back then we didn't...things were different." And this is true. I am charitably ready to accept that, at the time, the people who made the decision to drop the bombs on Japan believed it was the correct thing to do. Since, however, this is a question of morality, and morality transcends belief, we should be able to look back upon it and say "even though it was considered right when it happened, we know now that it was not morally justified.

So, basically, if it was morally justified then, based of the premise of war justifying everything, then once has to allow that the same justification for anything happening in war today, no matter how heinous it is.

 

[supermariner]

massive no on dropping of the atomic bombs
but realistically would anything else have worked?
it stopped their war pretty much instantly
so although i disagree that mass death by nuke is wrong
I (as an 18 year old college student and not a military analyst) can't honestly say what else could have been implemented

 

[LarenzoAOG]

Here's a novel idea, let's let the Escapists who were alive in the 1940's decide whether it was right or wrong..... no takers, oh, since the experts on the subject are keeping silent we ametuers should probably shut the hell up. Maybe next we should decide if bringing small pox to North America was ok, or if the Battan Death March was a good idea, or is the Spanish Inquisition was more of a casual Q&A.

What I'm getting at (the smug sarcastic dick I am), is that we probably weren't alive at the time, and can't do anything about it now. Even if we were to be super open-minded and did all the research in the world and could bring the most stoic and bitter WWII vets from Japan ad the U.S. together in a singalong for world peace humans have been killing and doing horrible shit to each other for generations and we won't stop anytime soon.

 

[Queen Michael]

No. I like Japan. I don't want them bombed.

 

[capnpupster]

Where is this idea that the civilian population had nothing to do with the war come from? Civilian life during wartime wasn't the way it is for Americans today, everyone was expected, required, and did something to contribute to the war effort. This isn't just in Japan, but every country involved in World War 2. Most factories where converted to produce something for the military, and most people were proud to contribute. I'm not saying that they where completely valid military targets, I'm not saying that they weren't either, but to say that they were not part of the Japanese war machine is simply untrue.

 

[LightningBanks]

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.

I agree, they didnt stop at one city, it hasd to be 2 which made them surrender

 

[farmerboy219]

It didnt save lives.

I remember from my AP history materials that analysts at the time said we could've ended the war easily without the bomb, Japan was that weakened from years of war and on the verge of surrender. Had they still been wicked strong, maybe, maybe it couldve been justified. But the real reason for dropping, had to do with showing off to RUssia and making sure THEY didnt do anything to help end fighting in Japan, as we were begining to get nervous over their expanding power. Ultimatly, the dropping of the bomb started the Arms race and such

Good idea? no

Post-war analysis of the information may lead to that conclusion, but if you'd like to take a gander at the link in my earlier post in this thread, the Japanese leadership was perfectly prepared to prolong the suffering. This was months after a conventional bombing campaign in one night in March caused 100,000 casualties in Tokyo alone, and 40+ cities were bombed prior to the use of the nukes. Warning leaflets were also dropped at all major cities on the bombing list (including Hiroshima and Nagasaki), but everyone is free to speculate on the reasons why the various civilians decided to stay.

 

[ALuckyChance]

Whatever happened, happened. People would have died either way, all the bombs did was make the killing much quicker. Maybe it even saved lives, who knows.

 

[Grey_Focks]

Everything I think about the matter has already been said...better than the alternative of actually invading Japan, lives were saved in the long run, they kinda had it coming ("Rape of Nanking" anyone!?), the civilians would've have fought the US troops right along side their soldiers...ofcourse this is all coming from someone who is not an expert on the matter, but I also admittedly DO know a bit more than average about this.

You guys are also acting like we didn't give warning. The day before we dropped Bomb #1 we dropped pamphlets warning that shit was about to hit the fan. Not to mention it took TWO bombs to get them to surrender...Emperor Hirohito was a bit of a monster, and the fact that we let him stay in power is what really shocked the hell out of me, then again, that goes to show the Japanese people worshiped the guy, even after he let his people get nuked.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

No, they wouldn't have been. At least not at that time. According to Japanese demands, the political system should have remained unchanged, except for the allies to take temporary control.
Another demand was immunity to the Emperor, i.e. no charges for war crimes (though Hirohito wasn't trialed anyway). The allied stance was unconditional surrender or destruction (Japan was actually threatened with the elemination of the entire Japanese race, though that was more to scare them rather than an actual plan).
In general it was more likely for Japan to eventually surrender to Russia and take the gamble of the Soviets not going back on their word. To avoid Stalin expanding his influence the allies sought a quick solution to make Japan surrender to them, the best way to do this were the atomic bombs.

In retrospect we also have to say that this might have been ultimately better for Japan itself (look at Soviet rule in East Germany or East Europe in general, for example).

Well in that case maybe they did need to drop he bombs to force a quick surrender, putting the same political system back in power after a short break seems a bit of a waste of time, maybe they could have bargained them down to keeping the Emperor as a figurehead but I guess we'll never know.

 

[Loud Noise]

The main point should be that war is horrible for all involved overall. Every side did something regrettable, and I'm not just talking about bomb dropping as far as the U.S. is concerned. They rounded up thousands of citizens and put them in concentration camps in the U.S.

Chinese soldiers killed many of their own people due to the feud between the Nationalists and the Reds after the fall of Imperialism. Good god the "witch hunts" during that time were horrifying.

The Japanese had their own prison camps as twisted as those of Josef Mengele in which hundreds of thousands of Chinese died.

The Germans killed many of the Jewish people and sadly brainwashed much of their youth into dying for nothing.


No side is an innocent creature. To be honest the whole reason WWII happened is because of WWI which started because of Imperialism and snatch-and-grab land stealing. People will inherently continue to fight over land as long as we are alive, largely because we are sexual creatures. The more land under control of a certain male population, the larger amounts of resources are available to them and therefore a larger amount of females. Females go where resources are more readily available because sexual selection pressure parcels out larger amounts of child-rearing duties to that particular sex.