dropping the bomb on japan? yes or no?

[Imp Poster]

I think it is karma. Japan who adapts western ways with guns and such. Invades China/Korea (who were probably still fighting with swords/bow&arrows) with them, takes over those lands, gets a big head thinking they are dominating, decides to invade the west who they have adapted to, well, adapt to the atom and "H".

 

[BlumiereBleck]

We invaded Tokyo...several times. And yes it was justified.

 

[Lazy Kitty]

No, they didn't even nuke the right place so they had to drop more bombs (not nukes this time) to shut down the industry...

 

[Peteron]

There was no morally correct thing to do in that situation. We did what had to do. We gave them a warning, and unfortunately they did not surrender. It was a terrible thing, but honestly, I think it was better than troops being sent in.

 

[Buizel91]

Just by way of referance, the United States, in preperation for operation downfalll (the invasion of the home islands) manufactured a number of purple hearts to give to their wounded after they hit the beaches. In the years after, through Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and both gulf wars, they have not used all of those medals.

At the time, the military of Japan was training every man, woman and child to defend their homeland, using everything from outdated military equipment to sharp sticks. A conventional invasion of the home islands would have been a sort of unholy hybrid between the last stages of the eastern front, (Jan-May 45) and the Vietnam war.

By the time the bomb was completed, they had a total of two war shots ready. To use one on an uninhabited island as a warning shot would be unwise as it did take two to convince Japan to surrender. The allies had also, by that point, reduced every signifigant military target to rubble and had heavily damaged many civilian targets as well. Part of the reason for choosing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that they had escaped mostly unharmed compared to the rest of the home islands.

And finally, try to see this from the allies point of view, they had been attacked without warning and without a rational cassus belli, they had seen their own tortured, starved and killed when taken prisoner, they had seen genocide to rival the holocost take place in china, tehy had seen unit 731, they had seen biological warfare used against the Chinese, they had seen the survivors from a sunked hospital ship strafed in the water, they had seen the 'competetition to behead one hundred prisoners', and they had seen the so called 'comfort houses. They had not seen any sort of resistence to the government, no massive outcry at these actions and while the majority of it may have been covered up, that sort of thing always filters home. No one in Japan seriously tried to stop this. No I ask you again, look at this from the allies point of view, no matter how horrible the thing you were about to do was, how forgiving would you be?

Wasn't going to comment because i know NOTHING about this (Damn History Teacher ¬¬!)...but im curious...

What was unit 731 And the Comfort Houses? Never heard of them before on this topic, and I've seen a fair few.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

I think it was a necessary action to help end the war for several reasons.

1) The only other option would be to invade the Japanese main islands. This would be extremely costly for both sides as we saw how stubbornly the Japanese soldiers could hold on to a volcanic island in the Pacific at Iwo Jima. Now imagine how hard they would fight to protect their homes. The death toll would have been in the millions for that operation alone and could have taken months.

2) Nothing else would have shocked them into submission. Regular bombing wouldn't work and trying to starve them out would have produced many more civilian casualties then either of the atomic bombs. And it would have little effect on the Japanese higher ups' decision. How do I know? The night before Japan officially surrendered there was a failed military coup [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_Incident] made up of officers who wanted to continue fighting even after two atomic bombs. The Japanese only quit after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed because they thought that there was no way to even fight back against the US at that point.

3) Were the atomic bombs really that bad? I know that this sounds callous as the bombs simply obliterated large portions of both cities hit and caused many, many more people to die from radiation sickness years after the war was over. Not to mention those that were physically scared by both bombings. But think about the number of people who died or were wounded from regular bombing done throughout the war. What about similar events of devestation that happened not long before both of the atomic bombs were dropped? (The fire-bombing of Dresden [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II] comes to mind). Athough hundreds of thousands of people died during and after the dropping of the atomic bombs, this is a very small amount compared to the millions of civilians killed throughout the war. The main reason these two incidents stick in our mind so well is because they directly lead to the end of the war and were on a scale never before seen.

I'm not saying that it isn't a tradegy that many Japanese civilians (not to mention other unfortunates in the area) died or were disfigured from radiation sickness years after WWII had ended, but considering the obvious alternatives, it was the right choice to make. Hopefully a choice like it never has to be made again.

 

[Staskala]

Just by way of referance, the United States, in preperation for operation downfalll (the invasion of the home islands) manufactured a number of purple hearts to give to their wounded after they hit the beaches. In the years after, through Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and both gulf wars, they have not used all of those medals.

At the time, the military of Japan was training every man, woman and child to defend their homeland, using everything from outdated military equipment to sharp sticks. A conventional invasion of the home islands would have been a sort of unholy hybrid between the last stages of the eastern front, (Jan-May 45) and the Vietnam war.

By the time the bomb was completed, they had a total of two war shots ready. To use one on an uninhabited island as a warning shot would be unwise as it did take two to convince Japan to surrender. The allies had also, by that point, reduced every signifigant military target to rubble and had heavily damaged many civilian targets as well. Part of the reason for choosing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that they had escaped mostly unharmed compared to the rest of the home islands.

And finally, try to see this from the allies point of view, they had been attacked without warning and without a rational cassus belli, they had seen their own tortured, starved and killed when taken prisoner, they had seen genocide to rival the holocost take place in china, tehy had seen unit 731, they had seen biological warfare used against the Chinese, they had seen the survivors from a sunked hospital ship strafed in the water, they had seen the 'competetition to behead one hundred prisoners', and they had seen the so called 'comfort houses. They had not seen any sort of resistence to the government, no massive outcry at these actions and while the majority of it may have been covered up, that sort of thing always filters home. No one in Japan seriously tried to stop this. No I ask you again, look at this from the allies point of view, no matter how horrible the thing you were about to do was, how forgiving would you be?

Yet China was liberated from Japanese rule by Russia. Funny, huh, almost seems like the allies didn't care that much after all.
I'm saying it again, Russia would have solved the thing alone, the allies didn't have to do anything.
I really don't like this "but an invasion would have cost America so many soldiers" argument when there never was any need for an American invasion.

So am I saying that the bombs were the wrong thing? Hell no.
Looking at East Germany I would actually say that taking the bombs and surrendering to the USA rather than Russia was ultimately better for the Japanese population as a whole.

 

[Flamezdudes]

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.

Why not just drop the bomb on a lone island or remote area instead of cities?

 

[stompy]

Snip

And yet they insisted on unconditional surrender? The Americans weren't stupid, they knew how much the Emperor meant to the Japanese and they should have known that the Japanese had attempted to make peace through the Soviets. They could have negotiated (as they could have done before Pearl Harbour*) but they chose to use the bomb.

Note:

they had been attacked without warning and without a rational cassus belli

I'm not going to argue that the average American citizen would have thought anything but "The Japanese attacked us without warning and without provocation! They deserve no mercy." The US government on the other hand... have you heard of the McCollum Memorandum? If the US provoked Japan, then their behaviour in regards to the A-bomb is the same as their behaviour in regards to Pearl Harbour, weakening the argument that the bomb was justified.

 

[Soviet Steve]

It was the right thing to do.

The losses were smaller than conventional weapons like firebombs and the blockade, the targets were military bases in cities rather than areas with purely civilian targets, and most importantly the Soviets were also preparing to invade. Looking at what North Korea and China have gone through, I'd support the nukes even if they had been targeted at nurseries.

And this is coming from a socialist.

 

[Buizel91]

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...

As an American citizen, I felt pretty ashamed of America dropping two nuclear devices on another country, up until I read about how American Prisoners of War were treated by the Japanese. People piss and moan about the camps Japanese were put in, in America during the same timeframe. But, are probably not aware of such things as the Bataan Death March. People kept in conditions so poor where scores were dying daily.

In the end, dropping the bombs, saved countless lives, both American and Japanese. As surprising as it may seem, it could've been much...much...worse. America had plans drawn up for hundreds of thousands of barrels of mustard gas, being deployed to aid the invasion of mainland Japan. They also had designs to nuke...every...major Japanese city. Bombing aside, taking Japan would've killed hundreds of thousands at LEAST, on either side.

By the sounds of that last paragraph we probably wouldn't even have the Playstation... or any other technical equipment from Japan... especially if they were going to bomb every major city...

 

[SimuLord]

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.

Considering the Japanese people would've fought to the last and killed gods-only-know how many fighting men on the Allied side and men, women, and children on the Japanese side, the nuclear option was the least bad of those available.

 

[Paksenarrion]

Americans always like to forget that Japan was also fighting a losing war against Russia, so there never was any need for an American invasion.
One might even say that America only dropped the bombs to make Japan surrender to America and not lose to Russia.
There also is the thing about Japan wanting to surrender anyway, though it should be noted that historians aren't in agreement over this.

I heard of this version of events and found it agreeable. The bombs were a show of force for the Soviets, not the Japanese. At this point in the second world war, the first stirrings of the Cold War were already established. The Japanese war government did not want a socialist power to take them over; by this time, they had been fighting China (which was in the midst of its own Civil War - the socialists versus the warlords) and did not want a post-war government friendly to socialist China.

I'm not sure if that makes sense. I'm a little sleep deprived.

 

[YesConsiderably]

I look at the USA's use of the atomic bombs in Japan as a war crime because they were not necessary. MacArthur recognised that fact and was against their use (and he wanted to use them in Korea, so it's not like he was adversed to the idea). Japan was on its last legs and wouldn't have lasted that much longer.

America used the bombs to stop the Soviets from getting deeper into Asia. It was a powerplay against Russia and i don't think that justifies the use of such a weapon.

When Kantaro Suzuki took office, Japan were effectively looking to end the war on as favourable terms as possible. The oil embargos and naval action in the area had absolutely crippled Japan's offensive capability.

It was said that "1 million American servicemen" would have lost their lives in a ground invasion, but frankly that's a bigger lie than the "45 minutes" Sadam was alleged to have needed to ready his WMDs.

 

[MissGinaKid]

I know pretty much nothing about this topic but there is something I wanted to add for discussion value. I was watching a ww2 movie with my grandma Who was living in japan at the time. There was a part with a brittish family going into a bomb shelter, Nothing fancy just some food a bed and a radio and My grandma said "They're lucky. When I was a little girl all we had was a hole in the ground." I didn't ask about it cus I was trying to watch the movie movie but it got me thinking about how parinoid and scared they must have been at the time. Even though her family wasn't need the bombings. Now this got me wondering if everyong on that whole island was hiding in holes. To get even more off topic today is also my grandmas birthday. I'll tell you how old she is but I know never to ask a womans age.

 

[emeraldrafael]

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."

THat would have never showed the destructive capabilities, what would be done to humans. The Japanese would have laughed, LAUGHED and then said the United States couldnt conqueor the Japanese military might.

Absolutely not!!!!!!...
The japanise emperor had actually told his people to surrender... Their infrastructure had been totally destroyed... They had no industry to Work with... and Japan is a Island!...

The americans could have waited it out a month or so, then they would have surrendered...

but no... instead they dropped 2 bombs that killed over 750 000 CIVILIANS!!!!!

Its just so stupid!

The Japanese would have never stopped. Death was preferred to Surrender. Thats why they would load their planes with only enough fuel to get to the target, and then they would drop their planes into them. In fact, I read where A japanese soldier went on killing and fighitng in the Southern Asian penninsula (where combodia and all those places are) or it was in the Phillipeans, where he went on fighitng well into the 1970s. He thought it was his duty and did not stop after being told thousands of times the war was over, until they found the commanding officer to tell him it was over.

And you tell me the Japanese were going to stop when we made landfall? the Japanese didnt know the meaning of the world. They would have had their wives poison American troops food, burned and destroyed the land, and fought till the last man, woman, and child was dead and the entire Island was devoid of all life except American soldiers. That bomb opened up the Japanese's eyes, made them realize what all would happen. That we were willing to end their life, and without the honor of dying in battle. So yes, they were absolutely necessary, as evil as they were.

 

[Dango]

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.

Yup, pretty much this, both sides would have lost countless more men, and the Pacific would be completely in ruin if it were not for the bombs. I hate to say that, and I hate that it's true, but it is.