dropping the bomb on japan? yes or no?

[marblemadness]

From what I remember of history class, it was necessary, and justified. But I am fully aware of the bias that I've been exposed to in North America, so perhaps we've all been brainwashed.

 

[YesConsiderably]

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.

Wow. I can understand why people at the time bought the racist portrayal of the Japanese... but this is the 21st century, and you should be able to recognise what is/was obvious propaganda.

 

[Tiny116]

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

I don't really know enough about it to say whether or not it should have been done. I do know that the people who created the A-bomb didn't think it would be that destructive.
And as to what I quoted you on...You're very wrong...Yes an American Invasion would have killed god knows how many people...But it wouldn't be killing them now, wouldn't be causing mutations and cancers etc.

 

[meowchef]

Dropping the bombs saved hundreds of thousands of American and Soviet lives. End of story.

 

[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.

Wow. I can understand why people at the time bought the racist portrayal of the Japanese... but this is the 21st century, and you should be able to recognise what is/was obvious propaganda.

Thats not propaganda, thats truth. I had three grandfathers and weirdly and uncle in WW2, and three served in the Pacific. They told me horror stories you wouldnt believe and I couldnt repeat here. thats truth, that was the japanese ideology. You;'d know if you studied culture at all.

 

[Mr.Petey]

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

What? Americans were never in Tokyo in WW2...

Exactly. The Americans in WWII only made landfall on the small coastal islands surrounding the nation, let alone the capital!

The initial impact of the nuke itself was a horrifying event for which I can't give a straight answer to weather it was "the right thing to do" or not.

However from what I've leant from that is that it would continue to fill the next sixty years or so with a terrible fear of the bomb itself and humanity coming close to wiping itself off the planet like a dinosaur killing meteorite. It's that chain of events that I believe is wrong a little moreso than the initial toll on the populace of Japan, although that opinion gets quashed under the generational suffering I'm sure the people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima suffered therein after the events of '45

 

[Staskala]

Thats not propaganda, thats truth. I had three grandfathers and weirdly and uncle in WW2, and three served in the Pacific. They told me horror stories you wouldnt believe and I couldnt repeat here. thats truth, that was the japanese ideology. You;'d know if you studied culture at all.

I don't mean any disrespect to your family, but soldiers are hardly qualified for objective observations.
Especially when it comes to enemy civilians, culture and ideology.

 

[Neferius]

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 one only works in Bond movies ...and even then the villain's Ultimatum is foiled by a dashing dark-haired Brit.

But for the sake of argument, let's imagine the following Scenario:

You, I don't know you so I'll just call you America, and your small asian Neighbor named Nihon (that's japanese for Japan ) are having a heated argument.
During this argument your neighbor looses his patience and decides to take a leak on your white-picket fence right in front of you ...just to piss you off.
Angered and obviously disturbed by what just happened, you reach for your arsenal which consists of a) couple of Rocks; b) your faithful Rottweiler guard-dog; and c) your Car.

Your Neighbor after relieving himself now reveals a Tanto (that's how they call Knifes in Japan ) which he starts pointing in your direction. What do you do?

You could unleash the guard-dog on him, but he might stab and kill it during the ensuing fight ...and you really care about that dog

You could get in your car and try to run him over, but he might side-step you and retreat back to his House, which if you tried to ram into would seriously damage your car and possibly you.

So that leaves you with the Rocks.
You could try hitting him with one, but again he might dodge it, or if it DID hit him, it might just make him more mad.
So what do you do? You throw one of them smashing his garden-fountain, to get him to stop.
He gets angry and tries to come after you, you then throw another smashing out one of his windows and saying that there's more where that came from.
He eventually cools-off and agrees to sign a formal apology, thereby waving all rights to Sue you

Now what would have happened if you had thrown one of those Rocks at a Tree first?
"A Gun and a kind word will get you a lot more than a kind word alone."

And if you haven't already figured it out, the Key to this Anecdote is:
Rottweiler = U.S. Navy; Car = U.S. Army; Rocks = Fat-Man and Little-Boy

 

[BlackMunz]

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

You are trying to apply a modern notion of innocent to a different time then judge the actions of that time. Hindsight isn't always 20/20 no matter what people say.

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

It's not like a bunch of teens posting on an internet forum that can't even be bothered to look up the facts about surrounding the issue they are debating when it only takes thirty seconds to do so are ever going to come up with a resounding revelation on this subject anyway.

The reference to the common courtesy and/or ethical standards at a given time are never an excuse for any immorale thing done as per definition ethical standard are universally valid.

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?

The things any other person has done are NEVER an excuse for any of your own actions (except self-defense and its gonna be hard to explain how A-bombs were self-defense). That said the bombing of Hiroshima was plain wrong as wrong as the Bombing of London, Dresden and any other major city during the war. The A-Bombs however were a whole new dimension. There is never any excuse for mayor killings of civilians in any given situation in opposition to smale scale casualties that occur while i.e bombing a military convoy. For that sole reason where the bombings wrong and there is no point arguing over the justification of a war crime through the war crimes of others. Its like everytime any country does something horrible its like: "at least we are not like Germany in WWII" those are things that you can not relativize by comparing it to other things that were even worse and especially not by comparing the casualties to the loss of military personell during a combat operation(i.e invasion) especially not your own.

 

[YesConsiderably]

Thats not propaganda, thats truth. I had three grandfathers and weirdly and uncle in WW2, and three served in the Pacific. They told me horror stories you wouldnt believe and I couldnt repeat here. thats truth, that was the japanese ideology. You;'d know if you studied culture at all.

I'm pretty sure i would believe them; i very much doubt that you are the only person to have relatives that fought in the Pacific.

The way that the US painted the Japanese as subhuman and evil, and willing to throw their lives away was propaganda. We have a second hand account of a Japanese woman who lived through it a little way up the thread. Plus there is the fact that in April, the Japanese made it known they were looking to surrender.

The way members of their armed services were forced into behaving was not at all indicative of the general population.

And i did study culture. At the university of Moscow.

 

[BackwardsO]

Since I have not learned how to put pictures in my post I will just leave this here http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2-loss.htm
The skulls are civilian deaths, notice the rows upon rows of skulls in China? Each skull represents 100,000 people, and that is how the Japanese were treating the Chinese. Four skulls for the Japanese, a hell of a lot for the Chinese. Do the math.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Thats not propaganda, thats truth. I had three grandfathers and weirdly and uncle in WW2, and three served in the Pacific. They told me horror stories you wouldnt believe and I couldnt repeat here. thats truth, that was the japanese ideology. You;'d know if you studied culture at all.

I don't mean any disrespect to your family, but soldiers are hardly qualified for objective observations.
Especially when it comes to enemy civilians, culture and ideology.

They didnt tell me about thier culture, they told me about their ferocity. One story will always stick in my head. My grandfather was one of those guys who torched fox holes when they needed it done. He siad he did, and a Japanese soldier, while burning, ran at him and tried to kill him, heedless of the fire as his flesh blistered and fell off behind him.

Another was in the pacific islands when they tried to take them. The japanese ran into bullets so the that man behind them could get that much farther while the man in front took the bullet and died, all for the homeland.


And i learned my culture from a former japanese soldier. He siad he would have fought and died, all japaanese would have. He was the one who told me about using htier wives an children. Plus i've studied books by culture professors for a WW2 report where i got this. This is how they lived, ask anyone who's even glanced at anyhting japanese related in WW2.

 

[Hosker]

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

I share the same thoughts, but also suffer from a case of the "realistic". WWII was a Total War, that means that there were no innocent civilians. In total war, the single goal is to prevent you opponent from conducting war, by any means. If that means destroying half of their cities with air raids or killing whole cities with nukes, if it defeats their will to fight, than its open to use. Thats why I feel war is an ugly and horrible thing.

Also, I had a conversation with someone awhile back about the idea of dropping one of the bombs on a desert island to show the Japanese what it can do. We both pondered the idea, but agreed that it would have done nothing. One of several things would have occured:
1) they see the power we are capable of and surrender (we both agreed this was not likely, because...)
2) they see the power we are capable of, BUT, also see that we do not want to use the bomb on them unless necessary. They than beleive we dont have the guts to do it, call us out on a bluff, and than we still bomb them, but because we only had two bombs at the time, now we pissed them off like a hornets nest.

What the bomb did was show them that we dont want to fight anymore, but we were not going to just quit. I quite sure w told them that we were making more, and would keep dropping them until they surrendered. Was it a horrible thing to do, yeah... but it was only half as bad as it would have been if a land invasion was used.

I would disagree with your claims, but I don't want to start an argument. I was just answering the OP's question of "yes or no?".

 

[YesConsiderably]

Wow. I can understand why people at the time bought the racist portrayal of the Japanese... but this is the 21st century, and you should be able to recognise what is/was obvious propaganda.

No offense, but Japan would never have surrendered as long as Hirohito still considered himself a living God. It's hard to break people from several thousand years of religious belief. And the Japanese were extremely racist (of that time), ask the people of Okinawa how they were treated. Or the Chinese for that matter. There are numerous books on the subject, it's actually pretty eye-opening how badly the Japanese treated PoW's.

No offense, but in April 1945, when Kantaro Suzuki came in as Prime Minister, Japan were looking to end the war on as favourable terms as possible. Not the unconditional surrender the US wanted, but they were ready to stop the fighting.

To suggest otherwise is painfully ignorant.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Thats not propaganda, thats truth. I had three grandfathers and weirdly and uncle in WW2, and three served in the Pacific. They told me horror stories you wouldnt believe and I couldnt repeat here. thats truth, that was the japanese ideology. You;'d know if you studied culture at all.

I'm pretty sure i would believe them; i very much doubt that you are the only person to have relatives that fought in the Pacific.

The way that the US painted the Japanese as subhuman and evil, and willing to throw their lives away was propaganda. We have a second hand account of a Japanese woman who lived through it a little way up the thread. Plus there is the fact that in April, the Japanese made it known they were looking to surrender.

The way members of their armed services were forced into behaving was not at all indicative of the general population.

And i did study culture. At the university of Moscow.

Its not the will of the public, its the will of the emperor. When he says go, you go, when he says stop, you stop. he was god. Or near to it. Besides, if the Americans wanted to destroy lives, they would have targeted heavily populated areas.

 

[The Bum]

Ahem "All's fair in love and war"

War sucks, but you better belive a shitload of people would have died if we invaded probably more than when we bombed them.

 

[zehydra]

I'm against the use of ANY nuclear weapons, so I'm also against how the older generation decided to use them against the Japanese.