dropping the bomb on japan? yes or no?

[ImprovizoR]

You sound like you have already made up your mind. However, I will suggest a hypothetical: imagine 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."

Yeah, but Americans needed to test the bomb on live subjects. The war was already over everyone in Europe and the rest of the world knows it. Japan would have surrendered anyway. It's a well known fact. Nothing can justify what Americans did. And the irony is, they are the first ones to use nuclear weapons, and now they think that they can decide which countries are allowed to have it.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Pretty much the answer i've come to expect. The Japanese were prepared to stop fighting, but rather than come to a peaceful sollution, the United States killed hundreds of thousands of innoccent people.

Like i said, even if the US felt the need to continue fighting, a land invasion wouldn't have been as damaging to US forces as "Operation Downfall" made out.

lol, yeah, the Japanese were prepared to stop fighting, take for example, Shoichi Yokoi, who finally surrendered in 1972.

I know that the average American's concept of geography isn't great, so i'll let you in on a little secret.

Japan is quite a big place, filled with many, many people. Shoichi Yokoi isn't at all representative of Japan, and you're having to stretch quite far to make this point.

I know the average russian is only good at drinking and freezing, so I'll let you in on this while your brains cells defrost. He just destroyed your arguement about wanting to surrender. When you have a man that fights for 27 years after a war has ended and only stops when a commanding officer tells him, it doesnt bode well for how the rest of the country would have acted.

 

[the protaginist]

While this is speculation, you need to understand that what i'm saying comes from a 15 year old boy who was just discussing this in his history class the other day, don't think i know what i'm talking about.

From how i see it, dropping the bombs was a necessary evil. The Japanese were on there last legs, yes. An invasion of the mainland surely would've worked, even if Eisenhower hadn't taken commmand of the invasion, MacArthur proved himself more then capable of invading a country with the Korean War. But, and remember this is just my opinion and i don't wanna come off as a nutjob conspiracy theorist, I believe the Bombs ended the war faster, which gave us more time to square off on the Soviets. The Soviet Bloc was being built, they were gathering allies in Europe, and they may have solidified there power in Europe had we not ended the war fast and started NATO. A mainland invasion of Japan would've dragged out the surrender, and we might not have had the time.

Of course, since the bombs WERE dropped all of this falls into speculation, but this is how i see it.

 

[MBurner 93]

Pretty much the answer i've come to expect. The Japanese were prepared to stop fighting, but rather than come to a peaceful sollution, the United States killed hundreds of thousands of innoccent people.

Like i said, even if the US felt the need to continue fighting, a land invasion wouldn't have been as damaging to US forces as "Operation Downfall" made out.

lol, yeah, the Japanese were prepared to stop fighting, take for example, Shoichi Yokoi, who finally surrendered in 1972.

I know that the average American's concept of geography isn't great, so i'll let you in on a little secret.

Japan is quite a big place, filled with many, many people. Shoichi Yokoi isn't at all representative of Japan, and you're having to stretch quite far to make this point.

So far, you've made some pretty clear points, and its obvious you know this subject matter fairly well, but I must disagree with you. You say Japan wished to end the fighting on favorable terms, but you skipped over the military coup against the Emperor when his plans to surrender became clear. While many Japanese citizens may have wanted peace, the military leaders in charge refused to accept surrender. They, and their soldiers, would have fought to the bitter end to defend their homeland. No act of war is ever right, so you have to look for the lesser of two evils.
And on a side note, please stop acting all superior to Americans by insulting our schools and people (even if our schools do suck), as if not being American makes you superior in some way.

 

[BackwardsO]

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.

Ugh. You are very wrong, the Japanese were just as ruthless and loyal as he said, WWII era propaganda tended to treat them more as something less than human. At the time, the Japanese army was TERRIBLE, they killed upwards of 10 million Chinese civilians, while the Japanese lost only 580,000 civilians total. They believed anything their leader said, which didn't always work out for them (Okinawa suicides) but can't even be romanticized for that because of all the horrible things they did to the people they over took at the time.
Experiments, torture, rape, poisoning and mass killing. This is not propaganda, this is historic fact that many westerners do not learn because the educational system tends to overlook in favor of the western war tragedies.

 

[Moosh50]

Well, like a great man once said:
"They say that the best weapon is the one you never have to fire. I respectfully disagree. I prefer the weapon you only have to fire once. That's how Dad did it, that's how America does it, and it's worked out pretty well so far."

Too bad Nagasaki got the same treatment.

 

[YesConsiderably]

I know the average russian is only good at drinking and freezing, so I'll let you in on this while your brains cells defrost. He just destroyed your arguement about wanting to surrender. When you have a man that fights for 27 years after a war has ended and only stops when a commanding officer tells him, it doesnt bode well for how the rest of the country would have acted.

Just so we're clear... you did just say "when you have A man" right? As in one person? Who refused to surrender even after the actual country had?

I'm struggling to see how this destroys anything. It's well known that the military faction of the cabinet were in favour of continuing the war... cooler heads, like Suzuki, prevailed.

By July 1945 the Imperial navy and army were in such a sorry state that a ground war would have scarcely been neccessary. The Japanese government knew they were in a bad way, which is why they wanted to end the war. Had the US been willing to entertain the idea of anything other than an unconditional surrender, an agreement would have probably been reached.

 

[Zechnophobe]

So, for all the people who say "Dropping the bomb resulted in fewer deaths than a conventional war would have."

How can you be so sure? Could you look a man in the eye, and say that, before telling them you'd just nuked his son? Could you?

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

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.

^ This 100%. An Invasion of Japan would have resulted in countless casualties on both sides and the destruction of most of the country. Besides, the fire bombing of Dresden killed more people, so it wasn't like we were being completely barbaric either.

 

[Vrach]

I'm not sure. The Japs didn't stop cause of nukes afaik (Hirohito was still in a "fuck the yanks, die for honor" school of thought), what ended the war was the fact the Soviet peace pact with them had ended at about that time and the Russkies didn't give them so much as a how do you do before just saying "war time again", being left with no realistic threat in Europe with the Germany out of the picture. With the threat of the Soviet Union on top of everything else, the Japanese didn't have anywhere to go or anything to hope for and that's what really ended the war.

If you put the Russkies aside, the deal is tricky. Some predict the losses from the invasion of Japan would've been well over a million (I believe the nukes hit for about 80k people each or so, radiation deaths counted). Now, my concern is for the civilians first of course and nukes being dropped on them was CERTAINLY not the right move, but when you weigh a million against about 150k, as ugly as the math is, it's an easy choice for someone who's job it is to worry about their own troops and people.

With the Russkies in the picture however, it's a lot more complicated. Perhaps the war could've ended diplomatically by using the Soviet Union as leverage and convincing the Japanese there's just nothing to fight for anymore. If push came to shove, dropping a nuke on a strictly military objective (f. ex. perhaps a naval target within the visual range of coastal troops to witness first hand the power of the bombs) could've demonstrated the same message of power and pushed the same feeling of hopelessness as Hiroshima and Nagasaki did, just minus the tens of thousands innocent civilians.

Honestly, as numerically as I appreciate looking at things, just dropping two bombs (what does a second one do that the first one didn't?) on vastly civilian areas is very hardly justifiable. As some last resort, ok, I might be able to swallow it, but I really don't think the war was at that point at the time at all, imo, it was just a rushed decision to demonstrate the first out of many "don't fuck with America" military actions.

 

[emeraldrafael]

I know the average russian is only good at drinking and freezing, so I'll let you in on this while your brains cells defrost. He just destroyed your arguement about wanting to surrender. When you have a man that fights for 27 years after a war has ended and only stops when a commanding officer tells him, it doesnt bode well for how the rest of the country would have acted.

Just so we're clear... you did just say "when you have A man" right? As in one person? Who refused to surrender even after the actual country had?

I'm struggling to see how this destroys anything. It's well known that the military faction of the cabinet were in favour of continuing the war... cooler heads, like Suzuki, prevailed.

By July 1945 the Imperial navy and army were in such a sorry state that a ground war would have scarcely been neccessary. The Japanese government knew they were in a bad way, which is why they wanted to end the war. Had the US been willing to entertain the idea of anything other than an unconditional surrender, an agreement would have probably been reached.

Becuase you had said they wanted peace. And this man took as his mission, becuase he was TAUGHT like EVERY CITIZEN (since they used something like a forced draft, your're born, you fight) to fight and die before surrender. Besides that, do you really thinkt he soldiers would stop? after they fought so long, they would just Stop? The japanese used propaganda to,a dn tehy were scared of the US and what they would do. They were afraid we would turn them over to the Chinese, like Germans were with the Jews, and i can tell you the Chinese would not have been as forgiving.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Well, like a great man once said:
"They say that the best weapon is the one you never have to fire. I respectfully disagree. I prefer the weapon you only have to fire once. That's how Dad did it, that's how America does it, and it's worked out pretty well so far."

Damn it, I know that quote! What's it from again?

 

[stompy]

And since Japan opened hosilities (with a sneak attack, no less) I say they kinda lost their claim to compassionate treatment. Not to mention all the other atrocities they committed. You go ahead and keep your moral high ground. Me and the other winners will put something nice about it on your tombstone.

At the very least, the American Government had a part to play in the bombing of Pearl Harbour. You can't argue that America was just minding its own business when Japan decided to attack for shits and giggles since they strangled the Japanese economy with the embargoes, which pushed the Japanese to war. When the Japanese offered a peace agreement with China and withdrawal from Indochina, the Americans refused and demanded complete withdrawal from China. At best, the Americans were culturally ignorant about how the Japanese government worked; at worst, they deliberately baited the Japanese to attack, supported by the fact that it was highly likely that FDR had taken a look at the McCollum memo.

When it came to the more immediate decision to use to A-bombs, the American Government again showed what could, at best, be described as cultural ignorance with the Potsdam Declaration. The Americans demanded unconditional surrender, something the Japanese would not have agreed to since the Emperor would be threatened. If the Americans had offered to preserve the Emperor (like they did during the Occupation, so it's not like it's a major stretch) then the Americans would not had to have used the bombs.

The American Government had the option to negotiate with the Japanese, before Pearl Harbour before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both times, they refused to reach some kind of compromise that would have averted the use of force. Both times, they would have lost out on something (the ability to enter World War Two and to scare the Soviets respectively). Ultimately, the A-bombs, as they were used by the Americans, were not a necessity. The Japanese can't claim the moral high ground, sure, but the Americans can't claim 'it was the only option'.

 

[Tdc2182]

It was a much more irrational time back then. There is no doubt that we would have stopped the war in the Pacific, But at what cost? America would have exhausted all of its resources, it would have been long, it would have been violent. It's safe to say that we were in the right. Japan was planning on taking it to chemical warfare. (watch the movie "Man in the Sun")

 

[YesConsiderably]

I know that the average American's concept of geography isn't great, so i'll let you in on a little secret.

Japan is quite a big place, filled with many, many people. Shoichi Yokoi isn't at all representative of Japan, and you're having to stretch quite far to make this point.

No, I'm not, you said the Japanese people were ready to surrender, low and behold, there's a Japanese Sergeant (not an officer, a Sergeant), who held out until 1972 on Guam (Guam isn't in Japan, so apparently your grasp on Geography is even worse than the average American's). You can keep trying to slip in offhanded insults about my intelligence, but it merely makes your argument weaker, and even less believable.

Uh... he was Japanese. AND we were talking about Japan's willingness to stop fighting.

Guam has nothing to do with it. Again you're having to reach.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

It was the lesser of two evils. It would have been much, much worse had the US invaded.

Which they most certainly would have. Japan wasn't going to stop unless they were destroyed.

 

[FaustCainus]

Too many people to reply to...

There was a warning shot... we blew the crap out of an island with our first nuke.
1st nuke dropped, fully justified. They saw what we could do, would not back down, we had to press it. 2nd nuke is questionable, we didn't give them much time in between. Hundreds of thousands died, yes, but hundreds of thousands would have been killed in the continuing war.