dropping the bomb on japan? yes or no?

[Cazza]

My point is every situation has non violet. If both parties take it is a different matter.

Ah, well see now we're getting somewhere.

In regards to the bombings, you condemned them because you felt there were other, peaceful options. My whole argument has been based around what has been established as a LACK of any other option. We tried to negotiate, they failed to comply with what we were asking, we attacked with the hopes the war would end immediately.

It worked.

So many people say if Japan wasn't bombed America or who ever would need to invade. Who say they needed to bomb or invade that second. Japan was getting no where in the Pacific. The allies should have taken that stalemate as an advantage to reopen communication. just send a message "Are you open for communication?" "No, ok well your not going anywhere and we're not going where to so tell us when you change your mind"

I doubt Japan would have continued for very long.

 

[JeanLuc761]

My point is every situation has non violet. If both parties take it is a different matter.

Ah, well see now we're getting somewhere.

In regards to the bombings, you condemned them because you felt there were other, peaceful options. My whole argument has been based around what has been established as a LACK of any other option. We tried to negotiate, they failed to comply with what we were asking, we attacked with the hopes the war would end immediately.

It worked.

So many people say if Japan wasn't bombed America or who ever would need to invade. Who say they needed to bomb or invade that second. Japan was getting no where in the Pacific. The allies should have taken that stalemate as an advantage to reopen communication. just send a message "Are you open for communication?" "No, ok well your not going anywhere and we're not going where to so tell us when you change your mind"

I doubt Japan would have continued for very long.

Yeah, that doesn't work in the real world. When a WAR is going on, you don't have time to just wait around for someone to finally say "You know what, we should probably stop."

Especially when Japan was as fanatical was it was at the time.

 

[Cazza]

My point is every situation has non violet. If both parties take it is a different matter.

Ah, well see now we're getting somewhere.

In regards to the bombings, you condemned them because you felt there were other, peaceful options. My whole argument has been based around what has been established as a LACK of any other option. We tried to negotiate, they failed to comply with what we were asking, we attacked with the hopes the war would end immediately.

It worked.

So many people say if Japan wasn't bombed America or who ever would need to invade. Who say they needed to bomb or invade that second. Japan was getting no where in the Pacific. The allies should have taken that stalemate as an advantage to reopen communication. just send a message "Are you open for communication?" "No, ok well your not going anywhere and we're not going where to so tell us when you change your mind"

I doubt Japan would have continued for very long.

Yeah, that doesn't work in the real world. When a WAR is going on, you don't have time to just wait around for someone to finally say "You know what, we should probably stop."

Especially when Japan was as fanatical was it was at the time.

It's blockading and it is used. I see your point and yeah we should stop.

 

[stompy]

snip

It's always great to have a thought-provoking conversation. I'm glad we've kept this civil while some of the other posts... not so much.

Ok, so the main issue is where the conflict crossed the 'point of no return'. My argument is that the US, at the very end of the war, right up until they dropped the bombs, could have ended the conflict. The Emperor, well... depends who you ask. Some historians say he was a powerless head, some say he was part of the considerations. Considering that the Japanese looked to a peace settlement as late as July 1945, I think that the Emperor supported peace by a point before the bombs. Probably soon after the Imperial Palace was bombed continuously...

Note (1): I think they did. I believe they tried to contain the Japanese themselves but were tied up with the War in Europe (even before 1939, the British would have to had rearmed for the inevitable conflict).

Note (2): Maybe that might of worked. Even with a constitutional monarch Germany may have fallen to the Nazis. PM me if you'd like to learn more.

snip

The world doesn't work on negotiation, I know. There are some situations where talking is futile.

Yet, the Japanese showed themselves willing to surrender when they approached the Soviets in mid-'45. An attempt the US, having broke the Japanese diplomatic codes, would have known. They knew that they could have ended the war without the bombs (or an invasion). If the US had offered a conditional surrender that protected the Emperor, the Japanese may have surrendered. They chose not to, so how can people argue that the only option was the use of the A-bomb?

 

[Mcface]

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.

Both sides? You make it sound like the Americans did something noble lol. Were they takin a shortcut to end the war faster,yes. While genocide is never the right thing to do, i'd say this is a morally dark grey zone tbh. Its right in one way but so horribly fucking wrong at the same time.

If the Americans had invaded Japan, a lot of people would have died. much more than the A-Bombs killed. Street to street fighting would have been Brutal. And if the Soviet invaded.. it would be even worse. Dropping the bomb saved more lives any way you look at it.

Never said it didnt, still doesnt make it right though.

Why not? What would have been "right"?
They attacked us first, a neutral nation.
They killed civilian and servicemen alike who didn't even know they were at war.

The bomb did kill a lot of people yes, but it was justified.
Killing a few to save many seems right enough to me.

We gave them a chance to surrender. Denied.
First bomb dropped.
Second chance for surrender.
Denied.
Second bomb dropped.
Third chance for surrender.
Denied at first, soon later.

 

[WOPR]

Eh... I really shouldn't talk to kids, it's very irritating.
Anyway, the Americans did save hundreds of thousands of lives because a land invasion of Japan would have had a far higher death toll than the two bombs dropped. Where the hell is your evidence that Japan would have surrendered because that sounds like utter bullsh*t.

I'm British, not American, so I'm not a red neck NRA xenophobe, so no need to think I am.

Actually in the Middle East, America is helping to stabilise a seriously f**ked up area. Yes, the American military is exceptionally incompetent and corrupt, but I have a feeling that they are better than a)Saddam and b)the Taliban. At least the Taliban are now blowing up Pakistan, the country in which the terrorists are brainwashed (I love the irony) instead of some innocent British or America office worker.
That Bin Laden claim also sounds like bullsh*t because any court would have found him guilty. Where is your evidence for such outrageous claims?

In Vietnam, America was the bad guy. In Iraq, America has shown both incompetence and corruption beyond belief. But in the Korean war & the First Gulf War, you were the good guys. In WW2 you were fighting the sadist Japanese and Hitler. You still going to paint your own country as the bad guys all the time?

Don't be such a f**king flag burner - if you hate America so much, then leave, but don't make crap up.

In short

I didn't make things up; and as for the "if you hate america leave" I gladly would, but they have me trapped in lower class so that I can never afford to leave and they will continue to milk me for all I'm worth just to pay me enough to live so they can slave-drive me more

but no I don't burn flags, I'm not THAT extreme.

and I'm not a kid if that's what you were implying at the beginning; I'm just a bit of a political dick and muckraker.

Buddy, without any evidence, you can't claim you were telling the truth. Considering I've studied WW2 and read a lot about Afghanistan, I've never once heard the claims you are making.
Plus, so what about Afghanistan? You do realise it has no oil so you can't claim Bush went in there for oil....LOL think you need a better story.

I'm kinda done with this because it's getting old
BUT!
I never said Afghanistan, I said middle east

we've been through so many places there I can't even keep track of where we are right now

I've kinda given up on keeping track of the "war" *cough* police act *cough* and just want them to bring the blasted troops home already

 

[WOPR]

I'm kinda done with this because it's getting old
BUT!
I never said Afghanistan, I said middle east

we've been through so many places there I can't even keep track of where we are right now

I've kinda given up on keeping track of the "war" *cough* police act *cough* and just want them to bring the blasted troops home already

The US is only in Afghanistan and Iraq, and guess what, only one of them has oil, but it also has mustard gas etc. What, didn't you know they did actually find chemical weapons?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=060622055545.07o4imol&show_article=1

So you can't count past the number two. Wow.....That's not looking good for your future job prospects....

Now, where are your sources backing up your claims of Japanese or Bin Laden offering to surrender?
As I said, I shouldn't argue with kids, because arguing with someone who has an argument consisting of unsubstantiated claims is annoying as hell, but it is pretty amusing

Hey there's no reason to be a dick about it (especially to someone who's had no sleep and probably isn't thinking straight at all...)

and I can count and memorize a lot of stuff... I just have no interest in the police act, and with all the "Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran/Pakistan" and all the other places I keep hearing the names of because so many people HERE have so many different takes it's rather annoying to the point of "F*** it!"

but yes I did know about chemical weapons

like you said you're from Britain

you're probably getting more real feed about it then we are

all we get is that "we're fighting the good fight" and "mission accomplished" crap the republicans kept feeding us... then when the democrats finally got half a spine all they tell us is that "we're bringing them home, sorry it's taking so long, but they are coming home... eventually"

 

[CitySquirrel]

Name calling and ridicule are valid when a person appears faceless and all of his points are ridiculous.

At any rate, I support the bomb dropping.

In that case, you, sir, are a fool.

 

[thatcanadianguy]

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

ahem. pearl harbour ring a bell to you?

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.

see heres the thing though. while pear harbour WAS a military base. civilan dock workers were killed in the bombings. not soldiers, civilans.

 

[eljawa]

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.

even then we knew the Japanese were as weak as they were. Trust me, Winston Churchill said this at the time.

 

[Caspertjuhh]

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

ahem. pearl harbour ring a bell to you?

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.

see heres the thing though. while pear harbour WAS a military base. civilan dock workers were killed in the bombings. not soldiers, civilans.

Well rather those dock workers, who worked on War ships dead, than all those people in japan who didnt even work at a war factory. They were REAl civvies. Those dock workers were maybe not militaries, but still very intertwined (word..?) with the military.