Should the atomic bombs been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[Kaboose the Moose]

On July 27, 1945, the Allied powers requested Japan in the Potsdam Declaration to surrender unconditionally, or destruction would continue. However, the military did not consider surrendering under such terms, partially even after US military forces dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, and the Soviet Union entered the war against Japan on August 8.
On August 14, however, Emperor Showa finally decided to surrender unconditionally.

A pretty much straightforward question, I would like to view every ones opinions on the matter. Think not completely direct and also think about the effect that it has on the survivors children, if they would have surrendered.

 

[goodman528]

Yes.

...but consider this: would USA have dropped the Atom bomb on Germany if the war in Europe had lasted longer than the war in Japan? Because Germans are white, and Japanese are not, and considering the racism in '40s America, I think using it against white people highly unlikely.

 

[Inverse Skies]

I seem to remember a documentary speculating that if America hadn't dropped the atomic bomb on Japan they would have to have commenced an invasion which would have lasted... one or two more years (I can't remember now) and costing an estimate 6 million more lives.

In this case it was the lesser of two evils, and it highlighted the world to how powerful and dangerous nuclear weapons are, and thankfully we haven't seen them since.

 

[Raven's Nest]

It was a war crime if you ask me.

So no it shouldn't have.

 

[kawligia]

If it weren't for that, Japan would have fought to the death of every last person. As many people as the bomb killed, a prolonged war would have killed 10 times as many on BOTH sides.

If you are concerned with human life, dropping the bombs killed fewer people than an invasion would have.

Also, on top of that, we may have wound up at war with Russia if it weren't for that display of power. That would have killed countless thousands over many years.

 

[fenixrising]

no the americans didn't need to drop those bombs, it was a good opportunity to show the world their nice big bomb, basicaly saying you fuck with us, you get one of these on your heads, effectively starting the cold war

 

[beddo]

This was a crime against humanity on a massive scale.

No consideraton was taken of the innocent civilians that were killed by the bombs. This is by definition a war crime.

It's digusting and the US should be ashamed of these actions for the rest of its existence. Given that the US is the ONLY country in the world that have used Weapons of Mass Destruction in a conflict directly against civilians shows what a destructive force it is in the world.

The US lost all moral ground to criticise human rights violations the second that bomb was dropped. This was compounded by the McCarthy trials, the Vietnam war, the Gulf war and the War on Terror. As a result the US has done more damage to the cause of human rights ever since than any third world dictatorship could.

It is nearly impossible for the UN and international criminal court to bring any meaningful action against the atrocities carried out in the third world because without treating the US the in the same way their actions are somewhat hypocritical.

However, the UN and Criminal court should do more to condemn the US. They should also issue a warrant for the arrests of those in the US involved in torture, George Bush and Tony Blair for blatant disregard of the Geneva Convention. Even if they would not be able to follow through with the trial the issuing of a warrant would be a damning condemnation and hugely daming to these criminals.

 

[Frybird]

...but consider this: would USA have dropped the Atom bomb on Germany if the war in Europe had lasted longer than the war in Japan? Because Germans are white, and Japanese are not, and considering the racism in '40s America, I think using it against white people highly unlikely.

Don't forget that Germany is pretty much in the middle of europe, and A-Bomb Drops would have probably led to the irradiation of bordering regions in France, Poland and other countries (wich the US wanted to "free")

On Topic:

No.

I may sound a bit naive here, but any kind of WMD's is just not "fair" and a crime in my opinion, especially since they hurt innocent civilians MUCH more than any regular bombs or other military weapons.

 

[beddo]

Yes.

...but consider this: would USA have dropped the Atom bomb on Germany if the war in Europe had lasted longer than the war in Japan? Because Germans are white, and Japanese are not, and considering the racism in '40s America, I think using it against white people highly unlikely.

I understand and agree with your point about racism however, I find it odd that someone with this opinion also thinks that dropping the bombs was acceptable.

Do you not think that the murder of so many innocent civilians including children was morally abhorrent?

 

[likalaruku]

No, because the bomb caused a type of hereditary cancer people continue to suffer from. The people who made & dropped the bomb, or their descendants, should have splintery oars doused in chemical waste shoved up their asses.

 

[Raven's Nest]

It was a war crime if you ask me.

So no it shouldn't have.

So you would rather invade and start fighting that would have killed far greater number people then the atomic bombs did? Well aren't you smart......

Who the fuck said that was the only other option?

I just said I thought it was the wrong thing to do!

Beddo said it better than I could...

This was a crime against humanity on a massive scale.

No consideraton was taken of the innocent civilians that were killed by the bombs. This is by definition a war crime.

It's digusting and the US should be ashamed of these actions for the rest of its existence. Given that the US is the ONLY country in the world that have used Weapons of Mass Destruction in a conflict directly against civilians shows what a destructive force it is in the world.

The US lost all moral ground to criticise human rights violations the second that bomb was dropped. This was compounded by the McCarthy trials, the Vietnam war, the Gulf war and the War on Terror. As a result the US has done more damage to the cause of human rights ever since than any third world dictatorship could.

It is nearly impossible for the UN and international criminal court to bring any meaningful action against the atrocities carried out in the third world because without treating the US the in the same way their actions are somewhat hypocritical.

However, the UN and Criminal court should do more to condemn the US. They should also issue a warrant for the arrests of those in the US involved in torture, George Bush and Tony Blair for blatant disregard of the Geneva Convention. Even if they would not be able to follow through with the trial the issuing of a warrant would be a damning condemnation and hugely daming to these criminals.

 

[Aries_Split]

It was a war crime if you ask me.

So no it shouldn't have.

So you would rather invade and start fighting that would have killed far greater number people then the atomic bombs did? Well aren't you smart......

It depends heavily on perspective.
If we had stepped in before Hitler had as much power as he did we could have prevented most of the war.

 

[Gooble]

I believe that using the bombs was necessary for ending the war against Japan. Considering the terrain, the number of the people in Japan as well as their mentality of honour over death, an invasion of Japan would have turned into a long and bloody encounter resulting in a staggering amount of casualties.

It has also shown the fear and long lasting impacts of nuclear weapons, which should hopefully prevent them from ever being used again.

And in regards to those people saying about how it was a war crime with them being dropped on civilians; the Allies killed far more Japanese and German civilians using conventional bombs than the A-bombs did. I know there are the long-term radiation effects, and to be honest I can't say whether or not the Americans knew what dropping the bombs would mean for future Japanese generations.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Ladies and gentlemen. This was war. War is not won by being nice. War is won by "The patient, systematic and total application of overwhelming force". The atom bomb constitutes overwhelming force. Therefore it was nothing more than another act of war. A cruel act of war, but then again, war is about cruelty.


Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terror acts. So was the RAF's bombing of Nazi Germany. It also helped cripple German industry and war effort. Would you prosecute every englishman who served with Bomber command? Would you do the same for every man who served with the USAAF's strategic bombing wing?

Give me a break. It's cisses like you who stop the west from winning it's wars properly.

 

[rossatdi]

This was a crime against humanity on a massive scale.

No consideraton was taken of the innocent civilians that were killed by the bombs. This is by definition a war crime.

Lets not forget how unbelievably inhumane the Japanese Empire was to it's enemies, civillians and all.

R. J. Rummel, a professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, states that between 1937 and 1945, the Japanese military murdered from nearly 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most likely 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war. "This democide was due to a morally bankrupt political and military strategy, military expediency and custom, and national culture." According to Rummel, in China alone, during 1937-45, approximately 3.9 million Chinese were killed, mostly civilians, as a direct result of the Japanese operations and 10.2 millions in the course of the war.

 

[fix-the-spade]

It was an awful thing to do.

BUT

It prevented Russia invading Japan, which they had started doing days before the bombs were dropped.
Begging the uestion, which would have been worse for Japan's people, two atom bombs or 60 years under Soviet rule. Neither is particularly great but the Soviet damage would have been longer lasting.

According to Rummel, in China alone, during 1937-45, approximately 3.9 million Chinese were killed, mostly civilians, as a direct result of the Japanese operations and 10.2 millions in the course of the war.

The total Chinese killed in WW2 is generally accepted as 20million between 1937-1945, roughly half through deliberate starvation by the Japanese army.

 

[Spawn_Of_Kyuss]

Germans are white, and Japanese are not, and considering the racism in '40s America, I think using it against white people highly unlikely.

Hadn't ever thought of this, but I'd like to think slightly better of our friends across the pond. I have no evidence to suggest otherwise, but fuck, this is the internet so what does evidence matter anyway.

I'm more inclined to agree with frybird, that Germany was simply too close to allied countries. I mean, the US is known for testing allegiances to the limit but I'm not so sure we'd have overlooked the tiny discrepancy of irradiating the entire European continent. The gov prolly wanted to stay in Germany anyway, so they could stare daggers across what would inevitably become the iron curtain at those naughty ruskis.

 

[rossatdi]

It's also probably worth noting that the firebombings that preceded the two nuclear bombs killed many times as many civilians. Many times.