Should the atomic bombs been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[Hunde Des Krieg]

I bet we could have avoided the whole debacle by simply demonstrating the bombs publicly, showing the Japanese what we were capable of without actually having to kill the citiczens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But we did what we did and it worked, so it's a little late to question it.

 

[Virus017]

They had been trying to surrender since 43'.

If they had tried to surrender then the war would be over before the bombs were dropped.

I see what you are getting at but do not say they tried to surrender because THEY DIDN'T. Plain and simple the US proposed demands, however unreasonable they were, and they said no. They were in no position to argue, but they chose too, and for what they had done I see why the US didn't give a shit about what they DEMANDED.

Yes the US were unreasonable, but it was Japan that said no.

 

[Bobzer77]

But we did what we did and it worked, so it's a little late to question it.

To late to question it yet...yes. To late to criticise it and inform the world of the massive murder machine that is the USA?...no

Anyway I agree with you that America could have just demonstrated it... blow it up a few miles off a Japanese port town into the sea...

Wasn't the world a whole lot better in the middle ages where it was much harder to kill someone?

 

[Riyka]

not that im entirely a pacifist, but i don't think it was totaly the right descion..
bear in mind the japanese 'culture' i suppose they were unlikely to ever surrender and SOMETHING had to be done to stop it from going any further.
the a bomb certainly did that..
however the people it killed and the people who continue to suffer from the consequences of that, didnt do anything to deserve it other than be part of a country who opposed the USA.

but then i guess that goes for a lot of people during the war...

though as a couple people said not much point banging on about something that happened in the past...

 

[Rolling Thunder]

I think the important lesson is this:

Make sure you win, and win so terribly, so bloodily, so utterly conclusively that no resistance can be contemplated, let alone mounted, ever again.


The very epitome of Wagnerian destruction. It has a certain...beauty all of it's own.

 

[ElephantGuts]

Ah, yes, this discussion. My answer: 100% yes. Definetly. Here's my argument why:

The US had beat Japan back to its home islands and had sorrounded it. They needed to end the war. The obvious, conventional answer would be to invade it, as they had done with so many other islands. But everyone knew that would be extremely costly. The Japanese had successfully proven that on Okinawa and Iwo Jima. And those were relatively small islands with a single occupation force. What happens when the Japanese were fighting across their entire island, with their entire population?

Undoubtedly we would see everyone who usually wouldn't fight, such as young and old men, and maybe even women, fighting the American forces as happened in Germany. The Japanese were already preparing for this and instructing their citizens how to fight against an occupation force. And they would be fighting with the fanatacism of defending their home island, it would be much more vicious. Even when the main fighting was over, there would probably be guerilla forces continuing to kill Americans. Again, as we saw in Germany. So it would end in millions of people dead, not to mention that Japan as a country would have been absolutely devastated. They would be recovering for decades, and we wouldn't have been able to help them rebuild as we did. If we had invaded, Japan would be in much worse shape today.

So consider that scenario. Millions of Americans dead, many more millions Japanese dead. The entire population devastated. The entire country devastated. Probably recovering for decades. Definetly not as productive as it is today.

And compare that to what happened. Two nukes. Only a few hundred thousand people dead. Only two cities mostly destroyed. And look how quickly Japan recovered, and how successful they are today! Personally I don't see how anyone could think it was a better idea to not nuke them.

Remember that the choices were only to nuke or invade. There was simply nothing else to do, and even if you can think of something, the US military wouldn't have done it. It was those two choices, and Truman made the right one. You think the Japanese would have surrendered any other way? They didn't even surrender after the first nuke. The Japanese had purposely conducted the slow, bloody defense of Iwo Jima and Okinawa to prove to the Americans that they would never surrender. Little did they know that they were only helping the Americans to a better choice.

And don't include all the people who suffered and died from the radiation and cancer and all that after the bombing. Remember the Americans had no idea of those effects, were horrified when they saw them, and swore to never nuke anyone again. So yes it sucks, but it can't be used to argue that they shouldn't have made that decision at the time.

 

[Audemas]

Since we are on the topic of

the carpet bombing of german cities(not military targets) by the british at the closing of the war.

Dresden was a train... confluence? Well anyway it was a central rail city where several lines converged and hundreds of soldiers passed through daily.

Have you ever read Slaughterhouse-Five?

No.

Try it sometime its a good read and the man that wrote it(Kurt Vonnegut) was present at the time Dresden was firebombed.(He was a POW) I think you should read what he has to say on that matter.

Well what does he say?

You probably won't read it now but he says that the bombing was unnecessary and that after the bombing, the remains of the city were like the surface of the moon.

 

[nolongerhere]

There is a difference between the morally right thing, and the right thing. Morally, this was reprehensible. So was much of the war. So many attrocities were commited. World War 2 was essentialy industrialised murder. However, the reason for the bombing was that it was better for the America. It allowed them to win without losing more of their own people, and in war, your own people have to come first. From what I have seen in documentaries on the war, and learned in history, the Japanese would only surrender if they could keep most of the places they had taken in the war. A ground invasion would probably have resulted in massive casualties for both sides. The bombs forced them to surrender, or be wiped out. It was a horrible act, but it brought a quick end to a bloody and horrific conflict, so in balance, I believe it was the right thing to do. I can however, see the reasons why you may disagree.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Ok. Seriously. I'm really starting to wonder. Can people read my posts at all? Can you read this? Reply if you can read this.

\

I can read this

Me too I still think we should have dropped them though.

i can read this but i think people are not talking to you, sorry dude.

Why no. Why aren't they. I've posted the Strategic Bombing Survey that shows that we knew we didn't need to invade or bombs. I've posted from Eisenhower's autobiography that shows he knew we didn't need to invade or bomb. There's yet more well documented proof of this.

Why is everyone continuing to cling to a myth?

Because one man thought we didn't need to invade or bomb. Also, hindsight is 20-20. He knew after the war that the Japanese were at their breaking point, but the facade they put up during the war gave an air of determination. At the time we thought it would become a guerrilla war on the Japanese mainland resulting in a tactical quagmire. It just turned out to be a bluff.

One man? Eisenhower!? HA! Do you even have a clue what you're talking about. Hindsight!? THIS IS WHAT WE KNEW AT THE TIME.

And the Strategic Bombing Survey was put together by an entire team. It is the governments definitive account of areal bombardment in WWII.

And some sort of tough guy facade caused us to bomb?? We had unobstructed access to the entire island. No one shot at our planes anymore!!!! They were beaten. ~According the the government's own reports had we done nothing we would have achieved unconditional surrender.~ Read that sentence over and over because you seem not to be getting it.

I'd like to point out that your sources were written after the war. This is hindsight and that's the end of it. We knew later that most of them were unwilling to fight but at the time we thought that some or most of mainland japan would fight us out of Japanese solidarity and desire for an honorable death. We didn't know most of this at the time. For all we knew it was between killing a quarter million of their civilians in an instant or killing most of their civilians in the streets while losing our forces while staring at the Soviet Union and it's love of converting other nations. If nothing else, we had to keep our forces strong in case of a red invasion and this had the dual effect of scaring them as well. Of course they developed their own weapons so maybe it wasn't a good idea but hindsight is 20-20.

The sources ~collimated~ information after the war, but everything you read in that report, we knew at the time. Once again, we had cracked the Japanese code. We knew they had no infrastructure to fight with. We knew that they would not fight because their leadership was imploding. We knew that all we had to do to end it, was say that they could keep a figurehead leader.

A country isn't made of leaders, it's made of people, even if the majority of the leadership wanted to end it, as long as the war generals had enough followers, they would fight. We knew that some government officials wanted to surrender, but we didn't know how many civilians and soldiers were willing to surrender. Like I said, it wouldn't be the Japanese hoard, but there would be resistance from the common Japanese person. The number of resistors was unknown and our leaders went with what they thought was best at the time.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

Yes. If we didn't do it we would have lost thousands of troops.

It was a war crime if you ask me.

So no it shouldn't have.

War Crime it may be but a necessary evil.
Laws in war are bullshit.

 

[Rigamortiz]

I haven't read any of this topic, except the first few replies... I hope everybody realises the fire bombing of places such as Tokyo caused more destruction and deaths than the Atomic bombs. It was just the sheer power of 1 bomb being able to destroy a city that ended the war. I would rather have had it that way, than the alternate option of an invasion of Japan, which would have lasted longer and killed more people.

 

[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.

Plus there's the issue of the Cold War. At the time of their invention, people regarded atomic bombs as simply a hugely powerful bomb, not as the the planet destroying monster it has become today due to the arms race. We needed that wake up call to realize how deadly these weapons are. If no one understood precisely what they were getting into with nuclear arms (and I'm referring to its effects on real targets, not just in tests), the Cold War would have almost certainly gone hot, and none of us would be sitting here now, debating an event sixty-four years past on an internet forum.

Good point. There is justified fear today about a large scale nuclear exchange, especially since they are MUCH more powerful AND common today. That was just not the situation back then. It would NOT be the right decision today due to the global reprecussions, but back then, it WAS.

I know that's an unpleasant thing to say, but war is hell. Wishing otherwise won't make it so. That's why we try to avoid it. But if you CAN'T avoid war, you better be in it to win it.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

But we did what we did and it worked, so it's a little late to question it.

To late to question it yet...yes. To late to criticise it and inform the world of the massive murder machine that is the USA?...no

Anyway I agree with you that America could have just demonstrated it... blow it up a few miles off a Japanese port town into the sea...

Wasn't the world a whole lot better in the middle ages where it was much harder to kill someone?

No not really, there was no penicillin, no scientific knowledge, no video games. The middle ages sucked, and life today is infinitely better, you can go ahead and think the middle ages were better, but there was still violence, still killing, and much much worse ways to die, like getting a thorn in your foot, then slowly dying of an infection. Or being kidnapped by raiders and forced into slavery, or to fight in their army. Mass killing has existed since the beginning of civilization (kind of a contradiction huh?) and shows no signs of slowing.
Get some historical perspective.

 

[Daimes2000]

No, i think it was wrong. Sure, an invasion of Japan might have cost more lives than the dropping of the two atomic bombs, but then it would have been soldiers fighting soldiers, and not civilians being bombed to hell or suffering a painful dead over the coming years. I think, if the US had shown their destructive power by dropping an atomic bomb outside an urban area or on the sea, clearly visible to armed forces, the japanese capitulation would have come maybe a bit later.