Should the atomic bombs been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[beddo]

u do realize that if the US would have stormed japan, the Japanese government would have made everyman women and child fight, and all of japan would have been destroyed! so would u rather lose 50,000 lives or 10 million, that ten million doesn't count the 4-6 million Americans that would have been killed in the assault!

oh and the UN should arrest bush if so how come they dont arrest the leader of north korea or cuba? why just americans?

Your assumptions aren't entirely accurate. Japan has not been invaded for a very long time, I doubt that women and very young children would have fought. In any case, how would this be different from much of Europe and the US? We all had conscription and many of those who went to war were under 18.

Firstly, I doubt the US would have reverted to a significant ground offensive against Japan. They were simply spread to thin and lacked adequate resources. Under the rules of war you should not fight with the intention of killing, it should be avoided with prisoners taken where necessary.

I fail to see why you believe the US would have "destroyed" the entirety of the Japanese state. Guerilla fighting and on-going resistance would pose a huge problem. Even in all out war it would have been difficult for the US to defeat Japan. Looking to the military history of the US they haven't been that successful; Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan are all examples of failed offensives.


I in no way suggested that the International Criminal Court should solely target US authorities and war criminals. They should be issuing warrants against the military Junta in Burma, against Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, against both Government and rebels in the Democratic Republic of Congo and many, many more.

My point was that if the World's most powerful country does not back the UN and the International Criminal Court by also being accountable to them then they undermine the whole system. Saddam Hussian could have been tried in a meaningful court for his crimes rather than the Kangaroo Court in Iraq.

Rules of War? Japan used Chinese prisoners for human bayonet practice. They felt it was their "divine right" to own every island in the Pacific and as such, attacked a neutral nation. Each year hundreds of prisoners were fodder for fiendish experiments. They were exposed to every known disease. These ranged from anthrax to yellow fever. Some were used for hyperthermia experiments. Others were forced to endure gangrene experiments; and still others were forced to engage in sexual intercourse with individuals known to be infected with venereal.

It was only a matter of time until someone developed a Nuclear Bomb had we not. Let's be lucky we were the first ones to use it instead of the first ones to have it used upon.

Two wrongs don't make a right. You can't justify War Crimes by claiming the other side did commited the same crimes.

The US has been widely known for its own violations including rape, murder, torture and mutilation of the dead. Violations which I might add are still conducted in the Middle East.

Sadly the US believes this conduct is still acceptable, I point you to Guantanamo Bay, CIA 'Black Sites', Extraordinary Rendition and torture including Waterboarding.

 

[Xaositect]

I know for a fact that if America had been on the receiving end of an a-bomb, no attempt from their adversaries to justify it would be able to convince them it wasnt "a crime against humanity". Therefore, I consider the dropping of an atomic bomb on Japan a crime against humanity, and any American who claims it was justified a hypocrite.

I know this, just as there are those who know "that Japan would never have surrendered and the war would have cost more lives". Yeah, massacre hundreds of thousands to "save lives", can anyone else smell bullshit?

Maybe it wouldnt be so bad if America didnt then and now still portray itself in WWII as some kind of force for good and freedom in the world.

 

[beddo]

Yes it was. japan was going to surrender anyway. The lives of civilians were taken so that a loathsome administration could 'demonstrate' it's 'power'.

Do you have evidence to back up your claim regarding the 'loathsome administration'?

Only circumstantial evidence based on hindsight and the actions in the decades following the bombing. Hard evidence would have likely been destroyed or would be at least withheld from the public.

I admit this is an opinion without hard evidence, I feel it is still valid.

 

[beddo]

I know for a fact that if America had been on the receiving end of an a-bomb, no attempt from their adversaries to justify it would be able to convince them it wasnt "a crime against humanity". Therefore, I consider the dropping of an atomic bomb on Japan a crime against humanity, and any American who claims it was justified a hypocrite.

Hear Hear.

You make a very good point.

 

[L33tsauce_Marty]

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.



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.

In all fairness I don't think Germany would have gave two shits about dropping one on our asses if they got to it first, same goes with Russia.

Oh yeah and other thing, yeah. Its sad really.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

True, but I'm just saying it's not like military generals are all angels.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

I'm gonna pass some comments on from from Micheal Smith's book The Emperor's Codes.
http://www.amazon.com/EMPERORS-CODES-Michael-Smith/dp/0593046412/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236803351&sr=8-4

<a href='http://www.amazon.com/Codebreakers-Comprehensive-History-Communication-Internet/dp/0684831309/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236805161&sr=1-1' target=_blank>The Codebreakers also covers WWII cryptanalysis, including all major powers, so can offer a bit more depth to the picture than Smith's work. It also covers the start and evolution of cryptology, so it's a pretty hefty read, but it's considered by some to be one of the best references (if not the best) on the history of codes and codebreaking.

 

[Sindaine]

I saw some documentary on this--reportedly it wwas a mistake; the pilots misjudged their targets or whatever. personally I just think they wanted an excuse to kill people--they're in the army; that's what you do in the army.

That said, no, I don't think so. it's a bit like taking a stick, studding it with nails, and using it to teach Junior not to climb into your lap.

 

[O maestre]

they were both civilian targets so no
and pearl harbour is no excuse that was a legitimate military target with the specific aim of compromising American naval capabilities. the bomb was just terror pure terrorism with the aim of pressuring the government to stop the war or more civilians would be destroyed.
i understand(i dont condone) the mentality of winning no matter the cost and a "just" war, but the line has to be drawn somewhere

 

[bkdlsf89990]

I know for a fact that if America had been on the receiving end of an a-bomb, no attempt from their adversaries to justify it would be able to convince them it wasnt "a crime against humanity". Therefore, I consider the dropping of an atomic bomb on Japan a crime against humanity, and any American who claims it was justified a hypocrite.

I know this, just as there are those who know "that Japan would never have surrendered and the war would have cost more lives". Yeah, massacre hundreds of thousands to "save lives", can anyone else smell bullshit?

Maybe it wouldnt be so bad if America didnt then and now still portray itself in WWII as some kind of force for good and freedom in the world.

Of course you don't know what their reasons would be to justify it.

 

[O maestre]

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.



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.

In all fairness I don't think Germany would have gave two shits about dropping one on our asses if they got to it first, same goes with Russia.

Oh yeah and other thing, yeah. Its sad really.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

True, but I'm just saying it's not like military generals are all angels.

i agree it the war showed human capability for evil on both sides

 

[sms_117b]

No because it killed civilians. There should be no argument about it. Yes the war would have continued for longer, much longer because the Japanese were fanatical.

Rules of engagement say not to involve civilians in military affairs. I wish these rules were obeyed in more places than just north Africa (the two generals involved in the skirmishes in Africa stuck to the rules of engagement, after Germany surrendered the Afrika cors were treated with the utmost respect, during the war the generals had portraits of their opponents in their tents, claims are they'd stare at them for hours to try and think of what their opponent would think of next) during the wars, at least the countries involved could have walked way with some pride.

 

[bkdlsf89990]

Also as I said, it is hard to reason that anyone left in Japan at that point didn't represent a military threat or legitimate target.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

If you think about it the type of bomb doesn't matter. Why would you care, if a big bomb or lots of little bombs killed you? You wouldn't.

Japan's buildings were mostly constructed out of wood. Fire bombing alone destroyed at least 60% of Tokyo in one night. They could have accomplished what they wanted with firebombing. But they didn't. The logical reason is that they wanted to intimidated Soviet Russia, and decided to drop the nuclear bombs.

If you look at it from 1940s Japan's point of view, it's more like this: "The US had been dropping little bombs on Japan and killing everyone. Now they are starting to drop big bombs!" The fact that only two bombs would ultimately be dropped is information that we only have from our historical perspective. The plan was to continue dropping "big" bombs on Japan, and as far as they knew we would eventually send them in the quantities of the little bombs. The psychological effect of, "oh wow, and that was only one bomb" was a large part of the planning around choosing Hiroshima as a target. It was also in a location where the fire bombs would have been less effective.

You can't deny the psychological warfare of the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima., and you probably are right, fire bombs would be less damaging on Hiroshima.
However do you not think it too rash to have the United States drop a second bomb in the span of three days. A week should have been given, along with another ultimatum.

 

[Zillar]

Yes, yes, and yes.

Do some of you just not understand that the Japanese would have fought down to the very last person? They gave 15 year old girls sharpened bamboo poles and told them to run at the American soldiers, killing as many as they could. They called it - I forgot what the Japanese word for it was - the "shattering of jewels." Basically saying that the citizens would have to sacrifice their lives needlessly just so a few more American soldiers would be killed.

Even after the bombs were dropped, the Japanese government still didn't want to surrender. The napalm raids actually caused more deaths than those of the atomic bombs.

EDIT: Wait, so why are people against the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - "killing thousands of innocent civilians" - and then are against the War on Terror, started in retaliation against those who caused the numerous attacks on innocent civilians?

 

[bkdlsf89990]

If you think about it the type of bomb doesn't matter. Why would you care, if a big bomb or lots of little bombs killed you? You wouldn't.

Japan's buildings were mostly constructed out of wood. Fire bombing alone destroyed at least 60% of Tokyo in one night. They could have accomplished what they wanted with firebombing. But they didn't. The logical reason is that they wanted to intimidated Soviet Russia, and decided to drop the nuclear bombs.

If you look at it from 1940s Japan's point of view, it's more like this: "The US had been dropping little bombs on Japan and killing everyone. Now they are starting to drop big bombs!" The fact that only two bombs would ultimately be dropped is information that we only have from our historical perspective. The plan was to continue dropping "big" bombs on Japan, and as far as they knew we would eventually send them in the quantities of the little bombs. The psychological effect of, "oh wow, and that was only one bomb" was a large part of the planning around choosing Hiroshima as a target. It was also in a location where the fire bombs would have been less effective.

You can't deny the psychological warfare of the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima., and you probably are right, fire bombs would be less damaging on Hiroshima.
However do you not think it too rash to have the United States drop a second bomb in the span of three days. A week should have been given, along with another ultimatum.

A week of inaction? How long does it take to decide not to surrender? Also I doubt they needed to told another ultimatum.

 

[RyantheLion]

I think it was wrong to drop the bombs on civilian cities I think it was necessary to demonstrate the new weapon to break the japanese will to fight because otherwise I'm sure they would have kept on fighting, but I think taking out key military bases or something like that would have worked just as effectively.

 

[Kandon Arc]

You know, there are a couple things I'm not seeing mentioned here much, if at all.

Firstly, that the Axis powers first used military force against civilian targets. The "Battle of Britain" was Germany's attempt to destroy the morale of the British people by killing them and destroying their homes. They targeted highly populated cities ... not military targets. And their V-1 and V-2 rockets indiscriminately were used against the population ... absolutely no military utility at all. So before you go and deplore the US for "targeting innocent civilians", remember that the Axis did it first.

Secondly, bombing cities is not the war crime that it's being made out to be, especially in that kind of era of total war. The Allies didn't bomb cities randomly like the Axis, they targeted munitions and weapon and vehicle factories. The purpose of that is to slow or eliminate the enemy's ability to keep making weapons and shipping them to the front ... thereby defeating the enemy without actually having to kill them. Did some "innocent" civilians get killed in the process? Yes. Ones that were actively participating in the war effort, possibly removing their status as an "innocent".

Lastly, hindsight is 20/20. We can sit in our armchairs and talk about how we would have done things differently, but these were ordinary men in extraordinary circumstances when the world was a much darker and less sure place. They had tough decisions to make, and the ramifications of their decisions would shape the entire world in the years to come. They did what they felt they had to do, for better or for worse.

Firstly just because Nazi Germany did it first doesn't make it right otherwise we would be justified to kill 6 million jews if we wanted to. An excessive point perhaps, but a valid one.
Secondly Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not chosen for their military significance. It was deliberate targeting of civilians, not munitions or factories, in order to send a message, just the same as suicide bombing or 9/11.
Lastly, while we cannot say what decision we would make, we can objectively debate whether the decision made was morally right.

 

[Spicy meatball]

Yes, yes, and yes.

Do some of you just not understand that the Japanese would have fought down to the very last person? They gave 15 year old girls sharpened bamboo poles and told them to run at the American soldiers, killing as many as they could. They called it - I forgot what the Japanese word for it was - the "shattering of jewels." Basically saying that the citizens would have to sacrifice their lives needlessly just so a few more American soldiers would be killed.

Even after the bombs were dropped, the Japanese government still didn't want to surrender. The napalm raids actually caused more deaths than those of the atomic bombs.

Surely, there is no need to be over zealous about the whole thing. The same affect could have been carried out with napalm alone and a strong ground and air offensive. Nuking two cities and condemning an entire generation to radiation poisoning is not a justifiable option at all. Its breaching so many rules.