Should the atomic bombs been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[bkdlsf89990]

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.

We didn't know about radiation.

And using more conventional means of mass slaughter would mean losing more American lives.

 

[bkdlsf89990]

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.

No idea where you're getting that. Hiroshima was targeted, "as an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area."

Nagasaki was chosen because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.

 

[Aramax]

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.

Absolutly not.

If you read about the history behind the two world wars you will notice that the main "detonator" to both was economical in nature. Back then everyone refused to acknowledge a fact and today it's starting all over again with the economical crisis and the war in the midle east.

This single fact that everyone is so eager to ignore is that all our modern economical systems have failled us as a species because they are scarcity-oriented systems and we need a new nonmonetary based system in order to keep progressing in the right direction as a species. People keep talking about "Incentives" or "Motives" for people to go to work and I know that you (The reader) are one of them. Incentives means progress and progress is not a necessity. Sure it will slow things down a lot to have a resource based economy but this is exactly what this worlds is in need of.

Not the shadow of a doubt about that.

This is Jacque Fresco.

He started the venus project and talks a lot about a resource-based economy.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_economics

Edit: Slowing down progress doesn't mean returning to a caveman like lifestyle. It means close to nothing actually since you wont even feel a single change in your lifestyle... except for the fact that you will have more space in your pockets.

 

[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.

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

Well if someone attacks your country, the people as a whole are not just going to roll over and take it lying down. Even if it was a nuke, they would still look for an option to fight (unless of course, everything was destroyed in the nuke). The question is, was it really necessary to launch another nuke to drive the message home. Surely, an ultimatum after the first nuke would get people thinking just as much as launching two nukes. The only difference is the death toll on both sides wouldn't be that high.

 

[bkdlsf89990]

Although I support the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were, by definition, terrorism.

 

[bkdlsf89990]

Well if someone attacks your country, the people as a whole are not just going to roll over and take it lying down. Even if it was a nuke, they would still look for an option to fight. The question is, was it really necessary to launch another nuke to drive the message home. Surely, an ultimatum after the first nuke would get people thinking just as much as launching two nukes. The only difference is the death toll on both sides wouldn't be that high.

I personally don't think another paper of forceful language has the same impact as a nuclear weapon.

 

[Flishiz]

The bombs are definitely the reason I'm alive today, so with extreme bias, I say yes.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

I said it was a crime against humanity and it falls under this definition. Although the law was created afterward that does not mean that it could not be applied retrospectively as was the case in the Nuremberg trials.

Crimes against humanity have been recently legislated to cover war like crimes in non-conflicts such as the horrific acts seen accross Africa. They are mostly derived from the notions of and treaties on War Crimes.

Even way back in early civilization there were rules about war. However, I can look back to the following:

[link]http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-02.asp[/link]

Created in 1899 this could be seen as covering the radiation after effects of the bombs.

Also consider:

[link]http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/280?OpenDocument[/link]

[link]http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#D[/link]

Though the idea of the bombing is refuted as a War Crime on the US side it is widely regarded as such elsewhere.

Then what punishment fits the crime? Perhaps they should help rebuild the country so damaged? Oh, did that already without even being charged with crime. Obviously our intent was mass murder, and not the real truth of war: end it fast, end it with full force, and then help prevent the necessity of it in the future. 'Milder, gentler war' only further breeds the concept that war is a tool that can be easily used to get your aims accomplished. Even with the full horror of the past wars, we still have those that turn to it too quickly and easily.

 

[pinataburster]

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.

You fucking prick. Seriously, we bombed Tokyo (fire bombed, carpet bombed) and Japan let it happen. Millions more would've died if we didn't do it. Also, Bataan Fucking Death March was more a crime than the bombs. We did it for a reason. They took POWs and made them march 65 MILES and killed and tortured so many, it was disgusting. Here's a quote from wikipedia: "Beheadings, cut throats and casual shootings were the more common and merciful actions ? compared to bayonet stabbings, rapes, disembowelments, numerous rifle butt beatings and a deliberate refusal to allow the prisoners food or water while keeping them continually marching for nearly a week (for the slowest survivors) in tropical heat. Falling down, unable to continue moving was tantamount to a death sentence, as was any degree of protest or expression of displeasure." They raped them. That's ten times worse than what happened to the civilians. I took a tour of the U.N. and the U.S. has given the most money. Sounding from your incredibly horrible attitude to America, you're a liberal (most still like America, just Republicans aren't so quick to blast America, it's more typical to see Liberals do it, just saying) and a Democrat, Harry Truman, ordered the bombing. So shut up, and if you live in America, be ashamed.

 

[Kandon Arc]

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.

No idea where you're getting that. Hiroshima was targeted, "as an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area."

Nagasaki was chosen because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.

Fair enough but I meant that the objective of the raids was not military. Military objectives could have been carried out with convential weaponary. Nuclear weapons were used to maximise as much casualties as possible to persuade the Japanese to surrender. I don't think you could compare these raids with previous allied bombing campaigns.

 

[Some_Jackass]

Yes...and yes. Bomb #1-shows the US has that kind of stopping power...Bomb #2-shows the US meant business.
The tactic saved countless lives...blah blah blah nothing new to add that hasnt been stated...

@ThaMahstah...Go look up "Terrorism", Im pretty sure youll learn something about what the word means...

 

[bkdlsf89990]

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.

No idea where you're getting that. Hiroshima was targeted, "as an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area."

Nagasaki was chosen because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.

Fair enough but I meant that the objective of the raids was not military. Military objectives could have been carried out with convential weaponary. Nuclear weapons were used to maximise as much casualties as possible to persuade the Japanese to surrender. I don't think you could compare these raids with previous allied bombing campaigns.

Of course the point of the bombings was not only to cripple their war effort, but to send a powerful psychological message to get them to surrender. (All in the noble goal of preventing further bloodshed, of course.) While I support the bombings, they were, by definition, terrorism.

 

[Jursa]

Technically... no they shouldn't have, but in practice however as far as Japanese history goes, they would fight until the last bit of blood fell out of their system than surrender otherwise, so yes.

 

[pinataburster]

[link]http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm[/link]

From your link:

DONE at Rome, this 17th day of July 1998.

By all means, let us follow the laws set down 43 years from today.

I said it was a crime against humanity and it falls under this definition. Although the law was created afterward that does not mean that it could not be applied retrospectively as was the case in the Nuremberg trials.

Crimes against humanity have been recently legislated to cover war like crimes in non-conflicts such as the horrific acts seen accross Africa. They are mostly derived from the notions of and treaties on War Crimes.

Even way back in early civilization there were rules about war. However, I can look back to the following:

[lnk]http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-02.asp[/link]

Created in 1899 this could be seen as covering the radiation after effects of the bombs.

Also consider:

[link]http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/280?OpenDocument[/link]

[link]http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#D[/link]

Though the idea of the bombing is refuted as a War Crime on the US side it is widely regarded as such elsewhere.

Then what punishment fits the crime? Perhaps they should help rebuild the country so damaged? Oh, did that already without even being charged with crime. Obviously our intent was mass murder, and not the real truth of war: end it fast, end it with full force, and then help prevent the necessity of it in the future. 'Milder, gentler war' only further breeds the concept that war is a tool that can be easily used to get your aims accomplished. Even with the full horror of the past wars, we still have those that turn to it too quickly and easily.

They did rebuild the country, that's an accepted fact. It's a fact, we rebuilt their country so much, our comic books inspired some Manga and Anime, they have become a much more technologically advanced nation, and we did a lot for them after this. They also bombed Pearl Harbor, and had the Bataan Death March, so HONESTLY, it was deserved. War happens, you CAN NOT get rid of it, it's been around FOREVER. There will always be someone who ignites war, and so far, the U.S. has never entered a war to conquer, or anything but preserving our country, another country, or to save the WORLD. If we hadn't entered WW2, the Allies might have lost. Remember that. And, yeah, Vietnam and Iraq Wars fall into that as well (though Vietnam was a police action not a war) because we were attacked with Iraq/provoked by Saddam implying he had WMD's, and with Vietnam, we didn't want the spread of communism, and wanted to preserve a friend, South Vietnam. That's why America is so great, they fight to help all of our allies, and to help preserve a lot of other countries. That is all.

 

[bkdlsf89990]

@ThaMahstah...Go look up "Terrorism", Im pretty sure youll learn something about what the word means...

?noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism

Of course, using that definition, war itself is terrorism.

 

[Kandon Arc]

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.

Absolutly not.

If you read about the history behind the two world wars you will notice that the main "detonator" to both was economical in nature. Back then everyone refused to acknowledge a fact and today it's starting all over again with the economical crisis and the war in the midle east.

This single fact that everyone is so eager to ignore is that all our modern economical systems have failled us as a species and we need a new nonmonetary based system. People keep talking about "Incentives" or "Motives" for people to go to work and I know that you (The reader) are one of them. Incentives means progress and progress is not a necessity. Sure it will slow things down a lot to have a resource based economy but this is exactly what this worlds is in need of.

Not the shadow of a doubt about that.

'Progress is not a necessity'? If there was no progress we would still be sitting in caves without so much as fire to keep us warm.

 

[Aramax]

Progress is not a necessity'? If there was no progress we would still be sitting in caves without so much as fire to keep us warm.

You have been led to believe this your whole life. I dont blame you.

 

[bkdlsf89990]

Progress isn't a necessity. But it's damn nice to have.

Clothes aren't a necessity either.

Or video games.

 

[willard3]

Clothes aren't a necessity either.

Or video games.

Lies! Begone, heretic!

 

[Andraste]

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.

Jumping into a conversation like this is really like poking a hornets' nest, but I do have a serious question on this point.

Yes, if we had stepped in before Hitler had as much power, we may have been able to prevent much of the casualty of WWII. Hindsight is 20/20. So, short of being able to go back in time, we try to learn from mistakes.

Now, we jump into situations in which there's a dictator showing signs of bad behavior, of militant activity toward other nations, of genocidal tendencies. Iraq does smack of this situation. Yes, there are absolutely financial reasons for the US and many other nations to want to keep things cool there. But that's not different than Europe in the 40s; we certainly had plenty of financial reason in the form of trade to maintain peace there.

The difference in the 40s is we were minding our own business. After decades of finger shaking and blame laying on us for not stepping into WWII sooner, do you think perhaps that's why we jumped in early, before too much power was in the hands of people with bad intentions, in Middle East situations? Even just a little bit?

There is no way to know any difference in these situations before it all gets out of hand, if there even is any difference. Either we mind our own business like we did in the 40s, or we jump in to try to head off potential situations, as in Iraq. You can't have it both ways. Question is: Which is it?