Should the atomic bombs been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[AntiAntagonist]

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.

This... unfortunately.

The Japanese Military co-opted the bushido code in propagandizing the war. The women were even trained with naginatas and sharpened bamboo poles to defend the homeland if an invasion were to occur.

 

[konkwastaken]

the Japanese were offered to surrender after the first bomb was dropped, but instead they said no, so the dropping of the second bomb is entirely Japans own fault.

Exactly. Japan saw the destruction the first bomb caused and basically thought...nah even with their nukes they ain't got shit on us, we can still take em.

Second bomb was entirely Japan's fault. Don't get me wrong i am not saying the civilians deserved it or anything but Japan totally brought the second bomb on themselves.

 

[Nazulu]

Yep, the bombs literally stopped everything due to the fact that they surrendered, it could have gotten alot worse for japan!

 

[Sewblon]

Yes.

 

[AntiAntagonist]

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.

That plus Nanking and several other atrocities.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Yes.

Bingo. It was war, and the Japanese (and Axis powers in general, but especially the Japanese due to their samurai culture, which was still VERY strong in Japan at this time. Many, many soldiers still carried swords during WW2.) were ruthless. They would have fought an invasion to the last, with huge casualties on both sides. I also doubt their were many other options at the time. Negotiations likely wouldn't have worked as long as Japan thought they had any chance of winning.

 

[IrrelevantTangent]

Maybe. Maybe not. I believe it was Shakespeare who said, 'Nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.' Keep in mind, though, that the sheer amount of radiation released did cause horrific aftereffects that will last for a long, long time. Mankind shouldn't use such destructive weapons, in my personal opinion. There may never come a time when we possess the collective will and intellect to use them without destroying everything.

 

[Spicy meatball]

I feel compelled to say this; but firebombing of Japan was just as effective as nuclear bombs, without the lasting effects.

 

[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.

That plus Nanking and several other atrocities.

If you want to make yourself feel ill I'd recommend reading the wiki pages for [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre"]Nanking[/a] and [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731"]Unit 731[/a].

It's not to say the Allies weren't dicks but they didn't preform lethal human experimentation or mass rape (80,000 in one city, in a few weeks).

 

[UpSkirtDistress]

No After all the reseach time and money that went into the atomic bomb it had to be used. It may have ended the war quicker but who did it save countless american soldiers over countless civilians which included women and children who werent even involved in the war at all ,oh and add to that the leftover radiation. If the Americans wanted to show the power of the atomic bomb one was more then enough not two cities. It was a war crime plain and simple much like the carpet bombing of german cities(not military targets) by the british at the closing of the war. People die in war fair enough but it should be the soldiers trained and prepaired to fight (i know about conscripts but conscripts aren't women and children). Remember victors write the history maybe if the axis had won the holocost would have been glossed over and the carpet bombings and everything else would have been the disgraces of the war.

 

[zauxz]

who knows?
Perhaps if the bombs werent dropped, the japaneese would have invaded the world by now? Who knows...

 

[ssgt splatter]

yep

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

Maybe. Maybe not. I believe it was Shakespeare who said, 'Nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.' Keep in mind, though, that the sheer amount of radiation released did cause horrific aftereffects that will last for a long, long time. Mankind shouldn't use such destructive weapons, in my personal opinion. There may never come a time when we possess the collective will and intellect to use them without destroying everything.

I think Stalin ironically once said "The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a thousand is a statistic". I guess the bigger question is does the end justify the means?

 

[FarleShadow]

Yes. Yes they should. Oh wait, they did and stupid moral arguments that question actions that have already happened is pointless.

Oh sorry, I forgot that the internet isn't populated with intelligent people. Again.

 

[rossatdi]

I feel compelled to say this; but firebombing of Japan was just as effective as nuclear bombs, without the lasting effects.

But it didn't get them to surrender. The point of the nuclear bombs was very much to say "look, just stop or we'll wipe you off the face of the earth." Firebombing was very effective but essentially just an advance on expected technology. Waves of planes can be seen, defeated or prepared for. But a lone bomber that can level an entire city in one run was unheard of, almost biblically powerful.

Importantly the US kept it very quiet that they didn't have the ability to rapidly mass produce these weapons yet.

 

[AllHailTheAltmer]

Who can really say. It was a horrible act in many respects, and the lasting affect to Japan has been catastrophic, but there is some way of justifying it, in that a) the Japanese committed just as many war crimes against civilians during WWII, and b) the dropping of the bombs did very quickly bring an end to any threat of further fighting between Japan and the USA, possibly saving more lives than were cost.

So in my opinion, if you forced me to come down on one side of the fence or other, I'd probably say yes.

 

[Symp4thy]

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.

This says it quite nicely.

Apparently some people think we should end wars with hugs...