Should the atomic bombs been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[space_oddity]

Yes. Lesser of two evils.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

I think all this stuff about how the A-Bomb saved so many is frankly, bullshit.

There is no evidence that Japan would have fought to the last man, in fact it probably would have been more likely that the Japanese people would have just stopped fighting. They weren't all little robots that were programed to do the emperors bidding, these are people we are talking about here. It was wrong and I agree with the idea that if it had been Germany, they wouldnt have even thought of using it because the Germans were white. The whole thing about saving lives was just a ploy so that the Americans could try out there new toy for world dominance. Look at the Vietnam war; there was no end in sight there and they didnt use a nuclear weapon to save those soldiers lives.

Also this stuff that the Japanese warranted their own nuclear holocaust is some straight up fascist thinking, and what they did is no worse that what the Americans did in Iraq and Afghanistan, what they did in Vietnam with free fire zones. Hey maybe Ive got to thinking Western culture warrants it's destruction,

1. There was a substantial programme of civillian military training within Japan. The issue was that they did not have the guns to make the civillians into proper milita, so decieded to use them as suicide units. Seriously, there's a hell of a lot of evidence to back me up, and all you've got is subjective judgements made in hindsight, wheras I've got documentary footage of civillians being trained to fight with pointy sticks.
Hell, a lot of the German population fought for Hitler- not to the death, but the Volksturm managed to hold off and kill a lot of Zhukov's Red Army in Berlin, without anything barring small arms. And that was one city. The Japanese civillians might of had no small arms, but they would have had a greater propensity to die for a man who was, in essence, a living god, and had been for centuaries.

2. Sir, you're last paragraph disgusts me beyond all understanding. Even in Vietnam, let alone in the Afghan and Iraq wars we are fighting, there has been no usuage of chemical weapons, no massed rape, no deliberate policy of extermination, and no systematic murder of civillians and prisoners of war. We have not tied captured insurgents up and bayonetted them, or opened up their bodies to obserb the progress of diseases without anaesthesia, or used them as live-fire targets for training. In short, we have commited no deliberately inhumane or barbarous acts. We have destroyed towns and villages from the air, but always for reason, and often with warning.

To compare the men and women of the British Army and the Royal Air Force the the perpatrators of Nanking and unit 731 is a grotesque, inexcuseable insult to my nation, and may you be damned for eternity for it, you vile cad.

 

[watchman 2353]

Yes. If the Japanese had a bomb they wouldn't hesitate to use it on us. In war we draw a line between allies and enemies. The Japanese people were the enemies, and even civilians were ready to fight to the death instead of loose to America. It is easy to sit now and ask the question, yet with American soldiers dieing by the thousands every day, it was the country's duty to protect them, not the enemy.

 

[xxnightlawxx]

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.

give you a little hint for next time you make one of these make it a poll i messed up too when i first joined

 

[Lullabye]

in short, yes it was needed to cause the end of the war. The goal was not to kill as many people as possible, it was to elimite infrastructure and dissable their ability to porduce more weapons.

hehe no it wasn't. If we wanted to cripple their infrastructure and stop them from producing more weapons why not use strategic military strikes against main producing factories and docks and harbors and you know, stuff that would do what you said.
It was purely a show of power. It WAS to kill millions at once. As I said before, japan had the samurai soul, that means giving in wasn't an option. America could have shown japan what they were going to do if they did'nt stop, but america didn't eve bother warning them. America also had complete air superiority over japan. so japan couldn't stop the attack even if america had bothered to warn them.
But it was WAR! It's wrong to kill people, so we try to avoid it, but if we feel threatend of course we'll defend ourselves. plus its WAR, you get that? WAR! I dont' think you got it yet, say it with me now, WAR!!!!!!
humans are not peaceful by nature, if history is any indication, so we are bound to fight, and make better ways to fight. but what with todays world, most of us don't know war, or fighting or shit all about suchh pathetically primitive(except ufc) pastimes.
If you're japanese, suck it up, if you're american, tone it down.

so the hundreds of thousands of leavlet warnings, and the multiple requests to surrender "or else face serious consequenses" werent warnings? Naw my nieve friend, what was an attack without warning was pearl harbor, our attack was announced before it happned, and we knew we could tell them because we knew there was nothing they could do to stop it. So yes we warned them, and warned them, and told the citizens to get out, and many did, but not all did, and im not ashamed of our country considering all the other things that were accomplished during that war by other countries, ours is barely a memory in contrast to the atrocities that were comitted by others back then. Our actions have historically been heralded by others as the means to the end of the war that saved millions of lives had it not happened. Study a little bit and you might learn a little bit. Plus im sure you play video games like bubble bobble all day dont you? no CoD or GoW or even Halo huh? No never, not you playing WAR games...

alright, so you warned them to give up or else there will be consequences? hmmm.... now did you tell them you had an atom bomb? because consequences to them might mean, oh they are gonna carpet bomb us, or pt us in detention camps. generalizing in terms of consequences is not much of a warning.Parents tell their children that there will be consequences. You see where I'm going with this? Besides it was war. Your supposed to tell your enemy to surrender o else. It's the american thing to do. Then when they don't understand that consequences is supposed to mean " throw a small sun at you", you throw a small sun at them.
Also I do play gow, cod and such and so forth. I love playing games where you kill shit. My top fav games include razes hell and trapt. look them up. But I bet your just content waging war on your couch. Why don't you get a good education like I plan on doing and take over something? And please don't say its wrong. I have to many arguments against that for you to stand a chance.

 

[Siris]

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

But affectivly ending WWII. And stopping any future wars that may have arrisen between now and then because of their nice shiny bomb

 

[crwsm]

1) Yes, Japan's leaders ignored warnings of the horror America was about to unleash on the world. The Japenese people, had no such choice. It was the civillans who died in the bombings not Japan's leaders.

2) Seriously, two bombs? When Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, they target mainly the naval base itself and nearly all of her ships, yes, many civillians were killed. When America dropped the first Atomic bomb, the world looked on in shock as one man (in the bomber) had struck perhaps the mightiest of blows in history thus far. No single action has caused more death than the pilot's finger that day. Two days later, history repeats itself. All of this death and destruction was brought down upon heavily civillian populated areas.

It is 100 percent my opinion that two bombs were not necessary to win the war, and that the Americans knew full well what they were unleashing, and that they will never be forgiven by any country on this planet.

On the bright side, an excellent debate which despite the subject matter it is nice to see so many informed responses. After all this thread could have just been a simple amerika VS dajaps woh can winzzz111one!lolz.

I'd like to argue with you on these ideas. You brought good questions to the table and I would like the opportunity to argue my case against them.

1) While it is true that the Japanese leaders ignored warnings from the allies, specifically from the Potsdam Conference, they were fully aware of the intentions of the Allies. The Potsdam Declaration states that "the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland" would occur if the Allies were forced to assault said homeland. The current ruler of Japan at that time, Emperor Hirohito, was fully aware of this declaration and of the consequences of ignoring the warnings of the Allies. It is not the job of the aggressors in war to warn the citizens of their enemy country to be ready for an attack. The job for informing and warning these people falls on the shoulders of the Japanese government.

2) I can not disagree that there has been an action that has caused more death and destruction than the dropping of the bombs. That is plain fact, nothing, pound for pound has caused more death during recorded history. The Japanese knew that something big was coming their way, because the continuous bombing of their major cities only stopped when there was going to be a rather significant development. This came late in the evening of the 5th, so they were fully aware that something important was going to happen. The dropping of the bombs on civilian zones is regretable, but the U.S. military was trying to find the pressure point that would end the war. As most of the industry was being attacked and bombed already, why waste these bombs on something that is already being damaged? The Truman administration decided to find the place where they could demonstrate the power of the bomb, but not destroy a major city in the process. I am saddened that this had to happen over these two cities, but there was no other viable location. The city had to be large enough that the Japanese would know something was wrong and come to investigate. If it was a small town or rural area, would the Japanese have cared? My best guess is probably not so much.
The actual blast radius of the bombs was approximately 1.6km, which hardly was the size of the entire city. There were fires that spread from that initial blast zone and consumed the rest of the city, because of the construction materials used in the homes and businesses, ie wood.

 

[Virus017]

2) Seriously, two bombs?

I explained it in my post- the US did not have a large stockpile of bombs. They would have to wait weeks before a new bomb was ready for deployment. This was to convince the Japanese government of their non-existent stockpile of doom.

 

[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.

give you a little hint for next time you make one of these make it a poll i messed up too when i first joined

Well I was hoping for more than a yes/no answer. I don't see how not adding a poll make this a problem. I was not planning on looking at how many people agreed or disagreed, just their arguments.

 

[Wounded Melody]

The whole 'Germans were white so we didn't bomb them' is BULL. They are situated in an area that were surrounded by our ALLIES. Why do you think we haven't used more powerful bombs in the Middle East? Because Israel is smack in the middle. Japan is an island. If it were in the middle of Asia I doubt the bomb would have been used.

 

[Fraeir]

Without them, the Japanese would have kept fighting, as already said.. It was the lesser of two evils, by far <.<

I was in Japan back in 1999 with some in my family. And we went to Nagasaki, including the park that is the spot the bomb hit in '45. Quite interesting, we even got a free entry to the museum since it was not long until it closed for the night xD Hurried, but still...

The Japanese might've been animals in World War II (I'm not a racist, and I'm not talking about Japanese Americans, Japanese civilians, etc.), but my impression from the trip to Japan seems to say they are rather a cheerful people, far more polite and civilized then the so called "Civilized" West..

Without the bombs, the likelihood for Japan being what it is today is far slimmer..

 

[Raven's Nest]

Hmm, despite everything that has been said and debated about here, I'd have to say it's the wrong question.

No atomic bombs should have been dropped anywhere or on anyone. They are evil, and to use such a weapon on civillians is an evil act. The world learned this the hard way.

If the question was this...

Was the use of atomic bombs necessary to end the conflict between America and Japan?

I, and a lot of people who have said no here, would perhaps not have had so much to argue about.

It won't however shut up the idealist's, like myself, who say the war should never have gone so far in the first place to necessitate the use of such weapons in warfare.

[mildly ironic statement] Peace talks, anyone? [/]

 

[Marv21]

Kinda like killing thousands to save millions kinda deal

LIKE WATCHMEN!

 

[crimson5pheonix]

In my experience, if something works, don't throw a wrench in it to see if it will work better. Yes, it's terrible that the Japanese got bombed like that, but their nation seems to be working well enough right now. This may not have been the case if we tried a different tactic. Could Japan have turned out better had we not dropped the bombs? Maybe. Would they be worse off if we didn't drop the bombs? Probably.

 

[Virus017]

The whole 'Germans were white so we didn't bomb them' is BULL. They are situated in an area that were surrounded by our ALLIES. Why do you think we haven't used more powerful bombs in the Middle East?

Because the point of invading Iraq and Afghanistan (I think that's what your talking about) was too help innocent civilians. Nuking them kinda removes the civilians your trying to help...

I don't think you understood racism at the time in the world, so I'm not going to explain it. Examples of Americans not liking Japanese? Off the top of my mind there's one that my history teacher talked about. How about Japanese Americans were put in internment camps for the duration of the war (effectively prison camps), whilst German Americans were left completely untouched?

 

[godevit]

Although the booming left a scar on the Japanese island and created numerous number of problems i think it actually saved many lives to the Americans and the Japanese. it might same a bit awkward but if the Americans haven't boomed the place then the war continued and to end it someone must win. since America had the upper hand in this stage its more likely that they were planing to invade japan and as we all know the Japanese were and are loyal to their emperor which mean fighting till the last man. If the invasion really took place the number of people that got killed would have increased tremendously...so ye it was a smart choice.

 

[DarkRyter]

Such a complex topic is hard to answer.

It's very easy to see what horror the dropping of those bombs are, but they ended the most violent conflict in human history.

Do the ends justify the means?

 

[Cid Silverwing]

It had to be done, or the Japanese wouldn't have surrendered and the World War wouldn't have ended. (Yes I'm well aware of the casualties, shut up)

And this is a topic you don't discuss loudly.

 

[Inarticulate_Underachiever]

I don't really understand why these discussions about the past crop up, seems like a load of people trying to justify their butthurt to me but I'm an idiot so don't pay any attention.

On topic: My opinion is that it was a necessary evil. If America hadn't dropped them on Japan then they would've dropped them on somebody else later on down the line, perhaps someone who had the capabilities to respond likewise and it would've resulted in even more death and destruction