Should the atomic bombs been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Recommended Videos

Spicy meatball

New member
Feb 17, 2009
170
0
0
pinataburster said:
paulgruberman said:
beddo said:
paulgruberman said:
beddo said:
[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.
That is just a load of rubbish. How do you expect to rationalise the destruction of two large civilion populations?. The whole project was not to hurt their military capabilities but just a point of exercise to say "look what we have and you don't". The killing of civilians is not justifiable because them attacked Pearl Harbour, which is a military installation. Sure War happens, but why must the civillians pay the price all the time. War is between armies. That event is by no means justifiable, especially not Nagasaki..the bomb which was dropped 3 days after the first?. Was that really necessary?
 

Danzaivar

New member
Jul 13, 2004
1,967
0
0
The Japanese revered their Emperor as a god, and were all very willing to die for him. A show of strength that says 'We can kill your Emperor any time we damn want' was pretty much the only thing that (imo) would have made them surrender. If you look at the conditions of surrender it was basically that they respect the Emperor's right to rule Japan and that's about it.

It was a dick move by America but I'll be damned if it wasn't effective.
 

Dele

New member
Oct 25, 2008
552
0
0
Spicy meatball said:
That is just a load of rubbish. How do you expect to rationalise the destruction of two large civilion populations?. The whole project was not to hurt their military capabilities but just a point of exercise to say "look what we have and you don't". The killing of civilians is not justifiable because them attacked Pearl Harbour, which is a military installation. Sure War happens, but why must the civillians pay the price all the time. War is between armies. That event is by no means justifiable, especially not Nagasaki..the bomb which was dropped 3 days after the first?. Was that really necessary?
WWII was a total war that made no difference between military and civilians. They were all hostiles back then.
 

Dramatic Flare

Frightening Frolicker
Jun 18, 2008
1,122
0
0
Spicy meatball said:
That is just a load of rubbish. How do you expect to rationalise the destruction of two large civilion populations?. The whole project was not to hurt their military capabilities but just a point of exercise to say "look what we have and you don't". The killing of civilians is not justifiable because them attacked Pearl Harbour, which is a military installation. Sure War happens, but why must the civillians pay the price all the time. War is between armies. That event is by no means justifiable, especially not Nagasaki..the bomb which was dropped 3 days after the first?. Was that really necessary?
Look at these numbers:
Hiroshima: "By the end of the year, injury and radiation brought total casualties to 90,000-140,000.[11] Approximately 69% of the city's buildings were completely destroyed, and 6.6% severely damaged."

Nagasaki: "According to statistics found within Nagasaki Peace Park, the death toll from the atomic bombing totalled 73,884, as well as another 74,909 injured, and another several hundred thousand diseased and dying due to fallout and other illness caused by radiation."

So, let's say three hundred thousand died.

Now look at this estimate.
"A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan."

Not to trivialize human life, but three hundred thousand is a lot fewer grieving families than, at best, 6.7 million ones.
Also, someone did a record of the hurricanes of that time in the Japanese area. One passed right over the would-be American base they would use to invade Japan.
have any guesses what that would do to a fleet? The American forces would have been smashed like so many fruit flies in a blender.
Then America would pretty much not have any choice but to use the bomb.
 

Bunnymarn

New member
Oct 8, 2008
243
0
0
Yes and no.

Yes: It may have stopped the war from getting far worse.

No: Killed many lives and those that lived had illnesses, caused by the radation. People are still dying today, because of the bomb.
 

Exocet

Pandamonium is at hand
Dec 3, 2008
726
0
0
Dele said:
WWII was a total war that made no difference between military and civilians. They were all hostiles back then.
I agree,but in my opinion,the second one was too much.The first one was necessary,but dropping a second one was:
1)Useless,since the world already knew what the weapon could do.
2)Dangerous,it could have caused a diplomatic conflict between the allies(not everyone might have agreed to use a such weapon,let alone twice)
3)Trying your luck,indeed,the US was fresh out of A-bombs after Nagasaki.If the Japanese people didn't back down,they would have called the US bluff claiming they had more A-bombs and they probably would have fought much more fiercely.
 

Dele

New member
Oct 25, 2008
552
0
0
Exocet said:
I agree,but in my opinion,the second one was too much.The first one was necessary,but dropping a second one was:
1)Useless,since the world already knew what the weapon could do.
2)Dangerous,it could have caused a diplomatic conflict between the allies(not everyone might have agreed to use a such weapon,let alone twice)
3)Trying your luck,indeed,the US was fresh out of A-bombs after Nagasaki.If the Japanese people didn't back down,they would have called the US bluff claiming they had more A-bombs and they probably would have fought much more fiercely.
1) Japan did not consider unconditional surrendering after the first bomb and Nagasaki was a large port and industrial city of importance.

2)This is essentially how dynamite was viewed in the 19th century (irrational). Even then, enemy had already been defamed for many years and people were tired of the bloody war so I am having hard time imagining this.

3) US was going to receive more A-bombs in 10 days or so. Also I dont understand the "more fiercely" part as effects from such weapon is truly demoralizing.
 

Spicy meatball

New member
Feb 17, 2009
170
0
0
I am of the opinion that the very first nuke, let alone the second one, was grossly unnecessary and that the incidents account for the single-most despicable act of WWII. The only remotely favorable plea that could be made in my view is that of gross ignorance, as apparently there were plans to use nuclear weapons to clear beaches before friendly forces moved in.

I shall use [link]http://www.doug-long.com/[/link] as a source and shall be doing a cut and paste job of sections. The bold is for emphasis. Underlined sentences are my own opinions.

And so from November 1944 onward, Japan was the subject of numerous large-scale B-29 non-nuclear bombing raids (Robert Butow, Japan's Decision To Surrender, pg. 41). When Air Force chief General Hap Arnold asked in June 1945 when the war was going to end, the commander of the B-29 raids, General Curtis LeMay, told him September or October 1945, because by then they would have run out of industrial targets to bomb (Sherry, pg. 300 & 410(143n))

On August 6, 1945, an atomic bomb was dropped on the people of Hiroshima.

The proclamation demanded "the unconditional surrender of all the Japanese armed forces" (U.S. Dept. of State, Foreign Relations of the U.S., The Conference of Berlin (Potsdam), vol. 2, pg. 1474-1476). It made no mention of Japan's central surrender consideration: the retention of the Emperor's position (Butow, pg. 138-139). What made this crucial was that the Japanese believed their Emperor to be a god, the heart of the Japanese people and culture (Pacific War Research Society, Japan's Longest Day, pg. 20). The absence of any assurance regarding the Emperor's fate became Japan's chief objection to the Potsdam Proclamation (Pacific War Research Society, The Day Man Lost, pg. 212-214). In addition, the proclamation made statements that, to the Japanese, could appear threatening to the Emperor.

Early in the morning of August 9th (How convenient...) Manchuria was invaded by the Soviet Union. The Soviets had notified Japan's Ambassador to Moscow on the night of the eighth (Gee thanks for the notice bud!) that the Soviet Union would be at war with Japan as of August 9th (Butow, pg. 153-154, 164(n)). This was a blow to the Japanese government's peace-seeking efforts. The Russians had been the only major nation with which Japan still had a neutrality pact, and, as such, (had been Japan's main hope of negotiating a peace with something better than unconditional surrender terms (Butow, pg. 87). To that end, the Japanese government had been pursuing Soviet mediation (I guess the Japanese peace diplomats were looking at the Russians funny...) to end the war in response to the Emperor's request of June 22, 1945, a fact often overlooked today. (Butow, pg. 118-120, 130)

Late on the morning of August 9th, the U.S. dropped a second atomic bomb without a second thought, this time on the people of Nagasaki.

Bringing the nuclear threat closer to home, rumors were reported to the Japanese military that the next atomic bomb would be dropped on Tokyo, where the government leaders were meeting (William Craig, The Fall of Japan, pg. 116). Bombed by the Allies at will, Japan was militarily defeated. It still remained, however, for defeat to be translated into surrender

The Emperor's Desire On the following day, August 14, Anami, Umezu, and Toyoda were still arguing that there was a chance for victory (John Toland, The Rising Sun, pg. 936). But then that same day, the Cabinet unanimously agreed to surrender (Toland, pg. 939).
Where none of the previous events had succeeded in bringing the Japanese military leaders to surrender, surrender came at Emperor Hirohito's request: "It is my desire that you, my Ministers of State, accede to my wishes and forthwith accept the Allied reply" (Butow, pg. 207-208)

Surrender was so repugnant to Anami that he committed hara-kiri the day after he signed the surrender document (Butow, pg. 219-220). Where fear and reason had failed, religious devotion to the Emperor enabled the military leaders to overcome their samurai resistance to surrender.

July 1945 - Japan's peace messages Still, the messages from Togo to Sato, read by the U.S. at the time, clearly indicated that Japan was seeking to end the war:

President Truman knew of the messages' content

In passing up this possible opportunity for an earlier and less deadly peace, Truman was not deliberately trying to prolong the war so the atomic bomb could be used on Japan to intimidate the Soviets. Briefly stated, it is likely that Truman believed the use of atomic bombs on Japan was necessary primarily for the reasons he always gave: "We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans"

A point made by then Assistant Sec. of War John McCloy and seconded by the then Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence, Captain Ellis Zacharias (http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm#Zach) is of particular importance. Regarding the decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan, McCloy later wrote, "everyone was so intent on winning the war by military means that the introduction of political considerations was almost accidental" (John McCloy, The Challenge to American Foreign Policy, pg. 42, my emphasis). Zacharias lamented, "while Allied leaders were immediately inclined to support all innovations however bold and novel in the strictly military sphere, they frowned upon similar innovations in the sphere of diplomatic and psychological warfare" (Ellis Zacharias, The A-Bomb Was Not Needed, United Nations World, Aug. 1949, pg. 29). Defeating Japan was perceived of by the Allies in the narrow terms of military methods. The Japanese messages intercepted by the U.S. in July showed the Japanese government's view toward the war had changed. However, the U.S. didn't keep up with this change, and the advantage of combining diplomatic methods with military methods was largely missed.

The Japanese government correctly interpreted this and other statements in the Allied surrender terms to mean that the Emperor could be retained. On August 14 the Emperor told Japan's cabinet, "I have studied the Allied reply and concluded that it virtually acknowledges the position of our note [requesting the Emperor's retention] sent a few days ago. I find it quite acceptable." (Toland, pg. 936-937). With this reassurance and at the Emperor's "desire", on August 14 the Japanese Cabinet unanimously signed the surrender document, agreeing to Allied terms (Toland, pg. 939).


Although the Japanese military still wished to fight on as late as August 14, it was the doves rather than the hawks in Japan's government who had the final say. As mentioned earlier, it was the atomic bomb plus the belief that the Emperor might be retained that finally led the doves to play their trump card: the direct intervention of the Emperor requesting the Cabinet to surrender immediately.
 

the-darkness

New member
Mar 10, 2009
99
0
0
Spicy meatball said:
That is just a load of rubbish. How do you expect to rationalise the destruction of two large civilion populations?. The whole project was not to hurt their military capabilities but just a point of exercise to say "look what we have and you don't". The killing of civilians is not justifiable because them attacked Pearl Harbour, which is a military installation. Sure War happens, but why must the civillians pay the price all the time. War is between armies. That event is by no means justifiable, especially not Nagasaki..the bomb which was dropped 3 days after the first?. Was that really necessary?
I agree, why do civilians ALWAYS have to pay? That's how it was 60 years ago and it's still like that today cos the majority of the people on Earth are ignorant morons and they haven't learned ANYTHING from those bombings and WWII altogether. And why do either sides shift everything on civilians? Well anyway, those bombings were more than anything; a display of power. The US saw a chance with Japan being the 'omg evil bad guy' and took it.

And my awnser is NO cos they coulda used something that didn't last so fucking long among other reasons wich I don't feel like typing here
 

Dragonearl

New member
Mar 14, 2009
641
0
0
Honestly, I'm VERY glad that the bombings were done, and I think it was the right thing to do at the time, and it was the right thing to do for the future.

Reasons:

1. There was no reason to believe that Japan was going to surrender. As several people said already, they were trained from birth to never surrender.
2. The absolute flourish of raw military might was what sealed the deal for the surrender of Japan.
3. Conventional bombings would've caused far more casualties: before the nuclear attacks 67 Japanese cities were bombed with a combined death count of 500,000 and 5 million more made homeless. Compare to ~110,000 from the nuclear attacks (plus an additional ~110,000 due to the lack of medical facilities equipped to deal with the aftereffects of nuclear weaponry).
4. Without an actual real-world understanding of the destruction that could be brought by a single nuclear device, it's very likely the cold war could've spiraled into a nuclear world war.

A smaller scale example that may bring my viewpoint to more light:

A robber has entered your house, and is going to kill your child/wife/husband/etc. (someone you care about dearly). Your first option is hitting him over the head over and over again with a small paperweight in your reach. This option will likely end with the robber getting an opportunity to kill your and seriously injuring you. Your second option is hitting him once over the head with the 16 lb sledgehammer you are carrying. This will end in a gruesome theatrical display of blood and brains splattering all over the place, but is very likely going to save your 's life, along with your own. There are no other options. The robber speaks a language you don't understand, and as far as you can tell is preparing a piece of rope to strangle your .

Which do you choose?

@Spicy Meatball: I read through the articles you posted. Nowhere did it say that Japan tried to directly contact the US with terms of surrender (or if it did, I missed it, and I apologize). They attempted to contact Russia on numerous occasions in order to broker a surrender, but never the US. Why should the fact that US Intelligence was good enough to intercept those messages be counted as "Japan tried to contact the US with terms of surrender"? Furthermore, it was pointed out that the US gave surrender terms that explicitly allowed them to reform their government however they wished. But Japanese pride wouldn't allow them to accept such terms. From my viewpoint, this just further supports the view that total devestation to the morale of Japan was necessary to win the war. If Hirohito really was that keen on surrender, why didn't he direct his ministers/minions to accept surrender conditions before the bombs were dropped? Hirohito only "came around" AFTER the nuclear strikes of two cities (which also happened to be major military targets).

Hiroshima was the headquarters of the Second Army, Chugoku Regional Army, and Army Marines (at Ujina Port). It also had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping.

Nagasaki was one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and had major industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.

EDIT: The nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed an estimated 280,000 people combined with aftereffects and long-term radiation. The Nazis during the Holocaust killed an estimated 11 million. I'm sorry, but quite frankly, the nuclear bombings of Japan are 2 orders of magnitude short of competing for the "single-most despicable" act of WWII.
 

data_not_found

New member
Nov 12, 2008
315
0
0
goodman528 said:
Yes.

...but consider this: would USA have dropped the Atom bomb on Germany if the war in Europe had lasted longer than the war in Japan? Because Germans are white, and Japanese are not, and considering the racism in '40s America, I think using it against white people highly unlikely.
The USA didn't drop the bomb on germany because they didn't have confidence in the design yet, mainly becuase you can look at the following dates:

Victory in Europe Day (V-E Day or VE Day) was May 7 and May 8, 1945
Trinity was detonated on July 16, 1945

But hey, you're probably right. Chronological order has way less to do with it than racism.
 

Virus017

New member
Feb 20, 2009
48
0
0
Nick Bounty said:
Civilian extermination does not justify the ending of a war.
Does it when even more civilians would die if nothing had been done?
Lets just take for example a random number. 300,000 civilians die, but you save 600,000. It shouldn't work that way but in this case it had too. There was no possible way to end the war without killing civilians, it has already been established that the Japanese would not surrender, and propaganda would convince most of them to fight to the very end.
 
Jan 29, 2009
3,328
0
0
Yes, it is a demonstration of why we shouldn't use the god-damned things, and keeps our egos in check before we accidentally level a continent or 2.
 

minarri

New member
Dec 31, 2008
693
0
0
I'm sure that someone has touched on this already but I can't be assed to browse 13 pages to check. Sorry.

If I remember my Japanese history class correctly, conditions for the Japanese were so bad by August that the war couldn't have possibly gone on much longer. Also, as nobody knew what the bombs would do in the long run, the Japanese didn't really consider the atomic bombs an end-all at the time, and therefore I don't believe that they were particularly instrumental in ending the Pacific War.

Plus when you consider the fact that even the US didn't know quite what the atomic bombs were capable of (particularly in the long run), I think that morally it was a poor decision on Truman's part to order the bombs to be dropped.
 

goodman528

New member
Jul 30, 2008
763
0
0
data_not_found said:
goodman528 said:
Yes.

...but consider this: would USA have dropped the Atom bomb on Germany if the war in Europe had lasted longer than the war in Japan? Because Germans are white, and Japanese are not, and considering the racism in '40s America, I think using it against white people highly unlikely.
The USA didn't drop the bomb on germany because they didn't have confidence in the design yet, mainly becuase you can look at the following dates:

Victory in Europe Day (V-E Day or VE Day) was May 7 and May 8, 1945
Trinity was detonated on July 16, 1945

But hey, you're probably right. Chronological order has way less to do with it than racism.
Generally, I prefer to read other people's post before quoting it. I'm not telling you what to do, just a mild suggestion.
 

Theon Tonarim

New member
Oct 26, 2008
115
0
0
Fondant said:
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.
Good sir, I like your way of thinking.
 

itstimeforpie

New member
Jan 6, 2009
275
0
0
From a stratigic point, hiroshima saved lives. Dropping a bomb on Nagasaki was not really necessary, but the US did it to keep the communists out of asia. Dropping the bombs saved lives, Americans as well as japanese, (the projected casualities for the invasion of mainland japan were around one million) I think, from a military point of view, dropping the first one was somewhat justified, the second one was less so.

Now from a humanitarian point of view, the dropping of these bombs is terrible. personnaly I think at least dropping one was necessary. Its really up to you to decide if this was justified or not.