Should the atomic bombs been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[goodman528]

lol. Only ignorant people think they understand something.

You're calling me ignorant because I disagree that dropping the A-bomb had racist motives?

I'm telling you you need to look at the facts before you make an off-the-cuff bullshit statement like that.

I don't like your attitude. Having quoted me twice, you still haven't given me any reasons why you disagree with me. Man of few words? Then at least make your words useful.

 

[The-Big-D]

The pilots on that plane didnt actually know what they were dropping if i recall. I remember seeing some documentry and doing some history work on it and the people on that plane ended up being emotionally scared doing what they did. Sorry if this is wrong its been a while since i did history.

But in a way if that didnt happen something worse might have come around. Its like that question if you could go back in time and kill Hitler would you. Personally no, reason being if he got killed someone worse might have come round and the world might be differant to what it is today.

So yes and no. Mainly no because of the long lasting effects it had afterward.

 

[goodman528]

yes. based on knowledge at the time (which now seems rather lacking) the Americans believed the only end to the war with japan would be either:
Japanese Surrender
Complete Invasion of Japan
Massive Overpower New Weapon

the first one was unlikely due to Japanese honor which the Americans would have accepted in most cases. the second would have drained the US of money men and resources (same for Japan) so was a last case scenario. their only realistic hope was their new (untried) super weapon and they hoped it would force the Japanese to bow out to the new tech.

Yes is was a massive waste of life, but the alternatives were no better. the Japanese do have to take some responsibility for it for their stubbornness not to surrender when they had no chance of winning.

i do also think that if the Allies had the bomb earlier they would have used it on Berlin because they were DESPERATE to end the war.(and they had little idea of the side effects)

What about soviet intervention in Japan? leading to a joint landing, and a split Japan, North is communist, south is American.

The Soviet army entered Manchuria and Korea in massive numbers in August and September, accepting the Japanese surrender, and moved lots of valuable equipment back to SU. Korean peninsula for example, the Soviet 25th Army moved in with 5 divisions (120,000 men), and the Soviet Pacific Fleet entered with 30,000 marines and auxiliary forces. The American forces only stared arriving in Korea in September, 22 days after the Soviets has taken North Korea, and wasn't in operational strength until late in October (3 divisions, 77,000 men, comparatively badly equipped).

Since the Atom bombs were dropped, in order to justify this decision, the cold war politics was down played, and the myth of the "Japanese Honour" ideology of never surrender was created and propagated. In WWII, lots of countries had this "never surrender" ideology, just as fanatically as the Japanese. Most with much more stable politics than Japan. So, there's no telling whether Japan would have surrendered without the bomb or not.

The only thing that is for sure, is by dropping the atom bomb on Japan, America prevented direct Soviet intervention in Korea, and made the Soviets a lot more cautious in Berlin, such as not shooting down bombers during the airlift.

 

[Turtleboy1017]

To all claiming that the reason America was doing the lesser of two evils in their actions to drop the nuke to stop casualties, I believe that to be dearly mistaken.

I am of Japanese decent myself, practice the culture, speak the language, and have lived in Japan for well over 3 years. The fact of the matter is, that too many people believe that all women, children, and elderly were trained to kill, kill, and kill some more to defend their country. Sure, there were families who held this belief, but many more who believed that the war was an evil, and that they would prefer to live and see their children live as well.

Had America invaded, I believe that the casualty count would have been higher, but more terrible then that I believe that Japan would have ceased to exist. Although it is not their fault, I'm sure that many Americans who fought in the war at the time believed that all Japanese families were willing to throw away their lives for the emperor. With this knowledge, they would probably have murdered many innocent civilians with no thoughts of violence without even seeing if they were to surrender or not. Eventually those who have undying loyalty to the Emperor would have been all killed, and the rest would either be taken to live in America, where they would be judged as if they were Nazis themselves, or simply killed on the spot because of misunderstandings. The Japanese nation would have been erased from the books, and divided up to the victorious allies. The culture would have stopped being practiced from fear of being segregated, and books and works of art probably would have been destroyed. Remember, at the time Japan was the nearly the most hated nation in the world. Since Stalin would have been invading in conjunction with the Americans, the much more brutal Stalin would have most likely slaughtered many who are truly innocent, and done all he could to make sure that the Japanese culture was erased as effectively as possible.

So in my point of view, the dropping of the nuke was indeed the lesser of two evils, but I also believe that many people may be a bit off in their knowledge to WHY it was the lesser of two evils.

 

[slxiii]

What about soviet intervention in Japan? leading to a joint landing, and a split Japan, North is communist, south is American.

Worked well for germany didn't it?

 

[goodman528]

...deleted...

Had America invaded, I believe that the casualty count would have been higher, but more terrible then that I believe that Japan would have ceased to exist. Although it is not their fault, I'm sure that many Americans who fought in the war at the time believed that all Japanese families were willing to throw away their lives for the emperor. With this knowledge, they would probably have murdered many innocent civilians with no thoughts of violence without even seeing if they were to surrender or not. Eventually those who have undying loyalty to the Emperor would have been all killed, and the rest would either be taken to live in America, where they would be judged as if they were Nazis themselves, or simply killed on the spot because of misunderstandings. The Japanese nation would have been erased from the books, and divided up to the victorious allies. The culture would have stopped being practiced from fear of being segregated, and books and works of art probably would have been destroyed. Remember, at the time Japan was the nearly the most hated nation in the world. Since Stalin would have been invading in conjunction with the Americans, the much more brutal Stalin would have most likely slaughtered many who are truly innocent, and done all he could to make sure that the Japanese culture was erased as effectively as possible.

...deleted...

No, Japan would not have ceased to exist. What you just described there is pretty much what actually happened to China, with Japan's "Three All" policy (三光作&#25126 of Kill All, Burn All, Loot All. Then Mao's cultural revolution happened, that was beyond even Stalin's imagination. China still exists today.

 

[BLOONINJA 503]

Japan was doing bad stuff... but innocent Japanese people got murdered with the bombs... im not sure what the OP wants out of this thread.


heres a fact I made up:

they got their revenge already... they released the Motorcycle in the US before any where else, killing millions of Americans the first year due to people unfamiliar with the safest way to ride them. /joke

 

[Jimmyjames]

I don't like your attitude. Having quoted me twice, you still haven't given me any reasons why you disagree with me. Man of few words? Then at least make your words useful.

I don't like your attitude, either. I'm telling you EXACTLY why I disagree. Try looking in a history book. The idea Hiroshima was racially motivated is BULLSHIT. Did you get that? I'm telling you why I disagree right there. Look it up if you want to know why it's bullshit. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

::EDIT:: If you want to know why so bad, here it is:

* The United States wanted to limit its own casualties by forcing Japan to surrender as quickly as possible.

* At the Yalta-Conference in February 1945 the Soviet Union secretly agreed to join the war against Japan within three months of Germany's surrender. The United States wanted to force Japan to surrender before the Soviet Union could enter the war to secure a stronger political position after the war.

* Hiroshima had a high concentration of troops, military facilities and military factories that had not yet been subject to significant damage.

 

[goodman528]

I don't like your attitude, either. I'm telling you EXACTLY why I disagree. Try looking in a history book. The idea Hiroshima was racially motivated is BULLSHIT.

I never said dropping the atom bombs was racially motivated. I said if the same option was available in Europe, then there would possibly be a decision to not drop the atom bomb on Germany. And the difference between these two decisions would be heavily influenced by racial discrimination.

I don't know why you think you know the only answer on this subject; and I don't know why you are picking an argument with me over something I never said in the first place.

 

[Jimmyjames]

Seriously, are you just trying to pick a fight?

I never said dropping the atom bombs was racially motivated.

You didn't?!? Because what you said was this:

Because Germans are white, and Japanese are not, and considering the racism in '40s America, I think using it against white people highly unlikely.

I said if the same option was available in Europe, then there would possibly be a decision to not drop the atom bomb on Germany. And the difference between these two decisions would be heavily influenced by racial discrimination.

This still sounds like you're saying that it was racially motivated, FYI.

I don't know why you think you know the only answer on this subject; and I don't know why you are picking an argument with me over something I never said in the first place.

I'm not saying I know the only answer, I'm just saying that suggesting that it was because the Japanese aren't white is inflammatory, and incorrect.

Straight up, if there was a misunderstanding I apologize for making a point of it. i just don't see what you think I'm getting wrong. I don't think you're a horrible person or an idiot or anything, I'm just trying to point out what I believe is an untruth.

 

[Nick Bounty]

This discussion is a bit of a moot point, don't you think? The fact is that the bomb was dropped, ending the war at the cost of a few hundred thousand lives. I think it's a bit obvious that dropping the bomb was inhumane and wrong, but at the time the Americans were facing what they perceived to be an enemy that would never surrender, and would probably only be angered by a land invasion. The Japanese army, and even their civilians, had commited suicide instead of surrendering because they were so loyal to their emperor.

The A-Bomb threatened the Japanese with the total destruction of their culture and country, and a death without honor. I think this is what ultimately forced them to surrender.

I think this question is not examining the outcome, because, as you say it ended the war or played a major part in ending the war. I think this question revolves around if the ends justifies the means?. I for one see other alternatives to nuking two cities but the bigger question is during a world war how effective would conventional weapons have been. The whole point of building the nuke was to turn the tide of battle fast without endangering US soldiers. It is a horrible act annihilation but it achieved what it set out to do. That was to bring results and bring results fast.

 

[Dragonearl]

Those who win wars tend to write history.

Those who write history in a less than sincere fashion tend to resort to force to uphold their manufactured "truths".

- - -

Now we are attempting to "quantify" the unquantifiable. The reason why absolute quantification lies in the realm of impossibility is simple enough to grasp. When figures are delivered for consumption they are revised and interpreted to suit political interests and agendas. There also tends to be inaccurate information and missing records. How do media reports of current events end up varying wildly from hundreds to tens of thousands to several thousands? Why do simultaneous broadcasts differ widely?

How can one sort through a mess of carnage and sort through the bodies to tell just how many "died"? What are the possible benefits of gross over or under-estimation?

Let us take a look at the average suicide fighter. Let us in particular look at the difference between a fighter with a gun and a fighter with a bomb strapped around the waist. Let us suppose that both fighters are pissed off at the same warlord who indirectly had their lands confiscated, their houses demolished and whose soldiers killed a number of their less cooperative relatives and friends. In other words they both want to make somebody pay.

So they each plot their revenge and both decide that attacking an official location such as a land requisitions department would be the way to go about it.

Both chose a similar target but while the gunman can directly choose who dies, or rather, who to spare, the bomber does not, and this problem is denied by that person until its there is no turning back and the guy goes boom. In going boom that person would have killed some civil servants, perhaps a couple of security personnel, and perhaps a civilian mother and child there in a vane attempt to protest a requisition. The bomb does not care about selection - it just follows the rules of physics and spreads carnage within range.

The gunman has to make a conscious decision to pull the trigger, and this normally means that every killing has 'some' degree of reason behind it, no matter how subdued. Does this mean that the gunner is more 'guilty' than the bomber? Both yes and no, certainly so if the gun is shot indiscriminately. However a gunsman does retain the choice of who to spare. The closest to this that a bomber has is to choose to detonate himself some place else.

- - -

Now lets tie this in with the WWII discussion.

A bullet is a directed potentially lethal force and kills directionally. A single bullet or shell can maim or kill a number of individuals in its path if conditions are right (or wrong). Its directionality and the conscious decision behind it is what makes it easier to swallow. There is no such thing as an ethical weapon, though it would be fair to say that the only truly honorable mode of combat is face-to-face within a 12 foot space.

On the other end of the (relative) ethical spectrum is the land mine and other such booby traps. There is a reason why their condemnation is escalating in these times as, unlike a bullet (or any other form of directed system), a land mine detonates regardless of who or what sets it off. The only way that they could be worse was if they were more destructive over a longer range and actively sought out indiscriminate targets to kill.

A bomb can be directed or not, Regardless of whether it is directed or not it exerts an area of effect. In the case of nuclear weapons that effect is not only over space but also over time as it takes years for the effects to subside and therefore future generations are impacted negatively.

But to drive the point home, a bomb's area of effect can determine its suitability for a task in the same way that the nature of a tool can determine its suitability for medical procedures. The two bombs in this case were similar to gauging huge chunks to get rid of a surface tumour, causing tremendous "colateral damage" in the process.

The germans did use overkill in WWII mind you - the Allies just did it better.

 

[Skyfall]

I am sorry but the events of August 6 and 9 are easily defined by one word. Terrorism!. Terrorism from the part of the US. Terrorism, according to the Academic Consensus Definition is: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988 ).

So, technically, it was a terrorist act. Sorry, but it is true.

In that case, Pearl Harbor was a terrorist act, every time a V2 rocket was fired it was a terrorist act, the carpet bombings of all the Allied European cities were terrorist acts (which landed a MUCH higher deathtoll than the dropping of those two bombs).

And yes, Pearl Harbor was a huge terrorist act by that definition, because although the target was military infrastructure, the goal was to demoralize American out of thinking to enter WWII.

Your point?

Everyone was carpet bombing cities. It wasn't just Allied European cities that were targeted.

The point is that no matter how you slice it, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are in the same category as every other aerial attack on every other city during WWII. And as far as damage and death toll goes, neither of them rank very highly.

The ONLY difference is that a single large bomb was used as opposed to hundreds of small bombs. In other words, an "OMG nookooluur" effect. I want to know why the US should be condemned for dropping 2 big bombs instead of 2,000 small bombs to achieve the same effect.

There were never any good guys or bad guys. Only a lot of guys all acting in the same way (well, the Axis had a genocide list longer than is comprehensible, which the Allies did not. I can't remember the numbers).

 

[Max Lazer]

An interesting anaolgy. The first one, not the second regarding the tumor. Now, landmines and booby traps are most dangerous not becuase they kill any who step on them, but because laying landmines is like a squirrel hiding nuts: they're easily forgotten.
I'll have to look into this, as I don't know the production costs, but it seems to me that a nuclear bomb is perfectly suited for the destruction of a city. The effects over time ensure that an enemy force cannot reenter the city and rebuild it, or use any of the rubble to rebuild anything elsewhere. The only reason it wouldn't be suited is if it's cheaper to build a large number of bombs, and pay to fuel and maintain the delivery system.

And I do hope that when you say "the Allies just did it better," you are keeping in mind that the Soviet Union is the only Allied power that could compare (it actually exceeded) the Axis in terms of "overkill."
The Western allies demolished cities that were behind enemy lines; the Axis and Soviets destroyed cities and populations after they had been conquered, as well.

 

[Spicy meatball]

I am sorry but the events of August 6 and 9 are easily defined by one word. Terrorism!. Terrorism from the part of the US. Terrorism, according to the Academic Consensus Definition is: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988 ).

So, technically, it was a terrorist act. Sorry, but it is true.

In that case, Pearl Harbor was a terrorist act, every time a V2 rocket was fired it was a terrorist act, the carpet bombings of all the Allied European cities were terrorist acts (which landed a MUCH higher deathtoll than the dropping of those two bombs).

And yes, Pearl Harbor was a huge terrorist act by that definition, because although the target was military infrastructure, the goal was to demoralize American out of thinking to enter WWII.

Your point?

Everyone was carpet bombing cities. It wasn't just Allied European cities that were targeted.

The point is that no matter how you slice it, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are in the same category as every other aerial attack on every other city during WWII. And as far as damage and death toll goes, neither of them rank very highly.

The ONLY difference is that a single large bomb was used as opposed to hundreds of small bombs. In other words, an "OMG nookooluur" effect. I want to know why the US should be condemned for dropping 2 big bombs instead of 2,000 small bombs to achieve the same effect.

There were never any good guys or bad guys. Only a lot of guys all acting in the same way (well, the Axis had a genocide list longer than is comprehensible, which the Allies did not. I can't remember the numbers).

If you want numbers, I can give you numbers.

9/11. The death toll was 2,752 - 2,973, depending on which number you use.
Pearl Harbor. The death toll was 2403. 68 were civilians.

The two greatest death tolls on U.S soil, after being formed as a country.

Now let's look at the death toll of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Hiroshima's death toll was roughly 60,00 - 80,000.
Nagasaki's death toll was roughly 50,000 people.

Big difference? Yes. Let's delve further into this.

The total American soldier death toll was 416,800, with 1,700 civilian deaths.
The total Japanese soldier death toll was 2,120,000 with 580,000 civilian deaths.

Do you need more quantitative results? Or is that enough?

Does the killing of 2043 American citizens justify the deaths of 580,000 civilian casualties?
Does it justify torturing generations to come with cancer, infertility and excruciating pain?
Does it justify the thousands of families torn apart?
Does it justify the thousands of innocents killed?

Does it?
I see no reason why it should have happened and hope it will never happen again.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

1. The Japanese soldier deaths were due to them being a fundamentally shitty army. There tanks were crap, their small-arms were WW1-vintage and sparsely dispersed, their artillery was, beyond naval artillery, primitive, and they lost the air war. Once the element of surprise was lost, they were doomed, and they damn well knew it.

2. What would you have done, Spicy? Asked them nicely? Simply bombed them into submission. Embarked on the bloodiest, costliest invasion of the war, an invasion that would have made Barbarossa look like a child kicking over a sandcastle?

Face it. You've got no real alternative.

 

[yoris009]

Short anwser: No, Long anwser: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

No,if anything it's proof that the U.S.A. can do whatever they want without facing the consequences.

 

[Doitpow]

1. The Japanese soldier deaths were due to them being a fundamentally shitty army. There tanks were crap, their small-arms were WW1-vintage and sparsely dispersed, their artillery was, beyond naval artillery, primitive, and they lost the air war. Once the element of surprise was lost, they were doomed, and they damn well knew it.

2. What would you have done, Spicy? Asked them nicely? Simply bombed them into submission. Embarked on the bloodiest, costliest invasion of the war, an invasion that would have made Barbarossa look like a child kicking over a sandcastle?

Face it. You've got no real alternative.

As you say the japanese had lost the element of surprise, and had virtually no resources to attack america futher. So the US use them as a testing ground for agressive diplomacy, waving their nuclear dicks for the world to see, conveniantly choosing locations that demonstrated the moscow, leningrad and minsk were well within striking distance. They kicked the shit out of the old playground bully to show everyone who had the most expensive boots. They could have been the bigger man and walked away. For christ sake, Indias civilian casualties were eight times that of americas. They didn't even consider retaliation

I don't see how showing how ill equipped the japanese army were justifies anything.