Should the atomic bombs been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[fix-the-spade]

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

Firebombing didn't carry the same fear though. For some reason a thousand bombers burning a city to the ground is less terrifying than a single bomber turning a city to ashes and glass.

Also, Hiroshima hadn't really been attacked until the atom bomb was dropped on it. Indeed, so sudden and destructive was the attack that it wasn't for several days that the japanese command even acknowledged it had happened, then they refused to believe that a single aircraft had inflicted so much damage.
It sent a very clear message that the US was both capable and willing to erase Japan and it's people if they did not surrender.
It's a pretty compelling reason when you think about it.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

My problem with the complaints about the atomic bomb are simple. In a war of brutal bloodshead, the scale of which is beyond my ability to TRULY grasp, why do we take issue with two very specific bombing sorties? Conventional bombing raids and fire bombing raids killed many times more people and yet people don't complain. That atomic bombs achieved the same thing with a single plane and a single bomb seems irrelevent to me as the result was the same - thousands of lives were ended in violence, thousands more died in agony and countless people lost people they loved and cared about. What makes the atom bomb more brutal than Dresden?

 

[damn12369]

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.

u do realize that if the US would have stormed japan, the Japanese government would have made everyman women and child fight, and all of japan would have been destroyed! so would u rather lose 50,000 lives or 10 million, that ten million doesn't count the 4-6 million Americans that would have been killed in the assault!

oh and the UN should arrest bush if so how come they dont arrest the leader of north korea or cuba? why just americans?

 

[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.

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?

It depends on the situation. I know that's not a good answer, but that's really all I can say. If the atomic bombs weren't used, Japan might have become the new world superpower and we'd all be speaking Japanese to this day. But when they were used, they caused millions of deaths and many more afterwards due to the radiation.

You can say that dropping the bombs ended the war and may have saved the world as we know it, but there's a cost. There's always a cost. And when nuclear weapons are involved, I think the costs are going to simply be too high.

 

[IrrelevantTangent]

I'm pretty sure advocating genocide makes you look like more of an asshole. All I can say is that its a damn good thing that you weren't in charge. Seriously, where do you get off advocating the wiping out of an entire nation?

When has it ever been a good idea to leave your enemies alive? A nation that attacks you without warning or provocation. Costs millions of lives and fucks your country up. It was a stupid move to let them live, plain and simple. Plus look at all the hatred generated from giving them two warning shots and letting them live. They could easily become a threat again.
Killing all your enemies is the only way to ensure they don't ever attack you again.

Give me a break. It's cisses like you who stop the west from winning it's wars properly.

Amen brother.

All hail supreme chancellor Anonymouse! May he guide The new Reich to glory and crush all of it's enemy's!

You just compared someone, namely Anonymouse, to a Nazi. You have lost the argument.


Everyone else, never forget that while the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been necessary to prevent further lives from being lost, roughly a quarter of a million lives were lost in both areas. A quarter of a million. That is more people than your entire family and everyone you've met combined.

Think carefully on whether or not that many lives being lost is part of an 'ends-justify-the-means' situation, because Hitler thought his ends justified the means, and we all know how that turned out.

 

[DigitalSushi]

I seem to remember a documentary speculating that if America hadn't dropped the atomic bomb on Japan they would have to have commenced an invasion which would have lasted... one or two more years (I can't remember now) and costing an estimate 6 million more lives.

In this case it was the lesser of two evils, and it highlighted the world to how powerful and dangerous nuclear weapons are, and thankfully we haven't seen them since.

well said, I say yes it should have been dropped, only to stop more bloodshed... but it saddens me that is was dropped.

The fatman dropped on that day had a blast radius of 300 metres, and look at the devistation and lives lost, Russia currently have a nuclear bomb capable of 9.6km blast radius, that scares me.

Trivia, The Great Artiste was the plane that dropped fatman, not Bockscar, a week earlier they had their nose cones re painted, and the planes were swapped. So in history its Bockscar that gets remembered in that flight because of the nose paint!.

 

[DigitalSushi]

I'm pretty sure advocating genocide makes you look like more of an asshole. All I can say is that its a damn good thing that you weren't in charge. Seriously, where do you get off advocating the wiping out of an entire nation?

When has it ever been a good idea to leave your enemies alive? A nation that attacks you without warning or provocation. Costs millions of lives and fucks your country up. It was a stupid move to let them live, plain and simple. Plus look at all the hatred generated from giving them two warning shots and letting them live. They could easily become a threat again.
Killing all your enemies is the only way to ensure they don't ever attack you again.

Give me a break. It's cisses like you who stop the west from winning it's wars properly.

Amen brother.

All hail supreme chancellor Anonymouse! May he guide The new Reich to glory and crush all of it's enemy's!

You just compared someone, namely Anonymouse, to a Nazi. You have lost the argument.

And godwins law is upheld!

 

[Gr333d]

sure!
they always work in WIC

 

[thiosk]

Yes, because the invasion of the japanese home island predicted 1 million US casualties alone.

 

[rossatdi]

It does not matter. Sure its the politicians fault and I already said if war was fair it would just be the politicians fighting. But the fact remains that it is the civialian population that is the threat. Or what, do you really think its the high ranking arab fuckwits who strap bombs to themselves? No, they sit back all safe and secure and send the stupid civilians to do their dirty work.
If you have a violent potentially lethal dog you do not spare it because it is not its fault. You kill it to ensure you and those around you are safe. Thats what the americans should have done.

I ... I ... I just don't know where to start. Who let the fascist in the room?

Politicians send the Military raised from the Civilian population. The Military and Civilian populations are separate, legally separate and have to be treated as such under all kinds of international war legislation.

Also, incidentally, isn't the biggest case of de-clawing the potential threat of an enemy the reparations imposed on Germany after WWI? You know the things that directly lead to the rise of Hitler?

 

[dungeonmaster]

I think the question is kinda irrelevent because its history.

Its like asking what would have happened if the Japanese fleet that attacked Pearl Harbor would have kept going and invaded California. There was no reason for them to stop but where ordered to return. They had infantry and tanks with the fleet, coastal bombardment and surprise. If Japan would have continued America would not have been able to help the British and most likely Germany would have been the first with an A-Bomb.

 

[Gladion]

Allot of you people here simply fail to grasp the fact that if America had NOT dropped the bomb then normal fighting that would have continued as a result of that would have killed many times more people (both American and Japanese) then the Atomic bombs ever would have. So anyone saying that using the bomb was wrong and that America should be ashamed of it self has no idea what he or she is saying.

Not to mention that 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.

Yeah, let's just do the maths! Less people killed equals better solution! Besides, what you are saying is not a fact, it's just a wild guess. Noone can possibly know what would have happened if America hadn't dropped these bombs. I have to admit I'm getting pretty fucking angry at those people on the forums here who try to justify this undoubtably horrible crime. Even if it had been neccessary to drop an atom bomb on Japan, it was not neccessary to do that on civilians.

Oh, and for this statement: "the dropping of the second bomb is entirely Japans own fault." you deserve some serious punching in your face. I don't even need to explain why.

Edit: Yeah, I got a little carried on, I apologize.
I know about the Japanese's fighting moral, but they wouldn't have let women or children sent into war...

Anyways, all we can do is speculate. As far as I'm concerned, that's pretty useless, especially on the internet.

 

[GyroCaptain]

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.

A little harsh, perhaps, but I'm with you in spirit. The "O NOES TEH WAR CRIME" crowd just skip the fact that many more died in the bombings of Tokyo than died in either city. That's even if you count cancer deaths, which by rights you shouldn't after the first generation; the small number dying from any background effects or heredity would be far outweighed by the number of people who wouldn't otherwise have existed because their parents died in a stupid holdout action. And blaming the US for 3rd world war crimes when you've got the record of the Soviet Union is showing poor target prioritization.

 

[poleboy]

Knee-jerk respone: No fucking way. Atomic bombs are the scourge of human civilization.

Somewhat more carefully considered response: It doesn't matter. It was done. Worry more about the present and whether it could happen again. In 100 years, the second world war may be all but forgotten. People alive today are close enough to it to not repeat some of the worst mistakes made in human history. Make sure that people 100 years from now understand why.

 

[GyroCaptain]

Besides, what you are saying is not a fact, it's just a wild guess.

The war department ran the numbers. They came up with a best case and a worst case. So did the Japanese government. Neither side came up with a number for civilian deaths in any way as small as 300,000. Just because the people died all at once instead of over several weeks, people seem to think it's magically an unspeakably horrible thing and WAR ITSELF ISN'T?

It's a BOMB. It killed people. Bombs do that, this was a VERY BIG bomb with some lasting aftereffects.

 

[beddo]

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.

Of course these actions by Japan were crimes against humanity and on an even larger scale.

However, you cannot 'punish' a nation for crimes against humanity by actioning the same horrifying crimes against that nation, or more simply; two wrongs don't make a right. Even if this was the case, unilateral action against another nation is anunsustainable policy.

In any case, this was not the reason for the attack. The attack was a show of force disguised as a punitive measure for Japan's actions. It was an indiscriminate attack in civilian areas which, as I say, is a war crime.

 

[rossatdi]

I have to admit I'm getting pretty fucking angry at those people on the forums here who try to justify this undoubtably horrible crime. Even if it had been neccessary to drop an atom bomb on Japan, it was not neccessary to do that on civilians.

Japan wasn't surrendering.
Firebombing was killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese but the government wouldn't give up.
The Japanese Empire was slaughtering millions of civilians and torturing POWs.
Military invasion of Japan would be strategically nightmarish, D-Day many times over.
The nuclear bomb provided a tool that would force surrender of obliteration.

The fact is that bombing of civilian targets was already occurring, to an extent far above the casualty rate of the two nukes. The US needed a dramatic display to show that Japan could be defeated with no effort (or honour).

Show a country you can bomb them and the country can say "we'll build air defences". Show a country you can invade them and the country can say "we'll fight you on the beaches". Show a country you can destroy a city with a single bomb and a single plane ... that takes a lot of wind out of a country's morale.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

In any case, this was not the reason for the attack. The attack was a show of force disguised as a punitive measure for Japan's actions.

So is having a Sherman Firely blow up a Tiger tank from 2000 yards. All war is punitive action to pummel your enemy into submission. The atom bomb was simply far better at this than other kinds of bombing.

 

[rossatdi]

It was an indiscriminate attack in civilian areas which, as I say, is a war crime.

It was discriminate. War crime it may be. Doesn't necessarily mean it was wrong. The choice was between greater evils, the commanders in charge took the decision seriously and with careful thought.

Is it nice? No. Is it moral? Probably not. Given the situation would I order the attack? Yes.