Should the atomic bombs been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[jsnod25]

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...

 

[beddo]

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.

Well, military personel actively 'agree' to be involved in combat. This is not the case for many civilians, this is acknowledged internationally. As a result civilians have been afforded extra protection from conflicts as a matter of course and though sadly not often adhered to it recognised factor in war.

Of course war is a succession of 'terrorist' actions between sides however, the bombing of Japan with Weapons of Mass Destruction was more about a show of force to the world.

 

[Masterthief]

Another thing that is being missed here is the justification for either side is being taken to the extreme. Invading Japan wouldn't result in TEH JAPANESE HOARD! Like the pro bomb people are saying because people aren't stupid. Many Japanese disagreed with their government and if mainland Japan were invaded, they'd hide themselves or surrender peacefully and let the government officials fight the Americans on their own. But invading Japan wouldn't be a cake walk either like the anti bomb people are saying because people are stupid. You really would have naginata carrying schoolgirls being shot down in the street. The big thing here is that we didn't know and still don't know what the ratio is so we don't know just how costly a mainland invasion would have cost us. so,

Yes.
See: Nanking, China
For that atrocity alone I would have agreed with the bombing. let alone everything else.

So to teach people that killing is wrong we should kill thousands of innocent civilians and ruin the lives of hundreds of unborn children?
I like you logic.

We didn't know it would have lasting effects at the time.

So the killing of thousands of innocents is justified then?

Yes, all we knew were the best and worst case scenarios. Considering the worst case scenario, it was in our best interest to make them back down with the smallest known cost to both sides.

I don't like it, but I'm forced to agree with you.
My argument was that you cannot justify mass murder with mass murder.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Ok. Seriously. I'm really starting to wonder. Can people read my posts at all? Can you read this? Reply if you can read this.

\

I can read this

Me too I still think we should have dropped them though.

i can read this but i think people are not talking to you, sorry dude.

Why no. Why aren't they. I've posted the Strategic Bombing Survey that shows that we knew we didn't need to invade or bombs. I've posted from Eisenhower's autobiography that shows he knew we didn't need to invade or bomb. There's yet more well documented proof of this.

Why is everyone continuing to cling to a myth?

Because one man thought we didn't need to invade or bomb. Also, hindsight is 20-20. He knew after the war that the Japanese were at their breaking point, but the facade they put up during the war gave an air of determination. At the time we thought it would become a guerrilla war on the Japanese mainland resulting in a tactical quagmire. It just turned out to be a bluff.

 

[AfricanSwallow]

anyone who think's it shouldn't have been done should consider this: whould you be here if it hadn't happened?
the way i see it, it cause japan to pull out of WWII, which made it easier for the allies and more specifically the russians, to invade the reichstag.

if you would like any more information on germany 1918 to 1945 and WWII, let me know because i spent 2 years on both.

Spend more time, because you are clearly clueless. The war in Europe was already over.


.... wandering back to the topic, as reprehensible as I find nuclear weapons, those shouting "war crime" (Ragdrazi, in particular) should probably consider that the two devices actually saved more Japanese lives than they cost.
Though a costly invasion could theoretically have been necessary, a far more likely scenario is that the island is subjected to prolonged conventional bombing, and the deaths from this and the starvation of the island after it's isolation would have been far greater than the death toll from two nuclear weapons, and at far greater expense and risk to Allied lives to boot.

That being said, it is worth nothing that 22 American Generals and Admirals opposed the use of nuclear weapons against Japan, most notably Ernest King, Curtis Lemay, and Eisenhower.

I guess the main point is that it is foolish to identify the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as some sort of evil action separate from the other horrors of war.
The conventional bombings of Dresden, Hamburg, and Tokyo were just as destructive (and in the case of Tokyo, resulted in a higher death toll).

Whether it is the actions of the Red Army in Berlin, the Germans in Poland, the Japanese in China, American use of counter-sniper artillery in France, or the Allies 'strategic' bombing campaigns, or a hundred other examples in the Second World War alone.... all are equally as disgusting in their disregard for human life and culture.

Let's not split too many hairs over this particular incident.

 

[Crazyshak48]

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.

I was about to point this out, but you and several others beat me to the punch. I'm no war monger, but the dropping of the bombs was absolutely necessary. Forestalling a hugely costly invasion that would have been far bloodier on both sides than the atomic blasts was worth it if you ask me.

Plus there's the issue of the Cold War. At the time of their invention, people regarded atomic bombs as simply a hugely powerful bomb, not as the the planet destroying monster it has become today due to the arms race. We needed that wake up call to realize how deadly these weapons are. If no one understood precisely what they were getting into with nuclear arms (and I'm referring to its effects on real targets, not just in tests), the Cold War would have almost certainly gone hot, and none of us would be sitting here now, debating an event sixty-four years past on an internet forum.

I guess my point is that the people who whine about the nukes should do their homework and understand what the alternatives were if they hadn't been used. Do I wish they weren't necessary to end World War II? Of course I do. Would I have made the same choice that President Truman did? I almost certainly would have.

 

[crwsm]

The whole damn war didn't need to happen. If the treaty of versailles had actually been stuck to, Japan would never have gotten into a scrap with America.

Atomic bombs are the very definition of evil. Over 200.000 innocent men, women and children dead with one press of a button!
It doesn't matter what may have happened, this did happen.

The end certainly did not justify the means.

I really think that people need to learn about the causes of America's introduction into World War II before they go spouting their own "facts". The American government was fully aware of Japanese actions in the Pacific pre-1941. When Japan went on the offensive against the Dutch East Indies, the U.S. viewed that as an attack on colonial powers across the globe. Since at this time the U.S. was seen as a colonial power, that was a direct threat to the power of the U.S. but a threat to the allies of the United States. The U.S. also knew that they were not going to support the Japanese War Machine in its endeavours to bring all of Asia under one rule, so they decided to cut off the supply of oil and other essential products for modern war to Japan. The oil embargo was initiated in August of 41, effectively crippling the capacity of the Japanese military. Once this step was taken, the Japanese took great offense to that and began planning the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

The dropping of the bomb was a necessary evil, something that was an incredibly tough decision to make at the time. Imagine contemplating the dropping of 2 bombs to end the worst war that mankind had ever seen, or sending millions of people to their deaths with a long, drawn out invasion of mainland Japan. Another way to look at this for the opponents of dropping the bomb: your grandfather would undoubtedly have been on the troop transports that were heading across the Pacific. He would have been among the young men to invade the fortress that mainland Japan had become. If he was lucky enough to have survived the initial landing, how long would it have been until he was killed in action? I can safely say that it would have been hours, or possibly even a few days. The U.S. military was expecting upwards of a 75% casualty rate on the initial landings, with at least a 50% casualty rate of the troops that made it off the landing beaches. What would that have proved to the world? That war is terrible? Everyone knows that war is one of the worst things about mankind's existence. The bomb killed almost 250,000 people by the end of 1945. If there had been an invasion of mainland Japan, that figure would have been astronomically higher, 250,000 people dying in the first week. The dropping of the bombs was certainly a good thing, it stopped the war and prevented a much greater atrocity that would have come from the invasion of Japan.

Please take a course on American History post 1918 before you go spouting facts about things that you obviously know very little about.

 

[Audemas]

the carpet bombing of german cities(not military targets) by the british at the closing of the war.

Dresden was a train... confluence? Well anyway it was a central rail city where several lines converged and hundreds of soldiers passed through daily.

Have you ever read Slaughterhouse-Five?

 

[Steelfists]

Ok. Seriously. I'm really starting to wonder. Can people read my posts at all? Can you read this? Reply if you can read this.

\

I can read this

Me too I still think we should have dropped them though.

i can read this but i think people are not talking to you, sorry dude.

Why no. Why aren't they. I've posted the Strategic Bombing Survey that shows that we knew we didn't need to invade or bombs. I've posted from Eisenhower's autobiography that shows he knew we didn't need to invade or bomb. There's yet more well documented proof of this.

Why is everyone continuing to cling to a myth?

The Allies demanded Japan's unconditional surrender. They refused.

And once again, to quote the report:

"Japan would have surrendered even if atom bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender."

Ok, now here's the thing. Japan didn't want unconditional surrender. They wanted to retain the figurehead of their Emperor. That was all. It was described by the governments own reports as "a formality" in Japanese surrender requests going back for two years before the bombings. ~TWO YEARS~ Regardless, we could have pushed for it or not, but the fact of the matter is we didn't need to do anything to achieve "unconditional surrender."

The bombings were unnecessary on any grounds. Any grounds at all. Even to prevent invasion.

Well, fair enough then. I can't be arsed to find some counterpoint to your argument, and it may not exist anyway.

 

[Steelfists]

Since we are on the topic of

the carpet bombing of german cities(not military targets) by the british at the closing of the war.

Dresden was a train... confluence? Well anyway it was a central rail city where several lines converged and hundreds of soldiers passed through daily.

Have you ever read Slaughterhouse-Five?

No.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

According the the US's own report, yes.

Can people read my posts? Am I actually saying things? Hello?

The orgional report is at:

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

Japan would have surrendered even if atom bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender.

Recommend people read the entirety of the section which the quote was taken, Japan's Struggle to End the War, in addition to the Foreword

Again, hindsight is 20/20, and the report was able to study and generate their findings with information available after the fact. The orders to proceed with the bombing was made with the information available to Truman at the time.

 

[blindey]

From a historical perspective, bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the most viable strategy. An invasion of Japan would have had catastrophic death tolls for both sides. The bombs expedited the surrender of Japan and transitively brought about the eventual end of WWII.

But in the big picture, I'm not really sure if dropping the bombs were a great idea. In fact, nuclear weapons are a power I don't think man should have. They give us the ability to literally destroy our planet, and take out thousands of lives virtually uncontested. There is no honor in nuclear weapons. Once we entered the nuclear age, we passed a threshold that can never be returned to. Even with nuclear armistices, there will always be nukes, people will always fight, and some people will resort to a destructive power that man is not meant to possess.
But on the bright side, maybe it'll end up like Fallout. Here's to hoping! (not really)

They also give us the power with which to *save* our planet.

Nuclear != bomb
Nuclear energy, nuclear reactors. I think it was 50 (?) of them, could power the entire united states and are far more energy efficient. There will always be weaponized versions of whatever technology there is.

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?

You sir/ma'am win the thread.

 

[Audemas]

Since we are on the topic of

the carpet bombing of german cities(not military targets) by the british at the closing of the war.

Dresden was a train... confluence? Well anyway it was a central rail city where several lines converged and hundreds of soldiers passed through daily.

Have you ever read Slaughterhouse-Five?

No.

Try it sometime its a good read and the man that wrote it(Kurt Vonnegut) was present at the time Dresden was firebombed.(He was a POW) I think you should read what he has to say on that matter.

 

[beddo]

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.

A crime is by definition, wrong. This was a war crime in that it was intended to cause death and destruction among a large civilian population.

From my understanding of history Japan was likely to surrender in due course, the bombs were completely unnecessary.

The commanders in charge did not take the decision seriously and with careful thought. We're talking about a group who thought the first nuclear tests may set the atmosphere alight destroying all mankind but went ahead anyway!

The US administration considers itself to be moral. The large majority of Americans in the 1940's were Christian including those in authority yet they thought it acceptable to murder tens of thousands of civilians. Somehow they managed to ignore the basic commandment; Thou shalt not kill. According to the belief system of most US citizens the action was immoral.

Of course to any reasonable person killing is immoral. Irrespective of cirmcumstance I think we can easily deduce that mass killing of innocent people is immoral.

 

[Audemas]

Ok. Seriously. I'm really starting to wonder. Can people read my posts at all? Can you read this? Reply if you can read this.

\

I can read this

Me too I still think we should have dropped them though.

i can read this but i think people are not talking to you, sorry dude.

Why no. Why aren't they. I've posted the Strategic Bombing Survey that shows that we knew we didn't need to invade or bombs. I've posted from Eisenhower's autobiography that shows he knew we didn't need to invade or bomb. There's yet more well documented proof of this.

Why is everyone continuing to cling to a myth?

Because one man thought we didn't need to invade or bomb. Also, hindsight is 20-20. He knew after the war that the Japanese were at their breaking point, but the facade they put up during the war gave an air of determination. At the time we thought it would become a guerrilla war on the Japanese mainland resulting in a tactical quagmire. It just turned out to be a bluff.

One man? Eisenhower!? HA! Do you even have a clue what you're talking about. Hindsight!? THIS IS WHAT WE KNEW AT THE TIME.

And the Strategic Bombing Survey was put together by an entire team. It is the governments definitive account of areal bombardment in WWII.

And some sort of tough guy facade caused us to bomb?? We had unobstructed access to the entire island. No one shot at our planes anymore!!!! They were beaten. ~According the the government's own reports had we done nothing we would have achieved unconditional surrender.~ Read that sentence over and over because you seem not to be getting it.

And you seem not to understand that what is done is done. Was it bad? Of course it was bad. Then again so was Pearl Harbor, The Bombing of Dresden, The Holocaust. Here, http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres.html
This website has a whole bunch of atrocities that occurred during World War II. Why don't we talk about them while we are at it. Look man, it's WAR! Remember the saying, "All's fair in love and war."? Guess not.

 

[Steelfists]

Since we are on the topic of

the carpet bombing of german cities(not military targets) by the british at the closing of the war.

Dresden was a train... confluence? Well anyway it was a central rail city where several lines converged and hundreds of soldiers passed through daily.

Have you ever read Slaughterhouse-Five?

No.

Try it sometime its a good read and the man that wrote it(Kurt Vonnegut) was present at the time Dresden was firebombed.(He was a POW) I think you should read what he has to say on that matter.

Well what does he say?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Ok. Seriously. I'm really starting to wonder. Can people read my posts at all? Can you read this? Reply if you can read this.

\

I can read this

Me too I still think we should have dropped them though.

i can read this but i think people are not talking to you, sorry dude.

Why no. Why aren't they. I've posted the Strategic Bombing Survey that shows that we knew we didn't need to invade or bombs. I've posted from Eisenhower's autobiography that shows he knew we didn't need to invade or bomb. There's yet more well documented proof of this.

Why is everyone continuing to cling to a myth?

Because one man thought we didn't need to invade or bomb. Also, hindsight is 20-20. He knew after the war that the Japanese were at their breaking point, but the facade they put up during the war gave an air of determination. At the time we thought it would become a guerrilla war on the Japanese mainland resulting in a tactical quagmire. It just turned out to be a bluff.

One man? Eisenhower!? HA! Do you even have a clue what you're talking about. Hindsight!? THIS IS WHAT WE KNEW AT THE TIME.

And the Strategic Bombing Survey was put together by an entire team. It is the governments definitive account of areal bombardment in WWII.

And some sort of tough guy facade caused us to bomb?? We had unobstructed access to the entire island. No one shot at our planes anymore!!!! They were beaten. ~According the the government's own reports had we done nothing we would have achieved unconditional surrender.~ Read that sentence over and over because you seem not to be getting it.

I'd like to point out that your sources were written after the war. This is hindsight and that's the end of it. We knew later that most of them were unwilling to fight but at the time we thought that some or most of mainland japan would fight us out of Japanese solidarity and desire for an honorable death. We didn't know most of this at the time. For all we knew it was between killing a quarter million of their civilians in an instant or killing most of their civilians in the streets while losing our forces while staring at the Soviet Union and it's love of converting other nations. If nothing else, we had to keep our forces strong in case of a red invasion and this had the dual effect of scaring them as well. Of course they developed their own weapons so maybe it wasn't a good idea but hindsight is 20-20.