Should the atomic bombs been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
- Thread starter Kaboose the Moose
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Literally every "positive" thing the United States has done has been the lesser of two evils.Inverse Skies said:
That's why we're a dangerous country.
What has to be considered is that the US made the decision to drop based on a few points:
1. Force Japan into surrender with minimum loss of life (especially US soldiers!)
2. Deter the Soviets from contemplating an invasion of Japan's mainland.
The US didn't have the full picture as to how much the radiation effects would affect the victims when they decided to drop the bombs. They knew the radiation was dangerous, but not how big an area and to what extent the target area would be contaminated (this varies a lot due to topography and wind conditions).
The US saw how costly the battle for Okinawa turned out to be, and they had every reason to believe that an invasion of mainland Japan would prove even more costly in terms of dead soldiers and civilians. They made a simple calculation, and if they counted the US troops lives' for more worth than enemy lives who can blame them?
The bottom line is just that, the bombs, however destructive they turned out to be and how many thousands of Japanese died directly or indirectly from them, was deemed a smaller price to pay than the estimated losses that would come from an invasion.
A quick defeat of Japan would also end the war before the Soviets could get into position to invade Japan themselves. Be sures, Stalin wouldn't have had any seconds thoughts about combat losses if he could have occupied Japan. So in a way the bombs probably saved a lot of Soviet troops' lives as well.
An additional side effect that came from the dropping of these bombs that seems to have been overlooked: sooner or later someone would have used the bomb in a war somewhere, but as the world saw just how horrific these weapons were they have never been used in war since WW2. In Korea McArthur was advocating the use of A-bombs against China, had the true potential of these weapons not been known through their use against Japan the US leaders might have granted his request.
Had the scientists had more time to develop the bomb (like if they hadn't been used against Japan but instead in a later conflict like Korea or Vietnam for ex) the first live attacks with the weapon would have been even worse. Compared to 1950's A- and H- bombs the ones used against Japan were mere firecrackers.
1. Force Japan into surrender with minimum loss of life (especially US soldiers!)
2. Deter the Soviets from contemplating an invasion of Japan's mainland.
The US didn't have the full picture as to how much the radiation effects would affect the victims when they decided to drop the bombs. They knew the radiation was dangerous, but not how big an area and to what extent the target area would be contaminated (this varies a lot due to topography and wind conditions).
The US saw how costly the battle for Okinawa turned out to be, and they had every reason to believe that an invasion of mainland Japan would prove even more costly in terms of dead soldiers and civilians. They made a simple calculation, and if they counted the US troops lives' for more worth than enemy lives who can blame them?
The bottom line is just that, the bombs, however destructive they turned out to be and how many thousands of Japanese died directly or indirectly from them, was deemed a smaller price to pay than the estimated losses that would come from an invasion.
A quick defeat of Japan would also end the war before the Soviets could get into position to invade Japan themselves. Be sures, Stalin wouldn't have had any seconds thoughts about combat losses if he could have occupied Japan. So in a way the bombs probably saved a lot of Soviet troops' lives as well.
An additional side effect that came from the dropping of these bombs that seems to have been overlooked: sooner or later someone would have used the bomb in a war somewhere, but as the world saw just how horrific these weapons were they have never been used in war since WW2. In Korea McArthur was advocating the use of A-bombs against China, had the true potential of these weapons not been known through their use against Japan the US leaders might have granted his request.
Had the scientists had more time to develop the bomb (like if they hadn't been used against Japan but instead in a later conflict like Korea or Vietnam for ex) the first live attacks with the weapon would have been even worse. Compared to 1950's A- and H- bombs the ones used against Japan were mere firecrackers.
If you want to be seated as the largest and fiercest world power, you need to display that power. The bombs dropped in Japan was a display of this power. Was it evil? Was it wrong? These are just matters of perspective. Would killing Hitler have been right and just? If killing civilians is wrong and evil then killing soldiers and dictators is also wrong and evil. Just because you don't like somebody doesn't make it any more "right" to kill them than it does to kill a random innocent person.
Japan struck us first for what were just stupid reasons. We struck back. We struck back so hard that we will never have any problems with Japan. I'd say that is an overwhelming success. Loss of life is a terrible thing, but then again what happens to this generation when the US invades Japan and all those soldiers die much like our invasion of Iraq? These children do not exist in this alternative. It is very possible that if that were to happen I would not exist. So in the end it is pointless to discuss. We dropped the bombs. We established ourselves as the top world power. I and many many other people in later generations now exist because their grandfathers were not killed in a pointless invasion that was easily ended by a couple of bombs.
Japan struck us first for what were just stupid reasons. We struck back. We struck back so hard that we will never have any problems with Japan. I'd say that is an overwhelming success. Loss of life is a terrible thing, but then again what happens to this generation when the US invades Japan and all those soldiers die much like our invasion of Iraq? These children do not exist in this alternative. It is very possible that if that were to happen I would not exist. So in the end it is pointless to discuss. We dropped the bombs. We established ourselves as the top world power. I and many many other people in later generations now exist because their grandfathers were not killed in a pointless invasion that was easily ended by a couple of bombs.
You have misunderstood me. I don't mean that the deaths of civilians was not considered, but instead that their lives were treated with such callous disregard that their welfare didn't matter to the administration.sooperman said:
The US was expected to abide by the Geneva convention as was each country, state, nation, group and military personnel. Clearly there was a large population of civilians. The atomic bombings could have been reasonably expected to kill most of them, and it did. Thus if the civilian deaths were considered the US would have known that the act would be a War Crime and not gone ahead with it.
However, they did go ahead with it. Thus the Government obviously showed no ethical or moral consideration for the lives of those civilians who were to be murdered.
WW2 was hotbed of Geneva Convention violations. Violations against civilians seemed like they were commonplace, Look at Dresden, German POW, and Concentration camps like Buchenwald, The Japanese invasion of China, and other Asian countries, and The Soviets in Berlin. There are plenty more violations that you can look up, the 200,000-250,000 people killed in Japan were just a drop in the bucket.beddo said:
Why would the U.S., Japan, Germany or Russia take the Geneva Convention seriously if no one else did at that time? There were hardly any groups that could enforce it, It was mostly an gentleman's agreement. It isn't like today where the UN could step in, and try to enforce the laws. The Geneva Convention was and still is only as strong as the nations willing to enforce it. At the time it was all out war, killing civilians, taking out factories, and hitting military targets at the same time was a very effective tactic. You kill many birds with one stone, You kill the will to fight, you kill the economy, you kill sources of vehicles, and weapons, and of course potential soldiers, and current soldiers.
Actually this was a huge act of mercy. Those who like to look back at it and scream "OMG, Warcrimes" have no real conception of what was being dealt with in the form of Japan at the time. Similar to how we do not want to acknowlege the actual problem in The Middle East (ie the central culture).
Japan was simply put extremely fanatical and xenocidal, they saw their emperor as a literal god. They performed horrific medical experiment at things like "Unit 731" (I think I have the right number, it should be on Wikipedia. The one where they referred to human beings as 'logs' because it was hidden in a saw mill), that arguably made the Germans look like a group fo squeamish wusses. It wasn't just Caucasians either, the things they did to the Chinese and god forbid, the Koreans, were even worse. There was a horror manga released a number of years ago called "Island" that was based on the experiments conducted by the Japanese on Koreans (with historic afterwards including a few photographs, showing the inspiration for the vengeance in the story).
The thing was that even after defeated by all reasonable standards, Japan was willing to literally keep fighting until the last man. Remember this is a place where suicide before surrender is considered chic/honorable, even then. They loaded their kids into flying bombs and launched them at the enemy (Kamikaze pilots). Japan would have been willing to fight a final, doomed battle to the very end, expecting at any second that things would turn around. I mean after all the god-emperor was on their side.
The thing is that by dropping the two A-bombs it was a show of power. A message: your emperor is not a god, he cannot stop this, he cannot protect you. Fight us and you will all die like dogs. There will be no honorable final battle, or blaze of glory. You will simply be erased.
Yes a ton of people died, and the effects of radiation lingered. But had we invaded we probably would have seen an actual genocide take place, as everyone fought to the last, and those that couldn't committed suicide. Laugh if you want, but Japan has changed a lot in the last 50 years or so. Nothing short of this would have gotten them to surrender and the Emperor to more or less admit his mortality (as I understand things). So ultimatly the destruction of two cities and the generational poison (limited) saved many of their lives. Not to mention saving the lives of the allied forces that would have died trying to invade/disarm Japan conventionally.
Now yes, Japan has a complex about this (it's a theme in a lot of their anime and pop culture). I think they went just a little bit crazy and miss the arrogance of their past, and many still believe in their inherant superiority. But just because their upset about it and there are problems from the radiation, doesn't mean we were wrong. Nobody likes losing, and honestly, do you think less people would have died if the allied forces invaded with tanks and soldiers?
The anti-nuke lobby doesn't really think this one through I feel. It's not a NICE thing, war never is, but it was a nessicary thing, and is hardly something for the US to be ashamed of.
It would have been worse if we had such a weapon, chose not to use it for "moral" reasons and instead saw the complete annihilation of Japan, not to mention the decimation of the population of the allied countries invading, because in the final days of WW II a HUGE amount of the global population had already died. This is why the "Baby Boom" was a big deal.
Honestly, if it wasn't for the A-bombs, I'm not sure what would have happened to the human race if we wound up fighting that one conventionally.
>>>---Therumancer--->
Japan was simply put extremely fanatical and xenocidal, they saw their emperor as a literal god. They performed horrific medical experiment at things like "Unit 731" (I think I have the right number, it should be on Wikipedia. The one where they referred to human beings as 'logs' because it was hidden in a saw mill), that arguably made the Germans look like a group fo squeamish wusses. It wasn't just Caucasians either, the things they did to the Chinese and god forbid, the Koreans, were even worse. There was a horror manga released a number of years ago called "Island" that was based on the experiments conducted by the Japanese on Koreans (with historic afterwards including a few photographs, showing the inspiration for the vengeance in the story).
The thing was that even after defeated by all reasonable standards, Japan was willing to literally keep fighting until the last man. Remember this is a place where suicide before surrender is considered chic/honorable, even then. They loaded their kids into flying bombs and launched them at the enemy (Kamikaze pilots). Japan would have been willing to fight a final, doomed battle to the very end, expecting at any second that things would turn around. I mean after all the god-emperor was on their side.
The thing is that by dropping the two A-bombs it was a show of power. A message: your emperor is not a god, he cannot stop this, he cannot protect you. Fight us and you will all die like dogs. There will be no honorable final battle, or blaze of glory. You will simply be erased.
Yes a ton of people died, and the effects of radiation lingered. But had we invaded we probably would have seen an actual genocide take place, as everyone fought to the last, and those that couldn't committed suicide. Laugh if you want, but Japan has changed a lot in the last 50 years or so. Nothing short of this would have gotten them to surrender and the Emperor to more or less admit his mortality (as I understand things). So ultimatly the destruction of two cities and the generational poison (limited) saved many of their lives. Not to mention saving the lives of the allied forces that would have died trying to invade/disarm Japan conventionally.
Now yes, Japan has a complex about this (it's a theme in a lot of their anime and pop culture). I think they went just a little bit crazy and miss the arrogance of their past, and many still believe in their inherant superiority. But just because their upset about it and there are problems from the radiation, doesn't mean we were wrong. Nobody likes losing, and honestly, do you think less people would have died if the allied forces invaded with tanks and soldiers?
The anti-nuke lobby doesn't really think this one through I feel. It's not a NICE thing, war never is, but it was a nessicary thing, and is hardly something for the US to be ashamed of.
It would have been worse if we had such a weapon, chose not to use it for "moral" reasons and instead saw the complete annihilation of Japan, not to mention the decimation of the population of the allied countries invading, because in the final days of WW II a HUGE amount of the global population had already died. This is why the "Baby Boom" was a big deal.
Honestly, if it wasn't for the A-bombs, I'm not sure what would have happened to the human race if we wound up fighting that one conventionally.
>>>---Therumancer--->
plus starting the cold war wasnt the worst thing ever, if you think about it, if it wasnt for fear of comms loss in the cold war we wouldnt have the internet.
Yes, both cities should have been bombed, and I'll tell you why. The U.S government estimated how many Purple Hearts would be needed for all the solders who would be wounded and killed in the invasion of Japan. They ordered the metals, and then the bombs were dropped and Japan surrendered. The U.S. government hasn't ordered any since.
I got to page 6...then it was just too much.
I have read arguments on both sides. Some are good, many are bad. Perhaps the biggest problem I have with all of the responses is that they show a clear lack of research into the subject. I don't completely blame the people for that; much of what I know on the subject I learned not by actively searching but by simply reading books on WWII. I won't pretend that I have every single angle, but I do hope that I have a more comprehensive view than what I've seen here.
First off, however, I should make this clear: Anyone who makes any kind of distinction that puts America as the "good guys" and Japan as the "bad guys" is at best misguided. I was one of these until very recently. Part of this is perspective. Most of the soldiers on all sides were "good guys," people fighting for what they believed in, whether they thought they were protecting their homes or fighting for the glory of the Fatherland. Then there's the fact that the Western Allies were allied to, and turned a blind eye to the known crimes of, the world's most powerful villain, Joseph Stalin. Never forget that at the behest of Stalin and his underlings, the Soviet Union achieved a scale of wholesale slaughter that the Nazi's could only dream of. It is a sobering thought that the Soviet Union could have won the entire war by themselves. (don't get into Lend-Lease, they were winning before that got going)
So, we've already established that America was at best the "anti-heroes" of the second world war; fighting for a good cause, but willing to deal with Satan himself in order to do it. Now, for the bomb...
First, while the Japanese may have been trying to surrender, they were not doing it the way the Allies insisted. The Japanese believed what many Nazi leaders held onto in the final days of the war in Europe: they could achieve a peace that would allow them to keep most of their remaining territory. The Allies made it clear that this was not acceptable. The last time Germany had kept its territory, it had succeeded in launching the second world war. From what I've read as well, the Japanese may have wanted to surrender (though I really doubt this), but they needed an excuse. Their twisted version of Bushido warranted that they keep fighting as long as they are able. The atomic bombs gave them an honorable way to exit. What can you really do to fight something like that before SAMs, heat seekers, and other high-tech devices?
Now, the U.S. did consider different ways of demonstrating the bombs power. None were considered as effective as a live demonstration.
The bombs were indeed deterrents against the Soviet Union, but that was really more of a bonus. We did, after all, ask the Soviets to enter the war. Roosevelt was willing to sell out Eastern Europe to do it.
Someone mentioned that numerous generals and admirals in the U.S. military believed the bombs unnecessary. This is because most of them believed that the war could be won simply by a sustained air offensive, a naval blockade, a ground invasion, or some combination of the three.
Air power couldn't work, because it wasn't showing any results anymore outside of more cinders on the ground. As the Germans succeeded in doing, the Japanese responded to the bombing of their cities and factories by spreading their industry out and concealing it. To Germany's immense credit, they managed to constantly maintain or increase production in all sectors until 1944. The Japanese didn't do as well, but they still pulled off something similar. What's more, strategic bombing was a result of the technology at the time, and proved to be very ineffective. When the Germans bombed Britain, the British simply fought harder. When the Allies pulverized German city after German city, the Germans simply got right back to work and toughed it out. The Japanese did the same thing. There's a reason armies don't use strategic bombing anymore (besides the foolish negative press and civilians). Like artillery, strategic bombing may demoralize some, but for the most part just pisses off the targets. A modern day example can be the hornets nest that the 9/11 attacks stirred up. Sure, America screwed up what it could have done with that fervor, but while the attacks frightened Americans, that only lasted about a day, then they got mad as all Hell.
Naval blockades were pointless, because we'd already been doing something similar. For 2-3 years, our submarine force had been wreaking havoc on Japan's merchant marine fleet. Stopping the last few ships would have made little difference.
A ground offensive, as we all know, would have led to atrocious casualties for all involved. The Japanese fought savagely enough on Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the first bits of Japanese soil the U.S. invaded. The civilians at Okinawa committed mass suicide to avoid the Americans. That was the power of Japanese propaganda. It would have worked in the home islands.
Besides that, all of these would have had high financial costs, allowed the Soviet Union legitimate claim to more Japanese territory, and allowed Japan's main army (which America never faced in combat, mark you) to continue fighting in China. It would have also taken our attention away from the crisis in Europe, where millions were starving, and communism had a real chance to gain significant ground in many countries outside the Soviet bloc.
As for choice of targets, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were completely legitimate military targets. Hiroshima was home to the Japanese Second Army and Chugoku Regional Army, and as such was a military depot. Nagasaki was a major port, military and commercial. In addition, warnings were indeed issued, repeatedly, both over radio and in the form of leaflets, telling the Japanese that they'd best get away from their cities. The warnings were ignored by the government, which kept those civilians who did believe inside the cities.
...a cripes. Spent so much time on this I've actually forgotten the rest of it...ah well, I'll add more as things move along.
Anyway, my point is this. The bombs, both of them, were completely necessary. They spared millions of lives, not just Japanese and American but Soviet, Chinese, and many others as well. They were the quickest, most efficient way of ending the war. The facts leading up to it speak in favor, as do the results. Anonymouse, I believe, stated his/her belief that the Japanese SHOULD have been eradicated; that the only way to truly achieve victory is to wipe your opponents out with everything you've got. I do agree that overwhelming force should always be applied. If your opponent slaps you in the face, you should knee him in the groin and beat him unconscious. Break a few limbs for good measure. But history speaks overwhelmingly against having to wipe out your enemies. The fates of Germany and Japan alone speak volumes against their destruction: 63 years after the end of the war, Germany is second only to Russia as Europe's most powerful state economically and militarily. Japan is the 2nd and 3rd largest economy in the world (depending on the measurements). Both have made tremendous leaps culturally and politically.
"War is cruel, and you cannot refine it." William T. Sherman, a founding father of the theory on total war spoke those words (or something similar; depends on the source). Stalin said "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic." The Second World War was a conflict the likes of which we may never see again. Even today, its repercussions continue to echo. Allies and Axis alike, all those involved committed unspeakable cruelties in many forms. Against these, the atomic bombs pale in comparison. Like the America's involvement in the war, the atomic bombs don't count as a footnote simply because of the technological advances and work that went into them (by the way, the Germans were actually a lot farther away from a bomb of their own than we thought at the time). Total casualties from the bombings barely register with the wholesale slaughter of the war's largest battles.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were great tragedies. Calling them war crimes is a slippery slope at best. Bear in mind that all sides claimed strategic bombing to be abhorrent while engaging in it actively. The victors wrote most of the history books, and got to put their enemies on trial. Placed against the atrocities committed against civilians in the war, most for reasons having absolutely nothing to do with the military, the bombings were simply the final, climactic act to the greatest crime in human history.
P.S. Someone mentioned that the Japanese could have invaded the west coast of the U.S. Some sources I believe claim the Japanese might have gotten as far as Chicago. This is absurd. Completely absurd. The main Japanese army was still committed to conquering China, and an invasion force would have to be supplied by convoys that would take weeks to reach their destinations. Nothing of the sort was remotely possible.
I have read arguments on both sides. Some are good, many are bad. Perhaps the biggest problem I have with all of the responses is that they show a clear lack of research into the subject. I don't completely blame the people for that; much of what I know on the subject I learned not by actively searching but by simply reading books on WWII. I won't pretend that I have every single angle, but I do hope that I have a more comprehensive view than what I've seen here.
First off, however, I should make this clear: Anyone who makes any kind of distinction that puts America as the "good guys" and Japan as the "bad guys" is at best misguided. I was one of these until very recently. Part of this is perspective. Most of the soldiers on all sides were "good guys," people fighting for what they believed in, whether they thought they were protecting their homes or fighting for the glory of the Fatherland. Then there's the fact that the Western Allies were allied to, and turned a blind eye to the known crimes of, the world's most powerful villain, Joseph Stalin. Never forget that at the behest of Stalin and his underlings, the Soviet Union achieved a scale of wholesale slaughter that the Nazi's could only dream of. It is a sobering thought that the Soviet Union could have won the entire war by themselves. (don't get into Lend-Lease, they were winning before that got going)
So, we've already established that America was at best the "anti-heroes" of the second world war; fighting for a good cause, but willing to deal with Satan himself in order to do it. Now, for the bomb...
First, while the Japanese may have been trying to surrender, they were not doing it the way the Allies insisted. The Japanese believed what many Nazi leaders held onto in the final days of the war in Europe: they could achieve a peace that would allow them to keep most of their remaining territory. The Allies made it clear that this was not acceptable. The last time Germany had kept its territory, it had succeeded in launching the second world war. From what I've read as well, the Japanese may have wanted to surrender (though I really doubt this), but they needed an excuse. Their twisted version of Bushido warranted that they keep fighting as long as they are able. The atomic bombs gave them an honorable way to exit. What can you really do to fight something like that before SAMs, heat seekers, and other high-tech devices?
Now, the U.S. did consider different ways of demonstrating the bombs power. None were considered as effective as a live demonstration.
The bombs were indeed deterrents against the Soviet Union, but that was really more of a bonus. We did, after all, ask the Soviets to enter the war. Roosevelt was willing to sell out Eastern Europe to do it.
Someone mentioned that numerous generals and admirals in the U.S. military believed the bombs unnecessary. This is because most of them believed that the war could be won simply by a sustained air offensive, a naval blockade, a ground invasion, or some combination of the three.
Air power couldn't work, because it wasn't showing any results anymore outside of more cinders on the ground. As the Germans succeeded in doing, the Japanese responded to the bombing of their cities and factories by spreading their industry out and concealing it. To Germany's immense credit, they managed to constantly maintain or increase production in all sectors until 1944. The Japanese didn't do as well, but they still pulled off something similar. What's more, strategic bombing was a result of the technology at the time, and proved to be very ineffective. When the Germans bombed Britain, the British simply fought harder. When the Allies pulverized German city after German city, the Germans simply got right back to work and toughed it out. The Japanese did the same thing. There's a reason armies don't use strategic bombing anymore (besides the foolish negative press and civilians). Like artillery, strategic bombing may demoralize some, but for the most part just pisses off the targets. A modern day example can be the hornets nest that the 9/11 attacks stirred up. Sure, America screwed up what it could have done with that fervor, but while the attacks frightened Americans, that only lasted about a day, then they got mad as all Hell.
Naval blockades were pointless, because we'd already been doing something similar. For 2-3 years, our submarine force had been wreaking havoc on Japan's merchant marine fleet. Stopping the last few ships would have made little difference.
A ground offensive, as we all know, would have led to atrocious casualties for all involved. The Japanese fought savagely enough on Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the first bits of Japanese soil the U.S. invaded. The civilians at Okinawa committed mass suicide to avoid the Americans. That was the power of Japanese propaganda. It would have worked in the home islands.
Besides that, all of these would have had high financial costs, allowed the Soviet Union legitimate claim to more Japanese territory, and allowed Japan's main army (which America never faced in combat, mark you) to continue fighting in China. It would have also taken our attention away from the crisis in Europe, where millions were starving, and communism had a real chance to gain significant ground in many countries outside the Soviet bloc.
As for choice of targets, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were completely legitimate military targets. Hiroshima was home to the Japanese Second Army and Chugoku Regional Army, and as such was a military depot. Nagasaki was a major port, military and commercial. In addition, warnings were indeed issued, repeatedly, both over radio and in the form of leaflets, telling the Japanese that they'd best get away from their cities. The warnings were ignored by the government, which kept those civilians who did believe inside the cities.
...a cripes. Spent so much time on this I've actually forgotten the rest of it...ah well, I'll add more as things move along.
Anyway, my point is this. The bombs, both of them, were completely necessary. They spared millions of lives, not just Japanese and American but Soviet, Chinese, and many others as well. They were the quickest, most efficient way of ending the war. The facts leading up to it speak in favor, as do the results. Anonymouse, I believe, stated his/her belief that the Japanese SHOULD have been eradicated; that the only way to truly achieve victory is to wipe your opponents out with everything you've got. I do agree that overwhelming force should always be applied. If your opponent slaps you in the face, you should knee him in the groin and beat him unconscious. Break a few limbs for good measure. But history speaks overwhelmingly against having to wipe out your enemies. The fates of Germany and Japan alone speak volumes against their destruction: 63 years after the end of the war, Germany is second only to Russia as Europe's most powerful state economically and militarily. Japan is the 2nd and 3rd largest economy in the world (depending on the measurements). Both have made tremendous leaps culturally and politically.
"War is cruel, and you cannot refine it." William T. Sherman, a founding father of the theory on total war spoke those words (or something similar; depends on the source). Stalin said "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic." The Second World War was a conflict the likes of which we may never see again. Even today, its repercussions continue to echo. Allies and Axis alike, all those involved committed unspeakable cruelties in many forms. Against these, the atomic bombs pale in comparison. Like the America's involvement in the war, the atomic bombs don't count as a footnote simply because of the technological advances and work that went into them (by the way, the Germans were actually a lot farther away from a bomb of their own than we thought at the time). Total casualties from the bombings barely register with the wholesale slaughter of the war's largest battles.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were great tragedies. Calling them war crimes is a slippery slope at best. Bear in mind that all sides claimed strategic bombing to be abhorrent while engaging in it actively. The victors wrote most of the history books, and got to put their enemies on trial. Placed against the atrocities committed against civilians in the war, most for reasons having absolutely nothing to do with the military, the bombings were simply the final, climactic act to the greatest crime in human history.
P.S. Someone mentioned that the Japanese could have invaded the west coast of the U.S. Some sources I believe claim the Japanese might have gotten as far as Chicago. This is absurd. Completely absurd. The main Japanese army was still committed to conquering China, and an invasion force would have to be supplied by convoys that would take weeks to reach their destinations. Nothing of the sort was remotely possible.
Well, to respond to Lullaby, what I mean is that it was an act of mercy as far as the big picture. Had we fought Japan conventionally, there would not be a Japan today. By the time we got done breaking them, everyone would have died fighting, or committed suicide. Do not underestimate what we were up against.
Otherwise:
As far as comments about the horrors visited on the descendants of the Japanese close to the bomb detonations, that is indeed a horrible thing, but intentional or not, the big point here is that there are Japanese left to have these problems, and overall it's a small percentage of the population.
As far as the US being involved in "Major Wars" I think people are quite dated by modern ethics and soft living. Honestly I think the US is too moral for it's own survival when you get down to it, as we criticize ourselves (and take criticisms from others) far too seriously.
Going back to the time of empires, groups like the Romans, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, etc.. understood that to truely defeat an enemy you need to not only defeat their military, but break the culture entirely. Archaologists have found the remnants of numerous cultures that were annihilated in their entirety, their populations enslaved (if there were survivors) and absorbed into the social bodies of their conquerers. No clue that they even existed except for things like pottery remnants and inscriptions in off the wall places.
World War I and World War II were paticularly shocking in part because of the technology involved (new and unprecedented ways of killing) but also due to people having become deluded about the reality of war, and also because nothing on quite this level had happened for a while up until that point... and this includes Napolean.
It can be argued that one of the problems with modern engagement ethics is that it doesn't bring long term resolution to problems. When say Rome went to war, there usually wasn't anything left of their enemy afterwards to seek vengeance, or rebuild and be an enemy. They fought other wars, but typically not against the same guys (excepting major world powers of the time period like Egypt... which had an interesting relationship with the Greeks and Romans through the centuries).
The thing is that we figure if we're shooting at people it's a major war. But honestly when the US goes to "War" we never do it properly. We spend less time killing people and breaking things than we do trying to win the peace. People when confronted in their own country are no more willing to surrender or change their culture entirely than we would be if we were invaded. As cheezy and un-realistic as it is, if someone was to invade the US conventionally we (the civilian population) would indeed fight back the same way everyone else does to us, and to really beat the US they would have to eventually perform an act tantamount to genocide. The same applies to any other culture your trying to stop/reform. The Romans understood this, we do not.
The US is only a little over 200 years old, and I suspect one of our problems is that we've finished off very few of our enemies (and want to believe the best of most of them in a general sense). So of course when they recovered they have a serious mad-on for the US which doesn't help our current situation.
I view Germany with a paticular amount of alarm to be honest, I think taking down the Berlin Wall was one of the few dumb things Ronald Reagan did. We didn't annihilate them, but the wall (which didn't even last a full human generation given current lifespans) served to keep Germany down. With the wall gone Germany is now again becoming a world power. This makes me wary given their last two attempts to conquer the world (who knows, they might try and do it purely economically now). Their relationship with their former enemies like France doesn't make me feel any better given how Europe more or less fell one nation at a time. The EU in so far gives me little faith... but well this is a totally differant subject.
With Japan we at least have the place under occupation (and diplomacy aside, that is what it is, we have some of our most major naval facilities there as we use them as one of our major gateways into the region. We could probably flatten Japan anytime we wanted, despite their SSDF).
The point of all my rambling is that the US doesn't really fight wars, nobody really does (which isn't nessicarly a bad thing). Modern ethics give insurgents a huge advantage since nobody is willing to use the methods that would be needed to beat them.
In a real war morality doesn't matter, it's us or them. Nuclear weapons are by definition a first strike weapon, after all it's pointless to use them AFTER you attack someone and blow up your own troops. What's more using them defensively (fire them at your own country to stop invaders) is even sillier.
If we ever face another REAL war, which I feel is inevitable despite peoples claims of it being economically impossible (Businessmen always like to think so), it's going to come down to a combination of the best missle defense, and whomever manages to regress to remembering how to be truely brutal and ruthless the fastest and with the greatest efficiency. I have faith humanity will survive it, but it will be unlike anything seen before. What's more I think we're closer to the brink than most people think, and it's largely a matter of who is going to throw the first punch given some of the irresolvable conflicts going on now between major powers (but again this is another topic of debate).
Things like Haiti, Grenada, Iraq, Veitnam, Korea, etc... while horrible and bloody "wars" in people's minds, are really little more than slap fights compared to the real thing when two hugely powerful coalitions of nations take off the kid gloves and set about trying to totally annihilate each other.
Otherwise:
As far as comments about the horrors visited on the descendants of the Japanese close to the bomb detonations, that is indeed a horrible thing, but intentional or not, the big point here is that there are Japanese left to have these problems, and overall it's a small percentage of the population.
As far as the US being involved in "Major Wars" I think people are quite dated by modern ethics and soft living. Honestly I think the US is too moral for it's own survival when you get down to it, as we criticize ourselves (and take criticisms from others) far too seriously.
Going back to the time of empires, groups like the Romans, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, etc.. understood that to truely defeat an enemy you need to not only defeat their military, but break the culture entirely. Archaologists have found the remnants of numerous cultures that were annihilated in their entirety, their populations enslaved (if there were survivors) and absorbed into the social bodies of their conquerers. No clue that they even existed except for things like pottery remnants and inscriptions in off the wall places.
World War I and World War II were paticularly shocking in part because of the technology involved (new and unprecedented ways of killing) but also due to people having become deluded about the reality of war, and also because nothing on quite this level had happened for a while up until that point... and this includes Napolean.
It can be argued that one of the problems with modern engagement ethics is that it doesn't bring long term resolution to problems. When say Rome went to war, there usually wasn't anything left of their enemy afterwards to seek vengeance, or rebuild and be an enemy. They fought other wars, but typically not against the same guys (excepting major world powers of the time period like Egypt... which had an interesting relationship with the Greeks and Romans through the centuries).
The thing is that we figure if we're shooting at people it's a major war. But honestly when the US goes to "War" we never do it properly. We spend less time killing people and breaking things than we do trying to win the peace. People when confronted in their own country are no more willing to surrender or change their culture entirely than we would be if we were invaded. As cheezy and un-realistic as it is, if someone was to invade the US conventionally we (the civilian population) would indeed fight back the same way everyone else does to us, and to really beat the US they would have to eventually perform an act tantamount to genocide. The same applies to any other culture your trying to stop/reform. The Romans understood this, we do not.
The US is only a little over 200 years old, and I suspect one of our problems is that we've finished off very few of our enemies (and want to believe the best of most of them in a general sense). So of course when they recovered they have a serious mad-on for the US which doesn't help our current situation.
I view Germany with a paticular amount of alarm to be honest, I think taking down the Berlin Wall was one of the few dumb things Ronald Reagan did. We didn't annihilate them, but the wall (which didn't even last a full human generation given current lifespans) served to keep Germany down. With the wall gone Germany is now again becoming a world power. This makes me wary given their last two attempts to conquer the world (who knows, they might try and do it purely economically now). Their relationship with their former enemies like France doesn't make me feel any better given how Europe more or less fell one nation at a time. The EU in so far gives me little faith... but well this is a totally differant subject.
With Japan we at least have the place under occupation (and diplomacy aside, that is what it is, we have some of our most major naval facilities there as we use them as one of our major gateways into the region. We could probably flatten Japan anytime we wanted, despite their SSDF).
The point of all my rambling is that the US doesn't really fight wars, nobody really does (which isn't nessicarly a bad thing). Modern ethics give insurgents a huge advantage since nobody is willing to use the methods that would be needed to beat them.
In a real war morality doesn't matter, it's us or them. Nuclear weapons are by definition a first strike weapon, after all it's pointless to use them AFTER you attack someone and blow up your own troops. What's more using them defensively (fire them at your own country to stop invaders) is even sillier.
If we ever face another REAL war, which I feel is inevitable despite peoples claims of it being economically impossible (Businessmen always like to think so), it's going to come down to a combination of the best missle defense, and whomever manages to regress to remembering how to be truely brutal and ruthless the fastest and with the greatest efficiency. I have faith humanity will survive it, but it will be unlike anything seen before. What's more I think we're closer to the brink than most people think, and it's largely a matter of who is going to throw the first punch given some of the irresolvable conflicts going on now between major powers (but again this is another topic of debate).
Things like Haiti, Grenada, Iraq, Veitnam, Korea, etc... while horrible and bloody "wars" in people's minds, are really little more than slap fights compared to the real thing when two hugely powerful coalitions of nations take off the kid gloves and set about trying to totally annihilate each other.
(again quoting is not working for me, wtf?)
I thought the whole Middle East 'affair' was to get rid of the terrorists. If this was back in the 40s, I think a bombing would have been considered.
Japan attacked us on our own soil, Germany did not. In the 40s Germans were Krauts, Japanese were Japs, etc. Ever see the old Warner Bros. cartoons that depicted Germans and Japanese? I don't think we had much love for either, even if Germans were white.
I thought the whole Middle East 'affair' was to get rid of the terrorists. If this was back in the 40s, I think a bombing would have been considered.
Japan attacked us on our own soil, Germany did not. In the 40s Germans were Krauts, Japanese were Japs, etc. Ever see the old Warner Bros. cartoons that depicted Germans and Japanese? I don't think we had much love for either, even if Germans were white.
The Japanese believed that you always should fight to the death. No mercy was given to the U.S. troops. We were at WAR anyways, would you have rathered them invaded L.A. or some other major westcoast city? They wouldn't have given up. It was justified and reasonable. Race has nothing to do with it, it was more of belief based.
EDIT: In war it's kill or be killed. You or them. Pick one. It's been that way forever, and will remain that way forever. That's why it's called WAR! Not girly-fight or skirmish.
EDIT: In war it's kill or be killed. You or them. Pick one. It's been that way forever, and will remain that way forever. That's why it's called WAR! Not girly-fight or skirmish.
As far as justification goes the US had every right to strike back but when a large civilian population is concerned dropping a nuke is not justifiable at all. If it was the destruction of military/production facility I could somehow wrap some logic into it but to drop a WMD on a civilian population is....no!. Sure it ended the war but by that justification whenever there is conflict the answer would be to drop a nuke. Civilian extermination does not justify the ending of a war. There is a reason that civilians are non-combatants!. If your fighting a war, fight those that fight you. Don't pick on the civilians that are trapped either way!LEEROY59 said: