Should the atomic bombs been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[Shycte]

If not, more would have died. It was terrible that it had to go that far though.

 

[SilentHunter7]

The reason we dropped the bomb was so that we could end the war before the Russians got involved, and turned Tokyo into another Berlin.

 

[Aschenkatza]

I do not regret that we dropped the bombs, I regret WHERE we dropped the bombs.
We dropped the bombs on CIVILIAN cities. Hundred's, perhaps thousands, in those cities had never picked up a gun[or any type of weapon] against the U.S.. Civilians have Nothing to do with war and should never have contact with war.
The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, a military base with military personnel. That was appropriate for a war time attack. They did not attack LA or Sacramento, which are civilian cities.
For us to drop bombs on civilians was wrong, we could have chosen appropriate military bases and I'm sure the message would have gotten across just the same.
There are thousands of people still dying today because of the atomic bombs; thousands of children, CIVILIAN CHILDREN, dying in hospitals because of cancers brought about by nuclear radiation.

 

[Max Lazer]

...first things first:
Stop saying "Russia," everyone. Please do. It was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The U.S.S.R. The Soviet Union. They were Soviets. NOT RUSSIANS. Russians were the dominant people, but still. NOT RUSSIA. Stalin himself was Georgian.
To repeat: it is not Russia, it is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics/Soviet Union/U.S.S.R.
Союз Советских Социалистических Республик (transliteration: Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik)

Meatball....the article (and your comments) ring of naivete.

First, never, EVER call the atomic bombings "the single-most despicable act of WWII." To do so is to dishonor the MILLIONS who perished at the hands of the Nazi, Soviet, and Japanese authorities, not to mention the crimes of the other combatants. ~300,000 deaths is a footnote next to the wholesale slaughter that took place in Eastern Europe and China. Actually read books.

Next, that document/article you use, merely points out what I've already argued: the Japanese were looking for an end to the war on their terms. The Western Allies were looking for a far simpler solution: the Japanese acknowledgment that they were utterly beaten, and had no bargaining chip. Play Rome: Total War, and you'll get the idea. The problematic A.I. in the game can be reduced to 2 territories, with a 1/2 stack army facing down your 10 legions, and they will not only refuse surrender, but demand the return of their territories and a huge tribute as well.
The Japanese refused surrender on our terms, so we showed them what would happen if they persisted. The Emperor got the message, and forced the surrender through.

Now, you highlighted that by September or October, it was believed that Japan would run out of industrial targets. That would not have stopped them in the slightest. Besides, Japan, as I stated before, had moved and spread out much of their industry into harder to reach areas. Even if all of their industry was knocked out, what then? Pull Allied forces back, let millions of Japanese starve while the government rebuilds its war machine? Just because an enemy can't make more weapons doesn't mean they won't fight, if motivated.

You also noted disapproval of the Soviet's notification of war with Japan. Keep in mind that the original Japanese plan for Pearl Harbor was to deliver a declaration of war mere minutes before the actual attack began. I suppose that was just a slip-up, not a full fledged crime like notifying the enemy hours in advance...

Oh, and also as I noted before, political considerations did go into thinking about Japan's defeat. Roosevelt was willing to leave Eastern Europe to the Soviets just to get their assurances of assistance in the war with Japan. The bombs were meant mostly as shock tactics, to force the Japanese government to accept surrender. That's a political consideration. The bombs were also a not-so-subtle warning to the Soviet Union, one that simply encouraged them to use the information from their spies and build their own bomb quickly. (Stalin was not at all surprised when Truman told him about the U.S.'s new war-winning weapon at Potsdam)

Ah, and for the meatball and the rest of you talking about civilian casualties. IT'S F$%ING WAR. What do you expect? This was the age when total war was at its height. EVERY SINGLE INDUSTRY in a nation was geared toward winning the war. That meant EVERY SINGLE civilian contributed in some way to the war, if they had a job. That makes them completely legitimate targets as long as they can help. Even in the modern world, were the idea of mobilizing a nations entire economy toward winning the war is no longer necessary or realistic, civilian work is still tied, ever so slightly, to the military. Civilians have been secondary targets since the dawn of war, and they always will be. Be happy that we live in a world were a mere DOZEN civilian casualties in a little war is portrayed as some war crime. I, for one, lament it, as it gets in the way of nations like Israel doing what needs to be done in war, and gives terrorist organizations all the legitimacy they need.

 

[LEEROY59]

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.

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!

Remember every citizen is a potential soldier. Do you really think destroying the military would've ended them? Nay.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

...first things first:
Stop saying "Russia," everyone. Please do. It was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The U.S.S.R. The Soviet Union. They were Soviets. NOT RUSSIANS. Russians were the dominant people, but still. NOT RUSSIA. Stalin himself was Georgian.
To repeat: it is not Russia, it is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics/Soviet Union/U.S.S.R.
Союз Советских Социалистических Республик (transliteration: Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik)

Meatball....the article (and your comments) ring of naivete.

First, never, EVER call the atomic bombings "the single-most despicable act of WWII." To do so is to dishonor the MILLIONS who perished at the hands of the Nazi, Soviet, and Japanese authorities, not to mention the crimes of the other combatants. ~300,000 deaths is a footnote next to the wholesale slaughter that took place in Eastern Europe and China. Actually read books.

Next, that document/article you use, merely points out what I've already argued: the Japanese were looking for an end to the war on their terms. The Western Allies were looking for a far simpler solution: the Japanese acknowledgment that they were utterly beaten, and had no bargaining chip. Play Rome: Total War, and you'll get the idea. The problematic A.I. in the game can be reduced to 2 territories, with a 1/2 stack army facing down your 10 legions, and they will not only refuse surrender, but demand the return of their territories and a huge tribute as well.
The Japanese refused surrender on our terms, so we showed them what would happen if they persisted. The Emperor got the message, and forced the surrender through.

Now, you highlighted that by September or October, it was believed that Japan would run out of industrial targets. That would not have stopped them in the slightest. Besides, Japan, as I stated before, had moved and spread out much of their industry into harder to reach areas. Even if all of their industry was knocked out, what then? Pull Allied forces back, let millions of Japanese starve while the government rebuilds its war machine? Just because an enemy can't make more weapons doesn't mean they won't fight, if motivated.

You also noted disapproval of the Soviet's notification of war with Japan. Keep in mind that the original Japanese plan for Pearl Harbor was to deliver a declaration of war mere minutes before the actual attack began. I suppose that was just a slip-up, not a full fledged crime like notifying the enemy hours in advance...

Oh, and also as I noted before, political considerations did go into thinking about Japan's defeat. Roosevelt was willing to leave Eastern Europe to the Soviets just to get their assurances of assistance in the war with Japan. The bombs were meant mostly as shock tactics, to force the Japanese government to accept surrender. That's a political consideration. The bombs were also a not-so-subtle warning to the Soviet Union, one that simply encouraged them to use the information from their spies and build their own bomb quickly. (Stalin was not at all surprised when Truman told him about the U.S.'s new war-winning weapon at Potsdam)

Ah, and for the meatball and the rest of you talking about civilian casualties. IT'S F$%ING WAR. What do you expect? This was the age when total war was at its height. EVERY SINGLE INDUSTRY in a nation was geared toward winning the war. That meant EVERY SINGLE civilian contributed in some way to the war, if they had a job. That makes them completely legitimate targets as long as they can help. Even in the modern world, were the idea of mobilizing a nations entire economy toward winning the war is no longer necessary or realistic, civilian work is still tied, ever so slightly, to the military. Civilians have been secondary targets since the dawn of war, and they always will be. Be happy that we live in a world were a mere DOZEN civilian casualties in a little war is portrayed as some war crime. I, for one, lament it, as it gets in the way of nations like Israel doing what needs to be done in war, and gives terrorist organizations all the legitimacy they need.

F'in awesome man. That last paragraph is one of the better rants on this thread.

 

[Dragonearl]

...first things first:
Stop saying "Russia," everyone. Please do. It was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The U.S.S.R. The Soviet Union. They were Soviets. NOT RUSSIANS. Russians were the dominant people, but still. NOT RUSSIA. Stalin himself was Georgian.
To repeat: it is not Russia, it is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics/Soviet Union/U.S.S.R.
Союз Советских Социалистических Республик (transliteration: Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik)

Meatball....the article (and your comments) ring of naivete.

First, never, EVER call the atomic bombings "the single-most despicable act of WWII." To do so is to dishonor the MILLIONS who perished at the hands of the Nazi, Soviet, and Japanese authorities, not to mention the crimes of the other combatants. ~300,000 deaths is a footnote next to the wholesale slaughter that took place in Eastern Europe and China. Actually read books.

Next, that document/article you use, merely points out what I've already argued: the Japanese were looking for an end to the war on their terms. The Western Allies were looking for a far simpler solution: the Japanese acknowledgment that they were utterly beaten, and had no bargaining chip. Play Rome: Total War, and you'll get the idea. The problematic A.I. in the game can be reduced to 2 territories, with a 1/2 stack army facing down your 10 legions, and they will not only refuse surrender, but demand the return of their territories and a huge tribute as well.
The Japanese refused surrender on our terms, so we showed them what would happen if they persisted. The Emperor got the message, and forced the surrender through.

Now, you highlighted that by September or October, it was believed that Japan would run out of industrial targets. That would not have stopped them in the slightest. Besides, Japan, as I stated before, had moved and spread out much of their industry into harder to reach areas. Even if all of their industry was knocked out, what then? Pull Allied forces back, let millions of Japanese starve while the government rebuilds its war machine? Just because an enemy can't make more weapons doesn't mean they won't fight, if motivated.

You also noted disapproval of the Soviet's notification of war with Japan. Keep in mind that the original Japanese plan for Pearl Harbor was to deliver a declaration of war mere minutes before the actual attack began. I suppose that was just a slip-up, not a full fledged crime like notifying the enemy hours in advance...

Oh, and also as I noted before, political considerations did go into thinking about Japan's defeat. Roosevelt was willing to leave Eastern Europe to the Soviets just to get their assurances of assistance in the war with Japan. The bombs were meant mostly as shock tactics, to force the Japanese government to accept surrender. That's a political consideration. The bombs were also a not-so-subtle warning to the Soviet Union, one that simply encouraged them to use the information from their spies and build their own bomb quickly. (Stalin was not at all surprised when Truman told him about the U.S.'s new war-winning weapon at Potsdam)

Ah, and for the meatball and the rest of you talking about civilian casualties. IT'S F$%ING WAR. What do you expect? This was the age when total war was at its height. EVERY SINGLE INDUSTRY in a nation was geared toward winning the war. That meant EVERY SINGLE civilian contributed in some way to the war, if they had a job. That makes them completely legitimate targets as long as they can help. Even in the modern world, were the idea of mobilizing a nations entire economy toward winning the war is no longer necessary or realistic, civilian work is still tied, ever so slightly, to the military. Civilians have been secondary targets since the dawn of war, and they always will be. Be happy that we live in a world were a mere DOZEN civilian casualties in a little war is portrayed as some war crime. I, for one, lament it, as it gets in the way of nations like Israel doing what needs to be done in war, and gives terrorist organizations all the legitimacy they need.

Wow, you really need to get a grip on reality bro!. Civilians do what they have to do to survive in their daily existence. Not all civilians blindly follow their leaders views into war. The US war in Iraq is a prime example where the people don't represent the leaders view all the time. You can lament all you want about Israel being hindered by terrorists hiding behind civilians, and that is a real hinderence but I hope you realize that accomplishing objectives and committing war crimes is a thin line that should not be crossed. Besides the military of all people know the importance of not cillians civilians in engagements, why else do they spend millions of dollars in developing the latest in precision guided weapons. If civilians are so easily expended as you say, why does the army still not use the Vietnam era "dumb bombs" instead of the modern laser guided ones? Why because intentional civilian casualties is a war crime.

 

[Skyfall]

1st bomb: 99.99% NO! - It's a desecration against nature
2nd bomb: 100% NO! - Japan had already surrendered at that point of time!

 

[cartooner2008]

1st bomb: 99.99% NO! - It's a desecration against nature
2nd bomb: 100% NO! - Japan had already surrendered at that point of time!

Actually, when they dropped the first bomb, the US told Japan to surrender, and they refused, so they had to drop a second bomb (as well as threatening to bomb Tokyo) in order for them to surrender.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Six reccomendations and counting.

I would say more people agree with me here, but frankly, I fail to see what the problem is. Total War is, by nature, a barbarous and inhuman endeavour, and those who can be the most inhuman on the grandest scale will win. There is no evidence that the US knew Japan was going to surrender, and frankly, the Atomic bomb was simply a highly effective means of applying the aforementioned 'overwhelming force'. If you continue to disagree with that point, then you are nothing more than a pacifist.

 

[Cornwind Evilman]

Well, I was going to reply to this thread, but first I had to sign up, then I had to read the whole thing, then I had to spend some time banging my head against the wall...

The primary argument, I find here, reminds me of when a rumor was floating around that Will Smith was being considered for the role of Captain America in the upcoming movie. While eventually discredited, I was against it. Why? Was it because I thought he was wrong for the role (I did, but for specific reasons below)? I don't like Will Smith (I do not like or dislike him)? Was it because I am racist (I am not)? No, because the film was supposed to happen in the 1940's, and as far as I could tell, ONLY the 1940's. If the film was going to be done in two parts and the second part would have had Smith cast in modern times as a new Captain America, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. But the 1940's? Forget it. Why? Because Will Smith is a black man.

What difference does that make, some may say. Think about it. It is the 1940's. Civil Rights, Martin Luthor King Jr's martyring, school integration, and all these other events are a few decades away. The whole concept of Captain America was to create a supersoldier, the peak of human existence, a shining paragon of American might. Untold amounts of money would be spent to achieve this goal. For all we know, it might be a one time thing.

Do you REALLY think the 1940's US Government is going to use it on a BLACK MAN?

This point, how it ties into this debate, and the protests some of you surely feel you have to lodge against this viewpoint all have their roots in a logical fallacy I keep seeing over and over, and one I must feel we have to break free if we are going to accomplish ANYTHING beyond watching our comparison of points break down into bitter acrimony like so. Damn. Many. Arguments. Do.

Which is simply this: STOP PROJECTING CURRENT POLITICAL VIEWPOINTS INTO THE PAST.

This world is NOT the same as the 1940's world. What seems so obvious to us now would likely seem incomprehensible to the people of that time, possibly even offensive. Condemning the US for War Crimes or rah-rahing them and saying they should have reduced Japan to a cinder really doesn't matter, because it's invariably based on our modern, hindsight views. Which people forget, or outright IGNORE in their desire to grind an axe, were NOT THE VIEWS OF THE PEOPLE AT THE TIME.

Let me use another analogy: imagine you're sitting at the Internet doing whatever, and suddenly, POOF, your great, great-grandchild pops out of the air via a time machine. Ignoring the greater shocks of such a thing, imagine this: said great, great-grandchild condemns you, outright vilifies you, for having a job.

Just having a job. It's not what kind of job you have, it's not how you're going your job, it's not what you have as your current job, they curse you for HAVING A JOB IN AND OF ITSELF. You could be a secretary, a garbageman, a film director, a police officer, a porn star, a hitman, Yahtzee, it doesn't matter. You are being judged and looked down on, and told you are wrong, just for having a job.

Would this make any sense to you? Would you not think your future progeny is insane? Imagine if they're not. This is the viewpoint they know. It seems perfectly logical for them to be whatever has replaced having a job. It's WHAT THEY KNOW. And to us, we can't grasp it, nor why we should be told we are doing bad things and/or are bad for it.

This is EXACTLY what would happen if WE went back in time. If we went back and told Medieval Europe how their complete lack of hygiene was spreading the Black Death, they wouldn't, couldn't understand it. If we went back in time to the early 1800's US South and told plantation owners they were terrible for having slaves, they wouldn't, couldn't understand it. And if we went back in time to the 1940's and told the US/Japanese atomic bombs are terrible/they poison the environment/Japan is going to be defeated anyway/the Japanese are not going to fight to the last man woman and child/the Japanese may have misunderstood or mistranslated the exact terms of the surrender agreement/the Japanese have a vastly different culture and hence did not grasp the concept of surrender the same as we did/that we sided with the Soviet Union who were equally monstrous and their crimes stain our hands/that we're just doing this to show the world how gigantic our penis is now/that we are going to wake up a giant radioactive dinosaur that is going to look suspiciously like a man in a rubber suit, IT. WOULDN'T. MATTER. THEIR WORLD IS NOT THE SAME AS OUR WORLD, AND THEY WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND IT. To criticize, condemn, and wish ill for the men and women who made these choices is pointless: IT'S WHAT THEY KNEW. To curse them for knowing what we know now is faulty reasoning, faulty logic, and smacks of snotty, elitist thinking that wouldn't know reality if it leapt up and chomped them on the ass.

Was it something that should have happened? Who can really say? But when we speak of it today, we should always remember we speak of the people OF TODAY, and not of the people BACK THEN. The past is past. What was then, WAS THEN. END OF STORY.

And please don't bring up that particular Black Captain America story, this rant is rambling enough as it is.

 

[SnowCold]

The first was OK, the second was too much

 

[Spicer]

Yeah, this shouldn't even really be a question. Lets take a trip back, shall we? Russia had made a deal with the U.S. to join the Pacific front 90 days after Germany fell. Kay. Russia was communist and the US knew that if Russia joined the war, they would simply liberate territories and bring more under their control. Kay. It was decided that the war needed to be ended quickly before Russia had much of a chance, so an invasion of the Japanese homeland was possibly, or the dropping of the bomb. Dropping of the bomb cost a large deal of lives, I think the numbers I?ve heard (Which are different from the numbers in Japan, obviously.) are something like 230,000 on explosion. That?s pretty horrible, plus you add on deaths afterward from cancer and such you probably near something like 1,000,000, maybe. Alright, we got that part. Now invasion of the homeland of Japan. Considering how Japanese had fought so far, and how they had accepted defeat(Jumping off cliffs, for example.) American forces would have lost a great deal of troops, and it can be speculated that Japan would have lost about twice what American?s lost because the Japanese were at this point throwing solders out without much training. That would have put the death count anywhere from 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 if not more. Also, a lot of people have argued that it was an attack upon innocent civilians? Yeah? It was. But so were a lot of the bombings done in WWII. Germany firebombed England, England firebombed Germany, US Firebombed Tokyo and Dresden? Firebombs were more horrific then the A-bomb if only because people were actually sucked into the fires caused(And guess what? No one just dropped two of those, I can assure you the deaths from fire bombings were far above the deaths from A-bombs.). Why doesn?t anyone say anything about these? Oh, because that?s conventional warfare. Now also the argument is given that because America dropped the first bomb, everyone else went after getting one? Wrong again. Russia was already on the fast track to making one as well as England and Germany. Though, no one knew just how powerful these bombs were, they were given a demonstration and it was humbling, that being the reason no one has used one sense. Finally, think of it this way? Had Japan had the A-bomb, they sure as hell would have used it.

 

[Max Lazer]

Wow, you really need to get a grip on reality bro!. Civilians do what they have to do to survive in their daily existence. Not all civilians blindly follow their leaders views into war. The US war in Iraq is a prime example where the people don't represent the leaders view all the time. You can lament all you want about Israel being hindered by terrorists hiding behind civilians, and that is a real hinderence but I hope you realize that accomplishing objectives and committing war crimes is a thin line that should not be crossed. Besides the military of all people know the importance of not cillians civilians in engagements, why else do they spend millions of dollars in developing the latest in precision guided weapons. If civilians are so easily expended as you say, why does the army still not use the Vietnam era "dumb bombs" instead of the modern laser guided ones? Why because intentional civilian casualties is a war crime.

That was my point. Modern views on civilian casualties/total war put ridiculous restrictions on soldiers. As far as I'm concerned, civilians should be given one chance: hand over all military personnel and equipment and surrender (or all civilians simply leave the target area until the battle's over). If they don't do either, then that's too bad. They are now targets.
I would rather see generals level cities than bother facing mass urban combat. Civilians should never have priority over your own soldiers.


Cornwind makes a good point. I'd like to say I try and stay objective, but judging myself is not exactly objective in and of itself. Debating the bombs is still a valid discussion in my view, if only to see how many people are foolish enough to say no. On the other hand, it's also amusing to see how many people say yes while clearly having no clue what they're talking about.

Finally, some people have pointed out how the atomic bombs were not war crimes because no one else calls strategic bombing a war crime. As I believe I've stated, that's a slippery slope. Every major combatant in WWII decried strategic bombing as a war crime, while simultaneously doing it themselves. In a sense of objectives, I believe that strategic bombing in the kind that Britain and Germany committed were not necessarily crimes, but they were not justifiable either. Even after it should have become clear that bombing a civilian populace for terror purposes wasn't working, it continued. For the British, it was an act of pure vengeance.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

1st bomb: 99.99% NO! - It's a desecration against nature

How is it a desecration against nature?. Nuclear fission is a natural occurrence in the very star that gives us life. It is quite a common occurrence in nature, maybe I am nitpicking your statement but still I thought I had to point that out.

 

[Max Lazer]

He's probably referring to the huge amounts of radiation that does not naturally occur, killing and seriously harming the environment. Fission, after all, occurs naturally out in space, without anything to flame broil.

 

[XJ-0461]

This is a tricky one. If they had been dropped on more of a millitary target rather than more of a civillian one, then it would be easier to justify. After all, most of the people living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were probably civillians. dropping the bombs on an Army training area (a big one, removed from any major cities) or a Naval yard (again, away from cities) would have been a more viable target. Not dropping the bombs at all, however would have prolonged the war by 1-2 years. so, like i said, tricky one.

 

[oralloy]

This was a crime against humanity on a massive scale.

Crimes against humanity generally involve the direct targeting of civilians.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both targeted for their military value (especially Hiroshima).

No consideraton was taken of the innocent civilians that were killed by the bombs. This is by definition a war crime.

That is true. But Japan was inflicting such brutal atrocities on the world that people felt they had to be stopped by any means necessary.

 

[oralloy]

No, because the bomb caused a type of hereditary cancer people continue to suffer from.

People who were in the cities at the moment of the explosion did receive enough radiation exposure to cause cancer, and some of them suffer from that cancer even today.

But it is not hereditary. No one needs to worry about it unless they were actually present when the bombs exploded.

Fetuses in wombs were affected though, unfortunately, if the pregnant mother was in the cities when the bombs exploded. But that is because the fetus was directly exposed to the radiation from the explosion.