Should the atomic bombs been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[bkdlsf89990]

Your inadvertently making the same point I did. You are using the argument I made but on a global scale.

---

And yes, the axis have done the same too, reaching similar if not higher death tolls and I disagree with that as well. But this isn't a death toll competition. Simply if the nuking is justifiable or not. I say no!.

Hm, those two statements seem to contradict each other. Don't try and back peddle, the death tolls was your main point.

Also no, it was purely intentional. If you're counting numbers (like you were) Japan is clearly not going to win any rounds in that ring.

I was using your very argument for the Japanese people. This is not, I repeat, NOT about who is right and wrong in the war and on the battlefield. I am well aware of the atrocities committed by the Axis powers but this isn't a discussion about who killed who the most. This is about the 2 bombs that were dropped 3 days apart on two civilian cities. The targeting of civilians is a shame and a crime, no matter who does it. Japan was wrong to do it in China and America was wrong to do it to Japan. You almost made it sound like Japan deserved the nukes, no one deserves to have a nuke shoved in their backyard. Its a WMD for a reason, the same reason countries go to war to disband it, ironically because it is lethal and it kills civilians.

So if this was a thread about was Japan right for its atrocities I would have said no. They were unjustified in killing civilians and because this isn't about what happened in Malaysia and other places but in Japan I will hold to my comments. So you can play with your heartstrings all you want but what was committed that day was an act of terror.

So first you say it's not about who or what's right and wrong, but then immediately go on to say the bombings and butcherings were wrong?

Of course the bombings were an act of terror. That was almost entirely the idea. Shock the Japanese into surrender.

Let me ask you something, what was the reason behind the mass slaughter Japan wrecked across Asia?

Now, what was the reason behind the dropping of the Atomic Bombs?

See the difference?

Of course the killing of civilians is a shame, and in some (most?) cases a crime. I don't disagree with that. I do disagree that the bombings were a crime, however.

 

[bkdlsf89990]

Pearl Harbour is a military base, its going to get bombed. But Hiroshima was a village of decent civilians who didn't deserve to die.


The Americans are in the wrong, as they ahve always been, and they will never admit it (all part of being the 'evil nation' I guess) So all you're going to get from this thread is americans coming up with whatever excuse possible to justify their vile act.

Ha ha, what?

 

[Imat]

whats done is done

But we still like talking about it.

We still talk about it because 63 years later it is still relavent. The US and Russia has enough nukes to fragment this rock we live on god knows how many times over. What worries me are the people that say using them is fine to cut corners in warfare. Now this principle is fine on paper to argue that Yes, nuking Japan saved many lives and ended the war. In reality people, I hope you all realize, that if there is another world war, where everyone is mucking in again and one nation make a push with a 1 nuke. There will be a retaliation with 2 nukes. Then we would strike back with 20 and they would return with 40. In the middle civilians will die and we will radiate this planet for ever.

Yeah, its called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), ain't it great? That's the major factor in why it hasn't happened yet and is unlikely to happen in the near future. I hate to be the bearer of good/bad news (Depending on how you look at it), but World War 3, though a popular idea, is hardly practical at this stage in the game. It's not about pop guns and rolling pieces of metal anymore, war has become something much worse: Unwinnable. If some major European power attacks another, they'll fight back. Odds are they'll come to a standstill on land and probably at sea. Next they'll launch the nukes, which will prompt an immediate nuclear retaliation. Now both nations are dead, and everybody else is left to point fingers and pick up the pieces. MAD. Also, countries aren't quite as trigger happy anymore. Wanna know one very good reason why? Well, I can give two: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sad as it may have been, they probably helped stave off world wars for years to come. Would you rather have dropped those two bombs or seen world war 3? Your choice, choose wisely. Add that to the reasons already posted and I can't see any reason why they shouldn't have been dropped, barring a complete and unconditional surrender by the Japanese beforehand. The loss of "innocent" human life is tragic indeed, but it could have been much, much worse.


Also, somebody asked why we dropped the second bomb: look on the first page. It's been covered.

 

[Spicy meatball]

Your inadvertently making the same point I did. You are using the argument I made but on a global scale.

And yes, the axis have done the same too, reaching similar if not higher death tolls and I disagree with that as well. But this isn't a death toll competition. Simply if the nuking is justifiable or not. I say no!.

No, it was purely intentional. If you're counting numbers (like you were) Japan is clearly not going to win any rounds in that ring. Don't try and back peddle, the death tolls was your main point.

I was using your very argument for the Japanese people. This is not, I repeat, NOT about who is right and wrong in the war and on the battlefield. I am well aware of the atrocities committed by the Axis powers but this isn't a discussion about who killed who the most. This is about the 2 bombs that were dropped 3 days apart on two civilian cities. The targeting of civilians is a shame and a crime, no matter who does it. Japan was wrong to do it in China and America was wrong to do it to Japan. You almost made it sound like Japan deserved the nukes, no one deserves to have a nuke shoved in their backyard. Its a WMD for a reason, the same reason countries go to war to disband it, ironically because it is lethal and it kills civilians.

So if this was a thread about was Japan right for its atrocities I would have said no. They were unjustified in killing civilians and because this isn't about what happened in Malaysia and other places but in Japan I will hold to my comments. So you can play with your heartstrings all you want but what was committed that day was an act of terror.

So first you say it's not about who or what's right and wrong, but then immediately go on to say the bombings and butcherings were wrong?

Of course the bombings were an act of terror. That was almost entirely the idea. Shock the Japanese into surrender.

Let me ask you something, what was the reason behind the mass slaughter Japan wrecked across Asia?

Now, what was the reason behind the dropping of the Atomic Bombs?

See the difference?

Of course the killing of civilians is a shame, and in some (most?) cases a crime. I don't disagree with that. I do disagree that the bombings were a crime, however.

You misunderstand. The statistics I quoted was in aid of putting into perspective the culmination of radiation and the nuclear fallout. I always maintained that war is not about who is right or wrong but the butchering of civilians is wrong. If you read my previous post(s) you would realize that I was against the killing of civilians by the Japaneses or by anyone for that matter. Let me say it again. There is little place for being right and wrong in warfare. It is a dirty business but the military has rules of engagement that prevent the slaughter of innocent civilians. The Japanese did it and I am against that but this isn't about what they did and did not do in Asia. This is what the US did in Japan. Which is also a breach in humanitarian rights and the accord for treating POW's and non-combatants. That is whats wrong here.

The shock and awe strategy is fine. But like it was said before using a gun to kill someone is very differnt from using a nuke. To fire a gun, you need forethought, it is a judgment and an evaluation of the situation and an appropriate response from the gunman. You shoot with a target in mind. A nuke is indiscriminate, it will kill anyone in range. That is the difference between the slaughter in Asia and Japan. Both were wrong on a monumental scale for the civilian casualties but the nuke has the lasting effect for generations. What makes it worse is that the next generation and the ones after continue to suffer from sickness and deformities.

 

[Zeke the Freak]

disregard this

If you are going to post please make it something constructive to the OP. "Disregard this" is hardly constructive.

i screwed up the post and i dont think i can delete it so i just put "disregard".

 

[bkdlsf89990]

You misunderstand. The statistics I quoted was in aid of putting into perspective the culmination of radiation and the nuclear fallout.

Actually I'm pretty sure that was only part of it. It was mostly just death tolls and "families torn apart".

I always maintained that war is not about who is right or wrong but the butchering of civilians is wrong.

I'm getting mixed messages here.

If you read my previous post(s) you would realize that I was against the killing of civilians by the Japaneses or by anyone for that matter. Let me say it again. There is little place for being right and wrong in warfare. It is a dirty business but the military has rules of engagement that prevent the slaughter of innocent civilians. The Japanese did it and I am against that but this isn't about what they did and did not do in Asia. This is what the US did in Japan. Which is also a breach in humanitarian rights and the accord for treating POW's and non-combatants. That is whats wrong here.

Like I said, what is "innocent civilians" for you? In WWII all nations involved were fighting Total War. (Goebbels, anybody?) Total war is a conflict of unlimited scope in which a nation engages in a mobilization of all available resources at their disposal, whether human, industrial, agricultural, military, natural, technological, or otherwise, in order to entirely destroy or render beyond use their rival's capacity to continue resistance. In a total war, there is less (or no) differentiation between combatants and non-combatants (civilians) than in other conflicts, as nearly every person from a particular country (or opposing area), civilians and soldiers alike, can be considered to be part of this belligerent effort.

Especially so for the Japanese, who were training their civilians (children included) in militias in the case of invasion.

The Second World War is considered the quintessential total war of modernity. The sheer - indeed, total - level of national mobilization of resources on all sides of the conflict, the immense battlespace being contested, the massive scale of the armies, navies, and air forces raised through conscription, the active targeting of civilians (and civilian property), the general disregard for collateral damage, and the unrestricted aims of the belligerents marked the full and, to the present, final realization of the concept of total war. Because of this, total war between any nations possessing nuclear weapons is now seen as virtually unthinkable.

The shock and awe strategy is fine. But like it was said before using a gun to kill someone is very differnt from using a nuke. To fire a gun, you need forethought, it is a judgment and an evaluation of the situation and an appropriate response from the gunman. You shoot with a target in mind. A nuke is indiscriminate, it will kill anyone in range. That is the difference between the slaughter in Asia and Japan. Both were wrong on a monumental scale for the civilian casualties but the nuke has the lasting effect for generations. What makes it worse is that the next generation and the ones after continue to suffer from sickness and deformities.

Not really. With guns you point and shoot, and expect things in its path to die. With a bomb you point and drop, and expect things in its path to die. No real difference besides payload.

To be fair, we didn't know about the lasting effects.

Like I said, my great-grandfather was out in Mexico picking up pieces of melted sand turned glass after the test. Reportedly his hands got deformed because of it. (He worked on the bomb, so maybe I'm biased.)

 

[oralloy]

I know for a fact that if America had been on the receiving end of an a-bomb, no attempt from their adversaries to justify it would be able to convince them it wasnt "a crime against humanity". Therefore, I consider the dropping of an atomic bomb on Japan a crime against humanity, and any American who claims it was justified a hypocrite.

To be a crime against humanity, civilians would have to have been the target.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets.

Now, if you want to say the collateral damage was excessive enough to constitute a war crime, you'd have a case.

I know this, just as there are those who know "that Japan would never have surrendered and the war would have cost more lives". Yeah, massacre hundreds of thousands to "save lives", can anyone else smell bullshit?

What's wrong with saving American lives by bombing the bad guys?

Maybe it wouldnt be so bad if America didnt then and now still portray itself in WWII as some kind of force for good and freedom in the world.

We are a force for good and freedom in the world. Might as well acknowledge it.

I saw some documentary on this--reportedly it wwas a mistake; the pilots misjudged their targets or whatever.

They did have trouble getting the second A-bomb on target. They still managed to do some damage to Japan's arms production though.

personally I just think they wanted an excuse to kill people--they're in the army; that's what you do in the army.

They didn't need an excuse. This was World War II.

they were both civilian targets

No, they were both military targets.

and pearl harbour is no excuse that was a legitimate military target with the specific aim of compromising American naval capabilities.

Pearl Harbor would have been a legitimate target if they had declared war before attacking it.

But they didn't. So the attack on Pearl Harbor was as much a war crime as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I think it was wrong to drop the bombs on civilian cities I think it was necessary to demonstrate the new weapon to break the japanese will to fight because otherwise I'm sure they would have kept on fighting, but I think taking out key military bases or something like that would have worked just as effectively.

They didn't drop the weapons on "civilian cities".

Hiroshima was a major military center, and Nagasaki was an industrial center devoted to weapon production.

Although I support the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were, by definition, terrorism.

Depends on the definition. If the definition of terrorism does not include targeting civilians, they could be.

But since civilians were not the target they would not fit any definition of terrorism that involved targeting civilians.

I've been to Hiroshima and although the city is rebuilt and beautiful, you can still see signs of the bomb to this day. . . mostly on the people in the form of tumors, deformities, etc. Having seen steps where the shadow of a man eating his lunch had been burned into the stone, I find it difficult to find the 'rightness' in dropping the bomb on a civilian target (or any target for that matter).

The bombs were dropped on military targets.

Japan is guilty of the Bataan Death March. The United States is guilty of the Highway of Death during the Gulf War. Sure, the number of casualties is significantly different, but the U.S. still killed thousands upon thousands of civilians fleeing for their lives.

The "Highway of Death" was not a crime in any way. They were war criminals trying to escape with stolen goods -- an entirely legitimate target

 

[Christemo]

should have been used on hitlers house, because that shit to operation valkyrie sucked big time and costed the life of a brave man.

 

[Hazert]

I haven't read every post in this thread. I read the first couple pages and the last couple pages. It seems to me that the major argument against it is the radiation effects and the collateral damage (i.e. civilian deaths).

First off, radiation. I don't believe the effects of radiation were fully understood at the time. Therefore I doubt it had much effect on the decision making process. That's all I have to say about it.

Second, it's a war, people are goin to die. Civilians will ALWAYS be killed in war. It's tragic but unavoidable, especially in the kind of warfare that was happening in WWII. If it had been pushed to an invasion every civilian would have likely eventually been pressed into military service and would no longer have been civilians. From a purely objective point of view all civilians are potentially future soldiers. (I, personally, don't condone the killing of civilians if it is at all avoidable, but I have heard that particular argument made before and I'm just puting all of my knowledge out there.) Also in order to minimize total human casualties (civilian and military) nations were trying to reduce their enemy capabilites by crippling their military production (destroying factorie's and such). This seems perfectly acceptable to most people, however those factories werere run by civilians. I believe that the cities that were nuked contained military facilities and that's why there were chosen as targets. (I could be worng on this one as it's been a little while since I last heard it, but I think Nagasaki was actually the wrong town. The bomb was supposed to be dropped somewhere else but the pilots got mixed up.) If there were factories and military facilites in the the cities, then they are strategic military targets. They would have been destroyed anyway. Nuking them was a more cost effective method (from the US side) than firebombing them to ashes, which would have killed the civilians anyway. On top of all that any soldier will tell you that wars and battles are most often won by morale and not the destruction of the enemy forces. While firebombing was damaging to morale, it was an understood tactic and something that people were more resilient to. Nuclear weapons were new, unhead of, and most of all absoultely terrifying. That's why, while many cities were firebombed, it only took 2 nukes to force a surrender.

It's easy to criticize it looking back now with all the knowledge we have now. I believe the only way to properly answer the question is through the glasses of the time. We have to look at the knowledge and information they had at the time. As I said I don't think radiation took a part in the decision. The effects were and are horrible but I don't believe it's a valid point in the argument. It's been said several times in teh posts I've read (and probably many many more int eh ones I haven't) but the estimated human casualties for a US invasion of Japan were incredible on both sides (I don't know exaclty what the estimates at the time were). You also have to consider, from the perspective of President Truman, the costs and effects of contiunuing the war for, potentially, several more years. There was a great deal of pressure to have the war ended soon. Millions of poeple had already died and when faced with the prospesct of either; continuing the war for several more years and millions more lives; or ending it quickly with significantly less casualties on both sides; Truman picked what he thought to be the lesser of 2 evils. It was a very difficult decision, one I believe he put a lot of thought into. We can argue all we like but none of us truly know what it was like to be in his position and be face with that decision, therefore ALL of our arguments are completely pointless. I believe that ANYONE else in the world that was put in that position would make the same decision. You can argue all you like that you wouldn't but the fact remains you don't know until you're there. That's my opinion. I think he made the right choice and this whole argument is stupid. I doubt I will convince anyone though, as in my previous experiences with this argument the people that are against it are firmly entrenched in their position and little will change their minds.

Feel free to correct me on anything that appears to have been stated as fact. It's easily possible that I'm wrong in some of my statements. I won't take any offense to correction as long as it's constructive. I understand I'm looking at things form a very US perspective, but I think it has to be viewed that way because the US president is the one who made the decision and you can't criticize a decision if you don't look at things from the decision-maker's view.

 

[RyantheLion]

I think it was wrong to drop the bombs on civilian cities I think it was necessary to demonstrate the new weapon to break the japanese will to fight because otherwise I'm sure they would have kept on fighting, but I think taking out key military bases or something like that would have worked just as effectively.

They didn't drop the weapons on "civilian cities".

Hiroshima was a major military center, and Nagasaki was an industrial center devoted to weapon production.[/quote]



damn high school teacher compared them to places like New York and Chicago.

 

[Virus017]

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

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

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

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

And what would have happened to casualties if the US had to invade Japan? The truth is none of us knew what could have happened. We only know what did take place, therefore people please stop the bullshit about the death toll in world war two. We have nothing to compare these figures too, lets accept it now.

 

[oralloy]

Its a false belief to think that the war would have been much worse if a mainland invasion would have been even more costlier than the dropping of two nuclear bombs.

You go under the assumption that the Japanese would have been equipped to fight a war on their homeland that would be costly enough to disenhearten the allied invasion force.

That is no assumption. The Japanese had a very large number of troops in position all ready to fight to the death on Japan's beaches (not to mention all the kamikazes who were ready to attack troop transports headed to shore).

Truman callously said to look to the boys at Pearl Harbor before you judge his decision to drop the bombs. Well, if everyone went by his logic, one American sailor was equivalent to a thousand innocent Japanese civilians (even conservative estimates put the combined losses of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at 200,000, and this does not include the prior fire-bombings that destroyed 50-90% of sixty major Japanese cities).

Actually, there is no reputable estimate that puts the combined losses of Hiroshima and Nagasaki over 200,000.

And it isn't as if these were innocent clusters of civilians. Hiroshima was a major military center, and Nagasaki was an industrial center devoted to making weapons.

As for Truman's math, considering that these American soldiers were all drafted and would never have gone to war if it hadn't been for Japan's horrible aggression, I find that equation rather appealing.

Should the bombs have been dropped? Maybe, but the decision should have been made by someone who was sensible, as opposed to that paranoid, red-hating fascist hack, Curtis LeMay.

LeMay had nothing to do with any decisions about the A-bombs.

After Nagasaki, LeMay did lobby Washington to hit Tokyo with the next bomb, but it wasn't his decision in any way.

 

[oralloy]

the nuke has the lasting effect for generations. What makes it worse is that the next generation and the ones after continue to suffer from sickness and deformities.

Balderdash!

The nuke has no effect for anyone who was not physically present in the city when the bomb exploded.

Subsequent generations are just fine.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Why is this even a question? History is history.

 

[oralloy]

damn high school teacher compared them to places like New York and Chicago.

Hiroshima would be best compared to a US town with a large naval base (like one of the ones that are home port to aircraft carriers).

Nagasaki would be best compared to an industrial town where they build warships for the Navy.

 

[Sparkiesmakemesmile]

Why is this even a question? History is history.

The reason why this is such a big deal, imo, is because of a number of reasons really. Reminder this is all my opinion so please feel free to discuss if you wish.

1. We have two people arguing here. People who feel patriotic for the "great" USA (Being a country that stands for freedom, blah blah blah everything you hear pushed down your throats from GI JOE and Uncle Sam) and the other side who feel that USA is somehow the "EVIL" country spawned from the depths of hell led by child molesters and murderers who antagonizes other countries and for their sins should burn. Or at the very least is wronged in most of their decisions, military actions and policy.

2. People (not just Americans) as whole love blaming people for other crimes. Let's face it it's our favorite pastime, if only one person died from that bomb we would still be having this argument. People love to condemn, judge, and punish others for their wretched sins against humanity. And whenever someone else blames them for something they love to point the blame somewhere else. Yes, it's immature but hey that's human nature for you. We are a race that loves to hate their neighbor.

and lastly,

3. OK I know this is a bit of a repeat from number 1 but American did kinda put itself on a pedestal with the whole "Greatest military power in the world" bit. See the United States has this tendency to declare itself as the greatest nation in world. (I live in the USA by the way, trust me I have seen this propaganda) other nations see this as American's being arrogant and because of it I feel they are quick to try to point out every nitpick of American society, policy, etc etc. It would be like watching two elementary schoolers flexing their muscles trying to prove which one is stronger. It's sad in a way because your right in the end it doesn't even really matter.
__________________________

I tend to believe that there is no "greatest country" in this world. All of them have there weaknesses and strengths. If there was one, then this world would of obtained world peace a long time ago. However there are too many people in this world, too many of us share differing opinions on how we should live life, what life means, what freedom means, etc and because of it different types of government have formed. These types of governments formed from out of these different people as a way to protect their way of life. If 1/2 of your population believes in God your society is gonna reflect that. I may simply be narrow minded however often times to me war is nothing more then those societies conflicting, or butting heads, nature running it's coarse in a manner of speaking. Two ways of life both declaring their way of life the way to live life. Redundant I know... but I'm not that poetic so sue me.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Yes. 1. We gave warning that we where gonna blow up some fucking cities if they didn't surrender. 2. Hiroshima was where most of japans war materials where being manufactured. contrary to propaganda crap it wasn't just some random city. 3. Pearl harbor 4. To avoid invasion. 5. after the first nuke they STILL didn't surrender even though we said we had another one. But then of course I'm american. If I was japanese there's no way in hell I would say yes.

 

[powell86]

To Ragdrazi:
according to the report which u have given(http://www.anesi.com/bomb.htm), the govt actually agrees that it is necessary to do so with the reasons cited by the rest of the forum members. u seem to be the one who doesn't read properly or perhaps selectively reading to suit ur own agenda...

 

[DeathsAmbassador]

I think that the dropping of the Atom bomb was an absolutely horrible thing to do, that said however I do think that it may have been necessary, but I guess it would be impossible to know for sure.