Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[Weed Master]

In my opinion is the japenese got what they deserved. america made the right choice in dropping the two bombs. the lives lost were small compared to the esimated deaths of an invasion of japan.

 

Was it right to drop the bombs?

[TK-8252]

Is the intentional slaughtering of innocent civilians including children acceptable?

 

I think the answer is pretty clear. You either approve of mass murder or you don't.

[Emperor Devon]

Yes, it was. Either way, a bloody invasion of Japan could've had just as many, if not more casualities than dropping a few bombs. At least that way it was over sooner, saved us money, and stopped the Russians from gaining a foothold in there.

 

But as the fire bombings claimed more lives the atomic bombings did, were they justified?

[TK-8252]

Yes, it was. Either way, a bloody invasion of Japan could've had just as many, if not more casualities than dropping a few bombs. At least that way it was over sooner, saved us money, and stopped the Russians from gaining a foothold in there.

 

But as the fire bombings claimed more lives the atomic bombings did, were they justified?

 

So you're saying that the ends justify the means. I see.

 

"In order to save our own asses, we must slaughter your country's innocent children."

[Emperor Devon]

So you're saying that the ends justify the means. I see. .

 

Yeah, pretty much.

 

"In order to save our own asses, we must slaughter your country's innocent children."

 

Would not there have been civilian casualties if we had invaded Japan? Were there not casualties in the fire bombings? Those two cities were targeted for their ability to produce weapons and other things essential in war, not for their civilian population.

 

To put it plainly, we had two choices: Engage in a prolonged campaign that could've taken months, had tremednous casualties for both sides, drained billions of dollars, and allowed the Russians to gain a foothold in Japan. In addition, we would've ruined Japan's economy even more and displaced the lives of many civilians, in addition to the ones that would inevitably be killed in the fighting.

 

Or we could end the war with just as many or maybe less casualties in a fraction of the time without the other downsides.

 

And I will ask you again: the fire bombings claimed more lives than the atomic bombings. Were they justified?

[TK-8252]

So you're saying there's only two choices:

 

A bloody ground invasion and occupation or just slaughter their people until they surrender.

 

There's no kind of middle ground?? Like bomb their military bases and cripple their ability to launch attacks? Then blockade their land until they are forced to surrender?

[Emperor Devon]

So you're saying there's only two choices:

 

That's it.

 

There's no kind of middle ground?? Like bomb their military bases and cripple their ability to launch attacks? Then blockade their land until they are forced to surrender?

 

No, that wouldn't work. If we bombed their military bases, we'd need fighters to escort them, and then we'd need to counter their aircraft and the ground-based units that can destroy planes. Aircraft alone can't make a nation submit (the blitz is hard proof of this), and we'd need ground support to help do the job. And sending in troops and planes to destroy their military bases counts as a full-scale invasion.

 

Blockading wouldn't work either. Japan is too large to effectively blockade, and they could be self-sufficient if they were determined to. Given how fanatical the Japanese were, that seems likely... If the fact that they were the only country left practically fighting off the world wouldn't convince them to surrender, I doubt a blackade could.

[TK-8252]

You are forgetting the fact that Japan was for the most part already defeated and on the path to surrender BEFORE THE BOMBS WERE DROPPED.

 

The U.S. dropped the bombs not to win the war, but to show them and the rest of the world (specifically Russia) who has the bigger dick.

 

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."

 

~ General Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."

 

~ Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet

 

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."

 

~ Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman

 

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

 

~ The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered

 

 

Face it, slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians INTENTIONALLY no matter what the justification is a crime against humanity.

[ET Warrior]

The intentional slaughter of innocenct human beings is not acceptable. Dropping the Atomic bombs on Japan was one of the worst acts of terrorism in the history of humanity.

[Emperor Devon]

You are forgetting the fact that Japan was for the most part already defeated and on the path to surrender BEFORE THE BOMBS WERE DROPPED.

 

So? That does not mean they would surrender. Look at Germany. They were all but defeated in the last months of the war, but refused to surrender.

 

Given from what I've read about the war in the Pacific, you'll forgive me if I doubt the authenticity of some of those quotes.

 

Face it, slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians INTENTIONALLY no matter what the justification is a crime against humanity.

 

Say what you what you will of it. After being interested in WWII for years, I am the opinion that it saved time, lives, and money.

[TK-8252]

So? That does not mean they would surrender. Look at Germany. They were all but defeated in the last months of the war, but refused to surrender.

 

Yeah uh, we didn't have to drop two atomic bombs on their civilians though to get them to surrender. But ANY targetting of non-combatants is a war crime. It's that simple.

 

Given from what I've read about the war in the Pacific, you'll forgive me if I doubt the authenticity of some of those quotes.

 

Yes because I just made those up. Out of nothing. You caught me.

 

The sources are listed in this article:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Militarily_unnecessary

 

I copied and pasted those quotes from Wikipedia. Sue me.

 

Say what you what you will of it. After being interested in WWII for years, I am the opinion that it saved time, lives, and money.

 

It saved time, but certainly did NOT save lives and money. Japan was GOING TO SURRENDER ANYWAY. Just waiting for them to surrender from the internal and external pressures placed on Japan would have saved the most lives and money.

[Emperor Devon]

Yeah uh, we didn't have to drop two atomic bombs on their civilians though to get them to surrender. But ANY targetting of non-combatants is a war crime. It's that simple.

 

Yes, we had a long series of miserable battles that claimed millions of lives and were worse than two atomic bombs.

 

I copied and pasted those quotes from Wikipedia. Sue me.

 

The encyclopedia anyone can edit? I've seen it vandalized before. I'll be believe those quotes are authentic if you can get them from several reliable sources.

 

It saved time, but certainly did NOT save time and money.

 

I'll be specific. It saved our country money. Campaigns are very expensive.

 

Japan was GOING TO SURRENDER ANYWAY. Just waiting for them to surrender from the internal and external pressures placed on Japan would have saved the most lives and money.

 

Having thousands of troops in the Pacific was not a cheap thing to do. It would not have saved our country money. We also would've had to continue bombing Japan during that time, otherwise they would simply rebuild the factories we had destroyed earlier. If you're proposing that we should have just blockaded Japan and continued bombing till they surrendered, I don't think that would have worked. Again, look at what happened in Britain.

[TK-8252]

Yes, we had a long series of miserable battles that claimed millions of lives and were worse than two atomic bombs.

 

Miserable battles are typically part of a war. If you don't want miserable battles then don't fight in a war. That simple.

 

Nuking civilians in their cities is NOT part of a war. It's an act of terrorism.

 

The encyclopedia anyone can edit? I've seen it vandalized before. I'll be believe those quotes are authentic if you can get them from several reliable sources.

 

Holy **** dude. You can go to the sources provided on the Wikipedia article and SEE FOR YOURSELF. Wikipedia is just as authentic as any other source of information, and is by any standards more "fair and balanced" than anything you'll see on Faux News.

 

I'll be specific. It saved our country money. Campaigns are very expensive.

 

Oops, made a typo there. I meant to say that it did not save lives and money. Edited.

 

Again, look at what happened in Britain.

 

Britain wasn't weak and ready to surrender.

[Emperor Devon]

Miserable battles are typically part of a war. If you don't want miserable battles then don't fight in a war. That simple.

 

You are diverting away from the point. You said that we didn't have to use atomic bombs on Germany. I pointed that we didn't have to because we many long and miserable battles on the German's home soil.

 

Nuking civilians in their cities is NOT part of a war. It's an act of terrorism.

 

The civilians are irrelevant. Hiroshima and Nagaski were important cities to Japan's war effort, so we got rid of them. The civilians were there, and died in the blast. If they all went on holiday to the North Pole, we still would've bombed the cities. The psychological impact did help, though.

 

Wikipedia is just as authentic as any other source of information, and is by any standards more "fair and balanced" than anything you'll see on Faux News.

 

Anyone can edit Wikipedia whenver they want. I looked up the Franco-Prussian War, and it had been vandalized with the message 'i wanna go to france it sounds fun'.

 

Britain wasn't weak and ready to surrender.

 

That wasn't my point. I was saying that constant air strikes can't easily bring a country to its knees. Or they can and the country won't care. But the Japanese were extremely fanatical to their cause, and I doubt more bombings (that were not atomic ones), which had been going on for years, would have changed anything. Fanatics don't give up easily, and that's being proven right now.

[TK-8252]

You are diverting away from the point. You said that we didn't have to use atomic bombs on Germany. I pointed that we didn't have to because we many long and miserable battles on the German's home soil.

 

Right and like I said, that's part of war. If you want to beat your enemy, sorry pal, gotta play by the rules. That's how we do things in the civilized world.

 

The civilians are irrelevant. Hiroshima and Nagaski were important cities to Japan's war effort, so we got rid of them. The civilians were there, and died in the blast. If they all went on holiday to the North Pole, we still would've bombed the cities. The psychological impact did help, though.

 

Wow. The amount of sheer immorality and disregard for innocent life in this statement is truely overwhelming. That's all I can say in response to that.

 

Anyone can edit Wikipedia whenver they want. I looked up the Franco-Prussian War, and it had been vandalized with the message 'i wanna go to france it sounds fun'.

 

This statement seems to not make the slightest bit of sense.

 

The quotes from Wikipedia have LINKS TO THE SOURCES! The sources of the quotes are provided right there on the Wikipedia article. See for yourself.

 

It is stupid to say that because a vandal wrote in one stupid line to an otherwise pristine and factual article, it renders the entire article - as well as Wikipedia itself - as not a legitimate source of information.

 

That wasn't my point. I was saying that constant air strikes can't easily bring a country to its knees. Or they can and the country won't care. But the Japanese were extremely fanatical to their cause, and I doubt more bombings (that were not atomic ones), which had been going on for years, would have changed anything. Fanatics don't give up easily, and that's being proven right now.

 

Japan already was on its kees, and was already moving towards surrender. All the bombs did was - other than kill thousands of innocent people - speed up the process.

 

Stop trying to excuse terrorism and mass murder. I thought that most civilized people had learned that those things are bad.

[Ray Jones]

To those who agree with the bombings:

 

Just for one second, think about what it would be like if it was your country where the bombs were dropped.

[Tyrion]

Japan already was on its kees, and was already moving towards surrender. All the bombs did was - other than kill thousands of innocent people - speed up the process.

 

That's pure 20/20 hindsight though. Back in July 1945, the Japanese had proven they had no fear of death - the kamikaze attitude their military held proved that they would not back down so easily, especially considering how much of a hold their militaristic government had over the average Japanese citizen. It would've been likely, had Hirohito chosen to surrender without the leverage of the atomic explosions, the Japanes military leaders (as some had been planning at the time) would have commited a coup-de-tat and ursup his power. Piling that on top of the immense war weariness the Allies had, and the potential American soldiers and Japanese civilian deaths involved should Japan have decided to resist were nearly as large or larger than those killed in the atomic explosions. The atomic detonations, I believe, were the wisest solution at the time to show the Japanese we would win over them; whether in pressured diplomacy...or complete annihilation.

 

Just for one second, think about what it would be like if it was your country where the bombs were dropped.

 

That's the problem, however. You could apply that question to any aspect of war- "how would you feel if your town was carpet bombed?" "How would you feel if a motar shell burst open your home?" "How would you feel if a soldier had shot your civilian father in the midst of a urban battle?" Naturally, I would be greatly displeased and terrified should it happen to me, but while the most humanistic decision would be to not commit the acts...the world can at times not allow for peaceful solutions.

[Emperor Devon]

Right and like I said, that's part of war. If you want to beat your enemy, sorry pal, gotta play by the rules. That's how we do things in the civilized world.

 

I simply stated why we didn't use the bomb in Germany. These 'rules' you're mentioning I never brought up.

 

Wow. The amount of sheer immorality and disregard for innocent life in this statement is truely overwhelming. That's all I can say in response to that.

 

I am simply looking at the events of the bombings with a strategic view. Make of it what you will.

 

It is stupid to say that because a vandal wrote in one stupid line to an otherwise pristine and factual article, it renders the entire article - as well as Wikipedia itself - as not a legitimate source of information.

 

It's not that the article was vandalized, but the fact that it was. Most articles in Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. But our opinions on Wikipedia's reliability are not related to this topic.

 

All the bombs did was - other than kill thousands of innocent people - speed up the process.

 

Exactly.

 

Stop trying to excuse terrorism and mass murder. I thought that most civilized people had learned that those things are bad.

 

Terrorism, genocide, strategic losses, it doesn't matter what you call it. The simple fact is, bombs were dropped to speed up the inevitable and to save our country money, soldiers, and complications from Russia. The civilians were there and died as a side effect. Label it what you will.

[TK-8252]

That's pure 20/20 hindsight though.

 

No it is not, judging by the quotes I posted from Wikipedia. The U.S. knew very well that Japan was very weak.

 

It would've been likely, had Hirohito chosen to surrender without the leverage of the atomic explosions, the Japanes military leaders (as some had been planning at the time) would have commited a coup-de-tat and ursup his power.

 

Now THAT we don't know if it would happen.

 

Piling that on top of the immense war weariness the Allies had, and the potential American soldiers and Japanese civilian deaths involved should Japan have decided to resist were nearly as large or larger than those killed in the atomic explosions.

 

Again, I don't see why it's either "all-out ground invasion" or "nuke them all to hell." You put them in a box, like we had Saddam in.

 

The atomic detonations, I believe, were the wisest solution at the time to show the Japanese we would win over them; whether in diplomacy...or complete annihilation.

 

Yes because terrorism and mass murder is a wise solution.

 

The civilians were there and died as a side effect. Label it what you will.

 

Oh. So I guess the dead civilians were the "nausea and diarrhea" of the bombings. That makes perfect sense.

[Emperor Devon]

Oh. So I guess the dead civilians were the "nausea and diarrhea" of the bombings. That makes perfect sense.

 

That phrased it well.

[Tyrion]

No it is not, judging by the quotes I posted from Wikipedia. The U.S. knew very well that Japan was very weak.

 

It was weak, but not neccessarily ready to surrender. Last Days of the War - "In June, the cabinet reassessed the war strategy, only to decide more firmly than ever on a fight to the last man. This was officially affirmed at a brief Imperial Council meeting, to which the Emperor listened in stone-faced silence." In the same article subdivision, it mentions how food was in dire supply for the Japanese people. Many more civilians on their part would have died had the war lingered on.

 

Now THAT we don't know if it would happen.

 

Same article-

 

"The physical recording was hidden and preserved overnight despite a full military assault and takeover of the Imperial Palace by die-hard army fanatics which was crushed on the Emperor's order."

 

True, the military assault was crushed...but there would have still been the possibility there were more fanatics waiting to attack.

 

Again, I don't see why it's either "all-out ground invasion" or "nuke them all to hell." You put them in a box, like we had Saddam in.

 

What other solutions did we have? We couldn't very well leave them alone, as there was still the presence of a militaristic culture embedded within their society. We couldn't blockade them and let their people starve, as that would have been far more a humanitarian crisis and crime than the atomic bombings. More diplomatic solutions for surrender should have been exercise, I agree, but there were many variables that could go wrong at the time.

 

Yes because terrorism and mass murder is a wise solution.

 

I wonder, though, what counts as terrorism and mass murder. Is mass murder simply many deaths spread over years, or a million deaths within a day? Is terrorism the meticulous removal of all hope and security in a country over dreadful years, or a massive humbling and horrific elimination of two cities within a day?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

"In order to save our own asses, we must slaughter your country's innocent children."

That was the US's attitude, yes. And it's possible that they did it in part to show off (the "bigger dick"-statement).

 

But the end result is that it spared a good deal of American and Japanese lives. It saved the hides of the cities which were not destroyed, but which would be in ruins if a conventional war had to be fought. It spared what was left of the infrastructure of Japan so they could more easily re-build. It spared vast sums of money that would otherwise be used on the invasion and the subsequent battles.

 

You are forgetting the fact that Japan was for the most part already defeated and on the path to surrender BEFORE THE BOMBS WERE DROPPED.

On the path to surrender? That'd the be reason why they were training and arming their elderly and children to fight, German Volkstorm-style, then. Because they were ready to surrender.

 

Oh, and maybe you should've read the "Support" part of that Wiki' article as well as the "Opposition"-half. You'd come across this:

While some members of the civilian leadership did use covert diplomatic channels to begin negotiation for peace, on their own they could not negotiate surrender or even a cease-fire.

Looks to me like they were not ready to surrender more than the US is ready to pull out of Iraq. "Some" members of the leadership who "on their own could not negotiate even a seize-fire"?

 

Given from what I've read about the war in the Pacific, you'll forgive me if I doubt the authenticity of some of those quotes.

Me too.

 

I did try to look up the Nimitz quote, and the footnote pointed not to a credible source but to this biased essay which does not inform me of from where it got the quote.

 

Miserable battles are typically part of a war. If you don't want miserable battles then don't fight in a war. That simple.

But when you're in the war, surely you should try to avoid battle when they unnecessary. Or would you fight them even when you don't have to because "battles are part of war"?

 

Norway and Denmark were not invaded by the Allies in World War II. Why? Because Allied Command deemed it unneccessary to liberate us and focused their attention on France, Italy, Germany, and Africa.

 

Just for one second, think about what it would be like if it was your country where the bombs were dropped.

Appeal to emtion.

 

Just for one second, think about what it would be like if you lived in Normandie when the Allied forces invaded in June '44.

 

Does that make D-Day wrong?

 

But to answer the question, if I was in the city and survived, I'd be pretty furious. If I volunteered to aid the survivors and found myself with radiation sickness, I'd be reasonably angry. If I lived in another part of Japan and read about the horrors of Hiroshima, the news wouldn't make me happy.

 

But get this: If I was given a rifle and had to fight an American tidal wave of tanks, airplanes, troops, bombs, bombardment, naval blockades, and other contraptions of death, I'd not be happy about that either. Especially if the children and elderly I know had to fight, too.

 

Picture that - a random child you know with a rifle, killing Americans. Your favourite elderly person with a rocket launcher, sent to charge American tanks.

 

Not a happy picture.

 

You put them in a box, like we had Saddam in.

It didn't work on Cuba, it didn't work on Iraq, and it wouldn't work on Japan.

 

Edit:

 

More from Wikipedia: Operation Downfall - the planned invasion of Japan.

 

Scrolling down to "Estimated casualties for Downfall" reveals these cozy numbers (emphasis mine):

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities[*]. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

*In contrast, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima killed "only" 140 000 people, counting the number who died later from radiation.

 

Edit 2:

The civilians were there and died as a side effect. Label it what you will.

They were all Hizbollah fighters anyway:p.

[Ray Jones]

That's the problem, however. You could apply that question to any aspect of war- "how would you feel if your town was carpet bombed?" "How would you feel if a motar shell burst open your home?" "How would you feel if a soldier had shot your civilian father in the midst of a urban battle?" Naturally, I would be greatly displeased and terrified should it happen to me, but while the most humanistic decision would be to not commit the acts...the world can at times not allow for peaceful solutions.

That doesn't mean it was right nor necessary to drop these bombs. It just means that people are simply stupid.

 

A-bombs do much more than *just* killing some more people than other bombs do. Their impact on the environment is an endangerment to almost all forms of life, not just human life.

[Tyrion]

That doesn't mean it was right nor necessary to drop these bombs. It just means that people are simply stupid.

 

A-bombs do much more than *just* killing some more people than other bombs do. Their impact on the environment is an endangerment to almost all forms of life, not just human life.

 

Were the scientists well aware of the environmental impact then? I know they knew of the radiation and such, but I do remember accounts of how physiologists in the 50's would treat sinus infections with pellets of radium...

[toms]

*skips to end of thread*

 

One thing i always wondered was why they couldn't have dropped the bomb on some unpopulated bit of japan, rather than a city. I'd imagine it would still have made the same point.. and the japanese would still have realised that they had no chance against such firepower. Wouldn't they?

 

It'd be kind of like firing a warning shot and giving them a chance to surrender - before indescriminately hitting two cities and their civilian populations. Maybe it wouldn't have worked.. and then we'd have lost nothing.

 

Of course, all this is said with the benefit of hindsight.. and on the whole i think its unfair to second guess the decisions of people who were in a very different situation to us.

I'm not very keen on the carpet bombing carried out by Bomber Harris and the RAF, or holding that up as heroic... but on the other hand the UK was a tiny country, surrounded, outgunned, outnumbered and under daily attack. So i'm not going to condemn the actions of those who risked their lives to do what they felt needed to be done.

 

Kind of like Hamas really...