Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Was it right?

[Ray Jones]

Should the US have dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Yes.

 

Was there another means? Yes. Japan, the agressor in the war could have surrendered unconditionally. If they had done that, then the bombs wouldn't have been dropped. The second bomb could have been avoided as well had they accepted defeat and surrendered after the first bomb.

 

Japan may have been planning to surrender. The real question was how much longer would it have been. 300000 lives is still less than a third of the predicted AMERICAN lives. In fact if you tally the expected Japanese lives 300,000 is still far less than a full scale invasion would cost. Especially when you consider that preceeding an invasion would be greater than 5 days of heavy bombardment and shelling from the battleships.

That's like saying the WTC attack was necessary because it resulted in the invasion of Iraq and to the downfall of the evil dictatorship lead by Saddam Hussein.

[*Don*]

Or maybe you'll see that the lack of respect isn't tied to Bush.

 

Thats also possible...

Depends on each country i guess...

[Web Rider]

That's like saying the WTC attack was necessary because it resulted in the invasion of Iraq and to the downfall of the evil dictatorship lead by Saddam Hussein.

what? that doesn't even make any sense. I mean...no, just, no. That statement does not make any sense in the slightest! And stop comparing 9/11 to WWII, they are not the same, not even close and they never will be.

[Ray Jones]

Yes, just yes. It makes as much sense as

Japan, the agressor in the war could have surrendered unconditionally. If they had done that, then the bombs wouldn't have been dropped. The second bomb could have been avoided as well had they accepted defeat and surrendered after the first bomb.

 

Japan may have been planning to surrender. The real question was how much longer would it have been. 300000 lives is still less than a third of the predicted AMERICAN lives. In fact if you tally the expected Japanese lives 300,000 is still far less than a full scale invasion would cost. Especially when you consider that preceeding an invasion would be greater than 5 days of heavy bombardment and shelling from the battleships.

 

And I did *NOT* compare WWII and 911. I compared two statements of which both are nonsense and stupid.

[Totenkopf]

Actually, Web is quite right that your statement doesn't make any sense. By July of 1945 the war had dragged on over a decade in the Pacific and almost 4 years for the Americans with seemingly no end in sight. The horror most people reserve for hiroshima and nagasaki is mostly from hindsight and a better understanding of just what nukes will do to people and the environment. A dramatic measure was needed to get the Japanese to come to their senses. The dropping of the two atom bombs was just the very thing that finally moved the Emperor to sue for peace and force an end to the militarist's plan for continued struggle. Had the war continued w/o the dropping of the bombs, the Japanese in China would have crumbled under the onslaught of the Red army as easily as they'd been defeated at Nomanhan in '37 by Gen Zhukov, the same general that pushed the Nazis back to Germany. The mainland would have suffered more depravation as disease and hunger crippled the civilian population. One other thing that kept the use of the bombs from being unthinkable was that only one country then possessed them (and the Japs/Krauts would have used them had they developed their own). The realization of what even low yield bombs would do today coupled with their proliferation globally is mostly what makes the thought of using nukes (nevermind chem/bio) verboten.

[Web Rider]

Yes, just yes. It makes as much sense as

 

And I did *NOT* compare WWII and 911. I compared two statements of which both are nonsense and stupid.

 

no, no you didn't.

 

Japan surrenders when offered unconditional surrender before the Bombing.

no bombs dropped.

same thing happens as as if the bombs were dropped(Japan is reformed, ect..)

 

AlQueda attacks the Twin Towers

The US invades Iraq and topples Saddam.

Iraq is reformed.

 

Notice how in the first situation, the attack comes AFTER the action(the war in which we wanted the Japanese to surrender after the Germans fell), while with 9/11 the attack somes before the war in which we invaded saddam.

 

The first statement makes sense, if Japan had surrendered before the bombs were dropped as we offered, none would be used.

[mimartin]

Mimartin- I never in my post intended to justify the Iraq war with my post.

Did not say you did. I’m just saying that every generation has their demons and we are not any better or worse than that generation. You want to blame Truman for dropping the bombs. Truman was kept in the dark during most of the Manhattan Project. This information was only sprung on him after Roosevelt’s death. He was given a way out of the all out invasion of Japan and the horrific death toll perditions. No matter his belief in the value of human life, the President of the United States duty as Commander and Chef of the armed forces first priority must be to the citizens of the United States of America. So in a mission to protect American and Allied lives President Truman ordered the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima. The bomb was dropped on August 6, 1945, the Japanese had plenty of time to surrender, but when they did not a second bomb was dropped on August 9, 1945; still they did not announce their surrender till August 15, 1945. Makes you wonder what would have happened if we had more working bombs at the time. Would Kokura and Niigata have suffered the same fate?

 

According to most reports Japan’s conditions for surrender were the preservation of government, they would disarm themselves, no occupation and they would prosecute their own war criminals. These conditions would have been unacceptable to most Americans at the time. Would Americans today accept al-Qaeda’s surrender under similar conditions?

 

It happened in the past, was the fault of our government, not ourselves, and cleaning up all nuclear radiation from an A-bomb is really hard to do.[/Quote] We have helped. The world can say a lot of things about America, but the aftermath of World War II is something I am extremely proud of in my country’s history. We did not seize lands, we helped heal the wounds of war and rebuild two nations.

[Ray Jones]

Japan surrenders when offered unconditional surrender before the Bombing.

no bombs dropped.

same thing happens as as if the bombs were dropped(Japan is reformed, ect..)

But Japan didn't surrender, and what happened happened. We don't know what had happened if the bombs weren't dropped. It is pointless from any aspect to argue that the bombs saved any lives.

 

Notice how in the first situation, the attack comes AFTER the action(the war in which we wanted the Japanese to surrender after the Germans fell), while with 9/11 the attack somes before the war in which we invaded saddam.

I am very well aware of that fact. However, that is not up for discussion.

 

The first statement makes sense, if Japan had surrendered before the bombs were dropped as we offered, none would be used.

If when had will only make us mad. XD

 

The point is, none of the above "facts" justifies the use of the a-bomb. That is all.

[Totenkopf]

Would you have been happier if we'd resorted to continuous fire bombing instead? Like it or not, it is a fact that dropping two atomic bombs ended the war. A war that was quite expensive in human lives already. Would you have preferred the butcher bill had been higher so that you could say we'd never used an a-bomb? We do know what would have happened had we not used the bombs, the war would have ground on and the Russians would have killed more Japanese than died in either city. It seems that they were not as squeamish when it came to the prospect of killing as some people. Look at how they prosecuted their war on the eastern front (w/relation to their views on the value of human life) and you'll have a clue as to how expensive the alternative looked. W/o the emperor coming to realize how futile contiued resistance was, the code of bushido would have demanded that millions of Japanese sacrifice themselves in the emperor's name for the sake of honor.

[mimartin]

It is pointless from any aspect to argue that the bombs saved any lives. [/Quote] No, the bombs did not save lives. Bombs are not designed to save lives, they are designed to kill and damage infrastructure. The bombs and Russia declaring war on Japan force Japan to surrender unconditionally. The surrender saved lives.

We don't know what had happened if the bombs weren't dropped.

Some people of my faith believe when it is your time to die, you will die no matter your actions. Perhaps those people would have suddenly dropped dead with or without the devastation caused by the bombs. I however find that hard to believe, but I do know we would have invaded Japan and people would have died without the unconditional surrender.

 

Truman was using the same estimates when making his decision without the complete understanding of the true Japanese strength or intentions. He had already signed the orders for Operation Downfall to proceed. Pretty safe bet the invasion of Japan would have taken place. We know Japan was prepared for the invasion, we now know their true strength and even that they had already ascertain the location of the landing. Pretty safe bet that casualties would have been extremely high, even higher than the 1000 men per hour estimate given, they knew the exact location of the landing. I doubt the Emperor would have taken a sleeping pill and not been able order in the reserves in order to throw the Allies back into the sea, but you never know strange things like that happen it war.

 

The point is, none of the above "facts" justifies the use of the a-bomb. That is all.

No, they don't, but the "facts" do help you understand why an American President order the bombs use. He wasn’t doing it to prove we could, President Truman was doing it to prevent more Americans from dying in the invasion of Japan.

[Ray Jones]

A war that was quite expensive in human lives already. Would you have preferred the butcher bill had been higher so that you could say we'd never used an a-bomb?

A million bombs don't hurt our environment as nearly as one a-bomb. End of story.

[mimartin]

As is the case today, the environment was not a major concern of the U.S. government in the 1940s. There was also no study into the environmental impact of nuclear weapons before their use. For proof just look at the people involved in the development and the testing to see how concern we were for the environment. The Manhattan Project only had one field of study and that was creating a working bomb before the enemy did. The cost or any other human concerns including the environment were merely an after thought.

[Rev7]

Okay...well as Jae pointed out, these bombings did happen during a time of war. Today, by what we know about the bombs, one could easily say that it was the wrong thing to do. But back then they really didn't know much about the affects, so to say.

 

So I guess that you could say that I really don't know how to answer this question.

[Tommycat]

That's like saying the WTC attack was necessary because it resulted in the invasion of Iraq and to the downfall of the evil dictatorship lead by Saddam Hussein.

Not even close. Not even the same ball park. Not even the same game.

 

I'm not going to go into the justification for the Iraq war, because the justifications for Iraq are still HIGHLY debatable, however, let me point out the major flaws.

 

Japan had already attacked us. We were already engaged in a very lengthy conflict causing 1000+ deaths per day, on our side alone.

 

Iraq had not attacked us. AlQueda is not Iraq. Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH ALQUEDA(please everyone make a note of that... especially my fellow conservatives)! Even had the WTC attack not happened we would likely have attacked Iraq(gosh some people really need to pay more attention to the news). the 9/11 attacks did lead us to attack Afghanistan(as the Taliban leaders there strongly supported Al Q), so if you want to link any country to the WTC attacks, please point there.

 

Al Queda was the aggressor in the WTC attacks. The US was not engaged in a war with Al Q prior to that.

 

Here's a corrected version for you:

The Taliban in Afghanistan could have avoided being removed from power if they had simply surrendered Al Queda to the US after the WTC attacks.

 

See how that works.

 

And if you think that a million bombs reigning down on any area of land don't affect the environment as much as one "A" bomb, you really need to wake up. Cost in human lives, Chemical factories, fuel depots, and a host of other really bad side effects can damage the land far worse than the a bombs did. And quite frankly I put human lives above the environment any day(if given the choice between the lesser of two evils).

[Arcesious]

Off topic on the Iraq war:

 

(I think that the reason we had to bomb them is because the Al Queda wouldn't leave otherwise. They wouldn't surrender and come out. They hide in all those buildings, in cracks and under rocks, holding civilians hostage and whatnot, and there's no way to get them out without suffering casualties to our side, so our only choice is to kill both them and the innocent people. We don't use our own men as cannon fodder for snipers and grenadiers, so the only choice is to bomb them.)

 

On topic:

 

I'm changing my opinion in this matter. The bombing IMO was the right choice, but that may change if later posts persuade me.

[Tommycat]

I would say the most positive thing to come from the use of the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that we saw the horror that is the atomic bomb, and we have never used it again.

[Totenkopf]

A million bombs don't hurt our environment as nearly as one a-bomb. End of story.

 

You're overstating your case. No doubt that's why people still live in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

[SilentScope001]

Well, I think you discussed this before, but...

 

I can't believe you guys are worried about the A-Bomb when America committed massive firebombings in both Germany and Japan that has the potential to kill far more people.

 

The Tokyo firebombing killed 100,000 people. That's just Tokyo, other areas of Japan were bombed heavily too. In comparison, Hiroshima directly killed 75,000.

 

If the atomic bomb is evil because of the death it caused, let ban firebombs too.

[Web Rider]

But Japan didn't surrender, and what happened happened. We don't know what had happened if the bombs weren't dropped. It is pointless from any aspect to argue that the bombs saved any lives.

Again...you continue to male illogical, unsupported statements. You say: history is a fact. Okay, lets assume history is straight facts. Did soldiers who were assigned to invade Japan before the decision to drop be the Bombs not get killed by Japanese in an invasion of Japan? As Mimartin says, bombs never save lives, the surrender that stemmed from the use of the bomb saved lives.

The answer is yes. Lives were saved, both of the Japanese and American because instead of invasion, it was the Bomb.

Fact: Japan was told to unconditionally surrender after the defeat of Germany.

Fact: Japan was not planning on any kind of unconditional surrender.

Fact: Japan's military and citizens had a "fight to the death" attitude.

Fact: an invasion of Japan was planned before Truman was informed of the Bomb being ready.

Fact: the Bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Fact: these Bombs caused Japan to surrender uncontitionally.

Fact: because of this, no invasion of Japan took place.

Fact: because no invasion took place, no soldiers or citizens on either side were killed during an invasion or the extensive bombing campaign that would have accompanied it.

Fact: because of the unconditional surrender and the changes made to Japan's culture and government as a result placed them in a great position in the world today.

 

I am very well aware of that fact. However, that is not up for discussion.

When you are making contextually inaccurate statements, you are proposing that something is debatable, something that must be corrected. You are not right simply because you say so.

 

If when had will only make us mad. XD

 

The point is, none of the above "facts" justifies the use of the a-bomb. That is all.

No, the fact is that you have expressed nothing more than your opinion, without the aid of facts, figures, estimates and statements from the time. You assumed what you believed to be true, to actually be true, and then told me I am wrong. If you would like to put up some estimates that state that more lives were lost than the lives estimated spared because of the Bombing, please do so.

 

Until you decide to support your argument with the FACTS from HISTORY that you claim to be the absolute truth, I will ignore your statements.

 

Well, I think you discussed this before, but...

I can't believe you guys are worried about the A-Bomb when America committed massive firebombings in both Germany and Japan that has the potential to kill far more people.

The Tokyo firebombing killed 100,000 people. That's just Tokyo, other areas of Japan were bombed heavily too. In comparison, Hiroshima directly killed 75,000.

If the atomic bomb is evil because of the death it caused, let ban firebombs too.

I very much agree, there are far WORSE things that were done by many sides in the war. We are ignoring important issues by focusing on sensationalism.

[The Betrayer]

As said, it saved lives. It ended the war more quickly. But the point is, it is not right. The ends don't justify the means. If you kill a guy and save 30 people, you still killed a guy. That doesn't make the crime more or less forgivable. The point is, U.S. killed people of 2 cities for it's own skin.

[Ray Jones]

And if you think that a million bombs reigning down on any area of land don't affect the environment as much as one "A" bomb, you really need to wake up.

I didn't say it won't affect the environment in any way. I said it doesn't even come close to atomic bombing. My mother studied nuclear physics, so I'm pretty much into that whole topic, and I guarantee you, I am not the one that needs to wake up.

 

Cost in human lives, Chemical factories, fuel depots, and a host of other really bad side effects can damage the land far worse than the a bombs did.

Oh, so a-bombs don't cost human lives, destroy chemical factories, fuel depots and all that stuff that normal bombs might or might not miss? Hm.

 

Only two a-bombs almost completely wiped two cities including at least a hundred thousand of people within seconds, and leaving at least another hundred thousand to die under unspeakable sufferings within the next weeks.

 

The bombings of Dresden and Hamburg caused 75000 to die, in London "only" 50000 died even though the Germans dropped their bombs in over 50 nights in a row.

 

In WWII about half a million people were killed due to the bombings over Europe with like 3 or 4 million tons of bombs dropped in about 1 million sorties. Even if you'd assume all of them were 4 ton bombs that'd be still like 1 million bombs.

 

In Germany alone about 100 cities were bombed.

 

 

I dare sum up:

 

- 2 a-bombs over 2 cities on 2 days resulting in 200000 immediately killed persons, totalling in 500000 over the following years.

 

vs.

 

- Over 1 million bombs dropped over 100 cities in 6 years killed 500000.

 

 

 

Way to go to "save lives" with atom bombs.

 

And quite frankly I put human lives above the environment any day

Because you don't need it, correct?

 

(if given the choice between the lesser of two evils).

And who decides that half a million deaths and radioactive contamination effecting *all* life for years, next to other long term effects like cancer, miscarriage, genetic defects, sterility is the lesser evil compared to lets say 1 million "conventional deaths"?

 

Also, the Vietnam war caused 3 million deaths in 15 years and in Iraq about 1 million people died in now 5 years. Afghanistan war caused 1 million deaths in 10 years and the Korean war killed about 2 million in 3 years. That's about 600000 per year "at best".

 

So, unless you want to argue that Japan would have been able and willing to fight at least another year against the US and Russia, we're not anywhere near the 500000 deaths (including late term consequences etc) due to the a-bombs. The US did not lose that many lives during the *whole* WWII.

 

 

No doubt that's why people still live in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Haha, that one is good.

[mimartin]

Casualty Projects are just that projection. They are by no means correct, but are the best estimates available when planning an operation. I believe the U.S. military’s estimates were a little more scientific than yours. Here is how they came to their conclusions. Again I’m not disputing that these are merely estimates, but they are what Truman used when making his decision, so they are relevant.

 

Here is a rather long article explaining how the U.S. military came up with their estimates for the invasion of Japan. CASUALTY PROJECTIONS FOR THE U.S. INVASIONS OF JAPAN, 1945-1946: PLANNING AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS by D. M. Giangreco

[Ray Jones]

I did not project, I read history numbers, which is obviously the other way around. And I talked about death persons, not casualty numbers which do involve not just that.

 

If I had done that I had started with mentioning that alone during the tests for the a-bombs hundreds of people, including many US soldiers, got contaminated and/or suffered from the consequences for the environment.

[Totenkopf]

Frankly, Ray, mimartin and others are right that you're only looking at one side of the equation. Nobody is saying that a nuke is less deadly than a conventional bomb, just that the use of two pitifully underpowered ones (by modern standards) was the direct cause for the Japanese surrendering and not dragging out an already lost cause. I'd say you ought to at least look at the above link and reconsider your argument.

 

As said, it saved lives. It ended the war more quickly. But the point is, it is not right. The ends don't justify the means. If you kill a guy and save 30 people, you still killed a guy. That doesn't make the crime more or less forgivable. The point is, U.S. killed people of 2 cities for it's own skin.

 

Depends on the reason you killed the 1 to save 30. Not sure what to make of your final statement beyond dismissing it as utterly naive drivel. Any nation fighting a war tries to win it by bringing the enemy around to recognizing it's been defeated. It saves the lives, indirectly, of many who don't have to die when the goal is accomplished.

[Inyri]

I think you're missing the point, Toten. No one's asking if it was 'the right decision,' or whether it ended the war. It's an ethical/moral question. It saved lives, yes, but was it morally an acceptable decision? Answer that question.