Atomic bombing of Japan.....Justified or Not?

[Heilige]

I believe the atomic bombs on Jaoan during WWII were unjustified and here is why....

1. Hiroshima was a civilian target, not a military target. Thousands of innocent lives were destroyed and thousands of others suffered the lifelong effects of radiation poisoning.

2. It wasn't necessary to drop the atomic bomb to make Japan surrender. The Japanese were ready to discuss termsm of a conditional surrender in May 1945, but the United States and its Allies stubbornly insisted on unconditional surrender.

3. The atomic bomb was different from conventional bombs and should not have been used because the radiation poisoning it caused lasted for years.

4. U.S. President Harry S. Truman was wrong in saying that an invasion of Japan (as am alternative to using the atomic bomb) would have resulted in the deaths of 500,000 soldiers. The more likely figure is 40,000, which is far fewer than the thousands of people killed in Hiroshima.

5. Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was not justified because all of the reasonable alternatives had not been considered.

6. The bomb could have been dropped on strictly military target, saving thousands of civilian lives.

7. The Russian declaration of war on Japan would have led to Japan's surrender.

8. The Japanese emperor wanted to end the war.

What is everyone else's thoughts on this controversial issue?

[geeWiz15]

probably not but man was Truman a badass or what? I mean sure, we all think, "you know what, screw this war, let's just ****ing nuke them all to smithereens," but who actually does it??

too bad all the terrorists don't just form a nation of Terrorstan and move there or we could nuke that and be done with it.

[VCDrivesAPorscheToWork]

the US was island hopping and had a clear path to invading Tokyo.


but the US Military led by Genreal Douglas McArthur surveyed the defenses around Tokyo and speculated that even with a full aerial and infanty assault, there could have been over one million casualities in total for a potential invasion of Tokyo.


therefore, they used the bomb.



though a few issues with the bomb was why not drop it in an unpopulated area? because back then no one knew how deadly it was. so they took out an important war machine city in Hiroshima and Nagasaki


justified killing people? hardly. but to stop a war? close. this is one of those cases in which the few was sacrified for the good of the many

[VCDrivesAPorscheToWork]

the US was island hopping and had a clear path to invading Tokyo.


but the US Military led by Genreal Douglas McArthur surveyed the defenses around Tokyo and speculated that even with a full aerial and infanty assault, there could have been over one million casualities in total for a potential invasion of Tokyo.


therefore, they used the bomb.



though a few issues with the bomb was why not drop it in an unpopulated area? because back then no one knew how deadly it was. so they took out an important war machine city in Hiroshima and Nagasaki


justified killing people? hardly. but to stop a war? close. this is one of those cases in which the few was sacrified for the good of the many

[different107]

Yes and No. The American people wanted the war to be over, and if the US had to invade Japan, it would have been a fight to the death - Thousands upon thousands of American soldiers would have died. Keep in mind that on Iwo Jima along the US had 4,197 soldiers killed, and the Japanese (out of 22,000 soldiers) had 20,703 killed. The Japanese were not just about to give up.

Hiroshima was picked as a target for several reasons. I got this off Wikipedia
"At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of some industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb. Another account stresses that after General Spaatz reported that Hiroshima was the only targeted city without prisoner of war (POW) camps, Washington decided to assign it highest priority."

I agree with you about the fact that civilian deaths and the ensuing radiation poisoning were not justifiedd though.

So ya. My answer is Yes and No.

[VCDrivesAPorscheToWork]

but to formally add my two cents:

1. Hiroshima was a civilian target, not a military target. Thousands of innocent lives were destroyed and thousands of others suffered the lifelong effects of radiation poisoning.
Hiroshima was an important naval city. Moreover, no one knew what an atomic bomb could do. simply destroying a military installation would not have been impressive enough. remember there were only a few atomic bombs at the time. They had to send a strong message

2. It wasn't necessary to drop the atomic bomb to make Japan surrender. The Japanese were ready to discuss termsm of a conditional surrender in May 1945, but the United States and its Allies stubbornly insisted on unconditional surrender.
the thing is Japan committed countless atrocities in Asia. Rape of Nanking mean anything? it could arguably be as bad as the Holocaust. Japanese would raid China, kill the men, stab the wounded with bayonets. gang rape the women and take them as sex slaves. hell they even gang raped family matriarchs in their 60s. burn the crops and salt the earth... the Allies needed to cut the head off of the serpent so it could not regrow ever again. Unconditional surrender was not unreasonable.
3. The atomic bomb was different from conventional bombs and should not have been used because the radiation poisoning it caused lasted for years.
It was either this or prolonged warfare.
4. U.S. President Harry S. Truman was wrong in saying that an invasion of Japan (as am alternative to using the atomic bomb) would have resulted in the deaths of 500,000 soldiers. The more likely figure is 40,000, which is far fewer than the thousands of people killed in Hiroshima.
other sources say up to 1,000,000 total casualties, including civilians. since we both have no clear citations, let's leave this out of the argument for now

5. Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was not justified because all of the reasonable alternatives had not been considered.
Elaborate please. what were the other alternatives?

6. The bomb could have been dropped on strictly military target, saving thousands of civilian lives.
Read #1

7. The Russian declaration of war on Japan would have led to Japan's surrender.
CONDITIONAL surrender maybe.

8. The Japanese emperor wanted to end the war.
the Emperor is merely a figurehead of the people and wanted it to stop. the warlords were in control.

[thejoyofsobe]

though a few issues with the bomb was why not drop it in an unpopulated area? because back then no one knew how deadly it was. so they took out an important war machine city in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Nagasaki definitely was a major industrial city and port but Hiroshima was only a minor and logistics base. Hiroshima was left deliberately untouched by Allied bombers prior to the dropping of the first atomic weapon so they could have an ideal place to gauge the destructive force.





To the topic at hand:
I don't think there is anyway you can justify using nuclear weapons on cities. It's directly targeting the civilian population. If they were used on military targets, I wouldn't take issue with their use. I am just as strongly opposed to the firebombings of cities in Germany and Japan that clearly were aimed to incite terror in and annihilate the civilian population not to destroy the Axis war machine. I don't think you have to become a monster to defeat a monster.

[VCDrivesAPorscheToWork]

the killing of civilians is never justified.


but in war, these things can be given more fancy labels and be passed off as "necessary."

[Heilige]

but to formally add my two cents:

1. Hiroshima was a civilian target, not a military target. Thousands of innocent lives were destroyed and thousands of others suffered the lifelong effects of radiation poisoning.
Hiroshima was an important naval city. Moreover, no one knew what an atomic bomb could do. simply destroying a military installation would not have been impressive enough. remember there were only a few atomic bombs at the time. They had to send a strong message

2. It wasn't necessary to drop the atomic bomb to make Japan surrender. The Japanese were ready to discuss termsm of a conditional surrender in May 1945, but the United States and its Allies stubbornly insisted on unconditional surrender.
the thing is Japan committed countless atrocities in Asia. Rape of Nanking mean anything? it could arguably be as bad as the Holocaust. Japanese would raid China, kill the men, stab the wounded with bayonets. gang rape the women and take them as sex slaves. hell they even gang raped family matriarchs in their 60s. burn the crops and salt the earth... the Allies needed to cut the head off of the serpent so it could not regrow ever again. Unconditional surrender was not unreasonable.
3. The atomic bomb was different from conventional bombs and should not have been used because the radiation poisoning it caused lasted for years.
It was either this or prolonged warfare.
4. U.S. President Harry S. Truman was wrong in saying that an invasion of Japan (as am alternative to using the atomic bomb) would have resulted in the deaths of 500,000 soldiers. The more likely figure is 40,000, which is far fewer than the thousands of people killed in Hiroshima.
other sources say up to 1,000,000 total casualties, including civilians. since we both have no clear citations, let's leave this out of the argument for now

5. Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was not justified because all of the reasonable alternatives had not been considered.
Elaborate please. what were the other alternatives?

6. The bomb could have been dropped on strictly military target, saving thousands of civilian lives.
Read #1

7. The Russian declaration of war on Japan would have led to Japan's surrender.
CONDITIONAL surrender maybe.

8. The Japanese emperor wanted to end the war.
the Emperor is merely a figurehead of the people and wanted it to stop. the warlords were in control.


You made some good points VC. I'm glad to see peopel giving their views in this thread.

[different107]

To the topic at hand:
I don't think there is anyway you can justify using nuclear weapons on cities. It's directly targeting the civilian population. If they were used on military targets, I wouldn't take issue with their use. I am just as strongly opposed to the firebombings of cities in Germany and Japan that clearly were aimed to incite terror in and annihilate the civilian population not to destroy the Axis war machine. I don't think you have to become a monster to defeat a monster.

We firebombed Tokyo during WWII to burn their plants and such not to incite terror.

[Zombles]

yes and no. We could have used the blockade to starve them into submission just as easily as the nukes did. Who knows if that would have led to more or less deaths.

but uh nuking Nagasaki is a lot harder to justify than Hiroshima. Probably should have given them some more time to consider surrender. And probably rushed the bombing because of the USSR's declaration of war.

[VCDrivesAPorscheToWork]

couldnt the Japanese navy fight through the blockade? the Allies would have had to cripple their naval force first correct?

[different107]

couldnt the Japanese navy fight through the blockade? the Allies would have had to cripple their naval force first correct?

By that point in the war the Imperial Navy was pretty much nothing. From the Battle of Midway on the US had a good control over the Pacific because the Japanese lost 4 carriers there.

[VCDrivesAPorscheToWork]

well then it could be argued that the Allies merely wanted to flex their muscle a bit.

plus blockading them may have caused the suffering of many more because of how stubborn the Japanese could have been...



but no way to tell for sure. hindsight is 20/20

[Zombles]

couldnt the Japanese navy fight through the blockade? the Allies would have had to cripple their naval force first correct?

After Midway the Japanese Navy was very inferior. By 1943 we had a partial submarine blockade on Japan and by 1945 we had complete sumbarine chains, unrivaled naval supremacy in the Pacific, and unrivaled air supremacy over Japan itself.

The blockade had been going on for some time, many Historians argue Japan was already on the brink of starvation.

but like you said who knows if that would have been better.

[thejoyofsobe]

We firebombed Tokyo during WWII to burn their plants and such not to incite terror.It's estimated that 72,489 civilians were killed in the Tokyo firebombing. To give that a little context the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are estimated to have instantly killed 80 thousand and 70 thousand, respectively. There are no vast fields of crops in the major metropolitan city of Tokyo where the majority of the houses were constructed of wood and paper.

[different107]

It's estimated that 72,489 civilians were killed in the Tokyo firebombing. To give that a little context the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are estimated to have instantly killed 80 thousand and 70 thousand, respectively. There are no vast fields of crops in the major metropolitan city of Tokyo where the majority of the houses were constructed of wood and paper.

The population of Japanese cities at that time was almost unreal. A bombing of any sort would have ended in mass civilian casualties.

[thejoyofsobe]

The population of Japanese cities at that time was almost unreal. A bombing of any sort would have ended in mass civilian casualties.A conventional bombing raid might kill a few hundred at a maximum, not over 70 thousand leaving hundreds of thousands homeless.

[PureElement]

I used to think it was not justifiable, but a documentary from the history channel was pretty convincing. The Jap civilians were prepared to fight to the very end and there were people committing suicide just to escape capture. Most Japanese were so brainwashed at the time they rather die then be captured. A full invasion would have cost more lives on both sides. What I don't like was the SECOND nuclear bomb. The government barely had time to react after the first, they would have surrendered in a matter of days IMO, especially with the Soviets approaching the Japanese mainland.

[AIR_ball_Jordan]

but to formally add my two cents:

1. Hiroshima was a civilian target, not a military target. Thousands of innocent lives were destroyed and thousands of others suffered the lifelong effects of radiation poisoning.
Hiroshima was an important naval city. Moreover, no one knew what an atomic bomb could do. simply destroying a military installation would not have been impressive enough. remember there were only a few atomic bombs at the time. They had to send a strong message

Hiroshima is an important city. however, the U.S. did know what the Atomic bomb would do. As they already test designating one already. Also, there is very little way that the bomb would be able to drop on one important military base. There's few reasons:
1. It's 1944.. there's no percise bombing. and there's very little way to make sure you hit on your target with ONE bomb.
2. Due to the power of the bomb, there's very little way to destroy a base without suffering civilian caualities.
3. U.S. doesn't know where the important Japanese base are. A lot of important Japanese had been moved underground.
4. U.S want to keep the emperor's power to maintain control of the country.


2. It wasn't necessary to drop the atomic bomb to make Japan surrender. The Japanese were ready to discuss termsm of a conditional surrender in May 1945, but the United States and its Allies stubbornly insisted on unconditional surrender.
the thing is Japan committed countless atrocities in Asia. Rape of Nanking mean anything? it could arguably be as bad as the Holocaust. Japanese would raid China, kill the men, stab the wounded with bayonets. gang rape the women and take them as sex slaves. hell they even gang raped family matriarchs in their 60s. burn the crops and salt the earth... the Allies needed to cut the head off of the serpent so it could not regrow ever again. Unconditional surrender was not unreasonable.

3. The atomic bomb was different from conventional bombs and should not have been used because the radiation poisoning it caused lasted for years.
It was either this or prolonged warfare.


4. U.S. President Harry S. Truman was wrong in saying that an invasion of Japan (as am alternative to using the atomic bomb) would have resulted in the deaths of 500,000 soldiers. The more likely figure is 40,000, which is far fewer than the thousands of people killed in Hiroshima.
other sources say up to 1,000,000 total casualties, including civilians. since we both have no clear citations, let's leave this out of the argument for now

Again, beside that 1 million casualities that U.S would suffer. Japanese would also lose all of it power. And U.S actually want to keep the emperor in power.


5. Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was not justified because all of the reasonable alternatives had not been considered.
Elaborate please. what were the other alternatives?


6. The bomb could have been dropped on strictly military target, saving thousands of civilian lives.
Read #1

7. The Russian declaration of war on Japan would have led to Japan's surrender.
CONDITIONAL surrender maybe.

Russian would pull the old trick "Declare war on Japan but does nothing physically, waiting for U.S and Japan to wear each other out." and The European Allies have no power or resource to countinue the fighting half way around the Earth. Either way it's gonna be U.S fighting alone.


8. The Japanese emperor wanted to end the war.
the Emperor is merely a figurehead of the people and wanted it to stop. the warlords were in control.

Finally, the second most important of the bomb is a demostration of U.S. military power. A warning and pre-caution to the Soviet Union.

[The_Masterplan]

probably not but man was Truman a badass or what? I mean sure, we all think, "you know what, screw this war, let's just ****ing nuke them all to smithereens," but who actually does it??

too bad all the terrorists don't just form a nation of Terrorstan and move there or we could nuke that and be done with it.

he went into his room and cried afterwards...

ON WWII though, I dont think the Americans "saved" britain's ass but just saved them in europe. Germany couldve never taken over England as it was shown before they couldnt get across the english channel.

Remember that the US didnt even help that much in WWI so i think it was just a trade back sort of deal.

[different107]

Another think to think about was the response of the crew of the Enola Gay. After seeing the destruction caused, Col. Tibbets (The pilot) said, "My God, what have we done."

[Cavs Fan]

These two cites were chosen because they were the 2 most significant military cites that hadn't seen bombing yet. The US military was looking for a virgin target so they could examine the full extent of the damage caused by an atom bomb. Plain and simple.

[boozehound]

Nobody has mentioned the recent declaration of war by the USSR? We wanted to stop them from landgrabbing in the Japanese islands (like in Eastern Europe) so we used a tactic to end the war more quickly. Truman remains one of my favorite preseidents (not because of the bomb). Nice avatar VC

[InspiredLebowski]

These spambots use the oddest threads

[jbot]

it was revenge for Pearl Harbor.

[Sarcastic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sc4Ftvu5Og

Sorry to inject humor into the thread, but this is funny and slightly relevant.

[Rasheed1]

No it wasnt justified....

they were innocent people who we bombed.... ever seen some of the pictures?

[Se]

Justified. It was da bomb!

Seriously though, I don't think war should ever involve civilians. Japan did attack civilians first at Pearl Harbour, so I wouldn't say it was justified, more so necessary.

Japan is a great place today, and I'm not too sure if I would exist if Japan had've taken over the South Pacific (as was the plan).

In this instance.... go America and go Atomic Bombs!

[DaniloGallinari]

Not justified. Anybody saying it was justified has serious problems. Are you a devil or a human? No being should be killed unless they deserve it. A ruthless killer deserves to be tortured and killed. A child that just learned to speak should not be killed as he innocently sleeps in one of the cities bombed.

**** humans trying to make cases for this actually being acceptable.

[Eggy]

Another think to think about was the response of the crew of the Enola Gay. After seeing the destruction caused, Col. Tibbets (The pilot) said, "My God, what have we done."
Col. Tibbets didn't say that. Commander Lewis did.

[Fatal9]

Completely unjustified and a war crime. I'm sure most Americans think it was justified because it was so "badass" though.

[Eggy]

Not justified. Anybody saying it was justified has serious problems. Are you a devil or a human? No being should be killed unless they deserve it. A ruthless killer deserves to be tortured and killed. A child that just learned to speak should not be killed as he innocently sleeps in one of the cities bombed.

**** humans trying to make cases for this actually being acceptable.
It's war. Thousands of Americans lives were saved by the use it.

[DaniloGallinari]

Completely unjustified. I'm sure most Americans think it was justified because it was so "badass" though.

You might make an average post, but it is quickly turned to shit after you keep typing away. The longer your posts, the more chances for your stupidity to show. Stick to short posts.

[DaniloGallinari]

It's war. Thousands of Americans lives were saved by the use it.

HA!! You're one of those? Us or them? As if Japan even had anything left. They were only staying afloat with their pride. They had no actual resources to use against us. Many historians would agree with that.

[Eggy]

HA!! You're one of those? Us or them? As if Japan even had anything left. They were only staying afloat with their pride. They had no actual resources to use against us. Many historians would agree with that.
Doesn't matter, they already showed they would fight to the last man. Conventional air raids and bombings everyday didn't make the Japanese surrender. Other than the fact of American lives being saved, it also limited the influence of the Soviet Union

[vapid]

From a utilitarian standpoint it can be strongly argued that it was justified. (And I agree)

[Rizko]

Completely unjustified and a war crime. I'm sure most Americans think it was justified because it was so "badass" though.
I'd say most people in America are ambivalent to the atomic bomb. On one hand if Americans were to have invaded Japan the army(?) estimated that the causalities would reach over 1 million, including civilian deaths. I'm not sure how they came to that number, but if it was even half as much it still would be more then the amount of people who were killed in the bombs I believe.

On the other hand I don't think any intelligent person really likes that we used it and wished that the war could have came to a conclusion in a different/less violent way.

Theirs also the fact that the Soviet Union had just declared war on Japan which throws another variable in whether people think it was justified or not.

[DaniloGallinari]

I guess you all would be fine if America was wiped out by atomic bombings. I mean, after all, isn't it justified to some countries? Many hate us. Everything is relative. Just because your situation feels right, doesn't mean that it is.

[Eggy]

I guess you all would be fine if America was wiped out by atomic bombings. I mean, after all, isn't it justified to some countries? Many hate us. Everything is relative. Just because your situation feels right, doesn't mean that it is.
If we go to war, it's justified. If there's a way to save our soldiers, and make the enemy surrender, I'm all for it.

[DaniloGallinari]

If we go to war, it's justified. If there's a way to save our soldiers, and make the enemy surrender, I'm all for it.

Alright. In some ways that can be argued, but if you were the opposite side enduring these gruesome tactics? How would that feel?

I say punish the guilty, and help the innocent.

[vapid]

I guess you all would be fine if America was wiped out by atomic bombings. I mean, after all, isn't it justified to some countries? Many hate us. Everything is relative. Just because your situation feels right, doesn't mean that it is.
:rolleyes:

Yes I would prefer if two mid-major cities in America were bombed rather than the entire country be filled with more warfare and suffering and more deaths than would be caused by the bombs.

[gts]

this is truly a hindsight topic...

it's easy to say it wasn't justified all these years later because we know the outcome but at the time, with nobody ever having actually detonated a nuclear weapon above ground in a non controlled situation it was a guess at what would happen, an educated guess but still they were operating in the dark so to speak.

they didn't even know if it was going to explode, they had never dropped one of the things from 30,000 feet so they choose to drop it on a bridge over a river so if it didn't explode at least it would sink to the bottom of the river and hinder recovery by the japanese. it's also why there were two designs between the bombs dropped on japan because they had no idea which would work better or if they would work at all

[DaniloGallinari]

:rolleyes:

Yes I would prefer if two mid-major cities in America were bombed rather than the entire country be filled with more warfare and suffering and more deaths than would be caused by the bombs.
lol what? I'm talking modern time, and in no way does it play out like the Japan situation.

Keep fooling yourself though. Humans will always relish their own ass over others', so it's not surprising. I will always consider the bombings an abomination. Just like every other act of violence that has occurred over the centuries. Don't forget that the Japanese are guilty of this as well.

[vapid]

Yes bombings are an abomination but sometimes it becomes a necessary abomination due to circumstances.

[gts]

lol what? I'm talking modern time, and in no way does it play out like the Japan situation.

Keep fooling yourself though. Humans will always relish their own ass over others', so it's not surprising. I will always consider the bombings an abomination. Just like every other act of violence that has occurred over the centuries. Don't forget that the Japanese are guilty of this as well.

how do you feel about the japanese war crimes during that time? or do you know anything about them?

fact is the japanese were not viewed in very good light at that time by the world. the reports of their doings was coming to light and not many people had sympathy for the people of japan at the time..

once again judging after the fact is easy, at the time that decision was not so easy to make

[Sarcastic]

how do you feel about the japanese war crimes during that time? or do you know anything about them?

fact is the japanese were not viewed in very good light at that time by the world. the reports of their doings was coming to light and not many people had sympathy for the people of japan at the time..

once again judging after the fact is easy, at the time that decision was not so easy to make

Japanese war crimes were awful and hideous, but 2 wrongs don't make a right.

[DaniloGallinari]

how do you feel about the japanese war crimes during that time? or do you know anything about them?

fact is the japanese were not viewed in very good light at that time by the world. the reports of their doings was coming to light and not many people had sympathy for the people of japan at the time..

once again judging after the fact is easy, at the time that decision was not so easy to make


lol what? I'm talking modern time, and in no way does it play out like the Japan situation.

Keep fooling yourself though. Humans will always relish their own ass over others', so it's not surprising. I will always consider the bombings an abomination. Just like every other act of violence that has occurred over the centuries. Don't forget that the Japanese are guilty of this as well.

..

[shlver]

Japanese war crimes were awful and hideous, but 2 wrongs don't make a right.
But what the US did was not wrong, it was in some ways necessary.

[kNIOKAS]

simply put:
america is the only country that used nuclear weapon and yet they suffer from "terrorism".

[Eggy]

Alright. In some ways that can be argued, but if you were the opposite side enduring these gruesome tactics? How would that feel?

I say punish the guilty, and help the innocent.
Doesn't matter. I would be like "Oh shit, we shouldn't have attacked Pearl Harbor."

[Eggy]

simply put:
america is the only country that used nuclear weapon and yet they suffer from "terrorism".
What's the point of this post?:facepalm

[DirtBag]

Japanese war crimes were awful and hideous, but 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Some might argue that an eye for an eye is justice

[gts]

Japanese war crimes were awful and hideous, but 2 wrongs don't make a right.who is to say it was wrong though in light of the japanese atrocites? once again your basing one half of your argument on hindsight where the japanese wrongs at the time were well known..

[QUOTE]It may be pointless to try to establish which World War Two Axis aggressor, Germany or Japan, was the more brutal to the peoples it victimised. The Germans killed six million Jews and 20 million Russians [i.e. Soviet citizens]; the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese. Both nations looted the countries they conquered on a monumental scale, though Japan plundered more, over a longer period, than the Nazis. Both conquerors enslaved millions and exploited them as forced labourers

[bdreason]

We've had this discussion many times, so I'll be brief.

Dropping those bombs was a HUGE mistake. War's should be fought between militarizes. Targeting civilians as a means to end a war, especially on the grand scale of a nuclear strike, is ridiculous and wrong.

[Blackisbig]

We've had this discussion many times, so I'll be brief.

Dropping those bombs was a HUGE mistake. War's should be fought between militarizes. Targeting civilians as a means to end a war, especially on the grand scale of a nuclear strike, is ridiculous and wrong.




They targeted military and industrial centers, which had been done all throughout world war 2 by both sides. Dropping the bomb might not have been necessary, but it did end the war far quicker than an assault on Tokyo would have.

[The_Yearning]

Never should have did that shit. That's why Vietnam ****ed the US up.

[macmac]

who is to say it was wrong though in light of the japanese atrocites? once again your basing one half of your argument on hindsight where the japanese wrongs at the time were well known..



in light of this is it really wrong to do anything at your disposal to try and stop it? 100k dead seems like an acceptable amount when compared to the alternative of doing nothing...

once again the damage the bombs created and the reaction is all in hindsight

put yourself in truman's shoes, read the above and make a decision, you can let this continue or you can possibly put an immediate stop to it.. what do you do?

Those numbers seem to vary wildly, is it 30million or 3 million? seems like there's a slight discrepancy there

[wTFaMonkey]

I think it was Justified because Japan would still be raping all the women in asia if it werent for the USA.

[Showtime]

The reasoning seems bassackwards for the critics. You claim that many civilians lost their lives. And yet, at the same time, fail to realize that the invasion of japan would have cost many, many more civilian lives. The Japanese people would have been brainwashed just like they did to the peoples on other pacific islands. They believed they were better off dead than surrendering, so they killed their families and then themselves. Just imagine the main island peoples fighting to the death ala vietnam with underground tunnells and "home field advantage" and if groups were in a losing situation, it was fight 'till the death or kill yourself. The horrors of invading would have been far worse on both sides than the A-bombs.

Also a hole in your logic: two wrongs don't make a right. Some groups who have acted in such an aggressive manner need to be put down. For example, the Nazi regime in germany would have been bombed, most likely wiping out Berlin, if the US had the bomb during the european conflict. Would any of you honestly rally against the use of the bomb to end the war in Europe if they bombed Berlin?

The US didn't want to go to war in the first place. They allowed Hitler to march through Europe until it was clear that the US own security was going to be compromised, especially if they took Britain. Thankfully, that didn't happen, the brits held their own in the Battle of Britain, and the US helped push back. However, the cost from the US standpoint was high, and they didn't want to fight a long war. It's easy to sit here and support another invasion costing thousands more lives, but the country wanted an end to the war ASAP.

[Fatal9]

Interesting article by Howard Zinn I remember reading a while ago about this topic:


The principal justification for obliterating Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that it "saved lives" because otherwise a planned U.S. invasion of Japan would have been necessary, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands. Truman at one point used the figure "a half million lives," and Churchill "a million lives," but these were figures pulled out of the air to calm troubled consciences; even official projections for the number of casualties in an invasion did not go beyond 46,000.

In fact, the bombs that fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not forestall an invasion of Japan because no invasion was necessary. The Japanese were on the verge of surrender, and American military leaders knew that. General Eisenhower, briefed by Secretary of War Henry Stimson on the imminent use of the bomb, told him that "Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary."

After the bombing, Admiral William D. Leary, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the atomic bomb "a barbarous weapon," also noting that: "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."

The Japanese had begun to move to end the war after the U.S. victory on Okinawa, in May of 1945, in the bloodiest battle of the Pacific War. After the middle of June, six members of the Japanese Supreme War Council authorized Foreign Minister Togo to approach the Soviet Union, which was not at war with Japan, to mediate an end to the war "if possible by September."

Togo sent Ambassador Sato to Moscow to feel out the possibility of a negotiated surrender. On July 13, four days before Truman, Churchill, and Stalin met in Potsdam to prepare for the end of the war (Germany had surrendered two months earlier), Togo sent a telegram to Sato: "Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace. It is his Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war."

The United States knew about that telegram because it had broken the Japanese code early in the war. American officials knew also that the Japanese resistance to unconditional surrender was because they had one condition enormously important to them: the retention of the Emperor as symbolic leader. Former Ambassador to Japan Joseph Grew and others who knew something about Japanese society had suggested that allowing Japan to keep its Emperor would save countless lives by bringing an early end to the war.

Yet Truman would not relent, and the Potsdam conference agreed to insist on "unconditional surrender." This ensured that the bombs would fall on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It seems that the United States government was determined to drop those bombs.

But why? Gar Alperovitz, whose research on that question is unmatched (The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, Knopf, 1995), concluded, based on the papers of Truman, his chief adviser James Byrnes, and others, that the bomb was seen as a diplomatic weapon against the Soviet Union. Byrnes advised Truman that the bomb "could let us dictate the terms of ending the war." The British scientist P.M.S. Blackett, one of Churchill's advisers, wrote after the war that dropping the atomic bomb was "the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia."

There is also evidence that domestic politics played an important role in the decision. In his recent book, Freedom From Fear: The United States, 1929-1945 (Oxford, 1999), David Kennedy quotes Secretary of State Cordell Hull advising Byrnes, before the Potsdam conference, that "terrible political repercussions would follow in the U.S." if the unconditional surrender principle would be abandoned. The President would be "crucified" if he did that, Byrnes said. Kennedy reports that "Byrnes accordingly repudiated the suggestions of Leahy, McCloy, Grew, and Stimson, 11 all of whom were willing to relax the "unconditional surrender" demand just enough to permit the Japanese their face-saving requirement for ending the war.

Can we believe that our political leaders would consign hundreds of thousands of people to death or lifelong suffering because of "political repercussions" at home?

[Hawker]

Justified.

[rawimpact]

Unjustified -whenever innoscent lives are lost

[Fatal9]

My personal view is that the Hiroshima bomb you could perhaps justify, the Nagasaki bomb was unnecessary. Right after the first bomb, Soviet Union declared war on Aug 8th against Japan (this would have made surrender inevitable), but US then dropped the Nagasaki bomb on Aug 9, seems unnecessary in achieving surrender, no? Japan was losing the war, had lost the battle of Okinawa, was willing to surrender under certain conditions (US wanted unconditional surrender though) but then in a week Hiroshima got bombed and Russia declared war, did you really have to kill more civilians? It's also interesting that the Nagasaki bomb was supposed to be dropped after August 11th, but US dropped it in haste after the materials were ready to go.

I also think that if Japan was a Western country, USA would have never dropped an atomic bomb on them. I think part of the reason the bombs were dropped was because of the hatred of the Japanese people at the time and the inherent racism associated with that, it made the whole thing politically acceptable (lot of Americans at the time wanted to exterminate them or keep bombing).

[Blackisbig]

If people want some perspective, here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall)is the proposed plan for the invasion of Tokyo.



Operation Downfall was the overall Allied plan for the invasion of Japan near the end of World War II. The operation was cancelled when Japan surrendered after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Soviet Union's declaration of war against Japan.

Operation Downfall had two parts: Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet. Set to begin in October 1945, Operation Olympic was intended to capture the southern third of the southernmost main Japanese island, Kyūshū, with the recently captured island of Okinawa to be used as a staging area.
Later, in spring 1946, Operation Coronet was the planned invasion of the Kantō plain, near Tokyo, on the Japanese island of Honshū. Airbases on Kyūshū captured in Operation Olympic would allow land-based air support for Operation Coronet.

Japan's geography made this invasion plan obvious to the Japanese as well; they were able to predict accurately the Allied invasion plans and accordingly adjust their defensive plan, Operation Ketsugō. The Japanese planned an all-out defense of Kyūshū, with little left in reserve for any subsequent defense operations.

Casualty predictions varied widely but were extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties[1] and tens of millions for Japanese casualties.




Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding campaigns, drawing different lessons:

In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.[40]

A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.[41]

A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 U.S. casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days.[42] When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.[43]

In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties).[44]

Adm. Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000).[45]

Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.[45]


For perspective from Okinawa:


The Battle of Okinawa ran up 72,000 U.S casualties in 82 days, of whom 12,510 were killed or missing. (This is conservative, because it excludes several thousand U.S. soldiers who died after the battle indirectly from their wounds.) The entire island of Okinawa is 464 square miles (1,200 km2). If the U.S. casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had only been 5 percent as high per unit area as it was at Okinawa, the United States would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing).

[Blackisbig]

The reasoning seems bassackwards for the critics. You claim that many civilians lost their lives. And yet, at the same time, fail to realize that the invasion of japan would have cost many, many more civilian lives. The Japanese people would have been brainwashed just like they did to the peoples on other pacific islands. They believed they were better off dead than surrendering, so they killed their families and then themselves. Just imagine the main island peoples fighting to the death ala vietnam with underground tunnells and "home field advantage" and if groups were in a losing situation, it was fight 'till the death or kill yourself. The horrors of invading would have been far worse on both sides than the A-bombs.

Also a hole in your logic: two wrongs don't make a right. Some groups who have acted in such an aggressive manner need to be put down. For example, the Nazi regime in germany would have been bombed, most likely wiping out Berlin, if the US had the bomb during the european conflict. Would any of you honestly rally against the use of the bomb to end the war in Europe if they bombed Berlin?

The US didn't want to go to war in the first place. They allowed Hitler to march through Europe until it was clear that the US own security was going to be compromised, especially if they took Britain. Thankfully, that didn't happen, the brits held their own in the Battle of Britain, and the US helped push back. However, the cost from the US standpoint was high, and they didn't want to fight a long war. It's easy to sit here and support another invasion costing thousands more lives, but the country wanted an end to the war ASAP.




Indeed. People act like all of that wasn't taken into consideration. The Armed Forces had a plan that involved a prolonged bombing campaign against Japan, but they decided that it would simply prolong the war for far too long. A joint British-American plan detailed a possible invasion sometime in 47 or 48, but the US decided that support for the war would have dwindled down too far by that time. Things were very different back then and people should try and put themselves in the mindset of the population before judging the decision.

[Brunch@Five]

people justifying use of nuclear weapons under ANY circumstances have serious problems. It's a war crime no matter what. Just like you shouldn't torture. Ends don't justify the means.

[Brunch@Five]

So you would have preferred the possibly much more abhorrent alternative? Like I said, it was the lesser of evils. But I guess I have a serious problem in being logical, eh?

Killing hundreds of thousand of people, injuring millions and damaging ensuing generations in the process is no option no matter what is the alternative. Especially when it's mostly civilians that you're damaging. There is absolutely NO way to justify this unless you're convinces that a major part of the victims committed war atrocities or would have committed them. Which is not the case.

[Sarcastic]

For people who think it was justified: Why did we need to drop 2? Wasn't 1 enough?

[Doranku]

#7 is the main reason why I feel it was unjustified. The Soviet Union's declaration of war on Japan played a bigger role in Japan's surrender than the atomic bombs did.

[indiefan24]

Not sure if this was mentioned already, but I *think* I remember reading that if the US did decide to proceed with a land invasion, Russia would have become involved in some capacity and the Japanese surely would have had no chance.

[LuppersGB]

The atomic bombs were strategically dropped for two reasons(IMO)
1) As a statement to the Soviets. Tensions were running high at Yalta and Pottsdam conferences. The USA were reverting to the pre-war "we dont like Communism" stance. In Europe the US perceived the Soviets to be a threat to peace and security. How is there better scare tactic for the US than "we have the atomic bomb, we've used it once before...we can use it again". I believe it was purely a show of force on the US behalf.

2)The Truman doctrine (it may not have have been publicised, but doesn't mean it wasn't in effect): worldwide containment of communism. By nuking japan they reduce it to ruble. Japan is fukced, now the Soviets won't want the island as it can't offer anything. Japan has nothing in the way of natural resources, it has only rice and silk. There is only one nation on Earth who benifitted from WWII at that's the US. Therefore they're in a position to offer the Japanese aid after the war, Japan is in no position to say no...they have nothing. By investing in Japan the US intended (and succeded) in building a super strong capitalist nation, and also had the USSR covered to the east and west.

In conclusion, though the horrific casualties, it was justified. It was justified as a future investment against the Soviets. The use of atomic weapons was the sole reason they were never used again, thus saving more lives in the long run.

[Fatal9]

In conclusion, though the horrific casualties, it was justified. It was justified as a future investment against the Soviets.
:facepalm

[Brunch@Five]

2)The Truman doctrine (it may not have have been publicised, but doesn't mean it wasn't in effect): worldwide containment of communism. By nuking japan they reduce it to ruble. Japan is fukced, now the Soviets won't want the island as it can't offer anything. Japan has nothing in the way of natural resources, it has only rice and silk. There is only one nation on Earth who benifitted from WWII at that's the US. Therefore they're in a position to offer the Japanese aid after the war, Japan is in no position to say no...they have nothing. By investing in Japan the US intended (and succeded) in building a super strong capitalist nation, and also had the USSR covered to the east and west.


The Truman doctrine was developed only after WW II

[beermonsteroo]

Not justified, but understandable
The Japanese goverment is a lot more to blame for this then the USA. After all the Japanese attacked you first.

[No_Look604]

So what your saying is...the US is the only country to stoop this low, yet we have the nerve to "search" for WMD's in the Middle East. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[Whiteness]

Please let this thread die...

****ing spambots :banghead:

[beermonsteroo]

You could ask the same question if the massive bombings of German cities by the US Air Force were justified or not. After all rougly 3. 5 million cicilians were killed in those bombings, tens of millions lost their homes and were injured.
Again, was it justified. From a moral point of view, certainly not. Was it understandable considering the circumstances, maybe yes.
http://wissen.dradio.de/media/thumbs/6/672ab315a64672d6dad0b037a5d4ccf1v1_max_356x267_b35 35db83dc50e27c1bb1392364c95a2.jpg

[Real Men Wear Green]

The bomb isn't about being "right."

Massive numbers of innocent people died and/or suffered pain and injuries due to it. But when you invade a country, people are going to suffer regardless. Look at Iraq/Afghanistan, what are the casualties, 100,000? 1 million? I'm not sure and don't feel like researching but I know the number is extremely high, and very few of these people asked for Taliban to hide Al Qaeda in their country or for the Bush admin to commit the biggest military blunder of the modern era. These people are/were largely undeserving of such trauma and it just happened anyway, even without the bomb. If we had sent in troops and invaded, there would have been incidents, invading armies almost always do nasty shit to the captured civilians.

We will never know whether or not it'd have gone better for the Japanese if they had been more normally invaded, but if you're in a fight with someone and he's trying to kill you with a knife, do you have a moral obligation not to shoot him because he may die? Do not forget the seriousness of Pearl Harbor; the Japanese government, acting on some idiotic intel or an inflated sense of their military power, I don't know exactly what they were thinking...chose to attack us. They were actually trying to conquer the United States of America. Think about that. They brought us into the war. Given that, should we hold back? Should we expose our soldiers to the dangers, both physical as well as psychological, of an extended military campaign to conquer a powerful nation, when we have an option that can save the lives of our soldiers? I do actually hate the concept of the atomic bomb. It's a weapon I wish didn't exist, it's too powerful, makes killing people too easy. And yet, here's where I'm a hypocrite; the few fights I've been in since I turned 18, I've done whatever it took to win, be it "dirty" or "unfair" or not. Because fighting isn't about the moral high-ground. No, fighting is about winning. And I know, if I was in such a war with an opponent that I knew was trying to conquer my country, I would feel badly for the innocent lives about to be lost but I'd still obliterate the enemy any way that I could.

Yes, innocent people died. But that's what always happens in war, regardless. So you might as well preserve your own as best you can.

[beermonsteroo]

And I know, if I was in such a war with an opponent that I knew was trying to conquer my country

Japan never had the intention to conquer the USA.

[Pharcyde]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOCYcgOnWUM

This is a good video about the situation in Japan.

[Rasheed1]

people justifying use of nuclear weapons under ANY circumstances have serious problems. It's a war crime no matter what. Just like you shouldn't torture. Ends don't justify the means.


exactly.....

[Brunch@Five]

someone just called me naive via rep for saying nuclear weapons shouldn't be used :oldlol: Didn't have the balls to sign with his name.

Even militarily, there is no real justification. Using excessive force and trying to completely annihilate your enemy is pure barbarism. We've passed that mental stage a long long time ago.

[Rasheed1]

We've had this discussion many times, so I'll be brief.

Dropping those bombs was a HUGE mistake. War's should be fought between militarizes. Targeting civilians as a means to end a war, especially on the grand scale of a nuclear strike, is ridiculous and wrong.


Bingo.....

[boozehound]

The Truman doctrine was developed only after WW II
It may have not been fully developed or articulated, but a large reason for dropping the bombs was to stop the soviet land grab that an extended landwar would have allowed.

[Showtime]

Ends don't justify the means.
So, you would rather pay the price of more lives on both sides, including more civilians, just because you favor conventional weapons? That doesn't make sense. You want more blood?

The "ends" was the end of combat through unconditional surrender. The "means" was a lower price paid in lives, compared to a higher price. If you don't want the bombs, then you want more blood.

[KeylessEntry]

While I dont support the bombing of civilian targets, I think that dropping the bombs was the right way to end the war. Like many people have already said, a full blown invasion of Japan would have cost many more lives, including the lives of Japanese civilians as well as many american soldiers. I dont see how 250,000 people dying from a nuclear warhead is worse than 1,000,000 people dying from conventional warfare.

[Rasheed1]

So, you would rather pay the price of more lives on both sides, including more civilians, just because you favor conventional weapons? That doesn't make sense. You want more blood?

The "ends" was the end of combat through unconditional surrender. The "means" was a lower price paid in lives, compared to a higher price. If you don't want the bombs, then you want more blood.


Bad logic.....

You are trying to make it seem as though there were only 2 choices.. atomic Bomb or land invasion and that simply isnt true....

I wonder how wars were won before the Atomic bomb made people too lazy or chicken to fight without killing innocent people

[KeylessEntry]

Bad logic.....

You are trying to make it seem as though there were only 2 choices.. atomic Bomb or land invasion and that simply isnt true....

I wonder how wars were won before the Atomic bomb made people too lazy or chicken to fight without killing innocent people

Aside from dropping the bomb or invading, exactly what other choices were there? Negotiating conditional surrender? If I am the american military I am not going to be very keen to any japanese treaty conditions considering that they dragged us into the war with a stealth attack that raped our pacific fleet in the first place.

[Brunch@Five]

So, you would rather pay the price of more lives on both sides, including more civilians, just because you favor conventional weapons? That doesn't make sense. You want more blood?

The "ends" was the end of combat through unconditional surrender. The "means" was a lower price paid in lives, compared to a higher price. If you don't want the bombs, then you want more blood.


so you'd torture prisoners too? would you shoot a plane with 200 passengers on it if it could potentially be used as a weapon by terrorists conrolling it?

[Rasheed1]

Aside from dropping the bomb or invading, exactly what other choices were there? Negotiating conditional surrender?

Without getting into a long drawn out hypothetical debate....

you could attempt to bomb another MILITARY target....

you could do a number things that involve strictly military sites instead of straight dropping atomic bombs on innocent citizen's heads...

like someone else mentioned already... that sh*t is straight barbaric

[Showtime]

Bad logic.....

Unfortunately, it's accurate.


You are trying to make it seem as though there were only 2 choices.. atomic Bomb or land invasion and that simply isnt true....

From the standpoint if the US, it was. By the time the European conflict was drawing to a close, the US wanted an end to the war as soon as possible. They were tired of it. So, their goal was to get Japan not only to surrender, but because of how they acted, they needed a way to limit them from doing that again in the future. Hence, the unconditional surrender. The US wanted to make sure that they wouldn't be able to do what they did again.


I wonder how wars were won before the Atomic bomb made people too lazy or chicken to fight without killing innocent people

I wonder how you can lust for more blood by wanting more blood. They would never surrender as long as they could defend their home. The A-bomb made continuing the war too horrifying to support. The US wanted an end to conflict ASAP. You wanted it to continue.

"War is more delightful to those who have never experienced it"

[rufuspaul]

You could ask the same question if the massive bombings of German cities by the US Air Force were justified or not. After all rougly 3. 5 million cicilians were killed in those bombings, tens of millions lost their homes and were injured.
Again, was it justified. From a moral point of view, certainly not. Was it understandable considering the circumstances, maybe yes.
http://wissen.dradio.de/media/thumbs/6/672ab315a64672d6dad0b037a5d4ccf1v1_max_356x267_b35 35db83dc50e27c1bb1392364c95a2.jpg

In Slaughterhouse Five, Vonnegut's trippy account of the bombing of Dresden, he comments towards the end about antinuclear protests essentially saying that he has seen the power of conventional warfare and it can be just as devistating.

As bad as the bombings were, the bottom line is they brought about an end to the war in a matter of days. The civilian casualties would have been a lot less too if Japan had surredered after Hiroshima rather than arrogantly daring the U.S. to bomb another city.

The argument for fighting a "moral" war just doesn't hold water. "War is hell", as Sherman said. He practiced it too in his scorched earth policy. It can be argued that his army's devistation of the South hastened the end of the American Civil War and resulted in much more favorable terms for the winning side.

[Showtime]

so you'd torture prisoners too?

How do you correlate the treatment of POW's with the attack of a city that is part of a nation at war?


would you shoot a plane with 200 passengers on it if it could potentially be used as a weapon by terrorists conrolling it?
Would you allow the plane with 200 people to kill 2000?


I think you are missing the point. The argument was about the type of weapon used, not the hostilities on mainland Japan. The A-bomb ended the war sooner than later, and saved many more lives from being lost. If you want conventional war, then you want more blood.

[Rasheed1]

Unfortunately, it's accurate.

doesnt make it the right thing to do....




From the standpoint if the US, it was. By the time the European conflict was drawing to a close, the US wanted an end to the war as soon as possible. They were tired of it. So, their goal was to get Japan not only to surrender, but because of how they acted, they needed a way to limit them from doing that again in the future. Hence, the unconditional surrender. The US wanted to make sure that they wouldn't be able to do what they did again.


dont need a history lesson... I already know the supposed set up and why we did it... still doesnt justify it....



I wonder how you can lust for more blood by wanting more blood. They would never surrender as long as they could defend their home. The A-bomb made continuing the war too horrifying to support. The US wanted an end to conflict ASAP. You wanted it to continue.


^ more twisted silly logic......

I state my preference very clearly when I say "You dont drop atomic bombs on innocent people"


dont twist that....

[KeylessEntry]

Without getting into a long drawn out hypothetical debate....

you could attempt to bomb another MILITARY target....

you could do a number things that strictly military sites instead straight dropping atomic bombs on innocent citizen's heads...

like someone else mentioned already... that sh*t is straight barbaric

If I was in charge, I would have chosen to bomb a military target over a civilian target as well. That said, they started the whole mess in the first place, and we gave them the ultimatum stating that they were going to get bombed to kingdom come if they didnt surrender. Bottom line is that a full blown land invasion that would have basically turned tokyo into a pile of rubble and likely killed many more Japanese civilians than the bombs did, and if the Japanese had not surrendered after the nuke, an invasion would be the only option left.

And I dont want to hear about barbaric when we are talking about the Japanese in WWII. You want to talk about something truly barbaric lets talk about the Nanking Massacre.

[rufuspaul]

If I was in charge, I would have chosen to bomb a military target over a civilian target as well.

Weren't Hiroshima and Nagasaki chosen because they were full of factories supporting the war effort? If our goal was just to kill civilians then why didn't we just drop one on Tokyo?

[Showtime]

doesnt make it the right thing to do....

Then please enlighten me: what was the "right" thing to do?


dont need a history lesson... I already know the supposed set up and why we did it... still doesnt justify it....

So you would support the invasion? Or you would support a conditional surrender, allowing the possibility of Japan re-arming and starting another conflict down the road?


I state my preference very clearly when I say "You dont drop atomic bombs on innocent people"


dont twist that....

CONVENTIONAL BOMBINGS WOULD HAVE KILLED CIVILIANS. What part of this don't you understand? Even military strikes against military targets kills civilians, especially when that military target is part of a city. A conventional invasion would still decimate civilians, and cost more lives overall.

[Rasheed1]

If I was in charge, I would have chosen to bomb a military target over a civilian target as well. That said, they started the whole mess in the first place, and we gave them the ultimatum stating that they were going to get bombed to kingdom come if they didnt surrender. Bottom line is that a full blown land invasion that would have basically turned tokyo into a pile of rubble and likely killed many more Japanese civilians than the bombs did, and if the Japanese had not surrendered after the nuke, an invasion would be the only option left.


'They started it' isnt an excuse....

there are other ways to end a war without dropping nukes on the heads of innocent people...


And I dont want to hear about barbaric when we are talking about the Japanese army in WWII. You want to talk about something truly barbaric lets talk about the Nanking Massacre.


I dont think we wanna start comparing atrocities... I would like to see them curbed, not ranked...

[KeylessEntry]

'They started it' isnt an excuse....
In a war where thousands of lives are lost, "they started it" is not that bad of an excuse. Dont go starting shit you cant finish if you are going to be killing my countrymen.


there are other ways to end a war without dropping nukes on the heads of innocent people...

Yeah, you mean like the ultimatum we delivered stating that we were going to bomb the shit out of them if they didnt surrender, thats a good way to end a war without dropping nukes on innocent people. The japanese government should have known when they were defeated.

[Rasheed1]

Then please enlighten me: what was the "right" thing to do?

go back and read what I said earlier..... that should clue you in....




So you would support the invasion? Or you would support a conditional surrender, allowing the possibility of Japan re-arming and starting another conflict down the road?

I would consider alot of options if I was in charge...... But vaporizing a city full innocent people with an atomic bomb wouldnt be one of them...




CONVENTIONAL BOMBINGS WOULD HAVE KILLED CIVILIANS. What part of this don't you understand? Even military strikes against military targets kills civilians, especially when that military target is part of a city. A conventional invasion would still decimate civilians, and cost more lives overall.


What part of 'military targets' do you not understand????

I never condoned bombing innocents with conventional bombs :confusedshrug:

[Rasheed1]

In a war where thousands of lives are lost, "they started it" is not that bad of an excuse. Dont go starting shit you cant finish if you are going to be killing my countrymen.

thats just alot of tough talk.... Those people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn 'START' anything....

they were just people like you and me....


Yeah, you mean like the ultimatum we delivered stating that we were going to bomb the shit out of them if they didnt surrender, thats a good way to end a war without dropping nukes on innocent people. The japanese government should have known when they were defeated.

^that is your logic not mine :facepalm

Stop trying to twist my comments... There are other ways to win wars besides nukin innocent people I find it sad to see you here trying to rationalize it...

If you believe it was OK, then thats your opinion but i have a feeling your opinion changes depending upon who is on the giving and receiving end of these weapons...

[The_Yearning]

If I was in charge, I would have chosen to bomb a military target over a civilian target as well. That said, they started the whole mess in the first place, and we gave them the ultimatum stating that they were going to get bombed to kingdom come if they didnt surrender. Bottom line is that a full blown land invasion that would have basically turned tokyo into a pile of rubble and likely killed many more Japanese civilians than the bombs did, and if the Japanese had not surrendered after the nuke, an invasion would be the only option left.

And I dont want to hear about barbaric when we are talking about the Japanese in WWII. You want to talk about something truly barbaric lets talk about the Nanking Massacre.

Nah. Nothing of that sort happened.

[Showtime]

go back and read what I said earlier..... that should clue you in....

I never read any post of yours with a specific alternative.


I would consider alot of options if I was in charge...... But vaporizing a city full innocent people with an atomic bomb wouldnt be one of them...

Again, no alternative was specified.


What part of 'military targets' do you not understand????

I never condoned bombing innocents with conventional bombs :confusedshrug:
Are you ****ing retarded? If they send a squad of B-29's or B-17's to bomb a munitions factory, which is in a city, they will kill civilians. You are totally ignorant of how "targets" work. To you, it seems you only want to shoot soldiers and tanks. That's not how wars are won and lost. If a nation wants to end a war, they attack the war machine. That means ending what facilitates war, such as factories, infrastructure, supplies and transportation, etc etc. That's why "military targets" include trains, bridges, factories (yes, in populated cities), etc etc. A conventional plan of attack WILL KILL CIVILIANS. You are living in a theoretical world, not the real one.

[Showtime]

Nah. Nothing of that sort happened.
Ever hear of the Potsdam Declaration?

[KeylessEntry]

thats just alot of tough talk.... Those people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn 'START' anything....

they were just people like you and me....

Give me a break. No shit the individual civilians didnt start anything, their government started shit, and the government is responsible for the safety and wellbeing of its people.




^that is your logic not mine :facepalm

Stop trying to twist my comments... There are other ways to win wars besides nukin innocent people I find it sad to see you here trying to rationalize it...


I said it before and I will say it again, if I had been in charge I would have picked military targets before bombing cities full of civilians. That said, the Japanese completely ignored the Potsdam Declaration which had made it quite clear that if they didnt surrender they faced "prompt and utter destruction". They were given plenty of warning about what was about to happen but they decided to ignore it to continue with their war that had already cost thousands of american lives.



If you believe it was OK, then thats your opinion but i have a feeling your opinion changes depending upon who is on the giving and receiving end of these weapons...
I believe that the Japanese chose their fate for themselves. They sneak attacked us originally, they were given fair warning about what was going to happen, and they decided to ignore it. Now I dont support nuking anyone in any situation, but I wasnt born until a couple decades after this war, and given the historical context of the situation I think the US actions were pretty well justified.

[KeylessEntry]

Nah. Nothing of that sort happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration

[Rasheed1]

I never read any post of yours with a specific alternative.



Again, no alternative was specified.

if you are honest with yourself, you'd see that I really cant be specific since I wasnt there....

I can tell you one thing specifically though.... I think it is a huge mistake to do what we did back then and I pray it is never repeated by anyone for any reason



Are you ****ing retarded? If they send a squad of B-29's or B-17's to bomb a munitions factory, which is in a city, they will kill civilians. You are totally ignorant of how "targets" work. To you, it seems you only want to shoot soldiers and tanks. That's not how wars are won and lost. If a nation wants to end a war, they attack the war machine. That means ending what facilitates war, such as factories, infrastructure, supplies and transportation, etc etc. That's why "military targets" include trains, bridges, factories (yes, in populated cities), etc etc. A conventional plan of attack WILL KILL CIVILIANS.

now we get to the name callin :oldlol: I knew it had to be comin soon as people get frustrated :cry: grow up....

Stop typing in caps & being soo difficult.... I never said "NO Civilians can ever get killed".. I understand how conflict works and I understand how war works.....

there is a world of a difference between conventionally bombing military targets and dropping nukes on a city full of civilians.....

that is the issue Im addressing and it is plain as day which is right and which is wrong.....


The OP asked "Atomic bombing of Japan.....Justified or Not?" and I gave my answer...

[KeylessEntry]

there is a world of a difference between conventionally bombing military targets and dropping nukes on a city full of civilians.....




For the record, Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained lots of military industry



During World War II, the Second Army and Chugoku Regional Army were headquartered in Hiroshima, and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at Ujina port. The city also had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping.[11]


During the Meiji period, Nagasaki became a center of heavy industry. Its main industry was ship-building, with the dockyards under control of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries becoming one of the prime contractors for the Imperial Japanese Navy, and with Nagasaki harbor used as an anchorage under the control of nearby Sasebo Naval District. These connections with the military made Nagasaki a major target for bombing by the Allies in World War II.

[Rasheed1]

Give me a break. No shit the individual civilians didnt start anything, their government started shit, and the government is responsible for the safety and wellbeing of its people.




I said it before and I will say it again, if I had been in charge I would have picked military targets before bombing cities full of civilians. That said, the Japanese completely ignored the Potsdam Declaration which had made it quite clear that if they didnt surrender they faced "prompt and utter destruction". They were given plenty of warning about what was about to happen but they decided to ignore it to continue with their war that had already cost thousands of american lives.


I believe that the Japanese chose their fate for themselves. They sneak attacked us originally, they were given fair warning about what was going to happen, and they decided to ignore it. Now I dont support nuking anyone in any situation, but I wasnt born until a couple decades after this war, and given the historical context of the situation I think the US actions were pretty well justified.



the only thing I notice here is how you keep co-signing the bombings but then turn around and say you wouldnt have done it :oldlol:

[KeylessEntry]

the only thing I notice here is how you keep co-signing the bombings but then turn around and say you wouldnt have done it :oldlol:

Its hard to say what I would have done. Things were a lot different in 1945 than they are in 2010. Back then, nobody was really sure how powerful the bomb even was. I can say that If I was a member of the US military I would have been pretty pissed at Japan and would not have accepted anything less than unconditional surrender. All things considered, in the historical context of the bombing I think it was justified.

[Rasheed1]

Its hard to say what I would have done. Things were a lot different in 1945 than they are in 2010. Back then, nobody was really sure how powerful the bomb really was. I can say that If I was a member of the US military I would have been pretty pissed at Japan and would not have accepted anything less than unconditional surrender. All things considered, in the historical context of the bombing I think it was justified.


I can accept that answer...

[Showtime]

if you are honest with yourself, you'd see that I really cant be specific since I wasnt there....

I can tell you one thing specifically though.... I think it is a huge mistake to do what we did back then and I pray it is never repeated by anyone for any reason

You want your cake and eat it too. Don't you get it? Any other alternative to the A-bomb would have meant that the war lasted longer. You criticize the decision, but endorse the end result (the end of conflict), and yet you provide no other alternative that would have also ended the conflict. Again, you are living in a theoretical world. This is the real world. You can't say you would oppose the bombs and yet not admit that the alternative, which would have been invasion, wouldn't have resulted in more lives lost on both sides.


now we get to the name callin :oldlol: I knew it had to be comin soon as people get frustrated :cry: grow up....

Yes, I do get frustrated with massive ignorance. You claim to denounce the loss of civilians, and yet you are too stupid to realize that a conventional bombing campaign would include targets that would include collateral damage. They didn't make separate areas that are designated "Ok to bomb" and "not ok to bomb".


Stop typing in caps & being soo difficult...

You mean "stop making reality shit on my argument"


I never said "NO Civilians can ever get killed".. I understand how conflict works and I understand how war works.....

You obviously don't if you can't comprehend that a military target could possibly be in a populated area which would result in collateral damage. And that's precisely what you responded with so don't try to twist your earlier post.


there is a world of a difference between conventionally bombing military targets and dropping nukes on a city full of civilians.....

That's not what you said. I posted that a conventional attack on military targets would also result in civilian losses because they would have bombed parts of cities, and you responded by implying that no city with civilian population would be considered a military target. "What part of 'military targets' do you not understand????" That was what you said in response to me pointing this out.


that is the issue Im addressing and it is plain as day which is right and which is wrong.....

It might be as plain as day to you, because you aren't thinking in the real world. To you, this is a theoretical exercise in a world of absolutes.


The OP asked "Atomic bombing of Japan.....Justified or Not?" and I gave my answer...

No, you kept responding to my comments, and in the process have shown a clear lack of understanding on war at the time.

[PowerGlove]

Its hard to say what I would have done. Things were a lot different in 1945 than they are in 2010. Back then, nobody was really sure how powerful the bomb even was. I can say that If I was a member of the US military I would have been pretty pissed at Japan and would not have accepted anything less than unconditional surrender. All things considered, in the historical context of the bombing I think it was justified.

Didn't they do testing in New Mexico before dropping the bomb?

[KeylessEntry]

I can accept that answer...
:cheers:

for the record I totally see where you are coming and my thoughts on civilian deaths in war and nukes in general are very similar

[KeylessEntry]

Didn't they do testing in New Mexico before dropping the bomb?

Yeah im sure they tested them a lot but you still cant really know how the bomb will effect a city full of people and buildings until you drop it on one. Also, while they may have had a rough idea about the size and power of the explosion, I dont think they were fully aware of the effect that the nuclear fallout would have. Radiation sickness ended up killing just as many people as the actual blasts.

[Showtime]

LMAO at his exchange:

Sheed:
"You dont drop atomic bombs on innocent people"

Me:
CONVENTIONAL BOMBINGS WOULD HAVE KILLED CIVILIANS. What part of this don't you understand? Even military strikes against military targets kills civilians, especially when that military target is part of a city. A conventional invasion would still decimate civilians, and cost more lives overall.

Sheed:
What part of 'military targets' do you not understand????

:facepalm

[Rasheed1]

You want your cake and eat it too. Don't you get it? Any other alternative to the A-bomb would have meant that the war lasted longer. You criticize the decision, but endorse the end result (the end of conflict), and yet you provide no other alternative that would have also ended the conflict. Again, you are living in a theoretical world. This is the real world. You can't say you would oppose the bombs and yet not admit that the alternative, which would have been invasion, wouldn't have resulted in more lives lost on both sides.


you will never get me to go along with barbarism just for the sake of expediency... Its that simple


you think its theoretical when its really something you miss altogether....


that is principle....


Its the principle showtime that you fail to understand... My principles dont change because the war will be shorter... or because the russians might do a land grab....

It is always easier to compromise yourself to reach a solution faster, doesnt make it right

and that is all I really have to say to you..... I been here long enough that the madball posters who absolutely have to argue down everyone and have to 'win' all the time? its old and tiring..... lets just talk.. no need for the other stuff

[Showtime]

you will never get me to go along with barbarism just for the sake of expediency... Its that simple

And what you can't comprehend is that if you refuse the barbarism of the a-bomb, then you endorse the barbarism of a prolonged invasion costing more life. YOU personally may not endorse violence or war, but that is not the discussion we are having. We are discussing the decision to use the bomb. And at the time, and considering all the factors from the vantage point of the US, while horrifying as it was, probably was the best for all parties involved.


you think its theoretical when its really something you miss altogether....


that is principle....

You are discussing a principal which has only real application in your theoretical world. Again, if you wish to prove me incorrect, then provide me with a realistic alternative which would have ended the war quickly, and not involved the a-bombs or an incredibly violent invasion. You can't.

I get that you don't endorse violence. But again, this isn't a discussion about whether war is wrong or right. In this discussion, war is a reality, and at the time, there wasn't a course of action that didn't involve a violation of your principles.


Its the principle showtime that you fail to understand... My principles dont change because the war will be shorter... or because the russians might do a land grab....

I don't fail to understand your principle. I just acknowledge that your principle has no real world application in those circumstances. Drawing the war out longer, costing more lives, and doing so with two nations that are sick of war would not have been better, nor would that reality have been in harmony with your principles. Yet, that was the alternative.


It is always easier to compromise yourself to reach a solution faster, doesnt make it right

And yet you provide no alternative. Again, you dismiss the decision, and yet have no alternative course of action that would have resulted in less bloodshed. I could understand your position if you had one, but you don't. That is the entire crux of my opposition to your viewpoint: you have absolutely no alternative to what you so vehemently oppose.

[Showtime]

Berlin:

http://media.airspacemag.com/images/orchestrated_388-may06.jpg

http://sydwalker.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/allies_bombing_of_germany.jpg

http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/trs/images/hamburg-bombing3b33646r.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cwuFx9QwCIs/Sr_FKRGJ05I/AAAAAAAAAc4/e6bVfzXWuOs/s400/berlin.jpg

I don't see how anybody can endorse this level of destruction while denouncing this:

http://www.corbisimages.com/images/67/3745B34A-F4F0-4140-BF9F-13358B27694C/VV7072.jpg

http://southofreality.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/hiroshimabomb.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_06hGc5JanUU/Snm1fTLeVbI/AAAAAAAAANg/cTCRGmQ1mzc/s400/Hiroshima+2.jpg

War is hell. It would have been hell either way if the US was bombing cities with conventional raids.

[Rasheed1]

Again, if you wish to prove me incorrect

I dont wish to prove anything to you.... my points were clear when I made them... that you cant accept it for what it is? thats your problem...Im not concerned about arguing with you.. it isnt about you...


I said it before and I'll say it again... to me, the bombings were a huge mistake. there are always other options and I hope no one ever uses that option again...

[Showtime]

I dont wish to prove anything to you.... my points were clear when I made them... that you cant accept it for what it is? thats your problem...Im not concerned about arguing with you.. it isnt about you...

You failed to even comprehend the argument. YOU responded to ME in this thread first by debating my logic of the realities of the alternatives, and now you want to shift into just expressing your viewpoint on violence. You don't want to engage in the actual debate: which is choice in the reality of WWII. I am discussing choice, and you oppose the idea of war itself. That is why I said you are on a different plane. You want to debate principle in a theoretical world, and I am discussing the realities of the decisions of 1945.

The reality, which you may not like, is that if the bombs were not dropped and the war not ended, it would have lasted longer, involved the invasion of mainland japan, and been a horrific experience. This is what would have happened, regardless of whether or not you want to accept that.


I said it before and I'll say it again... to me, the bombings were a huge mistake. there are always other options and I hope no one ever uses that option again...
Again, "always other options" and yet you come up with ZERO.

This isn't about "what works in the mind of Rasheed". This is "what were the realistic options of the US considering important factors in 1945". If you don't want to debate on that level, then I have no interest in discussing it with you, because I'm not operating on what is right in your mind. I'm debating the realities of the circumstances and the real choices of the times.

[SCREWstonRockets]

Its a case of "you f*** with me, I will f*** with you harder!"

[gts]

Berlin:

http://media.airspacemag.com/images/orchestrated_388-may06.jpg

http://sydwalker.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/allies_bombing_of_germany.jpg

http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/trs/images/hamburg-bombing3b33646r.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cwuFx9QwCIs/Sr_FKRGJ05I/AAAAAAAAAc4/e6bVfzXWuOs/s400/berlin.jpg

I don't see how anybody can endorse this level of destruction while denouncing this:

http://www.corbisimages.com/images/67/3745B34A-F4F0-4140-BF9F-13358B27694C/VV7072.jpg

http://southofreality.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/hiroshimabomb.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_06hGc5JanUU/Snm1fTLeVbI/AAAAAAAAANg/cTCRGmQ1mzc/s400/Hiroshima+2.jpg

War is hell. It would have been hell either way if the US was bombing cities with conventional raids.

the stark difference i see in these sets is one was done in less than a day and one took over 20 months of terrorizing nightly bombing runs.

one was met with zero defenses, one cost the US military and german luftwaffe thousands of lives and millions of dollars in lost equipment

both cost thousands of human life and took years and years to rebuild from

[Showtime]

the stark difference i see in these sets is one was done in less than a day and one took over 20 months of terrorizing nightly bombing runs.

one was met with zero defenses, one cost the US military and german luftwaffe thousands of lives and millions of dollars in lost equipment

both cost thousands of human life and took years and years to rebuild from
My point was that conventional bombings can be equally devastating, given the circumstances.

You are correct that the devastation was much more instantaneous with the a-bomb, but the idea of weeks of raids on mainland japan, and the possibility of massive defend-at-all-cost-or-die approach with all Japanese people can be just as terrifying and horrific.

It was really a case of when the breaking point was reached. The a-bomb was not a question of how, but when.

[Rasheed1]

You failed to even comprehend the argument. YOU responded to ME in this thread first by debating my logic of the realities of the alternatives, and now you want to shift into just expressing your viewpoint on violence. You don't want to engage in the actual debate: which is choice in the reality of WWII. I am discussing choice, and you oppose the idea of war itself. That is why I said you are on a different plane. You want to debate principle in a theoretical world, and I am discussing the realities of the decisions of 1945.


I didnt simply voice my viewpoint of violence...

I voiced my viewpoint on the logic of dropping nukes on innocent people...

you know like the OP asked :oldlol:


The reality, which you may not like, is that if the bombs were not dropped and the war not ended, it would have lasted longer, involved the invasion of mainland japan, and been a horrific experience. This is what would have happened, regardless of whether or not you want to accept that.

You dont know how much longer or how many lives it would have cost, so stop pretending you do..... you are basing your estimation off their estimation...



and we know how big the range can be when it comes to estimations about war from the American government.... so stop acting like it is engraved in stone

I not in a mood to argue with a madball over a bunch of propaganda and estimates

your argument here is flat bullsh*t and its the main reason i dont wish to go deeper here..... It would be based on alot of estimates...


I believe the United States used the bomb in order to see how it worked and to show anyone who dared oppose us in the future what would happen to them if they continue..... I dont totally buy the 2 track argument you and others try to force on everyone....

Ive read enough history.. and the way we pursued the bomb and the point in which we used it, tells me we used it for other reasons than the noble "we wanted to end the war quick" answer

I have dont need to debate madballs over the internet to prove anything..... dont make it personal

[gts]

My point was that conventional bombings can be equally devastating, given the circumstances.

You are correct that the devastation was much more instantaneous with the a-bomb, but the idea of weeks of raids on mainland japan, and the possibility of massive defend-at-all-cost-or-die approach with all Japanese people can be just as terrifying and horrific.

It was really a case of when the breaking point was reached. The a-bomb was not a question of how, but when.

i agree, i was reading on this last night, and the bombing raids on tokyo are considered the single most destructive raids in history of war... more people died in tokyo over a period of 6 months than in hiroshima and nagasaki combined

[tontoz]

My point was that conventional bombings can be equally devastating, given the circumstances.

You are correct that the devastation was much more instantaneous with the a-bomb, but the idea of weeks of raids on mainland japan, and the possibility of massive defend-at-all-cost-or-die approach with all Japanese people can be just as terrifying and horrific.

It was really a case of when the breaking point was reached. The a-bomb was not a question of how, but when.



Given the millions of civilians that the Japanese had killed, their treatment of POWs and the fact that they started the war i have no problem with the use of the a-bomb against them.

It is really easy to say that the A-bomb should never be used when you don't have to worry about yourself or your relatives/friends invading Japan. American lives were saved by it's use and that is what is important. Japanese civilians were going to die no matter what.

I am no history expert but I don't think Japan has ever been successfully invaded. I don't think their Army was ready to surrender even after the bombs. They were crazy, even to the point that their Navy thought they were nuts.

[Showtime]

I voiced my viewpoint on the logic of dropping nukes on innocent people...

And you did so by ignoring everything else regarding the circumstances of the times and the realities of war. That is why I said you were in a theoretical discussion, because you removed everything else from the discussion.


You dont know how much longer or how many lives it would have cost, so stop pretending you do..... you are basing your estimation off their estimation...

The facts are these, without estimation: the US would have attacked Japan until they surrendered. We have no way of knowing exactly when that point may have came. It's speculation to say it would have gone to a land invasion costing hundreds of thousands of lives. All we know for sure is that worst-case scenario was averted, which would have been worse than the reality of the a-bomb.


I not in a mood to argue with a madball over a bunch of propaganda and estimates

And yet you did so by responding to me in the first place in this topic. You are the one who chose to engage me in discussing alternatives, and all this time you have come up with none. If you didn't want to talk about it, then you shouldn't have responded to my post.


your argument here is flat bullsh*t and its the main reason i dont wish to go deeper here..... It would be based on alot of estimates...

It is not. It's a fact that the US wasn't going to cease military strikes until Japan surrendered. This is not speculation. You hate the idea of using the a-bomb, and yet provide no other alternative to Japan's surrender, and you even refuse to accept the idea of conventional strikes. It's as if your idea would be for the US to suddenly stop and go home.


I dont totally buy the 2 track argument you and others try to force on everyone....

Just because you don't "buy" the choices doesn't mean it wasn't the reality. It was either use the a-bombs, or attack with conventional methods until Japan surrendered. Just because you may not like those choices doesn't mean it wasn't reality.


Ive read enough history.. and the way we pursued the bomb and the point in which we used it, tells me we used it for other reasons than the noble "we wanted to end the war quick" answer

I never said that was the only reason it was used. I said that there was no alternatives to either the a bomb or conventional attacks. You seem to oppose both, and yet can't come up with a third option which would have forced japan to surrender.





Again, if you want to debate with me about the realistic choices, which factor in the circumstances of the times, then fine. But there's no point in coming at me with "I hate war" and thinking that's a debate.

[Rasheed1]

And you did so by ignoring everything else regarding the circumstances of the times and the realities of war. That is why I said you were in a theoretical discussion, because you removed everything else from the discussion.

I didnt remove everything else... the principle overrides everything....

there is a difference






The facts are these, without estimation: the US would have attacked Japan until they surrendered. We have no way of knowing exactly when that point may have came. It's speculation to say it would have gone to a land invasion costing hundreds of thousands of lives. All we know for sure is that worst-case scenario was averted, which would have been worse than the reality of the a-bomb.

the truth in there is bolded... you dont know if the worst case scenerio was averted since: We have no way of knowing exactly when that point may have came....

Stop it....




It is not. It's a fact that the US wasn't going to cease military strikes until Japan surrendered. This is not speculation. You hate the idea of using the a-bomb, and yet provide no other alternative to Japan's surrender, and you even refuse to accept the idea of conventional strikes. It's as if your idea would be for the US to suddenly stop and go home.

I did? thats news to me.... One of my alternatives was conventional strikes on military targets... :confusedshrug:




Just because you don't "buy" the choices doesn't mean it wasn't the reality. It was either use the a-bombs, or attack with conventional methods until Japan surrendered. Just because you may not like those choices doesn't mean it wasn't reality.


see previous... I never said I opposed conventional attacks...


I never said that was the only reason it was used. I said that there was no alternatives to either the a bomb or conventional attacks. You seem to oppose both, and yet can't come up with a third option which would have forced japan to surrender.

I dont oppose both... go back and re read again...

[srekaL]

I think even though a conventional invading of Japan would have cost more lives, more money, and prolonged the war, it may be viewed by most as a less inhumane way of killing people. Which is preposterous because killing in itself can never be taken lightly. The A-bomb is instantaneous death for a city unlike an Air strike. I get the feeling that If you're a person that's getting bombed that you'd like the right to at best defend yourself or have a chance at saving yourself. Maybe you'd like the chance to tell your kids and wife you love them and to see all the important people in your life before your time is up. Then again this is War, and the US was not obligated to think in the best interests of the Japanese people, but rather in the best interest of the US and it's people. Which may have been, if the estimates were right, to use the A bomb and not prolong a war that would have cost many US casualties. Some people look at the calculated deaths of an invasion/air strike and the atom bomb and say "we'll it's justified because many more people would have died in an invasion." Which I'm not arguing. To some people seeing 70,000 & 80,000 die instantly or shortly after from poisoning seems more inhumane than killing possibly more people than that over a couple years or so. Whether that is right or wrong.

[Eggy]

War is hell. It would have been hell either way if the US was bombing cities with conventional raids.
The thing is the US was performing conventional strikes and bombings for breakfast, lunch and dinner and Japan did not show any signs of surrender.

[Showtime]

The thing is the US was performing conventional strikes and bombings for breakfast, lunch and dinner and Japan did not show any signs of surrender.
Exactly. They would have held out longer, meaning months more of bombing, and then invasion, costing more lives.

[Showtime]

I didnt remove everything else... the principle overrides everything....

there is a difference

Yes, the difference is a debate about the reality of the choices of the times, and the other is a theoretical discussion. You want to debate principle, and I want to debate the actual events and circumstances. You no longer wish to discuss what I came to discuss, so stop responding.


the truth in there is bolded... you dont know if the worst case scenerio was averted since: We have no way of knowing exactly when that point may have came....

No, you failed to comprehend this point. The worst case WAS in fact averted, but what is in question (and can be speculated) is if the worse case would in fact have taken place. We can debate about whether or not it would have come to that point, and that's the speculation. What is not speculation is that the bombs averted the worst case scenario. We know for sure that the war ended before it got to that point, which was a possibility at that time.


I did? thats news to me.... One of my alternatives was conventional strikes on military targets... :confusedshrug:

Your main argument against the bombs was the civilian casualties. I pointed out in response that conventional attacks would also result in civilian casualties. Your response was, in effect, ignoring that fact. Or do you no longer care about civilian losses? Which is it? Either you care or you don't.


I never said I opposed conventional attacks...

So your stance is not the fact that cities would be leveled and civilians lost, but the methods in which that would happen? We have already established the devastating losses from conventional attacks. Now you seem to be changing your viewpoint from previous posts. So which is it?

You came to me debating my comment about the realistic choices of attacks. Then you say that because you have no alternative that prevents more bloodshed, you disagree in principle. Now, you go back to saying that while you disagree in principle to the idea of civilian losses, you would support a conventional campaign which would bring us right around in a circle. Conventional war still would have resulted in civilian losses, as me and GTS have clearly pointed out. And, an invasion was averted.

I'm done with you until you want to come up with an alternative which presents a course of action which the US could have realistically taken which would have ended the war and prevented bloodshed, because that's the premise I'm operating on. I'm not debating principle alone, I'm debating principle in the real world. While horrifying, the a-bomb was the best outcome overall based on when the decision was made, with the knowledge and circumstances of the time, because it averted the worst-case scenario.

They did some bad to end a worse thing. Methods of war change, but war does not. If they could have ended it with flowers and candy, they would have. The point was to end it, and make sure it didn't start again. If you have another suggestion to how that could be accomplished in a better way at that time, let's hear it.

[Showtime]

I think even though a conventional invading of Japan would have cost more lives, more money, and prolonged the war, it may be viewed by most as a less inhumane way of killing people. Which is preposterous because killing in itself can never be taken lightly. The A-bomb is instantaneous death for a city unlike an Air strike. I get the feeling that If you're a person that's getting bombed that you'd like the right to at best defend yourself or have a chance at saving yourself. Maybe you'd like the chance to tell your kids and wife you love them and to see all the important people in your life before your time is up. Then again this is War, and the US was not obligated to think in the best interests of the Japanese people, but rather in the best interest of the US and it's people. Which may have been, if the estimates were right, to use the A bomb and not prolong a war that would have cost many US casualties. Some people look at the calculated deaths of an invasion/air strike and the atom bomb and say "we'll it's justified because many more people would have died in an invasion." Which I'm not arguing. To some people seeing 70,000 & 80,000 die instantly or shortly after from poisoning seems more inhumane than killing possibly more people than that over a couple years or so. Whether that is right or wrong.
How is it humane to string out death? Let's say a family of 5 was in Japan. Now, they had the option to die in an instant, or, let's say raids go on for weeks and possibly months. Two or 3 have died during the course of the raids, forcing them to grieve while at the same time fearing daily for their own lives. They are underground, fearing for their lives for days on end. They are possibly starving. They are brainwashed by propaganda, so when they hear the US is close to them, and before they are captured, they kill each other. Which do you think is better for them? Dying instantly, or going through hell first?

[tontoz]

How is it humane to string out death? Let's say a family of 5 was in Japan. Now, they had the option to die in an instant, or, let's say raids go on for weeks and possibly months. Two or 3 have died during the course of the raids, forcing them to grieve while at the same time fearing daily for their own lives. They are underground, fearing for their lives for days on end. They are possibly starving. They are brainwashed by propaganda, so when they hear the US is close to them, and before they are captured, they kill each other. Which do you think is better for them? Dying instantly, or going through hell first?


The bottom line here is that US lives > Japanese lives.

Anyone endorsing conventional attacks over the A-bomb is saying they would prefer that tens of thousands of US troops die. Me thinks they might change their "moral" argument if they were the ones who had to invade Japan.

[Rasheed1]

Yes, the difference is a debate about the reality of the choices of the times, and the other is a theoretical discussion. You want to debate principle, and I want to debate the actual events and circumstances. You no longer wish to discuss what I came to discuss, so stop responding.






No, you failed to comprehend this point. The worst case WAS in fact averted, but what is in question (and can be speculated) is if the worse case would in fact have taken place.

so let me ask this..... How are you sure the worst case scenerio was indeed averted if you arent sure the worst case scenerio would have ever taken place?

:oldlol: explain that please.... Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying.. but that sounds like double talk...

I dont agree that this is a fact...




We can debate about whether or not it would have come to that point, and that's the speculation. What is not speculation is that the bombs averted the worst case scenario. We know for sure that the war ended before it got to that point, which was a possibility at that time.


^this doesnt make sense....





Your main argument against the bombs was the civilian casualties.

my main argument was against using nukes on innocents



I pointed out in response that conventional attacks would also result in civilian casualties.

conventional bombs aimed at military targets would not kill as many innocents as dropping nukes on their heads...

Conventional weapons dont leave the kind of radiation poisoning that atomic weapons do...



So your stance is not the fact that cities would be leveled and civilians lost, but the methods in which that would happen?

conventional bombs aimed at military targets would not kill as many innocents as dropping nukes on their heads



We have already established the devastating losses from conventional attacks. Now you seem to be changing your viewpoint from previous posts. So which is it?


My viewpoint is the same... you NEVER drop nuclear bombs on innocent people's heads... hasnt changed one bit...

you simply didnt read what I said.. I havent changed at all


You came to me debating my comment about the realistic choices of attacks. Then you say that because you have no alternative that prevents more bloodshed, you disagree in principle.

I dont disagree because of lack of alternative (I never said that :oldlol: ).... I disagree on principle(you NEVER drop nuclear bombs on innocent people's heads).. I presented an alternative... you fail to recognize this....



Now, you go back to saying that while you disagree in principle to the idea of civilian losses, you would support a conventional campaign which would bring us right around in a circle. Conventional war still would have resulted in civilian losses, as me and GTS have clearly pointed out. And, an invasion was averted.


I didnt "Go Back" to saying anything... Im saying the same thing I have said the whole thread.... You dont drop nukes on innocent people's heads... As a matter of fact you avoid civilian deaths whenever and wherever you can..

If we take out military targets conventionally then alot less innocent folks die as opposed to dropping a damn atomic bomb on the whole city

(I dont see how that is soo difficult for you to understand)




I'm done with you until you want to come up with an alternative which presents a course of action which the US could have realistically taken which would have ended the war and prevented bloodshed, because that's the premise I'm operating on.

there is no 'preventing blooshed'... thats dumb....


you can prevent deaths of innocents wherever possible and nukin cities doesnt fall in line with that goal




I'm not debating principle alone, I'm debating principle in the real world. While horrifying, the a-bomb was the best outcome overall based on when the decision was made, with the knowledge and circumstances of the time.


there is no such thing showtime :oldlol: thats what makes me laugh at your BS real world vs. theoretical talk......


principles are principles..... either you live by them or you dont... like I said earlier, anyone can compromise themselves and do what is easier when things get tough... but the world becomes a better place and certain atrocities arent brought to life when people stand on their principles in the face of people tellin them to do what look easier......

[gts]

conventional bombs aimed at military targets would not kill as many innocents as dropping nukes on their heads

go look at pics of conventional bombing and what it did to tokyo and tell me if that is any better than a nuclear weapon

the bombs back then, any of them, conventional, nuclear, phosphorous, napalm like etc etc all had one thing in common they had no guidance, they were aimed by a man looking through a spotters scope, the numbers calculated, altitude air speed by hand on a scrap of paper then dropped from 30,000, wind taking them off course by up to a few miles.

this is not like today where the bombs are guided to their target this was crude ugly warfare, non combatant civilian casulties were not part of the numbers crunch like they are today, they were part of of doing the business of war

please google tokyo bombing, read up on it read about how the factories that drove the war machine were intermingled with the civilian neighborhoods, look at the piles of bodies, 100k killed in one night via "conventional" bombing and the ensuing firestorm, look at the pics of 6 months of that level of bombing in and around tokyo then come back and tell us

"conventional bombs aimed at military targets would not kill as many innocents as dropping nukes on their heads"

once again more people were killed in tokyo going after military targets in one night by conventional bombing than in nagasaki, more were killed in 6 months than hiroshima and nagasaki combined... it just took longer

[Rasheed1]

the bombs back then, any of them, conventional, nuclear, phosphorous, napalm like etc etc all had one thing in common they had no guidance, they were aimed by a man looking through a spotters scope, the numbers calculated, altitude air speed by hand on a scrap of paper then dropped from 30,000, wind taking them off course by up to a few miles.

this is not like today where the bombs are guided to their target this was crude ugly warfare, non combatant civilian casulties were not part of the numbers crunch like they are today, they were part of of doing the business of war

this is a great point (and duly noted) ..... I still wouldnt use nukes on a city of innocents though..

[tontoz]

this is a great point (and duly noted) ..... I still wouldnt use nukes on a city of innocents though..


I bet you wouldn't be willing to invade that city either.

You believe that you are standing on priciple but you aren't unless you would be willing to go in there yourself. It is really easy to sentence 10s of thousands of US citizens to death "on principle" but if it came to you or members of your family I doubt you would be so "principled".

[gts]

this is a great point (and duly noted) ..... I still wouldnt use nukes on a city of innocents though..none of us would that's because we're looking at it from a view of hind sight, but that what makes this discussion so interesting...

i certainly hope nobody has been offended in the thread, a sensitive subject at best but a worthy one

[iamgine]

Anything can be justified.

[kNIOKAS]

What's the point of this post?:facepalm
this is exactly the point. check

http://www.google.lt/images?q=hiroshima+victims&hl=lt&client=firefox-a&hs=I40&rls=org.*******:en-GB:official&prmd=vi&source=lnms&tbs=isch:1&ei=ZS90TPDUCo7uOdj1vMcI&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&ved=0CBIQ_AU&biw=1366&bih=581
and then ramble about how you fight terrorism (now).


it cannot be justified by any circumstances. and you say oh this helped to save our soldiers lives. think of it...

[tontoz]

this is exactly the point. check

and then ramble about how you fight terrorism (now).


it cannot be justified by any circumstances. and you say oh this helped to save our soldiers lives. think of it...


Roughly 100,000 civilians died in Okinawa. The fate of the Japanese civilians was sealed when Pearl Harbor was attacked. They were going to suffer heavy casualties no matter what.

Are you trying to say that the lives of US soldiers should be less important to the President than the lives of Japanese civilians? You do realize there was a draft then, right?

[Eggy]

this is exactly the point. check

and then ramble about how you fight terrorism (now).


it cannot be justified by any circumstances. and you say oh this helped to save our soldiers lives. think of it...
What? Make coherent points and sentences please.

[kNIOKAS]

Roughly 100,000 civilians died in Okinawa. The fate of the Japanese civilians was sealed when Pearl Harbor was attacked. They were going to suffer heavy casualties no matter what.

Are you trying to say that the lives of US soldiers should be less important to the President than the lives of Japanese civilians? You do realize there was a draft then, right?
tells you about your methods.


What? Make coherent points and sentences please.
i think your country shouldn't try controling other countries that are looking to get nuclear technology. because it is definitely it's ok if they drop it on you, because that's war. justified, you know... less casualties for them or something.

[tontoz]

tells you about your methods.


i

Could someone translate this for me? I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.

[Eggy]

tells you about your methods.


i think your country shouldn't try controling other countries that are looking to get nuclear technology. because it is definitely it's ok if they drop it on you, because that's war. justified, you know... less casualties for them or something.
This guy is dumb as ****. Japan attacked us first. If the US attacks another country, I expect that country to retaliate. What don't you understand?

[kNIOKAS]

Could someone translate this for me? I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.
that you agree that civilians should die in war. in the way they did (check the link i posted).

[gts]

i think your country shouldn't try controling other countries that are looking to get nuclear technology. because it is definitely it's ok if they drop it on you, because that's war. justified, you know... less casualties for them or something.
?
what in the heck does this have to do with the thread?
wait don't answer, i'll answer..

nothing at all it's a valid topic but not in this thread, go make a new one lay out your points and wait for discussion but stop trying to hijack what has been a very good discussion with intelligent posts made by thoughtful posters.

[Eggy]

that you agree that civilians should die in war. in the way they did (check the link i posted).
That's not what he said.:facepalm

[tontoz]

that you agree that civilians should die in war. in the way they did (check the link i posted).

It isn't a question of whether or not they should die. The fact is that they will die. There were no smart bombs back then and the Japanese were well known for their rather-die-than-surrender attitude. A nation that uses Kamikaze pilots isn't going to just lie down and surrender like the Iraqis did.

A dead man is a dead man. Debating on how someone dies in a war is just ridiculous.

Since you are so concerned about civilians what is your view about the millions of civilians that the Japanese killed?

[kNIOKAS]

It isn't a question of whether or not they should die. The fact is that they will die. There were no smart bombs back then and the Japanese were well known for their rather-die-than-surrender attitude. A nation that uses Kamikaze pilots isn't going to just lie down and surrender like the Iraqis did.

A dead man is a dead man. Debating on how someone dies in a war is just ridiculous.

Since you are so concerned about civilians what is your view about the millions of civilians that the Japanese killed?
nuclear weapon leaves whole generations miscreated. it is worst weapon ever.

ofcourse, killing civilians is wrong. anywaym, the fact that japan did it does not allow america do it.

[tontoz]

nuclear weapon leaves whole generations miscreated. it is worst weapon ever.

ofcourse, killing civilians is wrong. anywaym, the fact that japan did it does not allow america do it.


Allow? the US didn't need permission. They were at war. Japan attacked the US, not vice versa.

The bomb that is the "worst weapon ever" saved the lives of the US soldiers and Japan's asian neighbors. Japan had no peer other than Nazi Germany when it came to crimes against civilians. All that ended when they got nuked.

Now Japan is a free country with a powerhouse economy and not much military to speak of. Without the atom bomb it is no sure thing that they ever would have surrendered.

[kNIOKAS]

Allow? the US didn't need permission. They were at war. Japan attacked the US, not vice versa.

The bomb that is the "worst weapon ever" saved the lives of the US soldiers and Japan's asian neighbors. Japan had no peer other than Nazi Germany when it came to crimes against civilians. All that ended when they got nuked.

Now Japan is a free country with a powerhouse economy and not much military to speak of. Without the atom bomb it is no sure thing that they ever would have surrendered.
see? you miss the point completely. you're justifying dropping nuclear bombs on human beings.

[Showtime]

so let me ask this..... How are you sure the worst case scenerio was indeed averted if you arent sure the worst case scenerio would have ever taken place?

:oldlol: explain that please.... Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying.. but that sounds like double talk...

I dont agree that this is a fact...

Before I explain, I would like you to understand the difference between an inevitability, and a possibility. The former is something that will happen, while the latter is something that might happen.

The worst case scenario of a bloody invasion was a possibility to the US. Since the bombs ended the war sooner, it went from a possibility to a non-existent issue. So while you can argue it might not have happened, it was still a possibility, and the bombs no longer made that issue relevant. The fact that it ended the war is why it was beneficial.


^this doesnt make sense....

Before the bombs were dropped, the worst case was possible. Since the bombs ended the war, the worst case was no longer possible, because Japan surrendered. Therefore, the bombs averted the possibility of the worst case coming to pass.


my main argument was against using nukes on innocents

But you have no problem with conventional bombs killing innocents?


conventional bombs aimed at military targets would not kill as many innocents as dropping nukes on their heads...

So now we are into a numbers game? "Not as many"? I thought you were a man of principle?


I disagree on principle(you NEVER drop nuclear bombs on innocent people's heads).. I presented an alternative... you fail to recognize this....

You have backtracked on this issue. First, you said you didn't have a third option. Then later you said you weren't against conventional weapons. Yet, when I say that the other alternative at the time was an invasion, and your comments inferred you would support that (since that was the only realistic alternative), you said no. So again: if you were in power, what would be your course of action to end the war?

This matters in this discussion, because we are talking about options at the time. Since the US needed to end the war ASAP, needed Japan not to be able to make war later on, and that a conventional invasion would have meant more blood, then what is YOUR alternative? This is the problem: you can't disagree with EVERY course of action that would accomplish the end of the war while providing no other solution, because that would mean you wouldn't be supporting peace. This is the reality of debating in the real world. You would essentially be saying you would do nothing, and let the war continue.

If you still can't answer this simple question, then DON'T RESPOND TO MY POST AT ALL. If you do not want to discuss this, then STOP RESPONDING WITH IRRELEVANT AND MEANINGLESS CRAP. I don't care how you feel in a world of principles without consequence. I'm talking about a real world, with circumstances, with consequences, in which principles must apply and have an actual impact. So, if you want peace, and yet don't want to drop a nuke, don't want to invade, then what is your plan? Because if you don't have an alternative, then you have no room to criticize the decision which ended the war in the first place.

[tpols]

^for showtime I just have a question.

How do you know that a land invasion would have been worse than the nuke?
(because you're saying a land invasion was the worst-case scenario)

The worst case scenario for a land invasion would have been just as many people dying as from the nuke and it would have dragged the war out but it wouldn't have the horrendous radiation attached to it that horribly malforms human genetics for the next couple decades.

[RoTM]

The justification for the A bomb was drawn from what was at the time a relatively new theory on warfare which today we take for granted as true. Total war the idea that through nationalistic centralization wars would no longer simply be a dispute between two small power groups, but would instead encompass the entire peoples.
In the old days say the medieval era a war was fought between two families and the armies they raised and was fought over their property. Civilian casualties were generally considered to be justified through unfortunate necessity.
Now we've allowed the state so much control over us in war time that its actually feasible for them to make the argument that through their war time controls on the economy that every single person in the country is a military target. Farmers and laborers become part of the nations "work force" a militarized term. Mothers and children are simply considered to be future sources of manpower for the army.
We also were fed simplistic notions promoted by our Airforce that by causing mass casualties among civilians we could cause them to force their governments surrender. This was propaganda they used to compete with the other branches for funding for themselves that turned out to be completely false.
So as for the question do I think the A-Bomb was justified? No I do not in that I don't buy into the total war system. I think its a relic of failed nationalist politics from 200 years ago and it breeds into an us vs them mentality that can allow horribly barbaric things like the dropping of the A bomb to happen. We have already forgotten that because of those same politics we would have allowed the entire world to be destroyed through a cold war nuclear exchange. Its lunacy.

[gts]

^for showtime I just have a question.

How do you know that a land invasion would have been worse than the nuke?
(because you're saying a land invasion was the worst-case scenario)

The worst case scenario for a land invasion would have been just as many people dying as from the nuke and it would have dragged the war out but it wouldn't have the horrendous radiation attached to it that horribly malforms human genetics for the next couple decades.i read something on that either in this thread via link or someplace else last night

an invasion of japan would have been a nightmare, the location of it's cities, the terrain made it easy for the japanese to defend, prior to the wars end the japanese looked at a possible invasion and loaded up defenses in the area they felt was prime for invasion.. after the war us military looking through documents found the invasion defense set up and they (the japanese) had guessed right down to the nth degree how a possible american invasion might go..

there really was only one way place to invade and the japanese knew it

[johndeeregreen]

The answer to this all depends on who you ask and what they value.

First off, we need some perspective into Japanese culture of the period. It was ingrained that they did not surrender. They were still finding Japanese soldiers in the 1970's on some of these remote islands still holding out.

The alternative to atomic bombing would have been a full scale invasion of Japan. Considering the massive casualties incurred for both sides at battles such as Iwo Jima and Okinawa, both of which ocurred when the war was certainly lost for the Japanese, it became very clear that a surrender was completely out of the question.

Consider this: a land invasion would have meant leveling/firebombing entire cities - more than just two. Try every major city. Clearing each city of fanatically dedicated and loyal civilians who were called upon to die before surrender would have been like Hue City during Tet x 100. The loss of life on both sides would unquestionably have exceeded that lost in the bombings.

And if you doubt the Japanese will to resist, consider this: it took TWO atomic bombings and the promise of more before it was decided to acquiesce to the Allied terms.

In terms of civilians killed? A full-out invasion certainly would have resulted in more civilian fatalities. It would have extended the war probably by a year, and let's be honest, it would have been a total slaughter of Japanese residents and probably their entire culture.

So you have to weigh that with the implications of sending warfare into its next element, with the true motivations for doing so (Pearl Harbor), and the long-term effects of the bombings on future generations.

It's not an easy question, and there's no right answer. When you boil it down, it was going to be a traumatic event for Japan no matter what. Those were the options - full scale urban war across a countryside and really what effectively would have been a purge, versus opening the nuclear can of worms.

[johndeeregreen]

The worst case scenario for a land invasion would have been just as many people dying as from the nuke and it would have dragged the war out but it wouldn't have the horrendous radiation attached to it that horribly malforms human genetics for the next couple decades.
You, sir, need to do some research.

Worst case would have been WAY more people dead. Are you serious? I believe the two bombings accounted for ~100,000 dead. There were more Japanese fatalities at Okinawa alone. Imagine a full-scale invasion of the country! It's believed that civilian casualties at Okinawa alone may have been more catastrophic than the two atomic raids.

[iamgine]

Basically the justification boils down to this. People don't hold the same value. One human being is more important than another. If given a choice, would you rather save your family or 1000 strangers that you've never met? I think a lot of people would choose to save their family even if that means they have to sacrifice 1000 strangers. And that's pretty understandable and justified even if it's technically not the right thing to do.

Actually, a lot of countries need to be thankful to the USA for dropping that bomb, for doing the dirty work. Japanese occupation was said to be brutal from what I read.

[tontoz]

see? you miss the point completely. you're justifying dropping nuclear bombs on human beings.


If they are killed by a nuke or killed by a gun they are just as dead. Are the 100,000 civilians killed in Okinawa better off since they weren't killed by the A-bomb?

[RoTM]

More post war propaganda, an invasion of Japan was not a foregone conclusion. They had no fleet and no capacity to launch land invasions that would threaten the US at that point. They were losing in china and faced an inevitable soviet invasion of manchuria and korea. So why was a land invasion that would have cost millions of lives necessary? The question is necessary for what, politics?

[johndeeregreen]

More post war propaganda, an invasion of Japan was not a foregone conclusion.
Yes it was.


They had no fleet and no capacity to launch land invasions that would threaten the US at that point. They were losing in china and faced an inevitable soviet invasion of manchuria and korea.
Completely irrelevant because:


So why was a land invasion that would have cost millions of lives necessary? The question is necessary for what, politics?
That is correct. Whether or not it makes sense you to has no bearing on the fact that America and Americans were still very much out for blood, and that they were going to finish the job one way or another.

Additionally, simply ending the war and leaving millions of Japanese to their own devices would also have been an absolute disaster. Post-war occupation and the stipulations that came with them was a necessity.

[Blackisbig]

More post war propaganda, an invasion of Japan was not a foregone conclusion. They had no fleet and no capacity to launch land invasions that would threaten the US at that point. They were losing in china and faced an inevitable soviet invasion of manchuria and korea. So why was a land invasion that would have cost millions of lives necessary? The question is necessary for what, politics?




They would have been able to prolong the war for quite some time. Do you honestly think that that wasn't thought of by the allied forces at the time? They were considering a possible land invasion as late as 47 or 48, which would lead us to believe that Japan could have held out for at least that long on their own. Their citizenry had already committed suicide in large scales back on Okinawa, aided by the Japanese military, and you can be damned sure that they wouldn't have surrendered Japan if they not pushed into doing so by either the nuclear bomb or some kind of invasion. You act like they didn't consider all of these options at the time, which is a simply ludicrous and factually incorrect.

[Heilige]

Has anyone ever heard of Unit 731?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731


Weapons testing

Human targets were used to test grenades positioned at various distances and in different positions.[11] Flame throwers were tested on humans.[11] Humans were tied to stakes and used as targets to test germ-releasing bombs, chemical weapons, and explosive bombs.[11]
[edit] Germ warfare attacks

Prisoners were injected with inoculations of disease, disguised as vaccinations, to study their effects.[11] To study the effects of untreated venereal diseases, male and female prisoners were deliberately infected with syphilis and gonorrhea, then studied[11]. Prisoners were infested with fleas in order to acquire large quantities of disease-carrying fleas for the purposes of studying the viability of germ warfare[citation needed].

Plague fleas, infected clothing, and infected supplies encased in bombs were dropped on various targets. The resulting cholera, anthrax, and plague were estimated to have killed around 400,000 Chinese civilians.[11] Tularemia was tested on Chinese civilians.[19]

Unit 731 and its affiliated units (Unit 1644, Unit 100, et cetera) were involved in research, development, and experimental deployment of epidemic-creating biowarfare weapons in assaults against the Chinese populace (both civilian and military) throughout World War II. Plague-infested fleas, bred in the laboratories of Unit 731 and Unit 1644, were spread by low-flying airplanes upon Chinese cities, coastal Ningbo in 1940, and Changde, Hunan Province, in 1941. This military aerial spraying killed thousands of people with bubonic plague epidemics.[20]
[edit] Other experiments

Prisoners were subjected to other torturous experiments such as being hung upside down to see how long it would take for them to choke to death, having air injected into their arteries to determine the time until the onset of embolism, and having horse urine injected into their kidneys.[11]

Other incidents include being deprived of food and water to determine the length of time until death, being placed into high-pressure chambers until death, having experiments performed upon prisoners to determine the relationship between temperature, burns, and human survival, being placed into centrifuges and spun until dead, having animal blood injected and the effects studied, being exposed to lethal doses of x-rays, having various chemical weapons tested on prisoners inside gas chambers, being injected with sea water to determine if it could be a substitute for saline and being buried alive.


Here is a link on the Rape of Nanking:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Nanking

[brantonli]

I thought the Japanese had already offered to surrender prior to the atomic bombs? But the Allies only wanted unconditional surrender, but it included the removal of the Japanese emperor, which the Japanese obviously refused. After the bombs were dropped, the Allies accepted their surrender with the Emperor still in a position of power. That's a bit strange isn't it? You send a peace offer, they reject it, then they bomb the crap out of 2 places, you send another, more lenient peace offer, and somehow they accept that.

People keep saying the alternative to the bombs was a full scale invasion of Japan, well...not really. The Japanese offered to surrender as early as January 1945, and kept trying to get the Soviets to help them achieve a peace offer.

[Heilige]

I thought the Japanese had already offered to surrender prior to the atomic bombs? But the Allies only wanted unconditional surrender, but it included the removal of the Japanese emperor, which the Japanese obviously refused. After the bombs were dropped, the Allies accepted their surrender with the Emperor still in a position of power. That's a bit strange isn't it? You send a peace offer, they reject it, then they bomb the crap out of 2 places, you send another, more lenient peace offer, and somehow they accept that.

People keep saying the alternative to the bombs was a full scale invasion of Japan, well...not really. The Japanese offered to surrender as early as January 1945, and kept trying to get the Soviets to help them achieve a peace offer.


http://hnn.us/articles/52502.html

[tontoz]

I thought the Japanese had already offered to surrender prior to the atomic bombs? But the Allies only wanted unconditional surrender, but it included the removal of the Japanese emperor, which the Japanese obviously refused. After the bombs were dropped, the Allies accepted their surrender with the Emperor still in a position of power. That's a bit strange isn't it? You send a peace offer, they reject it, then they bomb the crap out of 2 places, you send another, more lenient peace offer, and somehow they accept that.

People keep saying the alternative to the bombs was a full scale invasion of Japan, well...not really. The Japanese offered to surrender as early as January 1945, and kept trying to get the Soviets to help them achieve a peace offer.


You are talking about a nation that was using Kamikaze pilots. Many civilians in Okinawa committed suicide rather than surrender. And you think they had already agreed to surrender? :facepalm

[tontoz]

Has anyone ever heard of Unit 731?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731




Here is a link on the Rape of Nanking:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Nanking



And people think it was inhumane to nuke them. Please. The US did the whole world a favor.

[brantonli]

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p508_Hoffman.html


:confusedshrug:


Ok, I'm slightly confused here, in Heligie's link, it says

[QUOTE]t referred instead to the Japanese foreign office

[artex]

not justified

[bada bing]

killing of 100,000 is not justified on teh assumption that more will die if these 100,000 do not. This is sad that are are going to justify killing close to 100,000 because we 'think' more were going to die if we invaded.

[tontoz]

killing of 100,000 is not justified on teh assumption that more will die if these 100,000 do not. This is sad that are are going to justify killing close to 100,000 because we 'think' more were going to die if we invaded.

It isn't a question of what they think. They already knew that thousands of US soldiers would die in a Japan invasion. They already knew that 100k Japanese civilians (and another 100k Japanese soldiers) died in Okinawa and that was just one city.

Wake up

[Eggy]

killing of 100,000 is not justified on teh assumption that more will die if these 100,000 do not. This is sad that are are going to justify killing close to 100,000 because we 'think' more were going to die if we invaded.
But that's not the justification. The justification is that our soldiers would not have died in an invasion due to the ending of the war by the atomic bombs. I think that's justification enough. The limit on the influence of the Soviet Union is justification too.

[RoTM]

They would have been able to prolong the war for quite some time. Do you honestly think that that wasn't thought of by the allied forces at the time? They were considering a possible land invasion as late as 47 or 48, which would lead us to believe that Japan could have held out for at least that long on their own. Their citizenry had already committed suicide in large scales back on Okinawa, aided by the Japanese military, and you can be damned sure that they wouldn't have surrendered Japan if they not pushed into doing so by either the nuclear bomb or some kind of invasion. You act like they didn't consider all of these options at the time, which is a simply ludicrous and factually incorrect.

So what I'm supposed to assume these people know whats best for the world. Everything they project is wrong.

[gts]

Article on the possible invasion of Japan and why it was shelved

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/giangrec.htm

[SinJackal]

After reading the title, I was going to chime in with the very first point you made. Exact reason why it wasn't justified. It was one of the lowest points (that the general public knows of) in U.S. history as far as military goes imo.

The bombing also gets undue credit for ending the war. The japanese were getting absolutely demolished by the russians towards the end of the war. It wasn't even funny how badly they were getting creamed. The bomb was just icing on the cake. The japanese would've surrendered soon enough.

[Blackisbig]

So what I'm supposed to assume these people know whats best for the world. Everything they project is wrong.




And you're right, gotcha.

[DuMa]

hard to say it was justified or not. i think there couldve been different ways of demostrating the power of the a-bombs to convince the japanese to surrender.

we look back at it now and the a-bomb becomes more justified in public view because we are all biased and grew up in a very peaceful world as a byproduct of the a-bombings. So i dont know if our opinion can be anywhere close to a educated person from 1945. You cant really compare military decisions in different eras. Its hard to predict what country that the US were at war with would do at that point.

So we can read all the articles we could on this and make your own opinions but i think our opinions really doesnt matter because you didnt experience this like the people in 1945 did. So we cant really judge the actions of the government in 1945. They must have had all the intel neccessary to make the decision to A-Bomb. You hope they had all the intel neccessary thats all you can really hope for.

[Showtime]

Article on the possible invasion of Japan and why it was shelved

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/giangrec.htm
Great paper on the situation at the time.

[SinJackal]

I do sort of agree with that. If not that instance, an A-Bomb was going to be used at some point between then and now. No military scientist makes a weapon and doesn't use it. The A-Bomb threat has actually averted wars since that one ended. Many are edgy about the whole existance of the bombs now, but many also believe they're keeping wars from starting as well. Nobody wants to get bombed afterwhat happened the first time.

What happened is very sad. . .but it probably would've just happened to someone else soon enough anyway.

[RoTM]

And you're right, gotcha.

Such comments are always easier then facing up to questions of why we've empowered people to control the very lives of millions through the press of a button. This isn't a world I want to live in, and if you want to know what I actually think. I think Truman used the bomb to justify its expense. They needed to use it to end the war to justify its creation. To placate the backlash from congress had the war ended with the project still secret. A political decision.

[tontoz]

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p508_Hoffman.html


:confusedshrug:


Ok, I'm slightly confused here, in Heligie's link, it says



But I thought that's exactly what the Allies agreed to after the atomic bombs were dropped?


You more than slightly confused.

First of all i suggest you look up the words "peace" and "surrender" in the dictionary since you clearly don't know what they mean. Where in that link does it say Japan was willing to give up their military, allow their industry to be controlled, allow occupying forces, etc?

Secondly Japan was in "peace" negotiations with the US while they were dropping bombs on Pearl Harbor. They didn't even declare war until well after the bombing started.

[rufuspaul]

The japanese would've surrendered soon enough.

I don't think they were the surrendering type. I believe they would have fought hard to the end and that an invasion would have been a huge, expensive (monitarily as well as in loss of life) undertaking.

[kNIOKAS]

If they are killed by a nuke or killed by a gun they are just as dead. Are the 100,000 civilians killed in Okinawa better off since they weren't killed by the A-bomb?
not really the same.
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRviF7-yy0EdivRBo74eh4Na6InkYCJ_9U4XZWHDI_7o0CRScA&t=1&usg=__o46hLEgbv7VN8BvL4y10cj90BM4

And people think it was inhumane to nuke them. Please. The US did the whole world a favor.
so you think unleashing evil is ok to do because hey, it's against other evil? that's not what your priest told you, son.

[The_Yearning]

Truman is in hell and so is his next 10 generation of kids are going to hell for this. And even then that isn't enough.

[rufuspaul]

Truman is in hell and so is his next 10 generation of kids are going to hell for this. And even then that isn't enough.

http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2010/07/Antoine-Dodson-Dumb.gif

[tontoz]

not really the same.


You didn't answer the question so i will ask it again. Are 100k civilians killed in Okinawa better off because they weren't killed by the A-bomb?


so you think unleashing evil is ok to do because hey, it's against other evil? that's not what your priest told you, son.


Priests don't fight wars. If the priests were in charge we would probably be speaking German now.

[brantonli]

You more than slightly confused.

First of all i suggest you look up the words "peace" and "surrender" in the dictionary since you clearly don't know what they mean. Where in that link does it say Japan was willing to give up their military, allow their industry to be controlled, allow occupying forces, etc?

Secondly Japan was in "peace" negotiations with the US while they were dropping bombs on Pearl Harbor. They didn't even declare war until well after the bombing started.

I assume that this:


1. Full surrender of all Jap forces on sea, in the air, at home, on island possessions and in occupied countries.

should fulfill your first term, that 'Japan was willing to give up their military'


3. Occupation of the Jap homeland and island possessions by Allied troops under American direction.

this should fulfill your 3rd term, 'allow occupying forces'


5. Regulation of Jap industry to halt present and future production of implements of war.

While this doesn't say to hand over their industry, it does say that the Japanese will stop all production of implements of war, which only partially fills your 2nd point.

I realise that I used the words 'peace' and 'surrender' interchangeably, and that was wrong.

And please read this


Two days before the late President Roosevelt left the last week in January for the Yalta conference with Prime Minister Churchill and Marshal Stalin he received a Japanese offer identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, Harry S. Truman.

It's all there in that link, and here it is again. It's the 2nd article, under subheading Defeat Seen Inevitable
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p508_Hoffman.html

Look, I'm one of the last persons to have much sympathy for the Japanese. As a Chinese, we learnt the Rape of Nanjing, the occupation of Hong Kong, how everybody was forced to learn Japanese, the Marco Polo bridge incident, and that was just in primary school. Whenever the previous Japanese Prime Minister (no idea what his name in English is) went to visit the shrine for Japanese soldiers in WWII, it gets extensive media coverage every single time he does it. There was a nasty period when a Japanese textbook referred to the Rape of Nanjing as the 'Nanjing Incident' and there were people burning the textbooks on the street. I'm all too aware of the atrocities that the Japanese have committed, but it does not mean we have or had to stoop to their level.

[tontoz]

I don't think they were the surrendering type. I believe they would have fought hard to the end and that an invasion would have been a huge, expensive (monitarily as well as in loss of life) undertaking.

The Japanese were using Kamikaze pilots and civilians in Okinawa were committing suicide rather than surrender. Yet somehow people believe that they were ready to surrender? :facepalm

[Horde of Temujin]

It is never justified to drop weapons of mass destruction on civilians. The Japanese were already near defeat and were not a threat. Truman and the military just wanted to test their new toys. How can it be justified? One yet alone two, you think if Truman would have said "okay we dropped the first one if you dont comply well drop a few more on Tokyo" the japanese wouldnt have surrendered, please.

[Horde of Temujin]

The Japanese were using Kamikaze pilots and civilians in Okinawa were committing suicide rather than surrender. Yet somehow people believe that they were ready to surrender? :facepalm


they only waited two days to drop the second one, you know the facts as well as i i think it just boils down to how you feel on the situation, what kind of person you are.

[tontoz]

Brantonli i looked at that link last night and there was nothing in at that said that they were willing to give up their military, etc. You are quoting a different article and i can't open up the link while at work.

[brantonli]

The Japanese were using Kamikaze pilots and civilians in Okinawa were committing suicide rather than surrender. Yet somehow people believe that they were ready to surrender? :facepalm

You must realise that the Japanese Emperor was regarded as a deity at the time. Imagine British people to the Queen, but every single one of them believed she was chosen by God him/whateverself, it's that sort of reverence. If the Emperor and the military brass said surrender, then out of sheer loyalty the Japanese people would surrender. I realise that we are both painting with very broad strokes, but please don't pretend that the Japanese had only one emotion and that was to fight to the death.


Brantonli i looked at that link last night and there was nothing in at that said that they were willing to give up their military, etc. You are quoting a different article and i can't open up the link while at work.

There are 2 parts to that site, the first part of the commentary, and the 2nd part is the news article, and I just skipped straight to the article without proper reference. Here's the article:


Chicago Tribune, August 19,1945

JAPS ASKED PEACE IN JAN. ENVOYS ON WAY -- TOKYO

Roosevelt Ignored M'Arthur Report On Nip Proposals

By Walter Trohan

Release of all censorship restrictions in the United States makes it possible to report that the first Japanese peace bid was relayed to the White House seven months ago.

Two days before the late President Roosevelt left the last week in January for the Yalta conference with Prime Minister Churchill and Marshal Stalin he received a Japanese offer identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, Harry S. Truman.

MacArthur Relayed Message to F.D.

The Jap offer, based on five separate overtures, was relayed to the White House by Gen. MacArthur in a 40-page communication. The American commander, who had just returned triumphantly to Bataan, urged negotiations on the basis of the Jap overtures.

The offer, as relayed by MacArthur, contemplated abject surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. The suggestion was advanced from the Japanese quarters making the offer that the Emperor become a puppet in the hands of American forces.

Two of the five Jap overtures were made through American channels and three through British channels. All came from responsible Japanese, acting for Emperor Hirohito.

General's Communication Dismissed

President Roosevelt dismissed the general's communication, which was studded with solemn references to the deity, after a casual reading with the remark, "MacArthur is our greatest general and our poorest politician."

The MacArthur report was not even taken to Yalta. However, it was carefully preserved in the files of the high command and subsequently became the basis of the Truman-Attlee Potsdam declaration calling for surrender of Japan.

This Jap peace bid was known to the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald shortly after the MacArthur comunication reached here. It was not published under the paper’s established policy of complete co-operation with the voluntary censorship code.

Must Explain Delay

Now that peace has been concluded on the basis of the terms MacArthur reported, high administration officials prepared to meet expected congressional demands for explanation of the delay. It was considered certain that from various quarters of Congress charges would be hurled that the delay cost thousands of American lives and casualties, particularly in such costly offensives as Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

It was explained in high official circles that the bid relayed by MacArthur did not constitute an official offer in the same sense as the final offer which was presented through Japanese diplomatic channels at Bern and Stockholm last week for relay to the four major Allied powers.

No negotiations were begun on the basis of the bid, it was said, because it was feared that if any were undertaken the Jap war lords, who were presumed to be ignorant of the feelers, would visit swift punishment on those making the offer.

It was held possible that the war lords might even assassinate the Emperor and announce the son of heaven had fled the earth in a fury of indignation over the peace bid.

Defeat Seen Inevitable

Officials said it was felt by Mr. Roosevelt that the Japs were not ripe for peace, except for a small group, who were powerless to cope with the war lords, and that peace could not come until the Japs had suffered more.

The Jap overtures were made on acknowledgment that defeat was inevitable and Japan had to choose the best way out of an unhappy dilemma -- domination of Asia by Russia or by the United States. The unofficial Jap peace brokers said the latter would be preferable by far.

Jap proposals to Gen. MacArthur contemplated:

1. Full surrender of all Jap forces on sea, in the air, at home, on island possessions and in occupied countries.

2. Surrender of all arms and munitions.

3. Occupation of the Jap homeland and island possessions by Allied troops under American direction.

Would Give Up Territory

4. Jap relinquishment from Manchuria, Korea and Formosa as well as all territory seized during the war.

5. Regulation of Jap industry to halt present and future production of implements of war.

6. Turning over of any Japanese the United States might designate as war criminals.

7. Immediate release of all prisoners of war and internees in Japan proper and areas under Japanese control.

After the fall of Germany, the policy of unconditional surrender drew critical fire. In the Senate Senator White (R.) of Maine Capehart (R.) of Indiana took the lead in demanding that precise terms be given Japan and in asking whether peace feelers had not been received from the Nipponese.

Terms Drafted in July

In July the Tribune reported that a set of terms were being drafted for President Truman to take to Potsdam. Capehart hailed the reported terms on the floor of the Senate as a great contribribution to universal peace.

These terms, which were embodied in the Potsdam declaration did not mention the disposition of the Emperor. Otherwise they were almost identical with the proposals contained in the MacArthur memorandum.

Just before the Japanese surrender the Russian foreign commissar disclosed that the Japs had made peace overtures through Moscow asking that the Soviets mediate the war. These overtures were made in the middle of June through the Russian foreign office and also through a personal letter from Hirohito to Stalin Both overtures were reported to the United States and Britain.

[rufuspaul]

It is never justified to drop weapons of mass destruction on civilians. The Japanese were already near defeat and were not a threat. Truman and the military just wanted to test their new toys. How can it be justified? One yet alone two, you think if Truman would have said "okay we dropped the first one if you dont comply well drop a few more on Tokyo" the japanese wouldnt have surrendered, please.

How do you know that? Do you think that if we just left them alone they would have disbanded their military and stopped producing weapons?

[tontoz]

It is never justified to drop weapons of mass destruction on civilians. The Japanese were already near defeat and were not a threat. Truman and the military just wanted to test their new toys. How can it be justified? One yet alone two, you think if Truman would have said "okay we dropped the first one if you dont comply well drop a few more on Tokyo" the japanese wouldnt have surrendered, please.

That is an opinion that has no basis in reality. Please give all of the examples of Japan surrendering to an invading force that didn't use the A-bomb.

[tontoz]

You must realise that the Japanese Emperor was regarded as a deity at the time. Imagine British people to the Queen, but every single one of them believed she was chosen by God him/whateverself, it's that sort of reverence. If the Emperor and the military brass said surrender, then out of sheer loyalty the Japanese people would surrender. I realise that we are both painting with very broad strokes, but please don't pretend that the Japanese had only one emotion and that was to fight to the death.

I don't need to pretend. the facts speak for themselves. If they are using Kamikaze's and committing suicide rather than surrender that is self explanatory.

[brantonli]

That is an opinion that has no basis in reality. Please give all of the examples of Japan surrendering to an invading force that didn't use the A-bomb.

Lol that's not very fair considering that:


Unless one counts the Allied Occupation following World War II, the Japanese main islands have never been successfully invaded in recorded history. from wiki.

Japan as an island is both very well protected and, to be honest, there isn't that much to gain by taking over Japan in terms of raw material and land, so I don't think that many people tried to invade Japan and make it surrender anyway.

[Horde of Temujin]

That is an opinion that has no basis in reality. Please give all of the examples of Japan surrendering to an invading force that didn't use the A-bomb.

A thorough naval and aerial blockade, in addition to extended conventional bombing on non-civilian targets wouldve done the trick. A sustained campaign wouldve eventually forced a surrender. The Japanese leadership was not as irrational as you think. Pressure from the USSR was also forthcoming.

[Horde of Temujin]

The fact is that it was a barbaric act, that set a bad precedent for the rest of the world.

Tonto, how do you justify the second bombing coming only two days after the first?

[rufuspaul]

A thorough naval and aerial blockade, in addition to extended conventional bombing on non-civilian targets wouldve done the trick. A sustained campaign wouldve eventually forced a surrender. The Japanese leadership was not as irrational as you think. Pressure from the USSR was also forthcoming.

Again that would have caused as much pain, suffering and death to the civilian population as the bombs. Hardly a more moral undertaking.

[Boogaloo]

Its funny how people here treat WW2 like it is Afghan war like it is today where the US and its Allies were more concerned about winning the hearts and minds of the population.

WW2 was TOTAL WAR, not a limited conflict like Afghanistan, Iraq, or even Vietnam. The US and its allies had a gloves off approach. Win at all cost. They were not concerned about being PC, the mindset of the people back then who lived through this awful time knew that total capitulation of the enemy is the only goal worth sacrificing hundreds of thousands of men. Win the war and end it by any means necessary. That is the nature of total war.

In the end, dropping the Bomb meant an end to a seven year world wide conflict. Yes it terrible and hard to imagine the US killing many civilians to achieve its objective, but the mind set of waging war during this period cannot be compared to the conflicts of today where avoiding collateral damage is priority number one. In the end Japan completely surrendered, got taken over by the US, and look where they at now, a first class, 1st world nation.

What people forget is the fire bombing of Tokyo caused more destruction and killed more civilians than both the Atomic bombs combined. And still with that awesome destruction Japan did not capitulate.

[tontoz]

The fact is that it was a barbaric act, that set a bad precedent for the rest of the world.

Tonto, how do you justify the second bombing coming only two days after the first?


They didn't surrender. Do you really think they would have dropped another bomb if they had surrendered?

[tontoz]

A thorough naval and aerial blockade, in addition to extended conventional bombing on non-civilian targets wouldve done the trick. A sustained campaign wouldve eventually forced a surrender. The Japanese leadership was not as irrational as you think. Pressure from the USSR was also forthcoming.

First of all you are just making an assumptions. Secondly how many years in an "eventually"?

[tontoz]

Lol that's not very fair considering that:

from wiki.

Japan as an island is both very well protected and, to be honest, there isn't that much to gain by taking over Japan in terms of raw material and land, so I don't think that many people tried to invade Japan and make it surrender anyway.



Which is exactly why the bombs made sense. An invasion would have been extremely difficult.

[kNIOKAS]

You didn't answer the question so i will ask it again. Are 100k civilians killed in Okinawa better off because they weren't killed by the A-bomb?




Priests don't fight wars. If the priests were in charge we would probably be speaking German now.
look up the picture and ask yourself if you want this to be given birth by your wife.

killing civilians is wrong. and there's no more or less wrong, it is just wrong. take it to account. now, to answer your question:
yes, they were "better off".


war or not, you still have to follow your moral codes. it would be easy to drop them off as soon as there's war. therefore dropping nuclear bombs is not right, even if it nearly is "their own medicine".

[tontoz]

look up the picture and ask yourself if you want this to be given birth by your wife.

killing civilians is wrong. and there's no more or less wrong, it is just wrong. take it to account. now, to answer your question:
yes, they were "better off".




I would like to hear how we could have won the war without killing civilians. The reality of a world war is far different from the fantasy world inside your head.

Why aren't you complaining about all of the dead civilians in Okinawa, Tokyo or Berlin? Looks like you are pretty selective about the civilians you choose to care about.

Please explain how the dead in Okinawa were better off than the dead in Hiroshima.



war or not, you still have to follow your moral codes. it would be easy to drop them off as soon as there's war. therefore dropping nuclear bombs is not right, even it's nearly "their own medicine".

How was dropping a bomb against a moral code? War involves killing. The A-bomb was just another method of killing and it saved many lives, most importantly the lives of the US.

It is easy for you to sit on your couch and say that thousands of US citizens should die because you don't want the bomb to be used. But if it was you or your family members preparing to invade Japan I doubt you would be so against the bomb.

it is easy to sentence other people to death on priciple but are you willing to put your own life on the line on priciple? I seriously doubt it.

[rufuspaul]

war or not, you still have to follow your moral codes.

What? War is killing people. It is inherently immoral.

[Showtime]

What? War is killing people. It is inherently immoral.
lol apparently for him, it's ok to use chemical warfare, conventional bombings, flamethrowers and firebombs, etc, but atomic weapons are immoral. What a cluster**** of logic.

[kNIOKAS]

lol apparently for him, it's ok to use chemical warfare, conventional bombings, flamethrowers and firebombs, etc, but atomic weapons are immoral. What a cluster**** of logic.
i just didn't say that. you're better that that!


I would like to hear how we could have won the war without killing civilians. The reality of a world war is far different from the fantasy world inside your head.
yet you have to set the ultimate goal, not be satisfied with what is "reality".


Why aren't you complaining about all of the dead civilians in Okinawa, Tokyo or Berlin? Looks like you are pretty selective about the civilians you choose to care about.
the topic is. i couldn't justify killing people.


Please explain how the dead in Okinawa were better off than the dead in Hiroshima.
at least the other generations aren't born unhuman.


How was dropping a bomb against a moral code? War involves killing. The A-bomb was just another method of killing and it saved many lives, most importantly the lives of the US.[quote]
it was evil.

[quote]It is easy for you to sit on your couch and say that thousands of US citizens should die because you don't want the bomb to be used. But if it was you or your family members preparing to invade Japan I doubt you would be so against the bomb.
you're really confused there. killing people is not exactly saving lives, it's killing people. do not take this kill-or-be-killed game for granted. and atomic bomb causes such suffering you wouldn't like to see. just check the pics, again.
.
[quote]it is easy to sentence other people to death on priciple but are you willing to put your own life on the line on priciple? I seriously doubt it.
somebody told you not killing japanese is such horrific way would result in getting your own people killed. exactly, how? when they invade other country?

[no conscience]

if Germany or Japan did the same to say New York and Los Angeles, sure as hell the US would put that in our history books as atrocious and war crimes

[artex]

if Germany or Japan did the same to say New York and Los Angeles, sure as hell the US would put that in our history books as atrocious and war crimes

yup

[Hawker]

if Germany or Japan did the same to say New York and Los Angeles, sure as hell the US would put that in our history books as atrocious and war crimes

If we weren't the agressors, like Germany and Japan, yes I agree with you.

[tontoz]

you're really confused there. killing people is not exactly saving lives, it's killing people. do not take this kill-or-be-killed game for granted. and atomic bomb causes such suffering you wouldn't like to see. just check the pics, again

Yes it is. The A-bomb save the lives of US troops that would have died in an invasion. It also saved the lives of Japans neighboring countries that had long been the victims of Japanese aggression.

200,000 Japanese civilians died in Okinawa and Tokyo. Without the bomb many would have died in an invasion. There were going to be heavy casualties among Japanese civilians even if the bombs weren't dropped.


yet you have to set the ultimate goal, not be satisfied with what is "reality".


I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.


somebody told you not killing japanese is such horrific way would result in getting your own people killed. exactly, how? when they invade other country?

Again i say huh? The dropping of the bombs prevented an invasion. Many US lives would have been lost trying to invade Japan. It is not debatable.


the topic is. i couldn't justify killing people.


So if a country declares war and attacks us we shouldn't retaliate and kill people? Sure

[tontoz]

if Germany or Japan did the same to say New York and Los Angeles, sure as hell the US would put that in our history books as atrocious and war crimes


Germany and Japan are already in the history books for committing mass murder against millions of civilians. If they dropped an atom bomb that would just be small potatos compared to the other things they have done.

[kNIOKAS]

Yes it is. The A-bomb save the lives of US troops that would have died in an invasion. It also saved the lives of Japans neighboring countries that had long been the victims of Japanese aggression.

200,000 Japanese civilians died in Okinawa and Tokyo. Without the bomb many would have died in an invasion. There were going to be heavy casualties among Japanese civilians even if the bombs weren't dropped.



I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.



Again i say huh? The dropping of the bombs prevented an invasion. Many US lives would have been lost trying to invade Japan. It is not debatable.



So if a country declares war and attacks us we shouldn't retaliate and kill people? Sure
bombing civilians saved your soldiers? great. i guess they were such a threat.
do not invade other country at all, prick.

[tontoz]

bombing civilians saved your soldiers? great. i guess they were such a threat.
do not invade other country at all, prick.

Any bombs are going to have collateral damage, prick. They didn't have smart bombs back then. If there were military targets in a city there were going to be civilian deaths if that target was hit.

There were going to be major civilian casualties even if the A-bombs weren't used, you are just too dumb to see it. Your fantasy world where nobody gets killed in a war doesn't exist anywhere except in your head.

We weren't supposed to invade Japan? Kiss my butt idiot. They attacked us. If they didn't want invading then they should have surrendered or better yet not attacked in the first place.

[Showtime]

Any bombs are going to have collateral damage, prick. They didn't have smart bombs back then. If there were military targets in a city there were going to be civilian deaths if that target was hit.

There were going to be major civilian casualties even if the A-bombs weren't used, you are just too dumb to see it. Your fantasy world where nobody gets killed in a war doesn't exist anywhere except in your head.

We weren't supposed to invade Japan? Kiss my butt idiot. They attacked us. If they didn't want invading then they should have surrendered or better yet not attacked in the first place.
Don't even bother. It's clear he has absolutely no understanding of the circumstances of the times.

[kNIOKAS]

Any bombs are going to have collateral damage, prick. They didn't have smart bombs back then. If there were military targets in a city there were going to be civilian deaths if that target was hit.

There were going to be major civilian casualties even if the A-bombs weren't used, you are just too dumb to see it. Your fantasy world where nobody gets killed in a war doesn't exist anywhere except in your head.

We weren't supposed to invade Japan? Kiss my butt idiot. They attacked us. If they didn't want invading then they should have surrendered or better yet not attacked in the first place.
they attacked your naval base... not palm beach or anything.
invasion was not inevitable. mainly because it is your decision, not theirs. now think

[tontoz]

they attacked your naval base... not palm beach or anything.
invasion was not inevitable. mainly because it is your decision, not theirs. now think

The declared war on us. Period

You obviously don't understand what that means. I suggest you look the word war up in the dictionary.


Truman warned the Japanese before they dropped the A-bomb that if they didn't surrender they would fact total destruction. Japan could have surrendered but they chose not to. They could have surrendered after the first bomb was dropped but they chose not to.

[kNIOKAS]

The declared war on us. Period

You obviously don't understand what that means. I suggest you look the word war up in the dictionary.


Truman warned the Japanese before they dropped the A-bomb that if they didn't surrender they would fact total destruction. Japan could have surrendered but they chose not to. They could have surrendered after the first bomb was dropped but they chose not to.
all of this tells japan wasn't a threat anymore. and then america decides to impose suffering for entire generations... you must be cool.

[kNIOKAS]

correct me where i'm wrong. you are saying:
japan declared war and by that they got themselves that their military forces will be crushed and then civilians also. what's the difference how.

[tontoz]

all of this tells japan wasn't a threat anymore. and then america decides to impose suffering for entire generations... you must be cool.


How were they not a threat? Were they not a threat just because you say so?

And if they weren't a threat then why didn't they surrender and save the lives of their civilians? They obviously didn't care about their civilians as much as you do.

[rufuspaul]

all of this tells japan wasn't a threat anymore. and then america decides to impose suffering for entire generations... you must be cool.

And a blockade combined with carpet bombing wouldn't cause pain and suffering?

[kNIOKAS]

How were they not a threat? Were they not a threat just because you say so?

And if they weren't a threat then why didn't they surrender and save the lives of their civilians? They obviously didn't care about their civilians as much as you do.
well exactly. that what's differs military from civilians. one party is innocent for what another does. whatever, destroy both.

[kNIOKAS]

And a blockade combined with carpet bombing wouldn't cause pain and suffering?
malnourishment maybe but not the mutations.

[rufuspaul]

malnourishment maybe but not the mutations.

You're right. Starvation, disease, devistating destruction of all the major cities and lots more bodies blown to tiny bits but not a lot of mutations.

[tontoz]

well exactly. that what's differs military from civilians. one party is innocent for what another does. whatever, destroy both.



They could have prevented the US from killing Japanese civilians at any time by surrendering. They chose not to surrender until after two of their cities got nuked. If they had surrendered a few days earlier then we wouldn't be having this discussion. You just don't understand this.

[kNIOKAS]

They could have prevented the US from killing Japanese civilians at any time by surrendering. They chose not to surrender until after two of their cities got nuked. If they had surrendered a few days earlier then we wouldn't be having this discussion. You just don't understand this.
that's maybe why they should have not been nuked in the first place.

[tontoz]

that's maybe why they should have not been nuked in the first place.

That makes absolutely no sense. You are basically saying that the US should have just stopped fighting even though Japan refused to surrender. You just don't understand what the word war means.

[Brunch@Five]

Japan was already defeated by China, Russia was coming for them, and the US had them under control basically. There was NO military need for the ABomb.
A good portion of anti-moralism, ignorance, nationalism and denial in this thread...

[tontoz]

Japan was already defeated by China, Russia was coming for them, and the US had them under control basically. There was NO military need for the ABomb.


So if all of that is true why didn't they surrender? I think their view was a lot different than yours. I am sure they felt like they could weather the storm, thinking that the US didn't have the will for a full invasion.

[gts]

Japan was already defeated by China, Russia was coming for them, and the US had them under control basically. There was NO military need for the ABomb.
A good portion of anti-moralism, ignorance, nationalism and denial in this thread...??
please go into some detail about the chinese defeating japan
and the great russia vs. japan battles of WWII

go on enlighten us all

[Showtime]

all of this tells japan wasn't a threat anymore. and then america decides to impose suffering for entire generations... you must be cool.
Your ignorance is astounding. The fact that you honestly think that they were "defeated" at that point is laughable. No army had yet touched down on their mainlands. All that happened was that their naval power was all but eliminated, and their ADVANCEMENT INTO OTHER TERRITORIES was stopped and reversed. They still had their homeland, and if the US didn't force surrender, then the thought was that the people in power who started their heinous action would still be in power, and they would have re-armed themselves. This is the entire purpose of forcing surrender, so that they wouldn't have to fight ANOTHER WAR in 20 years. If the bombs weren't used, Japan wouldn't have surrendered, because they still would have been able to defend their home island.

[tontoz]

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p508_Hoffman.html


:confusedshrug:


Ok, I'm slightly confused here, in Heligie's link, it says



But I thought that's exactly what the Allies agreed to after the atomic bombs were dropped?


I finally got the chance to see your link. Not impressed. It entirely based on one reporter who somehow had access to top secret information.

I hope you have something other than the words of a reporter to back this up. Here are some comments from readers of Trohans version of events.


I was made aware of the Trohan article several years ago. I have found no mention of a Japanese peace offer to the General in MacArthur biographies or any mention of it in the numerous histories of the atomic bomb decision. Is such a document in the MacArthur papers? Can it be found at the Roosevelt or Truman libraries? Does it exist at all? Is it in the Trohan papers?
Why does it seem to me quite unlikely that the Japanese would transmit an offer to surrender to General MacArthur rather than through existing diplomatic channels to Washington?

If there is really a document out there, let's get it out and subject it to a basic historical evaluation.


http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=144214&bheaders=1#144214


The proffered surrender terms "of late January 1945" are not "identical to the final surrender terms ... Other than retention of the emperor": the open-ended reformist Occupation of Japan, the conversion of Japan from an Axis enemy to a Cold War ally, none of that would have been likely under a conditional surrender that left Japan's constitutional and political revision to Japan's post-war leadership. Japanese proposals - coming from some of Japan's most liberal leadership in modern history - for constitutional revision were laughably minor, largely retaining the Emperor-centered irresponsibility which made pre-war Japanese politics so interesting and, ultimately, deadly. There's no evidence that a lighter hand would have produced real reform.




Professor Dresner is correct on all points.

In addition, perusal of Sadao Asada's groundbreaking article in R. J. Maddox's Hiroshima and History (U of Minnesota Press, 2007--based on heretofor unused Japanese archives--reveals that the Japanese Army chiefs were absolutely unmoved by Hiroshima, and wanted to continue the war. That's how "defeated" they were. They believed, and had made huge preparations to ensure (650,000 soldiers, plus another 250,000 on the way), that the American invasion of Honshu in autumn 1945 would be so bloody that the Americans would accept a compromise peace, thus saving Japanese honor and power. They thought the invasion might even be defeated, and they had some reason to think it: note that the Japanese defenders on Iwo Jima numbered only about 25,000. It took the second, Nagasaki bomb to give the Emperor the power to intervene and end the war. The Army Chief of Staff committed suicide rather than surrender.

There is no reason to believe that conventional bombing would have forced a Japanese surrender before the invasion of Honshu (set for Nov. 1, 1945).



http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=144192&bheaders=1#144192



Where is the citation for the "Japanese surrender offer?"
I am not persuaded by the author's argument. All I have seen is the after the fact justifications for the position.
What was known at the time by the decision makers? Who really thought the Japanese would surrender peacefully? Please remember, the Japanese army had not yet suffered a decisive defeat outside the Pacific islands even though the navy had been destroyed. Public opinion in Japan, as we have been able to reconstruct it, was not convinced of the hopelessness of their cause until the US fleet appeared off shore and began to bombard targets that were left unopposed.
The Japanese army was convinced that to have "100 million die as one" would be preferable to surrender.


While all here are correct, another issue was who was going to surrender what to whom? Japan's civil government was about to be abolished. Would anyone in the war council offer a surrender? Not likely. To the Soviets? Even more remote. To the Chinese? Never, not voluntarily.

The "peace offers floated in 1944 and early 1945 came from people who were not authorized by anyone to negotiate an armistice, because that's pretty much what they offered. Nothing like these terms would be presented by anyone Japanese.

http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=144209&bheaders=1#144209

[johndeeregreen]

It really blows my mind how many individuals on ISH we have that, for whatever reason, are simply incapable of stepping back, taking a few minutes to know what they're talking about, and formulate a coherent, objective reply whilst analyzing the situation from multiple points of view. Few types of people in life irritate me more than those who speak and adopt viewpoints based on incomplete/incorrect information, and refuse to listen and learn.

I mean, I have to laugh at the "Japan would have surrendered" types in this thread.:oldlol: THEY FOUND SOLDIERS STILL HOLDING OUT 35 YEARS AFTER THE WAR ENDED, PEOPLE.

[gts]

It really blows my mind how many individuals on ISH we have that, for whatever reason, are simply incapable of stepping back, taking a few minutes to know what they're talking about, and formulate a coherent, objective reply whilst analyzing the situation from multiple points of view. Few types of people in life irritate me more than those who speak and adopt viewpoints based on incomplete/incorrect information, and refuse to listen and learn.

I mean, I have to laugh at the "Japan would have surrendered" types in this thread.:oldlol: THEY FOUND SOLDIERS STILL HOLDING OUT 35 YEARS AFTER THE WAR ENDED, PEOPLE.people read/hear "nukes" and go into no nukes mode and refuse to see that something of a lesser evil could have been accomplished by using those weapons vs. conventional weaponry or warfare

[PowerGlove]

??
please go into some detail about the chinese defeating japan
and the great russia vs. japan battles of WWII

go on enlighten us all

The Chinese did recapture some of the territory lost and were planing on regaining more until the bombs were dropped, but that has way more to do with Japan re-allocating troops due to the US presence in the pacific than the Chinese.

If I am wrong, let me know.

[brantonli]

I finally got the chance to see your link. Not impressed. It entirely based on one reporter who somehow had access to top secret information.

I hope you have something other than the words of a reporter to back this up. Here are some comments from readers of Trohans version of events.




Fine, I'll give you a journalist, who quotes a professor at Stanford, Encyclopedia Britannica 1959, a NY Times military analyst, and Admiral William D. Leahy.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/20/043.html


it is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

It was my reaction that the scientists and others wanted to make this test [!] because of the vast sums that had been spent on the project. Truman knew that, and so did the people involved. However, the Chief Executive made the decision to use the bomb on two cities in Japan.

But to be honest, I think we can both pull sources out of our asses all day, and never get anywhere. Why? Because if proper historians on both sides can't settle this debate, I don't see how a few posters on ISH using internet sources can.

I would agree with you that if the US tried a full scale invasion, the Japanese would've fought tooth and nail down to the last acre of land. But the fact that they had tried to surrender in the months before the bomb makes the atomic bomb unjustifiable.

[Horde of Temujin]

They didn't surrender. Do you really think they would have dropped another bomb if they had surrendered?

It was only two days though, i believe a little more time was needed.

[gts]

The Chinese did recapture some of the territory lost and were planing on regaining more until the bombs were dropped, but that has way more to do with Japan re-allocating troops due to the US presence in the pacific than the Chinese.

If I am wrong, let me know.they were nibbling at it with their troops attacking out of india and support from the US but they were far from what the poster said when he said the chinese had defeated the japanese so there was no reason to bomb japan..

japan still controlled china quite easily and was still expanding as late as 1944 trying to bridge manchuria and vietnam

when the bombs were dropped the chinese had retaken a couple of cities lost in 1944 but they were so far away from defeating japan or even sniffing a victory to say they were is wrong.. the chinese military itself was a mess with power struggles between the different political groups

plus his other remark about the russians, the russians didn't attack japanese troops (in china) until after the first bomb had already been dropped, they invaded the same day the second bomb was dropped.
it was part of an agreement between allies (yalta or potsdam?) that japan would have a chance to surrender first.

[tontoz]

Fine, I'll give you a journalist, who quotes a professor at Stanford, Encyclopedia Britannica 1959, a NY Times military analyst, and Admiral William D. Leahy.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/20/043.html



But to be honest, I think we can both pull sources out of our asses all day, and never get anywhere. Why? Because if proper historians on both sides can't settle this debate, I don't see how a few posters on ISH using internet sources can.

I would agree with you that if the US tried a full scale invasion, the Japanese would've fought tooth and nail down to the last acre of land. But the fact that they had tried to surrender in the months before the bomb makes the atomic bomb unjustifiable.



Funny how the quote in your post doesn't even mention anything about the Trohan article you previously quoted. :oldlol: @ referring to their alleged surrender as a "fact". Leahy alleges that they were "ready" to surrender, not that they were surrendering, which looks like nothing more than an opinion.

Even AFTER the two bombs were dropped the Japanese Army Chief of Staff committed suicide rather than surrender. I don't think he would agree with Leahy's assessment if he were alive. :lol

The FACT that Leahy called the bomb a "barbarous weapon" pretty much exposes his agenda.

[brantonli]

Funny how the quote in your post doesn't even mention anything about the Trohan article you previously quoted. :oldlol: @ referring to their alleged surrender as a "fact". Leahy alleges that they were "ready" to surrender, not that they were surrendering, which looks like nothing more than an opinion.

Even AFTER the two bombs were dropped the Japanese Army Chief of Staff committed suicide rather than surrender. I don't think he would agree with Leahy's assessment if he were alive. :lol

I'm sorry, but if you can just dismiss respected journalists and an Admiral's word about Japan's readiness to surrender, then I don't know what the heck I will have to bring up to satisfy you. Actually go to the Library of Conress or something an find the memo that MacArthur wrote to Truman?

Earlier you had questioned if the article was even authentic, well here's a good reason why it is
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

Is this memorandum authentic? It was supposedly leaked to Trohan by Admiral William D. Leahy, presidential Chief of Staff. (See: M. Rothbard in A. Goddard, ed., Harry Elmer Barnes: Learned Crusader [1968], pp. 327f.) Historian Harry Elmer Barnes has related (in "Hiroshima: Assault on a Beaten Foe," National Review, May 10, 1958):

The authenticity of the Trohan article was never challenged by the White House or the State Department, and for very good reason. After General MacArthur returned from Korea in 1951, his neighbor in the Waldorf Towers, former President Herbert Hoover, took the Trohan article to General MacArthur and the latter confirmed its accuracy in every detail and without qualification.

And if Admiral Leahy's comments aren't persuasive enough for you, how about Eisenhower and Brigadier General Bonnie Fellers?




When he was informed in mid-July 1945 by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson of the decision to use the atomic bomb, General Dwight Eisenhower was deeply troubled. He disclosed his strong reservations about using the new weapon in his 1963 memoir, The White House Years: Mandate for Change, 1953-1956 (pp. 312-313):

During his [Stimson's] 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. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of "face."

"The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing ... I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon," Eisenhower said in 1963.


Neither the atomic bombing nor the entry of the Soviet Union into the war forced Japan's unconditional surrender. She was defeated before either these events took place."

Sure, the Japanese Army Chief of Staff committed suicide, so what? It only means that he would rather die than surrender. Can you justify extrapolating that to the whole Japanese military and the population of Japan?

[tontoz]

I'm sorry, but if you can just dismiss respected journalists and an Admiral's word about Japan's readiness to surrender, then I don't know what the heck I will have to bring up to satisfy you. Actually go to the Library of Conress or something an find the memo that MacArthur wrote to Truman?

Earlier you had questioned if the article was even authentic, well here's a good reason why it is
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html


And if Admiral Leahy's comments aren't persuasive enough for you, how about Eisenhower and Brigadier General Bonnie Fellers?



Neither one of them verified any of the info in the Trohan article. The Admiral you quoted clearly gave away his anti-atomic bomb bias. Fellers is apparently unaware that the Soviets didn't even set foot in Japan. They didn't even go into China until AFTER the bombs were dropped. And how exactly were they defeated? Were they defeated just because he said so?

What is Feller's definition of defeated. I have a feeling his definition is a little different from that of the Japanese military. They were seemingly unaware that they were "defeated".

Why would the government comment on the article? Do you think it is their responsibility to comment on every article about the war? Other newspapers didn't comment on it either. I guess they didn't think it was newsworthy.

Civilians in Okinawa had committed suicide rather than surrender. They were using Kamikaze pilots so they were obviously rather die than surrender. That is the way they were. Just because some American says they were ready to surrender doesn't mean squat.

Where the the Japanese people saying they were willing to surrender? Why don't you have any quotes from them?

You are trying to pretend that Japan is the same as other countries. They aren't. There weren't any blacks/whites/arabs in Japan. In the US you have many different races, many different religions, many different family backgrounds. That is not true in Japan.

[DinoRadja40]

We saw a 2 front war as impossible, and the new prez, had little knowledge, 40k americans or japanese, the later will always take the fall.

[Sarcastic]

LOL @ this thread gaining 15 pages in the last 2 days :lol

[gts]

brantonli when talking about eisenhower and his comments you have to remember he was a soldier turning politician at the time, disliked truman immensely even refusing the traditional morning coffee with him on the day of his (eisenhowers) innaguration

understand that there had been a bitter battle between the military and the white house over who would control the use of the atomic weapons going back to the times (before truman) when the weapon was still under development... the military started the project but obviously the white house won that battle

when truman was president eisenhower pledged to win the korean war
"use whatever weapons were necessary to win”

from the tapes when eisenhower advised johnson on the vietnam war

"Eisenhower carefully avoided saying what he would and would not do in the same situation, while reiterating his statement from the Korean War that he had pledged to “use whatever weapons were necessary to win”
http://whitehousetapes.net

eisenhower was also responsible for ramping up Nuclear weapons development during the cold war and the first president to send them en mass to military bases overseas he enacted the "New Look" defense policy which was a policy that used nuclear weapons as its basis and the air power to deliver them

i think his words were more political jousting then actual worry about the loss of human life, this is after all the same man who was in charge of d-day and the european operations during WWII, death and civilian loss was not new to him

i don't mean that to say eisenhower didn't care about human life, i'm just pointing out that death was no stranger at his door and he had never let that be a determining factor in his wartime descions

[Horde of Temujin]

We saw a 2 front war as impossible, and the new prez, had little knowledge, 40k americans or japanese, the later will always take the fall.

Germany was already defeated