Poll: Was It Wrong To Drop The Atomic Bombs In Japan?

[Manatee Slayer]

Before you vote, I would just like to say that this question has been in my mind for a while now and I have done some (albeit not a lot) of research, so I would be interested in hearing others people's opinions, hopefully based on facts.

So far, I have come to the conclusion that they shouldn't have been, and from reading different sources seem to think that the Americans did it to...prove a point or maybe revenge...that's all I have really.

Here are some of the things I have learner recently:

-The Japanese had virtually no Navy or Air-force to speak of. (They did at the start but...a war happened).

-The Americans had blockaded Japan, meaning they couldn't get any imported resources, which is nearly everything. lol

-The Japanese were terrified by the thought of the Russians coming, due to the fact they had lost to them before and that they would probably take over the country and install communism. (I'm not talking about the Russo-Japanese war).

-Many high ranking officials were against the attack saying it was unnecessary and that the Japanese were ready to surrender anyway.(American officials)

-Winston Churchill in his book ("The Second World War") said that the atomic bombs did not play any part in the defeat of Japan.

-The only reason people think that the bombs won the war in the Pacific is due to American Propaganda.

Now, I'm not trying to force your vote by saying these things, I would like some insight into your thoughts not just on the bombing but the points I have listen above.

Happy Posting. :-D

EDIT: Someone has asked for a pros and cons list. Here is a link to basic bullet points for each if anyone is interested.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/special/trinity/supplement/procon.html

 

[TheNamlessGuy]

DELETED

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

It wasn't completely necessary to do it, however, would the Americans have engaged them on land we would have lost many more men to the Japanese armies because at the time those soldiers would not have surrendered until the Emperor had given the final word. The bomb was our way of telling them "we aren't fucking around here"

 

[Sephychu]

Well yeah, seeing as Japan was on their way to sign a truce.

Que?
This is not accurate, to my understanding.

In my view, it was justified. If it did not happen, mainland Japan would have been invaded. The Japanese would have fought to the last breath. Countless American and Japanese troops and Japanese civillians would have died on the Journey to Tokyo. 3 million casualties predicted in Tokyo civillians alone, were the projected figures.

 

[Regiment]

-The Japanese would never surrender (their beliefs at the time prohibited such a thing), necessitating a drawn-out and destructive conflict between them and the United States before the war could end.

-The bombs certainly did end the war in the Pacific. Whether or not it could have been won without them is debatable (and difficult to prove either way), but leveling a city with a single explosion sends a pretty strong message.

-The Japanese had enough of an air force to get to Pearl Harbor and do a lot of damage.

I'm not saying we should use nuclear weapons ever again, but if you add up the death toll and compare it to what would have resulted from a drawn-out war with Japan, the bombs probably killed fewer people.

 

[WrongSprite]

Yep, saved a lot of lives, because the invasion of Japan would have been horrific.

 

[oppp7]

Saved a lot of lives, but it's caused a lot of health issues with everyone for years afterwards.
Plus, many of the generals advised against it when it was being decided.

 

[Pielikey]

-The Japanese would never surrender (their beliefs at the time prohibited such a thing), necessitating a drawn-out and destructive conflict between them and the United States before the war could end.

-The bombs certainly did end the war in the Pacific. Whether or not it could have been won without them is debatable (and difficult to prove either way), but leveling a city with a single explosion sends a pretty strong message.

-The Japanese had enough of an air force to get to Pearl Harbor and do a lot of damage.

I'm not saying we should use nuclear weapons ever again, but if you add up the death toll and compare it to what would have resulted from a drawn-out war with Japan, the bombs probably killed fewer people.

^What this guy said. The Japanese probably would of killed themselves fighting us, even very young children and women.

Although I still can't decide whether the answer is a yes, I'm leaning towards it.

 

[JoshGod]

if japan didnt want to get bombed it shouldnt have gone to war.

plus it saved lives overall

 

[hittite]

Oh boy, I could teach an entire class on the subject and still not come up with a definite answer. The problem is that there isn't really any way to tell what would have happened, only what may have happened.

Edit: Oh, yes. I forgot to mention that the death and destruction from both A-bombs, even long term, are minuscule compared to that caused by the years of fire-bombing of urban targets that preceded it. Sort of makes you think.

 

[Sephychu]

Oh boy, I could teach an entire class on the subject and still not come up with a definite answer. The problem is that there isn't really any way to tell what would have happened, only what may have happened.

Such is the nature of History.

 

[RUINER ACTUAL]

No, fire bombing killed more people per city then the nukes, it was the shock and awe factor that was needed, and that's what Japan got.

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Killing civilians in war is ALWAYS wrong, and despite all of the positive effects it had I will never argue it was a good thing.

I'm going to agree with this one but I am, as Generation Kill said, a "wine-sipping, tree-hugging, bi-sexual communist"

 

[Baron Von Evil Satan]

People have pretty well summed it up here. Japan would have never given in, which would have meant America would have had to go and invade Japan which would have lost astronomically more lives than the number of people the bombs killed.

It was one of those historical "rock and a hard place" situations. Kill the civilians and save not only our citizens lives, but the lives of hundreds of thousands of others, or invade japan and see casualties sky rocket to record setting proportions?

 

[Manatee Slayer]

-The Japanese would never surrender (their beliefs at the time prohibited such a thing), necessitating a drawn-out and destructive conflict between them and the United States before the war could end.

-The Japanese had enough of an air force to get to Pearl Harbor and do a lot of damage.

But saying they would never surrender due to their beliefs is innacurate, because they did surrender.

And the Japanese mostly used the Navy to get to pearly harbour (which I know, i said was pretty much gone too) but it still doesn't negate the fact that after that nearly three years of war happened in which the result was Japan being pushed back to their own country.

 

[FolkLikePanda]

Well the Japs are strong willed and resiliant, dropping a nuke made them surrender. My Grandad was stationed in India and was training for the invasion so if it wasn't for the nuke I probably wouldn't be here.

 

[TheNamlessGuy]

DELETED

 

[Klarinette]

The first one was the Americans saying "we're not fucking around" and I guess was considered necessary, but the second one was wrong, especially after realizing how much bigger the explosion is and how much more damage it causes than they thought it would.

 

[Dragon Zero]

I hate to be that guy but I distinctly remember seeing a thread like this before.

Anyway, I feel that it was right to drop the bombs. The Japanese had the mindset of fighting to the last and I feel it would have been unlikely that they would have surrendered as soon if not for the bombs being dropped.

Not only that, but compared to the firebombs that had been dropped earlier, the atomic bombs actually caused fewer casualties, though there were longer lasting effects.

My third reason being that even if the atomic bombs were used only as a way to intimidate Russia, the effects demonstrated that these weapons caused severe harm and it was the threat of mutually assured destruction that kept the Cold War from becoming World War III. If the weapons were created and not used I feel that perhaps the Russians and Americans would have soon begun to wage conventional war on each other, leading to even more death

Finally, while I do encourage discussion it is important to note that what has been done has been done we should neither forget our history nor should we regret it.