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

[Vault boy Eddie]

You must be confusing the japanese from back then with the panty vending machine loving, extremely tight pants wearing androgenous weeaboos from now, the japanese back then were hard, tough people, they weren't giving up so easily. Not to mention that their use most likely has prevented any form of nuclear war since then due to the knowledge of what they can do and that it would most likely mean the end of civilization as we know it.

 

[Doug]

No. It saved more lives than it took, possibly by an order of magnitude or two.

I don't blame the average person for thinking this, but I'd be amiss if I didn't correct ignorance where I saw it.

Point 1: The Japanese were actually HOPING that the US would invade in the traditional manner so they could cause as much carnage as possible and sue for better terms of surrender.

Point 2: The US's invasion plan called for 27 divisions, that's more than every other beach landing in the entire war combined. (yeah, including D-day)So if you think that any lives would've been saved otherwise you're mathematically illiterate, historically retarded, or both.

Point 3: The atomic bomb was developed for use on germany. They just got zerg rushed before they could get nuked.

Point 4: The radiation aftermath wasn't understood at all.
http://sepientia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/atomic_explosion_01.jpg
That's the aftermath of the first atomic detonation. All those guys are getting radiation poisoning in it.

Point 5: They started it. Reap what you sow.

Agreed. Though minor point - by the end of the war, the Russian army wasn't a 'Zerg Rush' force - they where infact very organized, well trained, and well lead....Anywho, no real relaince there.

Personally, I'm alittle sick of all these people who want to whip America for this - and I'm normally in favour of America getting whipped for its wrongs, but this time it was there best estimate of what they thought would have the best outcome.

And judging from the fact that I've read "The Japanese where on the edge of surrender" and "The Japanese where not really to surrender", and "The Japanese where ill equipped" to "they had massive stockpiles", I think we can forgive the US for having to make their best guess on what would work best, given we 60+ years later still can't agree.

 

[toastmaster2k8]

NO, If we were to attack Japan on its own soil it would have been a blood bath. if you look at how hard japan fought in the Philippines and how many guys we lost. what would be the best thing to do without killing all of our guys, Yah we would kill a HELL of a lot of Japanese civilians but it would bring an end to the war and the Japanese military dosent care what it takes to win and don't say they didn't, don't forget about Kamikazes. and why 2 nukes? because Japan didn't believe that we dropped a nuke so we had to drop another on there factory city's.

 

[Jfswift]

I'm not proud of some of the things our country has done. I'm not proud of Japan either though. If you read the book, "Flyboys" you'll get a clearer picture of what was going on around that era (assuming it's completely factual, which as far as I know, it is.). I agree, dropping the bomb that late in the game didn't matter since we were cutting off Japan's supply routes which severely crippled the resource limited country and Germany was slowly being pushed back as well. I suspect the bomb was used as a deterant to any future wars being fought since it's power was so terrible and awesome that no one would desire to fight again.

What reg42 above says is true also, that Japan and Germany, at least were led by fanatics that would not step down, even in the face of defeat.

Also, this has been tried before with the invention of the Gatling gun. It didn't really stop anything though did it. I suppose now that I've been typing about this I don't really feel it was necessary (dropping the nuke). (In 1861 Doctor Richard Gatling patented the Gatling Gun believing it would bring an end to bloodshed.) - History of the Gun

 

[neoontime]

Well since the Japanese thought of their emperor as a god, and they were told to sharpen Bambo into spears to attack enemy soldiers? Yep that sums it up even with we gave the three days after the first one

 

[SonicKoala]

No, it wasn't the wrong thing to do - this is a stupid argument, and it rests heavily on all this wishy-washy moral garbage that people really need to let go. About 250,000 people were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki when the atomic bombs were dropped; according to military estimates, this is how many Americans would have died had they invaded the Japanese homeland - this is not taking into account the number of Japanese who would have been killed, not to mention those who would have been seriously wounded on either side (Military experts estimated that just the American casualties would have been around one million).

People also seem to never take into account the after effects of an invasion of the Japanese homeland - lets say that America actually did take that route; once they'd successfully defeated the Japanese, American troops would have had to remain there for another 10 to 15 years in order to stabilise the country politically, at which point political dissidents would have undoubtedly caused even more American (and Japanese) deaths.

Thirdly, the American government had spent almost 2 billion dollars on the Manhatten project (and this was in the 1940s) - if the Truman administration had decided not to use this weapon, and instead put American lives at risk again (keep in mind they've been embroiled in bloody conflict with the Japanese for almost 3 years now), there would have been an enormous public outcry (rightly so).

There's also the issue that in order for an invasion of Japan to be carried out, Truman would have had to request military assistance from Stalin and the USSR; and really, at this point in time, tensions were running extremely high between the two leaders, and that was the last thing Truman wanted to do. And finally, everyone should keep in mind that it was because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that the Atomic bomb was never used again - if it hadn't been used in Japan, it would have undoubtedly been used later on, and we would have seen just as terrible a tragedy take place.

 

[clzark]

It was over 40 years ago and in all honesty was it wrong to drop bombs on pearl harbor?

Yes. However, killing 40.000 civilians is worse than what the Japanese did at Pear Harbor + let's not forget the radiation poisoning that occurred after dropping of the bombs. The USA did way more damage than it should have done.

well, lets not forget that Japan figurativly (and literally) raped China. then, of course, there was the Bataan Death March...I bet you the soldiers who went through that wished they were in a Jewish death camp...just because they were defeated in a brutal manner doesn't mean 1940's Japan was like a little kitten. I honestly would like to know how Japan got out of WWII looking so sweet and innocent to some. the fact of the matter is that it was war, and we could go on and on how we don't agree with what happened, but every side does shady things in every war and trying to pick who was more "morally correct" is ridiculous

 

[toastmaster2k8]

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"

Agreed 100%

 

[Ekibiogami]

Before you vote, I would just like to say that this question has been in my mind for a hiwle 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 Airforce to speak of.

-The Americans had blockaded Japan, meaning they couldn't get any imported recources, 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.

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

-Winston Churchill in his book ("The World At War") said that the 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 Propagada.

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

Ahh... So starving the entire Civilian population to death would be a better option than 2 city's being smashed... Good plan

 

[Kragg]

I'd say it was wrong. And even if you don't think Hiroshima's bombing was wrong ('cos, y'know, dropping a powerful bomb that will affect generations to come with radiation poisoning on a major civilian centre might just be defensible!), Nagasaki's definitely was! The second bomb was dropped only as a weapons test, to check which of two designs for the bomb worked best... I can't find any justification for it whatsoever.

never did understand Nagasaki

 

[Cody211282]

I'd say it was wrong. And even if you don't think Hiroshima's bombing was wrong ('cos, y'know, dropping a powerful bomb that will affect generations to come with radiation poisoning on a major civilian centre might just be defensible!), Nagasaki's definitely was! The second bomb was dropped only as a weapons test, to check which of two designs for the bomb worked best... I can't find any justification for it whatsoever.

We game them 3 days to surrender or have another dropped on them, they said no, how is that "just a weapons test?

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

Can't tell, and can't know for certain. I recently assisted in editing a paper where the author was bound and determined to argue a "karmatic" perspective, where the Japanese 'had it coming' for 'messing with the US.'

I am not swayed.

Alternatively, there are strategic advantages in using the weapon in that manner.

*shrug*

 

[Burwood123]

It was probably the most unecessary thing to do ever.. 100,000 people. gone. In an instant. And 150,000 more in the days after. Not to mention the lasting effects it has had, it is imo the worst war crime ever committed.. Thomas aquinas would roll in his grave...

 

[crimsonshrouds]

-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.

When did japan lose to russia? They won against russia in the Russo-Japanese War and russia's abilities in the east were not so good because they didn't have the resourses to invade japan... so im not sure where u got that fact but its completely wrong.

In a side note you are trying to judge the actions of a generation from over sixty years ago which is stupid because you are looking in hindsight which is always 20/20.

 

[Escapefromwhatever]

Well, let's see. The U.S. was well on its way to winning, had a substantial number of troops ready to invade Japan, and Japan was ready to surrender anyway. So, no, dropping the bombs was not the correct tactic. People like to say that dropping the bombs saved more lives than it took because it ended the war. I call bullshit. We dropped those bombs on civilian targets as a terror tactic when we easily could have stormed Tokyo, and probably lost less soldiers than the civilians we killed. What, is an American life worth more than a Japanese life? Was that why we didn't send our troops into the country to give Japan a fair fight?

yyyyyyyeaah you might wanna read most of the posts prior to this one. Especially the 'fair fight' thing. Several years of fighting an entrenched zealous enemy in mountain territory.. They had a small sample of that before, its pretty horrible stuff. Then giving guns to everyone with a trigger finger in japan to fight.. That wouldnt be fair having to shoot 'civilians' and children who will shoot you, it would of been a huge 'war crime' accusation too since un-armed civilians would probably be shot too since so many would be hostile.

Except we had a blockade on Japan. Being the resource-poor country that it is (at least concerning minerals), they would have run out of military supplies quickly enough. I would hope that even the 1940s United States army would have been able to defeat an opponent in such dire straits. Have you ever been to the museum in Hiroshima which is specifically meant to remember the dropping of the bombs? It's chilling. I'm no military tactician, but there were plenty of other options for us to defeat Japan that had less ethical ramifications. Still want to bomb them? Get some planes up there and hit key targets. Don't just hit the "fuck you button" on millions of innocents. It's not as if the bombs were our only way to victory, and I highly doubt that they were the best.

 

[Gilhelmi]

The problem here is that I fully support two completely opposing viewpoints.
On one hand, I think America should have made more nukes and then bombed all of Japan, killing everyone in the nation. Why? Because attacking other countries is a douche move. Karma, *****.

On the other hand, I don't think America should have counterattacked Japan at all, and simply defended their own shores. Why? Because there would be fewer lives lost and less violence, and for all intents and purposes, I'm a pacifist.

But if we only defended our own shores then Germany would have taken the whole of Europe. Then fight a long drawn out war with Russia. In 1946 or 47 Germany would have developed the A-bomb and finished what was called the Ho-229 (I swear it would have looked like a B-2 Stealth Bomber and would not be seen on radar until it was too late, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho-229). Then after 5 to 10 years after beating Russia, they would come after the US to "repatriate" citizens of German heritage and set up the 1000 year empire.

 

[Krythe]

No. It saved more lives than it took, possibly by an order of magnitude or two.

I don't blame the average person for thinking this, but I'd be amiss if I didn't correct ignorance where I saw it.

Point 1: The Japanese were actually HOPING that the US would invade in the traditional manner so they could cause as much carnage as possible and sue for better terms of surrender.

Point 2: The US's invasion plan called for 27 divisions, that's more than every other beach landing in the entire war combined. (yeah, including D-day)So if you think that any lives would've been saved otherwise you're mathematically illiterate, historically retarded, or both.

Point 3: The atomic bomb was developed for use on germany. They just got zerg rushed before they could get nuked.

Point 4: The radiation aftermath wasn't understood at all.
http://sepientia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/atomic_explosion_01.jpg
That's the aftermath of the first atomic detonation. All those guys are getting radiation poisoning in it.

Point 5: They started it. Reap what you sow.

Agreed. Though minor point - by the end of the war, the Russian army wasn't a 'Zerg Rush' force - they where infact very organized, well trained, and well lead....Anywho, no real relaince there.

Personally, I'm alittle sick of all these people who want to whip America for this - and I'm normally in favour of America getting whipped for its wrongs, but this time it was there best estimate of what they thought would have the best outcome.

And judging from the fact that I've read "The Japanese where on the edge of surrender" and "The Japanese where not really to surrender", and "The Japanese where ill equipped" to "they had massive stockpiles", I think we can forgive the US for having to make their best guess on what would work best, given we 60+ years later still can't agree.

It's "cool" to hate america these days, double points if you live there, since then you're also a "rebel"!!!11!!ONE!

I try to ignore it. They're the idiots who'd wear their pants around their knees in the nineties or pierce themselves with enough metal to fabricate a lawn tractor. The sheeple community members who claim to listen to nothing but classical music and are all too keen to tell everybody what they're like rather than shutting up and letting that person figure it out for themselves.

I wish something else would become rebellious and whatnot pretty soon though, cause this is wearing a bit thin.

 

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

Regardless of what you think of the bombs, period, you cannot argue that it was not wrong to drop them on civilian towns.