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

[Spitfire175]

For the thousandth time, no it wasn't.

-The Japanese had virtually no Navy or Airforce to speak of.

And yet they still refused to surrender and infact were training a vast number of civilians to fight any American invasion (if their own figures are to be believed, something like 28 million [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Fighting_Corps] - and given the kamikaze, I'm fully willing to believe they would have charged US marines with spears). As such, even with Air and Sea superiority, American casualities would have been high - and even if they weren't, millions of Japanese would have been killed in the fighting; far more than where killed by the nukes themselves.

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

True, this includes food, so this option was causing mass starvation agmonst the Japanese population, who where still refusing to surrender. Its highly likely that had the war continued, the Japanese would have starved to dead in their millions rather than surrender. And all the time they where holding out, thousands of POWs where being used as slave labour and worked to dead, millions of Chinese were undergoing the same, and thousands of Chinese women were being used as sex slaves.

-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.

The Russians didn't declare war on the Japanese until after the first atomic bomb was used.

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

I believe they were only willing to accept conditional surrender - the Allies refused to accept conditional surrenders from either Japan or Nazi Germany, partly due to the war crimes they had committed, partly because the Axis forced had to accept that they were defeated, as the Allies didn't want a repeat of this war, like what happened at the end of WW1.

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

As great a man as Churchill was, he wasn't the god of all knowledge, and certainly wasn't an expert on what was happening on the pacific front.

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

...Ok... thats option stated as fact - I think dropping two super weapons on the Japanese made it extremely clear to them that, inspite of their 'warrior spirit' and 'devotion to die to protect the Emperor', it simply wouldn't be enough - it showed the Japanese that the US could simply wipe them out with minimum to zero casualities if the Japanese refused to accept the unconditional surrender.

Basically, the atomic bombs, though highly unpleasant, where the best way to end the war with the minimum loss of life, and I'm sick and tired of people acting like the Japanese where wronged - the Japanese who killed millions of Chinese and Pacific islanders, tortured and enslaved millions more Chinese, and thousands of POWs, and where as bad as the Nazi's; just more disorganized in their war crimes.

I'd give you a medal over the internet, if I could.

The estimates for allied casualties invading Japan go up to hundreds of thousands. JAPANESE casualties would have mounted in millions. Some Japanese remained in positions up to the SEVENTIES, refusing to surrender. Imperial Japan was, quite frankly, possibly the most brainwashed to stubbornness nation ever. Civilians were told to fight back with bamboo sticks and rather take their own lives than surrender to the Americans. In the Pacific, when the Americans were island jumping, the civilians were jumping off the cliffs to their deaths because the Japanese had told them the marines would eat them alive. Literally.

So, it was not "good" to drop the bombs. It was a necessary evil.

 

[manaman]

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.

Thank you for making sense. I am surprised at the vast numbers of responders so far in this thread that think reading a wikipedia article entitles them to look back at an event like that and say what would have happened one way or another.

 

[Snella]

About 7,000 American sailors and Marines died to the Japanese military every week at that time. Embargoing and waiting for the Japanese to starve would have taken months and the Japanese military was still fighting, and no where near surrender. An invasion would have cost around one million American casualties and about twice as many Japanese casualties. Japanese civilians, even women and children, were preparing to fight the American invading force to the death. The bombs were certainly necessary, especially against a nation that brought American into WWII. The truth is that there was only a very small number of innocent Japanese civilians. Most were willing to fight to the death for Japan and their Emperor. While the bombing and it's consequences were tragic, it was necessary for victory. I'd rather have those bombs dropped on the nation that started WWII than risk millions of Americans lives to show respect to an enemy that executed almost all American prisoners.

 

[WrcklessIntent]

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.

http://moodle.salesianum.org/file.php/276/Leaflet_dropped.pdf
Link is a leaflet that we dropped in both cities days before we bombed them giving civillians time to leave. Wheter or not they chose to stay was there fault.

 

[thenoblitt]

they were saying that they wanted peace with america and then they bombed us, so i see nothing wrong with dropping just one bomb on them

 

[EchetusXe]

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.

http://moodle.salesianum.org/file.php/276/Leaflet_dropped.pdf
Link is a leaflet that we dropped in both cities days before we bombed them giving civillians time to leave. Wheter or not they chose to stay was there fault.

You need to be logged in at 'Salesianum School' to access that.

 

[CJ1145]

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

It's amusing, innit?
That they did it anyway?
Makes you wonder why...

I'm sorry, but I haven't seen any proof saying they were going to sign a truce. In fact, every source I've ever seen says that they had decided they would not quit under any circumstances.

OT: No, it was not wrong. Thousands of lives were lost, but millions more were saved. If the Japanese had surrendered we would not have had to drop them to shock them into surrender. But they did not, therefore we did.

EDIT: Also, your attempt at being disarming by asking "innocent" questions fails. It just makes me very hostile.

 

[wwjdftw]

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. False. What about the whole battle of the pacific with the ships and everything... Turn on the military channel its bound to come up.

-The Americans had blockaded Japan, meaning they couldn't get any imported recources, which is nearly everything. lol True, But we hadnt blockaded theire north westrn sea because of the NAVY and AIR force they had, They were running low on oil but that as about it.

-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.
True btw.

-Many high ranking officials were against the attack saying it was unnesisary and that the Japanese were ready to surrender anyway. To bad they didn't, we warned them, what about "Surrender or face prompt and un due destruction" didnt they get? And they still didnt surrender after we dropped the first.

-Winston Churchill in his book ("The World At War") said that the bombs did not play any part in the defeat of Japan.When did surrender mean you don't lose? Hes just butt hurt because we got the A bomb first.

-The only reason people think that the bombs won the war in the Pacific is due to American Propagada. Wrong. They surrendered, you cant really win more than that...

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

Problem with those is that they are slightly biased, You cant avoid it. Those ar the pros and cons in the eyes of the person who made it.

The comments folloing the bolded are where I dissagree.

 

[cubikill]

No, because it was WAR! Have we as a nation forgot that war is a brutal thing. There is no such thing as a good clean war, and the more we try to fight that way the more lives were lost. And on the topic of Japan surrendering, maybe, maybe not, we don't know. But judging by the culture of Japan, and their no-surrender policy I wasn't likely. And your facts are wrong, the Russo-Japanese War was won by the Japanese's. Yes both sides suffered heavy losses but the Japanese sank the Russians eastern and western fleets. And eventually won the war.

 

[FalloutJack]

Loaded question, if you ask me. That's a debate that'll never see a proper end. The fact is, it became necessary. Japan might never have given up if not for the horrific display of destructive power. And let's get something straight. I like Japan. But I think it would be a very different place if that moment in history played out differently. When their ability to make war was taken away forcefully, they adapted in a very clever way. The current Japan is a direct result of giving in when the bombs fell. I won't argue for whether it's right OR wrong. I will say that it did what it had to, and if we never have to launch or drop another nuke for the rest of time, then the demonstrated power of these devices will have served a better purpose than the destructive potential they have.

 

[Pillypill]

Yes definatly, there no two ways about it, an atomic weapon was dropped on a city which had a militant to civilian ratio of about 1:7, children to this day are born without limbs, organs, and bones, there were better ways to achieve the same goal (Churchill and Pattern both agreed on that).

So if anyone anywhere feels that either Hiroshima or Nagasaki were in anyway justified, congradulations; you're as mad as a holocaust denying neo-nazi.

Okay really?

Winston Churchill is not the god of knowledge, how did he think we were going to end the war? Starve them out? That would have killed more people. Invade them? That would have killed more people. Continue to firebomb them? That would have killed more people in the long run too. George Patton actually advocated launching a preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union to be followed by an invasion.

As for your second comment, I won't dignify it with a response, but I will say that you're a dumbass for saying it.



P.S Congratulations doesn't have a "D" in it.

(If you live in the republic of Ireland, or England, but for some reason not the rest of the UK, then yes there is a "D", it's why we use the term "Congrads'", though most have adopted the American spelling.)

And while no Winston isn't, he was the most important man (from the Allied point of view) in Europe, kept informed with every last detail of all fronts, even after his step down (well defeated in a general election) from office after the war, he was still handed regular updates on the Japan-America situation. Before the drop his opinion was asked, he warned against the bombing, knowing that japan was too weak to stand up to an "Air-Armour-Infantry" push from the north down to the Emperor, whos death or capture would have ended the war. It was a stand point which General Pattern would later agree with.

Besides, after the fall of Hitler and the the axis in Europe, Japanese political types, drew up a draft of their surrender terms, America was informed of this several weeks before the warning was sent to Japan, and yet still the bombs fell.

P.S I'm sure you can find a Swastika T-shirt in one of those god awful hot topic shops, if you feel like defending some other horrific war crimes.

 

[Mortons4ck]

It took 2 cities to get them to stand down. Many people died, but Japan could have prevented it.

This defence reminds me of the schoolyard bully who declares that his savage blows are preventable if you simply submit to his will.

Which all started when you launched a surprise attack on the "bully" by blowing up his car with no provocation. Led his little brother on a death march around the neighborhood before executing him. Executed your sister because she spoke with a weird accent with little reason other than the fact that the weird accent may or may not be used pass along information to the "bully," thus eliminating her as a liability. And kidnapped his cousin and forced him to do dangerous work in your basement.

 

[WTFOMGHAAAXXX]

It took 2 cities to get them to stand down. Many people died, but Japan could have prevented it.

This defence reminds me of the schoolyard bully who declares that his savage blows are preventable if you simply submit to his will.

Damn. Never had any idea the Escapist Forums had this much traffic. Good job comparing a controversal military move to bullies on the playground. Good stuff, good stuff. You have no idea how much the U.S. Generals thought about this before actually going through with it, the millions of lives lost from it, the millions of lives saved from it, and how that even though we could have got back at them for Pearl Harbor, we told them to surrender and none of it would happen. They didn't listen, we had no choice. Unfortunatly that is what happened. It wasn't a good thing by any standards, but it was the best option. Still, I take pity on the Scientists and Generals of the U.S., who's actions would haunt them in their nightmares until they died.

 

[littlewilly91]

RE Romblen.

I'd rather ask about the overall death toll, not only Americans. At the time they had no reason to expect the other consequences such as radiation that would take many more lives in the coming decades. That would have made the choice easier.

And it's a badly put question. I think all war is wrong, but once it's set in motion sometimes ceasefire isn't an option. Whether using nukes was the right choice for /America/ to make, (right and wrong meaning good and evil for the human race as a whole, with the knowledge they had at the time) is a question I feel woefully under qualified to answer. I'm assuming that's what most people are inferring from the question, otherwise a lot of people on this site must have an unnatural hate for the Japanese. Whole issue is making me nervous as is evidenced by my terribly structured sentences.

What's important is we don't forget, and that it remains contentious.

 

[WrcklessIntent]

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.

http://moodle.salesianum.org/file.php/276/Leaflet_dropped.pdf
Link is a leaflet that we dropped in both cities days before we bombed them giving civillians time to leave. Wheter or not they chose to stay was there fault.

You need to be logged in at 'Salesianum School' to access that.

http://longstreet.typepad.com/thesciencebookstore/2008/07/the-atomic-bo-1.html
Hopefully this link works and its the same as in the first.

 

[Kathinka]

makes me sad to see how many people get brainwashed by american changes to history...

japanese officials already nagoiated surrender with the only condition that the emperor should be preserved (what happened afterwards anyway^^)

check wikipedia or any serious source before mindlessly repeating the propaganda-justification -.-

 

[wax]

My father was would have probably, actually almost certainly, have been in the first assault wave of any amphibious landings on Japan. Given the nature of the Japanese soldiers at the time there would have been very heavy resistance and high casualties. So without the psychological shock of the A-Bomb pushing the Japanese leaders back into reality I might not be here today.
Also without those visual images of Hiroshema and Nagasaki the devastation caused by atomic weapons would have remained theoretical in most people's minds. I'm pretty sure the Cold War would have heated up at some point without the ugly proof that the A-Bomb was terrible.
The proof was the results in Hiroshema and Nagasaki.

As Colonel Tibbets said, "Results better than expected".

 

[rt052192]

It was absolutely wrong to drop the bomb, but hell yes was it necessary. Had we attempted to invade Japan we would have lost countless amounts of men and by dropping the bomb we got to intimidate the Soviets for a few years.

 

[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.

Well after reading all 6 pages of this post, it seems japan had plenty of resources stocked up. I've heard about that thing, and i think they should make another one across the road, except it should be about what they did to the Chinese people. They are simply pulling on peoples emotions while sweeping what they did under the rug, and what the did was so far worse than the bombs, not only in death toll to civilians and militants alike, but in the 'slowly massacre your entire country in a brutal fashion'. As its been pointed out, only 250,000 people died (initially), it WAS a military target, the fire bombings were alot more deadly and destructive, and the japanese would of fought till the end.

@The guy who made the post, can you re-set the vote? make everyone read all the history information here and then re-vote.

1) I agree. China faced many atrocities at the hands of the Japanese military. Did we have the right to avenge China against Japanese civilians because of this? I don't think so.
2) I realize that the bomb targets in Japan weren't chosen arbitrarily and did have military importance. This does not excuse the fact that about 250,000 civilians died in the initial bombings alone. Compare that number with the statistics for U.S. deaths in all of World War 2 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties]. 250,000 doesn't seem so small now, huh?
3) Who says that bombings via planes would have been more deadly? Ask Germany if they would have preferred to be bombed via planes or had nukes dropped on them. I think you know what their answer would be.
4) I honestly doubt that Japan would have fought until the end, given how they cracked when we dropped nuclear weapons on them. The same terror the nukes induced could have been done with a nice a raid of Tokyo, me thinks. Remember, the Japanese soldiers may have been intensely dedicated, but something tells me that the emperor and various other higher-ups might have feared for their own lives enough to surrender if we had put them in mortal danger.

Still, this is all just speculative history, which, while nice for moralizing, is a tricky business that can cause much unnecessary conflict. There's no way we can figure what would have happened had we decided to invade Japan rather than drop the bombs. While I would like to think that we still would have won, and on slightly better ethical footing, I cannot say that for sure, regardless of how much research I have done on this. The reality of the fact is that we did drop the bombs, though, and that we now have to deal with the aftermath. I don't dislike those who disagree with me, but what I can't stand is one side of this complicated issue claiming that it is unequivocally right over the other (which, while not necessarily being exhibited by those who have quoted me and whom I am quoting, seems to be the cause of some underlying tension in this thread). We can have thoughts about what would have happened, but given the speculative nature of this debate, definitive rights and wrongs are out the window.