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

[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.

Because, that makes it okay.

You acted as if we did nothing and just went out of our way to kill innocent Japanese civilians. We however gave them the chance to leave if they wanted to or you know we could've attacked them without warning like they did to us at Pearl Harbor but i guess that doesn't matter

 

[profit0004]

Sadly Dropping the bomb on japan was a necessary evil... And one that actually did not cost very many lives....America firebombed many Japanese ports and cities and killed hundreds of thousands. Atomic weapons by comparison were relatively tame, and gave the emperor a way to surrender while saving face.

And sorry, I do not buy that japan was on the brink of surrender. Honor was everything in japan at that time and to surrender before they were nuked would have cost them much honor.

Without a way out given by a weapon to which there is little defense and capable of untold destruction, it is likely the war would have been forced to go on longer. Thankfully the Japanese civilians and military had no way of knowing those were America's only 2 weapons, otherwise there may have been no surrender and millions more lives could have been lost.

 

[bloodychimp]

The only relevant statistics in my opinion:

American casualties dropping the nukes: 0
American casualties that would have resulted from invading Japan: >0

If they didn't want us to kill them they shouldn't have bombed Pearl Harbor.

 

[Snella]

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.

Actually, Eisenhower was the most important man, considering he led the Allies. Any invasion of any sort would cause massive amounts of American casualties, regardless of the direction they attacked from. Civilians were training to fight the Americans with bamboo spears if they invaded. A draft with surrender terms would not have ended the war. The Allies would only accept unconditional surrender, which means no terms. And unconditional surrender was not well liked by most Japanese officials. With thousands of Americans dying every day, America needed the war ended as quickly as possible and with minimal American casualties. Japan was given plenty of warning that the bomb was coming and that Japan needed to make up its mind soon. They didn't, so we used the bomb.

 

[avatar_vii]

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.

that may be true, but an invasion does not spreed fallout that causes birth defects and cancer even 50 years after, making entire regions unlivable for almost as long. the way I see it, an invasion can never be as bad as dropping an atomic bomb. In this case, America was just as bad as hitler in terms of carnage and human suffering. And, the bombs were not dropped to defend any allies, if they were, the Americans would have dropped them as soon as Australia was bombed, not much later after being attacked themselves. This was nothing more than unjustified revenge whose effects are still beimg felt today. By the way, most of the Japanese troops were in Papua New Guinea and other south east asian countries, not actually in Japan itself, meaning an invasion would have been the least destructive option.

 

[Nocola]

@ Everyone saying it is false that Japan had vitualy no navy or airforce to speak of. You are WRONG!

Almost ALL of Japans aircraft carriers and battleships were destroyed in the battle of Midway. And they were unable to rebuild due to a shortage of materials.

 

[Keepitclean]

-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.

Surrendering because you lose two cites in three days is smart, not dishonourable. Surrendering was considered dishonourable in Japanese society at the time. The weren't about to surrender anyway. Or at least wikipedia says so.

Spoiler: Why the bombs were dropped

Not to be confused with Potsdam Agreement.
The Potsdam Declaration or the Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender is a statement calling for the Surrender of Japan in World War II. On July 26, 1945, United States President Harry S. Truman, United Kingdom Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and President of the Republic of China Chiang Kai-Shek issued the document, which outlines the terms of surrender for the Empire of Japan as agreed upon at the Potsdam Conference. This ultimatum stated that, if Japan did not surrender, it would face "prompt and utter destruction".

Japan's initial rejection of the ultimatum led directly to Truman's decision to drop atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and August 9. Whether the ultimatum was intended to be acceptable without recourse to use nuclear weapons has been subject to considerable debate.

The declaration was one of Churchill's final official acts as Prime Minister before he left office the following day in favour of Clement Attlee.

 

[THE_MUFFIN_MAN15]

I love how everyone loves to paint an American flag all over this issue, when in reality it was an allied operation. The atomic bomb was built because rumor spread to the allied powers that Germany was building an A-bomb as a last effort to turn the war around. The Manhattan project began to beat Germany in this arms-race with the help of British, American, and Canadian scientists and plutonium from Canada. When the bomb was finished, the allies prepared to drop it on Germany until Germany surrendered. With nowhere to put these two giant tax-money eating scraps of metal the government feared they would lose the public's trust which could have toppled the government. Then when the numbers came in it was recommended to the allies to drop the bombs on Japan, a country still in the war and was willing to fight to the death for their cause. It was unlikely that Japan was going to surrender because their army was trained to fight till the last breath ( Surrender was discouraged and lead the Japanese to believe brutal punishment to their prisoners of war was necessary) which was why the allies decided that it was the best choice of action in this situation.

 

[jad4400]

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.

I apologize, I didn't realize that Congratulations could be spelled another way, I don't really know much about how Englend pronounces and spells certain words.

I also apologize for calling you a dumbass, with historical topics like this I get a little excited and somtimes I post stupid stuff.

While I still belive that the bombings were justified, I have to realize that others will also feel strongly about why we shouldn't have bombed Japan. i'm going to back awa from this forum before i do somthing I regret. I just wanted to again apologize for comming off sounding like an ass.

P.S. I think we can both agree that Hot Topic is god awful.

 

[Xpwn3ntial]

Hiroshima? Yes. That was totally justified. At the time, it was just another new weapon of war, and if I do say so myself, the most powerful piece of psychological warfare ever conceived. Hiroshima led to the end of WWII, not Nagasaki.

Nagasaki? Not entirely. At the time, the Diet was going frantic on what to do and whether America would drop another soon (she did). After that, the Diet didn't know how many America had and said, 'It's not worth the mayhem to keep going.'

EDIT: Previous statement concerning the surrender of the Emperor is inaccurate and has been deleted. Please disregard.

 

[Snella]

that may be true, but an invasion does not spreed fallout that causes birth defects and cancer even 50 years after, making entire regions unlivable for almost as long. the way I see it, an invasion can never be as bad as dropping an atomic bomb. In this case, America was just as bad as hitler in terms of carnage and human suffering. And, the bombs were not dropped to defend any allies, if they were, the Americans would have dropped them as soon as Australia was bombed, not much later after being attacked themselves. This was nothing more than unjustified revenge whose effects are still beimg felt today. By the way, most of the Japanese troops were in Papua New Guinea and other south east asian countries, not actually in Japan itself, meaning an invasion would have been the least destructive option.

Japan brought the destruction on themselves. They were the ones who started Axis aggression, they were the ones who attacked Pearl Harbor and brought the US into the war, and they committed thousands of atrocities that you can't even begin to imagine. You would rather have one million American casualties than finish a war that we didn't start?

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

I like where this thread is going...

 

[Snella]

@ Everyone saying it is false that Japan had vitualy no navy or airforce to speak of. You are WRONG!

Almost ALL of Japans aircraft carriers and battleships were destroyed in the battle of Midway. And they were unable to rebuild due to a shortage of materials.

And yet thousands of Kamikaze fighters were crashing into Allied ships every day. How do you explain that?

 

[ResiEvalJohn]

I didn't answer this poll question due to the fact that I feel it was terrible, but also necessary. It wasn't good that we fried all those innocent Japanese people into crispy bits, but I've read a lot of books on the subject and I know that the only other alternative was for the Americans to invade.

The Japanese were counting on an invasion because it was their homeland and they were completely prepared. The American soldier casualties would have been astronomical! Think D-day X 10 or 20, but on Japan's shores. The Japanese were even training kids as young as 10 years old to use guns against the Americans if they invaded. It's sad, but they really gave us no other choice but to drop the bombs because the emperor was too stubborn.

Besides, think if you were an American soldier, and you had already spent a few years fighting the Japanese across the Pacific Islands and now you had to invade the mother country. You were already exhausted from barely surviving all of your battles for the last few years, and going into Japan would be practical suicide!

It's just like the ending of DOOM, episode one on the PC, where you kill the two Hellknight bosses on the last mission and you're totally excited, but then you go up the stairs and get dropped into a pit of angry demons who tear you apart in seconds. The American soldiers pretty much felt like that if they had to invade Japan - they were gonna get their asses killed after everything they'd already been through.

So sorry Japan, I like you and stuff, but your stubborn ways are to blame.

 

[EchetusXe]

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.

Jeez, what was your dad a General during the war or something?

You're right though, and it is a good thing they had trouble sleeping at night following the attacks. Showed they had a conscious; unlike the Japanese leaders, who I am sure only regretted losing 'honour' and power in defeat.

You make a good point in calling bluff on the analogy - the Japanese leaders had a responsibility to their people. Throwing lives at the Americans to try and wrangle more favourable peace terms was insane.

And yes - the traffic is immense here. Numerous issues are being discussed at the same time by many people in the same damn thread.

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.

Indeed. I don't think anybody comes out of war with much credibility. Just that in this case two of the most sick and twisted regimes of all time were defeated, their actions having been so disgusting that even two atomic bombs seems a bit tame as a reaction.

 

[kingcom]

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.

Because, that makes it okay.

You acted as if we did nothing and just went out of our way to kill innocent Japanese civilians. We however gave them the chance to leave if they wanted to or you know we could've attacked them without warning like they did to us at Pearl Harbor but i guess that doesn't matter

You gave them a chance to leave? That is no excuse for bombing a city! That whole "they did it so we can" mentality is madness. London got bombed to hell and that was an atrocity, but it was nowhere NEAR the atrocity the fire bombing of Dresden BY THE ALLIES was, and even that was nowhere near the atrocity of the nuclear bombing of two cities. Had they attacked military bases I would not be complaining, but they killed thousands of innocent people. There is no way at all you can justify that.

Im sorry but during a war like that, everyones morality goes out the window.

 

[Eliam_Dar]

As far as I know, the bomb was no longer required, Japan was already finished, the bomb was dropped to draw the line not to japan, but to the soviets. It was a way of showing off the biggest weapon you had to the country that actually won WWII.

 

[direkiller]

Yes the bombs were justified
Why:
We killed more people with alot more questionable tactics in both theaters(Carpit bombing,Firebombing Civilians)
The invasion of the mainland was predicted to take about another year of fighting and cost over a million US lives let alone losses on Japans.

You can not deny the bombs played a part in shorting the war they surrender 3 days after the second one dropped

The only thing i find questionable about it is how fast we dropped the second one on them without letting the first one sink in

 

[Cryo84R]

We killed civilians to display our tactical superiority over our wartime ally, the Soviet Union, so that after the war we would have a stronger bargaining position against the "communist" (not really) nation.

So, yeah. I think it was wrong.

Still not as bad as the firebombings against Germany.

If our leaders had been given the same trials after the war that axis generals were given, every single one of them would have been put to death.

OT: Yes, and if I were in power I'd have done it three times to prove my point.

we actually did threaten them with a 3rd bomb and that one was going to be aimed square at the capital. This was of course a bluff on our part as we only had 2 bombs at the time, the 3rd was still being manufactured or something like that. Regardless the Japanese leadership, realizing they were next on our "list of stuff to vaporize" decided to save their own hides.

Weren't the original nukes just uranium with tnt packed around the core? What's so hard about building that?

Both of these posts just make my brain hurt SO BAD.

The soviet union wasn't communist? Get your diploma in a cardboard box, did we?

Atom bombs just uranium around a core? Clearly a physics genius.