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

[zehydra]

I'd say it was wrong because war in general is wrong. But hey, relatively speaking it was probably much less worse than if we had attempted a land invasion. Even the japanese civilians were willing to fight the fight to the death.

 

[Agayek]

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.

While I agree with this in principle, I'd have to say that the death of citizens of a country that initiated the conflict in the first place take a much lower priority than the lives of your own soldiers, in the grand scheme of things.

I think the bombings were justified, due to the fact that the Japanese were warned beforehand of the bomb (I believe, been a few years since I've looked into it), and the fact that they are the ones who attacked us first.

My general philosophy is that if someone attacks you, you respond with overwhelming force as quickly as possible. This way, they never attack you again. The bombs are a natural extension of that.

 

[AMMO Kid]

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.

PEARL HARBOR IS THE OBVIOUS ANSWER

So, they should have just unleashed Michael Bay on Japan? Though that might have been enough to gain unconditional surrender.

If you watch documentaries about it you can see how pissed off the Americans were that Japan attacked them without even declaring war. In this time period I would consider it wrong. If Japan showed up tomorrow and bombed down Hawaii then it would be ok to nuke them again

 

[Rayansaki]

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.

While I agree with this in principle, I'd have to say that the death of citizens of a country that initiated the conflict in the first place take a much lower priority than the lives of your own soldiers, in the grand scheme of things.

I think the bombings were justified, due to the fact that the Japanese were warned beforehand of the bomb (I believe, been a few years since I've looked into it), and the fact that they are the ones who attacked us first.

My general philosophy is that if someone attacks you, you respond with overwhelming force as quickly as possible. This way, they never attack you again. The bombs are a natural extension of that.

I don't think all the women and children who died from the bombs attacked you first. If that's the way you think, then its similar to the terrorist way of thinking. They attacked our country first so we will fly airplanes at their major buildings, so they fill overwhelmed and don't attack again.

 

[Mcface]

I'd say it was wrong because war in general is wrong. But hey, relatively speaking it was probably much less worse than if we had attempted a land invasion. Even the japanese civilians were willing to fight the fight to the death.

War is not wrong, to say so is ignorant.
Regardless of what country you live in, it became a country through WAR.
There is no more slavery in America because of WAR.
America is an independent country, because of WAR.

Without WAR, we would all be speaking German and saluting a Nazi flag.

 

[Mcface]

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.

While I agree with this in principle, I'd have to say that the death of citizens of a country that initiated the conflict in the first place take a much lower priority than the lives of your own soldiers, in the grand scheme of things.

I think the bombings were justified, due to the fact that the Japanese were warned beforehand of the bomb (I believe, been a few years since I've looked into it), and the fact that they are the ones who attacked us first.

My general philosophy is that if someone attacks you, you respond with overwhelming force as quickly as possible. This way, they never attack you again. The bombs are a natural extension of that.

I don't think all the women and children who died from the bombs attacked you first. If that's the way you think, then its similar to the terrorist way of thinking. They attacked our country first so we will fly airplanes at their major buildings, so they fill overwhelmed and don't attack again.

There is a difference.
Flying a plane into a building with no military significance is an act of terrorism.
Dropping bombs on a city with a large number of soldiers stationed there is war.

 

[Schneizel]

No, it wasn't "right" to nuke Japan. It wasn't wrong either. If someone declares himself your enemy, regardless of how little a threat he poses, you decide whether or not to take it seriously and are perfectly justified in anything you do to prevent that enemy harming you.

Regardless, it was rather a dick move by Team America. First they storm in and forcibly end Sakoku, then they decimate the civilian populace, they shit all over the culture demanding unconditional surrender (they could have at least TRIED to make it less shameful) and finally they forbid the country from ever having a military.

Basically, while there is no right or wrong in war, we should remember that when the war is over, those that are left still have to live with each other.

 

[Treblaine]

No.

But was there anything "right" about any of the millions upon millions of people, civilian and soldiers, who were killed in that war?

And the atomic bombs weren't much worse in either death toll or area destroyed than the Firebombing campaigns against other Japanese cities.

They did what they thought they had to do, right or wrong.

 

[kingcom]

That is the worst rationalization ever. Attitudes like that allow it to.

Well you know why the atomic bomb is an issue people love to raise over and over again? It is because the current super power is responsible. Theres this thing called freedom of speech which has allowed the rising of the 'white guilt' which originated as a term to describe people feeling bad about slavery but has grown to respresent anything in which the people generations later feel responsible for. Now back to the point, this guilt idea is used to make the atomic bomb the most horrific action during the war, which although terrible was dropped on the industrial districts of Nagasaki (or Hiroshima, one had industrial facilities and the other was the base of a major Japanese military force i confuse the two) which were acting as war production. This unfortunately made these military targets, and the US decided that it would be easier to kill many of them rather than have many of their own die. The Japanese Emperor had to directly force his generals to surrender even after the atomic bombs. Now despite all this, people seem to completely ignore the mass brutalities of the japanese, not on the scale of an atomic bomb but why not discuss whether the japanese were justified in invading half the world, dragging the US into the war and not to mention their treatment of POWs. No? Nobody wants to?

 

[HerrBobo]

Snip

No. The dropping of the bombs saved more lives then it cost.

 

[CloakedOne]

Truth be told, I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time, but now It seems like such a horrible atrocity that it probably wasn't worth it in retrospect.

 

[stone0042]

Well, this is a topic I have certainly beaten to death. It's really a close call, but through some research on the subject for History class, and a probable bias as I'm American, I say yes. A full scale invasion would have cost vastly larger number of casualties. Additionally, this flexing of American firepower probably prevented conflict in the Cold War due to a fear of similar retribution.

My two cents

That is the worst rationalization ever. Attitudes like that allow it to.

Snip

Also, this. Things like the Rape of Nanjing (or Nanking, depending on your translation) are usually overlooked when examining the dropping of the bomb. It was a war, and in any war atrocities are carried out by either side. To think that this doesn't happen is folly, and unrealistic. Yes, this event was much worse than most, but it was a necessary evil.

 

[Kinguendo]

@ 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?

Are you being serious? You dont seem to be aware that almost ALL alleged accounts of kamikaze pilots have been debunked as opinions and not fact especially as greater emphasis was placed on the kamikaze years after the war than was ever talked about during the war.

 

[Rinor]

Let me go a little Confucius on you; would you like a bomb to be dropped at your city? Doubt anyone would say yes, even if there is a certain form of evil in your city, the deaths of thousands of innocent, friends and family -are not worth it and you would rather do something else to get rid of the problem.

The Atomic Bomb was not necessary -most people would agree. If you believe what the authorities say then you should perhaps reconsider that not everything official is the truth, there are many examples where retired officials speak forth of certain events they have witnessed and tell the real truth (and some even have proof, or evidence is simply overwhelming to support the official statement). I doubt this is a thing of the past, I believe it still happens and even in greater scale.

 

[Agayek]

I don't think all the women and children who died from the bombs attacked you first. If that's the way you think, then its similar to the terrorist way of thinking. They attacked our country first so we will fly airplanes at their major buildings, so they fill overwhelmed and don't attack again.

True, and I would have vastly preferred the bombs were dropped on a military target.

That said, when the choice is the lives of enemy civilians (on the side of those who started the conflict in the first place) and the lives of your own soldiers, it becomes a fairly easy decision to make. Especially once you consider the fact that if the bombs weren't dropped, it would likely have taken an invasion of Tokyo and the death of the Emperor to convince the Japanese to surrender, which would have cost significantly more lives than the bombs took.

And since the Geneva convention and the whole idea of "war crimes" wasn't established until after WWII, it made the decision even simpler.

 

[Scde2]

It wasn't just destruction, it was mass murder. The fallout from those bombs spread all over south east asia, causing cancer and birth defects even as far down as Australia.
And I can begin to imagine the atrocities they committed, my great-grand father and his brother were Prisoners of war in Japanese death camps, and before they died, told us stories about what happened.
If they brought in upon themselves, why did America wait until after pearl harbour to enter the war, when Australia (who they are ment to be allies with) had been bombed for months and was only not invaded because of hundreds of brave men who sacrificed themselves in order to stop the Japanese from getting any further than southern Papua New Guinea (look at a map, it's a stones throw away from mainland Australia).
Are the lives of millions of innocent Japanese civillians in two of their most heavily populated cities worth less than one million American soldiers?
Besides, the Japanese soldiers had abandoned the death camps and were making their way back to Japan weeks before the bombs drop.

Japan started to attack Australia the day it bombed Pearl Harbor. And 250,000 people+the 10s of thousands of people died later from the radiation died from the two bombings, not millions.

 

[PhunkyPhazon]

I never think bombing a city full of innocent civilians is a good idea, no matter what. It disgusts me to see the majority of voters voted "no" on the poll. I understand what the Japanese did to us and what was at stake, but I refuse to believe there wasn't some other way. Maybe I'm just an optimist.

 

[stone0042]

True, and I would have vastly preferred the bombs were dropped on a military target.

To be fair to Truman, he was informed that these were purely military targets, and even then were a step down from the targets deemed most damaging if bombed.

 

[sabotstarr]

it wasn't wrong, but maybe unnecessary. The Russians were coming, and the American command did not wish for parts of Japan to become under soviet rule. This and the fact that a direct attack onto a hostile nation that adhered to a code of honor and no surrender would have caused many many more casualties than the two bombs produced. Overall it was a wise tactical move for America, but the war would of ended with an American-British-Russian victory either way.

In the end, the atomic bomb is a horrible weapon that should never of been created, but now that we know some of the horrible destruction that it can cause, i hope that few, if any, people on the planet would seriously consider using it again in full scale warfare.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

It is impossible to fight a war without killing civilians. That is part of what war is. There were civilians at Pearl Harbor just as there were in Japan. Britain was full of civilians, yet Germany bombed them, and in turn was bombed. Why is America the only made out to be a demon because of this?

Japan was split. While Emperor Hirohito was looking for peace, the military leaders (the people who had run the actual nation for years) were bound by Bushido to not surrender. If anyone thinks the Japanese would have surrendered, I would point you to Iwo Jima and the other small "specks" of land that cost thousands of American lives to take, and the U.S. was only fighting soldiers. One Japanese soldier who survived the island fighting called himself a disgrace for surrendering. The citizens in Japan were training with spears and sharpened poles on how to attack Americans. There's video out there of school kids in uniforms running drills with spears. The long term damage to a soldier's mind about having to gun down children would have been too much for even the toughest American.

Even after Japan surrendered, the military didn't want to go along. There were mass suicides of officers, riots, and a faction even had a coup, taking over the palace and attempting to find the surrender message before it could be played. Death was a better option that living with "shameful" surrender. So no, the Japanese were not going to surrender.

From a military view, dropping the bombs was the right thing to do. Even then, it took the direct intervention of the Emperor (something that rarely happens) for Japan to surrender. From a personal point of view, I think it was the right thing to do for many reason--a lot of which have already been stated--and because my Grandfather was in the first wave of troops that would have had to invade the mainland. He was in the boat waiting to see what would happen when the bomb was dropped. I would most likely not be alive today if the order had been given.