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

[RamirezDoEverything]

It was necessary ro end the war, the japanese code of bushido prevents soldiers from giving up AND IT WORKED(there were soldiers found on small islands in the 60s and 70s still guarding their posts with their lives).

As you can see today, nuclear devices have prevented large wars for fear of annihalation, MAD. by seeing the massive power and destruction that the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended war.

 

[Yeager942]

-The japanese were terrified by the thought of the Russians coming, due to the fact they had lost to them before

The only war that the Russians fought with the Japanese was the Russo-Japanese War and Russia lost that one.

 

[sabotstarr]

-The japanese were terrified by the thought of the Russians coming, due to the fact they had lost to them before

The only war that the Russians fought with the Japanese was the Russo-Japanese War and Russia lost that one.

lol, history win

 

[stone0042]

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.

Gotta agree with Agayak here. Especially in the Japanese culture of the time, we were as much at war with the civilians as with the army. They were completely comitted to the war, and many women even went so far as to commit a form of seppuku to avoid the Allies. Even after the bombs were dropped, the Military Council of Japan was deadlocked for 2 days deciding on whether or not to continue fighting. They were leaning towards continuing, and if not for the US's agreement to allow Emperor Hirohito to remain in power and his subsequent order of surrender, the war may very easily have dragged on much longer.

 

[MortisLegio]

no... the Japanese military was dedicated to fighting til the last man dies (believing that their Emperor was the descendant of the Sun goddess Amaterasu). Even after the second bomb they still didnt want to surrender believing that it is the duty of the Japanese to die for the Emperor. It was only when the Russians started to push south did the Emperor decide to give up, and even then the military tried to stop the surrender message from being sent. Had the Allies invaded Japan millions of Japanese and thousands of Allied troops would have died.

so NO it wasnt wrong to drop the bomb

and considering the fact of what the Japanese did to the civilian populations of the people they "conquered" it seems fair to me

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Oh probably, but it's a little late to speculate on that now isn't it? It's not like it can be undone.

 

[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.

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.

War is wrong, and I fail to see how to say so is ignorant? (Ignorance is not knowing information).

While it is true that slavery is gone in America because of it, it wasn't the only way that could of happened.
America could have become an independent nation without specifically declaring war on Great Britain.

Really, my take on war, is that it is not necessarily wrong for a nation to defend itself if directly attacked, but war itself is nothing more than legal murder.

(btw, with Nazi Germany, the reason they were a threat in the first place was because of WAR). But even without our involvement, Nazi germany would have fallen. Long before our intervention there were dissident groups all over the third reich and several assassination attempts against the fuhrer.

 

[zenoaugustus]

It just seems strange that everone is saying they would never surrender; they would fight to the last man and they hated Americans and yet shorty after the bombs they sign an unconditional surrender. Quite the jump in opinions.

And that was because they just got fucked over. Thousands of people were killed. They were ready to fight to the very last man, but when they realized that every last man could easily be killed without being able to fight back, there was no point to keep fighting.

http://www.afa.org/media/enolagay/03-001.asp

I'm sorry, unless you can cite your reasoning, it has been clearly stated that the Japanese wouldn't surrender even when America warned the use of the atomic bomb. And then after America dropped the first, they still refused to surrender. Why do you think America dropped the second? Because America wanted to prove a point to Russia? No, of course not. America already ushowed everyone "we got the balls" once, why would America need to do it again to show everyone that they'd use it, America already did! And besides, America wasn't trying to prove shit to Russia at this point, they were still America's "ally". America dropped the second because Japan refused to surrender (or at least didn't surrender in an adequate amount of time). America warned that there would be a second strike. And then America struck and they still almost didn't surrender until America threatened a third strike (one that they didn't have at the time). Then Japan surrendered.

That is how it is told in most historical texts (although granted, they are American texts). Still, unless you can cite these claims, they mean nothing.

That being said, no, America shouldn't have used the atomic weaponry.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

America was theoretically sending a message to the Communists which went along the lines of ... "Okay, we've lost China pretty much, but nertz to you, Japan will act like our barrier to your insidious mind control."

The Russians were planning a massive foray into Japan, and China would have happily diminished necessary logistical lines by giving the Soviets all the rice, pork, and access to ports needed if they were to do such a thing. The Russians would have occupied it too given that the logistical capabilities of the heavily fortified Eastern Japanese coast of Kyushu were were not mirrored on the Western shores.

If Australia, Britain and The US were to openly engage both the surviving Japanese forces AND the Russians AND the Chinese Red Army whilst trying to placate an entire large multi-island disparate peoples we would have lost .... badly.

People were tired of War ... using Atomic weaponry shortened the necessary besieging of the 'Home Islands' hilst also stopping an inevitable Third World War.

That's one theory anyways....

Gotta remember that the US and Russia were already racing eachother in Europe before hand, only russia got the best prizes of that theatre .... the US weren't about to let Russia get the dibs of whole parts of Japan.

 

[Gilhelmi]

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.

War is wrong, and I fail to see how to say so is ignorant? (Ignorance is not knowing information).

While it is true that slavery is gone in America because of it, it wasn't the only way that could of happened.
America could have become an independent nation without specifically declaring war on Great Britain.

Really, my take on war, is that it is not necessarily wrong for a nation to defend itself if directly attacked, but war itself is nothing more than legal murder.

(btw, with Nazi Germany, the reason they were a threat in the first place was because of WAR). But even without our involvement, Nazi germany would have fallen. Long before our intervention there were dissident groups all over the third reich and several assassination attempts against the fuhrer.

You are not ignorant only naive. If the US declared independence Britain would have invaded and kick our a**es (because you say nothing is worth war).
I partly agree about slavery ending on its own (Gen. Robert E. Lee was opposed to it). But Germany would have taken Europe and delayed the Russians long enough to finish their A-Bomb.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made so and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

When a man shoots at you and your family do you say "killing is always wrong" and let your family die, or do you stop the shooter. Killing is the hardest thing anyone has to do even in self-defense.

 

[ArcWinter]

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.

I didn't mean that front. Germany was fine to go after. Hitler, as was widely known, was a dick. Japan was... less threatening, I guess you could say. Defense wouldn't have been that hard. I think. Maybe. I dunno, it's hard to justify principles in a war.

oh wait no its not violence is bad there we go

 

[lacktheknack]

If we hadn't seen the horrible effects of the nuking, then I imagine the Cold War might have fallen through after all (the public only knew of the bomb's effectiveness because it was the final straw that made Japan surrender).

 

[jacx]

the japanese where not going to surrender till they were all killed or captured so making them think we had more bombs liek that helped end the war that caused alot of american deaths

 

[The Singularity]

With no navy or air force that meant they were just sitting their and we were going to have to bomb or shell them into submission anyways.(Civilian Deaths)
With no imported resources again we were just going to have to starve them out.(Even more Civilian Deaths)
The Russians really didn't care about Japan here, they were leaving Russia alone and Russia was off stomping Germany down more. Even if Russian got involved we would just have to do what the other options were.
They were absolutely not going to give up, AFTER the atomic bombs their general still wanted to fight but the emperor said no.
Winston Churchill was a great man, but he obviously didn't look at the pharmacological damage the bombs did. Miles of city? Gone. Survivors? Slow painful death by cancer.

Propaganda...they released the estimations of what the causalities would be for a land invasion and all the plans for it. But I guess everything could just be propaganda.

 

[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.

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.

War is wrong, and I fail to see how to say so is ignorant? (Ignorance is not knowing information).

While it is true that slavery is gone in America because of it, it wasn't the only way that could of happened.
America could have become an independent nation without specifically declaring war on Great Britain.

Really, my take on war, is that it is not necessarily wrong for a nation to defend itself if directly attacked, but war itself is nothing more than legal murder.

(btw, with Nazi Germany, the reason they were a threat in the first place was because of WAR). But even without our involvement, Nazi germany would have fallen. Long before our intervention there were dissident groups all over the third reich and several assassination attempts against the fuhrer.

You are not ignorant only naive. If the US declared independence Britain would have invaded and kick our a**es (because you say nothing is worth war).
I partly agree about slavery ending on its own (Gen. Robert E. Lee was opposed to it). But Germany would have taken Europe and delayed the Russians long enough to finish their A-Bomb.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made so and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

When a man shoots at you and your family do you say "killing is always wrong" and let your family die, or do you stop the shooter. Killing is the hardest thing anyone has to do even in self-defense.

Your statement "If the US declared independence Britain would have invaded and kick our a**es (because you say nothing is worth war). " doesn't make much sense. Me saying that nothing is worth war has nothing to do with whether or not Britain would have invaded and kicked our asses. Though, you are right, obviously if we were invaded by Great Britain and did not defend ourselves, then yes, we would have had our asses kicked. But recall that i said that war is not necessarily wrong if it is out of self defense.

Maybe Germany would have taken Europe. I tell you the regime would have fallen apart by itself (as it largely did, and it certainly did in Mussolini's fascist Italy).

 

[Maelgwyn]

Really theres no way of knowing what would have happened. Because it was done.

They could of been preparing a surrender. We dont actually know that unless you ask Hirohito.

Plus fallout gave us crazy Japanese TV series!

 

[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.

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.

War is wrong, and I fail to see how to say so is ignorant? (Ignorance is not knowing information).

While it is true that slavery is gone in America because of it, it wasn't the only way that could of happened.
America could have become an independent nation without specifically declaring war on Great Britain.

Really, my take on war, is that it is not necessarily wrong for a nation to defend itself if directly attacked, but war itself is nothing more than legal murder.

(btw, with Nazi Germany, the reason they were a threat in the first place was because of WAR). But even without our involvement, Nazi germany would have fallen. Long before our intervention there were dissident groups all over the third reich and several assassination attempts against the fuhrer.

You are not ignorant only naive. If the US declared independence Britain would have invaded and kick our a**es (because you say nothing is worth war).
I partly agree about slavery ending on its own (Gen. Robert E. Lee was opposed to it). But Germany would have taken Europe and delayed the Russians long enough to finish their A-Bomb.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made so and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

When a man shoots at you and your family do you say "killing is always wrong" and let your family die, or do you stop the shooter. Killing is the hardest thing anyone has to do even in self-defense.

I'm not saying killing is always wrong, I think that killing in self defense is not necessarily wrong, Regardless, however easy or hard it is to do so.

 

[Slayer_2]

Yes, the Americans should have fired a "warning shot" off the coast of Japan, given them a few days to surrender, then dropped one on a military base in the Japanese didn't surrender.