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

[MinishArcticFox]

The bombs did win the war Japan surrendered unconditionally after we dropped the second one and if any of you think it was wrong look up the projected casualties of the land invasion we had planned and look up the Rape of Nanjing they deserved every thing they got.

 

[THE_MUFFIN_MAN15]

Well, it appears my history lesson has had a bit of a glitch, eh. Science never was my specialty. This "plutonium tree" you seem to want to rub in my face was actually a NRX reactor located in Ontario that was the largest producer of heavy water (at the time, and time was short for this project) and apparently deemed suitable for the project. Lets not forget that Canada is one of the largest suppliers of natural resources (ie. Uranium from Great Bear lake that was used for the project). Geography is FUN.

 

[CaptainLudicrous]

They should've shown the Japanese what the bombs could do first, like dropping it in a bay or something. The firebombing was really damaging to japan, either way.

 

[fer1wi]

I won't vote, since I can't truly agree with either side.

However, I have recently finished this section in AP US History (the teacher also teaches I.B. classes), so here are my two cents.

-As said before, a land invasion would have decimated soldiers on both sides, and morale would have fallen as well.

-The first bomb was (unfortunately) necessary, as Japan still had the "death before dishonor" mentality, and would not have given up. The bomb not only did its job in destroying the town, but it also scared the Japanese into surrendering.

-In between the first and second bombs, the Japanese started to surrender, while the Russians also began to invade Japan.

-The Japanese did not send the message to the Americans quickly enough, or did not drafting up the surrender documents (I don't know what they were). Because of a lack of response from Japan, the US decided to drop the second bomb. This one was the unnecessary bomb. It was also a "shock and awe" bomb against Russia.

Keep in mind, I just recently went through this in class, so if there are errors in my "facts", someone please correct me.

 

[Double A]

Yes, it was perfectly justified. Sure, a lot of people died, but a whole lot more would have if we tried to pull off another Normandy. Even though a soldier's job is to get shot at, that doesn't mean we should send them into the fray when we can do something much more efficient.

 

[Canid117]

And lets not forget. If we hadn't dropped nukes on Nagasaki and Hiroshima then the Soviet military would have had time to mobilize for a war in the pacific and helped. That doesn't sound so bad at first but it would have probably resulted in Japan being split up much like Korea is today and Germany was until the early 90s. Every front that doesn't exist to help escalate tensions between two nuclear powers is a good thing. It is sad that blowing up two cities was the way to do it but, that was happening everyday anyway. This way it just took two nukes instead of a hundred thousand firebombs.

 

[Connosaurus Rex]

The bomb stopped the war from becoming a guerrilla war on the Japanese home islands. As other had said the Japanese would not have surrendered without being told to by their Emperor God. Along with that the Japanese said all US and Allied forces in the POW camps would be killed if the Allies invaded their homeland.
Even though The Japanese were weak they would have pulled a Carthage and hold out for years using the most annoying tactics and drawing out the war into wars like the Guerrilla wars we fought in Korea and Vietnam.

So yes the bomb SAVED lives, even if it had to have "acceptable" civilian causalities, if there is such a thing. Besides any bombing that would have happened before a land invasion of main land Japan would have killed more than both Atomic Bombs that were dropped.

 

[Canid117]

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.

What about war in self defense?

 

[Xero Scythe]

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

sorry for the quote, but I want to address all your points.
1:The japanese actually did have an airforce. They were the reason why america was so damn testy. Kamikaze, anyone? A single one of those planes could take out a battleship or even a freighter. This effectively stopped the American air force.

2: The russians actually didn't invade until 2 days after the bomb was dropped. Hell, they hadn't even given a promise to invade. America asked, and were answered after the A bomb.

3: The japanese were suicidal. Literally. They would (And did) die if it would increase the glory of the Emperor. They thought of him as a god.

4: I really can't say anything here, as I have yet to get my hands on a copy of a book by Winston Churchill. Slightly skeptical if he wasn't on sight, but hey, I've been wrong before.

5: The bomb did not win the war. America would have won sooner or later, it would just have taken a lot longer, and more money and American lives would have been wasted. It was more of a time speed thing in my eyes.

Finally, don't forget that Harry Truman came into office just as the Manhattan Project came to fruition. He literally had no idea what the hell it could do. After his presidency, he was even quoted saying, "If I knew then what I knew then, I still would have dropped the bomb." He had no freakin' clue of its almighty power.

Just think, America has been improving and churning these things out since the late 1940's. We probably have enough of them to blow the world over 20 times by now. Scary thought...

If I missed one of your points, sorry!

 

[IrirshTerrorist]

It wasn't wrong... but it sure as hell wasn't right.

They did what they felt was necessary or right and thats thats, we can't dwell on these things we just have to try learn from the and move on.

I wouldn't have dropped it but then again I wouldn't have even built it. Not that I;m a pacifist or even a very nice person, I just feel that arms races will be the end of humanity and nuclear weapons really pushed up the global arms race.

 

[Kron_the_mad wants to be deleted]

was gonna vote yes but i clicked the wrong button.

 

[hitheremynameisbob]

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.

The problem with this is that, at the time, we had two, and only two bombs. Burning one as a warning shot... okay, maybe, but if you use the second one and you wipe out a military base, do you think that has the same impact as leveling a city? It doesn't. Maybe it would have been enough. Maybe not. The problem, then, is that if it's NOT, then you just blew your only two bombs and they're still itching for a fight, so you, in effect, wasted them. And now you're looking at fighting the ground war anyway, which defeats the whole point. America could have made more bombs, sure, but in that time how many more countless civilians die from starvation, bombardments, ect... and how many more soldiers on both sides die from Japanese counterattacks trying to break the blockade? A hell of a lot more than those that died in the two cities, you can bet on that. We had two bombs, and we used them in such a way as to provide the best chance of achieving the surrender as fast as possible, without crippling Japan to the point that it would never recover or descend into chaos.

What it all comes down to is whether or not high command thought the Japanese would realistically surrender in a timeframe that caused less casualties than dropping the bombs would. Even though there were dissenting opinions, it's pretty clear that many of them were on board. And thus it's hard to not see the logic behind using them, as cold as it is.

And on that note, (I know it's already been discussed) I can't see any reason why we focus so heavily on the A-bombs when far more people were killed in the fire-bombing campaigns against Japanese and European cities while working towards much the same goals.

 

[Joe Matsuda]

personally, I can understand the first dropping...

but after that they should have gone "holy shit! I didnt know it would be THAT devastating!!!"

and then, you know, not dropped a stronger one like two days later... thats just being a jerk...

 

[internetzealot1]

No. All is fair in love and war. Especially war.

Besides, its easy for people to say, "Oh, we were going to surrender" and "the war would've ended without the bombs" once its already been done and no one can ever know for sure. Besides, if Japan was about to surrender, they would've done so after the first bomb. They refused to, so we dropped the second bomb.

Also, did you know that, before dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, US planes dropped flyers warning the citizens that they had better GTFO. You can't say that we didn't warn them

EDIT: Also also, I know at least one of the bombs was scheduled to hit a military base, but they had to change becuase of the weather forecast.

 

[bassdrum]

It's a moral grey area. They killed civilians, but they may have saved lives. They ended the war violently but quickly. Also, it wasn't a surprise attack: the Japanese knew that the Americans had the technology, they knew that they had the will to use it, and (after the first bombing) they knew that they had promised to use it again. The USA delivered an ultimatum, and the Japanese chose to be bombed twice before backing down, which unfortunately cost many innocent lives.

Really, the only way to know if it was right or not is to know how it would've worked out otherwise, which is something we'll never know. However, we can see that Japan and the USA are more or less on good terms, and the war was ended expediently. Sure, atomic warfare is horrific and I certainly hope to never see it used again, but I believe that it may have been the lesser evil.

I'm not totally behind the idea, but I just think that it may have been the better way.

 

[Hashime]

Not to be insensitive, but if the bombs had not been dropped the world would have never seen the true impact of these devices on real people. It is not strange that they have never been used in combat since due to the overwhelming cost that these weapons have.

 

[Icehearted]

I voted that it was wrong, but in hindsight I can see that it in fact did do some good (such as demonstrating why nuclear war is bad, ironically). It's not as if they were a peace-loving people either, you know. Ever hear of Unit 731? Ever hear of the number of Chinese they slaughtered (hint: the Jewish holocaust pales in comparison).

They weren't always the somewhat xenophobic chipper kings of tech and weird we know them to be now. Their military engaged in some pretty sickening war crimes.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

It was right for the U.S., it ended the war without an invasion that would have cost millions of lives and it established the U.S. as a superpower after WWII. As far as how ethical it was as a tool of war, it wasn't worse than the firebombing we were doing and it wasn't worse than anything they would have done to us to take us out of the war. It still wiped a shitload of people off the face of the Earth and the total effect of the bombs was far worse than some of the things used in WWI that were later called unethical. You could argue either way if it was ethical, but you can do the same for anything once civilians, massive casualties and weapons that cause sickness and deformities get into the equation.

 

[birdboy]

I say yes, buy given the alternative (which included landing troops on Japanese soil 48 hours after dropping more bombs) I'd say its a necessary evil. But then again, that's what war is in general.