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

[hitheremynameisbob]

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.

Well, I don't really buy that. We figured out the extent of the damage caused by radiation through the continued testing of the weapons after the war. It's not like no other bombs have been detonated since then - they just haven't been used in wars. We did extensive testing at sites like Bikini Atoll that taught us far more about the effects of the bomb than the two used against Japan ever could.

 

[Jedoro]

Yes

The Japanese were ready to surrender with few conditions, but America wanted its unconditional surrender, so they bombed the two cities. Completely unnecessary, since they were ready to talk about quitting.

 

[Jojo1378]

It wasn't wrong, ironically i've just recently been learning about this and from what i've learned, a land invasion of Japan would have costed millions of dollars and would have costed many many american lives. Japan wasn't going to surrender, Japan has a history of not surrendering and looking down on people that do. They surrendered a little after the bomb was dropped.

 

[Coalhada]

Need you ask that question? Really?

Before you read on, ask yourself: Was Japan, after years of war and other adversities, really a threat to anyone?

It is a known fact it was wrong and unnecessary. In fact, I'm astonished with the current poll results (65.7% say "No"). Maybe it is because the large majority of people in the Escapist is from the U.S. (and I will not get into how good the government can be good at maintaining population-wise ignorance, it happens in my country too, so I'm well aware of it), maybe it can be due to the demographics involved, I dare not say.

Japan had no conditions of continuing the war: it was stranded, left with no allies, no commerce, and they knew that. Their surrender was imminent and perfectly achievable without the bombs.

If you played "Metal Gear Solid 3" then you know what "deterrence" means. If you didn't, I quote the Wikipedia:

"Deterrence is a strategy by which governments threaten an immense retaliation if attacked, such that aggressors are deterred if they do not wish to suffer great damage as a result of an aggressive action. Weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), conventional weapons strength, economic sanctions, or any combination of these can be used as deterrents.
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is a form of this strategy, which came to prominence during the Cold War when it was used by the US to characterize relations between the United States and Soviet Union. Both nations were prepared to fight a full scale nuclear and conventional war, but were not willing to risk the carnage of a full scale nuclear war."

I could go on a little further, but I'll jump straight to the conclusion: the U.S. needed to portray their intentions as the new world leader. The bombing was how serious the government was on showing their intent.

On a side note: if you didn't know, during the testing of nuclear warhead technology, the U.S. came very goddamn close to ending the world. They decided to deploy a warhead BELOW the ocean, which almost initiated the chain reaction for hydrogen isotopes to F*CKING FUSE. (To start a nuclear fusion, you need the magnitude of energy that is released in a nuclear fission). Of course, they never did that kind of deployment again, and made sure that it wasn't as discussed as it should have been by the public.

I recommend the documentary "Trinity and Beyond" to those who really don't have the slightest notion of what is a nuclear bomb. Still is a remote notion, but a notion nonetheless. And I warn those who look it up: it can be VERY F*CKING SCARY.

 

[DarkDain]

Another tidbit i remember from WW2 class was that america threatened to keep dropping atomic bombs, even though we only had two, it was a bluff that we'd drop many more, so think about that.

 

[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.

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.

Some people can't talk things out. Actually, a lot of people cant.
War is totally necessary. And it's not "wrong" if it's a justified war for good reason, so all war is not "wrong"

It's easy to say "sure, this could have happened without war" When in reality it's much more complicated. America TRIED many times to become it's own nation peacefully, they even tried to stay a colony under British rule if they would just be treated fairly. They were ignored each time. So they finally made them listen with war, the only solution.

 

[Wounded Melody]

Nanking, the medical units, etc. = it was right to bomb Japan

 

[Daipire]

Considering the war camps, the zealous patriotism, and the other war crimes of japan (they used american paint jobs on some of their top secret subs/planes).

Considering the amazing amount of people who have died, and would have died for the attack on japan.

 

[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.

Well, I don't really buy that. We figured out the extent of the damage caused by radiation through the continued testing of the weapons after the war. It's not like no other bombs have been detonated since then - they just haven't been used in wars. We did extensive testing at sites like Bikini Atoll that taught us far more about the effects of the bomb than the two used against Japan ever could.

Data is data, but the real lasting human factor could not be derived from these tests. The human response to these bombs in japan and world wide, in conjunction to the data collected in these tests allowed the human race to see the full effect of a detonation on a populated area.

 

[Slayer_2]

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.

I realize that they only had two bombs, but the time it would take to build more would probably be very short. I doubt a month or two of holding back the Japanese would cause even a fraction of the deaths caused by the two nukes. A little-known fact is that it took over 4 days for news of the bombing of Hiroshima to reach other parts of Japan. By the time people knew about the first bombing, Nagasaki was already a smoking crater. Perhaps Japan would have surrendered if it had a little time to think things through logically. Of course, you could argue that they would just up their defenses, making a second bombing harder.

 

[Scizophrenic Llama]

One one end: If we didn't use the nukes, the war wouldn't have ended as quickly as it did. More casualties and potentially more than the result of the nukes would happen on all sides.

On the other end: If we didn't use those nukes, Russia wouldn't have been hard pressed to take all the territory it did and begin it's massive arms development and thus start the Cold War. Not saying the Cold War wouldn't have occurred, just not to the extent that it started off in.

 

[Commissar Sae]

Time to historian bash this. Japan had already offered surrender through Switzerland. The Americans refused the terms. The only term the Japanese demanded was that the Emperor be allowed to remain and not be tried for any war crimes.

Furthermore, saying that the atomic bomb is what forced Japans surrender is also kind of wrong. Since an examination of Japanese communiques on the 7th of August 1945 were much more concerned with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria than the bombings. Again, this was because they were given no information as to the nature of the bombs and Tokyo and several other major cities were already in ruins with greater casualties than the atomic bomb caused.

The Atomic bombings, alongside all bombings of civilians, were unwaranted in my opinion. No matter what your reasoning is, there is absolutely no excuse for murdering (yes murdering) thousands of innocent and unarmed civilians.

And that is what I have to say as a historian, since I'm finally done with my bloody degree! (yay)

 

[Mucinex-D]

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.

We offered to let them surrender after the first one was dropped and they didn't. Do you think dropping one of the coast would have done anything?

edit:
After the first bomb-
The Japanese government, still did not react to the Potsdam Declaration. Emperor Hirohito, the government, and the war council were considering four conditions for surrender: the preservation of the kokutai (Imperial institution and national polity), assumption by the Imperial Headquarters of responsibility for disarmament and demobilization, no occupation of the Japanese Home Islands, Korea, or Formosa, and delegation of the punishment of war criminals to the Japanese government.

Their conditions basically were for them to say "our bad", and let that be the end of it... no foreign intervention in any post-war affairs. How could the allied powers accept that?

edit 2:
Going off track here a bit, think of what Unit 731 did... they were a division of the imperial army that focused on biological warfare and chemical warfare.

-Plague fleas, infected clothing, and infected supplies encased in bombs were dropped on various targets. The resulting cholera, anthrax, and plague were estimated to have killed around 400,000 Chinese civilians.

That's more than the 2 bombs that we dropped killed... and that isn't everything they did.

 

[Blindswordmaster]

Really? Anyone who thinks the use of the most powerful weapon humanity had ever seen had no effect on ending the war with Japan is mistaken. I admit, I may not be the only reason, but to think it had no bearing in Japan's decision is ludicrous.
-More on point, I'm tired of people asking whether a historical decision was right or wrong. What's the point now? No one has a fucking time machine to change it. Stop worrying about something that happened over 60 years ago!
--No, dropping Fat Man and Little Boy on Japan was not the wrong choice. The people of Japan were armed and prepared to fight to the last man, woman, and child. Dropping the bombs was the only sensible option. Invading Japan would have lengthened the War by months, if not years and would have cost more lives than were lost in the explosions.

 

[Commissar Sae]

Nanking, the medical units, etc. = it was right to bomb Japan

I'll counter that with the rape of Tokyo and the execution of Japanese prisoners of war. Also consider that Shiro Ishii and his butchers in unit 731 were never accused of war crimes, since they ave all their papers to the Americans in exchange for immunity. You can't point and say "look how evil they were" and use that as an excuse when many of the actions of American soldiers were just as reprehensible.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

It was the first, and hopefully last, use of the nuclear bomb against civilians. It had to be done once, for us to know the unbelievable horror of it. That it happened when it did was just developmental circumstance. We needed to end the war, and here was this new weapon. And so we used it, and we know that, should we need to use it again, shit has gotten quite serious.

 

[hitheremynameisbob]

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.

Some people can't talk things out. Actually, a lot of people cant.
War is totally necessary. And it's not "wrong" if it's a justified war for good reason, so all war is not "wrong"

It's easy to say "sure, this could have happened without war" When in reality it's much more complicated. America TRIED many times to become it's own nation peacefully, they even tried to stay a colony under British rule if they would just be treated fairly. They were ignored each time. So they finally made them listen with war, the only solution.

There's a political scientist by the name of James Fearon who has an interesting paper detailing what he calls "rational war theory". The basic idea is that war happens when Country A determines that it can achieve a greater profit (taking into account projected losses and likely outcome) by going to war with Country B than it can by negotiating with them. The theory concludes that, if both sides were perfectly rational, war would almost never occur because the side that would lose would be able to foresee the outcome, and would thus make more profit available through negotiations to the other side. War, then, occurs because people are not 100% rational, and nor do they have full information about possible outcomes. Likewise, war may occur when two states, rational or irrational, perceive the likely outcome to be too close to call, and thus work taking a chance on.

So, according to this theory, war is the "right choice" in some scenarios, because at least one side perceives that there are goals (profit) that may be achieved ONLY through war (or at least, they may be better-achieved through war). It's easy to look back in hindsight and say that perhaps war was not necessary to achieve the same outcome, but things look different in the moment, and you have to keep in mind the information and feelings of the people in the room. Furthermore, it's useful to acknowledge that there are at least hypothetical scenarios in which war may be the morally right choice, even if you believe that none of these has ever occurred in real life. For example, despite what you think on the matter, what if it WAS the only way to get rid of slavery?

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

I like this thread! It's exciting!

On topic, I'm sure the first bomb was necessary. Japan was making no move to surrender, and a direct invasion would have killed millions on both sides, as has been pointed out earlier. The second one...that one is a bit of a grey area. Japan probably wouldn't have surrendered...but at the same time, we should have waited more than 3 days to be sure.

And before anyone talks about poor old Japan, being picked on by a schoolyard bully, as America was compared to earlier in the thread, take a look at the horrors of Unit 731 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731] I warn you, though, it is not for the queasy stomach.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

No I don't believe that it was wrong to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although it killed alot of people right away and many later died of radiation poisoning, I still think it was justified. The Japanese were not about to be scared of some American invasion of the home islands. They were actually willing to die TO THE LAST JAPANESE before surrendering. It would have cost MANY, MANY more lives to defeat them with conventional needs.
And if you don't think that they would've all died before giving up then listen to this. The night before Japan's surrender, a group of military officers staged a failed coup d'etat. They were attempting to secure the tape of Hirohito's offical surrender radio broadcast. If they had gained control of it and the Emperor than they would have been able to continue the war for some time longer. That's right. Even after two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, there were still some amongst the Japanese military who wanted to continue the fight. If they had succeed then perhaps more bombs and an invasion would have been needed.
Here's a link to the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_Incident
Since it's been established that much of the military wasn't going to surrender, this means the war could have dragged on for months more. I mean look how long the Japanese were able to hold out on islands like Iwo Jima. It would have been hell fighting across Japan where every native person was out to kill you. A war like that would have caused many more avoidable deaths.
Finally, although atomic bombs seem to hold a special horror in the minds of many people, and righfully so, the amount of deaths cause by these bombs were very limited compared to the amount of people who died of convential bombing. I mean not long before Germany surrendered, the city of Dresden was fire-bombed, causing thousands of deaths.

So yes, I do believe that the U.S. was justified in dropping the atomic bomb twice on Japan. It wasn't the prettiest option and I don't condone just dropping atomic bombs whenever the enemy proves a slightly tougher nut to crack than usual, this wasn't just some random occasion. It was a means to end the war quickly and, as hypocritcal as it may sound, saved many American, Japanese, and Russian lives that would have otherwised died in the resulting invasion of Japan.

 

[Tdc2182]

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...

You really, really, reaaaaalllllly need to reference that. The reason we dropped the bomb was so we wouldnt have to island hop, in order to avoid a crapload of deaths.

OT: I think we should have dropped the bombs on less inhabited islands.