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

[Commissar Sae]

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.

If you're going to judge an entire Nation on the deeds of its most depraved, then America should have nuked itself too.
Rape in Occupied Japan [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Japan]
Just to give you an idea, there were 40 reported cases of Rape a day during the American occupation. This numbers rose to 330 rapes a day once prostitution was made ilegal. This just to say that while unit 731 and Shiro Ishii were monsters and butchers, killing civilians in the same way they did is just as reprehensible.

 

[Naheal]

It wasn't wrong, per se, just unwise at the time.

1) If a country has a weapon that they're unwilling to use, then they shouldn't even bother having said weapons.

2) From what little information I've been able to gather, it was the quickest and surest way to avoid a ground war, which would have ended bloody for both sides. In the end, the A-bomb may have saved more lives then it ended..

3) On Nagasaki: that bomb was unnecessary. After the bomb on Hiroshima, Japan was looking at surrendering anyways (tripping over themselves to get it done if I recall correctly) and the second could only be seen as a show of strength to the USSR, with whom we were beginning to have tensions that would lead to the Cold War.

 

[Commissar Sae]

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.

Here ya go: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-14627507.html

 

[CarlsonAndPeeters]

I refused to answer this question because it is entirely irrelevant.

Yes, the atomic bomb killed thousands of innocent people. Yes, it simultaneously ended the war. Truman weighed the factors and made the decision to drop an unknown and experimental weapon. He knew the potential outcomes, but he did it. It wasn't a bad decision, although it is morally questionable. But either way, it happened, and the arguments for and against dropping the bomb are so close that you can't blame Truman either way.

 

[Tdc2182]

Sorry for the necro post, but....

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

People need to get out of their shells and realize that just because it is wrong, doesnt mean it is not neccesary. Ignorance is making no attempt at learning the proper information. It's like saying "Murder is bad." Well yeah, but that doesnt mean it is sometimes not neccesary. What if murder is the only way to save yourself or others? It was the same with WWII.

While it is true that slavery is gone in America because of it, it wasn't the only way that could of happened.

Yet, we sped up the process by at least 15 or so years. Plus, Slavery was not at all the main issue during that war. It didnt become so till the last 2 years.

(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.

And Hitler being assassinated would not have been the end of the Nazi regime, contrary to popular belief. There was almost 25 other well qualified individuals that would have taken his place. The reason why WW2 is still so heavily fantasized by the Allies, was because it was one of the last big wars that was completely neccesary.

 

[Doc Shaftoe]

It's always easy to look back at what happened and condemn those who made the choices and vouch that you would have done things differently. In reality though, if you were in their position after having been through the four or five years of war that they had been in, having seen and experienced what they did, would you really make a different choice? It's an uncomfortable thing to consider, but given the circumstances I think none of us are qualified to pass judgement on those responsible for what happened. All we can do is accept that it did indeed happen, and that it mustn't happen again.

 

[Eggsnham]

-Le Snippity-

Whether or not any of your "facts" are true, the Japanese were doing some pretty fucked up shit during the war, ever hear of Unit 731? Because of Unit 731, horror movie gore no longer affects me, yeah, it's that nasty. In addition, if the bombs weren't dropped, the Japanese would NOT have surrendered until both sides had experienced severe casualties. I think it's projected that if the bombs weren't dropped, there would have been an additional 10 million dead to each side and many more wounded.

It's no coincidence that the Japanese surrendered shortly after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were scared, they were hurt and the Americans bluffed and said that we had many more bombs for each Japanese city, they bought the bluff and shortly surrendered.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I was always under the impression that the Japanese had the Russians held down pretty well, not to mention that Russia was in no position to fight another war.

Granted, the Japanese had a rather minuscule Navy (to my knowledge, at least), they certainly had an Airforce.

Yes, we had blockaded Japan, but that was near the end of the war, and we weren't exactly excited about invading Japan's big island. I'm sure the Japanese weren't ecstatic about the idea either.

While certainly not the most "humane" end to the war, it was quick, it was deadly, and yes, it was necessary, at least, if we wanted to see most of our soldiers come home in one piece.. Or alive for that matter. Besides, who said war was humane, or fair?

Also, seriously, look up Unit 731 and the Rape of Nanking. Not the pictures (or videos, for that matter) mind you, unless you've got a stomach made of steel. Japan wasn't very innocent during WWII, in fact, it's speculated that Unit 731 was on the same level as the Holocaust in terms of Human Rights violations and fucked up-ed-ness.

 

[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.

Here ya go: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-14627507.html

Now, there may be a chance I might have missed something, but this doesnt exactly explain it. The people who made attempts at peace were not under the Emperors orders to do so. The emperor would not accept the terms of unconditional surrender.

What that means, is bascially he would not surrender the islands under his command. He would no longer attack, but the Japanese had allready proven at that time that there was a chance they would attack again. So the Islands that we had not won yet, would still have troops remaining on it, plus the ones he had taken over.

Think of it as if Hitler had said, "No more Fighting, but we get to keep Poland, France, and I still remain in Power"

That would have been a No No.

 

[gamefreakbsp]

I just wrote a paper for one of my courses on this very topic. My conclusions from my research were that it was absolutely wrong, morally. However, I believe that it was most definately necessary from a tactical standpoint.

 

[likalaruku]

The bomb caused a type of hereditary cancer that persists in Japan to this day.

 

[Godavari]

Well y'know, killing peopleis ALWAYS bad... So No, we shouldn't have. But I don't see any other choice (at least if the American version of history is to be believed).

 

[ezeroast]

Of course it was wrong for the US to drop a nukes on Japan, just as it was wrong to bomb Pearl harbour, for Hitler to murder so many innocent Jews and every other war or military engagement. But that's the world and it has been since we learnt to swing sticks at each other.

That being said, at the time i can see why the bomb was dropped. sacrificing the lives of many for the lives of many more. Still makes me sick though

 

[Commissar Sae]

I'm going to run through this one with a knife, sorry mate.

-Le Snippity-

Whether or not any of your "facts" are true, the Japanese were doing some pretty fucked up shit during the war, ever hear of Unit 731? Because of Unit 731, horror movie gore no longer affects me, yeah, it's that nasty. In addition, if the bombs weren't dropped, the Japanese would NOT have surrendered until both sides had experienced severe casualties. I think it's projected that if the bombs weren't dropped, there would have been an additional 10 million dead to each side and many more wounded.

You really need a reference for that number. 10 million is hugely overblown as the 90 day planned campaign had an estimated total casualty toll of 456,000. That was the pessimistic number, a more optimistic General estimated it would probably be closer to 31,000 and that the campaign would only last 30 days. Since These number was also based largely on the Japanese defense of Okinawa. The problem with that number is that the Japanese home islands lacked the defensive emplacements of Okinawa, as they had never planned for war on the home islands. The number of expected casualties has continued to grow over the years, partially in my opinion to justify the use of the Atomic bombs.

It's no coincidence that the Japanese surrendered shortly after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were scared, they were hurt and the Americans bluffed and said that we had many more bombs for each Japanese city, they bought the bluff and shortly surrendered.

Add to this the Russian invasion of Manchuria on August 9th and the firebombings of pretty much every major Japanese city and you get a clearer picture. Most of the Japanese populace didn't know about atomic bombs until well after surrender. This includes the High command.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I was always under the impression that the Japanese had the Russians held down pretty well, not to mention that Russia was in no position to fight another war.

A Red Army vanguard swept through Manchuria on August 9th. These forces numbered 1,557,725 and were armed to the teeth with top quality soviet weaponry and over 5000 tanks. This was months after German surrender and the Veteran troops from the Western Front had been shipped along the Trans-siberian railway. The Soviets were more than ready for another war, its the Japanese who were not. The Red Army beat the Kwantung Army without breaking a sweat and actually pushed their way all the way to Sakhalin and the Korean border barely a week later.

Granted, the Japanese had a rather minuscule Navy (to my knowledge, at least), they certainly had an Airforce.

The Japanese Airforce was as beat up as their navy. It was there sure, but the Japan had pretty much run out of decent pilots by this point in the war. Sure a few thousand rookie pilots could do some damage. But they had little time for training and the American planes would have taken them apart in short order.

 

[Shock and Awe]

If you look at how the Japanese defended Okinawa you could expect the same, or worse in an invasion of the main islands. Mass suicides, lots of guerrilla warfare, heavy allied casualties, ect. Japan did not show any sign of surrendering even when we warned them we were going to fuck the up.

Though, I will admit that they may have(most likely not though) have surrendered if we promised the safety of the emperor. The second Atom bomb was also overkill as well.

 

[Commissar Sae]

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.

Here ya go: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-14627507.html

Now, there may be a chance I might have missed something, but this doesnt exactly explain it. The people who made attempts at peace were not under the Emperors orders to do so. The emperor would not accept the terms of unconditional surrender.

What that means, is bascially he would not surrender the islands under his command. He would no longer attack, but the Japanese had allready proven at that time that there was a chance they would attack again. So the Islands that we had not won yet, would still have troops remaining on it, plus the ones he had taken over.

Think of it as if Hitler had said, "No more Fighting, but we get to keep Poland, France, and I still remain in Power"

That would have been a No No.

Actually from what i remember from another article I read, the main term of conditional surrender would be that the emperor not be tried for war crimes. This was a major fear since 70% of Americans were calling for his head. Hell 15-20% of americans were calling for a genocide of all Japanese during the war so you can understand the Japanese not feeling all that keen on unconditional surrender.
This wasn't helped by the odd incident of American troops torturing and gunning down Japanese prisoners just as frequently as the Japanese tortured and murdered American POWs.

Also the Hitler Analogy is a bit off, since Japan controlled a bare minimum of land by the time of the proposed surrender. They did still hold Manchuria and Korea though and considering American ulterior motives in that region they pretty much had to give tehm up.

Edit: Also keep in mind thats just part of a larger article, since you have to pay for the full one or have university access via Jstor or the like.

 

[LordGarbageMan]

Yeah it was bad but it was necessary. In war moral consequences do not matter.

 

[Commissar Sae]

Yeah it was bad but it was necessary. In war moral consequences do not matter.

I strongly disagree. If war becomes just about winning then suddenly every act of violence is legit. Fuck I could use that argument to legitimize 9/11 or the holocaust.
"Piles of innocent people died!" "yeah but it was an act of war and morality doesn't matter in war." Fuck War crimes exist for a reason man. So that the most vile, hateful and monstrous actions are never okay, because war is not above moral questions.

Edit: re-reading I spotted a rather major mistake, so it has been corrected in bold.

 

[Shock and Awe]

I'm going to run through this one with a knife, sorry mate.

-Le Snippity-

Whether or not any of your "facts" are true, the Japanese were doing some pretty fucked up shit during the war, ever hear of Unit 731? Because of Unit 731, horror movie gore no longer affects me, yeah, it's that nasty. In addition, if the bombs weren't dropped, the Japanese would NOT have surrendered until both sides had experienced severe casualties. I think it's projected that if the bombs weren't dropped, there would have been an additional 10 million dead to each side and many more wounded.

You really need a reference for that number. 10 million is hugely overblown as the 90 day planned campaign had an estimated total casualty toll of 456,000. That was the pessimistic number, a more optimistic General estimated it would probably be closer to 31,000 and that the campaign would only last 30 days. Since These number was also based largely on the Japanese defense of Okinawa. The problem with that number is that the Japanese home islands lacked the defensive emplacements of Okinawa, as they had never planned for war on the home islands. The number of expected casualties has continued to grow over the years, partially in my opinion to justify the use of the Atomic bombs.

I agree with you that 10 million is vastly overblown, and that 456,000 is also more than likely quite overblown as well. Though I believe one of the main reasons that the A-Bombs were justified was not the Allied casualties(though that was one of the main factors) but the Japanese casualties, both civilian and military. You are correct that the main islands did not have the intricate defensive network of Okinawa, but there is no reason to beleive that they would not fight any less ferociously.

 

[UnSeEn60]

I'm pretty appalled to see the number of people CONDONING the atomic bombing of Japan. You want to hear something crazy? In some areas of Japan, there are still birth mutations from the radiation present in the environment. It's fucking disgusting - leave it to the 'great USA' to fuck over an entire country YEARS later.

Yeah it was bad but it was necessary. In war moral consequences do not matter.

Really? You seriously believe this? Tell that to a soldier's corpse and see what they think...