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

[Zedzero]

Why do people always bring up the nukes drop on Japan and present them like they were the only time civilians got killed in a bombing campign? The fire bombing in germany was much worse.

It's because of the unprecedented destruction one bomb could bring, and the fact it was made even worse because of the fire tornado effect on the Japs, primarily wooden buildings casuing lots of fire. Oh also the miles of nuclear fallout.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

If US didn't bomb Japan, Japan would have been invaded by Russians.

I think *that* would have been worse for Japan than the use of Fat Man and Little boy.

Nobody wanted another situation of an East/West Germany, but it ended up that way in Korea anyways. Two cities decimated ... whoop dee doo ... Russian Invasion? Possibly up to 1.5 Million Russian soldiers, using 3000 field artillery, and 5,500 tanks ....

1.5 million troops, 5000 tanks and a mssive artillery barrage for possibly months on end would have smashed the country to bits.

 

[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.

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.

It's one of those questions thats is nearly impossible to get a real definitive answer about. On one hand, yes, the military would have fought to the last and likely have brought about a great deal of civilian death in the process. But I remain skeptical on the idea that every single Japanese citizen would have fought to the last. There were so many dissilusioned people by the end of the war who had no interest in fighting. Combine that with losing everything you own, being on the brink of starvation and having lost members of your family to bombing raids I'm not sure how much you would want to fight.
A really great example of why the civilians fighting to the last is kind of an iffy idea is that there was a grand total of zero American soldiers killed by Japanese civilians in the name of revenge during the American occupation. Granted a few Americans were killed, but that has been proven to be over gambling debts owed to local gangs.

 

[Caligulove]

Can be said that it saved lives.
Can also be argued that some peace agreement could be reached.

I never really thought about the bombings from a non-American perspective until I took a summer job opportunity to help teach English to kids in Nagasaki
It really changed my perspective of the whole incident...

I don't know where to stand on it anymore. So much death.
The grass around the Hypocenter Monolith still can't grow, but they've been trying for decades.

Returned the next year for a similar job through a larger camp, got to visit Hiroshima... further confused my opinions on the bombs...

 

[robakerson]

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...

I'm surprised that the yes:no ratio is almost 2:1.
I voted no under the pretext that nuclear warheads, by their very nature, are a crime against humanity. It seems that many people wish to justify the action by calling it the "lesser of two evils". However, the OT is "was it wrong", and I'm of the persuasion that WMDs are always wrong.

In asking whether or not we averted a larger disaster, or whether it was the logical thing to do, I don't know, but WWII was wrong, an invasion of Japan would have been wrong, and dropping bombs on large population centers will always be wrong.

As to the guy above - keep your unenlightened nationalism to yourself and blame the people who did the horrific act, not the people who happen to live in the same country over 60 years later.

 

[demoman_chaos]

Yes, 500k vs more than 5 mil if the US invaded the mainland.

 

[Commissar Sae]

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.

Here is a map of the german empire.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~fkruse/German%20Empire%201871%20K.jpg

Here is a map of the japanese empire
http://www.talkingproud.us/ImagesHistory/EarthquakeMcGoon/JapEmpire1942.jpg

I think the japanese one looks a lot bigger, and a lot closer. Germany didn't have a naval army even close to the size of japan's. Also, every single japanese person was willing to fight do the death, no matter how futile it was, for the emperor.

I think you may have the wrong map for the German empire. The one you posted is about 70 years too early.

This one should do better: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/images/campmap.jpg

But yeah, Japan had a much larger Empire at its height than Germany.

Edit: This map is actually a bit better: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/escapemap.jpg

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

The act of dropping the Atomic bombs was a propaganda act, to show the Russians the futility of war against the Allies after Japans defeat in my opinion. The Japanese didn't have enough food, had no air power or naval power. A simple starvation campaign with continued bombing raids would have ended the war without incinerating thousands of people. I know that the firebombings of major Japanese cities was killing more than the A bombs themselves but the Japanese had a better chance of survival against conventional bombings than the A bombs. Also, the Emperor was talking about peace at that point. A few more months and there might have been a revolution or the Emperor himself may have taken the steps necessary to end World War II.

 

[UnSeEn60]

I'm surprised that the yes:no ratio is almost 2:1.
I voted no under the pretext that nuclear warheads, by their very nature, are a crime against humanity. It seems that many people wish to justify the action by calling it the "lesser of two evils". However, the OT is "was it wrong", and I'm of the persuasion that WMDs are always wrong.

In asking whether or not we averted a larger disaster, or whether it was the logical thing to do, I don't know, but WWII was wrong, an invasion of Japan would have been wrong, and dropping bombs on large population centers will always be wrong.

As to the guy above - keep your unenlightened nationalism to yourself and blame the people who did the horrific act, not the people who happen to live in the same country over 60 years later.

Sorry, should be been a little clearer - I don't blame the PEOPLE who happen to live in the USA. It obviously wasn't their choice to throw around the nukes. I blame the mentality of the US higher-ups, which, in my humble opinion, haven't changed much in the 60+ years since the bombing and may never change. Do I think that the US government would do the same today if given the option? Of course they would. They're fucking warmongers - don't try to dispute it.

I agree completely with you, though...WMDs are inhumane and far too powerful for any one nation to possess.

 

[crystalsnow]

A lot of you really need to check your facts. Japan had no intention of surrendering or signing a truce, or what have you, we gave them multiple warnings, and after the first bomb they still didn't give up, so we dropped the second.

If we had tried entering Japan with soldiers, we would have lost approximately 1 million soldiers, and the Japanese may well have lost more people than they did.

Also, think of this. Japan was also attempting to develop an atomic bomb, but we beat them to it. What would have happened if they made it first? Also, once the world saw the devastation from the first time they were used, most people are willing to do whatever it takes to prevent a nuclear war.

 

[dancinginfernal]

I would say no. It was the nuke or the Russians, although neither were beautiful choices.

Speaking of which, it's 70 years after the fact. A bit late to discuss it now.

 

[angryscotsman93]

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...

Well, one big reason why is that Russia was about to jump into the war.

Yeah, that's a bad thing in this scenario (unless you're Russian, I guess). You see, at the Yalta Conference prior to FDR's death, Stalin had made an agreement that the USSR would join the fight against Japan 90 days after the fall of Nazi Germany. Thing is, we realized only later that if we allowed this, the USSR could end up taking over more territory and further spreading Communism. Thus, to beat them to the punchline, we went to drop the bombs.

As for my opinion... Well, I'm American, so I'm rather biased about this. Furthermore, I'm a militant type (not 'bomb'em to the Stone Age' militant, but hey), so that's force in this scenario. However, I've got to say that, as a U.S. citizen, I feel no shame or regret for what my nation did. I'm fine with this. Okay, maybe not 'fine,' but definitely not conflicted.

Remember, Japan wasn't some helpless victim that was half a second from giving up to us big, bad Americans. At this time, Japan was still an evil fucking empire, here, and I'm talking just about as bad as the Nazis, here. Remember the Rape of Nanking? Remember the Bataan Death March? Remember the units of Japanese R&D that would go out and round up Chinese peasants, chain them to the ground at various intervals of distance from a single point, and then detonate a bomb or hand grenade to test the effects of that weapon? This wasn't just a war for our vengeance, this was a goddamn war against evil, the truest one we've ever seen.

And they were NOT going to surrender. Even as the Manhattan project wound to a close and Oppenheimer realized what kind of monster had been created by his own hands, the Japanese were still ready to fight. Even if the Emperor had WANTED to surrender, the Japanese top brass would've just locked him away 'for his own safety' and kept up their madman's gambit. There was no end for this, so we blasted our way out of the cycle.

TL;DR- I don't feel any remorse for them getting bombed. I feel remorse that we didn't kick their butts in the '30's, when they first invaded Manchuria.

 

[Commissar Sae]

A lot of you really need to check your facts. Japan had no intention of surrendering or signing a truce, or what have you, we gave them multiple warnings, and after the first bomb they still didn't give up, so we dropped the second.

If we had tried entering Japan with soldiers, we would have lost approximately 1 million soldiers, and the Japanese may well have lost more people than they did.

Also, think of this. Japan was also attempting to develop an atomic bomb, but we beat them to it. What would have happened if they made it first? Also, once the world saw the devastation from the first time they were used, most people are willing to do whatever it takes to prevent a nuclear war.

Have you just not read anything I posted tonight?

 

[Commissar Sae]

I think you may have the wrong map for the German empire. The one you posted is about 70 years too early.

This one should do better: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/images/campmap.jpg

But yeah, Japan had a much larger Empire at its height than Germany.

Edit: This map is actually a bit better: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/escapemap.jpg

Oh, thanks. I looked at the date, but didn't notice it was the wrong one.

No problem, its a simple mistake, we all make 'em.

 

[Blatherscythe]

The bombs broke Japans back, you just don't fuck with someone with a bomb that can blow your city away. Besides the Japanese were ruthless in WW2, they literally starved prisoners and put them on death marches and even forced them to build them roads and bridges, they brainwashed their children in school to make them believe that they owe everything to their leaders and even launched kamakazi attacks (suicide missions, you get a plane full of gas and explosives and after you run out of bullets you crash the plane into an enemy ship). And imagine if they didn't drop the bombs, they would have had a long drawn out battle and would have lost more people on both sides. So it was merely the better option.

Oh and one little tidbit for those who say that the radiation is still mutating people after all these years, you do realize we truly didn't know as much about atomic weaponry at that point compared to today right? The Americans realized there would be after affects but they probably didn't think that they would still be suffering today. Oh and one more thing, the bombs "Fat-Man" and "Megaton" could only do a fraction of the damage the atom bombs of today can.

 

[crystalsnow]

Snip

Have you just not read anything I posted tonight?

I didn't say EVERYONE was off, I said a lot.

 

[angryscotsman93]

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.

You bring up an excellent point, Commissar. However, I have to say that I still feel that, in comparison to invading the Home Islands and doing things the hard way, I'm still leaning more towards the atomic option here. Call me heartless, but show me an American soldier and a Japanese soldier, hand me a gun, and tell me to shoot one, I'm gonna cap the Japanese one.

Okay, not a fair analogy, since those were cities. Still, though, I'd rather drop the bombs. Why? Because it made them fear us. When we bombed those cities with Fat Man and Little Boy, we reminded them in the most horrifying way imaginable, "None of you are safe. Surrender, or that could be your city under a mushroom cloud." Funny how fear makes people come to their senses.

Now, I'm not a nuke-crazy dude- I'm in favor of disarmament here in the States. However, we had an advantage, we used it, and it enabled us to avoid losing any of ours in the fight. I can live with that.

 

[robakerson]

I'm surprised that the yes:no ratio is almost 2:1.
I voted no under the pretext that nuclear warheads, by their very nature, are a crime against humanity. It seems that many people wish to justify the action by calling it the "lesser of two evils". However, the OT is "was it wrong", and I'm of the persuasion that WMDs are always wrong.

In asking whether or not we averted a larger disaster, or whether it was the logical thing to do, I don't know, but WWII was wrong, an invasion of Japan would have been wrong, and dropping bombs on large population centers will always be wrong.

As to the guy above - keep your unenlightened nationalism to yourself and blame the people who did the horrific act, not the people who happen to live in the same country over 60 years later.

Sorry, should be been a little clearer - I don't blame the PEOPLE who happen to live in the USA. It obviously wasn't their choice to throw around the nukes. I blame the mentality of the US higher-ups, which, in my humble opinion, haven't changed much in the 60+ years since the bombing and may never change. Do I think that the US government would do the same today if given the option? Of course they would. They're fucking warmongers - don't try to dispute it.

I agree completely with you, though...WMDs are inhumane and far too powerful for any one nation to possess.

Well then the error is mine. I completely agree with you, our (edit: referring to the American people, not necessarily UnSeEn60) country is full of knuckleheads for leaders who seek to capitalize on our oversized military by, well, using it to its full effect. I'm just tired of people blaming the entire American populace for things the government (mainly the military) has done (and is doing) wrong. If I had my way, we would scrap about 2/3 of our military spending, stop our current conflicts, and spend the saved money on paying down our debts. But this is far OT.

I apologize for making the assumption, either way.