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

[SilentVirus]

Oi, they started it. I just think "Don't want any, Don't Start any"

 

[Enkidu88]

@crystalsnow: In 1945 there was no way they could have developed a nuclear bomb, nor would they have a way to deliver it. There infrastructure was too decimated to even begin rebuilding an airforce and the blockade was denying them critical supplies they would have needed for a bomb. With no navy or airforce to speak of they lacked a method of delivering such a massive weapon.

However I do agree with the rest of it. Emperor Hirohito was advising fighting to the last man only weeks before the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan, was to be carried out with massive strategic bombings and off-shore bombardment by the fleet. Such an operation would have resulted in massive casualties for both sides and the utter annihilation of the Japan's infrastructure (which was already in bad shape). At the time Fallout was well understood and the plan included the possibility of dropping up to 7 nuclear bombs and then sending in the troops. They thought a 48 hour waiting period would have sufficed for radiation to disperse.

Obviously it wasn't an ideal solution, but it was basically a no-win scenario. Anyway they cut it there was going to be significant loss of life, it just came down to how significant.

 

[Commissar Sae]

Snip

Have you just not read anything I posted tonight?

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

I just asked because a lot of the stuff you brought up were things I adressed earlier, such as surrendering and estimated death tolls.
I have absolutely no doubt that the Japanese would have used atomic weapons if they had them. Although probably on the Chinese more than the Americans.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

Oh, look, it's this thread again.

Here's the short version: No.

Diplomacy works like this: everybody listens to the man with the axe, but sometimes you have to swing it a few times before anybody starts to take you seriously.

 

[Darius Brogan]

I may sound a little confusing but I believe it was and was not wrong at the same time.
Japan has always been somewhat messed up with the losing side of war, meaning they never want to admit their defeat, so they most likely would not have surrendered easily had the bombs not been dropped.
However, accompanied by the fact that the US dropped not one but two bombs, is the fact that the second (Nagasaki) was until that point completely untested and it's effect was unknown. So the US basically dropped a Mario [?] box on the heads of the people wondering if what would come out was your basic coin or an invincibility star.
I was always under the impression that human testing was reserved until the last stages of development.
On another note, Pearl Harbor was not what caused the US to go to war, it was only their excuse to do so, Pearl Harbor was also a Japanese arrogance thing (If I remember correctly they mistranslated an intercepted American message and got VERY offended) so they are, neither of them, justified in their actions and neither has the right to stand on a pedestal and say "I was right".

 

[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.

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.
/quote]
I was going to go to bed, but your hypothetical situation demanded that I respond with a though provoking retort.

What if instead of two soldiers of each nationality you have a different set. The American is a rapist and a murderer who expresses no regrets. For the Japanese we have a 7 year old girl. Would you still pick to shoot the Japanese representative? Does it matter more that the man is the same nationality as you or does the value of life go beyond national boundaries. It's easy to condemn the Japanese soldier to death, but could you do the same for a civilian simply because she wasn't the same nationality as you?

Okay, Now I am going to bed, we can continue this tomorrow if you wish.

 

[Commissar Sae]

On another note, Pearl Harbor was not what caused the US to go to war, it was only their excuse to do so, Pearl Harbor was also a Japanese arrogance thing (If I remember correctly they mistranslated an intercepted American message and got VERY offended) so they are, neither of them, justified in their actions and neither has the right to stand on a pedestal and say "I was right".

Actually the Japanese declared war because they considered the American oil embargo an act of war. The Japanese army in China needed the oil provided by the Americas to continue its war and without it they would start to lose steam. It doesn't help that the whole reason for the oil embargo was greed and the Americans wanting to make sure China remained a free market to sell their own products.
Yeah Global politics is both really complex and really, really stupid when you look at it.

 

[AppleaDay]

-The Japanese had virtually no Navy or Airforce to speak of.

So...what carried all of the Japanese bombers to Pearl Harbor?

 

[The Kraken]

Dropping them saved a lot of american lives by preventing the need of an invasion of Japan. It was a terrible thing that it had to happen but in the end it was the right choice for the U.S.

 

[Darius Brogan]

On another note, Pearl Harbor was not what caused the US to go to war, it was only their excuse to do so, Pearl Harbor was also a Japanese arrogance thing (If I remember correctly they mistranslated an intercepted American message and got VERY offended) so they are, neither of them, justified in their actions and neither has the right to stand on a pedestal and say "I was right".

Actually the Japanese declared war because they considered the American oil embargo an act of war. The Japanese army in China needed the oil provided by the Americas to continue its war and without it they would start to lose steam. It doesn't help that the whole reason for the oil embargo was greed and the Americans wanting to make sure China remained a free market to sell their own products.
Yeah Global politics is both really complex and really, really stupid when you look at it.

Oh well, whatever the reason, I'm not convinced that either the US OR Japan should have done what they did. I'm by no means a pacifist, I actually may be a bit closer to a war monger without the financial insanity, but Bombing Pearl Harbor was wrong and a very bad idea, and Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both wrong and bad ideas... although when we think about it for a sec we're talking about two countries who've both got their heads up their respective asses when it comes to swinging around a bigger club than the other guy...
Japanese from a historical honor standpoint, and U.S. from a "world power super giant globocop complex" standpoint... Both countries take themselves far too seriously when it comes to stuff like this... as a matter of fact, most countries are the same way. Except for Canada of course... We're the people pleasing politically inept nice-guy attached to the ballsack of the United States president... And I'm NOT proud to admit that...

 

[geldonyetich]

Moot point. There's nothing right about wartime to begin with.

 

[Chamale]

However, accompanied by the fact that the US dropped not one but two bombs, is the fact that the second (Nagasaki) was until that point completely untested and it's effect was unknown. So the US basically dropped a Mario [?] box on the heads of the people wondering if what would come out was your basic coin or an invincibility star.

No, the Hiroshima bomb (Little Boy) was untested. American scientists were confident that it would work, so they dropped it first. Even though a plutonium implosion bomb had been tested once, they dropped it last in case it wasn't as effective.

Something to consider, everyone: The Japanese military was killing 250,000 people per month in its occupied territories. The bombings killed 400,000 people. I highly doubt the Americans could bring about a surrender within 2 months.

Even after the nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the Emperor's science advisors told him that the Americans certainly had only made 1 atomic bomb. At this point, public schools were teaching children how to stab American soldiers with pointed sticks. The Emperor refused the American surrender terms, and capitulated after the second bomb was dropped. Even though the Emperor's generals knew about the Nagasaki bombing, there was an attempted coup - the generals simply refused to surrender.

 

[Phoenixlight]

Yes of course it was wrong.

 

[John Smyth]

It can be argued that the ends justified the means, however the decision utilise a nuclear weapon on a civilian population is unarguably wrong. No one had the right as a human to cause that much death to people no more inherently violent than anyone else.

That being said as wrong as it was to drop the bomb it may have been the right decision/only decision to make.

 

[Exocet]

I can understand the first bomb,hell,I can even justify its drop.It was either drop it,killing hundreds of thousands of civilians,or invading and getting thousand of US soldiers killed and hundreds of thousands of civilians levied into an army whuch would have been annihilated through the use of artillery,armor and conventional bombs.
In all,I believe the Bomb,at least the first one,saved more lives on all side than is cost.You can take the side of absolute righteousness and say none should have been used,but that's an easy thing to say from behind a keyboard,70 years later.I'm sure if someone would have said to you back then:"soldier,we're going to drop a big fucking bomb so you won't be giving your life to take Japan" you would not have disagreed with it.

However,the second one was a useless show of force,waste of ressources and human life.
It's like curb-stomping a downed adversary:brutal and not needed to achieve a victory that was already there before.

 

[danosaurus]

If a Surgeon operates on a patient and he and his team encounter a complication wherein they can either;

A) Allow the patient to live healthily from then on - but lose a leg in the process.
B) Leave the leg but at the almost definite risk of losing numerous other limbs over an extended period of time, coupled with excruciating pain alongside said risk.

A) is always going to win out.

Also it would be a wise time to remember that whilst the Atomic Bombs were a devastating way to finish things off in the Pacific - it is extremely diminutive in comparison to the many other atrocities that occurred from 1939-'45.
Kill 1 to save 10, kill 10 to save 100 etc. etc.

 

[gim73]

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.

A 'crime against humanity' eh? Perhaps the same could be said of all weapons. Mines, bombs and grenades throw off shrapnel that tears off limbs and effectively removes soldiers from the battlefield as less than half a man. Chemical neurotoxins attack the soldier and assault him, leaving him gasping and in excrutiating pain. Bullets embed themselves into soldiers, often causing death and horrid sucking wounds. Flame throwers burn everything they touch, scarring people for life (btw, these are banned). Wanna get to less technological weapons? Swords and spears cut you open and leave you suffering on the battlefield with your guts all over the place. Maces and other blunt weapons cause internal bleeding and broken bones.

What exactly makes a massive shock wave followed by a fireball and radiation such a crime against humanity?

WWII was WRONG? Invading japan would have been WRONG? What is your definition of RIGHT? If anything, it was wrong of the US to remain isolationists while europe and asia were being divided up between germany, japan, russia and italy. It was called world war for a reason. The ENTIRE world was at war. This has not happened since for several very good reasons. I'm not saying that it will NEVER happen again, I'm just saying that most of the worlds nations now will stand up against any country trying to take over like what happened in WW2. As far as leaving japan intact and unpunished at the end of the war, nobody would be happy with that outcome. Japan pretty much spit in the face of every asian country and declared they were superior as a race. It would pretty much be like fighting germany back to their border and glaring at them, saying 'you better not try that again!'. To ignore the great evils of the 20th century would be to invite them to come at us again.

 

[Darius Brogan]

However, accompanied by the fact that the US dropped not one but two bombs, is the fact that the second (Nagasaki) was until that point completely untested and it's effect was unknown. So the US basically dropped a Mario [?] box on the heads of the people wondering if what would come out was your basic coin or an invincibility star.

Something to consider, everyone: The Japanese military was killing 250,000 people per month in its occupied territories. The bombings killed 400,000 people. I highly doubt the Americans could bring about a surrender within 2 months.

Even after the nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the Emperor's science advisors told him that the Americans certainly had only made 1 atomic bomb. At this point, public schools were teaching children how to stab American soldiers with pointed sticks. The Emperor refused the American surrender terms, and capitulated after the second bomb was dropped. Even though the Emperor's generals knew about the Nagasaki bombing, there was an attempted coup - the generals simply refused to surrender.

much of this brings us back to the Japanese Historical honor system and the arrogance factor, The Japanese have never, and I'm not sure they will ever, accept that surrender when victory is physically impossible is not dishonorable, and if a foreigner breaks wind half a mile away in your general direction it doesn't mean they have just declared war.
Also, just a stupid fact here. Both bombs dropped were Uranium based (U-235 and U-238) just throwing it out there.

 

[Graeme Jones]

The question shouldn't be was it wrong or right, but was their reasoning for it right or wrong. There were a lot of factors that lead to the dropping of the bomb. To name a few: saving lives, intimidating the Soviets, proving the strength of the USA, and justifying the enormous costs of building the bomb. It was by no means a simple choice, and Truman was getting a lot of information from a lot of different people. And none of them told him not to drop it. The debate came to where to drop it. Some of the scientists favoured a demonstration to scare the Japanese, some of the generals wanted industrial and military targets, and some people at the pentagon wanted specific cities. A lot of people have mentioned numbers of people dead, books written after the fact by many people, and I would say don't look at the numbers of dead or the destructive power of the Cold War that resulted, but to look at what reasons are listed and how justified they seem. I right decision can be made for all the right reasons based on all the wrong information.

 

[danosaurus]

-The Japanese had virtually no Navy or Airforce to speak of.

So...what carried all of the Japanese bombers to Pearl Harbor?

Yeah... I was kinda confused by this point too. The Japanese had an exceptional Air Force at the beginning of the war.
Unless he means at the end when a number of the older aircraft were modified into makeshift Kamikaze crafts instead of fighter//bomber planes?