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

[Chamale]

Also, just a stupid fact here. Both bombs dropped were Uranium based (U-235 and U-238) just throwing it out there.

No, Uranium-238 is too stable to make an atomic bomb with. The Hiroshima bomb was Uranium-235, which is unstable and releases energy catastrophically above a certain critical mass. The Nagasaki bomb used Plutonium-239, which releases energy catastrophically above a critical mass and density.

 

[Turing]

Killing roughly estimated around 120000 civilians?

Looking at the immediate number of casualties alone, thats 40 times the people killed in the attack on World Trade Center and as far as I'm aware the largest amount of people killed in any one terrorist attack.
Cause thats what it was, pure and fucking unadulterated terrorism

 

[Daipire]

I'd say no. Japan was already prepared to surrender.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?!?

You cereal? Japanese would rather off themselves then surrender

 

[Daipire]

Also, just a stupid fact here. Both bombs dropped were Uranium based (U-235 and U-238) just throwing it out there.

No, Uranium-238 is too stable to make an atomic bomb with. The Hiroshima bomb was Uranium-235, which is unstable and releases energy catastrophically above a certain critical mass. The Nagasaki bomb used Plutonium-239, which releases energy catastrophically above a critical mass and density.

Aw crap, a nuclear scientist, now i feel *really* dumb...

 

[Darius Brogan]

Also, just a stupid fact here. Both bombs dropped were Uranium based (U-235 and U-238) just throwing it out there.

No, Uranium-238 is too stable to make an atomic bomb with. The Hiroshima bomb was Uranium-235, which is unstable and releases energy catastrophically above a certain critical mass. The Nagasaki bomb used Plutonium-239, which releases energy catastrophically above a critical mass and density.

I'm not gonna get into a war here so I'll just take your word for it, common misconceptions aside.

 

[danosaurus]

Totally awesomely related and 80's... what more could you want;

 

[Zyxx]

I don't know.
I'm not sure that such a massive destruction of life can ever be called "right". It can be rationalized, certainly, but truly justified?
But if it is the least destructive of all possible options, does that not give it some merit?
And if it was the only option, doesn't that make it all the more tragic - that we were unable to come to peace any other way? We're smart enough to unleash the power of the atom, but not wise enough to resolve our issues without mass murder?

I've been to the A-bomb museum in Hiroshima (a very emotionally trying experience - I was shaken for days) and I thought that the captions and exhibits were very reasonable, emphasizing the suffering brought on by the explosion and radiation - the evils of atomic warfare itself - rather than blaming America. One exhibit even featured letters from prominent American officials to the president, urging him not to use the bombs or at least to think very, very hard before using them, and another documented some of the Japanese government's own inhumanity towards its own citizens at the time. I found the general sense of "this is what happened", rather than "this was wrong" or "this was right", to be very wise and appropriate.

I don't pretend to have the frankly deific scope of knowledge and morality that I would need to answer such a question in absolute terms. Tracing the quantum pathways to fully explore the consequences of all the options of that time is beyond me.
Instead, I hope for a future when we stop inflicting such horrors on one another. Perhaps a vain hope, but I think it's worth supporting.

 

[danosaurus]

Killing roughly estimated around 120000 civilians?

Looking at the immediate number of casualties alone, thats 40 times the people killed in the attack on World Trade Center and as far as I'm aware the largest amount of people killed in any one terrorist attack.
Cause thats what it was, pure and fucking unadulterated terrorism

Really? How old are you?
Read between the lines and do some research on some of the genocides that went on in that era.

Would you rather a single act of "Terrorism" or flat out mass murder with direct intent to wipe out race(s)?

 

[asinann]

The bombs were only dropped because the US didn't want to have Japan split the way Germany was. Russia had gotten enough manpower together to come help in Japan and it would have taken too long for the US to island hop and end it. The war was already won when the bombs were dropped, the Emperor just hadn't admitted it yet.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

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.

That is interesting. Several of the most damning sentences are followed by the dreaded "[citation needed]", but nonetheless, it does prove a point. Neither side is innocent of wrongdoing. I'm not trying to claim "USA! USA! USA!" like we had a spotless record over there. I'd be an idiot to think that. I guess it kind of incensed me to see America be treated like a schoolyard bully twisting Japan's arm for lunch money, then breaking their glasses out of spite. I may not be blindly patriotic, but I'm still an American.

OK, now that all that "yee-haw America" stuff is out of the way, I want to reiterate a point. Combined, the bombings killed a total of between 150,000 and 246,000 Japanese in the first day. Adjust for radiation, and you might be looking at, at most, 350,000 total. Now, what were the estimates for an invasion? Millions. Oh, that's not millions on both sides, that's just on the Allied side. The Japanese side estimates were in the tens of millions. The numbers are vague, due to a lack of anything actually happening to indicate resistance. But the numbers don't lie. We saved more than 20 times the lives of the Japanese, never mind the cost to our own soldiers.

 

[scrambledeggs]

Everyone that says no is a moron

The devastating biological effects still haunt the hearts, souls and bodies of Japanese people today.

It doesnt matter if 3 million american troops would have died, nuclear weaponry should never, EVER be used in conventional warfare (UNCONVENTIONAL BEING ALIENZ).



not to mention cold war arms race was one of the outcomes, one of the most terrifying moments of history.

 

[Simalacrum]

I say it should never have happened... but then again, my view is kinda biased by the fact that I'm half Japanese myself

The point of the matter is, America had no need of such weapons to force Japan to surrender - heck, they didn't even need to invade, just keep blockading them and eventually they would have been forced to surrender anyways.

Furthermore, I do believe that this is a quote from one of the pilots from the bombers when they dropped the nuke...: "oh my God, what have we done?"

 

[Soxafloppin]

It seems wrong looking back now, but at the time it made allot of sense.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

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.

Most of their naval power was destroyed at Midway. Their airpower was attrited over the length of the war.

-The Americans had blockaded Japan, meaning they couldn't get any imported recources, which is nearly everything. lol

Japan's apparent purpose in launching their campaign against the US was the result of an oil embargo. With no oil of their own (the most critical resource in the war effort), they were forced to attempt to take control of the East Indes oil fields. The attack on Peral Harbor was designed to prevent the US from being able to do anything about it until they could capitalize on their gains. Fortunately for the US, the entire pacific carrier fleet was away from post on the day of the attack.

-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.

The only war I'm aware of was the Russo-Japanese war, which Japan won.

-Many high ranking officials were against the attack saying it was unnesisary and that the Japanese were ready to surrender anyway.

Given that very few people actually knew about the weapon, I have to wonder just who was advising against it. Truman was for it. Stalin was for it. MacArthur was for it.

-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 way to believe that they had no part in the end of the war is if you simply point out that they would have surrendered anyhow. The neat thing about retrospection is that it's pretty easy to tell what one should have done decades after the dice were cast. From the perspective of those making the call at the time, what we saw is a truly heroic (if utterly doomed) defense of island after island. The Japanse had all but lost the war years before it ended but they kept fighting. Simply based upon the trends of those bloody years, there would have been no basis upon which one could assume the Japanese were simply going to roll over.

-The only reason people think that the bombs won the war in the Pacific is due to American Propagada.

The bombs did not win the war, but they did end the war. The war had all but been decided by 1942, after which the japanese lost any real hope of ever regaining freedom of maneuver. Within a few scant months, heavy bombers would begin to pound japanese forces relentlessly.

This is much the same as a boxing match. If one fighter is simply outclassed and outboxed round after round, after a certain point it's all but over. A knockout punch in the last round when the man left standing was ahead on the cards may not have won the fight - it just ended it.

 

[TheSeventhLoneWolf]

I think the first bomb was a test. The second being real.

Nope! They actually tested the plutonium bomb before they dropped the bombs on japan. They knew the uranium bomb would work, but the plutonium bomb and its yield was a question. It was more destructive than they expected.

Would a conditional surrender have worked? Technically, the japanese DID do a conditional surrender, but it was so far along the lines of our unconditional surrender that we allowed it. There is no doubt that japan is enjoying more prosperity now than it has ever enjoyed in the past. Had we just won and left, they would have been taken over after a few years by china.

One other nice question to ask is: was it wrong for the americans to insist on full demilitarization and then build their economy up from the ruins after the war? Then we can go into korea and question our motives there.

People tend to get stupid when it comes to nuclear. Chemicals, nerve gas and biological agents have all been used against civilian and military targets for appauling effects. Fire has killed billions since it was discovered as an effective weapon. 2 bombs were dropped 65 years ago and NONE have been needed as weapons since. Really, the best weapon is one that you never really have to use. If we built a laser cannon in orbit and used it to cook a couple middle east cities then people would question if we /really/ needed to do that as well. Would they then persecute all laser cannons? Probably not. Why? Because nuclear stuff requires you to be really smart to understand it. It's easy to point as something you don't understand and call it 'the devil'. Most people don't understand lasers yet either, but we have yet to develop laser weapons that take out cities.

The fact is, history is history. If one day we can eventually travel back into the past, I would caution against trying to change decisions like this, or even some of the more heinous war crimes. Such events may cause unexpected consequences and ultimately lead to the planets early demise.

I thought the test was a hydrogen bomb. Silly me.

 

[Manatee Slayer]

The only war I'm aware of was the Russo-Japanese war, which Japan won.

Given that very few people actually knew about the weapon, I have to wonder just who was advising against it. Truman was for it. Stalin was for it. MacArthur was for it.

The only way to believe that they had no part in the end of the war is if you simply point out that they would have surrendered anyhow. The neat thing about retrospection is that it's pretty easy to tell what one should have done decades after the dice were cast. From the perspective of those making the call at the time, what we saw is a truly heroic (if utterly doomed) defense of island after island. The Japanse had all but lost the war years before it ended but they kept fighting. Simply based upon the trends of those bloody years, there would have been no basis upon which one could assume the Japanese were simply going to roll over.

Much closer to WW2 the japanese fought the russians in small battles that quickly lead to their surrender. That's why they were wary in China of going too far north, because the last thing they wated to do was piss the russians off.

There is a link earlier on in the thread, around page three I think that has many quotes from high ranking officials from the military. (I should have mentions military officials lol)

I do realise that it can't be changed. I have a feeling think i'm an idiot (please don't call me on that lol). I just wanted to know how people felt. As I said before I personally voted no, bordering on who cares because it can't be changed. I meant this purely as a hypothetical thread based on what people thought would happen.

 

[gsf1200]

Fuck the Japanese, they bombed Pearl Harbor, they got what they deserved!

 

[DontHassleTheHoff]

Well, I wouldn't say (from a mildly ethical POV) that it's OK to bomb people if an invasion might have killed more. You can't justify murder to prevent more hypothetical murder later on- for instance, if I'd gone round Harold Shipman's house in the 70's and killed him, they wouldn't let me off because ultimately more people were saved. And let's not forget, the Americans who would have died were soldiers, who were battle-trained. I know they were conscripted, but I'd say there's a difference between deaths in battle and deaths for innocents. And before anyone says 'oh, well they chose to be there', NO, they didn't. Japan was ruled by a military junta by the late 20's, and there was a hell of a lot of opposition to this- like in most of the 30's and 40's Fascist states. There's really not a lot of proof that 'every Japanese person would fight to the death'. Given that they gave up when most of them were still alive...

Just think about it; these people were civilians, for Christ's sake. My Dad did loads of the statistical and data analysis on the cancer victims a few years ago, and the cancer rate in those areas is STILL way above average. People born without legs, children blinded permanently; not to mention that many died in agonising pain in the few minutes after the bombs from extreme radiation poisoning.

I'm not sure of the exact definition of a war crime, but I would think that killing around 200,000 people in cold blood goes pretty close.

 

[DontHassleTheHoff]

And as many have been saying, there is a lot of evidence that this bombing was basically just to scare the Soviets shitless into bowing down and worshipping the Americans. These tactics probably started the Cold War, something no-one wants again. Srsly, if America hadn't dropped the bombs, I'd say there's a good chance that the arms race wouldn't have been such an issue.

 

[gim73]

I think the first bomb was a test. The second being real.

Nope! They actually tested the plutonium bomb before they dropped the bombs on japan. They knew the uranium bomb would work, but the plutonium bomb and its yield was a question. It was more destructive than they expected.

Would a conditional surrender have worked? Technically, the japanese DID do a conditional surrender, but it was so far along the lines of our unconditional surrender that we allowed it. There is no doubt that japan is enjoying more prosperity now than it has ever enjoyed in the past. Had we just won and left, they would have been taken over after a few years by china.

One other nice question to ask is: was it wrong for the americans to insist on full demilitarization and then build their economy up from the ruins after the war? Then we can go into korea and question our motives there.

People tend to get stupid when it comes to nuclear. Chemicals, nerve gas and biological agents have all been used against civilian and military targets for appauling effects. Fire has killed billions since it was discovered as an effective weapon. 2 bombs were dropped 65 years ago and NONE have been needed as weapons since. Really, the best weapon is one that you never really have to use. If we built a laser cannon in orbit and used it to cook a couple middle east cities then people would question if we /really/ needed to do that as well. Would they then persecute all laser cannons? Probably not. Why? Because nuclear stuff requires you to be really smart to understand it. It's easy to point as something you don't understand and call it 'the devil'. Most people don't understand lasers yet either, but we have yet to develop laser weapons that take out cities.

The fact is, history is history. If one day we can eventually travel back into the past, I would caution against trying to change decisions like this, or even some of the more heinous war crimes. Such events may cause unexpected consequences and ultimately lead to the planets early demise.

I thought the test was a hydrogen bomb. Silly me.

lol. The hydrogen bomb wasn't developed until the fifties. More powerful than the original atomic bombs, and more complex as well. Hydrogen bombs have never been used against populations, only unmanned ships and islands.