Poll: Was It Wrong To Drop The Atomic Bombs In Japan?
- Thread starter Manatee Slayer
- Start date
Its perhaps worth noting something of what George MacDonald Fraser said in his autobiography (author of Flashma books, he fought as a private, then a lance-corporal in burma during wwii. The book, which is entirely account of his time in Burma, is called "Quartered Safe Out Here" and I recommend it to anyone):
-That the Japs were absolutely determined not to surrender, despite the hoeplessness of the situation (I've read several places that Japanese forces on the continent refused to believe that Japan had fallen, and fought on for TWENTY YEARS).
-That at the very least, aside from the huge numbers of troop casualties that an invasion of Japan would have cost, any invasion of the mainland would have seen those Japanese still fighting on continent would have gone crazy, and executed the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of prisoners under their control (Supported by King Rat - ficton, but loosely based on James Clavell (the author) and his experiences in a Japanese conc. camp at the end of the 2nd world war).
-THAT ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN CIVILIANS AND SOLDIERS IS MEANINGLESS, when conscription ensured that many "civilians" were fighting in the army. Suggesting otherwise is also a view which inherently weighs numbers of lives of soldiers vs. non-combatants, and somehow finds the life of a soldier less worthwhile than that of a non-combatant, and for the life of me, I can't see why.
-That in a war of aggression, that the aggressive (and then defeated) country suffers the brunt of the casualties is perhaps justified.
-That US money for munitions was low, and increasingly difficult to acquire, to the extent that the war in Japan may have become deadlocked.
-That the feeling at the time was effectively "Jolly good, we've finally won, and we can stp being scared of booby-traps and suicide attacks, and go the heck home." There was, perhaps understandably, little sympathy for the Japanese.
It's very easy to judge what was certainly a horrific act, with an immediate, identifiable effect, whilst at the same time its difficult for modern sensibilities to conceive of the viciousness, determination and stubborness of Japanese troops, and the possible casualty numbers that would have resulted from a lack of bomb dropping. It's also worth noting that Fraser, with all his prejudices, was a normal, humane, and emminently human man, fighting in a war not his own, and that his feelings were those of many of his contemporaries.
What it isn't, is fair. You can go on and on about humanitarian costs NOW, but that doesn't change the fact that in a war, the aim of each side is to make sure as few of your men die as possible, whilst achieving victory. The atomic bombs did this, in a way that would not have been achievable without further high costs to British and US forces.
-That the Japs were absolutely determined not to surrender, despite the hoeplessness of the situation (I've read several places that Japanese forces on the continent refused to believe that Japan had fallen, and fought on for TWENTY YEARS).
-That at the very least, aside from the huge numbers of troop casualties that an invasion of Japan would have cost, any invasion of the mainland would have seen those Japanese still fighting on continent would have gone crazy, and executed the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of prisoners under their control (Supported by King Rat - ficton, but loosely based on James Clavell (the author) and his experiences in a Japanese conc. camp at the end of the 2nd world war).
-THAT ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN CIVILIANS AND SOLDIERS IS MEANINGLESS, when conscription ensured that many "civilians" were fighting in the army. Suggesting otherwise is also a view which inherently weighs numbers of lives of soldiers vs. non-combatants, and somehow finds the life of a soldier less worthwhile than that of a non-combatant, and for the life of me, I can't see why.
-That in a war of aggression, that the aggressive (and then defeated) country suffers the brunt of the casualties is perhaps justified.
-That US money for munitions was low, and increasingly difficult to acquire, to the extent that the war in Japan may have become deadlocked.
-That the feeling at the time was effectively "Jolly good, we've finally won, and we can stp being scared of booby-traps and suicide attacks, and go the heck home." There was, perhaps understandably, little sympathy for the Japanese.
It's very easy to judge what was certainly a horrific act, with an immediate, identifiable effect, whilst at the same time its difficult for modern sensibilities to conceive of the viciousness, determination and stubborness of Japanese troops, and the possible casualty numbers that would have resulted from a lack of bomb dropping. It's also worth noting that Fraser, with all his prejudices, was a normal, humane, and emminently human man, fighting in a war not his own, and that his feelings were those of many of his contemporaries.
What it isn't, is fair. You can go on and on about humanitarian costs NOW, but that doesn't change the fact that in a war, the aim of each side is to make sure as few of your men die as possible, whilst achieving victory. The atomic bombs did this, in a way that would not have been achievable without further high costs to British and US forces.
Well, if the civilians formed an army they would cease to be civilians. And there could be some gray area. Like an Iraqi on the fence with ties to insurgents. Although civilian mobilization was threatened, generally they still had not taken on military trappings, organization or activities by the end of the war. So by-and-large it's still just regular-ass civilians we're talking about here.Wounded Melody said:
i think one is justifiable.
sure, my history knowledge suxorz, but i don't see why they had to drop two.
sure, my history knowledge suxorz, but i don't see why they had to drop two.
Technically, armed civilians are considered a Militia. They are still civilians, and only participate in defensive military operations (the U.S. Coast Guard is technically a Militia, as is the rest of the National Guard). Rules of Engagement are generally as per standard military, however.Rooster Cogburn said:
Im going to disregard the ethics, morality and justification aspects of the bombs being dropped for this post, but i think that the bombs did indeed win the war.
Of course, Japan was surrounded on all saids and taking a beating, but had Japan been invaded the Allies probably would have taken appalling causualties before the wars end, the Japanese military was just so darn fanatical and their Emperor so oblivious to the idea of surrender.
The A-Bombs were probably seen as the sign of an impending apocalypse to the Japanese, such awesome power and almost an entire city gone with one of these weapons.
You would think that two of theses things going off in Japanese cities would have more than a small impact on the end of the Second World War.
Also what was the name of the bomber that dropped the bomb on Nagasaki?
Of course, Japan was surrounded on all saids and taking a beating, but had Japan been invaded the Allies probably would have taken appalling causualties before the wars end, the Japanese military was just so darn fanatical and their Emperor so oblivious to the idea of surrender.
The A-Bombs were probably seen as the sign of an impending apocalypse to the Japanese, such awesome power and almost an entire city gone with one of these weapons.
You would think that two of theses things going off in Japanese cities would have more than a small impact on the end of the Second World War.
Also what was the name of the bomber that dropped the bomb on Nagasaki?
I stand corrected. Very interesting, actually. Do you happen to know how the National Guard handles overseas deployment? Do they get reassigned as U.S. Army units or something?klakkat said:
I do believe that this distinction is neceseary though. Civilians aren't taking part in any combat and are, most of the time defenceless against armed forces. It's not that their lives are worth more, they aren't part of the fight. I'd say it's kind of like tackling the opponents cheerleaders in football.Susurrus said:
Furthermore, if we deem that killing civilians is acceptable in war then things like WTC would have been "okay" as long as the bombers declared war.
I think nukes are probably the first weapon to save more lives than they've taken. They were used once and killed a few hundred thousand people, and since then they have prevented so many wars that the number of lives they've saved has got to be will into the hundred millions by now, if not billions.
So while the bombings themselves might not have been necessary, the demonstration of what they were capable of on a populated area probably was. I'm not sure why we hit a city and not a military installation, though.
So while the bombings themselves might not have been necessary, the demonstration of what they were capable of on a populated area probably was. I'm not sure why we hit a city and not a military installation, though.
Of course it was wrong.Manatee Slayer said:
But in all reality there was no other way due to the fact the jap's had half of the pacific, bombed darwin and were planning to invade australia and had allready conquered paupa new guinea and china.
It was wrong that it happened mainly because of the civilan life lost but if it didn't happen they probably would have made advances.
When it did happen though the russian's moving into berlin and hitler seeing he had no real allie's with a big enough army to support him he was screwed.
Unfortunally there is a two face side to each war like i said it was wrong but it needed to happen and ultimately it would be the end of the war.
In of itself nuclear war is a very bad idea (Unless A bombs can transform Canberra into Australia's capital wasteland) but in the time of war no sides involved can really be called innocent, and they did sort of deserve a bit of punishment for the attack on Pearl Harbour and all that unfair guerilla-type warfare.
Can't we just forgive and forget, maybe we should settle the ancient ww2 gripes between Japan and America with a night of delicious cheeseburgers and a showing of good anime films (Like uh...Steamboy?).
Can't we just forgive and forget, maybe we should settle the ancient ww2 gripes between Japan and America with a night of delicious cheeseburgers and a showing of good anime films (Like uh...Steamboy?).
Dropping the bombs themselves were morally wrong, but perhaps necessary.
But on no account can you ever justify killing civilians. Those bombs should have been dropped on a military base. That is somewhat reasonable.
Also, were two bombs really necessary? Surely the first gave the display of power the Americans wanted that made dropping the second rather pointless.
But on no account can you ever justify killing civilians. Those bombs should have been dropped on a military base. That is somewhat reasonable.
Also, were two bombs really necessary? Surely the first gave the display of power the Americans wanted that made dropping the second rather pointless.
i personally side on the "it was wrong" group
i can see why it happened. it saved a long and bloody conflict on the "mainland" ect, but i can help feel that that was an excuse made after the fact. alot of people here are saying "they needed to prove the existence of the A bomb" but if that was the case, one would have been enough surly. 2 were not necessary, nor was the intended bombing of kyoto, the most beautiful city i have ever been to.
another thing i see alot of people say in similar threads to this is that japan was not willing to surrender. this is not however entirely true. ever heard of the term "he who controls the battle field controls history", because it applies here. i urge anyone who believes that japan refused any form of surrender to read "a traveler from tokyo", first published in 1944 by the Cresset press in Britain and authored by john morris. its a book written by a british man living in tokyo from before the war until well after pearl harbor, he is highly critical of the japanese government of the time as well as the war effort, but at the same time offers a very fair account of the happenings of the time.
if you are able to get a hold of the 1947 reprint (which unfortunately is very rare, the only reason i was able to get hold of it is that my uni library had a copy.) there is an additional chapter in which he discusses the end of the war. i dont have said book on hand so i cant give a direct quote. but in this additional chapter he states his disgust at the US military's handling of end war negotiations that ultimately lead to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. his opinion as a diplomat himself is that a surrender could have been easily obtained if the US had not have been so insistent on an unconditional surrender, but rather altered the terms to be more agreeable. the main issue the japanese government raised was not one of surrender but that the conditions put forward by the US had the potential to destroy the culture of japan.
i tend to agree with this author, as he lived through both sides of the war and came to an objective opinion, where as we are fed propaganda that has had 65 years to erode the truth.
even if we ignore the above for a moment and assume that an atomic attack was indeed necessary, i cant believe that anyone would say that hiroshima (though im not certain about nagasaki) was a valid target. it had comparatively little military infrastructure compared to other cities and was largely chosen because the surrounding hills would maximize damage. further more i challenge you to justify placing ground zero over a civilian hospital. i believe that if an A-bomb was necessary (which i dont believe to be the case, given the above mentioned stance on surrender and the state of japan's economy at the time) it should have been aimed at a military target or detonated in an area that would minimize the impact on civilians. saying that the bombing was justified is similar to saying that launching an atomic strike on Bagdad is necessary to convince "insurgents" to surrender.
its said that war brings out the worst in people, and its largely true. both sides committed atrocities during that war, the japanese military was involved in mass executions and brutal rapes. the UK Firebombed several german cities out of spite after germany had agreed to surrender (but before they signed documents) the mass murders in russia are less well documented but equally despicable and the US Fire and atom bombs took countless innocent lives. none of those acts are excusable. but whats important is that the countries learn from their actions.
japan has, it now has no real military to speak of. but im not so sure the US has.
this link has the story of just one victim of the hiroshima bomb. please take the time to read the story of sadako in the description.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeTA2SpJjA4
i can see why it happened. it saved a long and bloody conflict on the "mainland" ect, but i can help feel that that was an excuse made after the fact. alot of people here are saying "they needed to prove the existence of the A bomb" but if that was the case, one would have been enough surly. 2 were not necessary, nor was the intended bombing of kyoto, the most beautiful city i have ever been to.
another thing i see alot of people say in similar threads to this is that japan was not willing to surrender. this is not however entirely true. ever heard of the term "he who controls the battle field controls history", because it applies here. i urge anyone who believes that japan refused any form of surrender to read "a traveler from tokyo", first published in 1944 by the Cresset press in Britain and authored by john morris. its a book written by a british man living in tokyo from before the war until well after pearl harbor, he is highly critical of the japanese government of the time as well as the war effort, but at the same time offers a very fair account of the happenings of the time.
if you are able to get a hold of the 1947 reprint (which unfortunately is very rare, the only reason i was able to get hold of it is that my uni library had a copy.) there is an additional chapter in which he discusses the end of the war. i dont have said book on hand so i cant give a direct quote. but in this additional chapter he states his disgust at the US military's handling of end war negotiations that ultimately lead to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. his opinion as a diplomat himself is that a surrender could have been easily obtained if the US had not have been so insistent on an unconditional surrender, but rather altered the terms to be more agreeable. the main issue the japanese government raised was not one of surrender but that the conditions put forward by the US had the potential to destroy the culture of japan.
i tend to agree with this author, as he lived through both sides of the war and came to an objective opinion, where as we are fed propaganda that has had 65 years to erode the truth.
even if we ignore the above for a moment and assume that an atomic attack was indeed necessary, i cant believe that anyone would say that hiroshima (though im not certain about nagasaki) was a valid target. it had comparatively little military infrastructure compared to other cities and was largely chosen because the surrounding hills would maximize damage. further more i challenge you to justify placing ground zero over a civilian hospital. i believe that if an A-bomb was necessary (which i dont believe to be the case, given the above mentioned stance on surrender and the state of japan's economy at the time) it should have been aimed at a military target or detonated in an area that would minimize the impact on civilians. saying that the bombing was justified is similar to saying that launching an atomic strike on Bagdad is necessary to convince "insurgents" to surrender.
its said that war brings out the worst in people, and its largely true. both sides committed atrocities during that war, the japanese military was involved in mass executions and brutal rapes. the UK Firebombed several german cities out of spite after germany had agreed to surrender (but before they signed documents) the mass murders in russia are less well documented but equally despicable and the US Fire and atom bombs took countless innocent lives. none of those acts are excusable. but whats important is that the countries learn from their actions.
japan has, it now has no real military to speak of. but im not so sure the US has.
this link has the story of just one victim of the hiroshima bomb. please take the time to read the story of sadako in the description.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeTA2SpJjA4
LimaBravo said:Reductio Absurdum.
a) Civilians contribute to the war effort.
b) Infantry are defenceless against bombers (unless their AA crew but thats technically artillery & not infantry) what is your rational there ? You can only kill people who can kill you at that time ? Thats bizarre. It lacks the most basic sense of self preservation. It reeks of priviledge and I can almost smell the warm cocoa with marshmallows from where your typing. If you are being shot at the normal measured reaction is to kill them back anyway and time possible.
QFT
Dropping an atomic bomb on a concentration of military forces would have been no more or less horrific than dropping it on civilians, unless you start taking children into account (for which argument there is a certain amount of justification). Reasoning that a soldier can fight back against an atomic bomb is clearly bunk.
