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

[katsumoto03]

In my opinion killing civilians is wrong. Nothing can justify it and I would sacrifice ten soldiers before I'd order someone to kill an innocent civilian.

These people didn't sign up for it.

 

[Grounogeos]

It might not have been a good decision, but I don't think it was necessarily a wrong one. It sent a strong enough message to the Japanese to get them to reconsider their long-held Bushido codes (which told them that surrender was wrong and that death was a better option).

Plus, it's better that two nuclear bombs get dropped and show people that they're not a good idea than to wait until everyone and their mother uses one without knowing the full extent of the effects.

 

[Jekken6]

It's really a thing of 'the ends justify the means'. It may of not been right, but, it was necessary, because it got the japanese to stop fighting, because they would've kept going otherwise.

 

[DracoSuave]

It's really hard to answer a question of right or wrong in any war.

Compounding that is the fact that World War 2 is probably one of the worst in terms of terrible deeds done by man against man.

Looking at it in context, however, the Manhattan Project was an utter necessity. The US was developing it in an arms race against Nazi Germany, who are can be absolutely sure would have used it. Repeatedly.

The Americans -absolutely- had to create that weapon in the context of World War II.

Was it morally wrong to bomb Japan? Probably. Historically speaking, was it necessary? Yes.

Now we -fear- nuclear weapons. Without that huge specter of an absolutely destroyed city, and the horror and after effects, we simply could not envision the level of destruction they could cause. It's almost certain that the Cold War would have gone hot... nuclear hot.

 

[Zorg Machine]

Yes it was. Nobody can say that dropping a nuclear bomb, in ANY circumstances (except against incoming space rocks) is right. However, it was necessary and I would probably have done the same.

What I'm trying to say is that it was a necessary evil. The quick and decisive victory that they so desperately needed after the war.

 

[Zenode]

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.

-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.

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

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

- The Japanese had one of the largest fleets in the world

- Japan actually WON the last war they fought against the Russians See: Russo-Japanese War

- High Ranking officials weren't against the attack they were FOR it they were against an attack on the Japanese mainland which they estimated would have cost them 400,000 men

- The Japs had a mentality of no surrender no matter what happened they wouldn't surrender it was literally a last man standing scenario (Even in his speech to the Japanese people telling them they had to surrender to the Americans, he never ONCE used the word "surrender")

- The Japs surrendered after the second bomb because they thought that the Americans only had one Atomic bomb, after they saw the second one in action they knew that the americans had more. So rather than waste lives of civilians they surrendered.

Personally i believe what they did was right, considering

1) The Japanese would never surrender
2) Attacking the mainland would have cost the Americans an estimated 400,000 men.
3) After the they [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre] commited i believe it to be that they cannot say that the Americans are the brutal killers after what they did to others.

 

[Nunny]

Necessary? maby, but in every way it was a horribly horribly wrong thing to do...

One also has to consider this was not the one aspect of the war but rather the end of the "Strategic Bombing campaign" against civilian targets. The casualties of the bombing campaign on the axis side range up to 305,000-600,000 German civilians 330,000-500,000 Japanese civilians (wiki source), the Atomic bombs proving to be the only effective type of civilian bombing but are so horrific that they could not be used again.

Edit: while we are at it, can you honestly say that Brutality diserves brutality? Doesnt that just make you as bad as your enemy?

 

[Denamic]

Of course it was wrong.
It was two nuclear bombs aimed at innocent civilians.
There is nothing that justifies such mass murder.
It's the single most vile act of terrorism in recorded history.

 

[Sir Prize]

I don't care what the situation was, it was wrong.
In war one should not go around causing that kind of damage and killing that scale of innocent people, period! It is wrong and I am also pretty sure that is goes against the just war theory.

 

[Arehexes]

I'm tired of hearing about how we shouldn't hurt civilians, we shouldn't hurt ANYONE. How is it fair that soldiers get to die and won't see the loved ones ALONE on that battlefield. Yeah they are fighting for their country but they have people back home they are fighting for. War is grim and ugly you can not get around that people die be it uniform or not. Japan was not going to give up, they had people to do MANY sneaky things to the Americans if they invaded, and they were to strong willed. We had to show who was the boss and that we don't play around, now was it good that people died from that bomb NO, BUT is it right for soldiers to die also? We shouldn't die but lets ship out our men and women in uniform to fight a pointless war because a man things one race "caused" the down fall of a country. And I'm not trying to sound like some bomb throwing nut but I just hate hearing you guys say the whole civilians shouldn't die yet you seem like soldiers should cause they are at war. WE THE PEOPLE of our own country make it up and make it strong(I'm not referring to just the US). WE support our troops and WE do what it takes to win, no matter what you say but WE are all part of it, we may not fight on the field but we support the troops that go.

 

[GeekFury]

It was done almost completely just to show of the power of the Atomic Bomb so America could basicly say to places like Russia "Don'ty f**k with us are we will make you into a crater", America had this notion they could kep global peace by fear of the A-Bombs, did'nt really work but now we have Nukes and a sort of enforced peace even with small wars, it's still a 'You fire at us we fire' mentality.

ofc, america killed 100 000 civilians for the sole reason to tell russia "dont fuck with us"... *nod nod* you believe in the lizard men too? or that 9/11 were created by jews?

Nah just that americans are mostly idiots, speicaly as a land campaign could have been done, they just did'nt wish to risk their own soldiers lives sort not old carpet bombed huge sections of Tokyo which was mainly wood structures but then dropped an atomic bomb, wich yes was a warning, not only to Russia but the rest of the world, then they did it again. I mean it's not like since then America has screwed up, they did'nt sell arms to Iraq or then invade to find Weapon of Nonexistance and leave with tons of oil. That would just be stupid.

/sarcasim

 

[Ghostkai]

Nuking civilians is NEVER justifible. Ever.

 

[Wounded Melody]

OK people who say it is a crime, neve justifiable, etc-- WHAT DO YOU THINK SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE? And would it have been better if the soldiers killed the civilians in person, which would have happened with a mainland invasion?
Also, how come everyone is saying "innocent civilians"? The people of Japan, in most part, were supporting their side. Their newspapers would print things like how many heads a soldier could cut off in the fastest time in China, because that would make them more popular with the ladies in Japan when they returned.

 

[soapyshooter]

The dropped it because Japan wouldn't surrender no matter what. In the end they thought it would save more lives than actually invading. Were they right? i dont know.

 

[dragonslayer32]

the only reason the japanese had no airforce was because of the kamakazi

 

[Gr333d]

It was all a grand experiment, done in the name of science.
From those explosions, we learned a lot about the effects of radiation on the human body, and the effects of those atomic weapons.

I say that it was a breakthrough in science.

 

[Nunny]

It was all a grand experiment, done in the name of science.
From those explosions, we learned a lot about the effects of radiation on the human body, and the effects of those atomic weapons.

I say that it was a breakthrough in science.

Too bad it was no were near close enough too proper testing, they continued too test it on living targets for years afterwards.

 

[KarumaK]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/books/20garner.html

"The alligator people did not scream. Their mouths could not form the sounds. The noise they made was worse than screaming. They uttered a continuous murmur - like locusts on a midsummer night. One man, staggering on charred stumps of legs, was carrying a dead baby upside down."

Now tell me it was right. Tell me it was necessary.

It was right, it was necessary.

 

[dthvirus]

Bombing Japan was to send a message to the Russians, who were also testing their own bombs. The defeat of Japan was almost secondary to this purpose. That's what I think.

 

[Rblade]

short answer, not counting 17 pages off dicussion I really only skimmed over.

yes, it was wrong, killing thousands of innocents was very very wrong, it is never right.

not counting the fact that the war was pretty much over. It's a dark page in history that everyone should be ashamed off.