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

[Manatee Slayer]

I'm so sick of modern day hippies with a minor bit of knowledge and a modern mindset looking back and condemning the past without any sense of perspective.

As I have said before my opinion is that it was wrong but completely necessary. Maybe before you start calling people "modern day hippies" you should ask their opinion and not just guess based on some information they give out, ever heard of playing devli's advocate? It's not like any of it could be changed so ALL of the discussion is purely hypothetical and is just so people can air their opinions. Isn't that what a forum is for?

 

[zehydra]

Sorry for the necro post, but....

War is wrong, and I fail to see how to say so is ignorant? (Ignorance is not knowing information.)

People need to get out of their shells and realize that just because it is wrong, doesnt mean it is not neccesary. Ignorance is making no attempt at learning the proper information. It's like saying "Murder is bad." Well yeah, but that doesnt mean it is sometimes not neccesary. What if murder is the only way to save yourself or others? It was the same with WWII.

While it is true that slavery is gone in America because of it, it wasn't the only way that could of happened.

Yet, we sped up the process by at least 15 or so years. Plus, Slavery was not at all the main issue during that war. It didnt become so till the last 2 years.

(btw, with Nazi Germany, the reason they were a threat in the first place was because of WAR). But even without our involvement, Nazi germany would have fallen. Long before our intervention there were dissident groups all over the third reich and several assassination attempts against the fuhrer.

And Hitler being assassinated would not have been the end of the Nazi regime, contrary to popular belief. There was almost 25 other well qualified individuals that would have taken his place. The reason why WW2 is still so heavily fantasized by the Allies, was because it was one of the last big wars that was completely neccesary.

No, no no, look up "Ignorance" in the dictionary. I really wish people would stop using the definition you use of ignorance.

 

[Sephychu]

Well yeah, seeing as Japan was on their way to sign a truce.

Que?
This is not accurate, to my understanding.

In my view, it was justified. If it did not happen, mainland Japan would have been invaded. The Japanese would have fought to the last breath. Countless American and Japanese troops and Japanese civillians would have died on the Journey to Tokyo. 3 million casualties predicted in Tokyo civillians alone, were the projected figures.

that may be true, but an invasion does not spreed fallout that causes birth defects and cancer even 50 years after, making entire regions unlivable for almost as long. the way I see it, an invasion can never be as bad as dropping an atomic bomb. In this case, America was just as bad as hitler in terms of carnage and human suffering. And, the bombs were not dropped to defend any allies, if they were, the Americans would have dropped them as soon as Australia was bombed, not much later after being attacked themselves. This was nothing more than unjustified revenge whose effects are still beimg felt today. By the way, most of the Japanese troops were in Papua New Guinea and other south east asian countries, not actually in Japan itself, meaning an invasion would have been the least destructive option.

I'm often called an asshole for it, but I see it by numbers. 250,000 is after all far fewer than three million, and it could be argued that the US performed this tactic to save the unnecessary civilian casualties of a mainland invasion. Brutal, yes. Carnage, yes. However, not as bad as the execution of the Jews. The Jews were not the enemy of the Germans, whereas the Japanese were(the enemy of the Americans, that is).

 

[Sephychu]

Well yeah, seeing as Japan was on their way to sign a truce.

Que?
This is not accurate, to my understanding.

In my view, it was justified. If it did not happen, mainland Japan would have been invaded. The Japanese would have fought to the last breath. Countless American and Japanese troops and Japanese civillians would have died on the Journey to Tokyo. 3 million casualties predicted in Tokyo civillians alone, were the projected figures.

How many died from the bombs though?
(This isn't a flame I'm actually asking cause I don't know)

Well as with all wartime statistics, they are debatable, but the nations have agreed the death toll lies somewhere at 220,000 for the immediate effects of the bombs, with somewhere around 30,000 more for after effects.

 

[Chimpa]

Yes, the use of Atomic weaponry had absolutley nothing to do with preventing the spread of communisim, that would have been caused if the Russians were the ones to claim mainland Japan.

 

[kiwi_poo]

They were going to surrender literally the day after the bombs were dropped.
The war would have been won by the americans even if they hadn't dropped the bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The Japanese knew the americans had nuclear weapons, and they also knew how destructive they were. as I said: they would have surrendered without the bombs dropping.
So, as usual millions of people die for no reason, except now they died in the blink of an eye.
(by the way, I don't use a capital letter at the beginning of the word "americans" in this post, because of the huge disrespect I have for their actions at the end of the war, the atomic bombs.)

 

[Mad World]

I don't think so; because of the nuke, a lot of innocents died.

I think that they should have just simply assaulted the island without nuclear means.

Yes - more good soldiers probably would have been injured and died, but I think that it would have still been the right choice.

 

[Therumancer]

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

-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.

Now, I'm not trying to force your vote by saying these things, I would like some insight into your thoughts not just on the bombing but the points I have listen above.

Happy Posting. :-D

EDIT: Someone has asked for a pros and cons list. Here is a link to basic bullet points for each if anyone is interested.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/special/trinity/supplement/procon.html

I think dropping the bombs was nessicary, and was also an act of mercy on a lot of levels, saving a lot more lives than it ended even considering the lingering results of the radiation.

The thing is that The Japanese were differant from what they are now, they have changed substantially. Back then they were both very ignorant, and very fanatical. While Japan's military had been defeated, they would rather fight gloriously to the end rather than actually surrender, which would have lead to us permanantly blockading them. The only other way to remove the threat and prevent them from rebuilding if we didn't sit there and constantly blokade/bomb them would be to go in with conventional forces and try and occupy it that way, and the end result would have been what amounted to Japanese genocide, and countless allied deaths as they fought to the bitter end.

The Bombs did not defeat Japan, nobody claims that, most Americans claiming it is simply a result of false propaganda to try and portray Americans as being far more ignorant than we are (which is a popular pastime). What the bombs did was cause them to surrender. The message that the bombs sent was that either they gave up, or there was going to be no honorable last battle to the end, we were just going to wipe them out like vermin and go home. It was the demonstration of power and that we COULD do that, which made them surrender, and also do so in a way that lead to a lot of cultural reforms... things like The Emperor stepping down were a bit deal since it was akin to a Middle Eastern power hypothetically seperating their church and state in it's overall meaning and effects.


What's more what a lot of people seem to miss is that Japan is a strategic location, we use it as one of our major Naval/Military bases, and it gives us a foot in the door with Asia which doesn't really have one here. People tend to underestimate the power inherant in all those little islands the US occupies/claims as territories, as well as what we've got stationed in Japan. The abillity of the US to project it's military power globally is part of what makes the US a superpower.

Had we not dropped the bombs, forced a surrender, and occupied Japan (and don't let anyone kid you, we still pretty much occupy it) the US arguably wouldn't be the power it is today.

Of course the US not being the power it is today is doubtlessly why a lot of people wish we hadn't done things the way we did.

Sometimes people don't get me, and how I can call what amounts to mass murder a good thing or an "act of mercy", but I am a cynical militant as opposed to a pie in the sky peace at any price liberal. I very much believe that shying away from the use of force simply because it's the use of force is a bad thing. From where I sit, the bottom line was that we had to deal with Japan, just because we beat them in The Pacific doesn't mean they were no longer a threat. A permanant Blockade/Picket was impractical, and any other way of defeating them would have cost more live, not just of Japanese, but of allies (as I mentioned). The fact that it was a slaughter and absolutly terrifying is exactly why it worked, simply defeating them in battle or wiping out/taking cities with regular forces at the time would not have had the same impact. Arguably that was what they wanted us to try and do.

Occasionally you'll notice a subtext in Japanese fiction where a lot of people in Japan to an extent feel their current "reforming" state is an affront to what Japan stood for before hand and it's own inherant superiority/xenophobia. Feeling that their slow, cultural death/globalization is a bad thing, and that they were robbed of being allowed to go out
with dignity. Basically that they should be ruling everything, or dead. Not everyone subscribes to this of course, but it is one of the recurring, nilhistic themes I've noticed over the years (typically portrayed with analogies).

 

[_Cake_]

Surrender or we're gonna nuke you
No
*Booooom*
Seriously surrender or we're gonna nuke you again
No
*Booooom*
*Surrenders*

That's called honesty. It was at least half Japans doing.

 

[DracoSuave]

Pfft, everyone knows the war's end was inevitable once hitler and goebels and the rest of the nazi regime was blown up in that parisian theatre.

 

[SNIPERFOX ft. Harry P.Ness]

i think a better idea was to test it in a lifeless desert and show the japs and tell them, were not fucking around, and invite them to a test.

but japs thought ruskis could be a threat and see what stalin does next, and decide to do nothing and wait and see.

plus the japs were already gonna sign a truce, and the US
pretty much f***ed that up.

the aomic bombing was one of the many f*** ups the US have done.











*sorry if offensive*

 

[CaptainCrunch]

It's important to think about war from a non-personal perspective. When one or more countries go to war, they aren't killing warriors - they're killing a people. That's what war means. No one goes to war without accepting the fact that people will die.

That said, winning a war isn't about killing more people than the other guy, it's about killing the fighting spirit of said people. Submission by force is only necessary when submission by politics fails. Fact is, Japan was not ready to submit when the bombs were dropped. It sucks that a lot of the casualties were civilian, but dropping the bombs killed the fighting spirit of a people.

It also could have been much worse. If the Allies had landed to take over the home islands, besides the great number of casualties that would have resulted on both sides, the cultural identity of the Japanese would have been even more drastically altered than it is now. Consider Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan: how do they feel about the US actively not dropping nukes?

Honestly, the McCarthy Hearings were way worse of a "scar on history" than dropping nukes on a worthy enemy.

Also this:
<youtube=sWS-FoXbjVI>

 

[WrongSprite]

Yep, saved a lot of lives, because the invasion of Japan would have been horrific.

And how would you know? Built a working timemachine ay? Went back in time and created a paradox? Returned to our timeline to report the results? Or are you saying your mental faculties are so strong that you could accurately predict an alternate path in history...

Ever heard of the word "hubris"?

It doesn't take a fucking genius to work out that massive casualties would have occurred if Japan was invaded. It was a war, not a fucking tea party. If you look at the casualties incurred on the small islands in the Pacific, and then transfer that to massively populated urban areas, on the Japanese mainland, casualties would be astronomic. It's a view shared by practically all historians, and also the Allies at the time, otherwise they obviously wouldn't have dropped the bombs.

Hubris is a word much more suited to yourself, snide people like you really piss me off.

 

[Chunko]

Wow, this is the first time when I haven't been yelled out of the room for saying that I think we should have done it.

I feel like it was definitely "Wrong" but also the best option. Even though 150,000 Japanese died, it's estimated that over 250,000 American soldiers would have died in a continued ground war.

 

[rokkolpo]

if there is one civilian casualty...
you fucking messed up!

so no you don't nuke city's.

 

[jj90]

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

what did they attack pearl harbour with???????


btw im British and say, nice one America lol

 

[Cryofthewolf]

I think it was a necessary thing to do. If we didn't drop the bombs Japan wouldn't have stopped. It was a necessary evil.

 

[michiehoward]

it was the only way to end the fight with them. the people were under strict orders to fight to the last person, and take as many americans as they could with them. hell, there was even a man who, under orders, fought until his CO returned...30 years later.
http://badassoftheweek.com/onoda.html

Its horrible that guy should be pitied, but I completely died laughing reading that article, talk about completely out of this world.

I agree a strong show of force was nesscary to bring Japan to the table, unfortunatly it had to be the A-bomb.