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

[spartan231490]

Killing civilians in war is ALWAYS wrong, and despite all of the positive effects it had I will never argue it was a good thing.

you would think so, but during world war 2, killing civilians was the popular method of forcing surrender. Germany bombing london was designed to kill civilians, and there are far more times in that war when nations, including america, attacked large numbers of civilians. The fire bombing of dresdon killed 30-40 thousand people, which is about how many the nagasaki bomb killed instantly. And fire bombing was done almost constantly, terrorism was the main method of war back then, and it WORKED. People wonder why no invading army has ever really won a war since WWII, its because we no longer attack civilians so we no longer scare the population into accepting an occupation.

 

[Manatee Slayer]

Who cares? I mean its good for people to have opinions but you can't change what happened, so what is the point in debating whether it was wrong or right to drop the atomic bombs on Japan?

How will knowing where people stand (at least as far as what they want to project of themselves into anonymity) on this issue change a fucking thing? How is it going to help? I'm pretty sure that its just because you wanted to see if people supported your opinion of it or not. How will that help you? "I have more support, so I must be right" <-That does not always work.

How many things are discussed on forums that can't be changed? Is this not a place for debate and opinions? I still find it an interesting topic as do many others.

 

[bz316]

Was it wrong to drop atomic bombs on Japan? Well, would have been any more moral if the US had simply firebombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with large numbers of conventional weapons? Same basic effect, just more bombers needed. I don't think the decision to use nuclear weapons was any more or less moral than destroying enemy cities the old-fashioned way. I won't argue that it was right, I despise war and the means by which it is waged. But in terms of overall effects, I don't think the decision to drop a couple of super-bombs on Japan was any more or less immoral than dropping a crap-load of regular bombs on the two cities. If the psychological effect of two-bombs doing the same damage of thousands of bombs sped up the end of the war in any way, I guess it might be called at least a pragmatic triumph, if not an ethical triumph.

 

[ParkerBaby]

There is no right or wrong in conflicts, so asking if ANYTHING was right or wrong is pointless. Its not about right or wrong, its about the survival of your people and the destruction of the will to fight for the other side. Also, to point out that a US invasion of Japan would have certainly been necessary, or a Russian invasion would have drawn out years into the war, costs billions in weapons and materials and millions in lives, on both sides. More Japanese civilians would have died if US troops had to besiege Hiroshima then the total numbers killed by the bombs, not counting the long term casualties from radiation. There's no accurate number for that, as far as I am aware.

Its either way a topic you can't place in a right or wrong category, regardless of opinions to the majority or minority on either side. It was the greatest conflict in human history, and it ended in a way that changed the history of the world. Had the bombs not been dropped, things could have gone much farther south, or we'd be living in a world free of disease, poverty and all that pretty rainbow colored dream world stuff. Fact is, they dropped the bombs, the war ended thereafter. Churchill was a great leader, but a mind reader he was not. I can't say for certain why he would think the bombs had no impact, but seeing two of my cities wiped out in the span of a week would make me reconsider essentially everything.

 

[spartan231490]

I'd say it was wrong because war in general is wrong. But hey, relatively speaking it was probably much less worse than if we had attempted a land invasion. Even the japanese civilians were willing to fight the fight to the death.

War is not wrong, to say so is ignorant.
Regardless of what country you live in, it became a country through WAR.
There is no more slavery in America because of WAR.
America is an independent country, because of WAR.

Without WAR, we would all be speaking German and saluting a Nazi flag.

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

While it is true that slavery is gone in America because of it, it wasn't the only way that could of happened.
America could have become an independent nation without specifically declaring war on Great Britain.

Really, my take on war, is that it is not necessarily wrong for a nation to defend itself if directly attacked, but war itself is nothing more than legal murder.

(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.

Some people can't talk things out. Actually, a lot of people cant.
War is totally necessary. And it's not "wrong" if it's a justified war for good reason, so all war is not "wrong"

It's easy to say "sure, this could have happened without war" When in reality it's much more complicated. America TRIED many times to become it's own nation peacefully, they even tried to stay a colony under British rule if they would just be treated fairly. They were ignored each time. So they finally made them listen with war, the only solution.

you must understand however, that whether or not it was the only solution to achieving some goal doesn't make it right.

Then what would you suggest? Saying "war is wrong" even if it is totally necessary is kind of pointless.

If you are so bent on accomplishing your goal that it requires war and you go through with that, you bear all the responsibility for the deaths of that war.

If the goal is worth the price, than war is not wrong. The war against the Germans in WWII, perfectly justified, and therefore, wrong in no way, if it hadnt happened, hitler would have eventually conquered teh world, and killed all the people who disagreed with him, which do you think is a better outcome. This world is not made for ultimates to exist, its not just black and white, nothing is always evil, and nothing is always good, everything is situational.

 

[JJMUG]

^^ You need to learn your history. Wrong or right, there was no choice, it HAD to be done.

I never said it did not have to be done, you need to learn to read.

 

[Jnat]

The Japaneese didn't give up but if they had done that the US wouldn't have to drop the bombs. The leaders gave up because they thought that Tokyo would be next.

 

[Casual Shinji]

There is no clear yes or no answer to this topic. But considering that the Japanese army handed out grenades to as many civilians as possible so that they could suicide-bomb any American soldiers they met, the A-bomb was the lesser of two evils.

If America would've choosen to invade Japan, the whole thing would've turned into the Vietnam war x 10.

 

[Zero=Interrupt]

Sorry, but has anyone brought up the scads of rape and wartime atrocities the Japanese perpetrated whilst on their mad rush to make themselves lords of all asia? War is hell, sure, but at least we took the high ground and nuked them instead of capturing all the women and making "comfort camps" for our troops, not to mention all the evil shit they did to the Allied soldiers they took prisoner; beheadings, torture, forced labor.... some of the things they did to harmless, captured soldiers made the Nazis look like the New England Ladies' Parlour club.

Why doesn't someone debate the real issue of WWII: Why the Allies should have pushed the USSR all the way back into its borders and locked the front door. They had they own rape/murder spree as they pushed into Europe, by the way, not to mention the whole "Cold War" thing afterwards.

 

[teisjm]

Of course it was wrong, any government and millitary who purposefully bombs civilians are no better than the terrorists who bombed WTC.
War should be fought by armies of soldiers who voluntered, no-one else should be included. well, i'm against wars genereally, but when their fought anyways, leave the civilians who has nothing to do with it out of it.

 

[Sun Flash]

I couldn't make a judgement on Hiroshima (would it win the war for America, was it a necessary sacrifice ect.), but it was a bit of a dick move to drop one on Nagasaki just a few days later.

At least we know not to do it again. Plus it scared everyone into giving us the past 60 odd years of no world wars.

 

[InvisibleMan]

Obviously it was wrong, and today everyone condemns even a move to test the possibility of doing that to another country!

 

[SomethingUnrelated]

The bombs were necessary to avoid a HUGE loss of both American and Japanese lives. Yeah, lives were lost in the explosions, but it would have been worse if they hadn't bombed them. I'm not saying it was a good thing. Just... necessary...

 

[Wounded Melody]

I know this will probably piss people off, but I rather have enemy civilians killed than US soldiers killed. I lost a relative at Pearl Habor, and his father was neve the same after losing his son. I'm sorry, but if another country attacks us and tries to kill both soldiers and civilians, then I want us to fight back with all we have to save as many lives of our brothers, fathers, uncles, etc as possible.

 

[ponderus]

I honestly can't say one way or another. If they hadn't Japan would be a different country, though maybe the Cold War would have ended differently...

 

[Zykon TheLich]

It was no more wrong than any of the other strategic bombing campaigns of the war.
Could it have been avoided? Maybe if the Americans had been a bit more flexible on Japanese surrender terms, allowing them to keep the emporer on the throne, they might have surrendered earlier. Or maybe not. But given the situation at the time I think it was the right decision for the allies if not necessarily 'right'.

 

[BillNyeTheColonelGuy]

It wasn't just about the power of the bomb; they dropped two in order to give the impression that they had a large stock of atomic weapons. Japan, fearing total annihilation at the hands of this unknown superweapon, had no choice but to surrender.

It may not have been moral, but I think it was the right choice considering the zeal of the japanese fighters.

 

[sirkai007]

The Japanese were determined to fight to the last man, woman, child, and goat on that island. They were hiding children in pits in the roads with landmines strapped to their backs so they could jump up and blow up vehicles. They filled bike frames with toluene and sent people riding them into convoys. Anything to slow the advance of the invading Americans. Not only did we save the lives of our men but we saved the Japanese civilization.

 

[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

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)?

I wonder how my age has anything to do with that?
Are you arguing that since everyone else was doing genocide, it was somehow alright?
I am well aware that everyone and their old mum had deathcamps from roughly around the 1800s and forward. The British did it, the Boers did it, the Japanese did it, the Germans did it, the Russians did it, everyone was fucking doing it, hell the american occupation of the Phillipines around the turn of the 1900s is a classic textbook example of terrorist style occupation.

I fail to see how that somehow makes a intended, targeted attack on civilians alright.
You can argue that it was necessary and maybe it was, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[brighteye]

Japan were very close to sign an alliance with Russia, and if Russia had taken a weakend Europe and then went for the US, the world would be quite different now.
That said, i really think they could have chosen a more......military target than 2 civilian cities, yes ?