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

[Bobzer77]

I can't believe so many people actually voted no, but theres America for you....

I wouldn't have a problem with what they did if they had targeted something to do with the Japanese military but they dropped both bombs on cities full of civilians. What they did is worse than 9/11. They proved a point so that they wouldn't lose men fighting on land which is admirable but even if they detonated off the coast as a warning Japan would know the game is up.

If I was in charge the bastards would be up for war crimes... but it's just my opinion, now all I have to do is wait for it to get torn up by a rabid horde of Americas patriots.

 

[FlameUnquenchable]

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.

And in a perfect world where everyone that was part of a conflict would wear a badge denoting them, I'd totally agree. War is much more complex than you give it credit for, it can't be boiled down into right or wrong, combatant/noncombatant, because as others have pointed out before, once within a conflict, if you are in any way related to the war effort of your country, from the people who grow the food, all the way across the gamut to the people who make the bombs and bullets and machines that fire them, you're part of it.

A country has to accept that when it goes to war, everyone is at risk. The lesson here is to remember than war affects everyone, just just the few and the proud that sign on the dotted line. And while those who offer service to their country and their families may pay a higher toll in general, it is not always the case, because at any moment the bomb might be falling on your neighborhood. The lesson is much broader than what you're making it.

 

[Kae]

It was definitely wrong I don't give a flying fuck what people think but killing civilians is always and I do mean always wrong, sure they killed civilians too in Pearl Harbor but that does not excuse killing more civilians and that only demonstrated that U.S. wasn't better than Japan it was just as bad. So basically what I'm saying is that any form of strategy that involves killing civilians is wrong, but that is just my opinion anyway.

 

[FlameUnquenchable]

I can't believe so many people actually voted no, but theres America for you....

I wouldn't have a problem with what they did if they had targeted something to do with the Japanese military but they dropped both bombs on cities full of civilians. What they did is worse than 9/11. They proved a point so that they wouldn't lose men fighting on land which is admirable but even if they detonated off the coast as a warning Japan would know the game is up.

If I was in charge the bastards would be up for war crimes... but it's just my opinion, now all I have to do is wait for it to get torn up by a rabid horde of Americas patriots.

Odd that you post an inflammatory message, attack Americans, and then what? believe that you'll show people how wrong they were for posting an opinion that's different from yours?

I'm an American, and a patriotic one, but I think rabid is far from my state of mind, and quite offensive, how would you react if I began degrading the people of your country?

You're entitled to your opinion, but it seems as if you like to incite angry comments...

 

[Negdaen]

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.

I'm going to agree with this one but I am, as Generation Kill said, a "wine-sipping, tree-hugging, bi-sexual communist"

Right that's a good point. One little issue in that. There were no civilians in Japan. The Civilians were trained weekly on how to fight with sharpened bamboo sticks and broom handles. An attack on mainland Japan would have ended in an estimated 1,000,000 allied casualties and and 5,000,000 Japanese, and most of them would have been civilian. At that point in time Japan did not want to surrender or sign a truce. No, the Emperor wanted to because he actually cared that his people were dying, but most of the military and the civilians did not. And the Emperor had almost no actual power. The only reason he was able to declare a surrender after the 2nd bomb was because of a change in the military cabinet that allowed him to voice an opinion. The cabinet that 'worked for him' before pretty much threatened to starve him if he ever spoke out against their plans. Now the second bomb was not needed. The only reason they didn't give an unconditional surrender after the first was because of an attempted military coop by a group that didn't want Japan to surrender. The bomb was not about revenge. Though, it might have been a global demonstration, its primary purpose was most definitely to force Japan to quit it.

 

[Dommer55]

I can't believe so many people actually voted no, but theres America for you....

I wouldn't have a problem with what they did if they had targeted something to do with the Japanese military but they dropped both bombs on cities full of civilians. What they did is worse than 9/11. They proved a point so that they wouldn't lose men fighting on land which is admirable but even if they detonated off the coast as a warning Japan would know the game is up.

If I was in charge the bastards would be up for war crimes... but it's just my opinion, now all I have to do is wait for it to get torn up by a rabid horde of Americas patriots.

Listen man WW2 was a total war, which means that everything was concentrated on the war effort, all industry created war materials, all civilians worked in these industries. Unfortunately this means that in total war civilians can be considered targets. Now Hiroshima was a military headquarters for one of the Japanese armies, Nagasaki was one of the primary centers of industry in Japan. Also both of these cities had been relatively untouched by the previous bombing campaigns so they were still operating at full capacity.

Also the reason why just detonating one off of the coast would not have worked as well is that there is no shock factor in that, sure you get the massive explosion, but they wouldn't have been able to visualize it occurring on one of their cities. Shitty as it was it was the best decision available at the time and I'm happy that Truman took it.

 

[Bobzer77]

I can't believe so many people actually voted no, but theres America for you....

I wouldn't have a problem with what they did if they had targeted something to do with the Japanese military but they dropped both bombs on cities full of civilians. What they did is worse than 9/11. They proved a point so that they wouldn't lose men fighting on land which is admirable but even if they detonated off the coast as a warning Japan would know the game is up.

If I was in charge the bastards would be up for war crimes... but it's just my opinion, now all I have to do is wait for it to get torn up by a rabid horde of Americas patriots.

Odd that you post an inflammatory message, attack Americans, and then what? believe that you'll show people how wrong they were for posting an opinion that's different from yours?

I'm an American, and a patriotic one, but I think rabid is far from my state of mind, and quite offensive, how would you react if I began degrading the people of your country?

You're entitled to your opinion, but it seems as if you like to incite angry comments...

Sorry but the slaughter of innocent civilians is something that makes me angry for some reason...

I will drop the sarcasm for a second to apologise if I offended you. The only reason I attacked America was because in my opinion they're to blame for it and about the "rabid hoard" thing, it was a generalisation based on experience, I didn't say every American would attack me for expressing my opinion I just said I expected some to.

Odd that you post an inflammatory message, attack Americans, and then what? believe that you'll show people how wrong they were for posting an opinion that's different from yours?

That is the point of an argument isn't it?

 

[Airsoftslayer93]

your point is valid about the russians coming, but the last time the russians and the japanese had squared off, in the russo-japenese war in 1905 i believe, it was a surprise victory to the japenese, also the japenese mentality at the time was no surrender. another important point to consider is whether by dropping the bomb the americans intimidated the russians in anyway, it may not have been important for ww2 but it sure as hell was important for the cold war, if the bomb hadnt been dropped then i doubt the cold war would have remained cold much longer. im very interested in this area of history, ive just started studying it and it looks fascinating

 

[zehydra]

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.

So, if war is worth it? It's not wrong? If stealing someone's car is worth it to me, it's not wrong??

Edit: Btw, life is ultimately so complex that it is indeterminable what would have occurred in World War II had we not intervened. Stop saying that Hitler would have done this, the Nazi's would've done that, there is no way anyone could know that.

 

[c__age]

Well I voted that it was not wrong for us to drop (2) bombs on Japan. The entire world knew that we didn't want to get involved with the war, which would imply that if someone does try something we will fork there shize up. If anything (and this is going to sound cold) but if your stupid enough to attack a us military base WHAT THE HELL DID YOU THINK WAS GONNA HAPPEN.

 

[FlameUnquenchable]

I can't believe so many people actually voted no, but theres America for you....

I wouldn't have a problem with what they did if they had targeted something to do with the Japanese military but they dropped both bombs on cities full of civilians. What they did is worse than 9/11. They proved a point so that they wouldn't lose men fighting on land which is admirable but even if they detonated off the coast as a warning Japan would know the game is up.

If I was in charge the bastards would be up for war crimes... but it's just my opinion, now all I have to do is wait for it to get torn up by a rabid horde of Americas patriots.

Odd that you post an inflammatory message, attack Americans, and then what? believe that you'll show people how wrong they were for posting an opinion that's different from yours?

I'm an American, and a patriotic one, but I think rabid is far from my state of mind, and quite offensive, how would you react if I began degrading the people of your country?

You're entitled to your opinion, but it seems as if you like to incite angry comments...

Sorry but the slaughter of innocent civilians is something that makes me angry for some reason...

I will drop the sarcasm for a second to apologise if I offended you. The only reason I attacked America was because in my opinion they're to blame for it and about the "rabid hoard" thing, it was a generalisation based on experience, I didn't say every American would attack me for expressing my opinion I just said I expected some to.

Odd that you post an inflammatory message, attack Americans, and then what? believe that you'll show people how wrong they were for posting an opinion that's different from yours?

That is the point of an argument isn't it?

Eh, people have their beliefs, and I'm pretty thick skinned. Rabid hordes can be pretty much anywhere if you know the right words to say. I think its part of being human.

I think the post below my original is pretty accurate, in a war like WWII its not about just the guys in uniforms. And I agree that its angering to see civilians killed in war, but I also know that sometimes civilians die and until we get things fixed, and stop fighting wars then there will be those casualties. I think you know that too, and as for blame, I always advocate for people to take responsibility for their actions. America was responsible for dropping the bomb that ended the war, but Japan was equally as responsible for it because they drug us into a war where we were neutral before Pearl Harbor.

 

[c__age]

vERY Much AGREEABLE

 

[JoJo]

Thousands of innocent children died in a horrible way, so it was wrong. End of story (for me atleast).

 

[Jennacide]

I can't believe so many people actually voted no, but theres America for you....

I wouldn't have a problem with what they did if they had targeted something to do with the Japanese military but they dropped both bombs on cities full of civilians. What they did is worse than 9/11. They proved a point so that they wouldn't lose men fighting on land which is admirable but even if they detonated off the coast as a warning Japan would know the game is up.

If I was in charge the bastards would be up for war crimes... but it's just my opinion, now all I have to do is wait for it to get torn up by a rabid horde of Americas patriots.

So wait, lemme get this straight. You're complaining that Tokyo and Nagasaki were full of civilians, and that the bombs should of been aimed at military points of interest? Last I checked those were where the military brains of Japan were at. Not to mention you discuss how the nukes were 'war crimes', but the fire bombing that took 10x's more civilian lives wasn't? What about the atrocities commited by the Japanese against the Korean people? Infecting them with every virus, disease and plague they could and vivisecting them?

I'm not going to defend the use of nuclear weapons, but I will take issue with ignorant people like you that take a holier than thou approach when they don't seem to consider all sides. Especially when you biggest complain is how it's a war crime, when compared to everything else that went on during WW2 it was the showiest and least impactful war crime. And if you go by the Geneva Accords, it isn't a war crime. But what Japan did to Korea and what Hitler did were.

 

[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.

And in a perfect world where everyone that was part of a conflict would wear a badge denoting them, I'd totally agree. War is much more complex than you give it credit for, it can't be boiled down into right or wrong, combatant/noncombatant, because as others have pointed out before, once within a conflict, if you are in any way related to the war effort of your country, from the people who grow the food, all the way across the gamut to the people who make the bombs and bullets and machines that fire them, you're part of it.

A country has to accept that when it goes to war, everyone is at risk. The lesson here is to remember than war affects everyone, just just the few and the proud that sign on the dotted line. And while those who offer service to their country and their families may pay a higher toll in general, it is not always the case, because at any moment the bomb might be falling on your neighborhood. The lesson is much broader than what you're making it.

I know that, and i may have been carried away from my point when writing.
My point is this: when you drop a (nuclear) bomb in the middle of a city you're fully aware that you're not priamrily hurting enemy combatants.
As for the WTC, you could argue that every civilian who was there are in some way supporting the army as well, and therefore are as legit targets as the people in nagazaki and hiroshima in the terrorists fight to repel the western countries from the middl east.
I'm not saying the WTC bombings was justified, quite the opposit, i'm saying that the nuclear bombs was just as wrong, if not worse due to the way higher numkber of dead civilians, and the aftermath of radiated cities.

 

[Miniges]

Japan was weeks away from giving up, so it was kind of pointless. Pointless bordering on actually wrong to drop two.

 

[Bobzer77]

I can't believe so many people actually voted no, but theres America for you....

I wouldn't have a problem with what they did if they had targeted something to do with the Japanese military but they dropped both bombs on cities full of civilians. What they did is worse than 9/11. They proved a point so that they wouldn't lose men fighting on land which is admirable but even if they detonated off the coast as a warning Japan would know the game is up.

If I was in charge the bastards would be up for war crimes... but it's just my opinion, now all I have to do is wait for it to get torn up by a rabid horde of Americas patriots.

So wait, lemme get this straight. You're complaining that Tokyo and Nagasaki were full of civilians, and that the bombs should of been aimed at military points of interest? Last I checked those were where the military brains of Japan were at. Not to mention you discuss how the nukes were 'war crimes', but the fire bombing that took 10x's more civilian lives wasn't? What about the atrocities commited by the Japanese against the Korean people? Infecting them with every virus, disease and plague they could and vivisecting them?

I'm not going to defend the use of nuclear weapons, but I will take issue with ignorant people like you that take a holier than thou approach when they don't seem to consider all sides. Especially when you biggest complain is how it's a war crime, when compared to everything else that went on during WW2 it was the showiest and least impactful war crime. And if you go by the Geneva Accords, it isn't a war crime. But what Japan did to Korea and what Hitler did were.

I think you'r talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Try getting your facts right first before you call someone ignorant.

 

[Billion Backs]

It's good psychological warfare, man.

Civilians were kind of fucked in WW2 anyways, whether the lived in Japan, in England, in Germany, or in Russia... And a whole lot of smaller European nations I don't care enough about to remember - Poland, and so on.

Oh and don't forget submarines targeting ships carrying civilians, too!

Both sides in WW2 killed off a bunch of civilians, so what.

The whole idea of human rights and that people actually deserve anything for being there is nothing more then an idealistic pipe dream. Nice, sure. Realistic? Hell no. Our entire history involves fucking over civilians. If someone decides to apply sufficient enough force to kill you, you won't be able to do shit about it and neither will your laws.

Either way, as the conflict went, I'd rather side with USA then early 20th century Japan. Why? Japan sucked then even more then it does now. I don't like either USA nor Japan that much overall even today, although for different reasons...

In short: the end generally justifies the means, as long as you don't overkill it too much. But that also depends on whatever end you're seeking.

 

[Schwenkdawg]

Although Japan had sent out peace feelers, they demanded a negotiated truce, which was against what the Allies had decided to pursue at one of their conferences (Potsdam I believe it was). Also, whether or not the Japanese deserved to be A-Bombed, many historians believe it was more to intimidate the Russians than to actually force the Japanese into surrendering. The firebombing of Tokyo on May 4-5 of 1945 was actually more deadly than the bombing of Nagasaki, but the Americans wanted to show the Soviet Union, but also the Japanese that they would get seriously messed up if they tried to continue against US plans