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

[Indiscrimi]

Was it wrong to kill millions of innocent people when they were trying to surrender, just so that you could show off to the Russians? Yes, I'd say that qualifies as morally dubious.

If they wanted to surrender, we would have let them. THEY DID NOT.
People waiting with sharpened bamboo poles are INNOCENT? People who cheered the fact that their soldiers were cutting off heads? NOT INNOCENT.
Should they have bombed Tokyo? Then people would complain we bombed a major city.

They did want to surrender. They were trying to surrender all summer, but you wanted to show the Soviets how powerful you were, so you chose not to accept their surrender and nuked them instead.

As for your NOT INNOCENT argument, do you mean to tell me that every single man, woman and child in Japan was standing on guard with a pointy stick? Do you mean to tell me that you don't feel happy when you hear that your soldiers killed a few more terrorists? Dude, think about what you're saying before you say it.

 

[moose_man]

What about the people living in Hiroshima, then and for the next few decades?

I say yes, it was wrong. If the entire Allies force(or even a bit) had invaded Japan, the same amount of lives would be lost, minus the after effects of the bomb.

 

[DazBurger]

The Japanese were already on their way to a truce, and the Americans were more focused on showing off to Soviet to scare them off. To me it just seemed like the Americans were waving their dicks around.

Exactly! Why settle with truce? Truce rarely last long. At least not as long as complete surrender.

 

[Danpascooch]

I think it's really impossible to know, but thinking how it COULD have turned out, and how it did (IE Japan still exists), I would choose to drop them again if given the choice, I mean, who knows what could have happened if we hadn't

 

[Eggsnham]

I'm going to run through this one with a knife, sorry mate.

-Le Snippity-

Whether or not any of your "facts" are true, the Japanese were doing some pretty fucked up shit during the war, ever hear of Unit 731? Because of Unit 731, horror movie gore no longer affects me, yeah, it's that nasty. In addition, if the bombs weren't dropped, the Japanese would NOT have surrendered until both sides had experienced severe casualties. I think it's projected that if the bombs weren't dropped, there would have been an additional 10 million dead to each side and many more wounded.

You really need a reference for that number. 10 million is hugely overblown as the 90 day planned campaign had an estimated total casualty toll of 456,000. That was the pessimistic number, a more optimistic General estimated it would probably be closer to 31,000 and that the campaign would only last 30 days. Since These number was also based largely on the Japanese defense of Okinawa. The problem with that number is that the Japanese home islands lacked the defensive emplacements of Okinawa, as they had never planned for war on the home islands. The number of expected casualties has continued to grow over the years, partially in my opinion to justify the use of the Atomic bombs.

It's no coincidence that the Japanese surrendered shortly after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were scared, they were hurt and the Americans bluffed and said that we had many more bombs for each Japanese city, they bought the bluff and shortly surrendered.

Add to this the Russian invasion of Manchuria on August 9th and the firebombings of pretty much every major Japanese city and you get a clearer picture. Most of the Japanese populace didn't know about atomic bombs until well after surrender. This includes the High command.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I was always under the impression that the Japanese had the Russians held down pretty well, not to mention that Russia was in no position to fight another war.

A Red Army vanguard swept through Manchuria on August 9th. These forces numbered 1,557,725 and were armed to the teeth with top quality soviet weaponry and over 5000 tanks. This was months after German surrender and the Veteran troops from the Western Front had been shipped along the Trans-siberian railway. The Soviets were more than ready for another war, its the Japanese who were not. The Red Army beat the Kwantung Army without breaking a sweat and actually pushed their way all the way to Sakhalin and the Korean border barely a week later.

Granted, the Japanese had a rather minuscule Navy (to my knowledge, at least), they certainly had an Airforce.

The Japanese Airforce was as beat up as their navy. It was there sure, but the Japan had pretty much run out of decent pilots by this point in the war. Sure a few thousand rookie pilots could do some damage. But they had little time for training and the American planes would have taken them apart in short order.

Good counter argument, and in any other debate, I would've tipped my hat, said 'Bravo! Good show old boy!', and left. But, alas, we're debating the morality of war. Whether or not it was a justifiable action, (to drop the strongest weapons ever created up to that point on an enemy just to bring a swift end to a war) doesn't change the fact that we, The Americans that is, did it. Yes, we caused the deaths of approximately 200,000 innocent people, however, if we were to invade, there would have been much higher casualties, and on both sides. Did I mention we were, at the time, having a war?

Also, seriously, check out Unit 731. You won't see the Pacific conflict the same ever again.

 

[Cgull]

How are people that drop a-bombs and celebrate any more innocent? A bamboo pole or decapitation kills one person at a time.

Dude, America didn't even want to be in the war in the first place, but they were thanks to the Japanese. If we had the ability to go back in time, I'm sure we'd hear first hand that no one wanted to drop the bombs. It was a means to an end because Japan didn't want to give up even after Germany had surrendered months before.

Setting fire to my garden to make the grass shorter is a means to an end, doesn't mean it's always the way to go. Would be fun though....

Are there many people that ever actually want to be in a war?

 

[nick n stuff]

yes. loads of innocent people died. enemy or not innocents should not have to die.

 

[Brandon237]

No, because Truman got a 25 killstreak, and earned that nuke.

It seemed to be a better alternative than sending more troops over. Technically, you could argue that this also showed Russia that the US was willing to use the a-bomb if necessary as well. Which.... might've just added to the cold war.... but meh.

The whole Russia conspiracy thing was a factor. But the bomb actually helped prevent the cold war from becoming hot. Russia would not have had the awkward position it did had the bomb not been developed and thus would have had every reason to continue its land-grabbing plans in Europe and Asia.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/potsdam.html

 

[FlameUnquenchable]

Yes and no. While it was a good idea to show the devastating force the USA had it wasn't right to do it to a large area populated by tons of innocent people. Even if you reduce an uninhabited, barren area to a large spread of lad that will be uninhabitable for decades to come it would still get the point across. If they still didn't surrender then drop it on a big military base, preferably far from civilian areas if possible.

While I understand where you're coming from, let me pose this.

If this was your assault tactic, I wouldn't be afraid of your country. I would build all of my military bases in heavily civilian areas, with all of my munitions plants right in the middle of neighborhoods because I know you wouldn't attack there. Then I would do what you would not, I would bomb your civilian populace, demoralize your workforce and your military that watches me slaughter innocents while you do nothing to stop me, or wage a war on the terms that I dictate. I would put civilians on my front lines, and pretty much anywhere I could letting them know that your country won't kill them, and that they'll be ok, and help us beat your upstart nation that thinks they are better than us, all the while achieving victory and ravaging your leaders because of battles that are so compromised that they can't effectively fight back.

Now, one of three things would happen, I would eventually defeat your country by doing what you will not, your leaders would throw you out and adopt a policy of total war and defeat me. Or you would change your tactics before I defeated you and hopefully make a victory out of a near defeat.

Anything less than success is defeat, there is no middle-ground. I have adopted a posture of win or lose, and if you have the tools to win you had better win, because if you don't then all of the great morals and ideals that you hold dear will be all for naught because I would empose my view on your people.

While, I don't like war, and believe it to be overglorified, I understand tactics. I understand morale, and psychological warfare. If you are unwilling to achieve victory, then there is only one outcome. While it may be wrong in a moral sense to kill civilians, it was not wrong in a tactical sense...and because I don't have black and white views about morality, I think the necessary evil in dropping the bombs was eventually for the greater good.

Not bashing your view, just giving you something to think about from another mindset.

 

[ghostinthenight]

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.


Yes it was morally wrong, but it was the best and quickest way to end the war, yeah we could have detonated it off the coast, but that wouldn't send the same message as dropping it in the middle of them, and as for the "Civilians" you do know most of them were working on producing things that were then used FOR the war effort right? that makes them targets, it's not like we dropped a bomb on a town full of new born babies, we dropped them on viable targets full of people making things to support our enemies.

" now all I have to do is wait for it to get torn up by a rabid horde of Americas patriots."
Yep, gotta love being the world power and be able to spawn hordes of American patriots

 

[Critical92]

i think it was very called for, Japan are pretty damn crazy when it comes to wars, they had to be put down.

 

[Wounded Melody]

As for your NOT INNOCENT argument, do you mean to tell me that every single man, woman and child in Japan was standing on guard with a pointy stick? Do you mean to tell me that you don't feel happy when you hear that your soldiers killed a few more terrorists? Dude, think about what you're saying before you say it.

But it's the same to say every single Japanese person was innocent. We didn't bomb a town of nuns and puppies.
I would always rather the enemy be killed than our side. Should I have wanted more American troops to be killed by going into Japan? My RELATIVES were in the army. What about you?

 

[Frozenfeet2]

It's equivalent to saying that all German nationals during WW2 were Nazis, which is just a painfully wrong assumption made far too often.

agreed. Plus I don't think the Americans were bombing to help the Chinese. Nevertheless hardliners were in control and would have fought to the end, so it is a difficult decision, but I believe the bombs are justified for ending the war.

 

[Low Key]

How are people that drop a-bombs and celebrate any more innocent? A bamboo pole or decapitation kills one person at a time.

Dude, America didn't even want to be in the war in the first place, but they were thanks to the Japanese. If we had the ability to go back in time, I'm sure we'd hear first hand that no one wanted to drop the bombs. It was a means to an end because Japan didn't want to give up even after Germany had surrendered months before.

Setting fire to my garden to make the grass shorter is a means to an end, doesn't mean it's always the way to go. Would be fun though....

Are there many people that ever actually want to be in a war?

If it was a battle to get to your front door because your lawn was out of control, you may very well be justified in setting fire to it. There is a difference between excessive and unnecessary. The bombs may have been excessive, but that doesn't mean they were unnecessary. Just as if it was a struggle to live your life because of your lawn, setting fire to it may be excessive, but perhaps it would be necessary.

 

[Brandon237]

What about the people living in Hiroshima, then and for the next few decades?

I say yes, it was wrong. If the entire Allies force(or even a bit) had invaded Japan, the same amount of lives would be lost, minus the after effects of the bomb.

Look at the professionally calculated figures. Waaaaaaaay more would have died in a conventional conflict and America would be tied up financially for a lot longer. Japan started the war with America, they should accept whatever comes. For that is the nature of war, and all who take its violent path must accept the potential consequences.

If I start a fight with someone and then they pull a knife on me out of self-defence, are they in the wrong? NO.

If you bomb my pearl harbour out of the blue on a PUBLIC HOLIDAY and fight mercilessly to capture the whole south pacific and commit violent war crimes, I have every right to stop it ASAP. That is one of the pros of the a-bomb, it finished the war, quickly.

And the japanese war crimes were violent. No one survived the japanese concentration camps yet many survived the Germans'. Remember that.

 

[Cgull]

How are people that drop a-bombs and celebrate any more innocent? A bamboo pole or decapitation kills one person at a time.

Dude, America didn't even want to be in the war in the first place, but they were thanks to the Japanese. If we had the ability to go back in time, I'm sure we'd hear first hand that no one wanted to drop the bombs. It was a means to an end because Japan didn't want to give up even after Germany had surrendered months before.

Setting fire to my garden to make the grass shorter is a means to an end, doesn't mean it's always the way to go. Would be fun though....

Are there many people that ever actually want to be in a war?

If it was a battle to get to your front door because your lawn was out of control, you may very well be justified in setting fire to it. There is a difference between excessive and unnecessary. The bombs may have been excessive, but that doesn't mean they were unnecessary. Just as if it was a struggle to live your life because of your lawn, setting fire to it may be excessive, but perhaps it would be necessary.

I think agreeing to disagree may be wise here

Also, that was a very well worded response, which deserves to be commended regardless of whether I agree with it or not *doffs hat*

 

[spartandude]

i think they chose the wrong targets, rather than choosing military installations, or issuing any sort of warning to minimise civilain casualties they bombed to heavily populated urban centres,

japan were on the verge of a surrender, a land invasion would have forced it, sure a few more people would have died but the japanise would have surrenderd instantly and less lives would have been killed.

also it was a matter of time, japan didnt have sufficient natural resorces such as food, oil and such to keep it self going, and due to the massive blockade around the islands they couldnt get any, sure it may have taken an extra 2 weeks but they would have given in and much more lives would have been saved


so why did they drop the bombs? oh right its because america was starting to feel scared by big bad russia and doing an incredibly barve thing and face their true openants... they drop to atomic bombs and a bunch of innocent, unarmed and undefended citizens

outstanding!

 

[Arkhangelsk]

The Japanese were already on their way to a truce, and the Americans were more focused on showing off to Soviet to scare them off. To me it just seemed like the Americans were waving their dicks around.

Exactly! Why settle with truce? Truce rarely last long. At least not as long as complete surrender.

Does that justify the number of civilian deaths?

 

[Superhyperactiveman]

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

It's amusing, innit?
That they did it anyway?
Makes you wonder why...

It's pretty understandable why. If you get a little kid a magnifying glass, he'll only use it to study species of plants for so long before he starts raining fiery death from above on little ants. The U.S. had a brand new toy that they'd been firing in emptry deserts and on top of oceans forever, and they were getting kind of bored with that, so they wanted to see just how many people they could kill with it, both so that they could use the intimidation factor in negotiating with other countries and so that they could look at all the death and say "Fuck yeah! We did that shit!"

If you own a weapon, you will eventually start looking for an excuse to justify actually using it on people.

 

[Nickolai77]

I did a big essay on this last year, so i suppose i should contribute.

In the Japanese cabinet a considerable number of ministers where in favour of negotating terms of surrender since the fall of Okinawa - note though that this was conditional, they where advocating terms such as "no American occupation" of Japan and that the current regieme should remain in place.

The Americans knew that the Japanese where interested in peace because they had been intercepting radio messages sent between the Japanese foregin minister and the Japanese ambassador to Moscow, but because the Japanese did not want an unconditional surrender (they explictly said that they where not after an unconditonal surrender) the Americans weren't interested.

Following the dropping of the atom bombs the "peace party" became more much vocal in their push for peace, and moved their stance to that the only condition they would surrender on was the retention of the Emperor. The military faction however continued to press for war, even after the atom bombs. The Emperor, relutantly, supported the peace faction and many of the military members of the cabinet commited suicide.

Truman was not happy with this one condition, so subtly altered the Japanese term of surrender to saying that the Emperors position was guaranteed, but subject to the Allied High Commander of the Pacific (whom i think was General Mac Arthur) the surviving members of the Japanese cabinet agreed and Japan surrendered.

I do think the Americans should have issues a warning that they had atomic capability and would use the bomb, unfortuantly there was a lot of pressure from a few of Trumans more aggresive advisors to maximise the element of shock and surprise that these bombs would deliver, and perhaps a few of them feared that the Soviets would miss this American "show of force" if Japan actually did surrender before the bombs could be used. Although, in their defense it's worth pointing out that it was only the scientists working on the Manhatten Project had any idea how truely powerful the atomic bomb was- All Trumans advisors knew that it was a very very powerful bomb- it is well possible they under estimated its power.

If America had issued a warning and called for a Japanese surrender on the one term of retataning the Emperor, America would have avoided any long term moral contraversy by using the atomic bomb if the Japanse government had refused to surrender on these terms, in effect the blame would have been passed onto the Japanese government.