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

[trooper_xp]

putting morality a side and noting the events at the time, the USSR had already liberated China and was taking japan's islands(ex. Kuril islands) and was getting very close to Japanese mainland, much like tit was on the pacific front with USA, so without the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the allies would embark on a joint mainland invasion which would involve blockades, starvation, shelling, bombing on ALL of japan till japan would break and a amphibious assault could be made to take japan
more Japanese people would die and by more horrid deaths(starvation, nervous disorders due to shelling and bombing), Japanese military would suffer countless losses due battle on two fronts, USSR and USA would also loose millions of men taking japan
punchline: the bombs PREVENTED a greater evil IMO

 

[Commissar Sae]

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.

I actually wrote up a presentation on unit 731 and Shiro Ishii for a class on the Pacific War. Found a lot of first person accounts actually, believe me I know all about the atrocities commited by the Japanese.

I guess what it boils down to for me is that there should be rules for war. Just saying 'They did bad things too' doesn't excuse your own actions. Bah, call me an idealist but War should be fought between soldiers, not agaisnt unarmed people trying to survive. That goes against the Japanese too.

 

[The Sorrow]

A direct invasion would have been even more costly. Japan would have taken significantly longer to recover had the bombs not been dropped.

I havent read all the posts but i became sick when i saw that the majority thinks "it was the right thing to do". You should be fucking ashamed! I cant be on a site like this, thats it! Hiroshima and Nagasaki was cities where civilians lived. It wasnt an "army targets" like Pearl Harbor or Normandie.

I´m deleting my account, i will not be a part of a site wich members support this massacre!

Because other opinions are always evil.

 

[Commissar Sae]

Was it wrong murdering countless innocent civilians who had nothing to do with the war?

...Yes it was.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Japan as a whole fully committed to the war? You know, the whole Japanese version of Nazi racial supremacy?

Yes and no. But even then Germany wasn't fully commited to the war either. You had groups like the white roses and various other rebellious groups opposing the Nazis during the war. You get the same thing in Japan, but like Germany these voices were quickly silenced.

 

[lleihsad]

Yes.

Defend it however you like, but we still deployed nuclear weapons against civilians.

 

[magicmonkeybars]

if something is "right" or "wrong" is seldom a consideration in a millitary decision.
Hard choices are made everyday and people get killed regardless.
At the end of the day I'm just glad they didn't drop one on Germany, because I live next door to them.

 

[Meggiepants]

Ah, you dragged me into this one. I'll blame you if my inbox is flooded with angry quotes!

I'm from the states, first off. Just in case that matters.

Personally, I think it was wrong to do. I am quite positive that's why we have never done it again. I think it became apparent that in this case, the ends did not justify the means.

Too much collateral damage, devastating effects on the environment, the world wide fear that we had created such a weapon... there are so many negative things that came of that action. Nobody wants to see children by the thousands dying of cancer, even if they do want to win a war. Those that don't care about such things are considered monsters.

That being said, I would never in a million years have wanted to be President Truman during that decision. I think it was a horrifically difficult decision for him to make.

Thought you might rise to it

However, you've given me very little to debate with you, which is somewhat disappointing, if you look over last few pages some of it has been quite interesting!

Not sure I can even play devils advocate *sigh*

I have some form of sympathy for Truman, if only because he had to know he was directly responsible for such widespread carnage. Admittedly, it's not that much sympathy as he did order it in the first place.

Well, I've never read any of the books that were written about that decision so I can't say what kind of advice he was given, or how exactly he came the the conclusion that dropping 2 bombs was the only way to end the war.

Because of that, I don't know if I should have sympathy for him or not. For instance, I do feel bad for Lyndon Johnson because his generals and advisors gave him bad advice about the Vietnam war.

But I do know I would not have wanted to be in Truman's situation.

Perhaps it is time I read up on the bombings. Though, I suspect it will just make me depressed.

I read through some of your posts. I saw that you managed to get some civil discourse going!

 

[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 warcrime. 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.

Oh no, I forgot which cities it was, that totally invalidates everything I said. Oh wait, no it doesn't you pompous ass. Just because my memory is bad
doesn't mean history didn't happen.

It does kind of invalidate your arguement when your talking about places.

Regarding the rest of your post it seems your saying "We did something horrible but it's ok because they did worse". I'm not denying that the Japanese did horrible things in WW2 but this thread is about Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Are you going to justify the deaths of over 100000 civilians by saying "they did worse" ?

 

[NordicWarrior]

The civilian arguments just don't really hold water. At that point in the war there weren't many "civilians" left in Japan. Everyone but the very old, the very young and the very sick were pressed into service and armed with whatever was left. That made them part of the army, ready and mostly willing to kill for Japan.

 

[diddykonger]

Imo the bombing was one of those necessary evils to end the war in the Pacific, and will be stain in human history. Can't go any further than that because none of us will know what would've happened if the bombs were never dropped, a better warning was given or even the targets had been different.

 

[Venatio]

You may as well ask if it was right to drop all those firebombs in the cities, those killed way more people. I'm not going to argue with the decision; if it saved our troops the need to storm Japan, an event that would have been bloodier than Normandy, then I won?t go against it. I am of course remorseful that so many had to die, that is not something to be relished.

 

[NicolasMarinus]

YES, they were civilian targets. Americans call people who attack civilian targets terrorists nowadays.

YES, because the whole "otherwise more people would have died" charade is a lie. The only reason the Americans had to play hardball was because the allied forces would only accept an unconditional surrender. Which basically means, "after 4 years of bitter fighting, please turn around, drop your pants, bend over and wait for our sweet vengeance."

Yes, killing that many people in one go has nothing to do with the ancient tradition of combat, which can at least claim a moderate degree of honour.

So, YES, YES, YES!

 

[Venatio]

Yes, killing that many people in one go has nothing to do with the ancient tradition of combat, which can at least claim a moderate degree of honour.

That's cute, you think that honour has a place in war?

 

[Zaksav91]

I may get flamed for saying this but no it wasn't.

The reason being that if the U.S were to invade the Japanese mainland then the casualties would of been in the millions. You then have to add that if America was to occupy Japan then there would be a constant war between them until of course the allies would of left (similar to Vietnam). This would of also devastated Japan in the long run because the rebuilding process would of taken so much longer. Hell if the bombs were not dropped then we could be talking about Japan as a backwater technologically inept country instead of arguably the most technologically advanced nation.

I don't applaud the bombs because it was a catastrophic event, I'm just saying that that was probably the best option in the long run.

 

[Gorog2]

The bombing was necessary to help bring an end to the war

 

[Cgull]

Sniptastic

Wow, you are a fucking moron.

Soldiers fighting to keep pride instilled with their family, to keep their child fed and healthy, or to support their love ones in general are valued LESS than the average lazy life of someone who sits at home watching the game show network? Are you fucking serious?

Delete your account. You are the epitome of redundant in the world's resources. Attacking people in their homes is BAD but attacking a soldier is A'OKAY by your standards. That really pisses me off. I have a few friends who came back from Iraq. They're changed people. One has four dogtags tattooed to his chest. Four guys who died in his unit. Are all four of them less than four everyday civilians? Fuck you.

WAR is fucking WAR. You do what you can to save lives, even if it means taking some.

I think his point was more that if you are a soldier you are signing up for, and accepting, a situation in which you know your life will be on the line each and every day.

It's an incredibly brave and courageous thing to do, however a civilian hasn't made that choice and has essentially decided not to take the same risks. Plus, I think it's generally accepted that (in as much as a war/conflict has rules) civilians are exempt from being frontline targets.

Well, in a civilised war anyway. (Nice contradiction that one huh?)

 

[Mordosius]

Hello, everyone. This is my first post here, so...yeah.
First off, I apologize if this has been said before, but the OP said the Japanese were afraid of the Russians because they had beat them in a war recently, and this is completely incorrect, the Russians were actually thrashed by the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese war until Roosevelt stepped in and mediated the conflict which earned him a Nobel Prize. Oh yeah, and the dropping of the bombs were necessary due to Japanese will to fight to the last man. Apologies if that was poorly worded.

 

[Fetzenfisch]

They still couldn't prevent the animemania. So i guess 2 bombs werent enough. time to built meself a time machine.

 

[Dick Seamen]

I havent read all the posts but i became sick when i saw that the majority thinks "it was the right thing to do". You should be fucking ashamed! I cant be on a site like this, thats it! Hiroshima and Nagasaki was cities where civilians lived. It wasnt an "army targets" like Pearl Harbor or Normandie.

I´m deleting my account, i will not be a part of a site wich members support this massacre!

Wow, you are a fucking moron.

Soldiers fighting to keep pride instilled with their family, to keep their child fed and healthy, or to support their love ones in general are valued LESS than the average lazy life of someone who sits at home watching the game show network? Are you fucking serious?

Delete your account. You are the epitome of redundant in the world's resources. Attacking people in their homes is BAD but attacking a soldier is A'OKAY by your standards. That really pisses me off. I have a few friends who came back from Iraq. They're changed people. One has four dogtags tattooed to his chest. Four guys who died in his unit. Are all four of them less than four everyday civilians? Fuck you.

WAR is fucking WAR. You do what you can to save lives, even if it means taking some.

So your point is that its more wrong to shoot someone who is shooting you than bombing a city where people are just doing what they can to survive? These people were victims of their own country. And they got to pay the price of what their emperor stood for!

I feel bad for your friends, i myself have been in Kosovo in UN service for one year. We were there to try to preserve peace. I didnt fire my gun once, nor did anyone during my time there. I made friends for life and you would be suprised to see how many people who sympithise

 

[Fetzenfisch]

I havent read all the posts but i became sick when i saw that the majority thinks "it was the right thing to do". You should be fucking ashamed! I cant be on a site like this, thats it! Hiroshima and Nagasaki was cities where civilians lived. It wasnt an "army targets" like Pearl Harbor or Normandie.

I´m deleting my account, i will not be a part of a site wich members support this massacre!

Wow, you are a fucking moron.

Soldiers fighting to keep pride instilled with their family, to keep their child fed and healthy, or to support their love ones in general are valued LESS than the average lazy life of someone who sits at home watching the game show network? Are you fucking serious?

Delete your account. You are the epitome of redundant in the world's resources. Attacking people in their homes is BAD but attacking a soldier is A'OKAY by your standards. That really pisses me off. I have a few friends who came back from Iraq. They're changed people. One has four dogtags tattooed to his chest. Four guys who died in his unit. Are all four of them less than four everyday civilians? Fuck you
WAR is fucking WAR. You do what you can to save lives, even if it means taking some.

Well yup WAR is WAR. = Its a soldiers job to kill humans and to die for it. So yes its much worse to attack innocent civilians than combat trained volunteers.