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

[Serge A. Storms]

I'm hearing alot of "it saved lives". I realy don't think the total of deaths that would have happened if it didn't could ever have surpassed the total deaths from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and thats not including the deaths from radiation.

It was famously estimated that America could lose 1,000,000 troops invading Japan, and this would presumably come with several times that number in Japanese military and civilian casualties. If Japan really fought it out, as they were predicted to do, the entire nation would have been wiped out one city at a time by ground forces.

 

[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 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" ?

No, I'm trying to understand why people have a hissy fit over the bombs being dropped when what the US did before the bombs was 10x's worse. YOU called the nukes a war crime, I called you out on that. I'm pointing out that you don't factor in both sides of the war and just side against the US for some bizarre reason. Nowhere did I say it was justified or defended what they did, but nor will I damn them for doing it. We aren't in places of power to make these very kinds of decisions and as such we shouldn't be second guessing them. For all we know there was something being constructed in Hiroshima that the general population never knew about. What if all thier horrible experiments resulted in the worst bio weapon known to man at the time? And what if they were about to use it?

We aren't in a position to make these choices, so we then aren't in a position to whine about them either.

 

[Mr Godfrey]

I didn't have time to read all 800 posts, so forgive me if this had already been brought up. At the beginning of the American involvement in WWII, Churchill and Roosevelt agreed that nothing but unconditional surrender could be accepted from either Germany or Japan. As the Americans invaded the strategic, civilian inhabited Islands located in the Japanese Pacific Territory, they began to realize that conventional land warfare on the main island would be too taxing (it wasn't just a war against the Japanese Army, the Japanese civilians took up arms and fought against the marines, also it was hard to maintain morale while watching the Japanese civilians commit suicide through jumping off cliffs or disembowling themselves). The idea behind dropping the bombs was to pretend we could continue to drop them until Japan lay in total Oblivion, thus scaring the Japanese into surrender without invading the main Island. Though there were many casualties, civilian lives may have been saved by forcing the Government into submission, but we can never be entirely sure. Of course it's hard to say whether it was the right thing to do or not. Ethics are a matter of perception.

 

[sabercrusader]

-The Japanese would never surrender (their beliefs at the time prohibited such a thing), necessitating a drawn-out and destructive conflict between them and the United States before the war could end.

-The Japanese had enough of an air force to get to Pearl Harbor and do a lot of damage.

But saying they would never surrender due to their beliefs is innacurate, because they did surrender.

And the Japanese mostly used the Navy to get to pearly harbour (which I know, i said was pretty much gone too) but it still doesn't negate the fact that after that nearly three years of war happened in which the result was Japan being pushed back to their own country.

They only surrendered becuase of the Atomic Bombs i mean they didint surrender after the first so we said screw it and dropped the second one, and we made them belive we had or (But those were the only two) so yes and no i do think it was a good decision overall.
and for people saying that killing civillans is wrong they bombed us first and killed many good soldiers and we hadent even so much as made a threat against them.

 

[avatar_vii]

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).

I can see your point, and your argument is valid, but I don't beleive that Atomic bombs needed to be used in order to stop the fighting. Parts of Japan still feel the effects of those bombs.

 

[LitleWaffle]

Considering the fact that Operation Downfall(The Land Invasion) Would have had over 1 million american casualties, 10 million japanese casualties, and god knows what amount of deaths...

Yah it seems pretty justifiable for the first one since they were NOT trying to form a truce. The Battle of Okinawa had at least 319,000 deaths, more than both bombs combined, and the fact that they sent in so many Kamikazies meant that they were not going to surrender. It is also a fact that each civilian would fight to the death againt the "devils" (America, YAY!) for their emperor made it seem completly nessescary for the bomb on Hiroshima to be dropped.

However, the bomb on Nagasaki was not as just. It was 3 days after the first one, and amidst all the chaos the Japanese were unable to prepare for the treaty to be made. Although, on the America's side, three days after the bombing was the only day with good weather for bombing for a long period of time. By the time they had to make a decision, they did not know what the japanese had planned on doing. And the thought of them fighting back was still very possible. It seems like a reasonable choice, judging from the japanese will to fight back.

All in all, the bombings seem justifiable, in order to reduce the expected amount of deaths in total, not just for the United States.

 

[subfield]

Your research is mostly accurate.

The Soviets were sweeping down towards Korea about the time the bombs were dropped. The other important fact was effective impossibility for the Imperials to acquire oil for ships and aircraft. Recall also the Tokyo fire bombings. The Japanese knew they stood no chance by this stage and these were some major reasons for their surrender.

The atom bombs contributed very little to the issue. The most that can be claimed with any sort of cogency is that they may have marginally hastened the Japanese surrender, and I would hesitate to say even that.

I always laugh inside when people claim the Japanese surrendered because the bombs were dropped. Those people usually, and in my experience always, have little to no knowledge of history. It saddens me that even 40% of the people voting think it was right. I wonder how many of them live in those so-called "democracies"?

 

[Anticitizen_Two]

I don't really know. I suppose it ended the war, but at the same time, so many innocent people were killed. It really didn't make us look much better than our opposition. But the war ended, and possibly more would have died had it continued on. So I'm not sure.

 

[LitleWaffle]

I always laugh inside when people claim the Japanese surrendered because the bombs were dropped.

Well it was because of Russia declaring war on the Japanese... That's not common knowledge?!

Edit: Oh and yes, the bombs had a part of the reason, but it was mostly just the Russians

 

[Tanto-chan]

killing innocent people is always bad but in the long run this bombing was for the better, I mean imagine the devastation that would have been unleashed if we hadn't dropped the bomb when we did. Millions more people could and almost surely would have died at a later date due to the same thing.

 

[Wounded Melody]

Why is so much better for bombs to kill soldiers? Yes we know they signed up for it, but to totally disregard them is awful.

 

[LitleWaffle]

The US government shouldn't have dropped the bomb and the Japanese government shouldn't have slaughtered a bunch of our people either.
"America" and "japan" are not to blame, the assholes running these nations are too blame for getting innocent people mixed up in their childish squabbles.

It wasn't that much of a childish squabble...

The japanese started with bombing pearl harbor in order to prevent the united states' navy from intervening with the planned japanese attack on southeast asia.

This is definetly the equivalant to a kid stealing another kid's cookie, thats for sure.

 

[Wounded Melody]

This is definetly the equivalant to a kid stealing another kid's cookie, thats for sure.

Or knocking his drink onto his shirt, if Robot Chicken is to be believed.

 

[LitleWaffle]

"they bombed us" way to generalize. You do realize that the nukes didn't magically kill only Japanese soldiers, right?

If you mean japanese civilians as well than just stop.

There was no such thing as a japanese civilian, they were all soldiers.