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

[matt87_50]

I don't think there is an easy answer to that question. but I do think its enough for the U.S. to take a little humble step back from their brazen policing of the world's WMDs and Nukes when they are the only country to have ever used them...

Edit:

on civilians no less...

 

[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.

Right, just like everyone who died in the WTC was just an enabler for a corrupt and power hungry government.
Don't you get it yet? it's all BS. It's just something they tell us to justify a horrible act or terrorism, and that's exactly what it was.The people who ordered that attack to happen are no better than the insane fanatics that organized the 9-11 attack. Maybe if you actually saw the damage a nuke does, you would understand what I'm trying to tell you.

1. I have seen the destruction of the bomb, so shut up.
2. You kind of mixed up the propaganda stuff there. We were told terrorists attacked us, not that they wanted a reason to attack iraq.
3. I'm not sure of your age, but i'm guessing you were after the baby boomers. The people that mainly caused that generation were WWII veterans. If operation downfall occured, you wouldn't be alive, so you should be a little grateful for that.
4. Even including the effects of the bomb today, the number of deaths, casualties even have not risen above the count of the expected deaths of operation downfall.
5. From #4, don't give me all that how can you be sure thats how many casualties there would have been shindigs. The battle of Okinawa had at least 319,000 deaths, more than both bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki combined(due to explosion), and only a little less than the bombings if you include the after effects up to today. They were ready for a land invasion, and them kamikazies pretty much stated they weren't going to give up until a while into operation downfall, even when they would have surrendered, the death count would have gone up much higher than deaths of all previous events.
6. What would you rather see, the after effects of the bombs or the battlefield right after operation downfall?

Edit: Considering #3, i have no idea where your from, so i'm not sure that would apply to you.

 

[Manji187]

Yes, I did misunderstood you, as I can't really comprehend why you feel it necessary to bring into a historical discussion all this philosophical nonsense concerning the nature of truth. Stating that an invasion of the Japanese homeland would have been the likely alternative to the nuking of Japan is a perfectly valid and defendable statement, and I suppose I just don't see the point in arguing against such a statement from a philosophical standpoint - it would make a lot more sense to argue against that statement from a historical perspective.

Ow, so I brought a gun to a fencing duel? Not fair What is it that people resent about philosophy anyway?

Why is it "nonsense" what I said? You disagree with my statement that a high probability does not equal certainty? That's not exactly a philosophical statement.

The reason "some people" try so feverishly to limit the discussion to one "perspective" is because they consciously or subconsciously steer towards the conclusion that the bombings were right...justified...necessary.

So in this case the line of reasoning went: if the Americans wouldn't have bombed Hiroshima/ Nagasaki...there would PROBABLY/ MOST LIKELY have been a protracted invasion...at the cost of lives. See..."the Americans were actually the good guys...they took less lives than they PROBABLY/ MOST LIKELY would have during an invasion". "They took a very hard decision with the right intentions". Well...no. That's not it.

The whole thing is an intellectual sleight of hand meant to lead the mind's eye away from a realization so hideous that every American wants to push it to the darkest corner of his mind and never look upon it in his entire life.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a cruel atrocity and one of the gravest crimes against humanity of the 20th century... "awarded" with impunity. That makes it a great injustice. Then again, few cases of "victor's justice" have been truly just.

Innocent human beings...men, women, children and elderly lost their lives either in the blast...or because of the subsequent radioactive aftermath SPANNING DECADES. Future generations, born with countless deformities. Such an atrocity is UNJUSTIFIABLE...because it is inhuman...twisted. Cold-blooded and merciless out of all proportion.

Hiroshima/ Nagasaki were the only two instances of a nuclear bomb being dropped on a civilian population so far. It was the first and last test..not just because of the subsequent possibility of a Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) scenario flowing from the fact that other major powers acquired a nuclear arsenal...but because humanity understood that such power cannot be just and does not belong in the hands of mere men...imperfect beings whose mastery of technology surpasses their "moral evolution".

 

[Susurrus]

For those of you who state Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atrocities: yes, of course. I'm not sure that's really in dispute. There's not really a way one can argue that the instantaneous oblieration of hundreds of thousands of people wasn't an attrocity.

As I see it, the argument is whether two massive atrocities can be weighed against the numerous smaller attrocities, found on every battlefield from Burma to Iwo Jima and prison camps like Changi, coupled with the weight of an unknowable but potentially greater casualty list than the two atom bombs created.

As an aside, I think reading "King Rat" is in order for anyone coming down on the side of the bombs being wrong. I'm not suggesting, necessarily, that you'll change your mind, but its worth knowing and understanding the kind of awful mental and physical anguish tens of thousands of allied troops underwent over an extended period of time.

 

[Commissar Sae]

Did I say I was American? I'm not.
It doesn't matter, that is not relavent. The people we killed were not the people committing those crimes. Find some videos of people suffering radiation sickness, read Wilfred Burchett's report on the whole thing. I don't imagine I'm going to change your mind on this, and I know you aren't going to chnage mine, so I will say goodbye. I strongly encourage you to read Burchett's report on this, if just to provide an alternative view.

And for you, sir. While I also appreciate your point of view about the people now suffering from radiation sickness. I think it's entirely relevant that you look at what he was talking about. Unit 731, just to name one. Look the Japanese atrocities against civilians and POWs for a little perspective, not for why the bombs should have been dropped or the war to end but why some of us despise them so much.

http://www.unit-731.com/

And remember, most these scientists escaped without trial and are successful businessmen in Japan. Just to get a little perspective.

Just so you know, the Japanese aren't the only ones who have done that kind of sick shit [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_experimentation_in_the_United_States#Surgical_experiments].

Japanese tortured POWs and EPWs
The Japanese tortured damned near every Chinese citizen they found.
They would find a pregnant woman, take bets on whether it was a boy or girl, then cut open the womb of the woman to let the baby out, then skewer the baby by throwing it into the air and letting it fall on their bayonets.
The Japanese would starve anyone who they captured.
The Japanese would kill themselves AND the American corpsman trying to help them if they were wounded. The Japanese would mutilate the bodies of the people they killed (cutting off the genitalia and stuffing it in the victim's mouth is the most popular way they did it). The Japanese taught their children to commit suicide rather than let Americans occupy their villages (on Okinawa)
The Japanese killed 20,000,000 innocent Chinese citizens. The VAST majority of whom were noncombatants.

In my opinion, the Japanese in the 1930s and 1940s are the most disgusting, vile, and atrocious human beings in modern warfare. I can't speak for the rest of history, seeing as I haven't studied it as thoroughly, but I'm pretty sure they're up there for the most fucked up human beings of all time.

Americans tortured and executed Japanese POWS
Americans Raped thousands of Japanese and Okinawan civilians
Americans would also mutilate bodies to make trophies
American pilots would strafe children playing in fields with machineguns
American bombing killed between 330,000 and 500,000 innocent civilians

The Pacific War wasn't clean for either side. Pointing the finger and saying "look how evil they were" is somewhat hypocritical. Neither side is looks all that good when you see how they conducted the war. You see the exact same things happening with the Soviets and Germans. Its what happens when a war becomes about race rather than about land or resources.

Also your China number is a bit off, since 20 million is the total number of chinese dead, including military. And the Civilian numbers are a tad skewed since amny were communist insurgents. That being said there was still a minimum of about 7 million executed Chinese civilians, so while not quite as high still insanely horrifying. (Consider the Canadian population at the time was less than 12 Mil.)

Edit: Wikipedia actually has a pretty good resource for casualties in WWII: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
For any other war I suggest: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm

 

[Susurrus]

I wonder if US atrocities committed during the course of the war with Japan are on the side of atomic bombing being the wrong thing to do, or just a further demonstration that one (two) big atrocities prevented innumberable smaller ones).

 

[Silva]

No, it wasn't right.

If what you say is true, then the Americans were bombing Japan for reasons other than defeating Japan in the war. Though, one of the stated reasons I've read before was so that it would "quicken" the end of the war, meaning less Allied deaths.

But that would just be an excuse, at least in the context of our modern thinking, which would suggest that every Japanese citizen is an equal in all essential human values to any citizen from the nations that once made up the Allies. After all, the Allied soldiers/civilians saved in a slightly faster end to the fight with Japan would simply not equal the raw number of Japanese civilians allowed to continue living by not dropping the bombs. In short, it's possible that there were some racist motivations for the bomb dropping. I won't assert that, as it's just theory based on what I know about the times and the propaganda against Japan in that era, but it's quite possible.

The results of those bomb strikes were greater than just carpet bombs or the little things used in the rest of the war. They started the Cold War, and so, in their own way, they started basically every minor war AFTER WWII by creating Cold War tensions that made America so scared of Russia that they went to war with any nation that they thought was at any risk of becoming communist.

In fact, these bomb strikes had a large part in shaping the world as it is today; that is to say, it made humanity in the most general sense more conscious of its own potentially imminent death, and therefore more likely to experience paranoia and deranged fantasies of any possible catastrophe. Most grave of all, is the risk that those fantasies may prove right because these nukes were used, and because some stupid idiot with the Big Red Button might think, "oh, the Americans shot it at Japan out of military necessity, so I'm no worse than they are" and press that button as a consequence.

Pointing out that this was done in wartime is not a fair excuse. The act was not on the same moral scale as a few bombs that accidentally killed civilians. This was two gigantic explosions unleashed intentionally on cities with millions of people inside. It was not war: it was the textbook definition of genocide. America and Japan have officially recognised this many times, I hope the citizens in this thread can do so as well, and stop pretending that this was some heroic act.

Of course, in the modern era of non-proliferation treaties and careful backing down from Russia-US tensions, it's unlikely that America will ever do this again. Thank goodness for that.

I wonder if US atrocities committed during the course of the war with Japan are on the side of atomic bombing being the wrong thing to do, or just a further demonstration that one (two) big atrocities prevented innumberable smaller ones).

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings didn't "prevent innumerable smaller" atrocities. Instead, they caused innumerable smaller ones. Their names are Vietnam, Korea, Gulf, and in an indirect way Iraq and Afghanistan. The current wars are merely a flow-on current from tensions created in the wars that were made because America was scared (irrationally) of Russia taking over the Middle East or parts of Asia in an ideological way, gaining allies in the process as they have with China. America was scared of Russia because of its growing nuclear capabilities. Russia HAD growing nuclear capabilities because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[Sephychu]

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.

Indeed they do, so I guess it just depends on how you see it.

 

[spartandude]

How are any of we to know?

It's funny - some people in this thread are claiming that Japan were about to surrender anyway, and other people are claiming that they would have fought until the last man. Someone has gotta be wrong.

the japanise fihting til the last was false, although there was alot of propoganda and 1 isolated case of arming school girls with knives, several japanise generals had surrendered them selves and their soldiers to the americans, all the japanise miltitary, economic and every oneelse was telling the emporer to surrender

and before the first bomb, they actually offered a conditional surrender, but the americans wanted it to be unconditional (despite the japanise having resonable terms) and then droped two bombs, after that they accepted a conditional surrender

 

[Biscotti187]

I respect and in fact agree with your opinion but in the context of WW2 era Japan I hasten to remind that on Japanese islands that were occupied apart from the mainland (not ones that the japanese themselves invaded but were considered native Japan i.e. Iwo Jima) there often mass suicides by civilians, the exception being when Japanese army officers weren't present. So this throw the argument back to which would have killed more people, invasion or bombs? Personally, I think that given the history that we have (and in terms of civilian deaths) the bombs were the better choice but it still is trying to trade a lot of dead people for a little dead people which reeks a bit too much of someone playing god to me.

This is a response to: 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. (posted on the first page)

 

[JordanMillward_1]

This is a response to: 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. (posted on the first page)

I agree with this.

 

[Warforger]

I don't get this, chances are that if they didn't drop the bombs not only would have many more civilians died, but many American soldiers as well, if anything the bombings saved more lives then it took.

And its war, civilians die, in this case it was an all out war, frankly I don't see the same argument made for the British and American bombing campaign in Germany, which combined had the effect of 7 nukes IIRC, civilian targets were there, and many more died, yet no one really does bring it up, I mean Churchill suggested using chemical weapons against them! That was something banned after WWI, that should also be a clue this was all out war.

 

[SonicKoala]

Ow, so I brought a gun to a fencing duel? Not fair What is it that people resent about philosophy anyway?

I don't necessarily "resent" philosophy, but I prefer to dabble in matters which are less ambiguous - sure, philosophy can be interesting, but it's not really my "thing", I guess you could say.

Why is it "nonsense" what I said? You disagree with my statement that a high probability does not equal certainty? That's not exactly a philosophical statement.

I agree that a high probability doesn't always equal certainty, but this is an entirely different issue. We are dealing with historical facts which we can look back on in an objective manner, and from those draw conclusions. Had the nuking of Japan not taken place, the Americans would have resorted to some other means in order to get the Japanese to surrender, in which case there were essentially two options; "starve" them out of the war, or inititate a full-scale invasion of the mainland - top military officials in the U.S. were already preparing for such an event when it was decided nuclear weapons would be used, and thus stating that an invasion would have taken place is not speculation, it is a fact which can be corroborated with evidence that is available to us.

The reason "some people" try so feverishly to limit the discussion to one "perspective" is because they consciously or subconsciously steer towards the conclusion that the bombings were right...justified...necessary.

They were necessary, and they were justified - what was the alternative?

So in this case the line of reasoning went: if the Americans wouldn't have bombed Hiroshima/ Nagasaki...there would PROBABLY/ MOST LIKELY have been a protracted invasion...at the cost of lives. See..."the Americans were actually the good guys...they took less lives than they PROBABLY/ MOST LIKELY would have during an invasion". "They took a very hard decision with the right intentions". Well...no. That's not it.

The whole thing is an intellectual sleight of hand meant to lead the mind's eye away from a realization so hideous that every American wants to push it to the darkest corner of his mind and never look upon it in his entire life.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a cruel atrocity and one of the gravest crimes against humanity of the 20th century... "awarded" with impunity. That makes it a great injustice. Then again, few cases of "victor's justice" have been truly just.

Nobody is denying that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atrocious occurences, but you can't look at an incredibly complex situation in such a cut and dry manner. The Japanese were absoloutely relentless in their determination to keep on fighting the United States - nobody can deny that. Had the nuking of Japan not taken place, there would have remained two alternatives to defeating the Japanese - a military blockade, thus essentially "starving" the Japanese out of the war (yeah, that sounds really moral), or a full-scale military invasion.

In terms of the human life that would have been lost, an invasion would have produced far more casualties than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - the invasion would have led to the deaths of not only countless Japanese, but also hundreds of thousands more American lives (some estimates speculate that as many as 1,000,000 casualties would have been had on the American side).

One should also realise that nobody (not even the scientists who built the atom bomb) had a real clear idea of what exactly would happen when the bomb dropped. They had no knowledge of the eventual radioactive fallout (and thus criticising anyone on that issue is pretty much pointless), and the only test that had been made was with a considerably smaller model of the atom bomb. Hiroshima was essentially the first full-scale test.

And really, put yourself in Harry Truman's position - your country has just been at war for almost 4 years, and tens of thousands of Americans have died fighting in the Pacific. People are desperate to end the war - are you really going to risk hundreds of thousands more American lives, or are you going to use this new weapon which could potentially end the war immediately? The U.S. had spent billions of dollars on the atom bomb - were they just going to put it away and never use it? That doesn't even make any sense. Yes, it's easy enough to point out how terrible and immoral the bombings were when we look back on history, but to actually be in that time period is an entirely different situation. This is a war where over 60 million people died - although this may seem cold hearted (which it is), another 200,000 or so dead really does not seem like that big of a deal when you actually put things into perspective.

But then again, I don't think morality has any place in a historical debate, either. After all, who are we to say what's right and wrong? Yeah, the majority of people have pretty well-defined moral standards, but I believe someone once told me that just because the majority of people believe something doesn't necessarily make it right - oh right, that was you.

Hiroshima/ Nagasaki were the only two instances of a nuclear bomb being dropped on a civilian population so far. It was the first and last test..not just because of the subsequent possibility of a Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) scenario flowing from the fact that other major powers acquired a nuclear arsenal...but because humanity understood that such power cannot be just and does not belong in the hands of mere men...imperfect beings whose mastery of technology surpasses their "moral evolution".

Yeah, and had the bombs not been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they would have been used eventually - no nation is going to spend billions of dollars developing a weapon, and then not use it. Thus, even more lives could have potentially been lost when the atom bomb was eventually used. The bombings of those two cities were a horrendous, but necessary occurence which ultimately bettered humanity in the long run - it is because of those incidents that nukes have never been used since, and in my personal opinion, although it was certainly a harsh lesson, it was a worthwhile occurence.

 

[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.

Right, just like everyone who died in the WTC was just an enabler for a corrupt and power hungry government.
Don't you get it yet? it's all BS. It's just something they tell us to justify a horrible act or terrorism, and that's exactly what it was.The people who ordered that attack to happen are no better than the insane fanatics that organized the 9-11 attack. Maybe if you actually saw the damage a nuke does, you would understand what I'm trying to tell you.

1. I have seen the destruction of the bomb, so shut up.
2. You kind of mixed up the propaganda stuff there. We were told terrorists attacked us, not that they wanted a reason to attack iraq.
3. I'm not sure of your age, but i'm guessing you were after the baby boomers. The people that mainly caused that generation were WWII veterans. If operation downfall occured, you wouldn't be alive, so you should be a little grateful for that.
4. Even including the effects of the bomb today, the number of deaths, casualties even have not risen above the count of the expected deaths of operation downfall.
5. From #4, don't give me all that how can you be sure thats how many casualties there would have been shindigs. The battle of Okinawa had at least 319,000 deaths, more than both bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki combined(due to explosion), and only a little less than the bombings if you include the after effects up to today. They were ready for a land invasion, and them kamikazies pretty much stated they weren't going to give up until a while into operation downfall, even when they would have surrendered, the death count would have gone up much higher than deaths of all previous events.
6. What would you rather see, the after effects of the bombs or the battlefield right after operation downfall?

Edit: Considering #3, i have no idea where your from, so i'm not sure that would apply to you.

ok you don't like my point of view so you resort to childish insults, very mature.
Don't assume you know everything about me because i don't justify the deaths of innocent people. To be honest, I really don't like people. I could care less about the people who died, I just hate when self righteous people justify acts because they can't admit that their bloodthirsty animals.

I'll admit, I've changed my views. I think it was fine that they nuked japan, and it was fine that japan attacked Pearl Harbor. After seeing how little people care about human life, why should I care about it either?
BTW you have no way of knowing how many deaths "there would have been" this is not my opinion, its common knowledge. Nobody can predict alternative futures accurately. Do you really assume you know everything about this subject because you read about it? Haven't you ever noticed how many contradictions there are in history books?
How can you possibly have enough information (that you know is factual) to make such an assumption? You can't, nobody can.
I've tried to explain that you can justify any act by using that logic, but obviously you have your view on this and your not willing to see it any other way. The way i see it, i agree with you on one part. The nukes were fine, they should have laid waste to the entire country. I think they should also launch that nuclear stockpile everywhere else on the planet and let them nuke us back. I'm not being sarcastic, I honestly don't care anymore. It's the same everywhere, people only care about themselves. If your not the one getting nuked, it was acceptable to you. That disgusts me enough to actually agree with you, because that country was filled with people just like you, and they were probably just as willing to accept a nuke being dropped on us by their government. It's a sick world and nobody really deserves to live.

"3. I'm not sure of your age, but i'm guessing you were after the baby boomers. The people that mainly caused that generation were WWII veterans. If operation downfall occured, you wouldn't be alive, so you should be a little grateful for that."
That makes no sense at all, why should i be grateful for that? Do you really think life is so precious and sweet that I should be happy to be alive?

Okay, number 2 was not a childish insult, it was just pointing out that you mixed it up.

And sorry if i misled you, i didn't mean that the bombings were a good thing, just that it was the better of the bad choices. Both options were terrible, but i think that the bombings were not as bad as the would be Operation Downfall.
I'm not going to respond to your retalliation to number 3 because that would be for another thread.

 

[Indiscrimi]

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?

Are you listening to me? American troops would not have had to go into Japan because THEY WERE TRYING TO SURRENDER. Way to quote me selectively.

Also, I did not say that every Japanese person was innocent, only that not every Japanese person was guilty. And no, you did not bomb a town full of nuns and puppies, but you did drop a bomb directly on the missionary quarter of Hiroshima.

If you wish to debate this further, I suggest that you take it up with Gore Vidal, author of Imperial America. He fought in the pacific and knows exactly what happened.

 

[Warforger]

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?

Are you listening to me? American troops would not have had to go into Japan because THEY WERE TRYING TO SURRENDER. Way to quote me selectively.

Yes, let them surrender on their own terms and continue terrorizing Asia, keep their military then later on fight America again and possibly win. That, and if they didn't surrender chances are the Russians would've invaded since their not obliged, after all they ignored US plea's for a while to invade Korea and it wasn't until the end that they did, if the US just stood around, either a) the same thing would happen many years later or b) Japan will become a Communist state for the Russians and the US would lose nearly all its influence in Asia, well that is if something like what happened with the USSR and China didn't happen, or the US would fight the Russians.

Also, I did not say that every Japanese person was innocent, only that not every Japanese person was guilty. And no, you did not bomb a town full of nuns and puppies, but you did drop a bomb directly on the missionary quarter of Hiroshima.

Well again, the Japanese attempted bombing of American innocents (they made a submarine which could transport a bomber and let it fly, the bomber flew to Nevada I think but completely missed its target and got shot down), the Germans had been doing it for a long time now, as well as the British (where like I pointed out, had dropped a equivalent of about 7 nukes on Nazi Germany, but no one talks about it as much as the nuclear bombing) so we really shouldn't be just nit picking the nuclear bombings and just talk about bombing of civilian targets ever since aerial bombing existed when the Italians first did it in Libya in 1911 and bombed a hospital (although at the time it was shit, so it didn't do much, I mean fuck Zeppelins had artillery guns pointing down, not bombs because the technology didn't come for good bombs yet) when its morality was discussed, but then again, the world wars were total wars, meaning all sides did all they could to win, if you ain't cheatin' you ain't winnin'

If you wish to debate this further, I suggest that you take it up with Gore Vidal, author of Imperial America. He fought in the pacific and knows exactly what happened.

Imperial America? Look at the aftermath of WWII Japan, American businessmen saw that they could make alot of money by outsourcing the jobs to lower paying, and more loyal workers, Sony was formed in 1950, imagine how it would be if Japan had got out of the war the way it wanted too, life wouldn't be different, Japan would be far more uncivilized and imperial, as after all they had stuck the middle finger to agreements to not invade China, now they rival America, and your telling me America is the empire? If anything America mostly just invades, occupies for a while then leaves, this is similar to what Britain did with its colonies, provide protection while they figure the shit out for themselves.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

I think the main problem is that no one can fucking get along, its human nature I suppose and there not much any of us can do about it. And why the fuck are we casting blame? If it were left up to anyone of us we would probably make things worse, so how can we be the judge?

 

[Manji187]

I agree that a high probability doesn't always equal certainty, but this is an entirely different issue. We are dealing with historical facts which we can look back on in an objective manner, and from those draw conclusions. Had the nuking of Japan not taken place, the Americans would have resorted to some other means in order to get the Japanese to surrender, in which case there were essentially two options; "starve" them out of the war, or inititate a full-scale invasion of the mainland - top military officials in the U.S. were already preparing for such an event when it was decided nuclear weapons would be used, and thus stating that an invasion would have taken place is not speculation, it is a fact which can be corroborated with evidence that is available to us.

Nobody is denying that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atrocious occurences, but you can't look at an incredibly complex situation in such a cut and dry manner. The Japanese were absoloutely relentless in their determination to keep on fighting the United States - nobody can deny that. Had the nuking of Japan not taken place, there would have remained two alternatives to defeating the Japanese - a military blockade, thus essentially "starving" the Japanese out of the war (yeah, that sounds really moral), or a full-scale military invasion.

In terms of the human life that would have been lost, an invasion would have produced far more casualties than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - the invasion would have led to the deaths of not only countless Japanese, but also hundreds of thousands more American lives (some estimates speculate that as many as 1,000,000 casualties would have been had on the American side).

One should also realise that nobody (not even the scientists who built the atom bomb) had a real clear idea of what exactly would happen when the bomb dropped. They had no knowledge of the eventual radioactive fallout (and thus criticising anyone on that issue is pretty much pointless), and the only test that had been made was with a considerably smaller model of the atom bomb. Hiroshima was essentially the first full-scale test.

And really, put yourself in Harry Truman's position - your country has just been at war for almost 4 years, and tens of thousands of Americans have died fighting in the Pacific. People are desperate to end the war - are you really going to risk hundreds of thousands more American lives, or are you going to use this new weapon which could potentially end the war immediately? The U.S. had spent billions of dollars on the atom bomb - were they just going to put it away and never use it? That doesn't even make any sense. Yes, it's easy enough to point out how terrible and immoral the bombings were when we look back on history, but to actually be in that time period is an entirely different situation. This is a war where over 60 million people died - although this may seem cold hearted (which it is), another 200,000 or so dead really does not seem like that big of a deal when you actually put things into perspective.

But then again, I don't think morality has any place in a historical debate, either. After all, who are we to say what's right and wrong? Yeah, the majority of people have pretty well-defined moral standards, but I believe someone once told me that just because the majority of people believe something doesn't necessarily make it right - oh right, that was you.

Yeah, and had the bombs not been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they would have been used eventually - no nation is going to spend billions of dollars developing a weapon, and then not use it. Thus, even more lives could have potentially been lost when the atom bomb was eventually used. The bombings of those two cities were a horrendous, but necessary occurence which ultimately bettered humanity in the long run - it is because of those incidents that nukes have never been used since, and in my personal opinion, although it was certainly a harsh lesson, it was a worthwhile occurence.

First off.. you do realize that even if it is true that nobody had knowledge of eventual radioactive fallout this is not an argument that can exclude liability/ responsibility for the consequences.

Second.. the statement: "Just because the majority of people believe something DOES NOT NECESSARILY make it right" flows from the fact that if any single human being can err...so can a group...no matter the size. Yes, people can err in their beliefs...they can also be right (not at the same time obviously)...but whether they are right or wrong DOES NOT DEPEND ON QUANTITATIVE MEASURING.

It seems you support the subjectivist approach (or "democratic" if you prefer)...if a high enough number of people say something is this or that...then it is for them. This can serve as an apology for all kinds of nasty things, ranging from various forms of slavery to discrimination, racism and even genocide. The AMORAL potential is huge.

"Who are we to say what's right and wrong?" Wow, that's a great attitude for creating a moral vacuum in which anybody can do anything.

Every human being has a moral compass called a conscience, the question is whether it is properly functioning. The fact that all human beings are moral creatures makes every human being entitled to make statements on what's right or wrong...but don't expect someone with a broken compass to find north for you.

So philosophy and morality is not allowed in a "historical" discussion...anything else that is not allowed? Why the lavish use of blinders, I wonder...

Third...

One of William Shakespeare's plays is called Measure for Measure. It deals with issues such as mercy, justice and truth and how they relate to pride and humility.

One of the valuable lessons that can be learned from it is that baseness (or moral depravity) always fiercely demands virtue to lower itself to the level of the former.

 

[SonicKoala]

First off.. you do realize that even if it is true that nobody had knowledge of eventual radioactive fallout this is not an argument that can exclude liability/ responsibility for the consequences.

Second.. the statement: "Just because the majority of people believe something DOES NOT NECESSARILY make it right" flows from the fact that if any single human being can err...so can a group...no matter the size. Yes, people can err in their beliefs...they can also be right (not at the same time obviously)...but whether they are right or wrong DOES NOT DEPEND ON QUANTITATIVE MEASURING.

It seems you support the subjectivist approach (or "democratic" if you prefer)...if a high enough number of people say something is this or that...then it is for them. This can serve as an apology for all kinds of nasty things, ranging from various forms of slavery to discrimination, racism and even genocide. The AMORAL potential is huge.

"Who are we to say what's right and wrong?" Wow, that's a great attitude for creating a moral vacuum in which anybody can do anything.

Every human being has a moral compass called a conscience, the question is whether it is properly functioning. The fact that all human beings are moral creatures makes every human being entitled to make statements on what's right or wrong...but don't expect someone with a broken compass to find north for you.

So philosophy and morality is not allowed in a "historical" discussion...anything else that is not allowed? Why the lavish use of blinders, I wonder...

Third...

One of William Shakespeare's plays is called Measure for Measure. It deals with issues such as mercy, justice and truth and how they relate to pride and humility.

One of the valuable lessons that can be learned from it is that baseness (or moral depravity) always fiercely demands virtue to lower itself to the level of the former.

It's nice to see that your this drawn-out reply had absoloutely no historical validity whatsoever, and I love how the only point you bothered addressing was the one which was filled with a heavy dose of sarcasm - your only argument in support of your position is that dropping the atomic bomb was "morally wrong"; really, in the context of history, that is a pretty pathetic argument. I'm fully aware that the killing of thousands of people is "wrong", but as I continue to reitorate, the nuking of Japan was an extremely complex issue, and you are relentless in trying to boil it down to nothing more than "well, people died, therefore it's bad".

I'll give it to you that perhaps philosophy and morality can play a role in a historical disccusion, but facts and evidence are far more important, and that seems to be an area you'd rather not deal with.