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

[Manji187]

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.

Hah...you trying to look all "nuanced" ey? Alright...here we go.

I don't deny it's a complex issue...it is in fact a Gordian knot...one made up of innocent life. The US choose the easy, morally corrupt, way out...they had a weapon that needed testing and they were still pissed at "the Japs" for attacking Pearl Harbor (sure it was sneaky...but Pearl Harbor was a military base...not a civilian site.)

In current International Humanitarian Law (Geneva Conventions of 1949) the same act would be labeled a war crime...you don't attack the civilian population...as they cannot be a military target. So what does this mean? It was perfectly ok to kill civilians before 1949?

Was slavery perfectly ok until it got abolished? Was racial discrimination perfectly ok until the rights movement?

It's not just "people died"...it's actually: a lot of INNOCENT people died in a horrible way and it didn't have to be like that.

F*ck tactics and strategy...f*ck politics and policy...human life is worth more than all that.

To have played God over the lives of innocent human beings who are essentially their equal...whose blood is equally red...who are born...who live...who breathe the same air...walk on the same planet under the same sun...who feel pain equally...who love and are loved...such quasi-God conduct by men over men...it is evil incarnate...it is blood that can never be washed away.

Your petty nuances mean absolutely nothing in the face of this universal truth...which indeed does exist.

 

[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.

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.

*sigh* I just knew that someone was going to get hung up on the title of the work. The title of Imperial America is not the issue - I only mentioned it to establish that the author is an authority of sorts. I have no issue with the capitalist system; it has done far more for me than Communism ever could have. (EDIT: Although your claim that the United States "mostly just invades, occupies for a while then leaves," is somewhat undermined by the fact that you maintain 737 military bases worldwide - some of them sixty years old.)

I also acknowledge that Allies other than the United States bombed civilians during World War II, and I make no attempt to justify those actions. They were wrong. They were all wrong. It was all morally reprehensible, regardless of speculation on strategic outcomes had it not been done.

That is what this thread is about: "Was it wrong...?" Yes, killing civilians is wrong. Yes, killing non-combatants is wrong. Yes, killing people who are trying to surrender is wrong (regardless of their terms). Whether or not it was necessary is an entirely other discussion, and it is one that will never truly be settled because speculation does not constitute fact. I refuse to be drawn into such a frivolous debate.

 

[Warforger]

*sigh* I just knew that someone was going to get hung up on the title of the work. The title of Imperial America is not the issue - I only mentioned it to establish that the author is an authority of sorts. I have no issue with the capitalist system; it has done far more for me than Communism ever could have. (EDIT: Although your claim that the United States "mostly just invades, occupies for a while then leaves," is somewhat undermined by the fact that you maintain 737 military bases worldwide - some of them sixty years old.)

Yes, they keep military bases, with the countries permission.

I also acknowledge that Allies other than the United States bombed civilians during World War II, and I make no attempt to justify those actions. They were wrong. They were all wrong. It was all morally reprehensible, regardless of speculation on strategic outcomes had it not been done.

LIKE EVERY OTHER WAR.

That is what this thread is about: "Was it wrong...?" Yes, killing civilians is wrong. Yes, killing non-combatants is wrong. Yes, killing people who are trying to surrender is wrong (regardless of their terms). Whether or not it was necessary is an entirely other discussion, and it is one that will never truly be settled because speculation does not constitute fact. I refuse to be drawn into such a frivolous debate.

NOT IN ALL OUT WAR. Like I said this was all out war, meaning you do whatever you can to win, civilians build the guns, they build the bullets, they pay the government to do their work.

Again if we let them surrender on their own terms guess what would happen? MANY more Chinese civilians would be killed, there were already 7 million dead Chinese civilians killed by Japanese soldiers, thats more then the amount of Jews that died in the Holocaust, if we did invade the mainland many more Japanese civilians would've died. In the short term it was bad, but in the long term many more lives were saved.

 

[SonicKoala]

Hah...you trying to look all "nuanced" ey? Alright...here we go.

I don't deny it's a complex issue...it is in fact a Gordian knot...one made up of innocent life. The US choose the easy, morally corrupt, way out...they had a weapon that needed testing and they were still pissed at "the Japs" for attacking Pearl Harbor (sure it was sneaky...but Pearl Harbor was a military base...not a civilian site.)

In current International Humanitarian Law (Geneva Conventions of 1949) the same act would be labeled a war crime...you don't attack the civilian population...as they cannot be a military target. So what does this mean? It was perfectly ok to kill civilians before 1949?

Well, once again you are letting your "morals" get in the way of logic - speaking from a strictly legal perspective, the attacking of civilian populations at this time was not against international law, and thus the United States was not doing anything illegal - this fact was recognized elsewhere after the war. The "Blitz" of London was not one of the charges brought against Hermann Goring during the Nuremburg Trials.

And you're also blatantly ignoring the strategic importance of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Hiroshima was the headquarters of the 2nd General Army, as well as being a significant communication hub, a rallying point for troops, and the location of a number of military factories. Hell, some 40,000 Japanese troops were stationed in Hiroshima; this makes it a perfectly viable military target. Nagasaki, as well, was the site of significant industrial activity, and produced a variety of war materials.

It's not just "people died"...it's actually: a lot of INNOCENT people died in a horrible way and it didn't have to be like that.

And here lies one of the most significant aspects of this question - what was the alternative? A military invasion? Estimates conclude that nearly 1 million American casualties would have been had if such an operation would carried out, with millions more on the Japanese side, a number which is significantly greater than the 250,000 or so casualties suffered from the bombings. It's also important to note that the Japanese War Ministry had passed a referendum ordering the execution of almost 100,000 POWs if an invasion of Japan took place.

Even those who oppose the bombings conclude that, in order for Japan to surrender, conventional fire bombings would have had to continue - almost 100,000 people died in Tokyo as a result of those fire bombings, and thousands more would have died if these attacks would have continued. Furthermore, these would have been taking place at the same time as the U.S. Naval Blockade was in place, appropriately codenamed "Operation Starvation" - at around the time that the atomic bombs were dropped, an American attack against Japanese railway lines was going to take place, something which would have isolated the cities of Honshu from the food grown elsewhere on the Japanese home islands, an event which would have led to the starvation of millions of Japanese.

Yes, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a horrible atrocity which led to the deaths of thousands of men, women, and children in those cities; had they not taken place, however, the war would have continued on for many more months, leading to the deaths far more Japanese than the atomic bombs caused.

F*ck tactics and strategy...f*ck politics and policy...human life is worth more than all that.

To have played God over the lives of innocent human beings who are essentially their equal...whose blood is equally red...who are born...who live...who breathe the same air...walk on the same planet under the same sun...who feel pain equally...who love and are loved...such quasi-God conduct by men over men...it is evil incarnate...it is blood that can never be washed away.

Your petty nuances mean absolutely nothing in the face of this universal truth...which indeed does exist.

Yeah, but without the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, MORE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE ULTIMATELY DIED. It was an atrocity, yes, but it was necessary. You are persistant in looking at this event from a very 21st century Humanitarian perspective, while blatantly ignoring the realities of the time.

And finally, look at what the Japanese did during World War 2 - It is estimated that, between the years of 1937-1945, the Japanese military murdered somewhere along the lines of ten million people (including prisoners of war), and most of these were civilians. The Nanking Massacre saw the Japanese kill 300,000 civilians, more than the deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. The Japanese military were following their infamous "scorched earth" strategy, in which they were ordered (by Hirohito himself) to ""Kill All, Burn All, and Loot All".

And let's not forget the millions of people who starved to death as a result of the Japanese purposefully diverting resources in order to feed both the military, and the home islands. Millions of civilians in Southeast Asia died between 1944-1945 as a result of these very tactics, including 10% of the population of Vietnam. Forced labour, scientific experimentations, the horrific experiences of the "Comfort Women" in Korea where thousands of women were forced into sex slavery by the Japanese.....

This is the reality of World War 2 - yes, thousands of innocent people died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a result of those bombs, but look at the horrors that the Japanese brought upon millions of civilians throughout the Asian continent. I'm going to be bold for a minute, and state that what happened on August 6th and August 9th of 1945, considering what happened during the earlier years of WW2, is perfectly justified. Was it wrong to drop the atomic bombs in Japan - no, it wasn't. In comparison to the alternatives available, it actually saved more lives than it destroyed, and frankly, the Japanese had it coming.

 

[Isalan]

It was defintely wrong. Shoulda hit France, me and the rest of europe could be recolonising the place with nicer smelling cheese and regrowing the vinyards as we speak.

 

[hightide]

No way can most people can approach this subject without bias because of what the Atomic Bomb has become. Also, people against the bombing often bring up civilians but ignore the Fire Bombing of Tokyo even though it arguably killed more civilians... Probably cause it is too boring and we don't have to worry about fire bombs wiping out the human race.

 

[L-J-F]

I probably should research it a bit more, but it would seem to be a bit of a bad move to drop the bombs, Japan was already gone, sure, it would have taken longer, but they wouldn't even have had to invade, Japan was falling.

Also, as to the soldiers/civilians debate, it also angers me when people say it's okay for soldiers to die but not for civilians. "Oh 50 soldiers died but CIVILIANS were killed and wounded!" is such a bad attitude, we are all people, I respect soldiers more than civilians in many cases due to the fact they are willing to sacrifice themselves for other people, is the life of someone who sacrifices himself for another worth less than the complacent person who does nothing?

- Another thing, WE won the war, therefore it was the right thing to do. You'll notice that "good" always wins, I mean, most of the time? Guess why? Did you know that Alexander the great had a propaganda force? Alexander the "Great" was a murderous dictator with a short temper - yet most people seem to think he was this great guy, because of the propaganda, America won the war, therefor, America's account and those of it's allies will be heard while the defeated will not. The USSR went from being the good guys to the bad guys in a year, why? WE'D be the bad guys if the USSR had won the cold war.

 

[Giantcain]

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

at the cost of killing two Whole cities of fairly innocent people who had nothing to do with the war was the cost of ending a war leaving a huge grudge between two countries that will probably never be healed.

 

[Giantcain]

It was defintely wrong. Shoulda hit France, me and the rest of europe could be recolonising the place with nicer smelling cheese and regrowing the vinyards as we speak.

no we would be dying via high concentration radiation if it hit France and we were trying to plant thing there and live there as there is still high radiation coming from where those bombs hit and anybody living near those impact areas and a large radius around the impact area will be having or having serious problem like birth deformations a deficiency's and quite a lot of cancer you get the picture if they hit France we would just have a huge danger no enter zone for the next about 500 years.

 

[nightwolf667]

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

at the cost of killing two Whole cities of fairly innocent people who had nothing to do with the war was the cost of ending a war leaving a huge grudge between two countries that will probably never be healed.

That's mostly wrong for reasons already discussed in this thread and even if it was right, Japan is to this day a military protectorate of the United States. They are the only country on this planet that is prohibited by a treaty they signed with America at the end WWII from having a standing army. Even if they wanted to do something about it, they can't because America owns their ass and that's not likely to change any time soon.

 

[Starke]

I'm going to make a blanket statement here. Those of you who are arguing that the nukes were an unconscionable act. You are all, irrevocably, full of shit. And I can prove it.

If you gave a shit about civilian deaths, then you'd be looking at the civilian deaths that were inflicted by the Japanese. You're not.

If you wanted to paint the US as an imperialistic power, there are far better examples in history. Even involving Japan. The Black Fleet comes to mind. But, seeing as I haven't seen word one on that, you don't care about it.

If you wanted to paint the US as the bad guys, you'd be looking at things like the firebombing of Japanese cities earlier in the war, or the firebombing of Dresden, or examples from outside of World War II, like, say, the Vietnam War, with the Kent State Massacre, or Mai Lai, both of which get double duty for having civilian deaths. Or fuck, the Vietnam War itself, a war we entered into to support the French Colonial system. Yes, to support colonialism.

But, you don't. You don't give a shit about any of that. Because the Vietnamese didn't produce Bubblegum Crisis, or Final Fantasy VII, or Akira Kurosawa. You don't care about the civilians at all. You don't. Otherwise, when people who know what the fuck they're talking about come in here and talk about the monumental death tolls inflicted by the Japanese, you'd fucking listen. But, you can't. And I understand that, because you're fanboys. You're otaku, who can't pull their head away from a rerun of Bleach long enough to realize that they are defending the single imperialistic power in WWII that made the Nazis look like goddamn boyscouts. Bet you never thought you'd see a Godwin invocation like that.

When you look at the debt of blood that Japan inflicted in WWII, the only way to balance it out would have been to exterminate every single man woman and child on the main islands in the most horrific ways possible. The deployment of nuclear weapons was a mercy. And, in all honesty, and in possession of all the facts, it isn't a mercy I would have extended them.

You don't give a shit about civilian lives. You don't care. You just want to sound cool. You just want to defend your fandom. Well, guess what? Your fandom murdered the equivalent of Canada multiple times in the war. The entire population of Canada, gone, twice. And they did it in malicious, disgusting, hateful ways, that make the Nazis look clinical and merciful in comparison, and I know how fucked up the things the Germans did.

If you can't look at the shit groups like Unit 731 pulled without getting sick to your stomach, you shouldn't be defending them in this thread. If the only way you can handle it is by trying to bullshit your way out of it, saying it was all propaganda, it wasn't.

 

[smallharmlesskitten]

Double post...

 

[smallharmlesskitten]

I'm going to make a blanket statement here. Those of you who are arguing that the nukes were an unconscionable act. You are all, irrevocably, full of shit. And I can prove it.

If you gave a shit about civilian deaths, then you'd be looking at the civilian deaths that were inflicted by the Japanese. You're not.

If you wanted to paint the US as an imperialistic power, there are far better examples in history. Even involving Japan. The Black Fleet comes to mind. But, seeing as I haven't seen word one on that, you don't care about it.

If you wanted to paint the US as the bad guys, you'd be looking at things like the firebombing of Japanese cities earlier in the war, or the firebombing of Dresden, or examples from outside of World War II, like, say, the Vietnam War, with the Kent State Massacre, or Mai Lai, both of which get double duty for having civilian deaths. Or fuck, the Vietnam War itself, a war we entered into to support the French Colonial system. Yes, to support colonialism.

But, you don't. You don't give a shit about any of that. Because the Vietnamese didn't produce Bubblegum Crisis, or Final Fantasy VII, or Akira Kurosawa. You don't care about the civilians at all. You don't. Otherwise, when people who know what the fuck they're talking about come in here and talk about the monumental death tolls inflicted by the Japanese, you'd fucking listen. But, you can't. And I understand that, because you're fanboys. You're otaku, who can't pull their head away from a rerun of Bleach long enough to realize that they are defending the single imperialistic power in WWII that made the Nazis look like goddamn boyscouts. Bet you never thought you'd see a Godwin invocation like that.

When you look at the debt of blood that Japan inflicted in WWII, the only way to balance it out would have been to exterminate every single man woman and child on the main islands in the most horrific ways possible. The deployment of nuclear weapons was a mercy. And, in all honesty, and in possession of all the facts, it isn't a mercy I would have extended them.

You don't give a shit about civilian lives. You don't care. You just want to sound cool. You just want to defend your fandom. Well, guess what? Your fandom murdered the equivalent of Canada multiple times in the war. The entire population of Canada, gone, twice. And they did it in malicious, disgusting, hateful ways, that make the Nazis look clinical and merciful in comparison, and I know how fucked up the things the Germans did.

If you can't look at the shit groups like Unit 731 pulled without getting sick to your stomach, you shouldn't be defending them in this thread. If the only way you can handle it is by trying to bullshit your way out of it, saying it was all propaganda, it wasn't.

I love you Starke. ....<3.

I am now enjoying the IRC debate about this.

 

[Nikolai Smirnov]

well it just ended the war. to show that we were getting serious

 

[angelrubio]

I say Japan should drop a couple of nukes in a couple of good old American cities: All is fair and everyone would be happy. ^_^

 

[atomicmrpelly]

What's that expression? "All's fair in love and war."

 

[Ghost]

Yes, as far as I know it was purely aimed at killing as many civilians as possible, and that its effects are still messing up unborn babies to this day? Though I barely know anything about the battles in the East during WW2, I have only studied the major battles relating directly to Germany and Italy.

 

[mrpenguinismyhomeboy]

The fire bombing of Dresden killed more people, I think.