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

[DrunkWithPower]

Strangely, yes and no. Wrong for the loss of civilian life yet right because if it wasn't the U.S. doing it, Japan (if I'm not mistaken) was going to do something to the similar degree to the U.S.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

It was over 40 years ago and in all honesty was it wrong to drop bombs on pearl harbor?

Yes. However, killing 40.000 civilians is worse than what the Japanese did at Pear Harbor + let's not forget the radiation poisoning that occurred after dropping of the bombs. The USA did way more damage than it should have done.

 

[CowboyfromHell666]

It wasn't completely necessary to do it, however, would the Americans have engaged them on land we would have lost many more men to the Japanese armies because at the time those soldiers would not have surrendered until the Emperor had given the final word. The bomb was our way of telling them "we aren't fucking around here"

This is exactly it. Plus the Japanese wouldn't have surrendered had we invaded, which would have meant a great loss in Japanese lives, AND I looked this up too, every man, woman, and child would've fought against our soldiers, so basically there wouldn't have been many Japanese left.

 

[Mortons4ck]

-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 bombs certainly did end the war in the Pacific. Whether or not it could have been won without them is debatable (and difficult to prove either way), but leveling a city with a single explosion sends a pretty strong message.

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

I'm not saying we should use nuclear weapons ever again, but if you add up the death toll and compare it to what would have resulted from a drawn-out war with Japan, the bombs probably killed fewer people.

^What this guy said. The Japanese probably would of killed themselves fighting us, even very young children and women.

Although I still can't decide whether the answer is a yes, I'm leaning towards it.

1940's Japan was NOT the quirky but lovable country we know today.

Seeing as Japan was training children as young as 12 to run under American tanks with a satchel full of explosives then detonate themselves, I'm inclined to believe this.

Japan had little disregard for the lives of its civilians (as seen during the battle of Okinawa). Civilians were viewed as little more than a human shields to be exploited by the Japanese Army. The Japanese Army also confiscated food from their civilians and executed those who hid it, and also executed any Japanese civilian who spoke a different dialect (an efficient way to cut back on spying in their view). America was more concerned about Japanese civilians than Japan was.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both military targets. Hiroshima was the headquarters of the Second Army (under Field Marshal Shunroku Hata), the Chugoku Regional Army, and held a large amount of supplies and munitions. It was hugely important to the Japanese war effort.

Nagasaki was a large military-industrial center that churned out ships, ordinance, and other raw materials. It is also interesting to note that Japan utilized British POWs as slave labor to perform work in the coal mines that would be too dangerous for Japanese.

The loss of civilian life was regrettable, but to reiterate, these were NOT civilian targets with no strategic importance.

 

[Manatee Slayer]

The OP could have tried to make the case for dropping the bombs too, thus showing he/she had considered both sides of the argument.

To be honest I kind of expected most people to know the arguments for dropping the bomb, as many have shown they do. Anyway, I have added a link in the first post will a decent list of pros and cons.

 

[Bagaloo]

Yes, it was wrong.

But then, war in general is not a very pleasant thing. Either way, lots of people would have died. However, what made me lean towards voting yes was that at least if you kill someone with bullets and non-radioactive bombs, that is the only damage it causes. The nuclear bombs have caused countless deformities and deaths decades after the fact. It's like someone placed a DoT on a couple of cities.

 

[BioHazardMan]

It wasn't completely necessary to do it, however, would the Americans have engaged them on land we would have lost many more men to the Japanese armies because at the time those soldiers would not have surrendered until the Emperor had given the final word. The bomb was our way of telling them "we aren't fucking around here"

This was exactly what I was going to post. We could have won without the bomb, but we would have lost a ton of men, and not to mention a large amount of resources in the process. Japan might have lost more people to that fight than being bombed if you think about it.

 

[Gilhelmi]

Two, wouldn't you change your mind after two bombs leveled two cities, and killed loads of people. I know that if someone dropped two A-Bombs on my country, I'd have the treaty written real fuckin' quick.

If my belief was to fight until the last man...probably not...

This is one thing I like to point out. The Japanese are not a hive mind. A common response to this question is "they would never surrender" and even worse, "the citizens were trained to kill US soldiers if they invaded. Even school girls." However, while that element was certainly present, it doesn't represent the entire populace.

I believe it was the island of Saipan where thousands of japanese civilians jumped off a cliff rather than face American occupation. It may not have been the mindset of the entire population, but i thin an incident like this shows that many japanese were unwilling to submit to the americans

The Japaneses Civilians were also told "If the evil Americans get you, they will rape the women, torture the men, and kill the children." This, of course, is weapons grade propaganda bulls*** but most of them believed it. There are stories of captured civilians begging holdouts not to jump saying "look we have food, blankets, water, please don't jump or throw your children off the cliffs". I believe we would see something similar had we invaded Japan (or maybe unimaginably worse).

So I agree with you.

 

[TheSeventhLoneWolf]

I think the first bomb was a test. The second being real.

 

[Connor Lonske]

If Japan it took two bombs up the ass to get Japan to give up, how many killed on foot or by traditional bombs would it of taken to stop them.

If we waited out with our blockade, they would have keep coming to kill us, and they still had some Air and Navy forces left when we dropped the A-bomb on them. Now I estimate that 1000 American lives lost with there attacks, and all of their Air and Navy forces at that would be lost.

Now, they would of not surrendered at that point because of there batshit insane leaders who were still mindset on the old Japanese traditions. So we sit there with our thumb up our waiting for a white flag or more Navy or Air forces to kill, and nether of them come. So we have to invade, lose a million US lives, half the Japanese population and there emperor to them killing themselves, and the other half get killed for insubordination to the Japanese state.

Woop-de-fucking-do! Millions of live over 'cause we are too stupid to drop the bomb. Seems good to me, OP![/sarcasm]

 

[stabnex]

Was it the right thing to do?

Under no circumstance.

Did it swiftly end the war?

Unfortunately.

 

[InvisibleSeal]

The thing is, in land based invasion, the fighting probably would have ended up street to street in Tokyo causing far more civilian casualties. Look at stalingrad or berlin. And the japs would most likely have fought on. I imagine knowing your enemies have a weapon that can wipe out entire cities in an instant is different to having an enemy you can fight on a somewhat equal footing.
An invasion of japan would have resulted in a death toll in the millions. The japanese mainland is extremely difficult to invade. There are really only two places where a seaborne assault could land en masse. Airborne invasion is equally difficult due to the mountainous terrain of japan. The japanese could have had their army positioned to repel a seaborne invasion from either possible location. They had the american invasion plan pretty much sussed. The loss of military lives, both japanese and american, alone would have been far more than those of civilian lives.
And regardless of what a small number of other people have said, japan was not on the verge of surrender.
Okinawa was the first time american troops had taken a significant number of japanese troops prisoner of war, and even then they only took 7000. The rest preferred to fight to the death or commit suicide.
So no, it wasn't wrong to drop the bombs

I understand your way of thinking, and I get that at the time it was probably the only way the Americans could see forward. Yes, it did avoid large scale invasion of Japan. Yes, it did lead the Japanese to properly surrender.

However, in hindsight I believe that the ends don't justify the means.
They had bombed Tokyo, but they hadn't attacked Hiroshima or Nagasaki yet - so alot of people were there.
If the fighting had been street-to-street they would have had a lot more of a chance to evacuate Hiroshima and Nagasaki (it's not like they realised that the bomb threats would actually come true - this kind of thing hadn't happened before really). It wasn't just that there were civilians involved... there was a high concentration of civilians in those cities, in comparison to the places in other countries that had been bombed or invaded, where they had been able to get more people away from the cities.

I know that Japan had killed a ridiculous amount of the chinese, and their kamikaze techniques were very dangerous, but there was still a possibility of a relatively quick truce. I just don't see why it was impossible for the Americans to arrange some sort of conditional surrender rather than using the bombs to force the end of Japan's involvement in the war.

 

[Doug]

-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 bombs certainly did end the war in the Pacific. Whether or not it could have been won without them is debatable (and difficult to prove either way), but leveling a city with a single explosion sends a pretty strong message.

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

I'm not saying we should use nuclear weapons ever again, but if you add up the death toll and compare it to what would have resulted from a drawn-out war with Japan, the bombs probably killed fewer people.

All this is true, and I'm inclined to agree.
But I still think it's horrible to drop an atomic bomb on people, civilians no less.
Today this would have been a war crime.

Maybe - but look at it this way... Lets say you are the American president at this stage in the war - you've seen what the Japanese are willing to do, both to the native pacificiers, your POWs, the Chinese population, and to their own soldiers. You know they aren't going to surrender unconditionally without alot of pressure, so you have 4 options:

1) Accept a conditional surrender, and risk it being highly likely that the Japanese Empire would rise again a few years down the road, like what happened to Germany between the wars. This would doom millions of your descendants to death.

2) Starve the Japanese out - which would cost millions of lives as the Japanese population where already starving to death, and yet both the population and the high command weren't in the mood for surrender. On top of that, all the time you are starving them, the Chinese in Japanese occupied China are being enslaved, murdered, and raped by the Japanese, and so are your PoWs.

3) Invade - which would have been a very complex, costly, and time consuming operation - 4 home islands would have to be taken, all the while Japanese 'Volunteer Fighting Corps [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Fighting_Corps]' militia would be charging your men in sicudial waves, costing millions of Japanese civilians and possibly millions of US soldiers. Also, whilst the invasion is on going, its likely the Chinese civilians and POWs are still being badly treated, as in option 2.

4) Drop the 2 bombs you have and hope that its enough to buff the Japans into surrender - This option spared your troops, and killed a relativity small number of Japanese civilians (estimates place it at less than a million).

Now, I don't assume that it was an easy decision, even so. But really, a president looking for the best interests of both his people and the world as a whole would have had to have gone with the bombings.

 

[TheTim]

If we would've invaded japan, we could have possibly taken 1,000,000 casualties as a result and it's estimated that we may have had to kill another 3,000,000 japanese civillians because they were brainwashed into thinking that we were blood thirsty murderers and would have killed the entire country unless they resisted. So in all aspects, yes it was very necessary

 

[1080bitgamer]

No. But at the same time, there was no humane way I can think of for stopping the war on that side without without a drawn out massacre. Maybe I'm wrong, and it ended a huge part of WWII. But, it wasn't worth it then, and I hope it will never be used again. America was the first country to use atomic weaponry. Please let's live with that shame, and learn the lesson U.S. had to experience first hand.

 

[Kurokami]

Before you vote, I would just like to say that this question has been in my mind for a hiwle now and I have done some (albeit not a lot) of research, so I would be interested in hearing others people's opinions, hopefully based on facts.

So far, I have come to the conclusion that they shouldn't have been, and from reading different sources seem to think that the Americans did it to...prove a point or maybe revenge...that's all I have really.

Here are some of the things I have learner recently:

-The Japanese had virtually no Navy or Airforce to speak of.

-The Americans had blockaded Japan, meaning they couldn't get any imported recources, which is nearly everything. lol

-The japanese were terrified by the thought of the Russians coming, due to the fact they had lost to them before and that they would probably take over the country and install communism.

-Many high ranking officials were against the attack saying it was unnesisary and that the Japanese were ready to surrender anyway.

-Winston Churchill in his book ("The World At War") said that the bombs did not play any part in the defeat of Japan.

-The only reason people think that the bombs won the war in the Pacific is due to American Propagada.

Now, I'm not trying to force your vote by saying these things, I would like some insight into your thoughts not just on the bombing but the points I have listen above.

Happy Posting. :-D

Dropping the bombs worked as a show of a terrifying new power, in a way it caused peace (or stalemate) between Russia and America, or so I understand it anyway. The destruction of those Japanese cities made for forced development (not necessarily a good thing, but traditional sites can be found elsewhere in Japan). It also forced America into a guilty conscience which worked well for the world and Japan in my opinion.

Am I the kind to put a value against all the others who died? Maybe, maybe not, but its pretty damn hard to change an event in time without seeing it have both good and bad effects. How does your scale work?

Well... it's a tough question. I mean it ended the war... but... I honestly don't know. Maybe things would be completely different if it hadn't been done. Maybe america had dropped the nukes on Russia instead...
it's very easy to say "maybe, but let me put it this way: if I could go back in time I personally would stop them, if I had the power. And I don't support the fact that maaaaaany civilians were killed (I say many because I'm not sure if it's thousand or tens of thousands or hundereds of thousands). That being said, that is what happened, and since you can't go back in time, and since dropping the bomb made the reality we live in now. I would say it was morally wrong to do it, but I'm glad it happened. Who knows what might have happened if we didn't. Maybe Nuclear War against Russia.

Had you the power to stop it you would change a time you know results in Japan's favor for one that could have uncertain consequences for all?

 

[Uncreation]

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.

I'm going to agree with this one but I am, as Generation Kill said, a "wine-sipping, tree-hugging, bi-sexual communist"

Agreed. Except i'm not a communist.
Also, i see no way that someone can argue that dropping it on cities was a necessary thing. Thay could have, you know... dropped them on military bases, ports, airports, or some other (large) MILITARY instalation. The devastation would have been obvious in that case too. I mean, the bombs were tested in the desert and their distructive power was still unquestionable. It was not necessary to drop them on cities.

 

[Doug]

Two, wouldn't you change your mind after two bombs leveled two cities, and killed loads of people. I know that if someone dropped two A-Bombs on my country, I'd have the treaty written real fuckin' quick.

If my belief was to fight until the last man...probably not...

This is one thing I like to point out. The Japanese are not a hive mind. A common response to this question is "they would never surrender" and even worse, "the citizens were trained to kill US soldiers if they invaded. Even school girls." However, while that element was certainly present, it doesn't represent the entire populace.

I believe it was the island of Saipan where thousands of japanese civilians jumped off a cliff rather than face American occupation. It may not have been the mindset of the entire population, but i thin an incident like this shows that many japanese were unwilling to submit to the americans

The Japaneses Civilians were also told "If the evil Americans get you, they will rape the women, torture the men, and kill the children." This, of course, is weapons grade propaganda bulls*** but most of them believed it. There are stories of captured civilians begging holdouts not to jump saying "look we have food, blankets, water, please don't jump or throw your children off the cliffs". I believe we would see something similar had we invaded Japan (or maybe unimaginably worse).

So I agree with you.

Indeed - I'd forgotten about that. Yeah, the many films of mass civilian sucides are really appauling, and the Japanese government should have been hung on mass for encouraging it.

 

[Nifarious]

Governments seldom do the moral thing, most of all at war.
The bomb wasn't about saving lives--and that's the most ass-backwards logic anyway--but demonstrating power.

power. power. power.

My fellow Americans, please stop sullying morality by arguing that a war or a bomb can be moral.
For those who say morality aside, it had to be done, no. Nothing has to be done. There's always choice. It's just that it's oh so easy to push a red button and nuke two cities, especially non-white ones.
The A-bomb is just an even more efficient version of an Extermination Camp. No, the end wasn't genocide, but we kid ourselves to think that neither was about demonstrating power. Both changed the course of history, but the bomb even more so by opening up humanity to utter extinction in the cold war.

I just hate that many Americans ignore the scar that the Atomic Bomb has left when they argue in favor of it. Try going to Japan.