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

[Scaredpanther0101]

Im kinda undecided but I voted yes. Anyway I just want you to watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM3BCGsADZs please tell me how it makes you feel for me Im awed at the immense power.
(Yes I know its the Hills have eyes intro but it is a good example of nuclear bombs)

 

[GoodApprentice]

I thought the classic question is whether or not it was right to drop the second atomic bomb.

 

[hopeneverdies]

I honestly believe that it was a necessity and most of my point has been stated already, but there is one extremely slightly crucial detail that I think has been missed.

To the Japanese, their Emperor was essentially a god in human form. The fire bombing on their cities was an attempt to break that illusion, that he wasn't all powerful instead that he was merely human. Proving that may have caused a serious drop in morale and loss of the will to fight.

The Potsdam Declaration outlined terms of surrender with this line: "the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland".

As you can guess, this was ignored.

Before the bombing, Truman issued this statement:

"If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware"

Despite this warning and the previous surrender terms, the Japanese still ignored it.

Hiroshima also happened to be near a military supply base and not too far away was the HQ for Southern Japan's defenses.

 

[Mortons4ck]

power. power. power.

Which is the only thing the Japanese respected, and the only way they would surrender.

 

[AMMO Kid]

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.

PEARL HARBOR IS THE OBVIOUS ANSWER

 

[Deathkingo]

The argument seems to be centered around that if we did not drop the bomb, then we (along with the Japanese) would have lost a lot of people. While, I can see the point to this, I think it is necessary to keep in mind that the Japanese civilians died without committing any crime other than being Japanese. It is likely that most of the civilians had no stake in the say of the war, and thus died for a way for America to simply say, "Hey, stop this."

 

[KeyMaster45]

OT: Yes, and if I were in power I'd have done it three times to prove my point.

we actually did threaten them with a 3rd bomb and that one was going to be aimed square at the capital. This was of course a bluff on our part as we only had 2 bombs at the time, the 3rd was still being manufactured or something like that. Regardless the Japanese leadership, realizing they were next on our "list of stuff to vaporize" decided to save their own hides.

 

[Mortons4ck]

I think it is necessary to keep in mind that the Japanese civilians died without committing any crime other than being Japanese. It is likely that most of the civilians had no stake in the say of the war, and thus died for a way for America to simply say, "Hey, stop this."

The Japanese government would have (and did) gladly sacrificed their civilians if they thought it would give them an edge militarily.

 

[dodo1331]

I hate to be that guy but I distinctly remember seeing a thread like this before.

My apologies, as you can see I'm new so I hope I get a bit of leeway.

Also, TheNamlessGuy is correct, the japanese were already thinking about signing a truce.

It just seems strange that everone is saying they would never surrender; they would fight to the last man and they hated Americans and yet shorty after the bombs they sign an unconditional surrender. Quite the jump in opinions.

The Japanese thought we had tons of these bombs, when we had actually already used all of them. I think they knew they couldn't fight against someone with tons of bombs that could wipe out one of their whole cities in one explosion.

The argument seems to be centered around that if we did not drop the bomb, then we (along with the Japanese) would have lost a lot of people. While, I can see the point to this, I think it is necessary to keep in mind that the Japanese civilians died without committing any crime other than being Japanese. It is likely that most of the civilians had no stake in the say of the war, and thus died for a way for America to simply say, "Hey, stop this."

Except that civilians were being trained to fight against the Americans. Right? That's what I read a while ago. Could be wrong.

It seems to me like a very good example of terrorism, lets bomb their cities because we don't want to fight their soldiers.

Not terrorism. War is trying to beat the other side while losing the least amount of lives on your side as possible. The Americans did that.

 

[Acidwell]

It seems to me like a very good example of terrorism, lets bomb their cities because we don't want to fight their soldiers.

 

[Gudrests]

i could almost say no if they Japanese surrendered after the first bomb. but they didn't. they thought we were bluffing and couldn't do it again. that's the way japan thought, before that point in history the Japanese would kill "THEMSELVES" before being captured or surrender no matter the opposing force. The 2nd bomb was a must to prove there only way of survival was to surrender and live another day. And this no air-force/navy to speak of... Japan is an island....all islands have a Navy...and what happened at Pearl-Harbor...did they borrow thoes planes from Germany?...i don't think so

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

We killed civilians to display our tactical superiority over our wartime ally, the Soviet Union, so that after the war we would have a stronger bargaining position against the "communist" (not really) nation.

So, yeah. I think it was wrong.

Still not as bad as the firebombings against Germany.

If our leaders had been given the same trials after the war that axis generals were given, every single one of them would have been put to death.

 

[stabnex]

OT: Yes, and if I were in power I'd have done it three times to prove my point.

we actually did threaten them with a 3rd bomb and that one was going to be aimed square at the capital. This was of course a bluff on our part as we only had 2 bombs at the time, the 3rd was still being manufactured or something like that. Regardless the Japanese leadership, realizing they were next on our "list of stuff to vaporize" decided to save their own hides.

Weren't the original nukes just uranium with tnt packed around the core? What's so hard about building that?

 

[Quaidis]

The bombings were the last straw that forced some very uptight men in charge to surrender. While many civilians were ready to throw in the hat and more or less hated the war by then, the emperor and his legion of followers would not have stopped.

I mean, they tried to hide the fact from the rest of Japan that the first atomic bomb hit. That's hardcore. It was only until the second bombing that flags were raised.

Was it needed? Yes and no.

Yes in the sense that it stopped everything.

No in the sense that it was the Atomic Bomb and they dropped it on harmless civilians. They could have invented a better bomb that didn't cause heaps of radiation and disease. I'm sure dropping another heavy impact bomb much closer to where the someone more or less important hanged out would have had a faster response - though it would have been harder to achieve. Then again, if such a bomb could have been carried on a single plane like the A-bomb, things are always plausible.




One thing that I hate about the Atomic bomb is that, due to the bombing in Japan, world leaders are now trying very hard to prevent another one. We basically said, "Hey, this is what we did, how we did it, and what happened. Okay, Iraq, South Korea, all you crazy guys, have fun!"

 

[Virus0015]

For the love of God this topic has been resurrected over and over again.

My view: Japan was not willing to surrender on the conditions set down by the US, so please hippies stop creating lies about the Japanese trying to surrender. If they wanted the war to end they could have accepted the US's terms instead of being stubborn and making their own set of conditions, which they were not in the right position to do. The only other alternative was a land invasion, that would have been far more costly to all parties involved.

People focus on the dropping of atomic weapons because it was symbolic, and because a lot of people naturally have the "nukes are bad, m'kay?" view. Yes nukes are bad in the sense that they kill people. But people have been killed in far less fruitful instances such as the incendiary bombing of Tokyo, which also killed a fair amount of people. Of course no one likes to look at this because it is "boring", but those people that died in Tokyo made a significantly smaller contribution to peace than those who were vaporised.

So, in summary:

1: Nukes are not always bad (in fact there has never been a case where they have been), m'kay?

2: the use of nuclear weapons on Japan is an entirely feeble moral debate compared to some of the more gruesome aspects of world war two. These killings only stand out because they occurred at the end of WW2 and involved a WMD.

 

[Manatee Slayer]

Japan is an island....all islands have a Navy...and what happened at Pearl-Harbor...did they borrow thoes planes from Germany?...i don't think so

It was monstly destoryed by the three preceding years of war?

 

[Invaderbrim]

-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.

I will also agree with this man, he seems well learned to this sort of thing. Though I also
must agree with the bombing due to a book I once read called "1945". It was about what would
have happened if Japan hadn't surrendered and America had to invade, the author did a lot of
research so I believe it to be a pretty well thought out, if fictional, portrayal.

 

[Deathkingo]

I think it is necessary to keep in mind that the Japanese civilians died without committing any crime other than being Japanese. It is likely that most of the civilians had no stake in the say of the war, and thus died for a way for America to simply say, "Hey, stop this."

The Japanese government would have (and did) gladly sacrificed their civilians if they thought it would give them an edge militarily.

Yes, yes, and all that. You can also waggle your finger at Pearl Harbor as an excuse as well. But, the fact is: many people died that were in no way a part of the military. It is like shooting a person in the face in the ghetto and saying, "He COULD be a drug dealer in the future!"