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

[Wounded Melody]

Wow, you guys love having the alternative view huh? The majority of people on this site honestly believe that nuking Japan was a good thing? Get over yourselves. Obviously this isn't directed at everybody, or even everybody that voted "no". Just most of you. To argue for something like this to make yourself look cool is fucking reprehensible.

How would this make anyone look cool?
It wasn't a "good" thing but it was the right thing to do. We actually should have done so sooner if possible as the Japanese were such MONSTERS to civilians and POWs. It makes me sick every tme I think of what they did.

No, it wasn't the right thing to do. Nuking a city full of civilians could never be the right thing to do. The torturing of POWs was horrible, but not relevant. Any of the atrocities commited by the Japanese in that war were irrelevant. It wasn't the civilians who were doing that. Besides that, it isn't like the allies never put a foot wrong in the war. If you are suggesting that doing it for revenge was right then you are a fuckwit. If that isn't what you believe, then what? We should have just exterminated them?

So what do you suggest we should have done?
Sacrificed our soldiers lives by going in there to fight? Maybe we should have just left the Japanese alone completely?
No one said we were doing it for revenge. We were stopping horrendous atrocities. The Japanese were torturing and killing CIVILIANS not just soldiers.

 

[skeliton112]

Yes cause now no-one has the balls to invade the US. Im ausie and i wouldnt...

 

[Arkzism]

no it wasn't, by dropping the bombs we shortened a war that couldve gone on for a lot longer, and with a lot more causalities. where to begin, ok at the time japan was very proud and fanatical, they thought the emperor was a god, they would've fought to the last man, now remember the us had to drop two bombs, TWO not one but Two, they did not surrender after the first one, do you think they would've surrendered after a full ground invasion?, so whats worse a few million people and two cities, or all of japan plus several hundred russian australian and american forces?

oh and to top off how fanatical they where there was a guy found in a cave in the 70s who still acted as if the war was going on because he never got word that they lost....

 

[Baconmonster723]

Wow, you guys love having the alternative view huh? The majority of people on this site honestly believe that nuking Japan was a good thing? Get over yourselves. Obviously this isn't directed at everybody, or even everybody that voted "no". Just most of you. To argue for something like this to make yourself look cool is fucking reprehensible.

How would this make anyone look cool?
It wasn't a "good" thing but it was the right thing to do. We actually should have done so sooner if possible as the Japanese were such MONSTERS to civilians and POWs. It makes me sick every tme I think of what they did.

No, it wasn't the right thing to do. Nuking a city full of civilians could never be the right thing to do. The torturing of POWs was horrible, but not relevant. Any of the atrocities commited by the Japanese in that war were irrelevant. It wasn't the civilians who were doing that. Besides that, it isn't like the allies never put a foot wrong in the war. If you are suggesting that doing it for revenge was right then you are a fuckwit. If that isn't what you believe, then what? We should have just exterminated them?

Take what I'm about to say for what it is. A question, nothing more, not an attack on you, I'm just curious about something. You have established your stance as against be bombing, and showed aggression towards those who think it was justified. My question is simple. What alternative did you see to the bombs being dropped?

 

[Wounded Melody]

Wow, you guys love having the alternative view huh? The majority of people on this site honestly believe that nuking Japan was a good thing? Get over yourselves. Obviously this isn't directed at everybody, or even everybody that voted "no". Just most of you. To argue for something like this to make yourself look cool is fucking reprehensible.

How would this make anyone look cool?
It wasn't a "good" thing but it was the right thing to do. We actually should have done so sooner if possible as the Japanese were such MONSTERS to civilians and POWs. It makes me sick every tme I think of what they did.

No, it wasn't the right thing to do. Nuking a city full of civilians could never be the right thing to do. The torturing of POWs was horrible, but not relevant. Any of the atrocities commited by the Japanese in that war were irrelevant. It wasn't the civilians who were doing that. Besides that, it isn't like the allies never put a foot wrong in the war. If you are suggesting that doing it for revenge was right then you are a fuckwit. If that isn't what you believe, then what? We should have just exterminated them?

So what do you suggest we should have done?
Sacrificed our soldiers lives by going in there to fight? Maybe we should have just left the Japanese alone completely?
No one said we were doing it for revenge. We were stopping horrendous atrocities.

Stopping them by committing more? Like it or not, outside of the holocaust itself, nuking Japan was the worst atrocity in the war. Those cities weren't filled with soldiers and pyschopaths, they were filled with civilians. Civilians just like those in America or England. Or Russia. Or Germany, or anywhere else in the fucking world. It wasn't right, it wasn't even excusable. It was terrorism. There's a buzzword that might mean a bit more to you.

The worst atrocity? Are you serious? And do you even understand that CIVILIANS were being killed by the Japanese? I don't see what you would have preferred us to do.

 

[klakkat]

Stopping them by committing more? Like it or not, outside of the holocaust itself, nuking Japan was the worst atrocity in the war. Those cities weren't filled with soldiers and pyschopaths, they were filled with civilians. Civilians just like those in America or England. Or Russia. Or Germany, or anywhere else in the fucking world. It wasn't right, it wasn't even excusable. It was terrorism. There's a buzzword that might mean a bit more to you.

You are right. It was terrorism. At the time, though, it wasn't viewed as such except by a minority (Albert Einstein himself was against the bombing). However, from our enlightened post in the future, we get to look at a variety of factors, including the death estimates by top strategists: without bombs, upwards of 20 million total. WITH bombs, about 200 thousand (note: this neglects the some 300 thousand that died later form radiation poisoning or mutation; though that did vastly increase our medical understanding of radiation).

Using knowledge available at the time, I would have dropped the bombs, because overall it would have saved lives. Using knowledge available now, in hindsight, I still would have dropped the bombs because it would have saved lives overall, and vastly expanded our knowledge of radioactivity.

 

[Kortney]

The decision was made at the time. The plan worked.

Why do we have to keep harping on about it? This isn't an issue that you can say a simple "yes" or "no" answer to, and the poll is insulting. Hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings died over this and to say "yes they were right!" or "no they weren't right!" is a little sad in my books. Not to mention it's irrelevant.

It happened. Was it necessary to make the Japanese surrender? Maybe. Maybe not. Did it achieve the desired effect and end the war instantly? Yes.

That's all there is to it. Holding a personal moral compass over the issue is madness. The people who made this decision had just endured six years of violence and did not want the horrible war to drag on for any longer. They made a decision.

Leave it at that. Both sides can be argued until the cows come home and nothing will have changed.

 

[Wounded Melody]

Wow, you guys love having the alternative view huh? The majority of people on this site honestly believe that nuking Japan was a good thing? Get over yourselves. Obviously this isn't directed at everybody, or even everybody that voted "no". Just most of you. To argue for something like this to make yourself look cool is fucking reprehensible.

How would this make anyone look cool?
It wasn't a "good" thing but it was the right thing to do. We actually should have done so sooner if possible as the Japanese were such MONSTERS to civilians and POWs. It makes me sick every tme I think of what they did.

No, it wasn't the right thing to do. Nuking a city full of civilians could never be the right thing to do. The torturing of POWs was horrible, but not relevant. Any of the atrocities commited by the Japanese in that war were irrelevant. It wasn't the civilians who were doing that. Besides that, it isn't like the allies never put a foot wrong in the war. If you are suggesting that doing it for revenge was right then you are a fuckwit. If that isn't what you believe, then what? We should have just exterminated them?

So what do you suggest we should have done?
Sacrificed our soldiers lives by going in there to fight? Maybe we should have just left the Japanese alone completely?
No one said we were doing it for revenge. We were stopping horrendous atrocities.

Stopping them by committing more? Like it or not, outside of the holocaust itself, nuking Japan was the worst atrocity in the war. Those cities weren't filled with soldiers and pyschopaths, they were filled with civilians. Civilians just like those in America or England. Or Russia. Or Germany, or anywhere else in the fucking world. It wasn't right, it wasn't even excusable. It was terrorism. There's a buzzword that might mean a bit more to you.

The worst atrocity? Are you serious? And do you even understand that CIVILIANS were being killed by the Japanese? I don't see what you would have preferred us to do.

And because they did it it is okay for us to? How are we any better than them?? They killed our civilians, so we killed theirs. Sounds like revenge to me.

I'm not even talking about US civilians. The British and Chinese civilians were among the most tortured and abused and killed by the Japanese. Not to mention the other outrages like "comfort women".

 

[dark-amon]

Some say that Japan would surrender anyway. However this dosen't add up with their fanatical, racist view on themselves and their war-philosophy. By all strategic logic, they would not have surrendered.
The option would otherwise be ocupation, and we know how well the americans does that... oh wait. In the case of ocupation there would also be the chance that Japan would kill its warprisoners, AND a masacre of the "civillian army" they trained in Japan. (An "army" that would attack american soldiers with homemade spears in case of ocupation. One such "army" was trained in Hiroshima)
The Bomb however forced Japan to a unconditional surender due to the near "divine" military power they where up against. In a terrible way, the Bomb saved lives.
To those who think of the bombingtargets as civillian targets: Both cities where vital keyareas for the japanesee war-effort. The civillian casualties would only be different in the term of avoiding long time radiation in the area as the allies would have bombed these cities. A-bomb or no.

 

[Ldude893]

What's done is done. The best thing to do is prevent such a thing from happening EVER AGAIN.

I've visited the Hiroshima Peace Memorial and Museum during a High School trip, and the images I've seen were enough to give me a permanent grudge against nuclear weapons. I don't want to debate whether the American bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified, we should be fixing the present and changing the future instead of trying to justify the past.

 

[Loonerinoes]

Of course it was wrong.

The question shouldn't be wether or not it was wrong or not to be frank. But wether or not it was understandable and justified.

Given the fact that american bombers were previously responsible for far greater and less publically known acts of bombing (like the Dresden bombings or hell...Japanese incineration bombings themselves) which, btw, resulted in FAR greater casualties than the atomic bombs?

No, not really. And it had very little to do with securing a military victory (in spite of what the media outlets continually trumpet out like how the US was 'pushed' to this) and it had everything to do with practical testing of a weapon of mass destruction while it would still be considered as 'understandable' and 'lawful'.

Just more human lives sacrificed for the greater benefit and curiosity of the powers-that-be. Doesn't matter if it's Japanese, Americans or Papua New Guineans...in the end we lost out on it and the rich leaders got a nice fireworks display and chuckled about how overpowered their new creation was...and then went to make a 100 more such bombs (only bigger and far more deadlier) that could make our world barren dozens of times over.

And still over 60% think it was right. Pfeh...now bring on your logic and rationalization to block out your doubts.

 

[klakkat]

The decision was made at the time. The plan worked.

Why do we have to keep harping on about it? This isn't an issue that you can say a simple "yes" or "no" answer to, and the poll is insulting. Hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings died over this and to say "yes they were right!" or "no they weren't right!" is a little sad in my books. Not to mention it's irrelevant.

It happened. Was it necessary to make the Japanese surrender? Maybe. Maybe not. Did it achieve the desired effect and end the war instantly? Yes.

That's all there is to it. Holding a personal moral compass over the issue is madness. The people who made this decision had just endured six years of violence and did not want the horrible war to drag on for any longer. They made a decision.

Leave it at that.

I normally dislike saying "you are correct sir" but that's basically what I have to say here. It is for the best that the European front folded before nuclear weapons were developed; we know that German forces were attempting to construct a nuclear bomb in WWII (some evidence suggests it was a hydrogen bomb they were developing, which has more than 100 times the yield of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) but were stopped by a combined effort of allied commando forces and Oppenheimer diligently attempting to not destroy the world. The devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would hardly be a footnote in history if the Hydrogen bomb had been developed by either side while the European war still raged; casualties due to that weapon would have been in the tens to hundreds of millions, as opposed to about half a million (the total, to date, of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings).

 

[Baconmonster723]

Wow, you guys love having the alternative view huh? The majority of people on this site honestly believe that nuking Japan was a good thing? Get over yourselves. Obviously this isn't directed at everybody, or even everybody that voted "no". Just most of you. To argue for something like this to make yourself look cool is fucking reprehensible.

How would this make anyone look cool?
It wasn't a "good" thing but it was the right thing to do. We actually should have done so sooner if possible as the Japanese were such MONSTERS to civilians and POWs. It makes me sick every tme I think of what they did.

No, it wasn't the right thing to do. Nuking a city full of civilians could never be the right thing to do. The torturing of POWs was horrible, but not relevant. Any of the atrocities commited by the Japanese in that war were irrelevant. It wasn't the civilians who were doing that. Besides that, it isn't like the allies never put a foot wrong in the war. If you are suggesting that doing it for revenge was right then you are a fuckwit. If that isn't what you believe, then what? We should have just exterminated them?

Take what I'm about to say for what it is. A question, nothing more, not an attack on you, I'm just curious about something. You have established your stance as against be bombing, and showed aggression towards those who think it was justified. My question is simple. What alternative did you see to the bombs being dropped?

Alright then.
I don't know. It isn't my job to know, I'm not a military tactition. I don't know what would have been the best strategic step to take at that stage, but anything would have been better than what we did.

Thank you for your honesty. I have to agree with you, the nukes were awful. They caused untold suffering to the peoples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, there were only two alternatives to the nukes themselves from a military prespective. The political prespective was thrown out the window when the "Big Six" essentially kidnapped the Emperor of Japan. At that point they would fight to the last man. This would leave only two other possibilities for the Allies against the Japanese.

A full force ground invasion of Japan, which military experts at the time estimated would cost roughly 550k-650k US soldiers, 400k-500k Japanese Soldiers, and anywhere from 750k to 1.2 million civilian lives. The problem was that when the Japanese said they would fight to the last man they meant the last man, woman, and child. Before we had even offered them the first terms from Postdam, Germany they were training civilians in guerilla warfare tactics and supplying them with rudimentary weapons to repel an invasion. So the total casualties for an invasion of Japan was estimated to be 1.5 to 2 million deaths total. Now obviously this is just an estimate, but if Stalingrad was any indicator of what a culture that would win at any cost was capable of that estimate may hold water.

The second is almost as bad as the first. A prolonged military blockade of Japan. Firebombing of Japanese cities and farms. Causing famine, and possibly drought to hit Japan. Killing civilians in the millions as their food supply disappeared by allied raids on their farms and storehouses. This would have been and extremely long and drawn out process. It also would have been very painful and horrible to the people of Japan but it would minimize American lives lost.

Or they could drop the nukes. Honestly, there is no right choice in this bunch. They just picked the most controversial one. Sure they kept the casualties low all around but caused untold suffering as well. While the death toll is much lower than the other two options it will be remembered for the controversy it started. Had we invaded or blockaded it would not be a controversy, they would have killed millions and it would have been "acceptable". But they chose something that had never been done or truly tested before. And we have to live with the consequences from now on. I do not take a position in this fight because honestly their is no winner. Those against would doom a drastic number of people to death. Those for agree that untold suffering was necessary. It is a no win situation.

 

[Greetz_DK]

Seeing as how both place are still inhabitable and radioactive i would say, no.

 

[Wounded Melody]

Seeing as how both place are still inhabitable and radioactive i would say, no.

What? XD