Poll: were the nukes dropped on japan in WW2 really needed to win?
- Thread starter cryogeist
- Start date
Yes.
Total War--as opposed to what the U.S.A. is doing now--demands CONSTANT public sacrifice of resources and lives, so it also takes CONSTANT approval, lest the voters throw out the government--it happened in Russia, 1917, even!--and sue for peace. If the land war took place, the odds of the public supporting it may have dwindled.
There's also the race between Russia and The States to take over Europe in preparation for The Cold War--if Russia and China had beaten the Japanese, The Cold War would have been MUCH worse.
Finally, Japan would have been razed to the ground. Witness Dresden, The Blitz, The Nanjing massacre--war is hell, and the sooner it ends, the better.
Total War--as opposed to what the U.S.A. is doing now--demands CONSTANT public sacrifice of resources and lives, so it also takes CONSTANT approval, lest the voters throw out the government--it happened in Russia, 1917, even!--and sue for peace. If the land war took place, the odds of the public supporting it may have dwindled.
There's also the race between Russia and The States to take over Europe in preparation for The Cold War--if Russia and China had beaten the Japanese, The Cold War would have been MUCH worse.
Finally, Japan would have been razed to the ground. Witness Dresden, The Blitz, The Nanjing massacre--war is hell, and the sooner it ends, the better.
Quite recently actually....cyrogeist said:oh it has?Hardcore_gamer said:[http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/819/1289119thisthreadagains.jpg/]
Why does this topic keep popping up over and over again? Hasn't it been discussed to death a million times already?
I have started to wonder if people just keep posting threads like these because its edgy thing to do now or something.
fuck...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.305034-Bombing-Japan-Saved-More-People-Than-It-Killed
I'll simply restate what I said in my thread: if the bombs weren't dropped, Operation Downfall would have went ahead as planned, and Japan might have been utterly annihilated.
We've talked about this before. Yes, in some ways, it was. As mentioned, the Japanese were ready to fight to the last man. And, compared to the alternative - a D-Day style invasion that would have had millions of causalities on both sides - was a much deadlier option for all. And while the bombs may not have been the last nail in the coffin for the Japanese (some modern historians have claimed that Russia's declaration of war was), it was certainly made the Japanese realize what the stakes were. Also, the two cities, I believe, were production facilities for arms, or something along those lines. Though I could be mistaken there, there was definitely a reason the two cities in particular where chosen.
So, yes, the bombing of the two cities will always be a testament to mankind's destructive power and so forth, but we must truly know the options and pressures of those who made the decision.
So, yes, the bombing of the two cities will always be a testament to mankind's destructive power and so forth, but we must truly know the options and pressures of those who made the decision.
Yes. Soviet Heavy basically says what I want to say, but would say it incorrectly. Japan would be fighting and not give up until every man and woman would be killed because of their military idealism and beliefs. Basically don't give up no matter what. We basically had to blast the knee caps from under them for them to surrender.
Check out the Battle of Okinawa for how a land invasion of the islands of Japan would have panned out. The allies would have won eventually, but the loss of life would have been greater than the loss of life caused by the A-bombs. However the dropping of Fat Man on Nagasaki was only necessary because the Soviets declared war on Japan. Before this the Emperor was working on surrender plans, but with the declaration of war from the Soviets the peace plans were taken off the table and martial law declared forbidding anyone from suing for peace.
Basement Monster: UUURRRRP!!cyrogeist said:
OT: Unfortunately, the Japanese government literally would not surrender, despite all hardships, until after the bombs were dropped.
I thought by that point in the war the soviet union had already agreed to help america defeat japan.Worgen said:
Wait, didn't we just have one of these a couple weeks ago. It went a bad way then, and everything that could be said was said in that one. Can't you search bar that one and just read it.
Edit: Woops Ninja'd point addressed earlier, and this person even linked to a thread.
Edit: Woops Ninja'd point addressed earlier, and this person even linked to a thread.
Probably not, but considering the consequences of a land invasion or continued firebombing on Japanese cities, dropping the nukes was a damn better alternative in my opinion. Also, can we agree to stop making this same exact thread every other week? It's the same question over and over and it generally gets the same answer.
THIS basically. Japan had an undying will to never surrender. We ended it the fastest way possible at the time.thaluikhain said:
I'm really getting tired of this discussion to be honest. What has happened has happened and we can only hope to learn from our past, I say Hope because usually we'll find a way to f*ck sh*t up again eventually.
And every bomb also has enough nuclear force to level a major city. The creation of the atomic bomb and the way the Americans showed it off basically hammered one message into the Russian psyche. "Must have." which subsequently led to the cold war and many VERY NEAR flirts with nuclear holocaust. We lucked out on that one, but if you ask me to choose one, a major war where a large number of people will die, or a coin toss where either no or ALL people will die, I'll take the war.Necromancer Jim said:
See here's the thing. No one knows and no one ever will. In the end, we did nuke them, so we can't say for sure how hard they would have fought, and how soon they would have surrendered. Anyone who says otherwise is puffing smoke. At the time, it was believed that it would save a great many American lives, and that's enough for me. Whether they were right or not is largely irrelevant at this point. It happened, and the people who ordered it believed they were doing right, I believe that is enough to justify the action. And even if it wasn't, it happened, it's in the past, where we can't change it.cyrogeist said:
There were many different routs it could have taken with respects to forcing Japanese surrender.
(1) They could have firebombed all Japanese cities into rubble, killing millions and destroying all historical sites in the nation (well, nearly).
(2) They could have invaded, losing millions of their own troops and killing millions of fanatical Japanese civilians, and losing hundreds of thousands in ensuing guerilla wars.
(3) They could have waited and let the Soviets do the invasion, which would lose Japan to the communists and have them at the level of North Korea, except the Soviets would probably have treated them far worse than the Koreans due to lingering hatred from the earlier border conflicts and the defeats inflicted upon the Russian Empire.
(4) Or they could have dropped the bombs like they did, lose a few thousand Japanese people, and let tough talk do the rest.
I'm sure there's other options but these are the most obvious ones. Personally I prefer the solution that costs the least in lives and materials, which would be option 4.
(1) They could have firebombed all Japanese cities into rubble, killing millions and destroying all historical sites in the nation (well, nearly).
(2) They could have invaded, losing millions of their own troops and killing millions of fanatical Japanese civilians, and losing hundreds of thousands in ensuing guerilla wars.
(3) They could have waited and let the Soviets do the invasion, which would lose Japan to the communists and have them at the level of North Korea, except the Soviets would probably have treated them far worse than the Koreans due to lingering hatred from the earlier border conflicts and the defeats inflicted upon the Russian Empire.
(4) Or they could have dropped the bombs like they did, lose a few thousand Japanese people, and let tough talk do the rest.
I'm sure there's other options but these are the most obvious ones. Personally I prefer the solution that costs the least in lives and materials, which would be option 4.
Oh, look, THIS question again.
I'll just echo the masses here: It wasn't absolutely necessary, but in the long run, it brought fewer deaths than there would have been without them being dropped.
I'll just echo the masses here: It wasn't absolutely necessary, but in the long run, it brought fewer deaths than there would have been without them being dropped.
Well... it was. It was probably a hard thing to do, killing innocent people... but it was necessary. If we hadn't gotten Japan to surrender, the Soviet army would've taken it over. Japan probably wouldn't have gotten independence until 1991(or around that time). If the bombs hadn't been dropped, they would've been captured by the Soviets, and they had a bad tendency to never leave a place. The President could've done multiple things to coax Japan into surrendering, like invade Japan with his army. Unfortunately, we didn't have much time. So the President ordered another bombing, this time on Tokyo. Fortunately Japan surrendered in the nick of time. It was a shock to everyone. Japan was more of the go down fighting type of country. The Emperor wanted to surrender, while some did not. It was a secret and desperate fight that is not known to a lot of people. Though the Emperor eventually suceeded and in a rare moment in history, he broadcasted a message of surrender to all of Japan. Which was the first time they heard his voice. So there's your history lesson for today kids. So in short, the bombings on Japan is justifiable.