PDA

View Full Version : Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Was it right?


Marius Fett
03-25-2008, 10:23 AM
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuclear attacks during World War II against Japan by the United States at the order of U.S. President Harry S. Truman. After six months of intense firebombing of 67 other Japanese cities, the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" was dropped on the city of Hiroshima on Monday, August 6, 1945, followed on August 9 by the detonation of the "Fat Man" nuclear bomb over Nagasaki. These are the only nuclear attacks in the history of war.

The bombs killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, roughly half on the days of the bombings. Since then, thousands more have died from injuries or illness attributed to exposure to radiation released by the bombs. In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians, including women and children.

The mushroom cloud of "Little Boy" over Hiroshima:

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd201/ryand-2007/481px-Atomic_cloud_over_Hiroshima.jpg

The mushroom cloud of "Fat Man" over Nagasaki:

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd201/ryand-2007/509px-Nagasakibomb.jpg

People continue to die today from radiation sickness and other illnesses caused by the bombs, and babies are still being born with deformities as a result of the same attacks.

The American Government, still maintain even today, that these attacks saved many more lives than they ended. That they prevented the thousands upon thousands of deaths that would have occured if America invaded Japan directly.

______

One question: WAS THIS RIGHT?

______

I understand that this will likely be a sensetive topic, so please keep it civil and none of the "Yeh we pwned teh Japs" talk that can be seen in other areas of the web.

Well, what do you think?

Inyri
03-25-2008, 10:31 AM
One question: WAS THIS RIGHT?No

Did it end the war quicker? Yes. Did it save (American) lives? Yes. Was it morally and ethically the right thing to do? Absolutely not.

The decision to bomb Japan was made to end the war quicker and to show our (America's) dominance. What's worse, Japan was already preparing their surrender when we bombed them.

If it was just a bomb it wouldn't have been such a big issue, but the fallout from these bombs has been punishing the innocents ever since. Sure, 'we didn't know what would happen.' I don't eat food if it's a funny color because 'I don't know what'll happen' and then act surprised when I get sick. I throw it away, because it's not right...

Marius Fett
03-25-2008, 10:42 AM
^^AGREED.

Also, on the subject of America and nukes, isn't it the slightest bit hypocritical that the US is trying to stop other countries possesing Atomic Weapons, when THEY are the only ones to have ever deployed one in a wartime situation?

The US could have simply dropped the bombs in the sea, to demonstrate its power instead of not one but TWO cities full of innocent people, which would have still possibly damamged Japanese ships and maybe slight coastal damage, but at least then millions of people wouldn't have been killed.

Alternatively, they could have NOT USED THE BOMBS AT ALL.

Nuclear power is very useful i'll admit. But using it as a weapon against innocent people just to save the lives of YOUR OWN PEOPLE is nothing more than terrorism.

Samuel Dravis
03-25-2008, 10:58 AM
Isn't it hypocritical of the Germans to strictly regulate Zyklon B? After all, didn't the Nazis use it in their death camps?

(sorry for Nazi-reference :p)

I'd venture to say no. Whether it's been used by one country or one hundred, who used it changes nothing about the inherent danger of the weapon in question. Especially considering the crazies that might get hold of them easier if everyone were able to get their own stockpile in the interests of 'fairness' or 'not being hypocritical'. Hypocrisy be damned. I don't want people to have anthrax, I don't want people to have genetically engineered superflus, I don't want people to have chemical weapons stockpiles and I don't want people to have nuclear weapons. Any people, really, though if I had to choose (and I do have to choose) I'd pick someone with more stability/control over someone with less. If this view is considered hypocritical then I am glad to be a hypocrite.

Inyri
03-25-2008, 11:04 AM
The only hypocritical thing about the United States demanding other countries get rid of their nukes is the fact that we seem unwilling to get rid of ours... but really you could dedicate an entire thread to that discussion, so maybe we should just focus on the WW2 incident for the moment.

Bee Hoon
03-25-2008, 11:13 AM
Also, on the subject of America and nukes, isn't it the slightest bit hypocritical that the US is trying to stop other countries possesing Atomic Weapons, when THEY are the only ones to have ever deployed one in a wartime situation? Yes, it is, since they don't seem to think that they should stop churning out theirs. There's an acronym for the nuclear arms race that is strangely apt: "MAD". Technically, it stands for Mutually Assured Destruction, but the human race is the only species crazy enough to accumulate enough destructive power to destroy itself and much of the Earth.

Damn straight we're on top of the food chain:/ Anyway, as Inyri has said, ''tis a topic for another thread.

On topic:
No. It may be in retrospect, but never will I believe that nuclear warfare is warranted. There is one image that sums up the horror more sharply than any words ever can. Click here (http://www.gensuikin.org/english/photo.html) and scroll down to picture 12.

The left photograph shows the stone steps of the main entrandce of Sumitomo Bank which is only 250 meters from the hypocenter. It is believed that a person sat down on the steps facing the direction of the hypocenter, possibly waiting for the bank to open. By a flash of the heat rays with temperatures well over a 1,000 degrees or possibly 2,000 degrees centigrade, that person was incineratied on the stone steps.

Pho3nix
03-25-2008, 11:21 AM
Not sure, of course on a human level It's terrible. But who knows how the war would've turned out if the U.S didn't drop the bombs. :/

Marius Fett
03-25-2008, 11:23 AM
Just found this video: http://www.youtube.com/watchv=0n1rqHo4XyM&feature=related

If you don't find the video upsetting, then maybe look at a few of the comments:

...they got what was coming to them...
How can one say that the hiroshima bombings was wrong? Its so retarded it can barely get described properly in words.

It was a solution, killing maybe 30ish TIMES less civilians than the other solutions, PLUS soldiers dying.

The hiroshima and nagasaki bombings was a solution that can be described as nothing more than a miraclethough that worked miraculously.
F****** Japs bought it on themselves

I mean, how OFFENSIVE are these comments?

If these people truly believe that the atomic bombings on Japan were justified, then they must be really sick.

There are many comments saying that Japan deserved it because of Pearl Harbour.
Yeah, that was a terrible thing, but it was NOWHERE NEAR as destructive as the atom bombs.

What's worse, there is alot of racist abuse on the web targeting Japanese people saying they deserved it!

This is just my opinion, but it was a sad day for humanity, when the decision was made to kill, no, EXTERMINATE all those innoceent lives.

Inyri
03-25-2008, 11:28 AM
The funny thing is that Japan didn't really do anything Britain hasn't done/tried. Britain just picked on more third-world countries so there wasn't much resistance. But we wouldn't dream of suggesting Britain deserves to get nuked because of their past Imperialism, would we?

Japan wanted to be on top. Sure they went about it wrong, but that doesn't justify nuking the hell out of them when there were other options available. Like let them surrender.

JCarter426
03-25-2008, 11:34 AM
The reason Truman ordered the nuclear strikes was because Japan wouldn't surrender.

Marius Fett
03-25-2008, 11:36 AM
I myself am British (Welsh) and i'll readily admit we have made our fair share of mistakes, just like USA, Japan, China and realistically speaking, alot of other countries if not nearly all of them.

But as you say Inyri, Nobody deserves to be the targets/victims of nuclear weapons, ESPECIALLY when ALL other options have not yet been fully evaluated and attempts have been made to put them into action.

There is one image that sums up the horror more sharply than any words ever can. Click here and scroll down to picture 12.

WOW. That image, indeed the whole article, really does give an insight into how evil and cruel mankind can be.

The reason Truman ordered the nuclear strikes was because Japan wouldn't surrender.

Actually, Japan were considering it. They were considering surrendering, though on four of their own conditions.

Inyri
03-25-2008, 11:36 AM
The reason Truman ordered the nuclear strikes was because Japan wouldn't surrender.Not according to what I've heard. The Japanese are a proud people, remember that. Just because they didn't say "hey we're going to surrender now" doesn't mean they weren't in the process of doing so, or at the very least planning it.

DarthJebus05
03-25-2008, 11:38 AM
Of course it wasn't right, what were you thinking? I have half a mind to issue you a drug test.

The reason Truman ordered the nuclear strikes was because Japan wouldn't surrender.

What's worse, Japan was already preparing their surrender when we bombed them.

WW2 could have been prevented, if we all just got along. Which will never happen. Anyway, back to the original topic. Like Inyri said, Japanese were preparing to surrender, but America has to go "oh look at this, lets nuke a country so it can't recover for centuries!".

JCarter426
03-25-2008, 11:45 AM
Not according to what I've heard. The Japanese are a proud people, remember that. Just because they didn't say "hey we're going to surrender now" doesn't mean they weren't in the process of doing so, or at the very least planning it.

True. However, the main concerns were that even if Japan were to surrender, the fighting would continue--which it did. Many in the Japanese military refused to believe or accept the surrender even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Like Inyri said, Japanese were preparing to surrender, but America has to go "oh look at this, lets nuke a country so it can't recover for centuries!".

I highly doubt that was the idea. After all, today the US has a trillion dollar deficit, while Japan is mass-producing cars and HD-TVs. :p

Bee Hoon
03-25-2008, 11:47 AM
America has to go "oh look at this, lets nuke a country so it can't recover for centuries!".
Not true. Japan is the most developed Asian country, but I don't think that you will ever find one Japanese who believes that nuclear weapons should exist.

The Japanese are a proud people, remember that. Just because they didn't say "hey we're going to surrender now" doesn't mean they weren't in the process of doing so, or at the very least planning it.Very true. It takes a people who place the highest priority on honour to come up with the concept of voluntary seppuku.

Marius Fett
03-25-2008, 11:51 AM
WWII just like WWI and indeed all other wars, were started basically due to a difference in ideas.

It's human nature to disagree, and also to fight for supremacy and to promote their ideas.

Staying on the example of WWII:

Hitler for example, tried to exterminate the Jews, BECAUSE THEY WERE DIFFERENT. The way Hitler saw it was that anything that was not German was filth, and he tried to make an example of the Jews, and almost succeeded in their extermination. What I find ironic though, is that Hitler himself was not German, he was Austrian.

The Holocaust, the War, all of it could have been avoided if all involved parties, behaved like mature adults and decided "Yeah, ok. You guys are different, you're entitled to your opinions, and we are to ours."

If people were willing to do this, there would be far fewer wars, and this earth would be a FAR better place.

Inyri
03-25-2008, 11:54 AM
Like Inyri said, Japanese were preparing to surrender, but America has to go "oh look at this, lets nuke a country so it can't recover for centuries!".Well that's not what I said. :xp:

As I think I mentioned, we had absolutely no idea what the ramifications of the atomic bomb were when we dropped them on Japan. We had done some field tests, but it wouldn't be until later that we found out "oh, every person who was there has developed cancer... curious." We don't permit drugs to go on the market without extensive testing and years of research. I'm baffled why we thought using a relatively untested nuclear device was bright.

We did it because we were desperate... to save face. People wanted the war to end, so instead of doing the smart thing we did the easy thing. Hey, wasn't there a quote like that in Harry Potter. "Soon we must choose between doing what is right and doing what is easy"? Damn, those authors are smart people... Let's vote J.K. Rowling into office? :D

DarthJebus05
03-25-2008, 11:57 AM
That reminds me:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=nZccnGspog0&eurl

Perfect example.

Well that's not what I said. :xp:

As I think I mentioned, we had absolutely no idea what the ramifications of the atomic bomb were when we dropped them on Japan. We had done some field tests, but it wouldn't be until later that we found out "oh, every person who was there has developed cancer... curious." We don't permit drugs to go on the market without extensive testing and years of research. I'm baffled why we thought using a relatively untested nuclear device was bright.

We did it because we were desperate... to save face. People wanted the war to end, so instead of doing the smart thing we did the easy thing. Hey, wasn't there a quote like that in Harry Potter. "Soon we must choose between doing what is right and doing what is easy"? Damn, those authors are smart people... Let's vote J.K. Rowling into office? :D

Sorry, didn't mean for it to look like you were saying America has to go "oh look at this, lets nuke a country so it can't recover for centuries!".. I was agreeing with you for this part: Like Inyri said, Japanese were preparing to surrender.

As for my history, when I transfered to another school, I had already missed most of WW2, so I'm a bit rusty.

JCarter426
03-25-2008, 12:00 PM
The Holocaust, the War, all of it could have been avoided if all involved parties, behaved like mature adults and decided "Yeah, ok. You guys are different, you're entitled to your opinions, and we are to ours."

Well, it all could have been prevented if the victors of WWI hadn't been so adamant on making Germany suffer for starting the war. But did they learn? No, they did the same bloody thing after World War II, which got them the Cold War.

And what did that get us? Take a look at the Middle East. And what is the US doing in the Middle East today?

*sigh* People never learn...

True_Avery
03-25-2008, 12:02 PM
Basically the bombs had been made, tested, but there was little idea to the actual damage they could do in a real situation. The war was about to end, as the Japanese did not want to surrender immediately because we had not promised them a stable government upon our occupation of them, and had not given an answer as to whether we would let their emperor stay in power. Americans didn't realize it, but that meant a lot more to the Japanese than they thought. The Japanese pretty much knew they had lost at that point, but the prospect of giving up their government and culture that had existed for hundreds of years was not a happy thought.

We were still technically fighting, and an invasion was estimated to cost tens of thousands of lives on both sides. The problem was, America was not listening to their pleas and concerns for their government. After all, we didn't even listen to the pleas of the Japanese-Americans we placed into internment in our own country. We were not prepared to negotiate, and the Japanese were not prepared to let their country fall.

We also demanded that the Japanese leave China. Now, while the Japanese -were- murdering Chinese by the thousands there, giving up that territory would crush them. They suspected Russia would send a force down into China once Japan had left and block the Japanese trade routes, destroying their economy from the outside in and taking them over once they were weak. Giving into the United State's demands was seen by many Japanese to be a form of suicide for the entire country.

In the end, we dropped Little Boy to push them to their knees and push the last of the Japanese politicians to vote for a surrender. The first bomb could be argued to have been at least a fair move, or even a good move by some points. Final nail in the coffin to assure there would be absolutely no resistance from the honor bound Japanese.

The second bomb, however, was dropped simply because we wanted to see what it could do. It was dropped because American's back then were racist jerks who put the lives of people down the drain for a science experiment. Fat man was dropped -just- as Japanese scientists went to make sure that Little Boy had actually dropped. They had to make sure that what had just happened had just happened. It was unneeded and there was absolutely no excuse, politically, scientifically, etc to ever have it leave the airfield. It was an excuse for America to flex its muscles, even though it had already crushed the crowd watching it to literal dust. The Japanese were ready to give in on Little Boy. Also, we were finishing a third, stronger bomb when Fat Man dropped and were considering using it as well.

I believe you can argue Little Boy being dropped. I do not believe that Fat Man is nearly as debatable, simply because it did not need to be dropped. At all.

Switching gears...

It isn't exactly right to call the Japanese the innocent party in this case, entirely. Their occupation of China is known as the second holocaust of World War II. They did some absolutely terrible things to the Chinese that have even been said to have been more abusive than the German treatment of Jews.

It might have been wrong to bomb civilians, but the people had a bad track record of racism themselves. I feel sorry for the civilians, but Japan (if kharma exists) had it coming to them.

In summary, World War II was messed up. Americans were racist jerks. The Germans were racist jerks. The Japanese were racist jerks. A lot of people had a lot coming to them. Luckily, by the end, at least some of the countries attempted to become friends and now have friendly ties to this day. We could have easily copied the decisions of the League of Nations and blamed all of it on a single country to spark another World War.

Unfortunately, we nearly sparked another World War with that little display of power.

This was part of a Legal Brief paper I did in High School for this:

USE OF ATOMIC WEAPONS
The United States Federal Government is suspected of using its power to enact unconstitutional and questionable action aimed at people of Japanese decent. At the end of World War II, the United States dropped two Atomic weapons on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, causing nearly 100,000 deaths or more, and, “If the United States had made it clear that Emperor Hirohito could stay on the throne, Japan would have surrendered and the bombs would not have been necessary( 1 ).” The two bombs that had hit Japan were used as a last effort to end the war before more deaths were caused. The United States, however, did not look very deeply into alternatives, and if they had given more thought onto terms of surrender, the bombs may have never been dropped. The United States used two unimaginably dangerous weapons on civilian cities without looking into alternatives, clearly abusing its power and military might as well. “The Japanese government has not had time to react to the Hiroshima bombing they had sent a military and scientific team to the city to report on what had happened. By the time they were sure that Hiroshima had been destroyed by an atom bomb, Nagasaki had also been hit( 2 ).” The shock of having an entire city disappear off the face of the earth in a massive explosion is a hard reality to take, and the Japanese wanted to make sure what was said really did happen. However, before they could make a decision or even really talk about the incident, the United States dropped the second bomb. Either the United States had believed the first bomb would not change the Japanese’s mind, or the defendant simply wanted to test a bigger bomb, because a bomb was dropped soon after the first one, clearly showing an abuse of power either way. “By September many of the survivors of the bombing were in the middle of a new nightmare. They had developed what was to be known as radiation sickness. About ten or fifteen days after the bombing the survivors began to lose their hair. Diarrhea and fever followed. They had lost the white blood cells needed to protect the body against disease. Many developed open sores. If the white blood cell count went too low, or the fever too high, they died. This happened to tens of thousands of people( 2 ).” The effects of the bomb lasted past the explosion, causing the deaths of many soon after and the illness of tens of thousands of people. The United States used these weapons on civilian targets, innocent cities, with a very good idea of what they were going to do. “Bohr called on the United States and Great Britain to share the bomb with the Soviet Union, He said they should put atomic weapons under international control. He said that if the United States tried to keep the bomb to itself, other countries such as the Soviet Union would rush to make their own atomic weapons. A nuclear arms race would start that would be a disaster for humanity(2).” Bohr claimed that if the bombs were kept in the defendants hands and the defendants hands only, other countries would soon want the technology and would try their hardest to make bombs better than the United State’s bombs. The defendant pushed this thought away, but no sooner had World War II ended that the Cold War began, bringing forth an age of fear and distrust as countries like Russia and the defendant tried to created more and more bombs until there were enough to destroy all human life upon the planet with the push of a button.

Defense/Counterarguments: USE OF ATOMIC WEAPONS
Weapons of such magnitude would never be used without cause, and the defendant had a couple that seemed to justify using Atomic weapons from a certain perspective. For instance, “Some wartime Japanese politicians have said that without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the peacemakers of Japan would never have persuaded the strong military leaders to stop the war( 1 ).” Politicians within the Japanese government itself claim that the bombs were the only way to end the war. There could have been an invasion of Japan by the United States military, but that could have ended in thousands, if not tens of thousands of deaths on both sides with no foreseeable end. “Truman himself felt it was right to proceed with the plan to drop the bomb. He had three main reasons for this: first, the bomb would bring the war to an end; second, it would keep the U.S.S.R out of Asia; and third, it would test America’s new technology( 1 ).” These three reasons were the justification of dropping the bomb, and the first two would save many lives. An end to the war for Japan and the U.S.S.R in one swoop, and a technology that was still in infant form could be tested on the field for the first time.

JCarter426
03-25-2008, 12:06 PM
Oh, I completely agree. You could argue for hours on end on whether a nuclear strike was justified.

But two nuclear strikes?

Not to mention what they did to Las Vegas in the '50s...

Marius Fett
03-25-2008, 12:08 PM
We did it because we were desperate... to save face. People wanted the war to end, so instead of doing the smart thing we did the easy thing. Hey, wasn't there a quote like that in Harry Potter. "Soon we must choose between doing what is right and doing what is easy"? Damn, those authors are smart people... Let's vote J.K. Rowling into office?

Indeed there was! You may be joking here, but I honestly do believe that JK is a truly inspiring person.

She wrote those books, and millions of children have read them and through those books have discovered how terrible war is. Stories like HP are really not that far from real life!

Take away the magic, the wizards etc and what do you have?

A REAL example of what a REAL war is like. People are losing their parents like Harry did in those books EVERY DAY.

Yeah, those books are fiction. But are actually VERY CLOSE to real life.

Web Rider
03-25-2008, 12:27 PM
WW2 could have been prevented, if we all just got along. Which will never happen. Anyway, back to the original topic. Like Inyri said, Japanese were preparing to surrender, but America has to go "oh look at this, lets nuke a country so it can't recover for centuries!".

Japan recovered politically, economically, and physically from the nuclear attacks in around 2 decades. Because of the nuclear attack on those cities, most of the Japanese infrastructure was left in tact, that is, they didn't get obliterated in the same manner that Germany did, and thus, retained the ability to rebuild faster.

Also, unlike Germany, the atomic bombings showed the Soviet Union, which documents have shown was planning an invasion of Japan towards the end of WWII, that Japan was OURS. Yes, a little international dominance, but this prevented the same sort of east/west situation found in Germany, which I think we can agree was greatly detrimental to the German state of affairs, a country that didn't re-merge until the end of the USSR.

Not according to what I've heard. The Japanese are a proud people, remember that. Just because they didn't say "hey we're going to surrender now" doesn't mean they weren't in the process of doing so, or at the very least planning it.
At the time, documents uncovered AFTER the fact have revealed that the Emperor wanted to surrender, however, the Japanese, being a proud people, particularly their military leaders, preferred to right to the death. Thus, the Emperor, who the military leaders knew was just a man, could do nothing against their will, lest he be removed and replaced with a new emperor.

Additionally, the Japanese requirements in the "conditional" surrender were something along the lines of maintaining territory captured from China in the war, islands taken in the southern pacific, retaining the emperor as god, and all sorts of things that essentially left Japan in the same state it was before it went to war. Which obviously, was a state that did nothing to deter it from going to war.

In response to some of those Youtube comments: it's hard to say that the Japanese did not have it coming. Japan launches a massive attack on Pearl Harbor, and how we lost track of 4 carrier fleets is beyond me, but in any manner, it devastated the Pacific Fleet, a fleet that was, by no understatement, quite the pride of the American Navy.

Furthermore, estimates of man-to-man fighting with Japan were in the millions. On both sides, and looked to extend the war for another decade. The Administration at the time knew that the Japanese would fight to the last man, woman and child, that was how they were raised. If the fact that they specifically designed planes to fly into ships doesn't prove that, I don't know what does.

For those of you saying "we didn't know what the bomb could do", in a way, we didn't. We were in a war and we needed a way to win, and in a way, we did know what it could do. We even sent the Japanese the test footage of the bomb, you can find the footage on Youtube. We said: "here's our war-ending weapon, we'll use it on you if you don't unconditionally surrender." They refused, so we used it on them.

Their first reaction to the first bomb was that it was a fluke, a one-time attack that had been pulled off through some sort of special setup in the city they had missed. And so to prove it wasn't, we used the second one, and bluffed that we had more. We had, of course, the facilities to do so, but it would have taken some time to ready another nuke or two. But by that time the Japanese military was finally being pushed back to their main islands, the Chinese were starting to really push back, and the Soviets were readying an invasion to the north.

Well, it all could have been prevented if the victors of WWI hadn't been so adamant on making Germany suffer for starting the war. But did they learn? No, they did the same bloody thing after World War II, which got them the Cold War.

huh? wha? no...No...NO.

dah! Historical ignorance makes my brain hurt! The English and the French and the Americans in WWII learned from the mistake of the treaty of Versailles and did not saddle Germany with a huge war dept, AND helped them to rebuild.

The Cold War was caused by escalations between the Soviet Union(Russia) and the United States. The Communists came out of nowhere advocating "capitalisim must die", and as a capitalist country, we kinda took offense to that. Thus the bickering went back and forth. Yes, it would have been better if people could have been mature about it, but this did not stem from what was done to Germany after WWII.

mur'phon
03-25-2008, 12:49 PM
WWII just like WWI and indeed all other wars, were started basically due to a difference in ideas.

I disagre, usually it is more because of rescourses(sp?). Hitler ruled a country devastated by the terms of the "peace" after ww1 as well as the war itself. He managed to cut down unemployment and get the economy growing again using several methods, including spending huge amounts on the military. If he where to keep up growth, he needed to get something back from his investments......

On topic:
In my wiev the idea behind the firebombing/nuclearbombing is insane. It for the most part like this:"By deliberately killing civilians we are hoping that the civilians will blame their leaders, and force them to end the war.". Nice exept it asumes the people won't rally behind their leaders to fight the ones responsible.

Marius Fett
03-25-2008, 01:36 PM
^^True, though Hitler was still destroying the Jews BECAUSE THEY WERE DIFFERENT

The Holocaust, like tha nuclear attacks and the Nanking massacre were TERRBLE ACTS OF TERRORISM.

JCarter426
03-25-2008, 01:44 PM
huh? wha? no...No...NO.

dah! Historical ignorance makes my brain hurt! The English and the French and the Americans in WWII learned from the mistake of the treaty of Versailles and did not saddle Germany with a huge war dept, AND helped them to rebuild.

Yes, they did that. But they also split the country in half and turned Berlin into a war zone. If both of them had just stayed out of Germany, there wouldn't have been an iron curtain, and the Cold War probably wouldn't have escalated, at least not in Europe, which was only one front. But still, it was pretty much the same everywhere else--if both parties had just minded their own damn business, there wouldn't have been a war.

EnderWiggin
03-25-2008, 01:56 PM
No

Did it end the war quicker? Yes. Did it save (American) lives? Yes. Was it morally and ethically the right thing to do? Absolutely not.

The decision to bomb Japan was made to end the war quicker and to show our (America's) dominance. What's worse, Japan was already preparing their surrender when we bombed them.

If it was just a bomb it wouldn't have been such a big issue, but the fallout from these bombs has been punishing the innocents ever since. Sure, 'we didn't know what would happen.' I don't eat food if it's a funny color because 'I don't know what'll happen' and then act surprised when I get sick. I throw it away, because it's not right...


QFE.

Inyri, I don't think you've ever said something I disagree with.

_EW_

mimartin
03-25-2008, 02:20 PM
One question: WAS THIS RIGHT?
I don't know if it was the right thing to do our not. The world would be a better place if we would have left that genie in the bottle. However, if I were in Truman’s shoes at the time, I would have made the exact same choice. The federal government first responsibility is to the citizens of the United States of America, something the government has forgotten over past 63 years.

1. July 26, 1945, the United Nations issued the Potsdam Proclamation, which called for Japan’s unconditional surrender.

2. July 29, 1945, Japan broadcast that it would ignore the proclamation and would refuse surrender.

3. Two days before the Potsdam Proclamation was issued, President Truman approved “Operation Downfall,” the invasion of Japan. The conservative estimates of “Operation Downfall” put the American casualties at one million. It also estimated that 1000 Japanese and Americans would die every hour during the early stages of the invasion.
But as you say Inyri, Nobody deserves to be the targets/victims of nuclear weapons, ESPECIALLY when ALL other options have not yet been fully evaluated and attempts have been made to put them into action.What options? There was only one option, the full and unconditional surrender of Japan. It was a yes or no question, not a negotiation. Forgive me, but didn’t Japan end the diplomat option on 12/07/1941?

Actually, Japan were considering it. They were considering surrendering, though on four of their own conditions.The Potsdam Proclamation called for the unconditional surrender of Japan. Setting conditions was unacceptable to the allies.
Like Inyri said, Japanese were preparing to surrender, but America has to go "oh look at this, lets nuke a country so it can't recover for centuries!".
There was nothing to prepare for. The Allies would only accept an unconditional surrender, not something that takes a lot of planning for on the defeated nation’s part, as the word unconditional means everything is up to the victor.
But two nuclear strikes?If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. We dropped the bomb, Japan still refused to “unconditionally surrender,” so we dropped another.
I'm baffled why we thought using a relatively untested nuclear device was bright.Because it did what it was designed to do, kill in the most shocking way possible. That much was apparent by the few test they actually did before using the device.

Let us also remember that we were not sure the device would actually work. I’ve always thought we should have dropped leaflets first warning citizens to get out, the problem with that is first we alert there antiaircraft defenses and second what happens if it did not work. Kind of defeats the idea of giving a free preview.
It might have been wrong to bomb civilians, but the people had a bad track record of racism themselves. I feel sorry for the civilians, but Japan (if kharma exists) had it coming to them.I don’t really see the racism here. Sure this was a racist nation in the 1940s, but look at what we did to the city of Dresden in the late stages of the war in Europe. The RAF and the USAAF dropped over 3,900 tons of high-explosives and incendiary devices on the city, destroying 13 square miles of the city and killing between 24,000 and 40,000 civilians. Is there a real difference between dropping one bomb or dropping a hundred bombs on civilians? Yes, we were prejudice against the Japanese people, look at what we did to our own citizens of Japanese decent during WWII, but I do not believe the decision to drop the bombs were racially motivated. Revenge for 12/07/1941 was the motivation.

Hate to bring this up, but to me it was a determining factor in deciding about the use of the bombs on Japan. It is estimated that the Manhattan Project cost two billion dollars in the 1940’s dollars. What would the American people had thought when they learned a million of their sons were killed in the invasion, yet the President had the means to stop the war before the invasion? Oh and by the way, we spent two billion dollars and did not use the final product. It would have been political suicide for Truman and the Democratic Party.

Much like Truman, I find the use of the bombs morally wrong, but also like Truman, I would have dropped the bombs too, then wait for the judgment of my maker.

I feel sorry for the victims and ashamed the country I love used nuclear weapons on another living thing. However, I will not second guess their decision to use them. I did not live through that time in American history and everyone I know that did live through that time or served their country during that time agrees with Mr. Truman’s decision. That is good enough for me.

*Don*
03-25-2008, 02:36 PM
There was no need for such drastic measures.
Matter of fact, historians now believe that the Pearl Harbor incident was carefully planned by FDR.
Did anyone happen to see that documentary on FDR last week?
They mention how he wanted to bring America out of isolation and the depression by involving them in WWII. He even had notice of the fact that the Japanese were going to attack one of America's bases in teh Pacific. He let that happen because he wanted to incite anger at the Japanese and hence draw America into the war.

Americans, unfortunately, have been very unfair to the Japanese. Teddy Roosevelt himself said some very racist remarks about them when he was president.
Couple that with the Japanese relocation camps set up in America, and u should be able to get a clear picture of how Americans felt about Japanese.

Unsuprisingly, the Japanese affected by that incident were never fully recompensated.

As for whether the war would have ended quicker, I feel like it shouldn't have mattered.
Like said before in this thread, we have to choose between doing whats easy and doing whats right.
"Saving the lives of American soldiers" just doesn't seem like a good enough excuse to kill countless civilians.
Soldiers dying in battle for their country is to be expected. Civilians dying without warning isn't justifiable.

Marius Fett
03-25-2008, 02:41 PM
@mimartin

You stand by the decisions of your leaders and government, that's understandable.
But HOW was droppig these bombs justified in ANY WAY?

Sure, it saved American lives, yeah, it ended the war, but at what cost?

The radioactive fallout from those bombs has caused the deaths of thousands of people since.

You say it would have been political suicude to not use the bombs after spending all that money on them?

Personally, I would have been glad to not have to use them, even if I had spend 2 billion dollars.

I would rather suffer embarassment than have the deaths of MILLIONS OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS on my concience.

Inyri
03-25-2008, 02:45 PM
"It would be political suicide" is the silliest reason to do anything that I've ever heard. I believe the word we use to describe politicians who use that excuse is 'incompetent.'

I mean look how much money we're frivolously spending now and take a poll and see how many people legitimately care (beyond the occasional complaint). :lol:

*Don*
03-25-2008, 02:47 PM
I agree with DarthDingDong
Its narrowminded decisions like these that incited so much hatred and anger at America. (which, subsequently resulted in 9/11)

EDIT: Deleted due to irrelevance.

JCarter426
03-25-2008, 02:50 PM
The radioactive fallout from those bombs has caused the deaths of thousands of people since.

Now that is something interesting to point out. Not only did the US Government make nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, full aware of the consequences of the radioactive fallout, but they did it to their own people a decade later.

Inyri
03-25-2008, 02:58 PM
I don't think they were 'fully aware' of the consequences of nuclear fallout when they dropped the bombs on Japan, so let's be fair. Those things take years to become apparent, and they hadn't been testing them long enough to find out. I mean how many of the 'supervisory' personnel affiliated with the Manhattan Project ended up dying of cancer because of the radiation they endured during testing? If they were 'fully aware' that wouldn't have happened. ;)

On a similar note, think about 9/11. Bin Laden killed countless civilians just like America killed countless civilians in Japan. If 9/11 was wrong, then what makes hiroshima and Nagasaki any different?

Don't get me wrong or anything, I'm a patriotic citizen.
Its just that I can't understand why people were so dumbfounded when 9/11 happened. We can't expect to go forcefully into other countries and expect them not to hate us.Tell me you didn't just compare 9/11 to bombing Japan. We bombed Japan in the context of war -- they had attacked us and we were responding with force. The attacks on the twin towers were not a response to a physical attack by the United States. They're two completely different things.

I get your point, but... your point doesn't really apply in this context because you're comparing apples and oranges.

Marius Fett
03-25-2008, 03:02 PM
@Don

Well reasoned, don't get me wrong here, I like America, but those bombs were nothing short of terrorism.

@Carter

You've hit the nail right on the head there. America still continue today to test nuclear devices. They even let tourists go to see the craters! How dangerous is that!

*Don*
03-25-2008, 03:25 PM
Im sorry for the misunderstanding.
Ironically, I was just repeating what I heard on CNN this morning (in reference to rev wrights comments).

Inyri
03-25-2008, 03:26 PM
Never repeat what you hear on TV without thinking about it first. TV is not always right. :p

mur'phon
03-25-2008, 03:33 PM
Neither is newspapers, radio, and forums :xp:

Web Rider
03-25-2008, 03:36 PM
On topic:
In my wiev the idea behind the firebombing/nuclearbombing is insane. It for the most part like this:"By deliberately killing civilians we are hoping that the civilians will blame their leaders, and force them to end the war.". Nice exept it asumes the people won't rally behind their leaders to fight the ones responsible.

In many war-nations, "industy" and "civilian" populations where integrated. In the cases of Dresden and other attacks, the factories, the workshops, they were manned by Civilians, they were operated by civilians and they were in civilian areas. As much as anyone can be a civilian when they are helping run their country's war machine.

One of the prime reasons that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted was because Tokyo was a much lager center for non-war industry and civilian populus and was therefore not hit because when Japan surrendered, they would not have had their prime city(like Berlin was) devastated by war.

Yes, they did that. But they also split the country in half and turned Berlin into a war zone. If both of them had just stayed out of Germany, there wouldn't have been an iron curtain, and the Cold War probably wouldn't have escalated, at least not in Europe, which was only one front. But still, it was pretty much the same everywhere else--if both parties had just minded their own damn business, there wouldn't have been a war.

uh...again...no, I mean, jeeze, do you ever read history or did you just hear about this "Cold War" and know that it was bad?

Germany was waging war with all of Europe, in order to be defeated, their war-machine must have been pushed all the way back to their capital. To show that they were utterly defeated. partitioning was indeed a bad idea, but it was the Soviets who disliked integrating the partitions, which was done in 1948 between the remaining Allies. Additionally, the Soviet Union was setting up puppet regimes and annexing Eastern European countries that had been devastated by the war into themselves.

The Iron Curtain, a term coined by Churchill, was only reinforced by Soviet statements in 1947 regarding that "they were at war with capitalisim and the west". Germany was not the cause, and not even CLOSE the cause of the Cold War. The Cold War was caused by Soviet expansion and the promoting of communist insurrections in other countries. And then countered and escalated by the US(since most of Europe was flattened by war) helping to support western-friendly governments that were besieged by Soviet-armed communist revolutions.

Additionally, it stems from things like the Truman and Marshall doctrines that were dedicated to fighting "totalitarianism" in the world. Doing so by supporting, as I said, governments under siege.

There was no need for such drastic measures.
Matter of fact, historians now believe that the Pearl Harbor incident was carefully planned by FDR.
no, they do not.

Did anyone happen to see that documentary on FDR last week?
They mention how he wanted to bring America out of isolation and the depression by involving them in WWII. He even had notice of the fact that the Japanese were going to attack one of America's bases in teh Pacific. He let that happen because he wanted to incite anger at the Japanese and hence draw America into the war.
America had several dozen bases in the Pacific, on just about every Island we visisted. And the Japanese attacked MOST of them. Saying "Roosevelt knew" is like saying he knew there were fish in the sea. Yeah, he just had no idea the Japanese wanted to go whaling instead of fishing.

Americans, unfortunately, have been very unfair to the Japanese. Teddy Roosevelt himself said some very racist remarks about them when he was president.
Which is to be expected when you are a nationalist at war with others.
Couple that with the Japanese relocation camps set up in America, and u should be able to get a clear picture of how Americans felt about Japanese.
Yeah...and?

Unsuprisingly, the Japanese affected by that incident were never fully recompensated.
Nor have the Japanese even apologized for the rape of Nanking. One evil does not condone another of course, but if we're going to go "America is evil because it treated the Japanese badly!!!" you can't leave Japan out of the picture.

As for whether the war would have ended quicker, I feel like it shouldn't have mattered.
decades of war....or winning now. Yeah, winning totally doesn't matter in a war.
Like said before in this thread, we have to choose between doing whats easy and doing whats right.
wars are about winning, not doing what's right. If people did what's right, the Japanese would never had started. And if we truly did what was easy, we would have surrendered.
"Saving the lives of American soldiers" just doesn't seem like a good enough excuse to kill countless civilians.
Soldiers dying in battle for their country is to be expected. Civilians dying without warning isn't justifiable.
Wars are about winning. Not to mention, when "civilians" are fully supporting the war-effort through working in it, acting in it, ect...it's hard to call them "innocent" or even "civilians". During a war, only the most distant targets are "civilians", and in Japan, everyone helped the war effort.

@mimartin
You stand by the decisions of your leaders and government, that's understandable.
But HOW was droppig these bombs justified in ANY WAY?
by the following reasons.

Sure, it saved American lives, yeah, it ended the war, but at what cost?
When you are at war with somebody, you consider the smallest cost to yourself. Do you think any other nation would have afforded the Allies such consideration? The Nazi's were massacring Jews and Gypsies and Homosexuals and the handicapped and everyone else who didn't agree with them, while the Japanese massacred the Chinese.

The radioactive fallout from those bombs has caused the deaths of thousands of people since.
yes it has.

You say it would have been political suicude to not use the bombs after spending all that money on them?
after spending some 2 billion dollars, which, at the time, was such an ungodly high number, yes, it would have been. With the war in europe over, the people and politicians alike wanted a quick and decisive end to the war with Japan, not a long drawn out struggle.

Personally, I would have been glad to not have to use them, even if I had spend 2 billion dollars.
Somebody else would have. The Bomb was as much winning the war as showing the Soviets to stay out of Japan and the pacific. As much as it was showing the Japanese that we were not weak as they percieved us to be.

I would rather suffer embarassment than have the deaths of MILLIONS OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS on my concience.
NOBODY IS INNOCENT IN WAR.
The Japense populus was in full support of the war effort. They believed in it, they supported it, they worked in it, they helped it in every way they could. There were no Japanese going around saying "war is bad!" "end the war!"
And AGAIN: Wars are about winning, how is letting innumerable soldiers die, along with more japanese die, along with years more of war, and a situation like the piecing up of Germany in Japan, along with Soviet expansion into the Pacific a better solution? And nobody having used "the Bomb" somebody would have, and maybe instead of just having two to use, they'd have 20, or 30, and they'd all be a 100 times more powerful?

Is that better? hundreds of thousands dead on all sides in a campaign to conquer Japan and resulting in a nuclear war with hundreds of millions?

Now that is something interesting to point out. Not only did the US Government make nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, full aware of the consequences of the radioactive fallout, but they did it to their own people a decade later.
No, they did not. On both counts.

I agree with DarthDingDong
Its narrowminded decisions like these that incited so much hatred and anger at America. (which, subsequently resulted in 9/11)
Yes, bombing Japan during a war resulted in 9/11...I have many words for you...all of which will get me banned.

On a similar note, think about 9/11. Bin Laden killed countless civilians just like America killed countless civilians in Japan. If 9/11 was wrong, then what makes hiroshima and Nagasaki any different?
Okay, you just DONT get it do you? CONTEXT! everywhere CONTEXT! You can't just compare two completly unlike events and call them the same!

Don't get me wrong or anything, I'm a patriotic citizen.
since you don't know your history, you are not.

Its just that I can't understand why people were so dumbfounded when 9/11 happened. We can't expect to go forcefully into other countries and expect them not to hate us.
Japan does not hate us. Germany does not hate us for out WWII actions. The secret CIA training of the Taliban was just that, SECRET. We didn't know about it, and they WANTED it to fight the Soviets who were invading their country.

EDIT:
@Don
Well reasoned, don't get me wrong here, I like America, but those bombs were nothing short of terrorism.
Your statements make me want to throw my history books at you. What you are saying is terrorism because it's so stupid! You are encouraging people to be ignorant of reality! The Atomic Bombing may have been good or bad, but at least get your facts straight on what happened!

You've hit the nail right on the head there. America still continue today to test nuclear devices. They even let tourists go to see the craters! How dangerous is that!
NO, they do not. They never have let tourists see the craters. And we havent done a nuclear test since the 90's. It was all part of the SALT 1+2, and START and STAR treaties with the Soviet Union in the 80's.

And Japan allows tourists to see the Atomic Bomb blast sites as memorials to the people who died there. The radiation from the nuclear weapons used in Japan are so minimal, you get more cancer from the sun than from Hiroshima.

*Don*
03-25-2008, 03:38 PM
Never repeat what you hear on TV without thinking about it first. TV is not always right.


Lol...
yea, i havd an unhealthy tendency to do that.
I also have a tendency to speak before I think.
:P

Q
03-25-2008, 03:42 PM
Oh, please. Terrorism?! :roleyess:

In case you didn't know, The Japanese were hardly innocent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Nanking). Civilians were legitimate targets in World War II, and were victimized by both sides on many occasions.

Also: conventional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II) raids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Hamburg_in_World_War_II) during the war caused comparable civilian casualties.

Does this make it right? Of course not. Hell, war isn't "right," but that does not keep it from happening.

And remember, folks: hindsight is 20/20.
Were the Japanese considering surrender? Yes.
Did the U.S. know that? No.

What the U.S. did know was that the Japanese were a fanatically fatalistic people who would more often than not prefer death to surrender. So before you judge the U.S., try a little context on for size. ;)

Jae Onasi
03-25-2008, 03:42 PM
There is a great tendency for people to assume that what we know now about science and medicine, we also knew 60 years ago or more. We did not know nearly as much as we do now. In fact, a lot of the medical studies on radiation poisoning/sickness came about because of doing research on Japanese who had survived these 2 bombs, along with the secret studies done by the military on soldiers. There were no long-term studies on radiation medicine at that point and expecting the leaders to have know that ahead of time is unrealistic.

Want to know the state of medicine at that time? We had 3, count them, 3 antibiotics. We had the rudimentary start of anesthesia beyond using ether. Surgery was just starting to come onto the scene in a significant way. We had absolutely no knowledge of DNA. The polio vaccine for mass use wouldn't be developed for another 10 years.

Want to know the state of science? Rocket science was brand new. Radar was pretty new. Use of sonar was pretty new. Submarine science in its modern sense was new. Einstein was still working on his relativity theory and the Big Bang theory hadn't yet been developed. We knew precious little about what radiation was going to do long-term on a mass scale.

The leaders could only work with what they knew at the time. FDR and Churchill knew that the Japanese were unlikely to surrender without significant fighting. They _did_ think about what the war was going to cost in personnel, materiel, and time with and without deploying the atomic bombs. These bombs were the lesser of two evils. If Japan had surrendered unconditionally after the first bomb, there would have been no second atomic bomb dropped.

In regards to Hitler--we most certainly did not get involved in a war with him because it was just some huge misunderstanding and supreme prejudice against certain classes of people. Hitler was a megalomaniac and his goal was to rule all of Europe and quite possibly the entire world. He thought it was his right as an Aryan. Extermination of the Jews, as horrible as it was, was a minor secondary issue compared to running the war machine that mowed through Austria, Poland, France, and a very large part of the rest of Europe. In fact, European leaders tried to use diplomatic means ('appeasement') for a long time to try to get Hitler to stop. Diplomacy failed utterly because they weren't dealing with a reasonable person.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot remotely be compared to the heinous attacks on 9/11. Yes, the nuclear attacks were horrible, but they were dropped during wartime. The attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11 were nothing more than acts of cowardice by some two-bit terrorists who refused to promote what is supposed to be a religion of peace in anything but a violent matter. They were not done in a time of war, and the two acts are entirely different.

JCarter426
03-25-2008, 03:46 PM
The Iron Curtain, a term coined by Churchill, was only reinforced by Soviet statements in 1947 regarding that "they were at war with capitalisim and the west". Germany was not the cause, and not even CLOSE the cause of the Cold War. The Cold War was caused by Soviet expansion and the promoting of communist insurrections in other countries. And then countered and escalated by the US(since most of Europe was flattened by war) helping to support western-friendly governments that were besieged by Soviet-armed communist revolutions.

If I may quote myself here...

If both of them had just stayed out of Germany, there wouldn't have been an iron curtain, and the Cold War probably wouldn't have escalated, at least not in Europe, which was only one front.

I never said Germany was the cause of the Cold War. I said that the US and the Soviet Union's handling of Germany after WWII was one factor that led to the escalation of the Cold War.

Again,

But still, it was pretty much the same everywhere else--if both parties had just minded their own damn business [i.e. stayed out of Germany, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.], there wouldn't have been a war.

mimartin
03-25-2008, 03:51 PM
You stand by the decisions of your leaders and government, that's understandable.No, I’m not one to stand by my government or leaders without questioning them.
But HOW was dropping these bombs justified in ANY WAY? What is justifiable in war? Was it justifiable for the Japanese to attack without a declaration of war? We were still looking for a diplomat option at the time, yet they used that ruse in their surprise attack. Not exactly the type of government you go back into negotiations with to end the war.

England hands are not completely clean in this matter, after all it was Roosevelt and Churchill that came up with the terms of the unconditional surrender in January 1943 at a conference of Allied Powers held in Casablanca. The biggest stumbling block to a Japanese surrender was their right to keep the Emperor.

Sure, it saved American lives, yeah, it ended the war, but at what cost? No, it saved American lives, Austrian lives, British lives, Canadian lives and it also saved Japanese lives soldiers and civilians.

The radioactive fallout from those bombs has caused the deaths of thousands of people since. It is truly a tragic byproduct of the use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are the tragic byproduct of war. Maybe we should strive to eliminate the truly immoral thing, war.

You say it would have been political suicide to not use the bombs after spending all that money on them?
Personally, I would have been glad to not have to use them, even if I had spend 2 billion dollars. How about 2 billion dollars and one million allied lives? Don’t you figure in an invasion where the estimate is one million American losses there are going to be Japanese losses of equal value or greater than the American losses? How many more Japanese cities where going to be firebombed with inclinator bombs? Remember the reasons Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen, they were among the few cities left that had not been firebombed and would allow the military to ascertain the effectiveness of the bombs.

I would rather suffer embarassment than have the deaths of MILLIONS OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS on my concience. I am under the impression that millions of civilians would have been killed under an invasion. I will not use the word innocent, because the Japanese government had already mobilized the civilians to push the invaders back into the sea. On July 29, 1945 when Japan broadcast its response to the Potsdam Proclamation they also closed the schools in order to prepare the children for the American invasion.

The Japanese plan was to induce such causalities on the U.S. so that the American’s become demoralized and would then accept a less-than-unconditional surrender allow them to keep their Emperor and save face. So yes, they were planning to surrender, but only under their terms.

The Japanese were not the defeated nation many have portrayed in this tread. If the Operation Downfall would have taken place the Americans 14 divisions landing at Kyshu would have faced 14 Japanese division, 7 mixed brigades and 3 tank brigades. In other words the Americans would have been out numbered 3 to 2. These also were not poorly trained troops, the defenders were the hard core of the home army that had been preparing for this day. They knew the land and had the defensive needed to push the Americans back into the sea. The Japanese still had 40 submarines and 12, 725 planes (something the American intelligence did not know when drawing up their one million estimate). All the Japanese wanted to do was last ten day. In ten days they thought they could deliver a blow strong enough for the Americans to accept the Japanese surrender under their terms. I have no doubt the Japanese people would not have issued a devastating blow to the American forces. I also do not believe the Americans would accept any condition on the surrender and thus the war would have continued from city to city, from home to home.

Again it was immoral I do not dispute that, but so is war in and of itself. Innocents die in war and that is tragic. There is no justification for using nuclear weapons, but I will say it again. In Truman’s shoes I would have done the exact same thing. The alternative is just as unacceptable to me.

Marius Fett
03-25-2008, 04:02 PM
You make a good arguement, but I stand by what I said earlier. I would NOT drop a nuke unless there was no choice.

As I said earlier, they could have just dropped one in the sea near Japan to demonstrate their power rather than annhialate all those civilians.

*Don*
03-25-2008, 04:03 PM
Yes, bombing Japan during a war resulted in 9/11...I have many words for you...all of which will get me banned.

Okay, you just DONT get it do you? CONTEXT! everywhere CONTEXT! You can't just compare two completly unlike events and call them the same!

Japan does not hate us. Germany does not hate us for out WWII actions. The secret CIA training of the Taliban was just that, SECRET. We didn't know about it, and they WANTED it to fight the Soviets who were invading their country.



First off, we can all just ignore those comments.
I realize that they stemmed from a different conversation from television.


no, they do not.

America had several dozen bases in the Pacific, on just about every Island we visisted. And the Japanese attacked MOST of them. Saying "Roosevelt knew" is like saying he knew there were fish in the sea. Yeah, he just had no idea the Japanese wanted to go whaling instead of fishing.


As for FDR planning America's entrance into WWII, there are plenty of evidence for that. Matter of fact, it's documented in the history books that they make us read in high school.
FDR's cabinet was looking for a way to uplift the country out of the Depression and war was the best stimulus at that time.


Yeah...and?


Which means that the American population had a biased view against the Japanese. I'm not blaming them for it, I'm just saying that they weren't really bothered about how the Japanese felt.


decades of war....or winning now. Yeah, winning totally doesn't matter in a war.


The Japanese didn't want to UNCONDITIONALLY surrender. If the Allies had settled for a conditional surrender, the war could have also ended sooner.


wars are about winning, not doing what's right. If people did what's right, the Japanese would never had started. And if we truly did what was easy, we would have surrendered.
Wars are about winning. Not to mention, when "civilians" are fully supporting the war-effort through working in it, acting in it, ect...it's hard to call them "innocent" or even "civilians". During a war, only the most distant targets are "civilians", and in Japan, everyone helped the war effort.


That line of thought would end up justifying the deaths of many Allied citizens, since many of them actively participated in the war effort too.

PoiuyWired
03-25-2008, 04:11 PM
No

Did it end the war quicker? Yes. Did it save (American) lives? Yes. Was it morally and ethically the right thing to do? Absolutely not.


On the other hand, there is absolutely no reason to drop the second bomb. It seems obvious that there is going to be a surrender after the first one. And really, one bomb is just as obvious as to when it comes to showcasing the devistation power.

Inyri
03-25-2008, 04:12 PM
Agreed. True Avery made a very good point of that earlier, in fact. One would have been plenty. To be honest, one was too much (of course our pro-force friends here won't agree on that point).

Some of us think war is wrong any way you slice it, and any 'rationalization' is nothing more than an excuse.

mimartin
03-25-2008, 04:15 PM
As I said earlier, they could have just dropped one in the sea near Japan to demonstrate their power rather than annhialate all those civilians. When I was in high school, that was my argument too. I could not understand why we would use such a weapon on even our worst enemy. Besides, my local town has a Japanese chemical plant in it. I was and still am friends with a number of Japanese citizens.

However, what if we invited them to watch or great new super weapon from a safe distance and then dropped it out of the plane and nothing happened? Think that might convince them to fight even harder? Let’s also remember we only had two working bombs. What if after our demonstration we dropped the second on a city and it worked. What if the Japanese still refused to surrender? After all maybe the next one wouldn’t work either. Let’s also remember it took the second bomb to convince the Japanese to surrender unconditionally, they didn’t seem overly concern about their citizens either.
The Japanese didn't want to UNCONDITIONALLY surrender. If the Allies had settled for a conditional surrender, the war could have also ended sooner.Why should the Allies settle for anything less than the unconditional surrender? I don’t remember Japan allow us to set condition to start the war.AAs for FDR planning America's entrance into WWII, there are plenty of evidence for that. Matter of fact, it's documented in the history books that they make us read in high school.
FDR's cabinet was looking for a way to uplift the country out of the Depression and war was the best stimulus at that time.
Very true, including our embargo against Japan that lead directly to their surprise attack.

Inyri
03-25-2008, 04:18 PM
they didn’t seem overly concern about their citizens either.It's easy to say that sitting on this side of the pond, while having no legitimate insight on the 1940's Japanese government besides what's written in text books.

mimartin
03-25-2008, 04:23 PM
It's easy to say that sitting on this side of the pond, while having no legitimate insight on the 1940's Japanese government besides what's written in text books. You can't tell by actions? Drop bomb, don't surrender. It is not like the two planes were 1 hour apart.

SilentScope001
03-25-2008, 04:26 PM
Be warned, I'm summarizing a historical book about the US bombings.

The Japanese were considering surrender, but they wanted a conditional surrender, that would peserve at least parts of the Japanese empire, including the position of Emproer. That would be something the US did not want to do. The US wanted an uncondtional surrender, so that they can change Japan into a different country, and thereby ensure Japan won't wage war against the US again. In fact, general consesus in the Japanese leadership was that if America invaded Japan, Japan would defeat the Americans thanks to the kamikaize attacks and the mobilization of total war, and that defeat will force America to consider a conditional surrender.

That's it. It was invetible Japan was going to lose, but Japan wanted to lose gracefully, and would be willing to let millions die for that right to lose gracefully. The atomic bombs, however, along with the invasion of Manchuraia by the USSR (yes, that event occured along the same time as the atomic bombings and played a role as well), caused enough moral damage to the Japanese leadership that the Emproer decided on surrender. It also provided an escape clause, in which the Nationalists who argued for world war anyway would be able to support a negogation because of the atomic bomb, and don't have to worry about selling out Japan to a conditional surrender.

As for the actual bombings themselves: Have anyone considered that Japan's Emproer might actually be divine? If so, then the bombings would be morally wrong anyway, regardless if civilians died or not.

*Don*
03-25-2008, 04:27 PM
Why should the Allies settle for anything less than the unconditional surrender? I don’t remember Japan allow us to set condition to start the war.

I'm just saying that an conditional surrender would probably have been better than the bombings.
Additionally, the conditions could have been negotiated, which might have been more beneficial.

mimartin
03-25-2008, 04:43 PM
I'm just saying that an conditional surrender would probably have been better than the bombings.
Additionally, the conditions could have been negotiated, which might have been more beneficial.
Agreed, I don't know about the Emperor, but Truman, FDR, Churchill and Stalin were all too hard headed for that.

SilentScope001
03-25-2008, 04:54 PM
Additionally, the conditions could have been negotiated, which might have been more beneficial.

Buh? Negogations would likely mean that Japan would try to get the best terms possible. Meaning continue to wage war and get victories to put pressure on the Allies.

And most Americans were strongly in favor of unconditional surrender, as punishment for Peral Harbor. Going against the Americans would harm American morale and make FDR/Truman rather unpopular.

Hack, that would likely explain why a conditional surrender is a bad idea.

EDIT: The atomic bomb is the simplest of all solutions to ending the war, so it's okay. However, for historical sake, there may be another way of stopping the atomic bomb: Conduct a naval blockade in which you prevent Japan from gaining supplies, slowly starving Japan to death, and thereby forcing Japan to surrender.

Web Rider
03-25-2008, 04:56 PM
As I said earlier, they could have just dropped one in the sea near Japan to demonstrate their power rather than annhialate all those civilians.

The argument against this is two fold, one, that if the bomb didn't work, the Japanese would laugh at us and we'd look stupid and weak. It may even rally the Japanese to fight harder, thus making things worse. Or two, they dismiss it as a fluke, or slight of hand, and think we're just trying to trick them.

As for FDR planning America's entrance into WWII, there are plenty of evidence for that. Matter of fact, it's documented in the history books that they make us read in high school.
FDR's cabinet was looking for a way to uplift the country out of the Depression and war was the best stimulus at that time.
It is possible that we(the government at the time) wanted to get into the war to stimulate the economy, that doesn't change that our first fights against Japan were defending Australia, and that they attacked Pearl Harbor. And that our aid to Britain was because they were a close ally, and the Germans also were using unrestricted submarine warfare ...again...and sinking just about whatever they pleased, civilian, military or other.

Which means that the American population had a biased view against the Japanese. I'm not blaming them for it, I'm just saying that they weren't really bothered about how the Japanese felt.
And so did the Japanese, and the Germans, most people at the time were racist.

The Japanese didn't want to UNCONDITIONALLY surrender. If the Allies had settled for a conditional surrender, the war could have also ended sooner.
There are no records of the Japanese offering to conditionally surrender under any terms. At best it is believed that they were simply stalling for more time in order to be better prepared to attack.

That line of thought would end up justifying the deaths of many Allied citizens, since many of them actively participated in the war effort too.
I don't disagree. I'm not saying that only the bad-guys are the guilty ones. But the difference is in that that they started the war, and we joined it. Yes, making civilians targets, but in a different manner.

On the other hand, there is absolutely no reason to drop the second bomb. It seems obvious that there is going to be a surrender after the first one. And really, one bomb is just as obvious as to when it comes to showcasing the devistation power.

Actually, no it wasn't. Also, it was a showcase of power...to Moscow, because Russia officially joined the war in the Pacific on Aug 8th.

As for the actual bombings themselves: Have anyone considered that Japan's Emproer might actually be divine? If so, then the bombings would be morally wrong anyway, regardless if civilians died or not.

That depends on how you define "divine", if you mean like an omnipotent God, then the acts were done by his will, and he did nothing to stop them. If you mean "divine" in just really amazingly supernaturally powerful, then he may have simply lacked the ability or the power to stop it.

Also, one would question why a being of such great and terrible power would NOT use their power to make things good for their side?

Inyri
03-25-2008, 04:57 PM
And Americans are strongly in favor of unconditional surrenderSpeak for yourself and/or use the past tense if you're talking about the past. Quantifiers such as "many" make you not sound like you're making such sweeping generalizations. :)

SilentScope001
03-25-2008, 05:04 PM
Speak for yourself and/or use the past tense if you're talking about the past. Quantifiers such as "many" make you not sound like you're making such sweeping generalizations

Okay, I edited. But there was polls that indicated that a vast majority wanted unconditional surrender.

That depends on how you define "divine", if you mean like an omnipotent God, then the acts were done by his will, and he did nothing to stop them. If you mean "divine" in just really amazingly supernaturally powerful, then he may have simply lacked the ability or the power to stop it.

Also, one would question why a being of such great and terrible power would NOT use their power to make things good for their side?

Well, the Emproer was divine in that he got his power from the Sun God. And then that Sun God gained its power from another God, etc., etc. It's the infinite succession of power that makes the Emproer rather holy, as he is the medium by which the Sun God conveys his power and message.

And while the Emperor is a living God, the reason he was unable to prevent the bombings was because he's not omiprescent, like the Judeo-Chrisitan God. But he's still God, according to Shintoism. Always had been, always will be. Even when the Emperor 'recanted' his divinitiy after the war, claiming not to be God at all, he still claimed he was descended from the Sun God, so he's still got some power and lots of loyalty regardless.

Though I am not a Shintoist. So we need a Shintoist follower here, perferably one who was for Japan during WWII.

Inyri
03-25-2008, 05:12 PM
But there was polls that indicated that a vast majority wanted unconditional surrender.You mean like those wonderfully accurate news polls that poll about 100 people and claim that the populous all feels a certain way?

The problem with 'the public' is that they're more often than not very uninformed. That's why we have a government; they're meant to do what's right/appropriate, not what the people want (especially if they deem it unnecessary for the public to know the details).

Arcesious
03-25-2008, 06:06 PM
It was wrong, but what's done is done. We can't really do much about it now, and it was not our generations' mistake, it was Truman's.

Marius Fett
03-25-2008, 06:26 PM
It was wrong, but what's done is done. We can't really do much about it now, and it was not our generations' mistake, it was Truman's.

What does it matter WHEN it happened?

It was still wrong.

mimartin
03-25-2008, 06:28 PM
It was wrong, but what's done is done. We can't really do much about it now, and it was not our generations' mistake, it was Truman's.It was Truman’s? How do you figure that? If anything, I would say it was Franklin D. Roosevelt, J Robert Oppenheimer and General Leslie R. Groves along with more than 130,000 other people share in the blame. That is not counting our allies that also made anything short of unconditional surrender unacceptable (again FDR and Churchill’s decision, not Truman). Not our generations? You are correct our generations would not do such a thing after a surprise attack on our nation. No, today we go attack a nation that was not even involved in the surprise attack on us. You really think Mr. Bush would not save his legacy by ending the war in Iraq tomorrow if the means presented itself the way it did for Truman.

Marius Fett
03-25-2008, 07:29 PM
Bush COULD end the war in Iraq using the same means Truman stopped the war in Japan.

Thankfully, despite his other faults, Bush won't nuke the Iraqis.

(Though this is likely due to American soldiers being out there)

mimartin
03-25-2008, 07:42 PM
Bush COULD end the war in Iraq using the same means Truman stopped the war in Japan.
That would not end the war in Iraq, only start a bigger one.

@ *Don* Wait, America still has some international respect from any nation besides England? That is very good to know. ;)

*Don*
03-25-2008, 08:06 PM
^^^
I gotta agree wit u on that.

America would loose all the Middle Eastern support it has (with the possible exception of Israel) and then loose whatever respect it has left in the international community.

Totenkopf
03-25-2008, 10:04 PM
Right or wrong, the silver lining to the atomic bombings that ended the war was that most people (including our leaders) were genuinely scared of what what would happen in the event that nuclear war was ever waged. In spite of close calls (we're still imperfect, afterall), we've managed to avoid exterminating ourselves so far. Based on everything I've ever read, Truman made the right call in the end. The only thing that spared the Nazis was their collapse. As to the whole hypocritical thing, I'd have to say that I basically agree with Sam. The US has had nuke technology for over 60 years now and has only used the bomb in anger to end the second world war. Hell, MacArthur was sacked in part b/c he pushed too hard to nuke the PRC when they didn't yet have a bomb.

Actually, no it wasn't. Also, it was a showcase of power...to Moscow, because Russia officially joined the war in the Pacific on Aug 8th.

More likely an attempt to get Japan to surrender before the Russians could make an serious claims to territory in the Pacific. It was already obvious that Russia was an ally of convenience only and the next security threat to American interests.

Tommycat
03-25-2008, 11:19 PM
Should the US have dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Yes.

Was there another means? Yes. Japan, the agressor in the war could have surrendered unconditionally. If they had done that, then the bombs wouldn't have been dropped. The second bomb could have been avoided as well had they accepted defeat and surrendered after the first bomb.

Japan may have been planning to surrender. The real question was how much longer would it have been. 300000 lives is still less than a third of the predicted AMERICAN lives. In fact if you tally the expected Japanese lives 300,000 is still far less than a full scale invasion would cost. Especially when you consider that preceeding an invasion would be greater than 5 days of heavy bombardment and shelling from the battleships.

Bee Hoon
03-25-2008, 11:23 PM
It is truly a tragic byproduct of the use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are the tragic byproduct of war. Maybe we should strive to eliminate the truly immoral thing, war.QFT.


As for the actual bombings themselves: Have anyone considered that Japan's Emproer might actually be divine? If so, then the bombings would be morally wrong anyway, regardless if civilians died or not. What?? I understand every word in that sentence, but put them together and my brain is boggled.

Re:Nanking, I've always wondered why governments refuse to apologise for mistakes of the past...

Edit: The real question was how much longer would it have been. 300000 lives is still less than a third of the predicted AMERICAN lives.From a nationalistic point of view, I can understand why you make that distinction,but I still find it hard to swallow how one human life is given more value than another.

Tommycat
03-25-2008, 11:53 PM
Edit: From a nationalistic point of view, I can understand why you make that distinction,but I still find it hard to swallow how one human life is given more value than another.
No, it was a distinction of it only being one side of the numbers equasion. As opposed to the total number of lives combined which exceeded 4million or so.

Additionally, just the cost in lives of having the entire country's infrastructure destroyed would have exceeded even the initial blast's death toll.

Something else that popped into my head:
Bearing in mind that had the two countries began talking about a surrender, the fighting would have continued until an agreement could be reached. When you make note that we were losing more than our total losses in Iraq in 3 days of fighting, How many lives is acceptable to keep dickering back and fourth?

Jae Onasi
03-25-2008, 11:57 PM
Hindsight is always 20/20.

If we'd known x, y, and z about the Japanese, things would have gone differently. If FDR, Truman, Churchill, and Stalin had not been the men they were, things would have gone differently. They could only work with the information they had at their disposal at that time.

Arcesious
03-26-2008, 12:15 AM
Mimartin- I never in my post intended to justify theIraq war with my post. I said it was not our generaton's fault and that we couldn't do much about it now because of this: It happened in the past, was the fault of our government, not ourselves, and cleaning up all nuclear radiation from an A-bomb is really hard to do. I would help the japanese clean up this residual radiation if I could, but I'm in no position to do so.

*Don*
03-26-2008, 12:18 AM
@ *Don* Wait, America still has some international respect from any nation besides England? That is very good to know. ;)

Lol, yea: Israel.

But I get ur point.
America lost alot of it's backers when it invaded Iraq.

The bright side is: Bush is finally gonna get outta office.
Maybe we can earn some respect back...

Tommycat
03-26-2008, 12:29 AM
Lol, yea: Israel.

But I get ur point.
America lost alot of it's backers when it invaded Iraq.

The bright side is: Bush is finally gonna get outta office.
Maybe we can earn some respect back...
Or maybe you'll see that the lack of respect isn't tied to Bush.

Totenkopf
03-26-2008, 01:25 AM
Frankly, the world is too amoral and craven to give respect where it might be due and it is therefore extremely illogical to seek such respect. No matter what you do, there will always be other interests, both domestic and global, that will disapprove due to their own agendas. World opinion is a fickle thing and best ignored. A nation has to define its own interests and sometimes act alone or with a small group of others in order to achieve its goals. Life is often like that at the personal level too. If you always worried about who'd respect you before you did anything.....you'd probably end up doing nothing your entire life (except sit on Pete's couch and watch the world go by ;) ).

Recall reading somewhere that the planning for a potential invasion of Japan would have put it somewhere between late '46/'47 and might have included the use of atomic weapons to soften up the resistance. An actual invasion of Japan would have been far more horrific in cost of life than merely dropping those two bombs.

Tommycat
03-26-2008, 02:03 AM
Frankly, the world is too amoral and craven to give respect where it might be due and it is therefore extremely illogical to seek such respect. No matter what you do, there will always be other interests, both domestic and global, that will disapprove due to their own agendas. World opinion is a fickle thing and best ignored. A nation has to define its own interests and sometimes act alone or with a small group of others in order to achieve its goals. Life is often like that at the personal level too. If you always worried about who'd respect you before you did anything.....you'd probably end up doing nothing your entire life (except sit on Pete's couch and watch the world go by ;) ).
QFE

Recall reading somewhere that the planning for a potential invasion of Japan would have put it somewhere between late '46/'47 and might have included the use of atomic weapons to soften up the resistance. An actual invasion of Japan would have been far more horrific in cost of life than merely dropping those two bombs.
Those were estimates for just the ground invasion. The actual end of the war could easily have been as bad as Germany which still had skirmishes 10 years after Hitler died. Basically the late 46 early 47 projections would be about the equivalent of when we saw the "Mission Accomplished" banner during the Iraq war. IE we won the war, now we have to win the peace.

Ray Jones
03-26-2008, 10:54 AM
Should the US have dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Yes.

Was there another means? Yes. Japan, the agressor in the war could have surrendered unconditionally. If they had done that, then the bombs wouldn't have been dropped. The second bomb could have been avoided as well had they accepted defeat and surrendered after the first bomb.

Japan may have been planning to surrender. The real question was how much longer would it have been. 300000 lives is still less than a third of the predicted AMERICAN lives. In fact if you tally the expected Japanese lives 300,000 is still far less than a full scale invasion would cost. Especially when you consider that preceeding an invasion would be greater than 5 days of heavy bombardment and shelling from the battleships.That's like saying the WTC attack was necessary because it resulted in the invasion of Iraq and to the downfall of the evil dictatorship lead by Saddam Hussein.

*Don*
03-26-2008, 11:21 AM
Or maybe you'll see that the lack of respect isn't tied to Bush.

Thats also possible...
Depends on each country i guess...

Web Rider
03-26-2008, 11:28 AM
That's like saying the WTC attack was necessary because it resulted in the invasion of Iraq and to the downfall of the evil dictatorship lead by Saddam Hussein.
what? that doesn't even make any sense. I mean...no, just, no. That statement does not make any sense in the slightest! And stop comparing 9/11 to WWII, they are not the same, not even close and they never will be.

Ray Jones
03-26-2008, 11:34 AM
Yes, just yes. It makes as much sense as Japan, the agressor in the war could have surrendered unconditionally. If they had done that, then the bombs wouldn't have been dropped. The second bomb could have been avoided as well had they accepted defeat and surrendered after the first bomb.

Japan may have been planning to surrender. The real question was how much longer would it have been. 300000 lives is still less than a third of the predicted AMERICAN lives. In fact if you tally the expected Japanese lives 300,000 is still far less than a full scale invasion would cost. Especially when you consider that preceeding an invasion would be greater than 5 days of heavy bombardment and shelling from the battleships.

And I did *NOT* compare WWII and 911. I compared two statements of which both are nonsense and stupid.

Totenkopf
03-26-2008, 12:14 PM
Actually, Web is quite right that your statement doesn't make any sense. By July of 1945 the war had dragged on over a decade in the Pacific and almost 4 years for the Americans with seemingly no end in sight. The horror most people reserve for hiroshima and nagasaki is mostly from hindsight and a better understanding of just what nukes will do to people and the environment. A dramatic measure was needed to get the Japanese to come to their senses. The dropping of the two atom bombs was just the very thing that finally moved the Emperor to sue for peace and force an end to the militarist's plan for continued struggle. Had the war continued w/o the dropping of the bombs, the Japanese in China would have crumbled under the onslaught of the Red army as easily as they'd been defeated at Nomanhan in '37 by Gen Zhukov, the same general that pushed the Nazis back to Germany. The mainland would have suffered more depravation as disease and hunger crippled the civilian population. One other thing that kept the use of the bombs from being unthinkable was that only one country then possessed them (and the Japs/Krauts would have used them had they developed their own). The realization of what even low yield bombs would do today coupled with their proliferation globally is mostly what makes the thought of using nukes (nevermind chem/bio) verboten.

Web Rider
03-26-2008, 12:23 PM
Yes, just yes. It makes as much sense as

And I did *NOT* compare WWII and 911. I compared two statements of which both are nonsense and stupid.

no, no you didn't.

Japan surrenders when offered unconditional surrender before the Bombing.
no bombs dropped.
same thing happens as as if the bombs were dropped(Japan is reformed, ect..)

AlQueda attacks the Twin Towers
The US invades Iraq and topples Saddam.
Iraq is reformed.

Notice how in the first situation, the attack comes AFTER the action(the war in which we wanted the Japanese to surrender after the Germans fell), while with 9/11 the attack somes before the war in which we invaded saddam.

The first statement makes sense, if Japan had surrendered before the bombs were dropped as we offered, none would be used.

mimartin
03-26-2008, 12:26 PM
Mimartin- I never in my post intended to justify the Iraq war with my post.
Did not say you did. I’m just saying that every generation has their demons and we are not any better or worse than that generation. You want to blame Truman for dropping the bombs. Truman was kept in the dark during most of the Manhattan Project. This information was only sprung on him after Roosevelt’s death. He was given a way out of the all out invasion of Japan and the horrific death toll perditions. No matter his belief in the value of human life, the President of the United States duty as Commander and Chef of the armed forces first priority must be to the citizens of the United States of America. So in a mission to protect American and Allied lives President Truman ordered the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima. The bomb was dropped on August 6, 1945, the Japanese had plenty of time to surrender, but when they did not a second bomb was dropped on August 9, 1945; still they did not announce their surrender till August 15, 1945. Makes you wonder what would have happened if we had more working bombs at the time. Would Kokura and Niigata have suffered the same fate?

According to most reports Japan’s conditions for surrender were the preservation of government, they would disarm themselves, no occupation and they would prosecute their own war criminals. These conditions would have been unacceptable to most Americans at the time. Would Americans today accept al-Qaeda’s surrender under similar conditions?

It happened in the past, was the fault of our government, not ourselves, and cleaning up all nuclear radiation from an A-bomb is really hard to do. We have helped. The world can say a lot of things about America, but the aftermath of World War II is something I am extremely proud of in my country’s history. We did not seize lands, we helped heal the wounds of war and rebuild two nations.

Ray Jones
03-26-2008, 04:57 PM
Japan surrenders when offered unconditional surrender before the Bombing.
no bombs dropped.
same thing happens as as if the bombs were dropped(Japan is reformed, ect..)But Japan didn't surrender, and what happened happened. We don't know what had happened if the bombs weren't dropped. It is pointless from any aspect to argue that the bombs saved any lives.

Notice how in the first situation, the attack comes AFTER the action(the war in which we wanted the Japanese to surrender after the Germans fell), while with 9/11 the attack somes before the war in which we invaded saddam.I am very well aware of that fact. However, that is not up for discussion.

The first statement makes sense, if Japan had surrendered before the bombs were dropped as we offered, none would be used.If when had will only make us mad. XD

The point is, none of the above "facts" justifies the use of the a-bomb. That is all.

Totenkopf
03-26-2008, 07:45 PM
Would you have been happier if we'd resorted to continuous fire bombing instead? Like it or not, it is a fact that dropping two atomic bombs ended the war. A war that was quite expensive in human lives already. Would you have preferred the butcher bill had been higher so that you could say we'd never used an a-bomb? We do know what would have happened had we not used the bombs, the war would have ground on and the Russians would have killed more Japanese than died in either city. It seems that they were not as squeamish when it came to the prospect of killing as some people. Look at how they prosecuted their war on the eastern front (w/relation to their views on the value of human life) and you'll have a clue as to how expensive the alternative looked. W/o the emperor coming to realize how futile contiued resistance was, the code of bushido would have demanded that millions of Japanese sacrifice themselves in the emperor's name for the sake of honor.

mimartin
03-26-2008, 07:48 PM
It is pointless from any aspect to argue that the bombs saved any lives. No, the bombs did not save lives. Bombs are not designed to save lives, they are designed to kill and damage infrastructure. The bombs and Russia declaring war on Japan force Japan to surrender unconditionally. The surrender saved lives.
We don't know what had happened if the bombs weren't dropped.Some people of my faith believe when it is your time to die, you will die no matter your actions. Perhaps those people would have suddenly dropped dead with or without the devastation caused by the bombs. I however find that hard to believe, but I do know we would have invaded Japan and people would have died without the unconditional surrender.

Truman was using the same estimates when making his decision without the complete understanding of the true Japanese strength or intentions. He had already signed the orders for Operation Downfall to proceed. Pretty safe bet the invasion of Japan would have taken place. We know Japan was prepared for the invasion, we now know their true strength and even that they had already ascertain the location of the landing. Pretty safe bet that casualties would have been extremely high, even higher than the 1000 men per hour estimate given, they knew the exact location of the landing. I doubt the Emperor would have taken a sleeping pill and not been able order in the reserves in order to throw the Allies back into the sea, but you never know strange things like that happen it war.

The point is, none of the above "facts" justifies the use of the a-bomb. That is all.No, they don't, but the "facts" do help you understand why an American President order the bombs use. He wasn’t doing it to prove we could, President Truman was doing it to prevent more Americans from dying in the invasion of Japan.

Ray Jones
03-26-2008, 08:27 PM
A war that was quite expensive in human lives already. Would you have preferred the butcher bill had been higher so that you could say we'd never used an a-bomb?A million bombs don't hurt our environment as nearly as one a-bomb. End of story.

mimartin
03-26-2008, 08:58 PM
As is the case today, the environment was not a major concern of the U.S. government in the 1940s. There was also no study into the environmental impact of nuclear weapons before their use. For proof just look at the people involved in the development and the testing to see how concern we were for the environment. The Manhattan Project only had one field of study and that was creating a working bomb before the enemy did. The cost or any other human concerns including the environment were merely an after thought.

Rev7
03-26-2008, 09:27 PM
Okay...well as Jae pointed out, these bombings did happen during a time of war. Today, by what we know about the bombs, one could easily say that it was the wrong thing to do. But back then they really didn't know much about the affects, so to say.

So I guess that you could say that I really don't know how to answer this question.

Tommycat
03-26-2008, 10:23 PM
That's like saying the WTC attack was necessary because it resulted in the invasion of Iraq and to the downfall of the evil dictatorship lead by Saddam Hussein.
Not even close. Not even the same ball park. Not even the same game.

I'm not going to go into the justification for the Iraq war, because the justifications for Iraq are still HIGHLY debatable, however, let me point out the major flaws.

Japan had already attacked us. We were already engaged in a very lengthy conflict causing 1000+ deaths per day, on our side alone.

Iraq had not attacked us. AlQueda is not Iraq. Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH ALQUEDA(please everyone make a note of that... especially my fellow conservatives)! Even had the WTC attack not happened we would likely have attacked Iraq(gosh some people really need to pay more attention to the news). the 9/11 attacks did lead us to attack Afghanistan(as the Taliban leaders there strongly supported Al Q), so if you want to link any country to the WTC attacks, please point there.

Al Queda was the aggressor in the WTC attacks. The US was not engaged in a war with Al Q prior to that.

Here's a corrected version for you:
The Taliban in Afghanistan could have avoided being removed from power if they had simply surrendered Al Queda to the US after the WTC attacks.

See how that works.

And if you think that a million bombs reigning down on any area of land don't affect the environment as much as one "A" bomb, you really need to wake up. Cost in human lives, Chemical factories, fuel depots, and a host of other really bad side effects can damage the land far worse than the a bombs did. And quite frankly I put human lives above the environment any day(if given the choice between the lesser of two evils).

Arcesious
03-26-2008, 10:33 PM
Off topic on the Iraq war:

(I think that the reason we had to bomb them is because the Al Queda wouldn't leave otherwise. They wouldn't surrender and come out. They hide in all those buildings, in cracks and under rocks, holding civilians hostage and whatnot, and there's no way to get them out without suffering casualties to our side, so our only choice is to kill both them and the innocent people. We don't use our own men as cannon fodder for snipers and grenadiers, so the only choice is to bomb them.)

On topic:

I'm changing my opinion in this matter. The bombing IMO was the right choice, but that may change if later posts persuade me.

Tommycat
03-26-2008, 10:40 PM
I would say the most positive thing to come from the use of the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that we saw the horror that is the atomic bomb, and we have never used it again.

Totenkopf
03-26-2008, 10:51 PM
A million bombs don't hurt our environment as nearly as one a-bomb. End of story.

You're overstating your case. No doubt that's why people still live in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. :rolleyes:

SilentScope001
03-27-2008, 02:01 AM
Well, I think you discussed this before, but...

I can't believe you guys are worried about the A-Bomb when America committed massive firebombings in both Germany and Japan that has the potential to kill far more people.

The Tokyo firebombing killed 100,000 people. That's just Tokyo, other areas of Japan were bombed heavily too. In comparison, Hiroshima directly killed 75,000.

If the atomic bomb is evil because of the death it caused, let ban firebombs too.

Web Rider
03-27-2008, 05:09 AM
But Japan didn't surrender, and what happened happened. We don't know what had happened if the bombs weren't dropped. It is pointless from any aspect to argue that the bombs saved any lives.
Again...you continue to male illogical, unsupported statements. You say: history is a fact. Okay, lets assume history is straight facts. Did soldiers who were assigned to invade Japan before the decision to drop be the Bombs not get killed by Japanese in an invasion of Japan? As Mimartin says, bombs never save lives, the surrender that stemmed from the use of the bomb saved lives.
The answer is yes. Lives were saved, both of the Japanese and American because instead of invasion, it was the Bomb.
Fact: Japan was told to unconditionally surrender after the defeat of Germany.
Fact: Japan was not planning on any kind of unconditional surrender.
Fact: Japan's military and citizens had a "fight to the death" attitude.
Fact: an invasion of Japan was planned before Truman was informed of the Bomb being ready.
Fact: the Bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Fact: these Bombs caused Japan to surrender uncontitionally.
Fact: because of this, no invasion of Japan took place.
Fact: because no invasion took place, no soldiers or citizens on either side were killed during an invasion or the extensive bombing campaign that would have accompanied it.
Fact: because of the unconditional surrender and the changes made to Japan's culture and government as a result placed them in a great position in the world today.

I am very well aware of that fact. However, that is not up for discussion.
When you are making contextually inaccurate statements, you are proposing that something is debatable, something that must be corrected. You are not right simply because you say so.

If when had will only make us mad. XD

The point is, none of the above "facts" justifies the use of the a-bomb. That is all.
No, the fact is that you have expressed nothing more than your opinion, without the aid of facts, figures, estimates and statements from the time. You assumed what you believed to be true, to actually be true, and then told me I am wrong. If you would like to put up some estimates that state that more lives were lost than the lives estimated spared because of the Bombing, please do so.

Until you decide to support your argument with the FACTS from HISTORY that you claim to be the absolute truth, I will ignore your statements.

Well, I think you discussed this before, but...
I can't believe you guys are worried about the A-Bomb when America committed massive firebombings in both Germany and Japan that has the potential to kill far more people.
The Tokyo firebombing killed 100,000 people. That's just Tokyo, other areas of Japan were bombed heavily too. In comparison, Hiroshima directly killed 75,000.
If the atomic bomb is evil because of the death it caused, let ban firebombs too.
I very much agree, there are far WORSE things that were done by many sides in the war. We are ignoring important issues by focusing on sensationalism.

The Betrayer
03-27-2008, 05:49 AM
As said, it saved lives. It ended the war more quickly. But the point is, it is not right. The ends don't justify the means. If you kill a guy and save 30 people, you still killed a guy. That doesn't make the crime more or less forgivable. The point is, U.S. killed people of 2 cities for it's own skin.

Ray Jones
03-27-2008, 08:20 AM
And if you think that a million bombs reigning down on any area of land don't affect the environment as much as one "A" bomb, you really need to wake up.I didn't say it won't affect the environment in any way. I said it doesn't even come close to atomic bombing. My mother studied nuclear physics, so I'm pretty much into that whole topic, and I guarantee you, I am not the one that needs to wake up.

Cost in human lives, Chemical factories, fuel depots, and a host of other really bad side effects can damage the land far worse than the a bombs did.Oh, so a-bombs don't cost human lives, destroy chemical factories, fuel depots and all that stuff that normal bombs might or might not miss? Hm.

Only two a-bombs almost completely wiped two cities including at least a hundred thousand of people within seconds, and leaving at least another hundred thousand to die under unspeakable sufferings within the next weeks.

The bombings of Dresden and Hamburg caused 75000 to die, in London "only" 50000 died even though the Germans dropped their bombs in over 50 nights in a row.

In WWII about half a million people were killed due to the bombings over Europe with like 3 or 4 million tons of bombs dropped in about 1 million sorties. Even if you'd assume all of them were 4 ton bombs that'd be still like 1 million bombs.

In Germany alone about 100 cities were bombed.


I dare sum up:

- 2 a-bombs over 2 cities on 2 days resulting in 200000 immediately killed persons, totalling in 500000 over the following years.

vs.

- Over 1 million bombs dropped over 100 cities in 6 years killed 500000.



Way to go to "save lives" with atom bombs. :dozey:

And quite frankly I put human lives above the environment any dayBecause you don't need it, correct?

(if given the choice between the lesser of two evils).And who decides that half a million deaths and radioactive contamination effecting *all* life for years, next to other long term effects like cancer, miscarriage, genetic defects, sterility is the lesser evil compared to lets say 1 million "conventional deaths"?

Also, the Vietnam war caused 3 million deaths in 15 years and in Iraq about 1 million people died in now 5 years. Afghanistan war caused 1 million deaths in 10 years and the Korean war killed about 2 million in 3 years. That's about 600000 per year "at best".

So, unless you want to argue that Japan would have been able and willing to fight at least another year against the US and Russia, we're not anywhere near the 500000 deaths (including late term consequences etc) due to the a-bombs. The US did not lose that many lives during the *whole* WWII.


No doubt that's why people still live in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. :rolleyes:Haha, that one is good. :¬:

mimartin
03-27-2008, 10:37 AM
Casualty Projects are just that projection. They are by no means correct, but are the best estimates available when planning an operation. I believe the U.S. military’s estimates were a little more scientific than yours. Here is how they came to their conclusions. Again I’m not disputing that these are merely estimates, but they are what Truman used when making his decision, so they are relevant.

Here is a rather long article explaining how the U.S. military came up with their estimates for the invasion of Japan. CASUALTY PROJECTIONS FOR THE U.S. INVASIONS OF JAPAN, 1945-1946: PLANNING AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS by D. M. Giangreco (http://home.kc.rr.com/casualties/)

Ray Jones
03-27-2008, 11:49 AM
I did not project, I read history numbers, which is obviously the other way around. And I talked about death persons, not casualty numbers which do involve not just that.

If I had done that I had started with mentioning that alone during the tests for the a-bombs hundreds of people, including many US soldiers, got contaminated and/or suffered from the consequences for the environment.

Totenkopf
03-27-2008, 11:50 AM
Frankly, Ray, mimartin and others are right that you're only looking at one side of the equation. Nobody is saying that a nuke is less deadly than a conventional bomb, just that the use of two pitifully underpowered ones (by modern standards) was the direct cause for the Japanese surrendering and not dragging out an already lost cause. I'd say you ought to at least look at the above link and reconsider your argument.


As said, it saved lives. It ended the war more quickly. But the point is, it is not right. The ends don't justify the means. If you kill a guy and save 30 people, you still killed a guy. That doesn't make the crime more or less forgivable. The point is, U.S. killed people of 2 cities for it's own skin.

Depends on the reason you killed the 1 to save 30. Not sure what to make of your final statement beyond dismissing it as utterly naive drivel. Any nation fighting a war tries to win it by bringing the enemy around to recognizing it's been defeated. It saves the lives, indirectly, of many who don't have to die when the goal is accomplished.

Inyri
03-27-2008, 11:54 AM
I think you're missing the point, Toten. No one's asking if it was 'the right decision,' or whether it ended the war. It's an ethical/moral question. It saved lives, yes, but was it morally an acceptable decision? Answer that question. :)

Totenkopf
03-27-2008, 12:04 PM
No, I didn't miss the point. The same question could be asked about any type of weapon used to kill someone. The reverse question could be asked. Is it moral not to use a sufficient amount of force to end something that is resulting in increasing and uncesaing numbers of deaths? Was dropping an atomic bomb really any less moral than firebombing Tokyo? Starving millions into submission as an alternate measure to end the war? We blanch at the idea of using nukes in this day and age, not least b/c we no longer are in sole possession of them, rendering any use as sure to result in similiar retaliation.

Inyri
03-27-2008, 12:11 PM
Well your whole argument seems based on "well we had to save the lives, so it was the most efficient course of action" without addressing the ethical side of it at all. No one's arguing that using the nukes didn't end the war faster and save countless American lives. That's basically a given.

Totenkopf
03-27-2008, 12:15 PM
Moral decisions aren't made in a vacuum. All that other stuff comes into play when making an informed decision about what course of action to take. I think most of us recognize that war is not desirable, or even particularly moral. Also, by extension, it saved countless Japanese lives, so don't forget the other side of the ledger.

Inyri
03-27-2008, 12:16 PM
I haven't forgotten anything. :)

I'm simply not letting rationalizations cloud my judgment on this matter.

Ray Jones
03-27-2008, 12:30 PM
Frankly, Ray, mimartin and others are right that you're only looking at one side of the equation.No, I don't. :) All I say is you can *not* excuse or justify the use of an a-bomb just because it made Japan surrender a bit earlier.

Nobody is saying that a nuke is less deadly than a conventional bomb"Everybody" is saying that the bombs caused less death and suffering than a ongoing war had caused, which is plain wrong when we look at death tolls of past conventional wars compared to these two bombs.

just that the use of two pitifully underpowered ones (by modern standards) was the direct cause for the Japanese surrendering and not dragging out an already lost cause.Already lost cause is the keyword here. Conventional methods would have been sufficient to win over Japan.

I'd say you ought to at least look at the above link and reconsider your argument.I looked at the link, but there is nothing to reconsider. The topic is "was it right", leaning towards "was it necessary". Past estimates of those who wanted to demonstrate their power do not really answer these questions.

mimartin
03-27-2008, 12:50 PM
Good point Inyri. Can something be the right decision, but the morally wrong thing to do? I already conceded my point of view that the use of Nuclear Weapons was morally wrong. Yet, in Truman’s place I would have done the exact same thing with the same information that he had at his disposal at the time. Saying that Truman and the United States made the immoral decision based on information we now have, but was unavailable in 1945 is frankly unfair to their place in history. Judging him and America based on the facts of that day and the recent history of what each American had been through in that period may be more appropriate.

We don’t know if dropping the bombs saved lives or destroyed more lives. We don’t know what would have happen in the invasion so there is no way to project estimates. Using data from outside this era either before or after are also unfair due to the difference in the effectiveness of weapons and medical care. Personally I would look at Okinawa to get a better understanding of what the fighting would have been like in an actual landing on the Japanese mainland (which was a huge source for the projections Truman was shown).

Totenkopf
03-27-2008, 01:36 PM
I haven't forgotten anything. :)

I'm simply not letting rationalizations cloud my judgment on this matter.


Perhaps more likely rationalizations of a different type. ;)



Frankly, Ray, mimartin and others are right that you're only looking at one side of the equation.

No, I don't. All I say is you can *not* excuse or justify the use of an a-bomb just because it made Japan surrender a bit earlier.


Nobody is saying that a nuke is less deadly than a conventional bomb

"Everybody" is saying that the bombs caused less death and suffering than a ongoing war had caused, which is plain wrong when we look at death tolls of past conventional wars compared to these two bombs.


just that the use of two pitifully underpowered ones (by modern standards) was the direct cause for the Japanese surrendering and not dragging out an already lost cause.

Already lost cause is the keyword here. Conventional methods would have been sufficient to win over Japan.



I'd say you ought to at least look at the above link and reconsider your argument.

I looked at the link, but there is nothing to reconsider. The topic is "was it right", leaning towards "was it necessary". Past estimates of those who wanted to demonstrate their power do not really answer these questions.

Just keep in mind, Ray, that conventional weapons of all types were responsible for ~98+% of the 50+ million that perished in WW2. However, it's obvious from your last statement that you believe that the atom bombs were only dropped to scare the Russians. It's obvious to anyone NOT in denial that conventional methods would have only led to more deaths. To understand the state of the Japanese fighting man's mind, you need only look at some of the jihadists today. Suicide in the name of your God/god was considered an honorable end. Besides, saying "x" wouldn't have happened b/c we did "y" ignores the realities of why "y" was chosen in the first place. The only way in which it would have been truly immoral to use the atom bomb in the end stages of the war would have been had we decided we were going to exterminate Japan once and for all, w/no chance offered for surrender of any type.

Inyri
03-27-2008, 01:39 PM
I suppose you think murder is perfectly acceptable and justified, so long as the person you kill is a violent offender? Because that's basically what you're saying: it's okay to nuke the heck out of people just as long as it saves lives. Should we nuke the entire middle east as well, to save American lives? Cuz Lord knows if we don't blow them to smithereens this war will go on longer! DROP THE BOMBS!

:rolleyes:

Totenkopf
03-27-2008, 01:41 PM
If you're going to be that hysterical, what's the point taking this any further? :)

Inyri
03-27-2008, 01:52 PM
Who's hysterical? Did you mean sarcastic?

In any case, you didn't address my point.

Darth InSidious
03-27-2008, 02:15 PM
Like it or not, it is a fact that dropping two atomic bombs ended the war.
I'll have to disagree with that.

A historical fact is that Elizabeth I died in 1603.

An interpretation is that there was a military revolution in central Europe between 1499 and 1560.

Your comment seems to fall into the latter category. :)

Lance Monance
03-27-2008, 02:21 PM
Well your whole argument seems based on "well we had to save the lives, so it was the most efficient course of action" without addressing the ethical side of it at all. No one's arguing that using the nukes didn't end the war faster and save countless American lives. That's basically a given.

I'm curious how you determine whether a certain course of action is ethical in a war when you disregard "saving lives".

How is talking about live loss not addressing the ethical side of it?

mimartin
03-27-2008, 02:27 PM
What are the ethical ramifications of a nation’s leader being more concern with the loss of life of the enemy than the lives of the soldiers under his command?

Inyri
03-27-2008, 02:29 PM
I don't disregard savings lives, I simply don't regard it as the epitome of what is ethical and what is not. Also saying "it's ethical because it saves lives" is not a valid argument, especially when you don't address why.

The point is we wouldn't say it's ethical to, for instance, nuke Iraq just to save American soldiers. It's an unethical decision, but not doing it costs lives. So as you can see, things aren't quite as cut and dry as you might like to suggest.

In the end I don't think the 'lives saved' by bombing Japan makes the action any more ethical; we traded American soldiers for Japanese civilians. I'd call that dirty tactics, personally.

mimartin
03-27-2008, 02:41 PM
we traded American soldiers for Japanese civilians. I'd call that dirty tactics, personally.I'd call it war.

Achilles
03-27-2008, 03:30 PM
I'd call it war. Yes, I do agree that some percentage of accidental civilian deaths (aka "collateral damage") is to be expected due to its unavoidable nature. However, I think there is a huge difference between accidentally killing some civilians while intentionally trying to destroy a military target and knowingly targeting a civilian city. The latter is more commonly known as "an act of terrorism".

Marius Fett
03-27-2008, 03:52 PM
The latter is more commonly known as "an act of terrorism".

QFE.

Darth Xander
03-27-2008, 04:07 PM
No it wasn't right! Nucleur Warfare never right !

Ray Jones
03-27-2008, 04:24 PM
Just keep in mind, Ray, that conventional weapons of all types were responsible for ~98+% of the 50+ million that perished in WW2.No. Responsible were those in charge who incited the conflicts. Also, of the 70 million people who found death in WWII, about 20 million died due to disease and hunger. That's roughly 30%. 4 million died in captivity, that's another 6%. Then we have another 1% at least, who died from chemical and biological weapons. Plus 2.5 million killed in German death camps, that's like 3%. Don't know how you make 98+% of the remaining 60%.

However, it's obvious from your last statement that you believe that the atom bombs were only dropped to scare the Russians.Is it? It isn't. I said to demonstrate power, not scare the Russians. No. The bombs were dropped for two reasons. to show to the rest of the world who's got the biggest, and as revenge for Pearl Harbor.

conventional methods would have only led to more deaths.Prove it. I think I showed that this would've needed at least another year of war, and even if 50000 or hundred thousand more soldiers had to die, to drop nuclear weapons over a city full of civilians instead beats it by a multitude of lengths.

The only way in which it would have been truly immoral to use the atom bomb in the end stages of the war would have been had we decided we were going to exterminate Japan once and for all, w/no chance offered for surrender of any type.So it's just untruly immoral? That makes a difference how?

mimartin
03-27-2008, 04:27 PM
Yes, I do agree that some percentage of accidental civilian deaths (aka "collateral damage") is to be expected due to its unavoidable nature. However, I think there is a huge difference between accidentally killing some civilians while intentionally trying to destroy a military target and knowingly targeting a civilian city. The latter is more commonly known as "an act of terrorism".I have no problem with that assertion, after all the bombings were also a form of extortion. We were wanted the unconditional surrender and we used the bombs and the threat of more bombs to pressure Japan into surrendering. Not that it makes it moral or right, but we should not forget that neither side went out of their way to protect the enemies’ civilian population during WWII.
The bombs were dropped for two reasons. to show to the rest of the world who's got the biggest, and as revenge for Pearl Harbor. The only fault I see here is there should be a third reason ( and possibly a forth reason), to get the unconditional surrender of Japan without sacrificing anymore American lives. No one, but Truman could say which was the deciding factor. Sure some within the government wanted to show up Stalin, others wanted to just to prove it could be done, some wanted revenge and others wanted what remained of greatest generation to come home alive and in one piece. It was going to be extremely difficult to take those that had sacrificed so much in freeing Europe to the other side of the world to invade Japan. Only Truman could say for sure, according to his speech revenge and bring Americans home was the factors he considered important.

Web Rider
03-27-2008, 04:31 PM
The point is we wouldn't say it's ethical to, for instance, nuke Iraq just to save American soldiers. It's an unethical decision, but not doing it costs lives. So as you can see, things aren't quite as cut and dry as you might like to suggest.

In the end I don't think the 'lives saved' by bombing Japan makes the action any more ethical; we traded American soldiers for Japanese civilians. I'd call that dirty tactics, personally.

I'd call it "context". Since the situation in WWII with Japan is not even close to the situation in Iraq today.

Marius Fett
03-27-2008, 04:33 PM
Still think it was right?

Whatch this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lDFLLKSkUg&feature=related).

Sure it's only a cartoon, but it's VERY close to what the real thing would have been like.

WARNING:

DO NOT WATCH IT IF YOU HAVE A WEAK STOMACH.

Rev7
03-27-2008, 07:18 PM
^
I think that it just depicts what might have happened. I have watched documentaries saying that you would literally just be vaporized. Whether or not that is what the video was trying to show, I really don't know. But it did somewhat change my view because it showed the people. And in their point of view, not from ours. That really can change your view...

Marius Fett
03-27-2008, 07:21 PM
That's what the video is meant to do.

It shows children being ripped apart where they stand, their eyes melting and bodies breaking apart.

Not pleasant.

Rev7
03-27-2008, 07:48 PM
I definately know that that was the point of the movie. I think that it must have been horrible to be subjected to something like that. Little did we know of the effects of nuclear weapons...

mimartin
03-27-2008, 08:02 PM
I expect those that died in the firebombing of Tokyo or to those that died in the London Blitz did not find it pleasant either. I see no real difference for the dead between a nuclear bomb and a conventional bomb. After all dead is dead.

For the living it is another story, again both still have their own horrors for the living.

Marius Fett
03-27-2008, 08:12 PM
I expect those that died in the firebombing of Tokyo or to those that died in the London Blitz did not find it pleasant either. I see no real difference for the dead between a nuclear bomb and a conventional bomb. After all dead is dead.

For the living it is another story, again both still have their own horrors for the living.

Aside from the fact that atom bombs if they don't kill you outright, maim your body, THEN kill you, you mean?

mimartin
03-27-2008, 08:37 PM
Aside from the fact that atom bombs if they don't kill you outright, maim your body, THEN kill you, you mean?
That is not possible with any other weapon? Other than deaths from radiation poisoning, are you saying people are not maimed or die after the fact with any other type of bomb? Have you seen many Vietnam veterans with Napalm burns or WWII, Korean veterans Vietnam veteran or Iraqi Veterans with White Phosphorus burns.

Marius Fett
03-27-2008, 08:54 PM
Do regular bombs also cause hair loss, anemia and cancer etc...?

So if say, a nuke was dropped on the city where you live, you wouldn't be more pissed off than if a regular device was used?

mimartin
03-27-2008, 09:04 PM
So if say, a nuke was dropped on the city where you live, you wouldn't be more pissed off than if a regular device was used?If I'm dead either way, how would I get mad?

Now if you are talking about a 500-pound bomb hitting a mile away or a nuke hitting 15 miles away, then yes I would be upset with both, but more about the nuke since I would have time to get mad about my own death.

However if we are talking about something like the London Blitz where they are going to bomb my city for 57 straight days, then I might be just as scared and upset as with the nuke since I may die tomorrow too.

Do regular bombs also cause hair loss, anemia and cancer etc...?Again I don't see the point. If the bomb does what it was design to do and kills, does it really matter to how it kills you. Isn't it just as wrong no matter how you die?

Marius Fett
03-27-2008, 09:14 PM
The Blitz was terrible, yeah, but did it obliterate a whole city and level thousands of buildings like Little Boy and Fat Man did?

Did it vapourise women and children, and leave babies being born with deformities for years later?

No.

Your arguement is well put together, but I believe you are wrong. :)

mimartin
03-27-2008, 09:35 PM
The Blitz was terrible, yeah, but did it obliterate a whole city and level thousands of buildings like Little Boy and Fat Man did? No, in the London Blitz more than a million homes were destroyed or damaged.
London Blitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz)
London Blitz 2 (http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/blitz.htm)

Did it vaporized women and children, and leave babies being born with deformities for years later? I'm sure some were vaporized, after all it does not take a nuclear blast to vaporize a human body. Again, what does it matter if the body was vaporized, you are dead either way.

I do not know about deformities as I do not know what was released into the air when more than a million buildings were destroyed. However, I would venture a guess that it was not significant or there would be evidence of studies.

Your arguement is well put together, but I believe you are wrong. :) Please don’t get my remarks wrong, I do not believe you are wrong. I have written more than once the bombings was immoral. However, I don’t believe the fact that they were nuclear weapons make it immoral. The fact that they targeted civilians is what makes it immoral to me. Even so, given the same information and the same set of circumstances as Truman was presented with I would have used the bombs too. However, with today’s information and knowing the complete ramifications of bombs I would hope Truman would either not choice to use the bombs or chosen different targets. With today’s information I would not use the bombs.

Arcesious
03-28-2008, 12:31 AM
If we have no other choice, and we have to bomb a city filled with civilians for some reason, it would be best if the weapon killed the people in a split second. A quick and painless death is better than a slow and agonizing death, even if it the same result- death in the end. Slow deaths to innocent civilians is inhumane... I have no intention of killing innocent civilians any time soon though...

Q
03-28-2008, 01:56 AM
DDD, those who were vaporized were the lucky ones, believe me.

Totenkopf
03-28-2008, 02:35 AM
...However, I don’t believe the fact that they were nuclear weapons make it immoral. The fact that they targeted civilians is what makes it immoral to me. Even so, given the same information and the same set of circumstances as Truman was presented with I would have used the bombs too. However, with today’s information and knowing the complete ramifications of bombs I would hope Truman would either not choice to use the bombs or chosen different targets. With today’s information I would not use the bombs.

While I agree with your first statement, I think you'd have to agree that it'd have been virtually impossible (if at all) to target any military base or infrastructure in Japan that wouldn't have resulted in the deaths of tens or more of thousands using that type of weapon, given the population density of Japan .


@DI-
In his declaration, Hirohito referred to the atomic bombings :

“ Moreover, the enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.
Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers."

Technically, it was the the decision of the Emperor to end the war that ended the war, capped by the signing on the Big Mo in Tokyo Harbor. :)

@Inyri- the best I'll grant you is hysterical (in both senses actually) sarcasm. ;)

@Ray--you're entitled to your opinions.

Astor
03-28-2008, 05:53 AM
With today’s information I would not use the bombs.

While I may not know the specifics of the whole debate, and while I haven't researched this as others have - I've found this to be perhaps the central point - Now, i'm not sure if the US forces had adequate time to test the devices, but it still seems that, at the time, nobody knew quite what the bomb would do - until it had been used.

It's always been said 'Hindsight is a wonderful thing', so, with hindsight, and knowing what we know would happen, it would be wrong to drop the bomb, and perhaps find a better route of ending the war. But, such is the way of 'Total War' - no-one is safe. London learned that from the Luftwaffe.

But as to whether I think it was right or not - i'm not sure.

Ray Jones
03-28-2008, 06:43 AM
The dangers of radioactive materials were known long before any bombs were constructed. And the US did test the a-bomb before Hiroshima. They knew what was going to happen.

It shows children being ripped apart where they stand, their eyes melting and bodies breaking apart.Well, technically, human or living tissue doesn't melt away. Given a minimum temperature it simply burns to ashes.

I expect those that died in the firebombing of Tokyo or to those that died in the London Blitz did not find it pleasant either. I see no real difference for the dead between a nuclear bomb and a conventional bomb. After all dead is dead. The worst result of a fireboming is the firestorm which might occur when the fire grows big enough, causing houses, streets, general everything around you to burn at like 1000°, up to 2000°C in the centre. You can't go anywhere because it appears to be very hard to walk through 1000°C hot air over melted, burning asphalt against hurricane like winds. A cruel death indeed.

Wood fires, "normal" fires and also atom bombs are known to produce firestorms as well. (a firestorm also occurred in Hiroshima btw)

However.

At detonation time the temperature within an a-bomb is 60 to 100 million °C.

0.025 seconds later it looks like this
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Trinity_explosion.jpg
Note that this thing is already 300 metres in diameter and still about 10000°C hot on the surface. The surface of the sphere is not fire, it's air heated and ionised so rapidly you can't see through it to look at the actual explosion (bright as the sun) behind it.

(the picture shows the test of the bomb before Hiroshima, the first test ever, so this is really rather tiny and cute)

1 second later and over 500 metres away the air burned at about 4000°C. That means you are vaporised and your "remains" are gone before you even recognise something happened. Within 2 km range there was no chance to survive at all. And this is only for the ancient bombs. Etcetera etcetera blah blah.

In fact, that cartoon doesn't even come near to what really happened.


If I'm dead either way, how would I get mad?

Now if you are talking about a 500-pound bomb hitting a mile away or a nuke hitting 15 miles away, then yes I would be upset with both, but more about the nuke since I would have time to get mad about my own death.

However if we are talking about something like the London Blitz where they are going to bomb my city for 57 straight days, then I might be just as scared and upset as with the nuke since I may die tomorrow too.

Again I don't see the point. If the bomb does what it was design to do and kills, does it really matter to how it kills you. Isn't it just as wrong no matter how you die?

Hamburg after WWII and 40000 tons of bombs (=160000 500 pound bombs) and a firestorm
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Hamburg_after_the_1943_bombing.jpg


Hiroshima after WWII and 1 bomb and a firestorm
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Hiroshima_aftermath.jpg

Given that Hamburg was one of the cities receiving the heaviest bombings over 6 years, how many 500 pound bombs do you want to drop to do *this* in but 1 day?

mimartin
03-28-2008, 09:11 AM
The dangers of radioactive materials were known long before any bombs were constructed. And the US did test the a-bomb before Hiroshima. They knew what was going to happen.

They did not even know for sure it would work. They had no clue to the extent of the damage. Yes, they knew about radiation poisoning, but again they had no clue about the long-term affects. Hiroshima and Nagasaki was their lab, we can call that immoral to experiment on human subjects.

Nice research on the difference by firebombing and nuclear weapons, I already knew there was a difference, but do not see the point. It is like comparing the difference between being shot to death and being stabbed to death, you still end up dead. My statement did make it clear I was talking about the dead didn’t it? I expect those that died in the firebombing of Tokyo or to those that died in the London Blitz did not find it pleasant either. I see no real difference for the dead between a nuclear bomb and a conventional bomb. After all dead is dead. Given that Hamburg was one of the cities receiving the heaviest bombings over 6 years, how many 500 pound bombs do you want to drop to do *this* in but 1 day? While any sane person will agree with the horrors of the nuclear blast and agree that the survivability is explanatorily better with convictional weapons, I find the mental cruelty of bombing over a period of time just as barbaric. So you survived the last attack, but the next one may have your name on it or your friend’s or a member of your family. You go some place else after your home is destroyed and the next raid destroys it too.

While I agree with your first statement, I think you'd have to agree that it'd have been virtually impossible (if at all) to target any military base or infrastructure in Japan that wouldn't have resulted in the deaths of tens or more of thousands using that type of weapon, given the population density of Japan . Agreed, after all someone has to work at these plants and military bases, so homes and cities have to be near by. How do you separate the military assets (plant workers) from the other citizens?

Astor
03-28-2008, 09:26 AM
Now im not sure how much truth there is in this, or if it's a reputable source, but I found this on wikipedia:

The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10–11, 1945, recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets. The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective because of the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. The psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members. They also agreed that the initial use of the weapon should be sufficiently spectacular for its importance to be internationally recognized. The committee felt Kyoto, as an intellectual center of Japan, had a population "better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon." Hiroshima was chosen because of its large size, its being "an important army depot" and the potential that the bomb would cause greater destruction because the city was surrounded by hills which would have a "focusing effect".

So, it seems from that paragraph, that there was a conscious effort to include civilians as targets. But we probably all knew that anyway.

In many ways, the surrender of Japan after the second bomb was fortunate - the US planned to drop another the week after, and six more during September and October.

"We have discussed among ourselves the ethics of the use of the bomb. Some consider it in the same category as poison gas and were against its use on a civil population. Others were of the view that in total war, as carried on in Japan, there was no difference between civilians and soldiers, and that the bomb itself was an effective force tending to end the bloodshed, warning Japan to surrender and thus to avoid total destruction. It seems logical to me that he who supports total war in principle cannot complain of war against civilians."

I don't know how relevant that really is to the discussion, but I thought it was a pretty good statement regarding it.

Ray Jones
03-28-2008, 11:08 AM
Oh yeah, 6 more a-bombs. That would've surely kept the death toll below that of conventional methods. :rolleyes:

They did not even know for sure it would work. They had no clue to the extent of the damage. Yes, they knew about radiation poisoning, but again they had no clue about the long-term affects. Hiroshima and Nagasaki was their lab, we can call that immoral to experiment on human subjects.They knew what would happen if the bombs work. After all they tested it beforehand in New Mexico on July 16th, 1945. (Trinity test) The first picture in my previous post is from that test.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Trinity_crater.jpg
picture of the crater of the Trinity test, the small black spot in the lower right corner is the crater of a 100 ton TNT reference explosion (=400 500 pound bombs at once) about one month earlier

They definitely knew what it would do. And it was also no secret that radioactivity has long term effects.

And at least after Hiroshima, they knew what was going to happen to Nagasaki.


Nice research on the difference by firebombing and nuclear weapons, I already knew there was a difference, but do not see the point. It is like comparing the difference between being shot to death and being stabbed to death, you still end up dead. My statement did make it clear I was talking about the dead didn’t it?Of course it did. :)

But like you've said, which attack do you think has better chances to be dodged, knife or bullet?


I find the mental cruelty of bombing over a period of time just as barbaric.Which leads to the point of the mental cruelty to know that the city next door received an a-bomb per airmail the other day and is now *absent*.


So you survived the last attack, but the next one may have your name on it or your friend’s or a member of your family. You go some place else after your home is destroyed and the next raid destroys it too.But where do you want to go when you know a whole city just got levelled, half of the population got killed, not in one night, no within 1 minute, and the other half is now still about to die, even one week later?

Note that there're not even any trees any more on the Hiroshima picture, while Hamburg's trees are still "green".

Astor
03-28-2008, 11:16 AM
Oh yeah, 6 more a-bombs. That would've surely kept the death toll below that of conventional methods. :rolleyes:

I didn't say it would have kept the death toll down - I merely said that the US were planning more raids.

Aside from the moral aspect, there were no agreements preventing the targeting of civilians or their property - so in a sense, everything was 'fair game'.

Don't get me wrong, I disagree with the use of nuclear weapons, and think it was wrong to use them - i'm just pointing a few things.

Ray Jones
03-28-2008, 11:22 AM
I didn't say it would have kept the death toll down - I merely said that the US were planning more raids.I know. ;) I just commented on that info and a general consent that dropping the bombs was right because lives on all sides were saved, and that this was also the intention of the a-bombs to the begin with.

Inyri
03-28-2008, 11:26 AM
IIRC no one gave a hoot about Japanese lives, just American lives. Nationalism sucks, don't you think? :xp:

I like to see myself as human first, American second, but... it was another time back then. Of course most people don't see it my way which is probably why there's still so much conflict among nations.

Astor
03-28-2008, 11:33 AM
IIRC no one gave a hoot about Japanese lives, just American lives. Nationalism sucks, don't you think? :xp:

While I think that having a national identity is important, it shouldn't get in the way of other considerations - such as preservation of human life - and as you said, it still goes on today.

I may be wrong in saying in this, but it seems to me that many Americans simply wanted to get revenge on the 'Nips' (ugh) for Pearl Harbor. But they wanted to hit the Japanese harder than they themselves had been hit, with the end result being what we are now currently discussing.

Inyri
03-28-2008, 11:35 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if that was a motivation. I'm certain it wasn't the only one, but... historically we do not take kindly to being attacked on our own home turf.

Bee Hoon
03-28-2008, 11:35 AM
IIRC no one gave a hoot about Japanese lives, just American lives. Nationalism sucks, don't you think?It seems to be a pretty popular sentiment in this thread :/

mimartin
03-28-2008, 11:36 AM
But like you've said, which attack do you think has better chances to be dodged, knife or bullet? The key word being dead. Can't dodge either if you are dead.

Which leads to the point of the mental cruelty to know that the city next door received an a-bomb per airmail the other day and is now *absent*. After the surrender there was no need to worry about when the next a-bomb would fall.

Comparing peoples suffering is futile. You are not going to get me to say one had it worst than the other. I apologize to all members for bringing the subject up. Personally I feel equally sorry for all that perished and to those that were left behind. Funny, mankind had the war to end all wars produce the horrors of gas weapons, then we turned around and had another world war where we invented new weapons of horrors to kill and destroy each other. Yet what have we learned nothing, we still wage war and we are still looking for the new horrific weapon to afflict damage onto our enemy.

Inyri
03-28-2008, 11:36 AM
It seems to be a pretty popular sentiment in this thread :/I know. It makes me sad to see people saying stuff like that. :(

I wub our Asian brethren! *gives Bee a big hug*

Astor
03-28-2008, 11:38 AM
historically we do not take kindly to being attacked on our own home turf.

I don't think any population would, in fact, that's probably why Japan has been calling for global nuclear disarmament for such a long time - they don't want it to happen to other nations.

Gargoyle King
03-28-2008, 11:41 AM
IIRC no one gave a hoot about Japanese lives, just American lives. Nationalism sucks, don't you think? :xp:

I like to see myself as human first, American second, but... it was another time back then. Of course most people don't see it my way which is probably why there's still so much conflict among nations.Yeah, the society was different back then, it's hard to imagine how to make a decision like this without actually being there in that era. I tend to not dwell in the past, but i have always felt strongly about the bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki; IMO nothing can justify them, it was tactical genocide to end the Pacific Theatre of WWII. However i'm not going to be an "Anti-American" as i tend to believe that people of a nation should not be judged based on past deeds of a former generation. Of course, this is just my opinion, of which i'm sure people will disagree on, but to anyone thinking that Japan got "what they deserved" just think about how America would react if the same thing happened to them? It doesn't matter how you dress it up, it's genocide, period. The way i see it is that humanity needs to learn from this to make sure horrific events such as this never happen again.

Inyri
03-28-2008, 11:41 AM
I don't think any population would, in fact, that's probably why Japan has been calling for global nuclear disarmament for such a long time - they don't want it to happen to other nations.Yes, but Americans seem particularly shocked when we're directly attacked, like we're under the misguided impression that we're immune to it or something. Other countries are like "hey, you attacked us, go die in a fire." The US is like "omg you attacked us, that's not allowed!"

Not that I want us to be attacked or anything, I just think as a nation our overall opinion on that matter is... maybe a little self-centered.
However i'm not going to be an "Anti-American" as i tend to believe that people of a nation should not be judged based on past deeds of a former generation.Also remember that the majority of the population had no say in that (or any other) military decision. I think a distinct difference needs to be drawn between anti-[insert-country-here] and anti-[insert-country-here]'s government.

Bee Hoon
03-28-2008, 11:43 AM
I know. It makes me sad to see people saying stuff like that.

I wub our Asian brethren! *gives Bee a big hug*We be sisters, you and I;)

I think all this nationalism is silly anyway. We are all humans, for what it's worth:P

Astor
03-28-2008, 11:51 AM
Yes, but Americans seem particularly shocked when we're directly attacked, like we're under the misguided impression that we're immune to it or something. Other countries are like "hey, you attacked us, go die in a fire." The US is like "omg you attacked us, that's not allowed!"

Not that I want us to be attacked or anything, I just think as a nation our overall opinion on that matter is... maybe a little self-centered.

Now, I dont know overly much about American culture and beliefs, but over here (UK), it does seem occasionally that Americans think, sometimes wrongly, that they *are* the most powerful people in the world.

That could possibly be linked to the use of a-bombs.

American 'Hey look! We're mighty powerful! See that city?'

Non-American 'What city'

American 'Exactly'

I hope that didn't come across as racist, or offensive, as that wasnt my intent.

mimartin
03-28-2008, 11:54 AM
I believe some are making a huge generalization and I personally find it offensive. Not everyone that agrees with the bombing of Japan believes that it was right to do so because the Japanese were not what Americans would consider at the time “white folk.” The President had the responsibility for the American people; the Emperor was responsible for his people. Of course the President of the United States is going to be more concern about the lives of Americans over the people of Japan. Yes, the President even states, after the bombing, that revenge was a motivation behind the bombing, but it was because of Pearl Harbor, not because they were a non-white nation.

If you are responsible for one human life, but there are two humans in the room, which one are you going to be more concern about?

Yes, but Americans seem particularly shocked when we're directly attacked, like we're under the misguided impression that we're immune to it or something. Yet, we learn nothing. The next time it happened we were just a shocked. It happened across the pound for years, but when we were attacked it was a complete shock. I figure the next time it happens it will still be a complete shock to us.

Bee Hoon
03-28-2008, 11:56 AM
Also remember that the majority of the population had no say in that (or any other) military decision. I think a distinct difference needs to be drawn between anti-[insert-country-here] and anti-[insert-country-here]'s government.
Amen to that. Most people fail to distinguish between the two.

Ray Jones
03-28-2008, 12:00 PM
The key word being dead. Can't dodge either if you are dead.While that is right, I think you know where I'm coming from. ;~~

After the surrender there was no need to worry about when the next a-bomb would fall.Aw, come on. Now you're reaching for straws. :P After a surrender there is no need to worry about fire bombings either.

Comparing peoples suffering is futile. You are not going to get me to say one had it worst than the other. I apologize to all members for bringing the subject up.OK. :)


Funny, mankind had the war to end all wars produce the horrors of gas weapons, then we turned around and had another world war where we invented new weapons of horrors to kill and destroy each other.It had to come this way, especially because after millenniums of having enough space on earth to go somewhere else, earth finally became to small. The lessons of the world wide wars were inevitable.

Yet what have we learned nothing, we still wage war and we are still looking for the new horrific weapon to afflict damage onto our enemy.I don't think so. Among other things, we have learned that nuclear weapons are of no practical use, especially because they destroy more than the enemy. And we have learned that the simple act of occupying land is not of much use either.

Bee Hoon
03-28-2008, 12:02 PM
I don't think so. Among other things, we have learned that nuclear weapons are of no practical use, especially because they destroy more than the enemy. And we have learned that the simple act of occupying land is not of much use either.Learning's all well and good, but pretty pointless if you don't act on it:/

Ray Jones
03-28-2008, 12:12 PM
Some do, some don't. It's more than the "nobody does" from a hundred years ago, and shows at least a tendency. :)

mimartin
03-28-2008, 12:20 PM
I don't think so. Among other things, we have learned that nuclear weapons are of no practical use, especially because they destroy more than the enemy. Have we? Then why are countries still trying to develop nuclear weapons? And we have learned that the simple act of occupying land is not of much use either. Oh I hope you are correct about this one.

Inyri
03-28-2008, 12:23 PM
Have we? Then why are countries still trying to develop nuclear weapons?Because other countries are still afraid of being nuked? :)

mur'phon
03-28-2008, 12:24 PM
What bugs me most about the bombing is the unwillingness of the allies to compromise. They insisted on an unconditonal surender without even trying to negotiate a compromise both sides could live with. Yes, the Japanese terms where unaceptable to the allies, but so where the allies terms to the japanese. No atempts to make a deal before the first bomb, and not even after it, when the japanese would probably acept far harsher terms. Did the droping of the bombs "save lives"? Possibly, but we'll never know since no atempts where made to make a deal.

@Inyri: I'm even "worse" than you, I'm a human nothing more.

@Bee: Must be anoying to have a nationalist government, though having them loose their supermajoroty is a start.

Inyri
03-28-2008, 12:27 PM
@Inyri: I'm even "worse" than you, I'm a human nothing more.

@Bee: Must be anoying to have a nationalist government, though having them loose their supermajoroty is a start.I think if more people took to that kind of thinking, the world would be a better place. :)

Ray Jones
03-28-2008, 12:31 PM
Have we? Then why are countries still trying to develop nuclear weapons?Yes, we, mankind, have. Unfortunately, some nutters did not and chose to give in to penis envy. However, as Bee Hoon pointed out, learning does not mean doing.

Oh I hope you are correct about this one.My excuse is, learning is an ongoing process. ;)

Bee Hoon
03-28-2008, 12:35 PM
@Bee: Must be anoying to have a nationalist government, though having them loose their supermajoroty is a start. *is impressed* Your general knowledge is goood:) Haha, yeah, but their nationalism was...pretty dumb:/ Anyhoo, it's off topic here, so we shall discuss it further elsewhere, if it so pleases us.

Funny thing: everyone comes into this thread and someone seems to be able to sway anyone to the other side:P

mimartin
03-28-2008, 12:40 PM
They insisted on an unconditonal surender without even trying to negotiate a compromise both sides could live with. Has anyone ever accused FDR or Churchill of not being hard headed? That hard headedness served the war effort well, but was a disservice to Japan. No atempts to make a deal before the first bomb, and not even after it, when the japanese would probably acept far harsher terms. The Allies and the American’s considered the Post Declaration to be their terms for the surrender for Japan. So publically they made their offer and publically Japan rejected it in a radio broadcast without making a public counteroffer. The Allies knew that Japan would never agree to give up their Emperor, and the Allies were not for allowing him to remain in power. The sad part is after the war, although stripped of all power, MacArthur allowed the title of Emperor to remain. Would the Japanese have agreed to the terms if we would have told them up front that the Emperor would be allowed to remain as a figure head?

jonathan7
03-28-2008, 12:45 PM
Because other countries are still afraid of being nuked? :)

The one thing the Nukes did was stop a Vietnam/Iraq occuring, not that I actually agree with them; if the A-bomb had to be dropped they should of bombed an area that wasn't populated to show the Japanese how powerful the bomb was, and only after that done anything else. Unfortunatly I think some in the administration of the time wanted to test out their new toy, and have an example of power shown to the Soviets.

As for nationalism, its just a beaten road on the way to tyranny. I think generally nations are evil, some less so than others. We in the west, are not civilised, we talk about democracy, but when a democracy yeilds a result we don't like we don't recognize it, and worse still we support barbaric regimes such as Saudi Arabia as it serves out interests to do so.

Astor
03-28-2008, 12:50 PM
It wasn't about the position of Emporer, IIRC. It also had a lot to do with the preservation of Kokutai, the Japanese national identity.

I believe that the Emporer was asked if the war would continue if the Kokutai was removed, and he replied 'of course'.

I should mention that Kokutai also defines the position of Emporer, but it is also much more.

Rev7
03-29-2008, 01:32 AM
If we have no other choice, and we have to bomb a city filled with civilians for some reason, it would be best if the weapon killed the people in a split second. A quick and painless death is better than a slow and agonizing death, even if it the same result- death in the end. Slow deaths to innocent civilians is inhumane... I have no intention of killing innocent civilians any time soon though...
As Ray Jones probably pointed out radiation was big. Yes, death would be quick and painless for some. People that were just far enough away to survive the blast recieved some brutal radiation burns. Their skin turned black. That is really just the start of the 'side effects'.

NOTE: A lot of what I just said contained information on a History Channel documentary on the atomic bombings in Japan.

Nationalism sucks, don't you think? :xp:
Well now, that depends on where you live. ;) :xp:

Tommycat
03-29-2008, 02:01 AM
Well if we had the knowledge we have now about the atomic bomb, we likely wouldn't have used it. But then again, with the knowledge we have now, we can have a huge bomb without the radiation(Daisy Cutter/MOAB).

No weapon is morally right in it's use. But then it is possible to justify that use. A good example is it is immoral to kill someone. It is justifiable to kill a man to prevent him from killing other people(say a person shooting people at random from a clock tower).

Rev7
03-29-2008, 02:11 AM
No weapon is morally right in it's use. But then it is possible to justify that use. A good example is it is immoral to kill someone. It is justifiable to kill a man to prevent him from killing other people(say a person shooting people at random from a clock tower).
I agree. I think that it all depends on the situation.

Web Rider
03-29-2008, 02:36 AM
As Ray Jones probably pointed out radiation was big. Yes, death would be quick and painless for some. People that were just far enough away to survive the blast recieved some brutal radiation burns. Their skin turned black. That is really just the start of the 'side effects'.

Your skin won't turn black(unless you mean charred), from radiation exposure from a nuclear bomb. The radiation put off from a nuclear device is not UV radiation, which is what reacts in your cells to cause pigmentation.

SilentScope001
03-29-2008, 12:11 PM
Would the Japanese have agreed to the terms if we would have told them up front that the Emperor would be allowed to remain as a figure head?

Again, the problem would be that if the US offered those terms up front, then the Japanese could think they could fight for even better surrender terms. The war would continue regardless.

mimartin
03-29-2008, 12:20 PM
Again, the problem would be that if the US offered those terms up front, then the Japanese could think they could fight for even better surrender terms. The war would continue regardless.
Wasn't the Japanese already doing that? Publicly they ignored the Allies offer, yet sent a secret envoy to Russia to ask them to be intermediaries in surrender talks. Of course, Russia put them off for a while until Stalin finally replied with a declaration of war on Japan.

Rev7
03-29-2008, 01:45 PM
Your skin won't turn black(unless you mean charred), from radiation exposure from a nuclear bomb. The radiation put off from a nuclear device is not UV radiation, which is what reacts in your cells to cause pigmentation.
That is probably what I meant. I haven't seen the show in a little while. It most likely was charred, because I remember that the documantary said that when the victims that survived the initial blast, went to go find water, they found the water to be black because people HAD to get the black off. Thus there was no drinking water. It started to rain and the stuck out there tongue for the water. I don't quite know what happened, it was either the water was good, or it only burned and made everything worse. The latter probably due to the radiation. I really don't remember though...

Jae Onasi
03-29-2008, 03:13 PM
The skin could have been charred from the heat or fire. If that was the case, anything larger than a small burn usually lead to death within hours or a couple days from fluid loss/shock or infection.

Radiation in the doses that the bomb victims received was high enough to damage bone marrow, which makes our blood and clotting cells. Without enough platelets, people would have had problems with bad bruising (among other things). That may have contributed to the blackened appearance, but without seeing what Rev7 saw, I can't say for sure.

We didn't know much about the effects of radiation on the body, particularly long term--our medical technology just wasn't far enough along at that point. We certainly didn't know it on a large scale. Radiation wasn't being used in medicine except for x-rays. I talked to a radiology tech today who pointed out to me that the only long-term study of that level of exposure on that large a group of people was done on the bomb survivors, and that's really the only study. Obviously it would be unethical to expose normal healthy people to that level of radiation in order to study the effects. The largest number of people receiving high doses of radiation today usually receive it for cancer, and it is very difficult to design studies since it would be hard to factor out the cancer or chemo as contributers to cell damage.

Again you can't apply 2008 medical knowledge to 1945 medicine. We just didn't know these effects then like we do now.

Even if we did know then what we know now, Truman might have dropped the bombs. He knew he was going to have large numbers of casualties no matter what choice he made. He had to opt for the choice that was going to cause overall fewer deaths--particularly to the Allied side of the war.

Edit--the blackness could have been from plain old dirt. Bombs produce huge amounts of dust, and very few people had central air (or even homes) to filter out the dust.

Edit 2-- Info on radiation sickness (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/radiation-sickness/DS00432).

Rev7
03-30-2008, 12:22 AM
^
I saw this documentary a little while ago. I do remember that it talked about the victims skin being black. I know that the entire documentary was made with some of the survivors talking about their experiances. Trust me, this is REALLY bothering me. Perhaps the blackness was from a fire that came about because of the bomb. It was in a large building...that might have been why. Might have charred the peoples skin.

So sorry about the confusion.

Marius Fett
03-30-2008, 11:25 AM
Blackness of skin could also have been caused by the intense light and heat being absorbed by the black cloth of peoples clothing and then fusing it to the skin?

This is possible I think because black absorbs heat VERY well.

Jae Onasi
03-30-2008, 01:21 PM
The heat required to fuse cloth to skin would also have burned people so badly they wouldn't be walking around anywhere.

Anyway, we're starting to get off on a tangent with this blackened skin thing and need to get back on track with the ethics of dropping the bomb and the factors surrounding that decision.

edit at DDD below: And she's not walking around anywhere now, is she? She's lucky (theoretically) to have survived that long with that amount of surface area burned.

Marius Fett
03-30-2008, 01:38 PM
The heat required to fuse cloth to skin would also have burned people so badly they wouldn't be walking around anywhere.

Just got this from WikiPedia:

The energy released by the bomb was powerful enough to burn through clothing. The dark portions of the garments this victim wore at the time of the blast were emblazoned on to the flesh as scars, while skin underneath the lighter parts (which absorb less energy) was not damaged as badly.

It was accompanied by this image:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Gisei32.jpg

So I was a little off, but not much. :)

Ray Jones
03-30-2008, 02:35 PM
I think what he is talking about is the fact that many people who survived tried to escape the fire and heat of the firestorm went to and into the river and drank of the contaminated water. As a result (if they haven't been contaminated before that already) they suffered from radiation poisoning to a level causing inner bleedings and bleeding out of the orifices and under the skin. The bleeding under the skin causes dark purple spots all over the body.

The flash and following heat (infrared) radiation of the bomb is so intense, it can cause heaviest burnings. Clothes (in case they're not dark coloured) or walls offer a good protection against that. However, that would not cause people to be all black, because typically only the side of the body that was directly exposed to the light is burned, except you were so near to the detonation (with 1.5 km range) that at least your skin was vaporised completely. Although I don't think you'd make it to any river then anymore.

Maybe it was dust. Black or not, the thing in a nuclear bomb scenario is that this dust is the nuclear fallout emitting mostly particle radiation, which can cause burnings on the skin's surface. These won't be black though.


Wikipedia offers a good overview on exposure levels and symptoms, and probably gives a good idea of the people's suffering (skin bleeding means 3 or 4 sievert at least):

0.05–0.2 Sv (5–20 REM)

No symptoms. Potential for cancer and mutation of genetic material, according to the LNT model: this is disputed. A few researchers contend that low dose radiation may be beneficial. 50 mSv is the yearly federal limit for radiation workers in the United States. In the UK the yearly limit for a classified radiation worker is 20 mSv. In Canada, the single-year maximum is 50 mSv, but the maximum 5-year dose is only 100 mSv. Company limits are usually stricter so as not to violate federal limits.


0.2–0.5 Sv (20–50 REM)

No noticeable symptoms. Red blood cell count decreases temporarily.


0.5–1 Sv (50–100 REM)

Mild radiation sickness with headache and increased risk of infection due to disruption of immunity cells. Temporary male sterility is possible.


1–2 Sv (100–200 REM)

Light radiation poisoning, 10% fatality after 30 days (LD 10/30). Typical symptoms include mild to moderate nausea (50% probability at 2 Sv), with occasional vomiting, beginning 3 to 6 hours after irradiation and lasting for up to one day. This is followed by a 10 to 14 day latent phase, after which light symptoms like general illness and fatigue appear (50% probability at 2 Sv). The immune system is depressed, with convalescence extended and increased risk of infection. Temporary male sterility is common. Spontaneous abortion or stillbirth will occur in pregnant women.


2–3 Sv (200–300 REM)

Moderate radiation poisoning, 35% fatality after 30 days (LD 35/30). Nausea is common (100% at 3 Sv), with 50% risk of vomiting at 2.8 Sv. Symptoms onset at 1 to 6 hours after irradiation and last for 1 to 2 days. After that, there is a 7 to 14 day latent phase, after which the following symptoms appear: loss of hair all over the body (50% probability at 3 Sv), fatigue and general illness. There is a massive loss of leukocytes (white blood cells), greatly increasing the risk of infection. Permanent female sterility is possible. Convalescence takes one to several months.


3–4 Sv (300–400 REM)

Severe radiation poisoning, 50% fatality after 30 days (LD 50/30). Other symptoms are similar to the 2–3 Sv dose, with uncontrollable bleeding in the mouth, under the skin and in the kidneys (50% probability at 4 Sv) after the latent phase.


4–6 Sv (400–600 REM)

Acute radiation poisoning, 60% fatality after 30 days (LD 60/30). Fatality increases from 60% at 4.5 Sv to 90% at 6 Sv (unless there is intense medical care). Symptoms start half an hour to two hours after irradiation and last for up to 2 days. After that, there is a 7 to 14 day latent phase, after which generally the same symptoms appear as with 3-4 Sv irradiation, with increased intensity. Female sterility is common at this point. Convalescence takes several months to a year. The primary causes of death (in general 2 to 12 weeks after irradiation) are infections and internal bleeding.


6–10 Sv (600–1,000 REM)

Acute radiation poisoning, near 100% fatality after 14 days (LD 100/14). Survival depends on intense medical care. Bone marrow is nearly or completely destroyed, so a bone marrow transplant is required. Gastric and intestinal tissue are severely damaged. Symptoms start 15 to 30 minutes after irradiation and last for up to 2 days. Subsequently, there is a 5 to 10 day latent phase, after which the person dies of infection or internal bleeding. Recovery would take several years and probably would never be complete.


10–50 Sv (1,000–5,000 REM)

Acute radiation poisoning, 100% fatality after 7 days (LD 100/7). An exposure this high leads to spontaneous symptoms after 5 to 30 minutes. After powerful fatigue and immediate nausea caused by direct activation of chemical receptors in the brain by the irradiation, there is a period of several days of comparative well-being, called the latent (or "walking ghost") phase. After that, cell death in the gastric and intestinal tissue, causing massive diarrhea, intestinal bleeding and loss of water, leads to water-electrolyte imbalance. Death sets in with delirium and coma due to breakdown of circulation. Death is currently inevitable; the only treatment that can be offered is pain therapy.


More than 50 Sv (>5,000 REM)

A worker receiving 100 Sv (10,000 REM) in an accident at Wood River, Rhode Island, USA on 24 July 1964 survived for 49 hours after exposure, and an operator receiving between 60 and 180 Sv (18,000 REM) to his upper body in an accident at Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA on 30 December 1958 survived for 36 hours; details of this accident can be found on page 16 (page 30 in the PDF version) of Los Alamos' 2000 Review of Criticality Accidents.



This is a man who was exposed to a radiation of 10 sievert or more in an civil nuclear accident:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/09/10to20Gygammadoseat21days.jpg

Corinthian
03-30-2008, 03:01 PM
Yes, it WAS right.

I'm not going to mince words here. The Japanese got what they deserved. You thought the Nazis were horrifying? Take a look at this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731).

Besides that, Operation Downfall was going to be a nightmare. Conservative estimates for the casualties go easily into the hundreds of thousands and casualty estimate range as high as several million Japanese Soldiers and Civilians as well as Allied soldiers dead. It would have been a bloodbath.

Furthermore, Hiroshima and Nagasaki taught the Japanese something. A lot of people have suggested we should have detonated Fat Man or Little Boy out at sea so they could see the Mushroom Cloud. WRONG. That just shows that 'Oh, hey, Japan, we've got an awesome superweapon, but we're not going to use it because we're too concerned about the lives of our ENEMIES.'

It was the only way it could have gone down, unless you consider the total shattering of everything on Kyushu and the slaughter of just about everyone on it to be a better alternative. I suppose hypothetically we could have surrounded Japan with our fleets and just starved them out, but this is the same nation that thinks that anytime your honor has been injured it's a good excuse to take your Wakizashi and slice your own gut open.

Gargoyle King
03-30-2008, 03:05 PM
Also remember that the majority of the population had no say in that (or any other) military decision. I think a distinct difference needs to be drawn between anti- and anti-[insert-country-here]'s government.Yeah, i totally agree with this Inyri. It's like with the German Nation, was it really the people's fault that the Nazi regime was thrust upon them? No. You are right Inyri, i don't blame America as a nation, rather you're government's decision at the time. Blaming a country in itself is narrow minded and doesn't explain how decisions like this are ever made.Yes, it WAS right.

I'm not going to mince words here. The Japanese got what they deserved. You thought the Nazis were horrifying? Take a look at this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731).

Besides that, Operation Downfall was going to be a nightmare. Conservative estimates for the casualties go easily into the hundreds of thousands and casualty estimate range as high as several million Japanese Soldiers and Civilians as well as Allied soldiers dead. It would have been a bloodbath.

Furthermore, Hiroshima and Nagasaki taught the Japanese something. A lot of people have suggested we should have detonated Fat Man or Little Boy out at sea so they could see the Mushroom Cloud. WRONG. That just shows that 'Oh, hey, Japan, we've got an awesome superweapon, but we're not going to use it because we're too concerned about the lives of our ENEMIES.'

It was the only way it could have gone down, unless you consider the total shattering of everything on Kyushu and the slaughter of just about everyone on it to be a better alternative. I suppose hypothetically we could have surrounded Japan with our fleets and just starved them out, but this is the same nation that thinks that anytime your honor has been injured it's a good excuse to take your Wakizashi and slice your own gut open.Yeh, Unit 731 was bad, but on the scale of Nazism? Oh I don't think so. Oh, yeah and the comment on estimates of casualties, that's exactly the point, they are estimates hence you can never judge this. Oh and how exactly is bombing 100,000's of civilian's [I]TWICE an enemy target? I must have missed that somehow .............
There's no excuse for it, as civilians aren't the enemy; unless you're a sociopath of course. The Japanese would have never surrendered had America not had used the bombs because that's just the way they are; no fear of death in battle or the belief that it is honorable to die in battle. The American Government just seen this as an easy way out of an expensive war. Oh and who are you to judge the Japanese tradition of Seppuku? Because what America's government did can be described as damn right dishonorable. Don't judge what you don't understand.

Wow, haven't had a rant like this in ages! :D

Q
03-30-2008, 03:12 PM
@Corinthian:
Linky no worky, but the address does. ;)

I'd forgotten about Unit 731.

Jae Onasi
03-30-2008, 03:13 PM
The Germans and Russians already were working on a-bombs, too, and I don't know if Japan was or not. If Germany or Russia had been able to, I have no doubt they would have deployed their a-bombs, too.

Taak Farst
03-30-2008, 03:25 PM
@Corinthian

How can u be so heartless?

in 1 sec. more Civilians than soldiers died in hiroshima.
About 12.000 children died and maximum 1500- 2000 soldiers.
The rest of 160.000 people were civilians
I think the americans are not better than other war terrorsts.

In conclusion I think America only care for their own sorry ~snipped~ "gr8" nation. They acted like terrorists. A lot more civilians died than soldiers. To be hnest I think america would bomb anyone who even thought about attacking.

Keep the language clean here--please use regular English instead of IM speak, also. We have a lot of people from other countries reading the boards and IM makes it too confusing for non-English speakers. --Jae

Corinthian
03-30-2008, 03:26 PM
The Nazis just worked people to death, if they didn't gas them first. The Japanese liked to kill people in the most horrific ways possible. I can read about Auschwitz and I just get angry. I read about Unit 731 and I want to vomit.

Japan's Civilians weren't innocent. Their lack of any effort to stop their government shows support for the local status quo. Thus, they were our enemies.

Ray Jones
03-30-2008, 03:27 PM
The Germans and Russians already were working on a-bombs, too, and I don't know if Japan was or not. If Germany or Russia had been able to, I have no doubt they would have deployed their a-bombs, too.They would have, indeed.

Corinthian
03-30-2008, 03:27 PM
Yeah, the only real question there is who would have gotten a taste of their particular brand of atomic fire first.

Astor
03-30-2008, 03:28 PM
Japan's Civilians weren't innocent.

So a two year old who doesn't know any better can therefore be blamed for the work of a government he can't even comprehend?

Ray Jones
03-30-2008, 03:29 PM
Japan's Civilians weren't innocent. Their lack of any effort to stop their government shows support for the local status quo. Thus, they were our enemies.Innocence or not. There is a reason why there is a difference between military personal and civilians.

Q
03-30-2008, 03:33 PM
If the Nazis had developed a workable nuclear bomb, it would have been a disaster.

They already had the perfect delivery system in the form of the V-2 missle.

London would have been wiped off the map, and the Red Army would have been vaporized.

Ray Jones
03-30-2008, 03:55 PM
If the Nazis had developed a workable nuclear bomb, it would have been a disaster.

They already had the perfect delivery system in the form of the V-2 missle.

London would have been wiped off the map, and the Red Army would have been vaporized.With 9000 pound the a-bomb was to heavy for the V-2, which could carry only a 2000 pound warhead. Its range of only 300 kilometres is not very convincing, too. I doubt the Nazis would have been dumb enough to drop a bunch of nuclear weapons within that distance.

Corinthian
03-30-2008, 04:06 PM
The Civilians ran Japan's war machine! They kept the food and the bullets flowing to the front so that more psychos could fly their planes into Allied ships or shoot allied soldiers. They deserved everything they got.

Astor
03-30-2008, 04:09 PM
By the same token, American, British and Russian Civilians who worked in the munitions industries, or ran farms etc deserved to have an A-bomb dropped on them for shooting axis soldiers.

Corinthian
03-30-2008, 04:12 PM
Not exactly the way I'd put it, but in a sense, yes. Civilians are a viable target, strategically, in war. They're hardly 'innocent', unless they're huddling under a bed with a sack of grain, doing nothing but quietly whimpering. Hitting the enemy's supply lines is an old tactic, and it's absolutely devastating. Attacking civilians is just an extension of that, and it also has a nasty effect on morale.

Q
03-30-2008, 04:19 PM
With 9000 pound the a-bomb was to heavy for the V-2, which could carry only a 2000 pound warhead. Its range of only 300 kilometres is not very convincing, too. I doubt the Nazis would have been dumb enough to drop a bunch of nuclear weapons within that distance.
I mis-typed, and I know it. The V-2's design could have been sufficiently enlarged to the point where it could have delivered the bomb, however.

Web Rider
03-30-2008, 04:21 PM
By the same token, American, British and Russian Civilians who worked in the munitions industries, or ran farms etc deserved to have an A-bomb dropped on them for shooting axis soldiers.

As the saying goes, the winner writes the history. If the japanese or the Germans had won, then yes, Americans, Brits, and Russians would have "got what they deserve" too. Total War's are generally wars of attrition, simply put, who can take a bigger beating and still fight for it. Due to the location of the US relative to Germany and Japan, the US was able to take a "bigger beating" and keep on fighting.

As was the UK, who were consistently pummeled by the Germans, but kept on pushing due to aid and willpower and the Germans lost. The Russians were similar, they destroyed everything in the path of the Germans and threw troops at them like no tomorrow. The Russians won in a war of attrition, they took a bigger beating and kept on going.

The Japanese lost the war of attrition, they took a beating and couldn't keep on going, or chose not to.

I mis-typed, and I know it. The V-2's design could have been sufficiently enlarged to the point where it could have delivered the bomb, however.
As an interesting note, Wernher von Braun became a citizen of the US in 1955, 10 years after he entered the country(in 1945). Ironic no? The guy who developed the V2 enters as soon as the US has nukes.

call him a Nazi he won't even frown,
"Nazi-smatzi." says Wernher von Braun.

Totenkopf
03-30-2008, 09:44 PM
The Germans and Russians already were working on a-bombs, too, and I don't know if Japan was or not. If Germany or Russia had been able to, I have no doubt they would have deployed their a-bombs, too.


Yeah, they were working on one too.
http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/jp-hung.htm
http://www.fortfreedom.org/w08.htm
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20060804a2.html


They also planned to attack the US with bio weapons in the form of ballons carrying plague infected fleas. Interestingly enough, at least on the allied side, there was a predispostion against area bombing. Only, as the war ground on with little or no end in sight, attitudes began to change. Japan and Germany ultimately lost the war b/c they were at a disadvantage in terms of resources. In Japan's case, Admiral Yamamoto warned his government that they could "run wild in the Pacific" for about 6 months. If the US wasn't knocked out by then, they would lose. You have to wonder, though, if the Nazis hadn't crumbled before Aug of '45 (they surrendered that May), where a bomb would've been dropped against them. Peenemunde, perhaps?

@Bee--what, are you channeling Rodney King now (can't we all just get along?)? :xp: Seriously, I agree that it's most unfortunate that people can't get along and see the bigger picture. It's kind of hard, though, when so many people come from so many seemingly diametrically opposed povs. We may "get it right" someday, but most likely not in our lifetime. :(

Corinthian
03-30-2008, 09:47 PM
That was the Japanese strategy all along, as I understand it. They wanted to grab as much territory as they could in the Pacific and then fight the United States so hard that we would come to peace accords that would allow the Japanese to hold onto parts of the territory they had seized. The Japanese, however, underestimated the power of the 'Sleeping Giant'.

Totenkopf
03-30-2008, 09:54 PM
That was the Japanese strategy all along, as I understand it. They wanted to grab as much territory as they could in the Pacific and then fight the United States so hard that we would come to peace accords that would allow the Japanese to hold onto parts of the territory they had seized. The Japanese, however, underestimated the power of the 'Sleeping Giant'.


Yeah, having spent time in the US, Yamamoto knew just how big the "sleeping giant" actually was.

Tommycat
03-30-2008, 09:56 PM
The Japanese didn't have a problem with sending up Balloon Bombs (http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/forensic_geology/Japenese%20vengenance%20bombs%20new.htm) to bomb the US civilian towns. The furthest actually got to Michigan. People conveniently forget that. Well actually its not that well known as we did our best to keep that hidden from the Japanese during the war. The Japanese were floating balloon bombs to hit the US with no cares as to what target they hit, Civilian or Military it made no difference, it was just to hit the US on their home turf.

So, Yes American Civilians were on the Japanese military's acceptable targets list.

Jae Onasi
03-30-2008, 10:20 PM
I have to say that I'm really impressed with how civil this discussion has been--usually anything related to Nazis/warfare degenerates into a flame war pretty quickly, and that's not happened here. Thank you. :)

mimartin
03-30-2008, 10:22 PM
In conclusion I think America only care for their own sorry ~snipped~ "gr8" nation. They acted like terrorists. A lot more civilians died than soldiers. To be hnest I think america would bomb anyone who even thought about attacking.Yes, America was worried about its own self-interest. Any nations government should put it own peoples self-interest first. That said, why don’t you look at “Lend-Lease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease)” to see just what the sorry self-centered American’s did to help nations like the United Kingdom, Soviet Union, China and France.

Those self-centered Americans not only sent material to help the Allies war effort, but volunteers went to boaster foreign nations military forces. 1st American Volunteer Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tigers)/Eagle Squadrons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Squadron)

Then look at what happened after the war. A nation that was truly selfish and self-centered would have tried to profit from such a tragedy. What lands did we take from Germany and Japan? What puppet government did the selfish Americans install so that that nation was controlled by Washington?

Ray Jones
03-31-2008, 04:01 AM
Japan is guilty of many cruel war crimes. They killed more people during the "Asian holocaust" (9 million) than the Germans killed Jews (6 million). They tortured and killed POWs. They used chemical and biological weapons. Like most others, they surely had dropped the a-bomb, too.

Astor
03-31-2008, 05:27 AM
The Japanese were floating balloon bombs to hit the US with no cares as to what target they hit, Civilian or Military it made no difference, it was just to hit the US on their home turf.


I don't think they were specifically targeting civilians - there's no way of knowing where such an unstable, and uncontrollable device could land - but I think the Japanese Navy would have hoped to hit military targets.

Japan is guilty of many cruel war crimes. They killed more people during the "Asian holocaust" (9 million) than the Germans killed Jews (6 million). They tortured and killed POWs. They used chemical and biological weapons. Like most others, they surely had dropped the a-bomb, too.

While I'm not defending the Japanese for their committal of war crimes, don't forget that, while not to the same scale, there were many war crimes committed by Allied forces as well.

Allied War Crimes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes)

I know it mentions the A-Bombs there, and not everything on there is 'agreed' as a war crime, but the allies weren't completely innocent either.

Ray Jones
03-31-2008, 05:39 AM
To sum it up, you could have switched either side with each other and nothing had changed.

Gargoyle King
03-31-2008, 08:12 AM
While I'm not defending the Japanese for their committal of war crimes, don't forget that, while not to the same scale, there were many war crimes committed by Allied forces as well.

Allied War Crimes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes)

I know it mentions the A-Bombs there, and not everything on there is 'agreed' as a war crime, but the allies weren't completely innocent either.Yeah, this what makes the conversation more complex, because like you say warcrimes occurred between the allied and axis forces during WWII, hence it is hard to pin a "definate blame" for some of the atrocities committed during WWII. The Americans did help enormously to the allied war effort during WWII, of which definately pushed the war in the allies favour, but even the Americans weren't completely innocent from War Crimes - a re-ocurring factor that was also seen in wars such as Vietnam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai). The way i see it is that the things that happened, happened and nothing will ever change this fact; i just hope that humanity can learn from past mistakes - but history does sometimes have a history of repeating itself and it does make you wonder if Humanity will ever "get it right". This however can be seen that if humans are waging war against one another all of the time, then we really aren't getting it right, and never have done since humanities existence. But i suppose there is no "guideline" of the world of how Humanity interacts with one another.

Tommycat
03-31-2008, 08:15 AM
The Japanese were floating balloon bombs to hit the US with no cares as to what target they hit, Civilian or Military it made no difference, it was just to hit the US on their home turf.


I don't think they were specifically targeting civilians - there's no way of knowing where such an unstable, and uncontrollable device could land - but I think the Japanese Navy would have hoped to hit military targets.
Um.. they didn't care if it hit military or civilian targets. It was all the same to them. When you commit your whole county to total war, you kinda say that the civilians are involved in the war. I mean our civilians were mostly committed to the war. Their civilians were committed to the war. Our civilians were involved in making the bombs dropped on them. Their civilians were involved in making the bombs they used on us.

Lets face it, War sucks and we shouldn't want to do it. world wide war sucked even more so, and we should never want to do that again. An interesting side effect of the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was showing us just how horrible a nuclear weapon could be. <note: pure speculation>It may have been a leading contributor to the fact that the US and USSR never fully committed to an all out war(namely that whole MAD thing)

Marius Fett
03-31-2008, 09:52 AM
Japan is guilty of many cruel war crimes. They killed more people during the "Asian holocaust" (9 million) than the Germans killed Jews (6 million). They tortured and killed POWs. They used chemical and biological weapons. Like most others, they surely had dropped the a-bomb, too.

Ever heard the saying "two wrongs don't make a right?"

Bee Hoon
03-31-2008, 10:10 AM
what, are you channeling Rodney King now (can't we all just get along?)? Seriously, I agree that it's most unfortunate that people can't get along and see the bigger picture. It's kind of hard, though, when so many people come from so many seemingly diametrically opposed povs. We may "get it right" someday, but most likely not in our lifetime. Rodney King=cultural reference which I do not share. It was simply an observation, which I believe you will find holds true throughout this thread.

"Seeing the bigger picture" is a dangerous concept:/ Because one will often forget about the little man...

Ray Jones
03-31-2008, 10:41 AM
Ever heard the saying "two wrongs don't make a right?"Heard me saying something else?

Marius Fett
03-31-2008, 10:47 AM
Heard me saying something else?

Look at the quote. ;)

Inyri
03-31-2008, 10:57 AM
You should look at the quote, DDD. :)

You say "two wrongs don't make a right," but all I see is Ray stating some facts. Nowhere does he advocate anything in the quote you provided; he just mentioned some things that the Japanese did to the Chinese. Maybe you quoted the wrong part?

Marius Fett
03-31-2008, 11:06 AM
I was merely pointing out that even though Japan did all those terrible things, it still doesn't make the retaliation in the form of nukes justified.

I was not implying that Ray said that the Japanese deserved it.

Sorry if that's how it came across. :)

Inyri
03-31-2008, 11:07 AM
There's really no sense in saying "two wrongs don't make a right" if he wasn't implying it, is there? A question, not condescension.

Marius Fett
03-31-2008, 11:09 AM
Like I said, I was just pointing out that even though Japan did all those things, it didn't make Hiroshima and Nagasaki right.

Ray Jones
03-31-2008, 11:13 AM
Hm. To me the quote somehow implies I said something like that. :)

Marius Fett
03-31-2008, 11:44 AM
As I said in a previous post, sorry if that's how it came across. :)

Totenkopf
03-31-2008, 06:51 PM
Rodney King=cultural reference which I do not share. It was simply an observation, which I believe you will find holds true throughout this thread.

Was worth a shot. Never know what people know/don't know about in the age of the internet. He basically ran afoul of the law and filed a case of police brutality. In one of his public appearances he uttered the line "can't we all just get along". A statement which pretty much mirrors your own sentiment.

"Seeing the bigger picture" is a dangerous concept:/ Because one will often forget about the little man...

I suppose it depends on exactly what the bigger picture actually is, doesn't it? I figured in this context the bigger pic was the survival of man, great or small.

SilentScope001
03-31-2008, 08:52 PM
What puppet government did the selfish Americans install so that that nation was controlled by Washington?

A quick one. The United States directly ruled Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupied_Japan), under the tulage of General MacArthur, for 6-7 years. Having the US dictate to your country what to do sounds like a puppet government to me, even if it is 'unselfish'.

Maybe the US was a tad too merciful? While Germany cracks down on Neo-Nazism, politicans unoffically commerate suspected Japanese war criminals lay buried in religious shrine(well, 'actual' war criminals, those people were tried and shot by the Americans and later buried in a religious shrine). While Germany censor games with the Hindu symbol of peace and love, the Japanese government allow for offical textbooks that justify the Japanese war, and explained that Peral Harbor occured due to an American oil embargo on Japan. And this is supposed to be a 'puppet government'?

Of course, the fact remains that it is okay for this to happen as long as Japan doesn't actually do anything aggressive. And it won't, for the foreseeable future (even if they do declare their defense force a real-life army). Japan is still pretty left-wing, altough you do got a right-wing compontent that reguarly win elections. It's actually pretty minor, when you think about it, and I rather bury silly arguments like this. Japan's a free country that will never return back to Japanism. But for crying out loud...

mimartin
03-31-2008, 09:09 PM
the Japanese government allow for offical textbooks that justify the Japanese war, and explained that Peral Harbor occured due to an American oil embargo on Japan. I actually agree with the textbooks that say this. However, the embargo was due to their expansionist pursuits so the actual cause of the war was Japan’s invasion of China. It was somewhat silly of the United States to place an embargo against an island nation and not expect them to attack. Of course, many believe that was Mr. Roosevelt’s plan all along.

A quick one. The United States directly ruled Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupied_Japan), under the tulage of General MacArthur, for 6-7 years. Having the US dictate to your country what to do sounds like a puppet government to me, even if it is 'unselfish'. I was speaking more long term. They did not intend to repeat mistakes made after the First World War in Germany so an occupation force was a forgone conclusion of the surrender. MacArthur actually wrote most of the Japanese constitution once the Japanese could not agree on its terms, I find that interesting given how rigorous the document is and that it has never been amended.

SilentScope001
03-31-2008, 09:17 PM
I actually agree with the textbooks that say this. However, the embargo was due to their expansionist pursuits so the actual cause of the war was Japan’s invasion of China. It was somewhat silly of the United States to place an embargo against an island nation and not expect them to attack. Of course, many believe that was Mr. Roosevelt’s plan all along.

I may also agree with that interpretion, however, I doubt many people here would agree with that, which is why I brought it up. However, I am far more concerned that those offical textbooks also made several attempts to justify World War II, minmizling the whole possiblity of war crimes and such, and I think more emphasis needs to be worried about that justification.

Eh. I don't want to appear anti-Japanese, I'm just shocked that other people who may be rather worried about this doesn't know it at all.

dewayne26
03-31-2008, 10:26 PM
not long ago i watch a show called the last mission. it was the last bombing mission of the war. and no it wasn't the second a-bomb. i think mission took place like three days after. in short the mission ended the war. as there was attempted coup going on in tokyo. thanks to the bombers passing over tokyo the coup failed........lack of power. the coup wiould succeeded if the power stayed on.

mimartin
03-31-2008, 10:53 PM
not long ago i watch a show called the last mission. it was the last bombing mission of the war. and no it wasn't the second a-bomb.
It comes from a book titled The Last Mission: The Secret History of World War II's Final Battle (http://www.amazon.com/Last-Mission-Secret-History-Battle/dp/0767907787) by Jim Smith and Malcolm McConnell. Jim Smith was actually a crewmember on one of the American bombers. I have not read the book, but my stepfather who is a history buff and a lover of all things Japanese has read the book. I may need to borrow his copy as it sounds interesting.

TheRonto
04-07-2008, 05:56 PM
I believed that we bombed them because they would not give up. We were going to have to invade Japan to stop them. The Allies predicted casualties for that operation would be close to 1,000,000 of our men. And the Japanese government was preparing the civilian population to fight us. Millions of Japanese civilians would have died. Now, I am not saying that using the bombs was right in a moral sense. But war does not have morals, and we had to do it. That is why we should not fight wars: because everyone suffers.

Da_man
04-14-2008, 12:37 AM
^Going off what he said, It wasn't nescecarilly (know i spelled that wrong) the best course off action, but it seemed better than the alterntive of millions of civilians and soldiers dying. I think that a better course off action would have been to take out, i.e assassinate, thier power base, like the military dictators, and the one leader dude whos name escapes me. :headbump

Totenkopf
04-14-2008, 04:41 AM
You don't mean Emperor Hirohito, do you? Another "famous" Japanese leader was Tojo, though he was relieved of his postion (Prime Minister) in 1944.

Da_man
04-14-2008, 12:30 PM
^ It was Tojo. :)

Totenkopf
04-15-2008, 12:11 AM
Well, considering we didn't have any real assets in Japan to do that then, it would have been difficult/impossible. Adm. Yamamoto was essentially assassinated when we got tipped off that he was flying under light escort and his planes were pounced by American fighters (p-38s) that shot down the bomber he was flying in at the time (no survivors).