Atomic Bomb

[magneticgoop]

I want to know what you think about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Personally I think the US should have shown the Japanese the destructive power of the bombs before they were dropped. If the Japanese had known this but not surrendered they would have basically invited the US to bomb them and no debate over ethics would have occurred. Although it took two destroyed cites to convince them to surrender and because they didn't surrender on the first dropping I think the Japanese would not have surrendered before the bombings. However we didn't and the debate rages on.

Now tell me what you think, please be intelligent and respectful this is a debate not an argument, if you don't know the difference don't post here.

[g unit]

i think that the US did the right thing! the japaneese ppl desevred it, well you know, they bomed us w/out warning, so we were ust returning the favor! it was necisarry! NO warnings needed! it help to end the war!

[Neutrino]

i think that the US did the right thing! the japaneese ppl desevred it, well you know, they bomed us w/out warning, so we were ust returning the favor! it was necisarry! NO warnings needed! it help to end the war!

Oh yeah, all those Japanese civilians, they definatly deserved to be nuked, what with their Japaneseness and such, they were just asking for it.

Yes, the nukes did help end the war, but nuking something visible but not inhabited would have probably been a much better move.

[g unit]

i think that the US did the right thing! the japaneese ppl desevred it, well you know, they bomed us w/out warning, so we were ust returning the favor! it was necisarry! NO warnings needed! it help to end the war!

Oh yeah, all those Japanese civilians, they definatly deserved to be nuked, what with their Japaneseness and such, they were just asking for it.

yes, yes they did!

[Anarchist]

if I remember correctly they did drop a warning bomb, however the Japanese didnt believe that the United States would do it.

No innocent people deserve to die ever.

I love how America is always the innocent one before being attacked.
Wasnt it the United States who threatened Japan with economic collapse through embargos? War is the survival of the state, ofcourse Japan would choose to do so instead of accepting collapse.

To fix the problem eliminate the central state.

Heard that the US is building Mini-Nukes, Nothing makes me feel more secure then knowing a country has the ability to precision nuke enemies of the state(whomever they may be)

[EvilPurpleMonkey]

i think that the US did the right thing! the japaneese ppl desevred it, well you know, they bomed us w/out warning, so we were ust returning the favor! it was necisarry! NO warnings needed! it help to end the war!

Oh yeah, all those Japanese civilians, they definatly deserved to be nuked, what with their Japaneseness and such, they were just asking for it.

yes, yes they did!

Oh get bent you racist f*ck. I believe that they should have given a warning first, and if they ignored it then don't attack the bloody civilians, that's a terrible but effective tactic. Instead, destroy their military. That would be more moral and just as effective as attacking civilians.

[alex_white101]

i dont know a great deal about it, but ive always wondered was there not a military site they could have attacked first and obliterated in order to show they were willing to drop these bombs and exactly how destructive they are.....

[g unit]

i think that the US did the right thing! the japaneese ppl desevred it, well you know, they bomed us w/out warning, so we were ust returning the favor! it was necisarry! NO warnings needed! it help to end the war!

Oh yeah, all those Japanese civilians, they definatly deserved to be nuked, what with their Japaneseness and such, they were just asking for it.

yes, yes they did!

Oh get bent you racist f*ck. I believe that they should have given a warning first, and if they ignored it then don't attack the bloody civilians, that's a terrible but effective tactic. Instead, destroy their military. That would be more moral and just as effective as attacking civilians.

acually both of those cities where major military storage places!

[EvilPurpleMonkey]

i think that the US did the right thing! the japaneese ppl desevred it, well you know, they bomed us w/out warning, so we were ust returning the favor! it was necisarry! NO warnings needed! it help to end the war!

Oh yeah, all those Japanese civilians, they definatly deserved to be nuked, what with their Japaneseness and such, they were just asking for it.

yes, yes they did!

Oh get bent you racist f*ck. I believe that they should have given a warning first, and if they ignored it then don't attack the bloody civilians, that's a terrible but effective tactic. Instead, destroy their military. That would be more moral and just as effective as attacking civilians.

acually both of those cities where major military storage places!

Prove it. It doesn't matter if there were military storage facilities. You still shouldn't attack civilians. Surely there were other large facilities like the ones that were in Nagasaki and Hiroshima that had little or no civilians.

[Hitman079]

Japan didn't just randomly attack America for the hell of it, just because America was part of their sworn enemy. I believe America had stopped giving resources to Japan and there was much tension in their relationship, so Japan decided to just sever it and try to weaken America's navy by destroying all our battleships (but they forgot about the carriers, which could've lost the war if they had been destroyed).
in response to EvilPurpleMonkey: I think America wanted to inflict as much damage and just shock value as possible, whether those cities have been militarily significant or not.

[g unit]

I think America wanted to inflict as much damage and just shock value as possible, whether those cities have been militarily significant or not.

i agree w/that!


we had the nukes, so why not use them???

[spurgistan]

if I remember correctly they did drop a warning bomb, however the Japanese didnt believe that the United States would do it.

No innocent people deserve to die ever.

I love how America is always the innocent one before being attacked.
Wasnt it the United States who threatened Japan with economic collapse through embargos? War is the survival of the state, ofcourse Japan would choose to do so instead of accepting collapse.

To fix the problem eliminate the central state.

Heard that the US is building Mini-Nukes, Nothing makes me feel more secure then knowing a country has the ability to precision nuke enemies of the state(whomever they may be)

Whether or not the United States was "innocent" prior to Pearl Harbor, our embargoes with Japan were primarily concerned with trying to stop the carnage they were unleashing in China at the time, and therefore are pretty defensible. We were actually pretty friendly with them up to that point, some jockeying over Pacific outcroppings excepted.
Regardless, pretty much whatever we could have done to the Japanese people had already been done by 1945, including the conventional bombing attacks in Tokyo that produced far more casualties than the atomic bombs (aside: whether or not the US continues with disregarding anti-nuke treaties, some of the conventional bombs we're building now have about the same destructive capabilty as early-gen nukes. Funny how we can deliberate about the humanity of nuclear weapons but look away as we make "normal" bombs that should kill as many people. It's a strange world)

[Anarchist]

yes it is,

We can never truly find the begining of who started it, we can only move beyond retaliatory violence and end it.

[Hitman079]

i guess i should just stop talking now before people come in and start posting pages of their arguments, and i feel like a total retard

[g unit]

too late for that hitman079

[Anarchist]

nah, best you can do is try to stay rational and understandable.

Most debates are just arguements trying to understand one another.

Its Purple! Its Blue!

[EvilPurpleMonkey]

too late for that hitman079

Hypocrite.

[g unit]

too late for that hitman079

Hypocrite.

how the hell does that make me a hypocrite?? that means one u sayd like don't do, and then u go do waht u said not to do! i never said i wasn't a retard, or anything, i was just insulting him, i never said don't insult! i think YOU are the hypocrite, u called me one, but YOU yourself is being one! ass

[Bertros Bertros]

From my understanding of the political situation at the time the Japanese were on the brink of surrending to Moscow anyway. The newly formed US administration under Truman, a weak President unprepared for power and pressurised by Stimson, who Roosevelt had effectively been holding back for some time already, bombed Japan not only because it would end the war, but because it would allow the US to decisively end the war sending a clear message to the Kremlin on where the balance of power was to exist in a post WWII international community.

I know that is a simplification of the complex political situation the Pacific war had brought about but I personally believe that under Roosevelt the 'little boy' and the 'fat man' would never have been dropped. But then if they hadn't been then an atomic bomb would have been used somewhere else by now...

[chewyman]

Those bombs saved a lot of lives. True, the Japanese were already losing. But imagine how many people would have died in conventional warfare if the allies had to fight for every inch of land instead.

I think the most important thing as an amateur historian is to keep in mind what the people of the time believed when considering if something was actually justified. It's all very well and good to look back with hindsight and say that it wasn't necessary but I believe the people in power back then didn't see it that way.

As for bombing civilian instead of military targets, that's just another terrible part of total war. It's not like it only just happened to the Japanese, every side did it to each other, the axis and the allies. In total war that's what happens, and it's why it should be avoided at all costs in the future.

[The1exile]

But then if they hadn't been then an atomic bomb would have been used somewhere else by now...

...or we would have been using the technology to develop safer nuclear energy and be avoiding the row over fossil fuels.

If it had been dropped anywhere else, don't you think that would have heated the cold war?

In any case, the japanese as I understand it would not give up, and would rather die than surrender (kamekazes anyone?) and the nukes crippled them.

The debating about whether it saved more lives or not isn't the main issue to anyone who studied it though, it's mostly the radiation damage that really was the hot issue because of the massive pain it gave even to the survivors - and the US didn't even know that was going to happen, because they had never tested it on living creatures.

[MeDeFe]

I've heard the Japanese had been trying to surrender before the bombs were dropped, but US admin wouldn't hear of it. No sources though, just a teacher.

And where's the "No, under no circumstances"-option?

[flashleg8]

From my understanding of the political situation at the time the Japanese were on the brink of surrending to Moscow anyway. The newly formed US administration under Truman, a weak President unprepared for power and pressurised by Stimson, who Roosevelt had effectively been holding back for some time already, bombed Japan not only because it would end the war, but because it would allow the US to decisively end the war sending a clear message to the Kremlin on where the balance of power was to exist in a post WWII international community.

I know that is a simplification of the complex political situation the Pacific war had brought about but I personally believe that under Roosevelt the 'little boy' and the 'fat man' would never have been dropped. But then if they hadn't been then an atomic bomb would have been used somewhere else by now...

Very interesting and probably reflects at least part of the reason.

I feel the bombs should never have been dropped at all. The tactic of terror bombing civilians in WW2 was an atrocity that cannot have any justification. The horrors of Dresden and the fire bombing of Tokyo (incidentally killing as many people as the attack on Nagasaki) should be treated with the same abhorrence.

No one in bomber command was every brought to face charges of war crimes for these atrocities.

[jnd94]

I think America wanted to inflict as much damage and just shock value as possible, whether those cities have been militarily significant or not.

i agree w/that!


we had the nukes, so why not use them???

That is a terrible viewpoint. That is the reason why the USA is s hated. Just because we had nukes, doesnt mean we should have bombed Japan. Im not saying that bombing was the wrong thing to do, as it would have prevented further death.

Also, the Japanese didnt deserve it! It was the Japanese government and military that had done all of those things, not the citizens.

[Nobunaga]

... Some excellent points have already been raised here, glad to see it hasn't (yet) turned into a brawl.

... A previous post mentioned something about the Japanese trying to surrender prior to the bombing... Well, that just is not the case. The Japanese were preparing for an expected Allied invasion of the south island of Kyushu and the main island of Honshu. It's rather horrific and very sad to see what went on during those months...

... Boys were taken from their schools, mostly junior high school aged, since high school boys were already fighting (manning AA gun batteries and what not), and trained to fight the "Barbarian Demonic Americans", as they were referred to then. Due to the very serious shortage of actual weapons, most were trained with sharpened bamboo poles, and told to rush the Americans for their Emporer, and for their families Should the Americans win, they believed, their sisters and their mothers would be brutally raped and killed.

... (and yes, I know this manner of propaganda was used by EVERYBODY during that war)

... One sad group of lads were trained as "Torpedo Boys". They were trained to use simple diving equipment (the big helmet kind, where you walk around under water), and took bombs attached to long poles into the sea. There they would use their "Torpedo Poles" to destroy the American amphibious landing craft before they could beach. ... near on half of those kids died in training, both from explosions and failed diving equipment (more the latter than the former).

... Then there are the Okinawans. They've never even really considered themselves Japanese (same as today, actually). They were so duped by their government that quite literally thousands of them threw themselves from cliffs, along with their children, to save themselves the horrors certain to be seen when the Americans took their islands.

... It is good to look back on history and to try to learn from it. But to truly understand the situation seen by the men and women who lived through those times is damned near impossible. The Japanese (well, about 90% of them anyway) feel nothing but shame about the Pacific War (as they call WWII). They know now the "evil" that drove them to war, and the many horrendous deeds committed by the Japanese in Asia. Very few people here will even talk about it, only drunken older men, and only on occasion. This is why the Japanese have no true military today (they have a "Self-defense Force" - very small), and why they are up in arms any time there is discussion of having their self defense forces units sent anywhere overseas. Even the slightest shadow of militarism is to be avoided at all cost.

... I could go on, but I believe I've made my point. Second-guessing Roosevelt, Truman, hell even Emporer Hirohito and Tojo should be done with caution.

...