If we hadn't we would have had to invade Japan. Civilian casualties would be in the possible millions and so would American soldier casualties. In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April 1945, the figures of 7.45 casualties per 1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities per 1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that the two planned campaigns to conquer Japan would cost 1.6 million U.S. casualties, including 370,000 dead. In addition, millions of Japanese military and civilian casualties were expected. a total of 150,000 (estimate) died from the bombing of BOTH Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The alternative would have been truly immoral.
111 days ago | Tagged As: yes
I agree that the alternative to bombing Japan was unacceptable. However, I bring up a different point for consideration, one which suggests that nuking Japan directly influenced the decision-making polices of both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War and prevented the ultimate destruction of both countries, thereby saving the world from a costly lesson in playing with atomic matches. By providing a small taste of nuclear warfare to both countries' leaders and citizens, the smoldering ruins in Japan left little to the imagination as to what would happen when two countries hurled hundreds of such weapons at each other. If the U.S. had not nuked Japan, I doubt either the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. would truly appreciate the devastation caused by nuclear warfare (other than atomic testing). They might not have been as cautious in exercising nuclear restraint as history proved, and thereby could have ended the existence of both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. in an incredible display of humanity's capacity for destruction. Thus, by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. avoided unnecessary deaths and indirectly helped us all learn a lesson about the consequences of nuclear warfare before it was too late. I am extremely grateful that the history books do not write that the world finally decided nuclear bombs were a bad idea after the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. obliterated each other in the late 20th Century. I welcome any counter-arguments and comments about grammar.
108 days ago | Tagged As: Cold War
"I welcome any counter-arguments and comments about grammar." <3 Can I hug you?
108 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Exactly, that's another thing that people don't realize. When we bombed Japan we showed the entire world just what the A bomb is capable of.
108 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Don't you think there would have been a better way to show off that power: like say, blowing it up on a small island, and have some representatives of different world powers watch it from a faraway boat? They had television back then too. For example, we know that a hydrogen bomb is way more powerful then an a-bomb, but we never had to kill over a hundred thousand people to do it. I know you're a fan of assault rifles: when you buy one do you ask they guy selling it to you to shoot some people with it?
108 days ago | Tagged As: No
we already knew that it explodes big time. What no one knew was it's destruction potential. Plus, don't make it seem like that's the ONLY reason why it was good to drop it; but considering the Cold War afterward, it's pretty good that we did drop it. The destruction of the Atom Bomb was like that of no other anyone has ever seen. Dropping it showed just how much America doesn't fuck around. plus, everyone knows exactly what any gun larger than a .22 does to someone when you shoot them, it's nothing the same. Especially the type of person who's willing to spend so much on any gun with a large caliber, they know exactly what it does. The atom bomb was much different in that what it could do was practically unknown. They knew it would destroy a lot, but they didn't know that the people's shadows would actually get imprinted into the ground and there would be fallout everywhere. that's just the destruction argument. There's still the fact that the alternative would have resulted in many more deaths on both sides of the spectrum.
108 days ago | Tagged As: yes
I still maintain that a demonstration that didn't result in the deaths of over a hundred thousand civilians would have: 1) sufficiently showed the power of the a-bomb and 2) forced the Japanese to surrender without a significant loss of U.S. (and consequently Japanese) troops. Even the bombing of some other part of Japan that wasn't filled with civilians would have been more acceptable than what we did, which was kill people who had very little to do with the war (in fact, a significant portion of the Japanese population wasn't even in favor of the war. They weren't a democracy, like the U.S.).
108 days ago | Tagged As: No
explosions don't scare people like the Japanese. These are people who are ready to die. Almost like al-Qaeda. We NEEDED to show them that we don't fuck around. Plus, dropping the bomb on a target not filled with people would have only showed them that they need to prepare for more and would have not scared them at all. If we did what you suggest, we would have given them an advantage.
107 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Who doesn't love resorting to misinformed national stereotypes to justify mass killing? Let's talk about the Kamikaze pilots as an example. These were some of Japan's best students who were then told that they had to kill themselves for their country. Obviously some of them went along with this as a matter of pride, and because they didn't want to let their country down, but there were a surprising number of them who had no desire to kill themselves. In fact here is a book written by one of them: Kamikaze Diaries. If you look at the chapter names one is: "War is another name for murder" and it is not unique. Really, the people of Japan weren't much different than us. Then again, as I said, the people weren't the ones leading Japan. However, if you think that the Japanese leadership would be stupid enough to continue war after seeing the awesome power of an atom bomb... well come on. I kinda like bradford's suggestion of nuking Tokyo Harbor. Minimal civilian casualties, and it gets the message across.
107 days ago | Tagged As: No
hmm, random down vote with no rebuttal. you know what this means. I'm right ;)
111 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Technically speaking we didn't "throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki" we actually just "dropped the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki." ;)
107 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Well they may have thrown a pebble and we launched a boulder but it was perfectly sane and the correct thing to do. Since we ( the US ) were not going to stand around and do nothing we could have A,) invaded Japan and conquered Japan or B.) dropped nukes. A.) Would have resulted in millions of casualties B.) Resulted in less than 200 thousand casualties Which sounds like the better idea?
104 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Im sorry I think this is a rediculous debate. Most historians don't even debate the fact that if the bombs were not dropped there would have been much higher cassulties on both sides both soldiers and civilian casualties. Estimated to be in the millions. There are also many reports before the bombings and the emperors surrender that entire villages of women taking their children to cliffs throwing there children off the cliffs and then jumping off after them while soldiers begged and tried to stop them. That was the way of the kamakazi so I'm sorry but that was the least deadly of the two options.
107 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Of course it was. Would you rather 140k Japanese die or 500k+ American soldiers who would have to invade the islands in order to stop the war? I choose less death.
107 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Yes, it was the only way. One cannot fight a war where the enemy finds honor in dying. Kamikaze pilots do not surrender. We face this same problem in Iraq and Afghanistan, the enemy will never surrender. A holy war is what they think they are fighting and there is no logic in these enemies, only duty. A country of martyrs, not one can be left.
107 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Well, technically the bombs were dropped not thrown. But anyway, the bombs did convince the Emperor of Japan to surrender. So the war was over quickly and decisively. Japan would have starved anyway, but than the possibility of facing invasion, would have been truly terrible. This way, getting it over quickly means less people probably died. Remember though that the firebombing raids were far more destructive than the atom bombs were.
107 days ago | Tagged As: yes
The dropping of the atomic bombs was the only reasonable answer to the war. We're lucky we got to Germany so quick, otherwise we would have dropped the bomb on them and then had to invade Japan. America was ready for the war to be over. An invasion would have extended the war 2 years and cost way more lives. At that time, Americans saw the atomic bomb as just another weapon in the US arsenal
101 days ago | Tagged As: The Smart Move
They were hardly even people. More like apes.............
12 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Yes, it ended the war sooner and saved more lives on both sides in the long run.
111 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Were there no other options for ending the war? Perhaps some with less collateral damage and that didn't show the world what nuclear bombs can do?
110 days ago | Tagged As: No
The simple answer is...no. Look at Pyg's argument for the numbers and at the destruction of France and Germany as a consequence of the Allied invasion. Take account for the Japanese almost fanatical devotion to the war and it becomes abundantly clear that no conventional method would have been effective against the Japanese. Only a display of overwhelming force could force the Japanese to surrender. Hell it took two nuclear bombs before they were willing to concede defeat. The alternative would have been potentially years of conventional bombing and ground warfare resulting in millions of casualties and more collateral damage.
110 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Hell it took two nuclear bombs before they were willing to concede defeat. This isn't fair, considering that the second bomb was dropped merely three days later. That doesn't exactly give a country coping with that kind of devastation much time to react accordingly. The second bomb was absolutely morally reprehensible, even if you believe the first was ok.
110 days ago | Tagged As: No
if we waited to drop the second one they would have come up with preventive measures by then. if they couldn't surrender within three days, then there's nothing else we could have done. imagine dropping the bomb and then having to invade anyway. talk about morally reprehensible.
110 days ago | Tagged As: yes
I've already made this point before, but they could have dropped them off of Tokyo Harbor as a display... Japan had already agreed to surrender until we came up with an outrageous treaty for them to sign, and we were slowly chocking them out, they had no choice but to surrender.
107 days ago | Tagged As: No
Yeah, we could have dropped them off somewhere as a display of shock and awe... but what fun is that ;)
107 days ago | Tagged As: No
|
First, I'd like us to consider this: "Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"[41] ~Leo Szilard, one of the first researchers on the atomic bomb Second, there's evidence that Japan would have surrendered before the end of 1945 without the bombings or an invasion. US Strategic Bombing Survey But really, this is inherently unknowable as it is not the way history played out. At any rate, the question asks if it was right, not if it was necessary. Was it right? No certainly not. But is the bombing of civilians ever "right"? I say no, regardless of the bombs used. If you take the stance that the purposeful bombing of innocent people is wrong regardless of the end, then you must oppose all bombings, not just atomic ones.
111 days ago | Tagged As: No
Bah, I upvoted you and some idiot downvoted you. Idiots. The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
110 days ago | Tagged As: No
I recognize that it's considered to be a 'necessary evil' that was required to end WWII, but I absolutely cannot justify such significant, planned loss of civilian life.
112 days ago | Tagged As: No
the casualty rate would have been larger for civilians if we had invaded instead. Could we justify that instead?
111 days ago | Tagged As: yes
I really don't know why the loss of civilian life is ever justifiable. And why it's necessary, even in an invasion. I miss the good old 'two armies meet in a field and battle it out' days. But I mean, at least with a military invasion the civilians have a chance to flee or defend themselves. With power so absolute and so horribly destructive, nobody stands a chance. Also, although a military invasion would expect loss of civilian life, ideally a military would try to minimize that. Which is impossible with an atomic bomb.
111 days ago | Tagged As: No
Those figures are designed to consider the fighting style of our military and the usual reaction of civilians. running and hiding won't do shit, unfortunately. the two armies meet in a battlefield were just as bad, if not, worse. Modern Warfare allows us to be out of harms way... the enemy and collateral damage... not too much. the old days put everyone in danger. look at the Civil War. The only way to win it was Total War, which was basically "if he's on the battle field, he's an enemy combatant". the less we need ground troops, the better. even if it means we need highly destructive weapons in order to do that.
111 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Modern Warfare allows us to be out of harms way... the enemy and collateral damage... I'm not opposed to our military being out of harm's way, but if the cost of that is the death and destruction of hundreds of thousands of civilians, then it's not worth it. The men and women of the military enter knowing the potential danger and willing to give their lives for their country. Civilians are people who are just trying to live out their lives. These civilians in particular were just men and women unfortunate enough to be born in a government that opposed a stronger power.
110 days ago | Tagged As: No
but without the bomb, even MOAR civilians would have died. the bomb saved quite a few lives.
110 days ago | Tagged As: yes
I understand your argument, but to unleash an absolute destructive power is simply wrong. This weapon is meant to destroy everything, regardless of who or what it is. Armies can make choices; soldiers can make choices. I mean, war movies (and, yes, I do know they don't represent reality) like "Platoon" give an idea of this. An absolute power is something no man should wield.
110 days ago | Tagged As: No
Why would the United States put its own soldiers at risk when it could just go after its enemies? Many civilians died, but it was Japan's choice to refuse to surrender.
20 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Soldiers are men who are paid to fight. It's their job and their duty to defend whatever it is that the States is defending. Civilians had no choice in the situation.
19 days ago | Tagged As: No
When Japanese chose to refuse to surrender, they knew that they were putting their civilians at risk. Even if the US didn't bomb Hiroshima or Nagasaki, an American invasion would have killed Japanese civilians.
18 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Not so completely and so ruthlessly. Ground forces have at least some ways around it. A bomb, aimed at civilians who had no choice in Japanese governmental decisions, that wiped out millions (including those who died from aftereffects)? That's okay?
18 days ago | Tagged As: No
Its okay because those civilians deaths are taking the place of what could have been American deaths. The United States government chose to save its own American lives. It may be gruesome to kill civilians, but it is also gruesome to put your own citizens at risk when the risk is unnecessary.
17 days ago | Tagged As: yes
It's unbelievably ethnocentric and selfish to believe that sparing the lives of paid soldiers of our own nation is worth destroying millions of innocent civilians of another.
17 days ago | Tagged As: No
First of all, even after accounting for the after effects, millions were not killed. It may have been less than a million. Second, its selfish to send a group of soldiers into a foreign territory, where they would probably be killed very easily. Third, the combined total number of casualties for each side for an invasion of Japan would probably be equal if not higher than what actually occurred. There would be high Japanese casualties and high American casualties. The innocence of the people we would kill could not have been a good enough excuse to kill our own soldiers. President Truman chose what was in the United States' best interest, how could you say that that is selfish? Fourth, Hiroshima was not only an assembly area for troops, but partly a military base as well. Nagasaki had a very large amount of industrial activity. Fifth and last, Japan new exactly what would happen if they didn't surrender after the first atomic bomb. It chose to not surrender and accepted that its innocent civilians would die. The US could not have backed down, but Japan could have and chose not too.
17 days ago | Tagged As: yes
First of all, it may have been less than a million? How is that acceptable? Approximately 200,000 civilians died immediately, with hundreds of thousands more to follow. One civilian death in wartime is too many, but I recognize that this is an ideal that can't be fulfilled. Secondly, it would be selfish of... whom, exactly, to send soldiers in? Selfish of the Japanese? Selfish of the Americans? I don't understand. Thirdly, to choose what is "in the United States' best interest" at the cost of others is absolutely selfish, and it's ethnocentric to assume otherwise. Fourth, there are several military bases around New York, as well as a high level of industrial activity. Would it be appropriate for the Japanese to atomize New York City if the United States wouldn't surrender? Fifth, the choices of the Japanese government are not the fault of its citizens. Sixth and last, how do you feel about the firebombing of Dresden? Another "necessary measure"?
16 days ago | Tagged As: No
First, I wasn't saying that 200,000 was a small number. I was just correcting your exaggeration of the facts. Second, it would be selfish to put American soldiers at such a high risk that is completely unnecessary. Thirdly, as the leader of the country, it was Truman's responsibility to protect his people at any cost. He was not going to have his soldiers killed to save civilians of the enemy country. Fourth, New York City is completely different. Not only did it have a population of about 7.5 million people in the 1940's, but there are no military bases withing New York City. It is not a major site of military manufacturing either. If Japan had to either bomb NYC or invade, it would be its best interest to bomb. That may be bad for us, but its our fault for not surrendering. Fifth, any mistakes by any government badly affects its citizens. Sixth and last, I doubt that the bombings of Dresden were necessary.
16 days ago | Tagged As: yes
So it's okay to bomb New Yorkers if the American government was being uncooperative? And it was okay for the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbour because it's a military base? And how is the bombing of Dresden unnecessary, but the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary?
14 days ago | Tagged As: No
"So it's okay to bomb New Yorkers if the American government was being uncooperative?"- like I said before, New York is a completely different story. "And it was okay for the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbour because it's a military base?"- in war, anything goes. People die, you need to accept it. "And how is the bombing of Dresden unnecessary, but the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary?"- the alternatives of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki were much more costly. I already explained to you why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary.
14 days ago | Tagged As: yes
People die, you need to accept it. If brutal massacres can be avoided, why not avoid them? Whether or not you agree that the bombing was unnecessary, you can't possibly know and understand the suffering that Japanese citizens were put through and agree with inflicting such horrors.
13 days ago | Tagged As: No
"If brutal massacres can be avoided, why not avoid them?"- a brutal massacre could not have been avoided either way. The cost of invading still yielded civilian casualties, Japanese soldier casualties, and American soldier casualties. Combined, this could be higher than what actually occurred.
13 days ago | Tagged As: yes
No, an invasion is not a brutal massacre. An invasion has civilian casualties, of course, but hopefully they're not purposeful mass murders.
12 days ago | Tagged As: No
An invasion is a brutal massacre to our soldiers. We would have suffered HUGE casualties if we invaded Japan. If the issue here is to save human life, then the atomic bombs were the better choice.
12 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Absolutely not. Hundreds of thousands of people would not have been wiped out in mere seconds. How is that valuing human life?
11 days ago | Tagged As: No
Hundreds of thousands of people would have been wiped out over a period of months or years. You cannot make human life your most valuable possession to be a good general of warfare.
11 days ago | Tagged As: yes
What is war fought over if not the value and preservation of human life?
11 days ago | Tagged As: No
In war, it takes lives to save a higher number of lives..
10 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Ah, so you're all about a "Hot Fuzz"-esque Greater Good. The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
10 days ago | Tagged As: No
"a "Hot Fuzz"-esque Greater Good."- im not sure what that means, but if soldiers werent used in ww2, millions more people would have died. Probably more than the amount of people lost to end the war.
10 days ago | Tagged As: yes
The problem we're facing is that bombs were dropped on two cities, with the sole purpose of destroying civilians as an act of power and look-what-we-can-do. That is wrong.
9 days ago | Tagged As: No
Showing off our power to other countries was not the sole purpose of dropping the bombs. Japan lost WW2, they refused to surrender, and therefore suffered the consequences.
9 days ago | Tagged As: yes
No, the Japanese government refused to surrender, and the citizens suffered the consequences.
8 days ago | Tagged As: No
The government represented the citizens. Who else would have made the decision on whether to surrender or not? We couldn't have asked all the citizens, therefore the government was the decision-maker.
7 days ago | Tagged As: yes
I suppose that means that my government represents me, although as an underage non-voter (like many of the children who perished in Hiroshima and Nagasaki), I didn't elect any of the officials. Therefore, there's no way to determine whether or not I support the decisions to, for example, bomb the cities, invade Iraq, et cetera. And yet, according to your argument, I could be punished regardless.
4 days ago | Tagged As: No
Well since your underage there is no reason to determine whether you support any kind of government action or not because you have no say in government proceedings. As a representative of the people like a parent is to a child, they chose to refuse to surrender.
4 days ago | Tagged As: yes
But the government is not a representative of the children. So the children dead in Nagasaki and Hiroshima deserved it, too?
3 days ago | Tagged As: No
The children are represented by their parents and the parents are represented by the government.
3 days ago | Tagged As: yes
There has never been a time when two armies just met in a field and battled it out. Every war has seeped into the walls of cities and homes of civilians in the area where the war is being fought.
14 days ago | Tagged As: No
Of course not. But that doesn't make it right, and if specific actions can be taken to avoid it, especially if the seepage is as brutal and massive as this was, why not take these actions?
13 days ago | Tagged As: No
I didn't say that it's right. But your argument was based on the idea that war could have only soldier casualties, and that it had before. I don't believe this to be true.
13 days ago | Tagged As: yes
If there must be war, then there will be civilian casualties. Of course. Unfortunately.
12 days ago | Tagged As: No
but they were on the verge of surrendering. I maybe we should of dropped on bomb and blockaded the nation.
10 days ago | Tagged As: No
they were far from surrendering. They were just getting started. These people were fuckin' dedicated to destroying us.
9 days ago | Tagged As: yes
That's what I think too. I think other strategies could have been pursued to try to end the war. Dropping those bombs and killing so many civillians really can't be considered "right", even if it was necessary(which I'm not certain it was).
110 days ago | Tagged As: No
One thing you need to understand about the Japanese is that they were just as brainwashed as the Nazis. If we had invaded instead to try to avoid civilian casualties, eventually even the civilians would be drafted to fight. In their system, there were no civilians. they were brainwash victims.
7 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Can you give me a source on that? Not that I think you're a liar or an idiot, but this is the internet and you very well could be. ;)
6 days ago | Tagged As: No
Google it, ask a historian, ask an 80 year-old japanese person... It's common knowledge. "During the 1930s, the military established almost complete control over the government. Many political enemies were assassinated, and communists persecuted. Indoctrination and censorship in education and media were further intensified. Navy and army officers soon occupied most of the important offices, including the one of the prime minister. " aka brainwashing.
I can understand the effect that bombing Japan had on the overall outcome of the war. However, I don't believe that bombing two areas was at all necessary. There always have, and always will be wars and civilian casualties. But it is my opinion that such mass murder is unjustifiable.
14 days ago | Tagged As: No
The Japanese didn't surrender after the first atomic bomb. That's why we bombed them again.
13 days ago | Tagged As: yes
I'm not convinced that everything possible was done to negoiate with the government to secure surrender and prevent the need for the second bombing.
13 days ago | Tagged As: No
"negoiate with the government to secure surrender"- the Japanese refused to surrender after such a high number of their civilians were killed, nothing could have been done to negotiate.
13 days ago | Tagged As: yes
I'm pretty sure that given more than a few days, and with a more open communication chanel, a surrender could have been negotiated.
12 days ago | Tagged As: No
How could you be pretty sure of that? Historians aren't even sure of that.
11 days ago | Tagged As: yes
...... If historians aren't sure one way or the other, than why are you so certain that they did do all that they could? It is my opinion that more could, and should, have been done to prevent the need for a second bombing. If you feel differently, fine. Simply going back and forth like this is not debating, it's nitpicking and childish. We have a difference of opinion based on all facts. That's the end of it.
11 days ago | Tagged As: No
"why are you so certain that they did do all that they could?"- when did i say that i was certain? You can't be certain or pretty sure on either side.
11 days ago | Tagged As: yes
You said, "nothing could have been done to negotiate." You use very misleading wording for not being "certain" about your opinion.
11 days ago | Tagged As: No
"You can't be certain or pretty sure on either side." <----- i said this in regard to factual evidence. In terms of the facts, nobody can be sure on either side because it cannot be proven. It is only are opinions that make us different.
10 days ago | Tagged As: yes
....That is exactly what I said and you disputed that......
10 days ago | Tagged As: No
I disputed your statement in which you said i was certain. I wasn't certain because it is my opinion. An opinion cannot make anyone certain on an issue. It would have been better if i said "it is my opinion that ........"
10 days ago | Tagged As: yes
No! Those bombs killed so many innocent people and People say it was necessary, but I don't agree!
112 days ago | Tagged As: No
There is nothing so terrible as the loss of countless civilians in two different places to suffer the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As millions suffered under Hitler all the US could worry about was retribution for Pearl Harbor. A disgusting chapter in history for this country combined with the internment camps they threw the Japanese into in this country. There are no excuses for this type of warfare.
110 days ago | Tagged As: No
And I've been down voted for what reason? Just a slight correction as well...we didn't throw the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we dropped bombs on them.
104 days ago | Tagged As: No
It is true that Japan was definitely ready to surrender within weeks, so in general, it was not necessary. One thing that I noticed is that no one seems to think that the main reason for the dropping of atomic bombs was not to stop the war, but to rather tell the then-powerful and newly expanding Soviet Union "see what we got? back off"
108 days ago | Tagged As: dropped for a different reason
A person who answers Yes to this question knows nothing of the history of world war II. Japan was already won at the time
106 days ago | Tagged As: No
|
