nukes aren't fun!

[Cheetah]

Well, I don't mean for that reason. I mean, in a war it's us against them and America didn't want to sacrifice American lives for a land invasion. The fact is, America hasn't used nuclear weapons in any wars after WWII.

Could it have been avoided? I'll let others answer that question since I'm sure a lot of people on this board know a lot more about WWII than I do.

Thing is, at the time the decision to use the nuclear bomb was made, it was no longer you against them.

It wasn't a choice between hundreds of thousands of dead Japanese civilians or hundreds of thousands of dead American civilians.

It was a choice between negotiating an acceptable peace treaty with Japan or getting Japan to unconditionally capitulate.

Killing lots of Japanese civilians to get an unconditional capitulation is... questionable at best. Morally abhorrent and a war-crime at worst.

 

[Winner]

This was a war for survival. If you have a son or brother fighting there you do what you have to in order to win and you're not going to be worried about a bunch of Japanese or German children dying. Perhaps they could have tried different tactics but I understand it considering what was going on at the time.

War for survival? For the Americans? Are you joking?

And the Brits should have known better, considering they went through the "Blitz" and knew very well that all this sort of bombing did was to strengthen their resolve. I suspect their reason for mass murdering enemy civilians was just petty desire for revenge, and German civilians were easy targets.

It's funny that when Germans did that, it was a war crime and people were tried for it. No American or British leader has ever been tried for this crime. I think some of them later even commented that if their side had lost the war, they'd have been hanged as war criminals.

And again, it was useless - all it did was to make the enemy civilians even more afraid of losing the war. What would you think of an enemy that keeps butchering your compatriots from above - women and children and the elderly, because the men are at the front? Would it somehow convince you that their side is the right one? I doubt it.

 

[classical_hero]

Well they had to show to the enemy that they would lose the war without any casualties to the Allies, before the Japanese woke up to the end. It really should have only taken one bomb to wake them up, but the fact that it took two bombs showed the Japanese were not ready to surrender, even though they were never going to win. For the Americans to make any gains in Japan it would taken millions of lives for that to happen, so dropping those bombs caused less loss of life.

 

[civ_king]

nuke them killing hundreds so thousands of people or wage a costly war resulting in the death of millions of American soldiers and tens of millions of Japanese, I can see why they did it.

 

[Tee Kay]

Killing lots of Japanese civilians to get an unconditional capitulation is... questionable at best. Morally abhorrent and a war-crime at worst.

And even though they got an unconditional surrender they never did (or perhaps never intended to) persecute some of the worst war criminals.

 

[NovaKart]

A world under Nazi Germany and imperial Japan would have been pretty unpleasant, so yeah, I said survival but not specifically for Americans.

 

[muhtesem insan]

A world under Nazi Germany and imperial Japan would have been pretty unpleasant, so yeah, I said survival but not specifically for Americans.

war was already won when A-bombs were used. Japan would easily forced accept a harsh peace agreement. But when it's about making american businessmen rich who cares about 140.000 japanese civilians.

 

[muhtesem insan]

About America's conduct, well it is a war. Civilians get killed.

as an american could you say same thing for 9/11.

 

[aronnax]

I like to imagine that when Truman ordered the bomb the second and last time. He knew what he just did was morally questionable, even wrong. but that he also hoped that it would be the absolutely last time he or anyone else would ever have use a weapon of it's destruction.

 

[Winner]

A world under Nazi Germany and imperial Japan would have been pretty unpleasant, so yeah, I said survival but not specifically for Americans.

That argument is kind of invalidated by the fact that the worst slaughter-bombing incidents occurred at a time when it was 100% clear that the Axis would be defeated (1944/1945). Dresden is a fine example.

As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki - that's debatable. Many have pointed out that the Soviet entry into the war against Japan did as much if not more to finally break the Japanese. If I were in Truman's position, I'd drop the first nuke into the Tokyo bay as a taste of what will happen if they don't surrender. Through back channels, I'd offer the Japanese assurances that the Emperor won't be deposed to make it easier to swallow.

 

[Communisto]

That argument is kind of invalidated by the fact that the worst slaughter-bombing incidents occurred at a time when it was 100% clear that the Axis would be defeated (1944/1945). Dresden is a fine example.

Moderator Action: video with inappropriate language removed
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[red_elk]

War for survival? For the Americans? Are you joking?

And the Brits should have known better, considering they went through the "Blitz" and knew very well that all this sort of bombing did was to strengthen their resolve. I suspect their reason for mass murdering enemy civilians was just petty desire for revenge, and German civilians were easy targets.

It's funny that when Germans did that, it was a war crime and people were tried for it. No American or British leader has ever been tried for this crime. I think some of them later even commented that if their side had lost the war, they'd have been hanged as war criminals.

Hard to believe, but I agree with Winner here. Americans didn't use nuke against legitimate military target, which Japan had plenty of. Instead it was dropped onto the city with large number of wooden buildings to inflict huge number of civilian casualties.

From my childhood I remember the song which depicts story about the thousand cranes of Sadako Sasaki

Sadako Sasaki (佐々木 禎子 Sasaki Sadako?, January 7, 1943 – October 25, 1955) was a Japanese girl who was two years old when the atomic bomb was dropped on August 6, 1945, near her home by Misasa Bridge in Hiroshima, Japan. Sadako is remembered through the story of attempting to fold a thousand origami cranes before her death, a wish which was memorialized in popular culture.

Link to video.

 

[NovaKart]

war was already won when A-bombs were used. Japan would easily forced accept a harsh peace agreement. But when it's about making american businessmen rich who cares about 140.000 japanese civilians.

You think dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to do with making businessmen rich?

as an american could you say same thing for 9/11.

America was not at war or attacking any country at the time so no, it's not in any way comparable.

 

[Cheetah]

A world under Nazi Germany and imperial Japan would have been pretty unpleasant, so yeah, I said survival but not specifically for Americans.

What the hell are you talking about!?

By the 6th of August 1945, such a world had long been an impossibility! Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, et al. all happened at a time when everyone knew that the Axis couldn't win! The question for the Allies since the fall of 1944 was how fast they could win the war, and whom of them could get the most glory, loot and concessions.

 

[NovaKart]

I'm talking about the war in general, not specifically that time period, you don't have to nitpick and then shout at me for God's sake.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Link to video.

What is this supposed to tell us? That when it is about fighting Nazis mass-killing ordinary civilians has ceased to be something to be shunned?
Well, if that is the case, it is rather amusing. Because ripping ordinary civilians of their humanity and degrading them to "things" that need to get out of the way for a political agenda is what made the Nazis so evil in the first place.
Now I would still at least be willing to talk about the eye-to-eye logic one may see as fitting here. But at latest when such a logic includes the ordinary civilian population, it becomes morally abhorrent, too.

 

[Communisto]

It was total war between imperialist states that were arguably as bad as the third reich. Getting into what was "humane" at that time period is ridiculous. Its as hilarious as Britain condemning Italy for the invasion of Abyssinia.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Regrettable indeed.

Hopefully, nuclear weapons will never have to be used ever again. It's saddening we've got fusion weaponry but not fusion power.

With regards to the bombing itself, we all know that a topic such as this will spawn a debate over the fact the Japanese government was apparently already willing to surrender before the bomb's dropping; the dropping, I suppose, just made them realise how they didn't really have any leverage.

 

[TopGearFanatic]

Regrettable indeed.

Hopefully, nuclear weapons will never have to be used ever again. It's saddening we've got fusion weaponry but not fusion power.

With regards to the bombing itself, we all know that a topic such as this will spawn a debate over the fact the Japanese government was apparently already willing to surrender before the bomb's dropping; the dropping, I suppose, just made them realise how they didn't really have any leverage.

I think the reason we don't have fusion power is because it's too difficult to maintain a stable state.

Didn't Japan release an announcement after Hiroshima about how they're considering talks, but there was a mistranslation made and another bomb was thought to be needed?

 

[Tani Coyote]

And even though they got an unconditional surrender they never did (or perhaps never intended to) persecute some of the worst war criminals.

I smell ulterior motives!

I always said, "It's only a war crime if you lose the war." I'd amend that to, "It's only a war crime if the winner cares to try you for it."

I think the reason we don't have fusion power is because it's too difficult to maintain a stable state.

Oh, I know there are practical issues, I'm just being poetic that we've perfected fusion as a weapon but not as a source of power.

Didn't Japan release an announcement after Hiroshima about how they're considering talks, but there was a mistranslation made and another bomb was thought to be needed?

I've been told Japan was already planning surrender before the bombs, likely an honorable surrender(which is what von Stauffenberg wanted for Germany, as I recall). I guess the bombs being dropped was solely to strip them of their negotiating position.

After all, it's easy to project if you stand a snowball's chance in Hell, so best to get what you can while you can. After all, Japan could boast that it could keep up a long, protracted war if the Allies didn't make some concessions... but no, bomb. That kind of strikes that strategy down.