So you dismiss all his views out of hand because? That's not what I'm saying, what I'm saying is rational people read rational views, and determine there view, they don't just put there fingers in there ears and say nah nah nah nah I'm not listening; your response tackled the subject not at all, all you said was that you thought it was necessary, I have picked everyone else up for doing this, it's not going to be a very interesting discussion if A) you don't read the links or B) you don't try to discredit the views, that's sloppy IMO. little more than spam if you ask me if you don't give a reason for your decision. Considering how easy it would be to discredit the other source, I find that odd, mind you I think the other source says nothing the first source doesn't anyway so meh ...
Was it necessary to drop the bomb?
- Thread starter Sidhe
- Start date
So you dismiss all his views out of hand because? That's not what I'm saying, what I'm saying is rational people read rational views, and determine there view, they don't just put there fingers in there ears and say nah nah nah nah I'm not listening; your response tackled the subject not at all, all you said was that you thought it was necessary, I have picked everyone else up for doing this, it's not going to be a very interesting discussion if A) you don't read the links or B) you don't try to discredit the views, that's sloppy IMO. little more than spam if you ask me if you don't give a reason for your decision. Considering how easy it would be to discredit the other source, I find that odd, mind you I think the other source says nothing the first source doesn't anyway so meh ...
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
As far as Im concerned, theres nothing to discuss, case closed. Deliberately targeting and killing unsuspecting women and children as they lay in their beds, or get ready to start their day, is wrong. Period. Doesnt matter what shape the eyes are of those delivering the destruction, or whether they wear turbans or snappy little military caps set at a jaunty angle. Its WRONG. Full stop.
I see, see now that's all I wanted was an opinion either way and a reason
I completely misread your intent though, and for that I apologise.
Fugitive Sisyphus
Escape Artist
Here we go again...
Here are the problems that crop up every time this discussion takes place.
First(because of the Cold War I expect), most people who think that dropping the bombs was wrong think so merely because they were nuclear bombs. They think that, for some reason, being killed in a nuclear explosion is worse than being conventionally bombed, starved, or stabbed. For example, they don't care about firebombing Japanese cities which killed more people but think dropping the atomic bombs was completely immoral.
Secondly, we today have a Cold War mentality about nuclear weapons that did not exist in the 1940s. Today when we think of nuclear weapons we think of the megaton behemoths that threatened all life on earth during the Cold War. In the 1940s there was no stigma against nuclear weapons over any other weapon as evidenced by the fact that it was suggested that we use many nuclear weapons to help with the invasion of Korea in 1949.
Thirdly, the effects of nuclear radiation was unknown at the time the bombs were dropped. Again, much of the stigma against nuclear weapons today is because of the radiation the survivors of the initial blast have to deal with. This was unknown in 1945.
Fourthly, the idea that the United States should have dropped the bomb on an uninhabited island to get the Japanese to surrender is ludicrous. Since the United States only had two bombs available it would obviously only leave one for actual use against Japan and Japan would be unlikely to surrender because of such a demonstration anyway.
I have to go now so I will post more later.
Here are the problems that crop up every time this discussion takes place.
First(because of the Cold War I expect), most people who think that dropping the bombs was wrong think so merely because they were nuclear bombs. They think that, for some reason, being killed in a nuclear explosion is worse than being conventionally bombed, starved, or stabbed. For example, they don't care about firebombing Japanese cities which killed more people but think dropping the atomic bombs was completely immoral.
Secondly, we today have a Cold War mentality about nuclear weapons that did not exist in the 1940s. Today when we think of nuclear weapons we think of the megaton behemoths that threatened all life on earth during the Cold War. In the 1940s there was no stigma against nuclear weapons over any other weapon as evidenced by the fact that it was suggested that we use many nuclear weapons to help with the invasion of Korea in 1949.
Thirdly, the effects of nuclear radiation was unknown at the time the bombs were dropped. Again, much of the stigma against nuclear weapons today is because of the radiation the survivors of the initial blast have to deal with. This was unknown in 1945.
Fourthly, the idea that the United States should have dropped the bomb on an uninhabited island to get the Japanese to surrender is ludicrous. Since the United States only had two bombs available it would obviously only leave one for actual use against Japan and Japan would be unlikely to surrender because of such a demonstration anyway.
I have to go now so I will post more later.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
It was probably necessary to get Japan to surrender unconditionally. Do I think it is right to target civilians? No.
The deed has been done, though. Though I think perhaps we repaid out debts to the Japanese people after the war, by staying and rebuilding their country and their economy for them, not many victors care enough to do such a thing for former adversaries.
But as I said, the deed is done, arguing about it now is like arguing that the Americans shouldn't have burned Toronto, or that Genghis Khan should have left Baghdad intact; the point is moot, because we all know now that to such a thing, whether it's burning a city to the ground or turning it into a radioactive parking lot, is wrong.
The deed has been done, though. Though I think perhaps we repaid out debts to the Japanese people after the war, by staying and rebuilding their country and their economy for them, not many victors care enough to do such a thing for former adversaries.
But as I said, the deed is done, arguing about it now is like arguing that the Americans shouldn't have burned Toronto, or that Genghis Khan should have left Baghdad intact; the point is moot, because we all know now that to such a thing, whether it's burning a city to the ground or turning it into a radioactive parking lot, is wrong.
I think it's more complicated than that Fugitive, the links show that Japan was ready to capitulate anyway on all fronts, thus the bombs use was unnecessary unless you bring another reason into the mix, the threat of the Russians. That is my posit.
And that's it Cheezy, it wasn't: the generals and emperor had made moves towards unconditional surrender, or surrender "unconditionally" with only one one posit: the Emperor was not tried for war crimes, but they were ignored? how does that make it necessary to expedite the wars end by dropping the bomb? With this information that view makes no sense?
And that's it Cheezy, it wasn't: the generals and emperor had made moves towards unconditional surrender, or surrender "unconditionally" with only one one posit: the Emperor was not tried for war crimes, but they were ignored? how does that make it necessary to expedite the wars end by dropping the bomb? With this information that view makes no sense?
Darth_Pugwash
wobble wobble
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Messages
- 2,873
Sidhe; the Allies called for an unconditional surrender on July 26 1945 with the Potsdam Declaration, but this was rejected by Japan. Even after the bombs were dropped, the Japanese Supreme Council took a vote on weather to surrender or not and it was deadlocked between a group who wanted to surrender only if the Emporer remained in power and another who wanted to keep fighting unless they could get more favourable terms of surrender, which left the whole (morally reprehensible) Imperial government intact. Only the Emporer's intervention sealed the descision to surrender. Even then, a small group of extremists from the army attempted a coup to prevent the surrender and continue the war. Clearly the Japanese were not that keen to surrender.
It is my view that the nuclear bombs shortened the war, and ultimatley saved lives
(This subject has been done to death in the history forum, as well)
It is my view that the nuclear bombs shortened the war, and ultimatley saved lives
(This subject has been done to death in the history forum, as well)
Masquerouge
Deity
Well what's done is done, innit?
All I know is that the Japanese were rather not willingly giving up, and I can understand how the atomic bomb was seen as a solution that might quickly end the war. Lucky for us, it worked.
But I wouldn't venture any guesses as to what would have happened otherwise...
All I know is that the Japanese were rather not willingly giving up, and I can understand how the atomic bomb was seen as a solution that might quickly end the war. Lucky for us, it worked.
But I wouldn't venture any guesses as to what would have happened otherwise...
CartesianFart
Deity
I somewhat percieve that WWII as the war that end all wars and frankly whoever got the best weapon and use it first not only win but show that technological superiority is the essential ingredient for success of obtaining hegemony of the world in the 20th century.
The reason to drop the two horrible bombs is a necessary tool to subjugate the Japanese leadership into submission by state terror.The bombs was the means to horrify the Japanese in order to achieve the political goal-which is to win the battle of complete control of another advance modern nation state(Japan) for to incorporate as an colony of the extensive empire(USA).
The reason to drop the two horrible bombs is a necessary tool to subjugate the Japanese leadership into submission by state terror.The bombs was the means to horrify the Japanese in order to achieve the political goal-which is to win the battle of complete control of another advance modern nation state(Japan) for to incorporate as an colony of the extensive empire(USA).
Yes of course that's the official view, did you read the sources? Look if people are just going to post there opinion without looking at potentially conflicting stories we're not going to get anywhere, so from now on I'll only reply to those who have read at least the first link, otherwise don't waste my time k?
I think that post from the guy who's dad was in the secret service is at least interesting, this is what I somehow doubt got raised in the history forum, the sheer overwhelming breadth of accounts that disagree totally with the notion that it shortened the war, I personally believe this is a lie that the comfortable want to believe, and unless someone bothers to analyse the counter argument and show me where it is wrong, then the discussion will go nowhere. I don't care if it's been argued to death in the history forums, get them over here then ask them to question this book it's sources and its posits?
And anyway the potsdam treaty refused to acknowledge the emperor as safe from prosecution under war crimes, since that's the only thing the Japanese wanted conditionally I find the whole thing pretty hollow as an offer. Will they accept this treaty, no not unless we include amnesty for the emperor, offer it anyway, then when they refuse it let's nuke 'em. We know this from communiques that the Japanese sent as Early as 1944, any treaty must include amnesty for the emporer, but of course then so did the US.
Darth_Pugwash
wobble wobble
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Messages
- 2,873
Sorry, double post
Darth_Pugwash
wobble wobble
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Messages
- 2,873
Well, ruling out the nukes or other bombings, the Allies were left with two options for forcing a favourable surrender from Japan (ie, deposing the Imperial government and replacing it with a modern democracy)
a- Naval blockade to starve the Japanese into submission - would incur hundreds of thousands of deaths
b- An invasion. This would cause immense devastation - ballpark figures for casulties are around one million IIRC. The Soviets would most likely also get in on this, possibly leading to a Communist North Japan / Capitalist South Japan situation, similar to Korea.
Or according to the communiques the exclusion of the emperor from war crimes trials, everything else was agreeable? Why don't you read the links? Your not going to make any case unless you do, this is just the usual official crap that everyone has already heard, these links directly challenge this.
Why is it worse if people die from WMD than if the same amount die from conventional arms? If 300,000 people die from nuclear weapons, how is that worse than if 300,000 are killed using regular rifles and bombs?
In my opinion, the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were ugly and tragic affairs. And also completely necessary and justified, because they saved many times more lives than they killed. An invasion of Japan would have killed at least a million US troops, and several million Japanese, including civilians. More human beings were saved by the attacks, including more Japanese civilians. Is it disgusting that innocents died? Yes. But war is disgusting and tragic.
To paraphrase Churchill, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the worst option we had - except for all the others.
Leonel
Breakfast Connoisseur
I believe it was indeed necessary. Ultimately I think it was better for only 170,000 people, both civilians and military personel, to have perished than the potential of all of Japan's 72 million people to have died from suicide charges or killing themselves because they thought American servicemen would rape them to death in an invasion. 0.2% of Japan's population in two atomic blasts vs. much more, depending on the rigidity of Japanese war propaganda and indoctrination, during a US ground invasion?
Although granted that if we had done a ground invasion, we would probably have A LOT more experience in countering urban guerrilla tactics while trying to maintain a green zone in Tokyo.
Although granted that if we had done a ground invasion, we would probably have A LOT more experience in countering urban guerrilla tactics while trying to maintain a green zone in Tokyo.
Darth_Pugwash
wobble wobble
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Messages
- 2,873
If I recall correctly, the Japanese actually requested that the Emporer's power remain uncomprimised, not just that he would be immune from accusations of war-crimes. But given that this was the only condition that the Japanese requested, when they made their first surrender offer after the two bombs were dropped, evidentally yes everything else was agreeable to the Allies.
In the end he got away scott-free anyway even after the unconditional surrender, although his power was reduced.
I will read the links, BTW.
I skimmed through it. Nothing new there, just the same old ignorance.Did you read the link? No
This has been a complete waste of time. Never mind......
It wasn't necessary. It was sufficient.
That said, studies have shown that it would have been far more efficient than an actual invasions (I'm pretty sure that's common knowledge) and ultiamtely, despite the horrors that resulted from the dropping, it produced viable research on the effects of a nuke.
That said, studies have shown that it would have been far more efficient than an actual invasions (I'm pretty sure that's common knowledge) and ultiamtely, despite the horrors that resulted from the dropping, it produced viable research on the effects of a nuke.
CartesianFart
Deity
What are these researches that was produced by the effect of the American's military bombing these two cities?
Similar threads
