Were the Atomic Attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Justified?

[yomom1919]

Recently in AP American we had a debate about this. So, I was wondering, how do you feel about the atomic attacks on Japan? In case you aren't familiar with the topic, America dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, supposedly to end WWII. One was dropped on the city of Hiroshima, and the other on Nagasaki. These bombs caused mass devastation and raised moral questions.

 

 

 

Do you think the bombings were justified, and that the ends justified the means?

 

 

 

For more info on this topic:

 

Here

 

Here

 

,and This

 

 

 

Personally, I think the bombings were not justified. I'll elaborate later, but I don't want to create an opening post that changes your current opinion in any way.

 

 

 

Edit: Please read the last article, there are many misconceptions over the surrender of Japan.

[Ginger_Warrior]

The first one may have been justifed, considering it was still technically a state of war and Japan showed no signs of backing down. That may surprise many to hear that view, but I have to put that into context really. The death toll from the atomic bombs is dwarfed by the amount of deaths the RAF inflicted on innocent German citizens towards the end of the war. I'd be a hypocrite if I said it was wrong because so many people died, and I'd also be naÃÆÃâÃâïve since killing people and destroying a country's fighting spirit is kinda the whole point of war really.

 

 

 

The second one is not justified in any sense though. Japan had already as good as surrendered. There was no need for them to use the second bomb - using innocent citizens as guinea pigs for new technology, even in a state of war, is just immoral and disgusting as far as I'm concerned, and that's not even considering the long-term health implications on the people affected by the bomb.

 

 

 

As I said though, let's not get too carried away. The bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrible, yes, but surely so is the death of 24,000,000 Russians? Yet no-one ever seems to get so emotional over that, even though they probably died in even more horrific circumstances than the Japanese did from Stalin's dictatorship.

 

 

 

LOL, thanks KnightLite for pointing that out ;)

[KnightLite]

I absolutely think the bombings were justified. The Japaneese would not have surrendered had we not used this shock tactic. They would have fought down to the last remaining soldier if it meant dying for what they believe in.

[yomom1919]

As I said though, let's not get too carried away. The bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrible, yes, but surely so is the death of 24,000,000 Russians? Yet no-one ever seems to get so emotional over that, even though they probably died in even more horrific circumstances than the Japanese did from Stalin's dictatorship.

 

 

 

Except, the atomic bomb is a whole new type of warfare and began the nuclear age. Yes, the German and Russian holocausts were horrific, and obviously much more casualties were inflicted. However, the fact that one bomb could cause so much destruction was somewhat incomprehensible at the time. After the bombing of Hiroshima and the American announcement that an atomic bomb was used, many Japanese were not convinced that it was an atomic bomb. Japan already had 2 separate labs working on the bomb, one in the navy and one in the army, and they failed to make one, and appreciated the difficulty of it. Many thought it was actually impossible.

 

 

 

Also, the Tokyo fire bombings inflicted well over 100,000 casualties. Why shouldn't that be as shocking? It was the fact that it was only one weapon inflicting the damage that shocked the world.

 

 

 

May I recommend the second link for those who believe Japan was so adamant in not surrendering, read the second linked article. They recognized they were defeated and were attempting to find ways to surrender. However, they were not seeking an unconditional surrender, rather a negotiated one.

[deloriagod]

The first one, of course, was justified. No country should ever sit back and let themselves be attacked. The second one, I think was justified. The Japanese attack was pretty much a surprise attack. They caught us off guard, so why not show them what we're capable of? We wiped on city off their map, let's show them what will happen if they try anything else.

[kelem_ryu]

Justified? Do you really need justification in war? How do they say? All is (don't know the verb) legal? in love and war.

[yomom1919]

The first one, of course, was justified. No country should ever sit back and let themselves be attacked. The second one, I think was justified. The Japanese attack was pretty much a surprise attack. They caught us off guard, so why not show them what we're capable of? We wiped on city off their map, let's show them what will happen if they try anything else.

 

 

 

So you don't condone terrorism? Your definition and justification for the bomb is the definition and justification for terrorism.

 

It is not the responsibility of a civilized country to engage in revenge.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

The first one, of course, was justified. No country should ever sit back and let themselves be attacked. The second one, I think was justified. The Japanese attack was pretty much a surprise attack. They caught us off guard, so why not show them what we're capable of? We wiped on city off their map, let's show them what will happen if they try anything else.

 

People died man. Their eyeballs popped out and their skin melted into the river like blobs of oil in a soup as they tried to escape the burn. [cabbage] like that is never justifiable.

[kelem_ryu]

The death toll from the atomic bombs is dwarfed by the amount of deaths the RAF inflicted on innocent German citizens towards the end of the war.

 

 

 

Uh.. RAF? In my book RAF means "Rote Armee Fraktion" = "Red army fraction". They were a german terrorist group founded in 1970 that was responsible for around 40 killings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yomom, i liked your previous sig better.

[AWMAGWD]

yup definatly, they wouldnt of backed down if u.s didnt drop them 2 nukes.

[Nadril]

I think that they were justified personally. The largest reason is that many believe that more lives would be lost on a land invasion. The only downside to the bomb is that many innocent lives that weren't involved in the war were lost.

[Try]

Uh.. RAF? In my book RAF means "Rote Armee Fraktion" = "Red army fraction". They were a german terrorist group founded in 1970 that was responsible for around 40 killings.

 

Hmm, Royal Air Force?

[deloriagod]

 

So you don't condone terrorism? Your definition and justification for the bomb is the definition and justification for terrorism.

 

It is not the responsibility of a civilized country to engage in revenge.

 

 

 

Yes, because I support what the US did, I totally support terrorism :roll: But what you're telling me is, the US can get attacked, but they're not allowed to go after the country that attacked them. So, you support world powers doing nothing in a time of crisis?

 

 

 

 

People died man. Their eyeballs popped out and their skin melted into the river like blobs of oil in a soup as they tried to escape the burn. [cabbage] like that is never justifiable.

 

 

 

People die every day. Their skin may not melt, their eyes may not pop out, but death is part of life.

 

 

 

I think that they were justified personally. The largest reason is that many believe that more lives would be lost on a land invasion. The only downside to the bomb is that many innocent lives that weren't involved in the war were lost.

 

 

 

The women and children were the only real loss. Any of the men could have become soldiers and fought against the US.

[yomom1919]

Hmm, Royal Air Force?

 

 

 

That's probably what he was referring to, but in no way were the casualties inflicted by the RAF more politically and morally controversial than air raids, by any country. Like I said, the total effects of American fire bombings and air raids on Japan inflicted mass casualties and destruction [over 400,000 casualties, 9,200,000 people left homeless, etc.] But it was the sheer psychological effect of the attack only consisting of one bomb that was the most shocking.

[yomom1919]

Yes, because I support what the US did, I totally support terrorism :roll: But what you're telling me is, the US can get attacked, but they're not allowed to go after the country that attacked them. So, you support world powers doing nothing in a time of crisis?

 

 

 

I never said they were not allowed to retaliate, I said that dropping the bomb out of spite and revenge on an essentially defeated enemy was unnecessary. You claimed that we should "Show them what will happen if they try anything else". That is the definition of terrorism, inflicting fear in your enemy so they 'leave you alone'. Please don't use the roll smiley next time, I do not intend to have any rude sort of argument, especially when the arguer should recognize something... If you claim the bomb is justified for revenge and inflicting fear and terror in our enemy, then you aren't condoning terrorism. And if you condone terrorism of other nations but not America's, that is severely hypocritical.

 

 

 

Also, to many of you claiming that Japan would never surrender, you need to rethink.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_japan

[deloriagod]

 

I never said they were not allowed to retaliate, I said that dropping the bomb out of spite and revenge on an essentially defeated enemy was unnecessary. You claimed that we should "Show them what will happen if they try anything else". That is the definition of terrorism, inflicting fear in your enemy so they 'leave you alone'. Please don't use the roll smiley next time, I do not intend to have any rude sort of argument, especially when the arguer should recognize something...

 

 

 

 

Let's try putting it in different terms.. Say you get into a fight at school. The other guy throws the first punch, it stings like hell. You throw the next, he takes a step back and you can tell it hurt. Are you going to give him the chance the come back for another swing, or are you going to take your open shot and finish him?

[ktmcf121]

Also, to many of you claiming that Japan would never surrender, you need to rethink.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_japan

 

 

 

wikipedia is NOT a credible soruce. it's an easy way to find information, but you have to find a real source to back it up afterwards.

 

 

 

ON TOPIC:

 

 

 

I think the bombs were justified. you probably won't like it, but I hold the opinion that while the bombs may have taken many lives, they saved many more by ending a devastating war.

[yomom1919]

wikipedia is NOT a credible soruce. it's an easy way to find information, but you have to find a real source to back it up afterwards.

 

 

 

The quotes from Japanese officials in that article are all footnoted :wink:.

[yomom1919]

Let's try putting it in different terms.. Say you get into a fight at school. The other guy throws the first punch, it stings like hell. You throw the next, he takes a step back and you can tell it hurt. Are you going to give him the chance the come back for another swing, or are you going to take your open shot and finish him?

 

 

 

You are confusing self-defense with terrorism. The Constitution specifies that self-defense is a responsibility of government, not terrorism. If the bully was intending to continue the fight, then I would not condone that. But, let's look at this like a sense of progression of battles instead. Say you are in a war. An enemy attacks you, you retaliate, and are in the process of war. It just so happens that you win a string of battles, and are open to defeating the enemy. Not by burning down their village, but by military confrontation between the two parties. You seize the capitol, and threaten the people never to do it again. Do you kill the king and shoot his troops? No, that is not self-defense [if the king was guilty of war crimes, then that would be a different case.] So, returning the blow and keep the fight going till the bully is clearly subdued would be self defense. Kicking him in the nuts afterword, when he is bloody and defeated is a different story. And with countries at war, we are not talking about illogical bullies who usually aren't smart. We are talking about countries with multiple options and issues of morality.

[stuntdawg5]

War is never justifiable. I don't think the Americans had much choice when they dropped the bombs. The expected death toll for an invasion of Japan was around 200,000 troops. I'm sorry to say this, but for a government, its troops come before the enemy citizens. That's how they work. And yes, the second Atomic bomb was required. The Japanese were not close to surrender. They were stubborn enough that they would not surrender even after they lost (I don't know the exact number, so I'm guessing) 70-90 thousand people.

[Rebdragon]

Any historian with half a brain understands that the death toll of the war would have been much higher if we had not dropped the bombs.

 

 

 

Yes, the US killed thousands, but it took only two bombs to force a surrender, with no casualties other than those within the two cities. If the US had fought out the war without the two bombs, head-to-head combat would have forced the death toll far higher, especially if the Japense somehow got the war to American ground, or vice versa.

 

 

 

Those two bombs ended the war, swiftly. There is little debate as to whether it was the right choice; Hell, the CHURCH agrees it was the right choice, and that organization has the largest pack of pro-life nutjobs on the planet. The current Japanese government itself agrees that it was necessary at the time for America to drop the bombs to end the war.

 

 

 

And yomom, stop talking like war is supposed to be perfectly ethical in all its parts. That's not possible, okay?

 

 

 

As for your comment on "kicking him in the nuts afterwards", you do understand what was happening at the end of WWII, right? The bomb wasn't "kicking them in the nuts", it was the first step of completely subduing the enemy to the point of no retaliation. The Japanese in the past, and even now, have no care for foreigners. They are an elitist race, and, as has been stated, were no where near surrendering. The bombs were necessary for ending the war, period.

[Bubsa]

It can be argued that the bombs resulted in more lives being saved over many more moths or years of combat. However, you can never justify the loss of innocent life. Justifying a war is a thankless task.

[Nom]

Mostly everything Reb said, but I have to add:

 

 

 

Japan was developing thier own nuclear weapons. Had the US not dropped the bombs first, the war wouldn't have ended, and Japan may have had time to finish its own bombs and drop them on the US. And there was no way any military authority in America was going to let that happen.

[Barihawk]

Not only did the Emperor say this, but Admiral Yamamato agreed.

 

 

 

If America had not dropped the bombs, the Japanese cabinet never would have surrendered. American troops would have had to storm the beaches and millions and millions more people on both sides would have died.

 

 

 

I believe they were justified.

 

 

 

And P.S. Nagasaki was fair because after Hiroshima, the Japanese Cabinet declared that the weapon would not force them to surrender.

 

 

 

It's also worth noting that the bombs only destroyed military targets, and many casualties from the initial blasts were only from Japanese military policy of keeping civilians close to military factories and bases.

 

 

 

Now, we didn't think the whole radiation thing through, though. That, I will admit.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

 

 

People died man. Their eyeballs popped out and their skin melted into the river like blobs of oil in a soup as they tried to escape the burn. [cabbage] like that is never justifiable.

 

 

 

People die every day. Their skin may not melt, their eyes may not pop out, but death is part of life.

 

So you wouldn't mind dying that way?