Were the Atomic Attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Justified?

[assassin_696]

I think perhaps those bombings were some of the biggest crimes against humanity the world has ever witnessed. If Germany had developed the bomb first, dropped two on two American cities, killed millions, but then lost the war because they had run out, would you say it would be justified then?

 

 

 

I don't really think bombing civilians, innocents, should ever really be justified, especially on such a scale where they didn't warn them or give them any chance to surrender. But to bomb them on such a large, indiscriminate scale is totally immoral. Especially since Truman full-well knew that the generations of radiation poisoning would last long after the war had ended. No, sadly I think America's motivation was part utter devastation, and part demonstration of power to the USSR.

 

 

 

For all those who said it was necessary, perhaps consider this memoir from General Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

 

 

In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.

 

 

 

A large number of other very senior American military commanders also disagreed with the necessity of the bomb, including Douglas MacArthur (the highest ranking officer in the Pacific theater), who wasn't exactly shy of proposing to use them later against China.

[mad4u689]

No, they were not justified. I do not believe intentional civilian casualties are ever justified - whether it be Hiroshima & Nagasaki, or the Dresden firebombings, or the WTC on 9/11, or in pizza parlors in Israel, or in towns in Lebanon or in Iraq.

[Mithril_Max]

if noone messed with america we wouldnt have these conversations :? seriously other countries stop bashing and declaring wars on america!

[Rebdragon]

 

 

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?

 

Pfft, better than dying to the Japanese.

 

 

 

The Japanese used the most sick minded methods of torturing foreign prisoners, and often not to get information, but just for fun. For example, just so you can get some perspective, they had a torture technique for male prisoners where they stuck a glass tube up their... rod, and after inserting it deep within the vas deferans (sp?), they snapped and shattered while it was still inside. Compared to dying instantly from a bomb, I think I'd rather be the Japanese person between the two situations.

 

 

 

Don't talk morality of killing vs. morality of killing when you go Japan vs. America, it doesn't work.

 

 

 

As has been said, all the deaths of the war were tragic, but using pathos as your only argument against the bombing, and ignoring logic and forsight, is not a proper way to argue the matter.

 

 

 

Choosing the bomb was choosing the lesser of two evils. There was little choice between killing a couple thousand instantly, or letting the war drag on and allow the death of possibly millions more.

[assassin_696]

 

 

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?

 

Pfft, better than dying to the Japanese.

 

 

 

The Japanese used the most sick minded methods of torturing foreign prisoners, and often not to get information, but just for fun. For example, just so you can get some perspective, they had a torture technique for male prisoners where they stuck a glass tube up their... rod, and after inserting it deep within the vas deferans (sp?), they snapped and shattered while it was still inside. Compared to dying instantly from a bomb, I think I'd rather be the Japanese person between the two situations.

 

 

 

Don't talk morality of killing vs. morality of killing when you go Japan vs. America, it doesn't work.

 

 

 

As has been said, all the deaths of the war were tragic, but using pathos as your only argument against the bombing, and ignoring logic and forsight, is not a proper way to argue the matter.

 

 

 

Choosing the bomb was choosing the lesser of two evils. There was little choice between killing a couple thousand instantly, or letting the war drag on and allow the death of possibly millions more.

 

 

 

But isn't that somewhat hypocritical when you seem to have justified the bombs by saying the Japanese used terrible methods of torture?

 

 

 

Read my fuller post for some more logic if you want it, but I don't think you should justify a bombing with the fact that they did terrible deeds, especially when the bombs were targeted at civilian cities, that sounds just as strong an appeal to pathos as Paperclip's.

[mad4u689]

 

Choosing the bomb was choosing the lesser of two evils. There was little choice between killing a couple thousand instantly, or letting the war drag on and allow the death of possibly millions more.

 

 

 

Surely you see the difference between intentional civilian casualties, and soldier casualties who chose to go to war.

 

 

 

P.S. Calling more than 100,000 "a couple thousand" is a bit deceptive, no?

[Striker6]

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.

 

 

 

I think saying an eye for an eye is an act of lunacy tbh.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Maybe the imperialistic, racially motivated, kamikaze government would never have surrendered but thats not to say everybody in Japan thought the same way. They weren't all brainwashed, there would have been an ousting of the government, with Germany defeated most of the Japanese people probably realised they were defeated.

[Rebdragon]

But isn't that somewhat hypocritical when you seem to have justified the bombs by saying the Japanese used terrible methods of torture?

 

 

 

Read my fuller post for some more logic if you want it, but I don't think you should justify a bombing with the fact that they did terrible deeds, especially when the bombs were targeted at civilian cities, that sounds just as strong an appeal to pathos as Paperclip's.

 

If you check my posts, I never say that the bombing was justified because it was less brutal than the Japanese methods. I was just making a point of the fact of using pathos by describing the, mind you, instantaneous deaths as an argument is far inferior to other methods of arguing that the bombs were not justified.

 

 

 

The Japanese were not prepared to surrender, as has been stated multiple times. The entire Ego of the Japanese race would not permit it, as is obvious by their will through kamikaze techniques to kill themselves if it meant their enemy would die.

 

 

 

Casualties were estimated to be at at least 2 million US soldiers if a direct attack was to be made on Japanese land, and magnitudes worse for the Japanese themselves. Lesser of two evils.

 

 

 

As a final point, the Japanese were shown time and time again to be unafraid of death on high magnitudes. Take the firestorms in Dresden and in Tokyo, in the year before the two atomic bombings. These storms of fire raged through the city, soaring thousands of feet into the air, devouring the buildings of Tokyo, which had a relatively high concentration of wood and paper within them. The firestorm in Tokyo killed well over one-hundred thousand people, but did the Japanese back down? Hell no. They were ready to kill the American basterds, even if it meant the near collapse of their entire empire.

 

 

 

It was not until the bombs were dropped- a strange new device capable of killing tens of thousands (happy mad? :? ) in the blink of an eye- that the Americans were able to finally convince the Japanese that there was no way in Hell they were going to win.

 

 

 

Again, lesser of two evils. I'm not arguing that it was ethical, I'm merely arguing that it was needed in order to preserve as much life as possible during WWII.

 

 

 

Oh, and mad, they didn't only do it to soldiers. Any gaijin they could find, they'd willingly torture. Such a xenophobic race, it's almost sad.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Maybe the imperialistic, racially motivated, kamikaze government would never have surrendered but thats not to say everybody in Japan thought the same way. They weren't all brainwashed, there would have been an ousting of the government, with Germany defeated most of the Japanese people probably realised they were defeated.

 

Heck no. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The Japense are an elitist racist, placing themselves above all other races, then and now. Yes, of course there were people among those who died that wished Japan would surrender. That is beyond tragic. But, nonetheless, the bombing ended the war, and saved magnitudes more people than the bombings killed. It was a travesty, but it saved many lives. Guna have to say it again, it was the lesser of two evils, a tragedy, but less of a tragedy than if the attack had not been implemented.

[adam_ross0]

I believe it was justified. If we would have invaded Okinawa, and then Japan..millions of Japanese and American lives would have been lost. not to mention that we were fighting an enemy whos soldiers would kill themselves rather than let an opponent kill them in combat. What I'm kind of saying..we kind of saved lives in a way by dropping the bombs. In an invasion, we would have lost many more lives..both civilian and military, in war.

[mad4u689]

Again, lesser of two evils. I'm not arguing that it was ethical, I'm merely arguing that it was needed in order to preserve as much life as possible during WWII.

 

 

 

Oh, and mad, they didn't only do it to soldiers. Any gaijin they could find, they'd willingly torture. Such a xenophobic race, it's almost sad.

 

 

 

I'm not talking about torture right now. I'm talking about your "preserve as much life as possible during WWII" argument. Now, wars are confusing things morally to begin with. However, most believe that war is justified in certain conditions - that the end can justify the means. HOWEVER, most people also agree that these conditions shouldn't just be everyone-tries-to-kill-everyone. Most people believe that soldiers who volunteer to serve their nation on each side should fight, and innocent civilians should be protected and not involved.

 

 

 

Thus, the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intended to kill massive amounts of civilians. The lives "protected" by these acts were mostly soldier lives. There is a significant moral difference between these two lives, in terms of war. (If you believe that war is justified at all; I personally am not prepared to undertake that argument.)

[Barihawk]

Maybe the imperialistic, racially motivated, kamikaze government would never have surrendered but thats not to say everybody in Japan thought the same way. They weren't all brainwashed, there would have been an ousting of the government, with Germany defeated most of the Japanese people probably realised they were defeated.

 

 

 

 

Adding on to what Reb said, that Cabinet Ministry controlled the army. The army controlled the troops by the samurai code. And the people also were bound by these principles.

 

 

 

You are applying modern Western ideals to the East 65 years ago.

[Mamong]

While it can be justifiable to have dropped the bomb, one thing is grabbing my attention. Since mainly Americans are posting on this thread, I ask this:

 

 

 

What would you think if JAPAN had dropped two nuclear bombs on 2 large US cities instead of the other way around. Would you think that was the right thing to do?

[Barihawk]

While it can be justifiable to have dropped the bomb, one thing is grabbing my attention. Since mainly Americans are posting on this thread, I ask this:

 

 

 

What would you think if JAPAN had dropped two nuclear bombs on 2 large US cities instead of the other way around. Would you think that was the right thing to do?

 

 

 

Err...no? Because we would have dropped our bombs right back on them.

 

 

 

But I assume you are assuming that the Japanese have the bombs, not us.

 

 

 

I'd be pissed, but I'd still admit it was a nice suckerpunch from a historical perspective.

[llamster]

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.

 

 

 

That's not true. The people were vaporized painlessly in a fraction of a millisecond.

[adam_ross0]

Again, lesser of two evils. I'm not arguing that it was ethical, I'm merely arguing that it was needed in order to preserve as much life as possible during WWII.

 

 

 

Oh, and mad, they didn't only do it to soldiers. Any gaijin they could find, they'd willingly torture. Such a xenophobic race, it's almost sad.

 

 

 

I'm not talking about torture right now. I'm talking about your "preserve as much life as possible during WWII" argument. Now, wars are confusing things morally to begin with. However, most believe that war is justified in certain conditions - that the end can justify the means. HOWEVER, most people also agree that these conditions shouldn't just be everyone-tries-to-kill-everyone. Most people believe that soldiers who volunteer to serve their nation on each side should fight, and innocent civilians should be protected and not involved.

 

 

 

Thus, the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intended to kill massive amounts of civilians. The lives "protected" by these acts were mostly soldier lives. There is a significant moral difference between these two lives, in terms of war. (If you believe that war is justified at all; I personally am not prepared to undertake that argument.)

 

 

 

Then again, you have to remember..Hiroshima WAS a city with a lot of military connections. There were factories there, and many other military stations were there also. They COULD have struck other cities...but they didnt, because hitting Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have the most impact on the military. They didnt just randomly pick a city to bomb..they put SOME thinking behind it.

[Rebdragon]

What would you think if JAPAN had dropped two nuclear bombs on 2 large US cities instead of the other way around. Would you think that was the right thing to do?

 

If America had no chance of defeating the Japanese, yet was still instisted to continue the war pointlessly, yes, Japan would be justified in stopping the Americans from continuing the war by dropping a bomb on two cities. But that's not how the situation was, so your argument using that rhetorical device would shed little light on the issue.

[Mamong]

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.

 

 

 

That's not true. The people were vaporized painlessly in a fraction of a millisecond.

 

 

 

And that's not true either. While some near the center of the explosion were vaporized, many made it out alive, others died trapped or they also died by radiation. After the bomb went off, there was not a lot of water. The Japanese that survived were thirsty and starving. Then it started raining, a black liquid. Being thirsty, they drunk it. It turned out it was heavily radiated water from the bomb and then many got poisoned and it couldn't be cured. Doctors went give them vitamin injections, which instead of helping, would rot away the skin where the needle went in. Slowly, their bodies horrifically rotted away until they died.

[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.

 

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.

 

 

 

That's not true. The people were vaporized painlessly in a fraction of a millisecond.

 

 

 

Actually, it is true. Read Hiroshima by John Hersey.

[Mamong]

Yes I know it is, but if you actually read what I wrote, I said some did while others didn't, not all suffered a quick painless death.

[The Real ET]

What would you think if JAPAN had dropped two nuclear bombs on 2 large US cities instead of the other way around. Would you think that was the right thing to do?

 

If America had no chance of defeating the Japanese, yet was still instisted to continue the war pointlessly, yes, Japan would be justified in stopping the Americans from continuing the war by dropping a bomb on two cities. But that's not how the situation was, so your argument using that rhetorical device would shed little light on the issue.

 

 

 

I don't believe that was the case. I'm an avid pacifist, so any violence and war is wrong in my books, but we were too deep to get out of that I'll agree. But, all kinds of new reports, studies, and the like are slowly surfacing that show that Japan knew it was defeated and was on the brink of surrendering. It's still inconclusive, but if I have time to find anything about that I'll show you.

[yomom1919]

Yes I know it is, but if you actually read what I wrote, I said some did while others didn't, not all suffered a quick painless death.

 

 

 

I was responding to llamster, I just forgot to delete your quote tags...

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

First of all, the situation was not like that at all for the Japanese. Trade was blocked off and production of war materials was very small compared to production at the beginning of the war. Naval ships were at port, and the Japanese air force was grounded, because of lack of fuel. Japan accepted their defeat months before the bomb dropped. They were strongly attempting to negotiate, using the Soviet Union as their diplomat. There was no possible way the Japanese would have moved the front to America, any historian knows that. The Japanese accepted that. That's not possible, okay?

 

 

 

Obviously war is not supposed to be completely ethical. But you can debate the ethics of certain tactics used. If everyone said 'well war is not supposed to be ethical' to war crimes committed, and no one was ever convicted of war crimes because of that excuse, I don't think that would be very fair, do you? Do you think decapitation of POW's would be unethical [the Japanese decapitated American officers of rank if caught]. I know you probably aren't talking about things like this, but I'm just showing you how far that potential excuse can go.

 

 

 

Also, it is a strong misconception that Japan would never have surrendered. Read the third link on the opening post [pmg wikipedia o noes illegal! Relax everybody, the quotes are footnoted], yes the generals are reluctant to surrender, but they were also open for negotiations with the Allies. A quote from the emperor, on June 22, 1945, during a meeting of the Imperial War Council of Japan, 1 and a half months before the bombs, clearly showed this:

 

 

 

"I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts made to implement them."

 

 

 

And that is the emperor speaking, the most honorable and respected man of the time in Japanese culture. Japan only rejected unconditional surrender because the Allies did not make clear that they would not lay a hand on the emperor or imperial system. Therefore, the Japanese and the Emperor thought that it was possible he would be executed for war crimes [he committed none]. The allies let the emperor stay, of course, after the bombings, but a simple clarification would have made negotiations easier. Also, the Japanese were open to negotiations, and were trying to solicit the Soviet Union as a mediator. So, asking you, was 200,000+ lives worth a speedy surrender, when a peaceful surrender could have very well potentially existed?

[fakeitormakeit]

You can debate this till your blue in the face and people start to lose the records of World War II as it slowly disolves into history and it shrouds itself into questions.

 

 

 

I can understand people's views who say its unjustified and same for justified I'm just not convinced althought I lean towards unjustified and unnessissary, o and if you have any spare time I'd appreciate someone trying to say why this is more believable then that without having a flame-fest.

 

 

 

Edit: But the guy above me seems PrEtTy convincing.

[No_OnE]

I do think they were justified. If we didn't use the bombs, the war with the Japanese would have gone on longer. They already proved that they weren't afraid of attacking us on our own homeland. War hadn't been fought on our soil since the Civil War. Before that was the American Revolution. Anyway, at the time, we preferred to kill their innocent civilians with our Atomic Bombs rather than wait the war out and let our own men die in battle. In that sense, the first bomb was definitely justified. We warned the Japanese and they wouldn't surrender. The second bomb is quite a bit more controversial. It depends on the sources you believe. I've heard two different stories. One that says Japan wanted to surrender but wanted it negotiated rather than unconditional. I've also heard that Japan still refused, doubting that America would commit such an act so quickly after the first.

 

 

 

All in all, I support the decision that was made. Their lives for ours. That's what war is. Find the quickest way to defeat your enemy with keeping as many of your own men and women alive. Somewhat cold but true.

[Rebdragon]

Okay, I was writing a response to this, but it was taking too long, so rather than make this debate waste dozens of hours of both of our lives, let's just focus it:

 

 

 

In searching through the sources you referenced (especially Wikipedia, which I scowered through looking for your arguments), I could not find one example of the Japanese desiring (as at least a majority) to end the war before the bombings. Any example of desire to end the war that I did find came after the bombings, including this statement:

 

"... Despite the best that has been done by everyone ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

[yomom1919]

Okay, I was writing a response to this, but it was taking too long, so rather than make this debate waste dozens of hours of both of our lives, let's just focus it:

 

 

 

In searching through the sources you referenced (especially Wikipedia, which I scowered through looking for your arguments), I could not find one example of the Japanese desiring (as at least a majority) to end the war before the bombings. Any example of desire to end the war that I did find came after the bombings, including this statement:

 

"... Despite the best that has been done by everyone ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã