Were the Atomic Attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Justified?

[flying_death_bombs55]

Yes. Like so many people posted before me, I say that if we didn't do it they would have continued until they all died, this way they still live.

[hohto]

Justified or not, it's done and only thing we should do is not to argue was it right or wrong but play our cards right so we don't have to see it happening again.

[cremator21]

The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his - quote General George S Patton.

 

 

 

Everyone who has ever been in a war has followed that, Inflict the maximum amount of casualties on your enemy, while trying to lose as little as possible of your own people. That is exactly what the atomic bombs were for, the exchange of a thousands of lives of the enemy for the safety for the rest of the world. Being from south east asia (which was being invaded and was under Japanese occupation for many years) also plays a part in my opinion.

 

 

 

They wouldn't have stopped if the US didn't drop the bombs.

[leila]

[insert violent video warning here]

 

 

Not gonna debate about this.

[Defender2516]

I say it was the best option they had at the time.

 

 

 

1. If we attacked by land, we would have lost 1000's of troops and they would have lost 1000's of troops. The result is the same if not more devestating, that the death toll would of been higher.

 

 

 

2. The nuke would have been invented reguardless if we used them or not.

 

 

 

3. 6 Million Jews died, which this event fails in comparison in death toll numbers.. yet apparently its "this" event that seems "omg so terrible, is it justified?"...

 

 

 

Yes..

[assassin_696]

3. 6 Million Jews died, which this event fails in comparison in death toll numbers.. yet apparently its "this" event that seems "omg so terrible, is it justified?"...

 

 

 

Yes..

 

 

 

Seriously what are you on man? Firstly, no one's trying to justify the holocaust, but, people are trying to justify bombing civilians. Secondly, it's meaningless to debate which event deserves more remorse over based on deaths alone. Why not mention the Soviet death toll as well then?

 

 

 

On the Wikipedia page about the debate there is an interesting section titled Military Unnecessity. And i'm going to quote it for you reading pleasure, because i'm too busy to rephrase it at the moment.

 

 

 

Those who argue that the bombings were unnecessary on military grounds hold that Japan was already essentially defeated and ready to surrender.

 

 

 

One of the most notable individuals with this opinion was then-General Dwight D. Eisenhower. He wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

 

 

 

"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."[31][32]

 

 

 

Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General Douglas MacArthur (the highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater), Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials),[32] Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard,[33] and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[34]

 

 

 

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[35]

 

 

 

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.[35]

 

 

 

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:

 

 

 

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."[36][35] The survey assumed that conventional bombing attacks on Japan would greatly increase as the bombing capabilities of July 1945 were ...a fraction of its planned proportion...[37] due to a steadily high production rate of new B-29s and the reallocation of European airpower to the Pacific. When hostilities ended, the USAAF had approximately 3700 B-29s of which only about 1000 were deployed.[38]

 

 

 

Had the war gone on these and still more aircraft would have brought devastation far worse than either bomb to many more cities. The results of conventional strategic bombing at the cease-fire were summed up thusly:

 

 

 

"...On the basis of photo coverage, intelligence estimated that 175 square miles of urban area in 66 cities were wiped out. Total civilian casualties stemming directly from the urban attacks were estimated at 330,000 killed, 476,000 injured, and 9,200,000 rendered homeless." General Haywood S. Hansell[38]

 

 

 

General MacArthur has also contended that Japan would have surrendered before the bombings if the U.S. had notified Japan that it would accept a surrender that allowed Emperor Hirohito to keep his position as titular leader of Japan, a condition the U.S. did in fact allow after Japan surrendered. U.S. leadership knew this, through intercepts of encoded Japanese messages, but refused to clarify Washington's willingness to accept this condition. Before the bombings, the position of the Japanese leadership with regards to surrender was divided. Several diplomats favored surrender, while the leaders of the Japanese military voiced a commitment to fighting a "decisive battle" on KyÃÆââ¬Â¦ÃâëshÃÆââ¬Â¦Ãâë, hoping that they could negotiate better terms for an armistice afterward. The Japanese government did not decide what terms, beyond preservation of an imperial system, they would have accepted to end the war; as late as August 9, the Supreme War Council was still split, with the hard-liners insisting Japan should demobilize its own forces, no war crimes trials would be conducted, and no occupation of Japan would be allowed. Only the direct intervention of the emperor ended the dispute, and even then a military coup was attempted to prevent the surrender.

 

 

 

Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings themselves were not even the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, he contends, it was the swift and devastating Soviet victories in Manchuria that forced the Japanese surrender on August 15, 1945.[39]

 

 

 

The sources are all referenced accurately.

[Defender2516]

3. 6 Million Jews died, which this event fails in comparison in death toll numbers.. yet apparently its "this" event that seems "omg so terrible, is it justified?"...

 

 

 

Yes..

 

 

 

Seriously what are you on man? Firstly, no one's trying to justify the holocaust, but, people are trying to justify bombing civilians. Secondly, it's meaningless to debate which event deserves more remorse over based on deaths alone. Why not mention the Soviet death toll as well then?

 

 

 

On the Wikipedia page about the debate there is an interesting section titled Military Unnecessity. And i'm going to quote it for you reading pleasure, because i'm too busy to rephrase it at the moment.

 

 

 

Those who argue that the bombings were unnecessary on military grounds hold that Japan was already essentially defeated and ready to surrender.

 

 

 

One of the most notable individuals with this opinion was then-General Dwight D. Eisenhower. He wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

 

 

 

"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."[31][32]

 

 

 

Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General Douglas MacArthur (the highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater), Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials),[32] Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard,[33] and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[34]

 

 

 

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[35]

 

 

 

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.[35]

 

 

 

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:

 

 

 

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."[36][35] The survey assumed that conventional bombing attacks on Japan would greatly increase as the bombing capabilities of July 1945 were ...a fraction of its planned proportion...[37] due to a steadily high production rate of new B-29s and the reallocation of European airpower to the Pacific. When hostilities ended, the USAAF had approximately 3700 B-29s of which only about 1000 were deployed.[38]

 

 

 

Had the war gone on these and still more aircraft would have brought devastation far worse than either bomb to many more cities. The results of conventional strategic bombing at the cease-fire were summed up thusly:

 

 

 

"...On the basis of photo coverage, intelligence estimated that 175 square miles of urban area in 66 cities were wiped out. Total civilian casualties stemming directly from the urban attacks were estimated at 330,000 killed, 476,000 injured, and 9,200,000 rendered homeless." General Haywood S. Hansell[38]

 

 

 

General MacArthur has also contended that Japan would have surrendered before the bombings if the U.S. had notified Japan that it would accept a surrender that allowed Emperor Hirohito to keep his position as titular leader of Japan, a condition the U.S. did in fact allow after Japan surrendered. U.S. leadership knew this, through intercepts of encoded Japanese messages, but refused to clarify Washington's willingness to accept this condition. Before the bombings, the position of the Japanese leadership with regards to surrender was divided. Several diplomats favored surrender, while the leaders of the Japanese military voiced a commitment to fighting a "decisive battle" on KyÃÆââ¬Â¦ÃâëshÃÆââ¬Â¦Ãâë, hoping that they could negotiate better terms for an armistice afterward. The Japanese government did not decide what terms, beyond preservation of an imperial system, they would have accepted to end the war; as late as August 9, the Supreme War Council was still split, with the hard-liners insisting Japan should demobilize its own forces, no war crimes trials would be conducted, and no occupation of Japan would be allowed. Only the direct intervention of the emperor ended the dispute, and even then a military coup was attempted to prevent the surrender.

 

 

 

Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings themselves were not even the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, he contends, it was the swift and devastating Soviet victories in Manchuria that forced the Japanese surrender on August 15, 1945.[39]

 

 

 

The sources are all referenced accurately.

 

 

 

 

 

First off, Wikipedia is not a valid source for information, give me a link on a different website with the same references.

 

 

 

Secondly, based on wikipedia, Japan was well ready to surrender. Then the question is, why didn't they?

 

 

 

According to MY history text books, rather than online information which any dolt can edit, the Japs did not want to surrender after the first bomb hit. Three days later, they was struck again, surrendering to the war.

 

 

 

Based on what you are concluding is, that America knew they really surrendered and decided to mercilessly kill them with 2 nukes reguardless.

 

 

 

However, history has proven that Japs were willingly to suicide themselfs before ever handing themselfs in as prisoners to American Soldiers. Also they used planes as missles to launch against American Naval Forces in a Kazakami attack displaying a "no surrender mentality" force.

 

 

 

For me to believe that Japan was really surrendering all this time and we did this out of hate for Japs is pure BS.

 

 

 

So I ask.. what are YOU on man? Thinking History went differently..

 

 

 

~Defender~

[yomom1919]

[hide=Military Unnecessity]On the Wikipedia page about the debate there is an interesting section titled Military Unnecessity. And i'm going to quote it for you reading pleasure, because i'm too busy to rephrase it at the moment.

 

 

 

Those who argue that the bombings were unnecessary on military grounds hold that Japan was already essentially defeated and ready to surrender.

 

 

 

One of the most notable individuals with this opinion was then-General Dwight D. Eisenhower. He wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

 

 

 

"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."[31][32]

 

 

 

Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General Douglas MacArthur (the highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater), Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials),[32] Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard,[33] and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[34]

 

 

 

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[35]

 

 

 

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.[35]

 

 

 

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:

 

 

 

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."[36][35] The survey assumed that conventional bombing attacks on Japan would greatly increase as the bombing capabilities of July 1945 were ...a fraction of its planned proportion...[37] due to a steadily high production rate of new B-29s and the reallocation of European airpower to the Pacific. When hostilities ended, the USAAF had approximately 3700 B-29s of which only about 1000 were deployed.[38]

 

 

 

Had the war gone on these and still more aircraft would have brought devastation far worse than either bomb to many more cities. The results of conventional strategic bombing at the cease-fire were summed up thusly:

 

 

 

"...On the basis of photo coverage, intelligence estimated that 175 square miles of urban area in 66 cities were wiped out. Total civilian casualties stemming directly from the urban attacks were estimated at 330,000 killed, 476,000 injured, and 9,200,000 rendered homeless." General Haywood S. Hansell[38]

 

 

 

General MacArthur has also contended that Japan would have surrendered before the bombings if the U.S. had notified Japan that it would accept a surrender that allowed Emperor Hirohito to keep his position as titular leader of Japan, a condition the U.S. did in fact allow after Japan surrendered. U.S. leadership knew this, through intercepts of encoded Japanese messages, but refused to clarify Washington's willingness to accept this condition. Before the bombings, the position of the Japanese leadership with regards to surrender was divided. Several diplomats favored surrender, while the leaders of the Japanese military voiced a commitment to fighting a "decisive battle" on KyÃÆââ¬Â¦ÃâëshÃÆââ¬Â¦Ãâë, hoping that they could negotiate better terms for an armistice afterward. The Japanese government did not decide what terms, beyond preservation of an imperial system, they would have accepted to end the war; as late as August 9, the Supreme War Council was still split, with the hard-liners insisting Japan should demobilize its own forces, no war crimes trials would be conducted, and no occupation of Japan would be allowed. Only the direct intervention of the emperor ended the dispute, and even then a military coup was attempted to prevent the surrender.

 

 

 

Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings themselves were not even the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, he contends, it was the swift and devastating Soviet victories in Manchuria that forced the Japanese surrender on August 15, 1945.[39]

 

 

 

The sources are all referenced accurately.[/hide]

 

 

 

Thank you for reading and inserting that into the argument. That is one of the more important points on military necessity, and I hoped since I provided links that people would read them.

 

 

 

It's important to note that Japan expected Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be bombed, since they were they only 2 major cities untouched [source = Hiroshima, by John Hersey [not quoted, but paraphrased]]. The only thing Japan did not expect it to be an atomic weapon, because the Japanese scientists believed the construction of one to be near impossible. After a while, they just accepted it as another air raid or such, which, as I said earlier, they already expected and were in the process of air raid preparation.

 

 

 

At defender, I will try my best to respond to ignorance and illogic:

 

 

 

First of all, click the footnotes on the Wikipedia articles, and It will lead you to the source or citation. If the citation is a book, go to your local library. Contrary to popular belief, important Wikipedia articles do not pull stuff out of their rear-end...

 

 

 

Secondly, addressing your text book, it is a well known fact that textbooks are very biased towards the country they are used in. In Germany, it is guaranteed you will hear a different story about WWII than in America. You are probably inclined not to believe me, because of your forum behavior in the past [such as denying direct scientific evidence provided by Warrior proving that homosexuality is not a choice], but my German teacher herself, who grew up in Germany and lived most of it there, told us, and she is a very worldly and experienced person. But I'm not going just on her word alone, it's common knowledge. Also, textbooks do not go in depth into issues, they are simply a general compilation of full works written by professors of history, science, etc. You will never find the full story of anything in a textbook, it is merely a summarized and as impartial as possible compilation, while actually usually ending up being partial to the nation of use. You'll figure out more when you get to actual real history and read real books on it.

 

 

 

Japan did not surrender because they wanted a negotiated surrender, as stated in quotes in the article that I provided, as well as quotes I posted in this thread. The Japanese were afraid the Allies would remove or execute the emperor as punishment for war crimes [he committed none]. Therefore, they were confused over the state of the Emperor, and were scared that, if they surrendered, the Imperial offices and officers in Japan, such as the Emperor, would no longer exist. Japan wished for negotiations, and received none. However, they were still hopeful on the mater, for they had little choice.

 

 

 

America did not plan to take any soldiers prisoner after Japan's surrender. The only prisoners they took were the leaders who committed war crimes. The Allies were not magically going to take the whole of Japan and its army as POW. Also, regarding your kamikaze point, the kamikaze pilots were usually going down anyway and their planes were almost exploded, so they put their death of their plane [and themselves] to good use by using it as missiles against enemy boats, etc.

 

 

 

I never said we did it out of hate for the Japanese. I said if negotiations were possible, we should have taken advantage of that.

 

Consider this quote from Truman:

 

 

 

"Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare."

 

 

 

Does that not imply revenge or hate for the Japanese?

[assassin_696]

[hide]

3. 6 Million Jews died, which this event fails in comparison in death toll numbers.. yet apparently its "this" event that seems "omg so terrible, is it justified?"...

 

 

 

Yes..

 

 

 

Seriously what are you on man? Firstly, no one's trying to justify the holocaust, but, people are trying to justify bombing civilians. Secondly, it's meaningless to debate which event deserves more remorse over based on deaths alone. Why not mention the Soviet death toll as well then?

 

 

 

On the Wikipedia page about the debate there is an interesting section titled Military Unnecessity. And i'm going to quote it for you reading pleasure, because i'm too busy to rephrase it at the moment.

 

 

 

Those who argue that the bombings were unnecessary on military grounds hold that Japan was already essentially defeated and ready to surrender.

 

 

 

One of the most notable individuals with this opinion was then-General Dwight D. Eisenhower. He wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

 

 

 

"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."[31][32]

 

 

 

Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General Douglas MacArthur (the highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater), Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials),[32] Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard,[33] and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[34]

 

 

 

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[35]

 

 

 

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.[35]

 

 

 

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:

 

 

 

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."[36][35] The survey assumed that conventional bombing attacks on Japan would greatly increase as the bombing capabilities of July 1945 were ...a fraction of its planned proportion...[37] due to a steadily high production rate of new B-29s and the reallocation of European airpower to the Pacific. When hostilities ended, the USAAF had approximately 3700 B-29s of which only about 1000 were deployed.[38]

 

 

 

Had the war gone on these and still more aircraft would have brought devastation far worse than either bomb to many more cities. The results of conventional strategic bombing at the cease-fire were summed up thusly:

 

 

 

"...On the basis of photo coverage, intelligence estimated that 175 square miles of urban area in 66 cities were wiped out. Total civilian casualties stemming directly from the urban attacks were estimated at 330,000 killed, 476,000 injured, and 9,200,000 rendered homeless." General Haywood S. Hansell[38]

 

 

 

General MacArthur has also contended that Japan would have surrendered before the bombings if the U.S. had notified Japan that it would accept a surrender that allowed Emperor Hirohito to keep his position as titular leader of Japan, a condition the U.S. did in fact allow after Japan surrendered. U.S. leadership knew this, through intercepts of encoded Japanese messages, but refused to clarify Washington's willingness to accept this condition. Before the bombings, the position of the Japanese leadership with regards to surrender was divided. Several diplomats favored surrender, while the leaders of the Japanese military voiced a commitment to fighting a "decisive battle" on KyÃÆââ¬Â¦ÃâëshÃÆââ¬Â¦Ãâë, hoping that they could negotiate better terms for an armistice afterward. The Japanese government did not decide what terms, beyond preservation of an imperial system, they would have accepted to end the war; as late as August 9, the Supreme War Council was still split, with the hard-liners insisting Japan should demobilize its own forces, no war crimes trials would be conducted, and no occupation of Japan would be allowed. Only the direct intervention of the emperor ended the dispute, and even then a military coup was attempted to prevent the surrender.

 

 

 

Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings themselves were not even the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, he contends, it was the swift and devastating Soviet victories in Manchuria that forced the Japanese surrender on August 15, 1945.[39]

 

 

 

The sources are all referenced accurately.

 

 

 

 

 

First off, Wikipedia is not a valid source for information, give me a link on a different website with the same references.

 

 

 

Secondly, based on wikipedia, Japan was well ready to surrender. Then the question is, why didn't they?

 

 

 

According to MY history text books, rather than online information which any dolt can edit, the Japs did not want to surrender after the first bomb hit. Three days later, they was struck again, surrendering to the war.

 

 

 

Based on what you are concluding is, that America knew they really surrendered and decided to mercilessly kill them with 2 nukes reguardless.

 

 

 

However, history has proven that Japs were willingly to suicide themselfs before ever handing themselfs in as prisoners to American Soldiers. Also they used planes as missles to launch against American Naval Forces in a Kazakami attack displaying a "no surrender mentality" force.

 

 

 

For me to believe that Japan was really surrendering all this time and we did this out of hate for Japs is pure BS.

 

 

 

So I ask.. what are YOU on man? Thinking History went differently..

 

 

 

~Defender~

[/hide]

 

 

 

The Wikipedia page I quoted was heavily referenced, check the linked sources for valid information before you openly criticise a website in some kind of ad hominem attack. Just because it's a Wikipedia page does not mean it's not a valid reference, particularly when the linked references and quotes are valid.

 

 

 

My history textbook gives similar information to yours, but it's limited by the depth that it can actually go into, and one historian's view is not necessarily the only accurate point of view. Don't just accept the status quo of your history textbook.

 

 

 

Perhaps if you actually read the article and checked the sources you'd see that many of the major military players during the second world war said that the bomb was unneccesary for ending the war, and it's also been shown by one historian that it was the Russian invasion of the Chinese territory of Manchuria which lead to their surrender, not exclusively the bomb.

 

 

 

Saying that Japan would never surrender because they had suicide bombers doesn't constitute a valid argument, Japanese military suicide tradition has little to do with their senior officers tactics on the grand scale of things. Granted, it shows that they fought hard, but if they would be willing to fight to the last man as so many people seem to suggest, it would take more than two bombs to make them surrender. They weren't idiots.

[yomom1919]

Justified or not, it's done and only thing we should do is not to argue was it right or wrong but play our cards right so we don't have to see it happening again.

 

 

 

My teacher said this, but after saying this he told us the importance of the argument, and made a good point, saying something like: The bomb has already been dropped, and the decision cannot be revoked. However, future decisions to use or not use weapons of mass destruction can be influenced by an analysis of the past use."

 

 

 

I found that very interesting and valid.

[mrmyk]

Justified or not, it's done and only thing we should do is not to argue was it right or wrong but play our cards right so we don't have to see it happening again.

 

 

 

My teacher said this, but after saying this he told us the importance of the argument, and made a good point, saying something like: The bomb has already been dropped, and the decision cannot be revoked. However, future decisions to use or not use weapons of mass destruction can be influenced by an analysis of the past use."

 

 

 

I found that very interesting and valid.

 

 

 

Yeah, hindsight can be very useful although it cannot be 100% trusted. Appeasement worked for the Irish treaty in 1921 but clearly didn't work for Chamberlain a few years later.

[tintin113]

This question is HUGE! I could write a massive essay/book on this.

 

 

 

But to condense it down:

 

The Japanese at the time were honour driven, and therefore were willing to kill themselves and their fellow men off in great numbers if they thought that it helped their country. (Kamikazi)

 

 

 

The Japenese were very likely going to fight to the end, bringing down their whole country and many Allied soldiers with it.

 

 

 

In doing this, millions of people would have been killed.

 

 

 

Dropping the bomb saved the lives of thousands of Allied soldiers, and potentially millions of Chinese.

 

 

 

However, the bomb created such distruction, that it brought the Japenese to their knees, forcing them to surrender.

 

 

 

The real question is: In hignsight, did we kill more people than we saved?

[Rebdragon]

My history textbook gives similar information to yours, but it's limited by the depth that it can actually go into, and one historian's view is not necessarily the only accurate point of view. Don't just accept the status quo of your history textbook.

 

 

 

Perhaps if you actually read the article and checked the sources you'd see that many of the major military players during the second world war said that the bomb was unneccesary for ending the war, and it's also been shown by one historian that it was the Russian invasion of the Chinese territory of Manchuria which lead to their surrender, not exclusively the bomb.

 

 

 

Saying that Japan would never surrender because they had suicide bombers doesn't constitute a valid argument, Japanese military suicide tradition has little to do with their senior officers tactics on the grand scale of things. Granted, it shows that they fought hard, but if they would be willing to fight to the last man as so many people seem to suggest, it would take more than two bombs to make them surrender. They weren't idiots.

 

But doesn't that statement, in a way, support our argument as well? We're arguing that they weren't idiots, so they gave up after the use of the atomic bombs. We're still arguing that the Japanese were persistent, which, like you said, is portrayed by how hard they fought and the mindset much of the culture and race held. But why is it that you think an enemy having a weapon that can destroy a major city in an instant wouldn't be the final straw of their withdrawl, if you think they aren't idiots?

 

 

 

And yes, it's ludicrous to say that just because some Japanese soldiers "kamikazed" that they'd fight to the last man, but the idea of the kamikaze tactic portrays a piece of the Japanese elitist persona. As I stated, they had no desire to attack on American soil, just to control all of East and Southeast Asia, to complete their empire. That's how their mindset worked/s- being the greatest race on the planet, they deserve to have a large, expansive empire, with all other nations and people as their slaves (just look up some of the stuff the Japanese did to other Asians while conquering East Asia... ack).

 

 

 

Sorry if I'm not responding to every little point in your posts, but I don't have to time nor desire to spend three hours of my day debating this. Guess I'm lazy, probably won't come anywhere close to finishing this debate, oh well.

 

 

 

This question is HUGE! I could write a massive essay/book on this.

 

 

 

But to condense it down:

 

The Japanese at the time were honour driven, and therefore were willing to kill themselves and their fellow men off in great numbers if they thought that it helped their country. (Kamikazi)

 

 

 

The Japenese were very likely going to fight to the end, bringing down their whole country and many Allied soldiers with it.

 

 

 

In doing this, millions of people would have been killed.

 

 

 

Dropping the bomb saved the lives of thousands of Allied soldiers, and potentially millions of Chinese.

 

 

 

However, the bomb created such distruction, that it brought the Japenese to their knees, forcing them to surrender.

 

 

 

The real question is: In hignsight, did we kill more people than we saved?

 

yomom and assassin, just ignore this post please. We know that he's basically assuming you're wrong in his post, so there's no point in arguing with him, as he's skipping past the debate and going off onto another point. Heck, he even reiterated a point that assassin already owned, so we can just move on past this, please.

 

 

 

If you lived in Japan, you wouldn't think that either was justified, just like you wouldn't if the US was bombed in say New York and DC right now.

 

As I stated in a previous post, if America was in the same position that the Japanese were at the time, yes, I would say that the bombing was justified still.

 

 

 

As for your comment on the Middle East Alansson, the US's merely supporting governments there against terrorist actions. Stopping terrorism is no reason for a terrorist attack to be justified, unless you support terrorism, but that's a ten page argument for another thread.

[superson]

 

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?

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

So the Middle East countries have all the right to bomb us now, correct? After all, we have attacked them.

 

 

 

I can't believe that last comment. Just because some of them could, you think they all would have?

 

 

 

I hate how everybody thinks that if the US does something, it's ok, but if anybody else does it, it's horrible.

 

 

 

If you lived in Japan, you wouldn't think that either was justified, just like you wouldn't if the US was bombed in say New York and DC right now.

[assassin_696]

My history textbook gives similar information to yours, but it's limited by the depth that it can actually go into, and one historian's view is not necessarily the only accurate point of view. Don't just accept the status quo of your history textbook.

 

 

 

Perhaps if you actually read the article and checked the sources you'd see that many of the major military players during the second world war said that the bomb was unneccesary for ending the war, and it's also been shown by one historian that it was the Russian invasion of the Chinese territory of Manchuria which lead to their surrender, not exclusively the bomb.

 

 

 

Saying that Japan would never surrender because they had suicide bombers doesn't constitute a valid argument, Japanese military suicide tradition has little to do with their senior officers tactics on the grand scale of things. Granted, it shows that they fought hard, but if they would be willing to fight to the last man as so many people seem to suggest, it would take more than two bombs to make them surrender. They weren't idiots.

 

But doesn't that statement, in a way, support our argument as well? We're arguing that they weren't idiots, so they gave up after the use of the atomic bombs. We're still arguing that the Japanese were persistent, which, like you said, is portrayed by how hard they fought and the mindset much of the culture and race held. But why is it that you think an enemy having a weapon that can destroy a major city in an instant wouldn't be the final straw of their withdrawl, if you think they aren't idiots?

 

 

 

And yes, it's ludicrous to say that just because some Japanese soldiers "kamikazed" that they'd fight to the last man, but the idea of the kamikaze tactic portrays a piece of the Japanese elitist persona. As I stated, they had no desire to attack on American soil, just to control all of East and Southeast Asia, to complete their empire. That's how their mindset worked/s- being the greatest race on the planet, they deserve to have a large, expansive empire, with all other nations and people as their slaves (just look up some of the stuff the Japanese did to other Asians while conquering East Asia... ack).

 

 

 

Sorry if I'm not responding to every little point in your posts, but I don't have to time nor desire to spend three hours of my day debating this. Guess I'm lazy, probably won't come anywhere close to finishing this debate, oh well.

 

 

 

It's okay, I'm giving a very haphazard treatment of a debate here as well.

 

 

 

Basically, my point saying that the Japanese weren't stupid is simply re-iterating my point that they would have surrendered and were nearly defeated anyway, the military unneccessity of the situation highlighted by my Wikipedia copy-paste. Of course two atomic bombs would make them surrender, I don't think any country would continue to fight against a power with that kind of weapon, but i'm arguing that they were unnecessary, unethical and merely a display of power to the USSR.

[yomom1919]

But doesn't that statement, in a way, support our argument as well? We're arguing that they weren't idiots, so they gave up after the use of the atomic bombs. We're still arguing that the Japanese were persistent, which, like you said, is portrayed by how hard they fought and the mindset much of the culture and race held. But why is it that you think an enemy having a weapon that can destroy a major city in an instant wouldn't be the final straw of their withdrawl, if you think they aren't idiots?

 

 

 

And yes, it's ludicrous to say that just because some Japanese soldiers "kamikazed" that they'd fight to the last man, but the idea of the kamikaze tactic portrays a piece of the Japanese elitist persona. As I stated, they had no desire to attack on American soil, just to control all of East and Southeast Asia, to complete their empire. That's how their mindset worked/s- being the greatest race on the planet, they deserve to have a large, expansive empire, with all other nations and people as their slaves (just look up some of the stuff the Japanese did to other Asians while conquering East Asia... ack).

 

 

 

Sorry if I'm not responding to every little point in your posts, but I don't have to time nor desire to spend three hours of my day debating this. Guess I'm lazy, probably won't come anywhere close to finishing this debate, oh well.

 

 

 

Eh, I guess your not obligated to respond to every argument. This is a fairly deep debate, so I'll accept your choice.

 

 

 

As for these matters you bring up, I think what it essentially comes down to is personal opinion.

 

 

 

For your first argument, the bomb, in my opinion, coupled with the entry of the Soviet Union in Manchuria, delivered a 1-2-3 punch to the Japanese. Of course they were going to surrender after they fully realized the capability of the bomb, and surely I won't debate that. It is, however, in my personal opinion based on facts and quotes from both the Japanese and American leaders, that dropping the bomb was unnecessary, as the Japanese were essentially defeated. Both Eisenhower and MacArthur, as well as many prominent military officials on the American side, recognized this. They were seasoned senior war veterans who knew enemy tactics and how to evaluate situations. They knew that the situation Japan was in was nowhere near favorable, and they were people that knew bad situations, which is why they both believe that the bomb was unnecessary.

 

 

 

As your second argument, another matter of personal opinion. I believe the Japanese have a very proficient and honorable culture. If the whole world had a Japanese mindset, it would undoubtedly be a better place. However, the Japanese brought America into the war, whether they like it or not, during the attack on Pearl Harbor [Note] Our retaliation by declaring war on Japan was an issue of self-defense, a Constitutional obligation of America. They decided to attack American soil, and although they had no desire for it, it was America's obligation to retaliate. [i know your not arguing against that, I just felt like mentioning it.]

 

 

 

Also, just a clarification and I'm not sure if this is widely known or not, but many social leaders, including small ones, as well as the people of Japan, thought surrender or negotiation to surrender would be wise. The military leaders were really the only main opposition.

[Darkluniux]

Ummm...

 

 

 

Japan kills thousands of asleep soldiers in Pearl Harbor...

 

 

 

...In response U.S.A kills millions of japanese civilians.

 

 

 

 

 

Just right?

[Rebdragon]

Guys, I'm just going to chalk this down as "personal opinion difference." Based on what I've read, I don't really see us convincing each other any time soon.

 

Ummm...

 

 

 

Japan kills thousands of asleep soldiers in Pearl Harbor...

 

 

 

...In response U.S.A kills millions of japanese civilians.

 

 

 

 

 

Just right?

 

Wow. You do realize how useless that "argument" is, right? I mean, do you have any idea how many levels of wrong that statement is?

 

 

 

First, you're suggesting something is morally right only if the killing done by one group is equal to that of the killing of the other. -_-" What, should we go over to Germany and kill tens of millions of citizens and soldiers, just because the German government and people killed just as many? Are you really saying that it is only morally right once each opposing side gets to kill an equal amount of enemies? What are you, sick? As soon as war can be ended, it should be.

 

 

 

Also, you not only fail at proper logic, you fail at equal comparison. You referenced only one meager attack done by the Japanese, while either referencing every single attack on Japan, or pulling a stupid and thinking that the two bombs actually killed millions. :-s

 

 

 

You also appear to think that the bombing was solely retaliation. It was not. It was a last ditch effort by the US to stop the Japanese and their complete, barbaric domination of Eastern and Southern Asia. This isn't an "eye for an eye" (which, risibly, you appear to be supporting), this is "let's end this as fast as possible". Get your facts straight.

 

 

 

And to get to the actual core of your "argument", go look up what the Japanese did during that time period, instead of just referencing Pearl Harbor off the top of your head. Don't even think you can compare the methods the US used to get Japan to surrender to what they did to our soldiers and the people of East Asia. They had to be stopped, one way or another, the debate here is how. I believe that the bombing was the best way to cause the Japanese to surrender with the least number of human casualties, while others argue otherwise. You on the other hand, are arguing that the bombs weren't used for the purpose of ending war, but for total and utter revenge. Phail.

 

 

 

Oh, and getting within the right magnitude of 10 might just help your argument, just a little.

 

 

 

Now, find a new debate angle, please. Or imitate yomom and assassin, at least they have some logic behind their anti-bombing arguments.

[yomom1919]

Guys, I'm just going to chalk this down as "personal opinion difference." Based on what I've read, I don't really see us convincing each other any time soon.

 

 

 

This is probably one of the hardest issues to convince someone over. I figured that the more you study it, the more your opinion is formed on the issue.

 

 

 

I'm just saying that the Japanese were open to negotiations, which is factual. If negotiations were made, with no avail, and the Japanese made clear that surrender for them was not imminent, then I would see no problem with dropping the bomb. However, that was not the case. If the Allies negotiated properly and use diplomatic tact, the bomb could have been completely unnecessary. That's my problem with the bomb, and I guess it really can't be debated much more. It's more of a realization I suppose.

[The Observer]

The Japanese weren't justifed to attack Pearl Harbour. :|

[splatmster24]

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.

 

 

 

what the heck are you talking about? doesnt anyone get it?

 

 

 

i happen to have litterally hundreds of books and first hand reports on this matter, including those of japenese officers, politicians, and citizens. what everyone doesnt seem to understand is the japan was nowhere near surrendering. in every cove the was a suicide boat, in every cave was a suicide plane, they had millions of men prepared to fight to the feath, not to mention every woman and child!

 

all but a few of thier cities were compltly destroyed and yet they still fought on. the leaders pf japan were the military generals who answered to no-one but the emperor. it took his final intervention to still convince to surrender, but even after that there was an attempted coup de'tat to continue to fight.

 

 

 

no, these bombs saved millions of live, american, british, and japanese. without them literally all of japan would have ceased to exist. i gauruntee that most of the americans posting on this forum today would not have been born, because thier great-grandfather would have been killed, or stationed somewhere else. trading 80000 lives to preserve a entire country seems heartless, but i stand by what we did.

 

 

 

Guys, I'm just going to chalk this down as "personal opinion difference." Based on what I've read, I don't really see us convincing each other any time soon.

 

 

 

This is probably one of the hardest issues to convince someone over. I figured that the more you study it, the more your opinion is formed on the issue.

 

 

 

I'm just saying that the Japanese were open to negotiations, which is factual. If negotiations were made, with no avail, and the Japanese made clear that surrender for them was not imminent, then I would see no problem with dropping the bomb. However, that was not the case. If the Allies negotiated properly and use diplomatic tact, the bomb could have been completely unnecessary. That's my problem with the bomb, and I guess it really can't be debated much more. It's more of a realization I suppose.

 

 

 

oh yea, open to negotiations, they wanted to keep the emperor in power(fine by me), keep thier army(no way), and have no occupation. it sounds like an easy decision today, but put yourself back in that time.

 

you have lost friends, brothers, uncles, fathers. you are in a country that was nuetral through so much, then the other guys attack YOU! do you really want to let them get away with a slap on the wrist? no, you want them to never be able to do that again.

 

 

 

fact of life.

[Ginger_Warrior]

oh yea, open to negotiations, they wanted to keep the emperor in power(fine by me), keep thier army(no way) ,and have no occupation. it sounds like an easy decision today, but put yourself back in that time.

 

you have lost friends, brothers, uncles, fathers. you are in a country that was nuetral through so much, then the other guys attack YOU! do you really want to let them get away with a slap on the wrist? no, you want them to never be able to do that again.

 

Wow. Someone may have read up on the ending to the American-Japanese War but they sure haven't read up on one of the main factors that caused WWII in the first place, namely, the Treaty of Versailles. The whole of Europe (and the U.S., actually) forced Germany to accept peace on condition they had an army of a restricted size. It created a feeling of resentment amongst normal German citizens, and just gave Hitler a manifesto to get into power. Do you seriously think the Japanese, especially in the light you've portrayed them in, would have reacted much differently to you?

 

 

 

Signing peace with a country in war-time isn't giving them a "slap on the wrist". As you said, collateral damage had already been inflicted on the Japanese infrastructure. They'd already lost enough. You could just as easily have pushed them into surrender through a coastal amphibious invasion than by dropping a bomb which literally frazzled thousands of innocents civilians on the spot.

 

 

 

no, these bombs saved millions of live, american, british, and japanese. without them literally all of japan would have ceased to exist. i gauruntee that most of the americans posting on this forum today would not have been born, because thier great-grandfather would have been killed, or stationed somewhere else. trading 80000 lives to preserve a entire country seems heartless, but i stand by what we did.

 

"Trading 80,000 lives"? What makes you think they were your lives to trade? They were innocent Japanese civlilians - what on earth makes you think you have a moral right to target them just because it will force them into surrender?

 

 

 

And hardly any Americans would have died. Yes, Japanese soldiers literally threw themselves into suicide attempts with the sole purpose of taking someone else down, but surely isn't that what all soldiers in war are in effect doing? they're all dying for their own country, albeit in different ways.

 

 

 

It was not America's right to decide that the death of 80,000 innocent lives in trade for the preservation of another imperialist country between you and the Soviet Union is the lesser of two evils. Don't pretend as though Japan appreciates you for dropping those bombs when there are still thousands of people even today suffering from the radiation released after those two bombs.

[Cobradudes20]

THIS IS NOT MY OWN well some is my own research but hey

 

 

 

Those who argue in favor of the decision to drop the bombs generally assert that the bombings ended the war months sooner than would otherwise have been the case, thus saving many lives. It is argued that there would have been massive casualties on both sides in the Operation Downfall(A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.)(the death toll from the bombs was estimated up to 200,000 may have died by 1950, due to cancer and other long-term effects). , and that even if Operation Downfall was postponed, the status quo of conventional bombings and the Japanese occupations in Asia were causing tremendous loss of life.

 

 

 

A number of notable individuals and organizations have criticized the bombings, many of them characterizing them as war crimes or crime against humanity and or state terrorism. Two early critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard, who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written letter to President Roosevelt. Szilard, who had gone on to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued:

 

 

 

"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?"

 

 

 

 

 

CREDIT-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

[splatmster24]

oh yea, open to negotiations, they wanted to keep the emperor in power(fine by me), keep thier army(no way) ,and have no occupation. it sounds like an easy decision today, but put yourself back in that time.

 

you have lost friends, brothers, uncles, fathers. you are in a country that was nuetral through so much, then the other guys attack YOU! do you really want to let them get away with a slap on the wrist? no, you want them to never be able to do that again.

 

Wow. Someone may have read up on the ending to the American-Japanese War but they sure haven't read up on one of the main factors that caused WWII in the first place, namely, the Treaty of Versailles. The whole of Europe (and the U.S., actually) forced Germany to accept peace on condition they had an army of a restricted size. It created a feeling of resentment amongst normal German citizens, and just gave Hitler a manifesto to get into power. Do you seriously think the Japanese, especially in the light you've portrayed them in, would have reacted much differently to you?

 

 

 

Signing peace with a country in war-time isn't giving them a "slap on the wrist". As you said, collateral damage had already been inflicted on the Japanese infrastructure. They'd already lost enough. You could just as easily have pushed them into surrender through a coastal amphibious invasion than by dropping a bomb which literally frazzled thousands of innocents civilians on the spot.

 

 

 

Ah yes, an invasion, instead of forcing the japenese to think that we had the unlimited power to level thier country, lets just send a couple million US and British troops to die in an invasion that nearly every japenese would have fought against. what you dont seem to realize is that the imperial army of japan was giving thier own civilians SPEARS to charge GIs with. millions of japenes civilians would have been sloughtered, along with thousands of Americans. Once we landed they never would have thought about surrender.

 

 

 

Had we allowed ourselves to accept thier terms of surrender we would have left ourselves open to another attack by the japenes. i seriosly doubt they would have been that dumb but in 1945 thinking they were still a massive liability.

 

 

 

no, these bombs saved millions of live, american, british, and japanese. without them literally all of japan would have ceased to exist. i gauruntee that most of the americans posting on this forum today would not have been born, because thier great-grandfather would have been killed, or stationed somewhere else. trading 80000 lives to preserve a entire country seems heartless, but i stand by what we did.

 

"Trading 80,000 lives"? What makes you think they were your lives to trade? They were innocent Japanese civlilians - what on earth makes you think you have a moral right to target them just because it will force them into surrender?

 

 

 

And hardly any Americans would have died. Yes, Japanese soldiers literally threw themselves into suicide attempts with the sole purpose of taking someone else down, but surely isn't that what all soldiers in war are in effect doing? they're all dying for their own country, albeit in different ways.

 

 

 

It was not America's right to decide that the death of 80,000 innocent lives in trade for the preservation of another imperialist country between you and the Soviet Union is the lesser of two evils. Don't pretend as though Japan appreciates you for dropping those bombs when there are still thousands of people even today suffering from the radiation released after those two bombs.

 

 

 

Read up on thier preperations. they were ready for an assault. thier civilians were being trained in how to kill as many americans as possible before they died. hundreds of thousands of americans would have been killed. saying that hardly any would have died shows that you really have no idea of the military and civilian power japan still controlled. an estimated 100.000 would have become casualties before they even hit the shore. Millions of japenese would have been mowed down in Kamikaze charges. thousands more would have died of starvation in the following months. of the 80,000 killed in the blasts it is doubtful that even a quarter would have survived. If i had to make the choice now knowing full well what would have met my troops had they invaded i would drop those bombs again in an instant.

 

 

 

 

 

Try a new tact, think about what we could be arguing about right now if we had invaded and not bombed, and we just now figured out that all those millions of lives could have been saved had we used our technology when we had it. what would your reaction be?

[splatmster24]

did i just kill this topic?

 

:-s