Nuclear Bombing Of Japan

[nl98]

In 1945, in an effort to end the war, America dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. Specifically, Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The reason they dropped this bomb was to end World War II. The only other reason was to invade Japan which would have cause a higher total casualty rate. America and tried to make Japan to surrender through other methods that just didn't work so the two bombs were dropped. I think it was justifiable because Japan started it by attacking Pearl Harbour and because it was the better option besides invasion. What do you think? Discuss.

[Rebdragon]

I'll be honest with you dude, the only Tip.iter's who actually enjoy discussing this topic (me included) have long ago lost both the drive and any sense of a need to argue it. The topic's already been killed, and I don't think any amount of free Mountain Dew is going to result in any long-lasting serious discussion about it.

 

 

 

Oh, and it wasn't justifiable by Pearl Harbor, that's barbaric. Agree with you on the other reason it was justifiable though.

 

 

 

Okay, I'm drained. Anyone else want to talk about this?

[nine naked men]

In 1945, in an effort to end the war, America dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. Specifically, Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The reason they dropped this bomb was to end World War II. The only other reason was to invade Japan which would have cause a higher total casualty rate. America and tried to make Japan to surrender through other methods that just didn't work so the two bombs were dropped. I think it was justifiable because Japan started it by attacking Pearl Harbour and because it was the better option besides invasion. What do you think? Discuss.

 

 

 

Excuse me? Justifiable? Let's compare. One Naval Base. 2 highly populated cities. How the hell is that even close to 'justifiable'? It was, as Reb said, barbaric.

 

 

 

So, no. Not even close to justifiable.

[Medellin]

You guys forget that the Japanese literally pillaged and raped that area of the pacific.

 

 

 

To this day, the Japanese still denies the disregard their ancestors had for human rights.

 

 

 

Barbaric? The method maybe. But the pacific countries (not just two cities, mind you) would've kept on suffering without America's nukes.

[Rebdragon]

Medellin, I'm on your side on this issue. I was just saying that you can't justify the bombings by Pearl Harbor, but rather by the actions of the Japanese along the Pacific. Arguing that Pearl Harbor justified it is basically trying to argue an eye for an eye... or actually, I dunno, three hundred people and a chimp for an eye. That's what I meant by "barbaric".

[Guest]

I wonder if more would of been killed in the long run if America didn't go all out and drop the nukes. Considering the Japs we're that crazy and didn't surrender after the 1st nuke, I don't think there would of been any other measures the Americans would of taken that would of been able to stop the Japs continually fighting, until their army was practically wiped out.

 

 

 

Anyway its a highly debatable topic. And no answer I believe can be a definite.

[99pulse99]

I always thought one of the main reasons why they done it was to scare the Soviet union.

 

 

 

 

 

I personally think the bombings were wrong, but what's even worse was that even after seeing the destruction of Hiroshima they went on to drop a different type of atom bomb on Nagasaki just to test it's effects.

 

 

 

There's no way it can be justified by Pearl Harbor, PH was a military/naval base which in general would be an expected target. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were heavily populated cities :shock:

 

 

 

It's like if someone fires a slingshot at you and in retailation you pull out a gun and shoot them.

[Powman3]

Before they bombed us though, we had signed peace treaties with them. Then they completely flattened Pearl Harbor. Then, they flew into Pearl Harbor, with jets, making it flatter. After that, we think "Let's bomb back!" (I particularly agree with this idea). So, we have two very powerful nukes, and we are about to bomb Hiroshima. Before we let off the nuke though, we hatch the peace medals they had given us onto the nukes. Fire one! Got them pretty well. Fire two, from what I remember in the movie, didn't go so well. In the end, Japan finally realizes they don't stand the slightest chance, and finally surrender.

 

 

 

I hope I have made this clear to you. If it is not, I suggest asking a good historian, veteran, watch the movie, or go to Wiki.

 

 

 

EDIT: LET ME BE CLEAR! I don't agree with the bombings at all! I just think what goes around comes around. Japan had it coming to them.

[warri0r45]

In 1945, in an effort to end the war, America dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. Specifically, Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The reason they dropped this bomb was to end World War II. The only other reason was to invade Japan which would have cause a higher total casualty rate. America and tried to make Japan to surrender through other methods that just didn't work so the two bombs were dropped. I think it was justifiable because Japan started it by attacking Pearl Harbour and because it was the better option besides invasion. What do you think? Discuss.

 

 

 

Excuse me? Justifiable? Let's compare. One Naval Base. 2 highly populated cities. How the hell is that even close to 'justifiable'? It was, as Reb said, barbaric.

 

 

 

So, no. Not even close to justifiable.

 

 

 

Cept you left out the prospect of invading mainland Japan to end the war. Not such an insignificant detail. I think it can be justified if it is in fact true that:

 

 

 

a) Japan would not have surrendered yet fought to the death, this prospect involving more casualties than both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

 

 

B) A mainland invasion would have resulted in more casualties than both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[hells_mishap]

Before they bombed us though, we had signed peace treaties with them. Then they completely flattened Pearl Harbor. Then, they flew into Pearl Harbor, with jets, making it flatter. After that, we think "Let's bomb back!" (I particularly agree with this idea). So, we have two very powerful nukes, and we are about to bomb Hiroshima. Before we let off the nuke though, we hatch the peace medals they had given us onto the nukes. Fire one! Got them pretty well. Fire two, from what I remember in the movie, didn't go so well. In the end, Japan finally realizes they don't stand the slightest chance, and finally surrender.

 

 

 

I hope I have made this clear to you. If it is not, I suggest asking a good historian, veteran, watch the movie, or go to Wiki.

 

 

 

EDIT: LET ME BE CLEAR! I don't agree with the bombings at all! I just think what goes around comes around. Japan had it coming to them.

 

 

 

The bombing you're talking about from the movie weren't nukes. That was the immediate retaliation for the attack on Pearl Harbor, which happened on December 7, 1941.

 

The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't occur till 4 years later.

[BlueLancer]

It's ridiculous to say "there would've been more casualties" if the US had launched a ground assault. The politicians couldn't care less. There would've been too many american soldiers dying, the public in the US would definitely stopped supporting the attack on Japan if they knew it would cost 100,000 american lives.

 

 

 

You know.. Japan's army wasn't really weak at all. Their soldiers were well trained professionals fanatically devoted to serving the emperor. Unlike americans and their president, they'd suicide in a heartbeat if their emperor personally wished for it even for no reason at all.

 

 

 

In a few years they had conquered land over 10 times their home country, including a large portion of China, Korea, and were threatening Australia (but couldn't hold it because their military didn't have enough manpower to hold such a big area AND the other conquests)

 

 

 

The US politicians deliberately chose 2 cities which had absolutely no military activity whatsoever. They were 100% civilians (unlike Pearl Harbor which was a military base). Their objective was to scare off Japan. And it is pretty scary how you can just 'authorize' wiping off 200,000 civilians in 5 minutes with a political decision.

 

 

 

Yet, the majority of Japanese don't hold a grudge against the US now. Just imagine if the japanese had killed 300,000 americans with a nuclear bomb. It would be probably prohibited to travel to Japan from USA even in 2007.

[raylifes]

I think it was justifiable because Japan started it by attacking Pearl Harbour and because it was the better option besides invasion.

 

 

 

So then, by your logic it would be justified if Irak started showering the usa with atomic weapons?

[Zonorhc]

Old topic is old.

[Hydraides]

I think it was justifiable because Japan started it by attacking Pearl Harbour and because it was the better option besides invasion.

 

 

 

So then, by your logic it would be justified if Irak started showering the usa with atomic weapons?

 

 

 

I woulnt exactly go that far

 

 

 

Japan Blatenly Back Stabbed America, No warning or anything, It may be True america invaded Iraw for the wrong reasons, but at least they got a warning

[GrimHams]

I don't support the bombing of civilian areas when a war between two armies is still optional. America should have sent their own men to death rather than dropping bombs on populated towns. America should be ashamed of taking the "easy way out" of an extended war, the fact is they did not maintain any lengths of the devistation that other countries had and to do what they did was barbaric.

 

 

 

I think dropping bombs on a naval base is justified in the state or war, but deliberately going out to kill innocent civilians cannot be justified even if it does save an armies life. There is a difference between a man who is trained to be in an army and a civilian, judging them as one and the same is an act of extreme evil.

[raylifes]

I think it was justifiable because Japan started it by attacking Pearl Harbour and because it was the better option besides invasion.

 

 

 

So then, by your logic it would be justified if Irak started showering the usa with atomic weapons?

 

 

 

I woulnt exactly go that far

 

 

 

Japan Blatenly Back Stabbed America, No warning or anything, It may be True america invaded Iraw for the wrong reasons, but at least they got a warning

 

 

 

And what good is a warning if you can't do anything about it?

[Ginger_Warrior]

I think it was justifiable because Japan started it by attacking Pearl Harbour and because it was the better option besides invasion.

 

 

 

So then, by your logic it would be justified if Irak started showering the usa with atomic weapons?

 

 

 

I woulnt exactly go that far

 

 

 

Japan Blatenly Back Stabbed America, No warning or anything, It may be True america invaded Iraw for the wrong reasons, but at least they got a warning

 

I'm sure that warning meant a lot to the Iraqis when they knew you'd defeat them in a war with almost contemptuous ease anyway.

 

 

 

Japan attacks a military base, with hardly any civilian deaths, and that justifies the deaths and life-long effects of radiation inflicted on tens of thousands of completely innocent people? It's completely disproprotionate, and hardly a justification. To put it into a less complicated scenario, it's like shooting someone dead for being slapped around the head once.

 

 

 

The second bomb was most definitely not justified. Japan was considering surrender - they should have been given time to make their decision, and peace talks made. They were fighting a war of attrition; they simply couldn't have carried on.

 

 

 

The only reason America dropped those bombs was to set an example to the Soviets. They took the lives of masses of innocent people to achieve that, and it didn't work either. There is no way, therefore, the bombs can be justified.

[GrimHams]

I think it was justifiable because Japan started it by attacking Pearl Harbour and because it was the better option besides invasion.

 

 

 

So then, by your logic it would be justified if Irak started showering the usa with atomic weapons?

 

 

 

I woulnt exactly go that far

 

 

 

Japan Blatenly Back Stabbed America, No warning or anything, It may be True america invaded Iraw for the wrong reasons, but at least they got a warning

 

I'm sure that warning meant a lot to the Iraqis when they knew you'd defeat them in a war with almost contemptuous ease anyway.

 

 

 

Japan attacks a military base, with hardly any civilian deaths, and that justifies the deaths and life-long effects of radiation inflicted on tens of thousands of completely innocent people? It's completely disproprotionate, and hardly a justification. To put it into a less complicated scenario, it's like shooting someone dead for being slapped around the head once.

 

 

 

The second bomb was most definitely not justified. Japan was considering surrender - they should have been given time to make their decision, and peace talks made. They were fighting a war of attrition; they simply couldn't have carried on.

 

 

 

The only reason America dropped those bombs were to set an example to the Soviets. They took the lives of masses of innocent people to achieve that, and it didn't work either. There is no way, therefore, the bombs can be justified.

 

 

 

Utterly agreed, people forget the radiation and utter contempt for human life that the bombings caused. If i were a leader i'd send thousands of trained men to their death over dropping these bombs over Japan. Although the Japanese were fanatical in their support for their leader giving them the chance to conceed after the first bomb (even though it was unjustified) was the humane course of action, continuing to kill people in the most disgusting fashion who had done nothing to America is a cheap shot of massive proportions. And people wonder why everyone hates america. :roll:

[omnitrophe]

For what I know, americans didn't know the full effect of the nuclear weapons. They didn't know about the radiation, right? And most probably not the exact power of it. Sure they knew that it's powerfull, but while they had to get the war end anyways, why not do it while testing the new weaponry?

[runescapeloser22]

Why are we doing his homework?

[hells_mishap]

For what I know, americans didn't know the full effect of the nuclear weapons. They didn't know about the radiation, right? And most probably not the exact power of it. Sure they knew that it's powerfull, but while they had to get the war end anyways, why not do it while testing the new weaponry?

 

 

 

I'll tell you why not, hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. That's why not. :| Even if they didn't know the effects of the radiation the surely knew the immediate aftermath of a nuke. And EVEN if they didn't know about that they defiantly knew after the first nuke was dropped. This had little to do with Japan even though they were the ones that suffered. They had already tested the bomb in some desert and knew the devastation it could cause. They did this to show the Soviets why they shouldn't mess with the Americans.

[BlueLancer]

For what I know, americans didn't know the full effect of the nuclear weapons. They didn't know about the radiation, right? And most probably not the exact power of it. Sure they knew that it's powerfull, but while they had to get the war end anyways, why not do it while testing the new weaponry?

 

 

 

What if they tested that new "weaponry" against your family members, brothers, sisters, parents, grandparents?MitÃÆÃâÃâä jos jenkit/japanilaiset olis kÃÆÃâÃâäyttÃÆÃâÃâäny sun vanhempia vastaan 'kokeena' uusia aseita?

 

 

 

I don't see how attacking civilian targets in wartime, let alone cities holding hundreds of thousands of women and children, is justified under any cause, including "preventing further casualties".

 

 

 

Would an american ground assault really triggered more than 300,000 civilian casualties? No... The targets would have been military bases, radio stations and soldiers. Not old women and kids.

[hells_mishap]

I don't see how attacking civilian targets in wartime, let alone cities holding hundreds of thousands of women and children, is justified under any cause, including "preventing further casualties".

 

 

 

Couldn't you call that terrorism? -.-

[yomom1919]

My AP history teacher, a super-genius, proved why the bombings were unnecessary after our class debates. He used chronological events, etc. to prove a few points and he really was undeniably correct, with a perfect argument. I have it written down somewhere... but I don't feel like looking for it. Like Reb said, the few that wanted to discuss it already did.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I don't see how attacking civilian targets in wartime, let alone cities holding hundreds of thousands of women and children, is justified under any cause, including "preventing further casualties".

 

 

 

Couldn't you call that terrorism? -.-

 

Indeed, only a whole hundred times the scale of 9/11.