Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?

[Go_Oilers_Go]

I think that it was necessary for the States to drop the bombs. Sure, the war was indeed turning in the favour of the States, but I believe that Eisenhower took the viewpoint that the bombs would have to be dropped in order to end the war quickly with as few American casulties as possible. Besides, there is a chance that the Japanese could've fought back and regained many of the islands in the Pacific. The bombs were truly the only surefire way to end the war.

When responding to this question, please stay within the realm of the impact the bombs had on WWII and not the consequences after (being the Cold War tensions between the States and Russia).

[Relambrien]

When responding to this question, please stay within the realm of the impact the bombs had on WWII and not the consequences after (being the Cold War tensions between the States and Russia).

I don't think this is possible. Hiroshima and Nagasaki changed the face of war. If you're going to talk about whether or not it was appropriate to drop the bombs, then considering the aftereffects, as massive as they were, is pretty much a must.

If you're just going to talk about it from a WWII perspective, then of course dropping the bombs was the best solution. Minimal casualties, maximum efficiency. In war, it's unfortunate but you often have to disregard the needs of the enemy in favor of your own needs. Ending war as quickly as possible with as few casualties as possible should be the goal of every country involved in it. The A-bomb allowed this.

The reason atomic bombs aren't used in military operations now is due to the agreements made after WWII and the Cold War about restrictions on their usage. It's been more or less agreed that atomic bombs, while being an effective war tool, have far too much of a detrimental effect on humanity as a whole to allow common usage.

Thus, they have become a "last resort," a panic button, a trump card. While they cannot be used for standard military operations, they can be used provided the situation makes it completely necessary.

[MixMasterLar]

Yes, even if you consider the aftereffects, I think that at that time we needed the A-bomb

Bur it's been over 60 years, can we give it a rest?

[Coolgamer]

One was enough. The second was just to go, "Look at us, now don't %^&% with us." to the rest of the world. Unneeded overkill.

[GuidoHunter]

One was enough. The second was just to go, "Look at us, now don't %^&% with us." to the rest of the world. Unneeded overkill.

Japan clearly didn't get the message after the first one, as they refused to surrender.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Cavernio]

It's amazing how we can justify death.

[devonin]

I think you need to look more closely at the distinction between "Justifying Death" and "Justifying a number of deaths quickly to try and prevent a much larger number of deaths much more slowly"

People who are strongly against the US use of atomic bombs on Japan often underestimate just how long, bloody and brutal a conventional war with Japan would have ended up.

After the first atomic bomb, Japan was supposed to surrender in the face of the overwhelming advantage that nuclear capability gave the US. Instead the official stance from the emperor was basically "Impressive, but I bet you only had one, so nuts to you"

The second bomb was not "unnecessary overkill" it was the only way to prove to Japan that they could keep the nukes coming, and would until they surrendered.

I can only imagine what the United States might have had to resort to if Japan had called their bluff a second time, since at that point they only -did- have the two nuclear weapons.

[MixMasterLar]

Plus, Keep in mind this was already a long, bloody war with both Japen and Germany....why have the killings continue?

[Go_Oilers_Go]

Germany was done for, but Japan still had a little bit of fight left in them despite the fact that the war in the Pacific was changing in favor of the Western democracies.

[devonin]

Germany was done for, but Japan still had a little bit of fight left in them despite the fact that the war in the Pacific was changing in favor of the Western democracies.

Um...I really think you underestimate how difficult it would have been to defeat Japan via conventional warfare. They would have to have taken control basically of the entire nation top to bottom before the fighting would stop.

The US has a long history of fighting wars that have a few set piece battles, then a surrender and negotiated terms. Japan was going to go right to the end, and a war of attrition was not something the US wanted to get involved in.

[Go_Oilers_Go]

Um...I really think you underestimate how difficult it would have been to defeat Japan via conventional warfare. They would have to have taken control basically of the entire nation top to bottom before the fighting would stop.

The US has a long history of fighting wars that have a few set piece battles, then a surrender and negotiated terms. Japan was going to go right to the end, and a war of attrition was not something the US wanted to get involved in.

Hence the dropping of the bombs. I was just giving out another potential scenario. I approve of the dropping of the bombs in order to end the war quickly. I also agree with you that Japan would've fought to the very end making more casulties on both sides. However, I'd like to state that Japan would've inevitably been beaten because the States could fully concentrate on them, Russia was preparing to launch an assault, and Britain and the other western European countries just had to tie up a few loose ends with Germany before they too could take part in an assault upon Japan.

[devonin]

I think the mere idea that Britain/France etc would have the first thing to do with an assault on Japan at all, let alone after all of the death, destruction and cost of the war with Germany is frankly ludicrous.

By the time they "Tied up loose ends" with Germany, put enough of their infrastructure back together to make any kind of major decision like that -and- managed to convince the populations of Europe that now that the Nazi threat was ended, sorry, we have to go send everyone to the other side of the planet to keep fighting, it would have been 1950.

[jewpinthethird]

Hence the dropping of the bombs. I was just giving out another potential scenario. I approve of the dropping of the bombs in order to end the war quickly. I also agree with you that Japan would've fought to the very end making more casulties on both sides. However, I'd like to state that Japan would've inevitably been beaten because the States could fully concentrate on them, Russia was preparing to launch an assault, and Britain and the other western European countries just had to tie up a few loose ends with Germany before they too could take part in an assault upon Japan.

You're missing the point.

1) Japan attacked the United States.
2) The Japanese took a stance of "no surrender."
3) Invading Japan would have resulted in an enormous death toll for both the Japanese and Americans.
4) Japan was not the victim. Japan was a militant aggressor that committed acts of genocide all over mainland China.

If Japan had nuclear capabilities, do you think they would have hesitated to use it against the United States? Most likely not.

The two bombs affectively ended the war with no casualties for the Americans.

Yes, the atomic bomb was a horrible invention, but WWII was a horrible war.

Also, how many full-blown World Wars has there been since the invention of the Atomic bomb? None. There have been small regional military conflicts mostly generated to turn out a profit for munitions manufacturers, but nothing too serious (lulz). Then again, how many wars have we won since we dropped the atomic bomb? Not as many as we'd've liked seeing as they always seem to end in a stalemate with a huge body count.

Prediction: Operation Iraqi Freedom is going to end in a stalemate (or division of the land among the various ethnic groups) with a huge body count. You heard it here first.

[fido123]

I think they should have dropped the bombs, but I think it would be better if they dropped it in the middle of a forest to just show what they had. They would look at the forest and all the trees would either be gone or be fallen in a a circler pattern collectively.

[devonin]

Response: "What cowards, to have a weapon and be so afraid to use it on people that they destory some trees, surely we shall drive them back into the sea"

Not a good plan at all. When you're up against someone who will impale themselves on your bayonet to get close enough to stab you, you don't have the luxery of ****ing around.

[Mookage]

The bombs were unnessecary because even though they obviously saved many american lives but they killed many Japanese. Also with that happening the americans hurt the enviorment through the addition of many harmful chemicals into the atmosphere. The Japanese were even contemplating surrendering I have uncovered after long hours of reading books on the Japanese situation in the war. Many people were charged and killed by the emperor for defeatism.

[Kilroy_x]

The main problem that came about as a result of using the atomic bomb militarily was a further alienation of our country from Russia, and more abstractly the cold war itself. However there are enough other factors at play there that the component in question could probably still be justified. It's mostly just a shame no one knows when a group of sand grains becomes a hill of sand, I guess.

[Cavernio]

Killing civilians is never fully justified, and I really think an important distinction should be made with soldiers versus civilians. Ending a war with "look, I'm crazier and less humane than you!", is, well, crazy and inhumane.

Targeting and killling the emperor and his goons would probably also have worked. Even if the US wouldn't've succeeded at doing that, given enough time in an uphill battle that's getting steeper and steeper for the Japanese, the job might've been done internally, especially if Mookage is correct.

[Relambrien]

Killing civilians is never fully justified, and I really think an important distinction should be made with soldiers versus civilians. Ending a war with "look, I'm crazier and less humane than you!", is, well, crazy and inhumane.

Targeting and killling the emperor and his goons would probably also have worked. Even if the US wouldn't've succeeded at doing that, given enough time in an uphill battle that's getting steeper and steeper for the Japanese, the job might've been done internally, especially if Mookage is correct.

That's true, however it would have caused countless more American casualties than there already were. Something tells me the American people wouldn't have been very happy if their leaders basically said, "Well we could end this war right now with very few American casualties, but because we're worried about the Japanese civilians, we're not going to, even though there will be thousands more Americans killed as a result." Especially considering all the anti-Japanese sentiment within the US at the time.

The repercussions of THAT would've been pretty severe too, methinks.

[Cavernio]

I know this is a long-shot...
...but if the use of the A-bomb were OK back then, why aren't we discussing the issue of using it in any of the various present disputes? Wait a minute, the US initially invaded Iraq under the guise of stopping that country of having nukes...

Nothing like lording it over everyone else, eh?

[Kilroy_x]

Did you miss the last 60 years somehow?

[Zageron]

**** the U.S. Government.
**** Violence.
**** Weapons.


/\ My Point of view.
I have my reasons.

Don't get me wrong, the U.S. is really cool and does a lot for the world, but The Government makes nothing but bad choices. The only good choice they have ever made was to stay allied to Canada.

Canada = Biggest allied chain in the world.
We could own ur asses if the reason was good enough. XD
As long as you didn't know about it until... >>

Nuf of this.. Just throw your guns in a fire or something.

[lord_carbo]

Throw our guns in a fire? But then how will we form a militia and fight against government tyranny?

[Relambrien]

I know this is a long-shot...
...but if the use of the A-bomb were OK back then, why aren't we discussing the issue of using it in any of the various present disputes? Wait a minute, the US initially invaded Iraq under the guise of stopping that country of having nukes...

Nothing like lording it over everyone else, eh?

I talked about that in my original post. No one knew just what effects nuclear weapons would have on the world until they were finally used.

It was agreed upon afterwards that nukes are far too destructive to be used casually, because their effect on humanity is too detrimental.

And it wasn't nukes we went into Iraq for, it was other kinds of WMDs, such as chemical bombs and the like. Though that really doesn't matter, and isn't what this debate should be about.

[Cavernio]

I'm taking this discussion with hindsight from present day, knowing full well the destructive force of nukes.
What I meant to raise specifically, is that there are probably countless disputes since WWII, where the use of nukes could be perceived as ending them quicker and with less 'home' casualties. All it'd take is a little rationalization and a little imagination.
The very fact that their use isn't considered nowadays (that I know of), makes it non-sensical to look back and rationally consider it, and even come up with 'yeah, it was for the best', when it did happen.
Perhaps you think that there've since been no world instances of fighting where one side would be in such dire needs as the US was back then-all those innocent US civilians killed from Japanese attacks! The entire infrastructure of the country was at stake!! (not)

[agent000_77]

I think nowadays one reason we don't drop nukes is because of the fear of "retaliation".

Back in WWII, we were the only ones with a working nuclear bomb(Manhattan Project, correct?).

Today, everyone and their grandman has a nuclear bomb(France for pity's sake has nuclear bombs, and INDIA!!!)

Back then(WWII), we probably thought that if we "showed" them the terrible destruction force of the a-bomb, they would surrender quickly. They did.

Can't imagine though if everyone had a hydrogen bomb(search google for bikini atoll)

[devonin]

Perhaps you think that there've since been no world instances of fighting where one side would be in such dire needs as the US was back then-all those innocent US civilians killed from Japanese attacks!

You can't look at the conflict between the USA and Japan without framing it in the context of World War II in its entirety. It was never an issue of "Japan is too large of a threat to American civilians" it was "We've been in this war for way too many years, lost way too many people, and if we don't stop this quickly, we could be going for -years- more"

I think nowadays one reason we don't drop nukes is because of the fear of "retaliation".

I think it is less fear of retaliation and more fear of total human destruction on the earth. As soon as one nuke goes off, they all will, and there will be no more people. That's why nobody uses them now that many people have them.

Can't imagine though if everyone had a hydrogen bombHydrogen bombs aren't the ones to worry about. Neutron Bombs on the other hand *shudder*

[og4lif]

I talked about that in my original post. No one knew just what effects nuclear weapons would have on the world until they were finally used.

It was agreed upon afterwards that nukes are far too destructive to be used casually, because their effect on humanity is too detrimental.

And it wasn't nukes we went into Iraq for, it was other kinds of WMDs, such as chemical bombs and the like. Though that really doesn't matter, and isn't what this debate should be about.



I disagree with you since the creators of the bomb which include albert einstein and many other great scientist knew perfectly well of its capabilities *common sense why would they drop it if they didnt think it would be powerful enough to end the war* but anyways the only people that had no clue what the a-bomb was capable of was the politics and the civilians.

[Relambrien]

I disagree with you since the creators of the bomb which include albert einstein and many other great scientist knew perfectly well of its capabilities *common sense why would they drop it if they didnt think it would be powerful enough to end the war* but anyways the only people that had no clue what the a-bomb was capable of was the politics and the civilians.

Of course they knew what effects the bomb would have on the war. They didn't know what effects it would have on the -world,- namely the arms race between the US and the USSR, the tension about usage of any such weapon, and things like that.

[ELRayford]

The only thing keeping us from dropping more is the fallout. Keep that in mind O_o;

[agent000_77]

lol, yes the neutron bombs are bad ones....

No, what you just stated is what i meant by retaliation. Nation A drops bomb on Nation B. Nation B retaliates by attacking Nation A. Nations A's ally Nation C drops another bomb on Nation B. Nation B's ally Nation Z attacks Nation C. Nation C attack Nation Z's ally Nation X to limit food production for Nation Z. Nation Z retaliates by attacking major resource facilities located in Nation J, D, and L. After a few days, everyone in every country is dead except Nation 42. Nation 42 moved to Mars.

[Cavernio]

I can't agree that using massive destructive powers is perfectly acceptable as long as yours is the only nation holding them.
My point still stands. Using weapons of mass destruction's insanity, and we all know and agree to that, yet you're backing it up. How many nukes need to go off before the line's been crossed? Until 50% of the world's destroyed? 1 goes off in your own country? 1 atom bomb going off is too much destruction all at once for me, and there's little you can say to change that.
I'm not saying that ending a war quickly is bad. Killing thousands of innocent people is wrong. Presuming that more deaths would ensue than due to the nukes is just that, presumption. How much time would it have taken of fighting to kill that many by-standers if the nukes weren't dropped?

[devonin]

Here's the thing though: Looking back at the situation now that a lot more information from both sides is publically available, we can say that yes, by some standards, using the nuclear weapons to force an end to the war was justified, or at least justifyable.

In each case where the use of nuclear weapons is a possibility, you don't have the luxery at the time of that level of information, and you definitely don't have the benefit of already seeing what the consequences were.

It might be accurate to say "At no time is the use of nuclear weapons acceptable, except for those times where, in retrospect, it was acceptable"

[og4lif]

Killing thousands of innocent people is wrong. Presuming that more deaths would ensue than due to the nukes is just that, presumption. How much time would it have taken of fighting to kill that many by-standers if the nukes weren't dropped?

*Final Thoughts*
It was not the state's intention to kill thousands of innocent people. The targets they selected were strictly meant to cripple the Japanese army. For example, Hiroshima was chosen as a target because it was a large industrial city that contained the Japanese Armies second Headquarters. That headquarters in Hiroshima was in charge of all the defense systems in Southern Japan. Also, Hiroshima had communication centers for its army. troop assemblies and storage points. Unfortunately, the ultimate downfall of the bomb was the fact that it could not avoid the innocent people living within Hiroshima. Finally, The war would have taken much longer to end as it is fact that the Japanese were not willing to surrender.
In conclusion, the bomb saved Japan from making a huge error that could of lead to their extinction from the map if they continued to fight and many casulties were avoided due to the bombs.

http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/profile/ffrsiggy/og4lif/0114.png

[Cavernio]

Justification doesn't mean that it was the best way to deal with the situation.

[devonin]

Nor did anybody say it was. Justified simply means that there is sufficient reason to accept it as a valid course of action.

[GuidoHunter]

EDIT: Dammit, ninja'd by devonin. =\\\\

Justification doesn't mean that it was the best way to deal with the situation.

Retrospect doesn't really care about that fact, though.

Wanna make things better? Go back in history and provide a better alternative. Since the bombs were dropped, though, our justification is what we have to keep us from tearing our hearts out too much.

Until we learn to time travel, "the best way" to deal with things is just a pipe dream.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[boo4u]

I think they should have dropped the bombs, but I think it would be better if they dropped it in the middle of a forest to just show what they had. They would look at the forest and all the trees would either be gone or be fallen in a a circler pattern collectively.

Dropping an atomic bomb in a forest is the most irrational thing I have ever heard in this thread so far. Fido do you realize the impact the bomb would have if dropped within a forest?

[jewpinthethird]

I can't agree that using massive destructive powers is perfectly acceptable as long as yours is the only nation holding them.
My point still stands. Using weapons of mass destruction's insanity, and we all know and agree to that, yet you're backing it up. How many nukes need to go off before the line's been crossed? Until 50% of the world's destroyed? 1 goes off in your own country? 1 atom bomb going off is too much destruction all at once for me, and there's little you can say to change that.
I'm not saying that ending a war quickly is bad. Killing thousands of innocent people is wrong. Presuming that more deaths would ensue than due to the nukes is just that, presumption. How much time would it have taken of fighting to kill that many by-standers if the nukes weren't dropped?

Hi, my name is Cavernio and I like talking about things out of historical context. My version of history is one that has all the sharp corners covered with padded foam.

[Relambrien]

Hi, my name is Cavernio and I like talking about things out of historical context. My version of history is one that has all the sharp corners covered with padded foam.

As much as I shouldn't be laughing at this...I have to say, it really made me laugh.

[boo4u]

Hydrogen bombs aren't the ones to worry about. Neutron Bombs on the other hand *shudder*

Hey I've got something interesting for you. Have you ever heard of the bomb referred to as the cobalt bomb (salted nuclear weapon). Do some research on this type of nuke. Apparently it is capable of wiping out all life on the planet.

*Now thats a shudder*

Thankfully, there is no evidence that a cobalt bomb exists and also that it was never built or used against Japan during World War II.

[devonin]

Erm, I'm pretty sure that Atomic, and Hydrogen bombs are also pretty capable of wiping out all life on the planet.

The thing that sets the theoretical Cobalt Bomb apart from the others is that it creates a -lot- of radiation for quite a long time over a pretty large area. The proper parsing isn't "Wipe out all life" it is "Wipe out only life" because since the explosion itself is not especially large, but the radiation dispersal is, it would be incredibly useful as an attacking device because it would leave infrastructure intact (Though you're looking at a good 20 years before you could move into the area)

Thankfully, such a bomb doesn't exist, and as I recall, some tests of a nuclear device using Cobalt as a tracer failed miserably.

[Cavernio]

EDIT: Dammit, ninja'd by devonin. =\\\\

Retrospect doesn't really care about that fact, though.


Wanna make things better? Go back in history and provide a better alternative. Since the bombs were dropped, though, our justification is what we have to keep us from tearing our hearts out too much.

Until we learn to time travel, "the best way" to deal with things is just a pipe dream.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

You have no idea how silly this post sounds to me. Discussion about other, possible alternatives, hoping to find 'the best way' to deal with a past scenario, is out of the question? Why the hell are we even discussing the issue then? Beyond being something to talk about, which is enough reason in and of itself, exploring other ways of doing things can be a very useful excersise for the future, in terms of understanding things and dealing with them. We don't always have the luxury of time to explore alternatives at key times, as has been pointed out. Best to do it now than never.

Rejecting a course of action while acknowledging it's usefulness is possible to do without getting depressed about it.

****, everything a person does is justified to someone, or else no one'd not do anything! Everyone, even crazy people, have their reasons.

The situation where bombs were dropped there was no immediate threat from Japan, and so yes, there WAS the luxury of taking time to think about other courses of action. I'm no military strategist or historian, but no one's yet to say that strategic, targeted bombing of key areas would've been stupid, or landing troops and taking control that way. Or simply upping defenses and let Japan shrivel from the inside. The ONLY reason people have said that we should've dropped the nukes because they're so sure that more people would've died if we didn't, ignoring that death over time is not the same as death all at once, and ignoring who was killed as well. Oh yes, and that people didn't want war anymore, if that can be said to be a reason.

Don't talk to me about the length of the war either, not for the US. They entered far later than any other allies.

jewp: I've discussed things outside of the historical context on this topic, because it's perfectly acceptable. Other people who have used outside historical context too, like "there's not the luxury during war". Furthermore, I've addressed things in context as well. Mookage's point, that Japan was having internal conflict, supports other things I've said. Perhaps you shouldn't be taking 1 post I've made out of the context of the rest of the posts made.

[hewhoishigh]

Yep, you're gone.