NationStates Jolt Archive

-snip-
My country learned that hard way, and I think it is a lesson better heeded.
I would be saddened if it turns out that other peoples cannot learn from it too.

My country learned that hard way, and I think it is a lesson better heeded.
I would be saddened if it turns out that other peoples cannot learn from it too.

Learned what? Ethics only need to exist in war as part of an agreement between the 2 combatants. If I know that my side is going to win or if their side does not agree then it does not matter, expedience is the key in such a war. I do not see the problem with an agreement not to attack civilians if put between the 2 nations(if only out of fear of war crimes) but war is war, it was not meant to be kind, it was only meant to destroy.

Learned what?
Are you serious? Where are you from?
If you do bad things, they come back to haunt you. Always.
Germany did horrible things in the war. They came back and were paid back.

It is exactly your way of thinking, the right of the strong, the irrelevance of ethics that formed the very basis of the Nazi Ideology.

Are you serious? Where are you from?
If you do bad things, they come back to haunt you. Always.
Germany did horrible things in the war. They came back and were paid back.

It is exactly your way of thinking, the right of the strong, the irrelevance of ethics that formed the very basis of the Nazi Ideology.

What came to haunt the Nazis was the fact that they lost. If you lose it is not unexpectable to be executed, to have your women raped, to have your boys killed, to have your industry dismantled and to have your people forced into slave labor. The germans got off lucky to some extent considering what could have been done.

If the Nazis had won there would not be anything to haunt them at all. I think that to commit to a war should be fought as if victory is the only thing that matters(because it is because your enemy has the capability to do horrible things to you). Ultimately war should be run in a manner of economic expedience(eliminate the loss of friendly troops and machinery while achieving the most victory against your enemy). The civilians of your enemy are by their nature allied with that enemy, they are not to be trusted and should be treated in the way that is most conducive to objectives(both short term and long). If the goal is peace, then these people are not to be enslaved or slaughtered, if the goal is terror then these people are meant to be harmed in the most horrible ways imaginable, if the goal is conquest, these people are meant to be treated in the way that would provide the most long term benefit if they are to be your subjects.

-snip-
I find that way of looking at it rather unsettling. You obviously have no idea what it is like to be at war (neither do I, but I have plenty of relatives who do), or if you do you are taken over by nationalist propaganda.
I don't see how I can convince you otherwise, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

PS: The only other person who I have met who thought similarly was 13 years old. When he grew older, he came to think differently. Maybe there is hope for you yet... :p

Look, I never said that I like war or that war is pretty. War is hell. I just do not think that some made up rules should be made to describe war. I will admit that perhaps we should agree to disagree. My morality on war is simply a bit cold and denies human worth(something I think is removed by the nature of war anyway). I am not going to support unnecessary killing but I do not support us holding our fire because our enemy is hiding behind civilians. War is hell and in war everything goes, not because it is right but because war is wrong enough that it does not really matter so long as the objective is achieved.

Besides our modern nations are the first to invent these rules of war. Vlad the impaler stopped an army with corpses. The mongols(I think :confused: ) slaughtered masses of people just to impose enough fear that cities would surrender. War is a means to an objective not a lovefest.

Besides our modern nations are the first to invent these rules of war. Vlad the impaler stopped an army with corpses. The mongols(I think :confused: ) slaughtered masses of people just to impose enough fear that cities would surrender. War is a means to an objective not a lovefest.
Our modern nation are also the first ones to think of Nuclear Power, Moonrockets, Quantum Physics etc. That makes them no less valid.
Even philosophical concepts only increase in value if no one has thought of them previously in my opinion.
The reasons the Mongols won so many battles isn't really due to their brutality though, it is mainly because of their tactics.

Our modern nation are also the first ones to think of Nuclear Power, Moonrockets, Quantum Physics etc. That makes them no less valid.
Even philosophical concepts only increase in value if no one has thought of them previously in my opinion.
The reasons the Mongols won so many battles isn't really due to their brutality though, it is mainly because of their tactics.

Eh about your previous posts to.

I feel that dropping the bombs was actually a needed thing. The US had a TINY chance, less then 5% I'd estimate against a superior, tactically, strategicially, numbers and funding power.

The bombs HAD to be dropped, and since it wasn't over Tokyo I feel that it was a pretty wise move. The bombs saved millions upon millions of lives. The thing you don't understand is the determination of a people who's honor is to die in glorious battle.

The Mongols had advantages like speed and better gear on their side. Tactic-wise it was nothing special, it was chaotic and was meant to be scary. Picking on weak enemies isn't the exactly best sign of tactics. Alexander showed that with his battles against all odds he won cause of tactics.

Our modern nation are also the first ones to think of Nuclear Power, Moonrockets, Quantum Physics etc. That makes them no less valid.
Even philosophical concepts only increase in value if no one has thought of them previously in my opinion.
The reasons the Mongols won so many battles isn't really due to their brutality though, it is mainly because of their tactics.
and psychological warfare. imagine you're in a city somewhere and you hear about all the bodies being displayed in a devistated city (remember, tales grow with the telling) and the next day you hear that this 'Hoard' is coming to your city...

The bombs HAD to be dropped, and since it wasn't over Tokyo I feel that it was a pretty wise move. The bombs saved millions upon millions of lives. The thing you don't understand is the determination of a people who's honor is to die in glorious battle.
The merits of an invasion vs dropping the bombs have been debated to death and beyond. That's what the last 60 odd pages are about.
As has the selection of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as targets.


The Mongols had advantages like speed and better gear on their side. Tactic-wise it was nothing special, it was chaotic and was meant to be scary. Picking on weak enemies isn't the exactly best sign of tactics. Alexander showed that with his battles against all odds he won cause of tactics.
I suggest you sit down and read up a bit on the Mongols. It was anything but "chaotic". Tactics played a huge role in what the Mongols did, and their organisation was more like a modern army than anything they fought against.

and psychological warfare. imagine you're in a city somewhere and you hear about all the bodies being displayed in a devistated city (remember, tales grow with the telling) and the next day you hear that this 'Hoard' is coming to your city...
Well agreed. Sometimes that played a role too. But certainly not when it came to open field battles with foes that hadn't been encountered before. I would point to the battle of them against the Teutonic Knights and Polish.

Philosophical concepts are just concepts. They do not have any value at all because they are thoughts. My idea could be based on solipsism or nihilism which are both some what modern, or they could be based on fascism which is a semi-modern philosophy(yes I know that you live in Germany). Ultimately an idea is just that, unless there is actual benefit in following these ideas from an economic concept or if their truths describe basic human nature(not the human nature of those who have grown to accept these ideas as truth) then I can see following that philosophy. I do not give philosophy along much credence because there are thousands and many of them are in disagreement.

I know that brutallity was not the only reason that they won. Brutallity does help. You did not refute the example with Vlad the impaler's forest of the impaled. I doubt you can refute the idea that terror tactics can demoralize a population if these tactics are used repeatedly.

Ah sorry, I must have been thinking of another group.

-snip-
The reason I left Vlad out of it is that I know next to nothing about him.
I do know though that Terror Bombing did not demoralise any population enough to achieve anything, be it Karlsruhe in WWI, London in WWI, Warsaw in WWII, London in WWII, Germany in WWII, Japan in WWII, Korea, Vietnam or today's Terrorists.

Vlad was a dictator who guarded a border between the christian world and the muslim world. He was known for his impaling. By impaling enough people for a forest he stopped an invading army.

The reason that terror bombing does not work is because it is not total enough. Besides terror tactics do work, otherwise the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki would not have worked. The trick to terror tactics is to be brutal and devastating. The idea is that the enemy realizes that resistance will be futile and extremely costly.

-snip-
a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_the_Impaler
It says here that he used scorched earth tactics rather than just impaling people. If he destroyed all wells in the area, then the Turks can't march there, that makes sense, doesn't it?

b) Not total enough?
http://www.medienzentrum-siegen.de/heupel/krieg/war/2ww/bombenkrieg/b600/90c.jpg
It doesn't get anymore total than that. What else was there to destroy?

c) Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not work. In the final considerations of the Japanese leadership, the bombs played a very minor role compared to the Soviet advance and the destruction of their final few ships.

Vlad fled but left impaled corpses of Muslims

[Sultan Mehmed] marched on for about five kilometers when he saw men impaled; the Sultan's army came across a field of stakes, about three kilometers long and one kilometer wide. And there were large stakes upon which he could see the impaled bodies of men, women, and children, about twenty-thousand of them... And the other Turks, seeing so many people impaled, were scared out of their wits."

These 2 comments were also in the article about Vlad the Impaler.

If that was the picture represented what happened to the majority of towns then an opposing force would of course have surrendered out of the idea that it would otherwise kill everyone.

Finally the destruction of the two japanese cities was a factor in ending the war

The American atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the major factor leading to the surrender of the Japanese government six days after the latter attack.

That was under the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima in the section describing the section about history of the city.

-Vlad-
I still believe that rather than attribute anything to Turkish soldiers being scared, it was moreso because they didn't have anything to drink that they didn't march on.

-Terror-Bombings-
It does. It's hard to believe, but it does. All of Germany's cities was 50-70% destroyed, in the major cities it was much more than that.
Did the leadership care? No, obviously not. They believed in the right of the stronger, and had no objections. Afterall, they sat in a bunker.
http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/germany/ger4548west.html

-Nukes-
That has been debated on this thread already. Unless you can come up with new transcripts of the various discussions of the Tenno and his Military, there is nothing either of us can discuss.
If you're interested, read it.

That has been debated on this thread already. Unless you can come up with new transcripts of the various discussions of the Tenno and his Military, there is nothing either of us can discuss.
If you're interested, read it.

There is nothing that either of us can discuss. Neither of us have expert knowledge which just leaves my opinion versus your opinion. The campaign against Germany was not run with the cruelty or harshness or totality(major cities should be 100% destroyed if possible and the corpses of the dead should have replaced the American standard) that I would think I good terror campaign would need. But the argument that the German high command was isolated from the danger has some viability.

We are never going to agree and the debate between historians about the necessity of hiroshima and nagasaki has gone on since we 1st bombed them. As well, the viability of terror tactics can also be argued.

The military idea of "shock and awe" has similarity to terror tactics in the use of overwhelming force in order to shock and awe an enemy into submission. The difference is that the brutallity of the tactics is a lot less and does not have quite the effect of the unbelievable destruction(but that destruction is avoided due to the philosophies behind our beliefs on modern war)

The campaign against Germany was not run with the cruelty or harshness or totality(major cities should be 100% destroyed if possible and the corpses of the dead should have replaced the American standard) that I would think I good terror campaign would need.
Let's just say I'm glad it didn't come to that.

Let's just say I'm glad it didn't come to that.

Just do not declare war on me if I am general. I am absolutely without mercy or kindness to those who oppose me and would attack my opponents brutally unless they surrendered.

This thread will not die, will it? :p


You misread me here. Of course their opinions and desires should matter when it comes to why the war is started, and even the goals of the war.
But when it comes to the actual, tactical military decisions, then I think that even a single thought about public opinion at home is wasted.
A code of ethics, primarily about saving the lives of civilians of no matter what nation, should be their secondary concern, right after achieving the objective.
It must be said that in my opinion, the bombings (be they nuclear or phosphorus) did nothing to achieve a shortening or end of the war.


They don't have to. You can still put your own concerns over those of others. BUT there should be an overriding concern for the ethics of taking any decision, especially in the military. Civilians are not "enemies".


If the laws of that country demand it, then so it shall be. Sometimes a greater "moral" (for lack of a better word) takes precedence over your own life.


I am talking about the bombing campaign in general, not about the A-Bombs in particular. In this case, I would have argued for the bombs to be dropped in an unpopulated area.
The general rule I would go for is that at all times, in any decision you make, your primary concern should be for the civilians who happen to live on the battlefield. In the case of the A-Bomb, it is very likely that more civilians would have been killed in an invasion than in the bombings, but that is the primary concern.
How many of my soldiers die should take second place, as long as I can still achieve my objective. Those men signed up for war, they have gone there to kill and be killed. The civilians have not.


I just gained a LOT respect for you, even if I disagree with you. Ok, you have a problem with targeting civilians. I can't really call you on that. I can disagree and say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were industrial centers for production of war machines and Hiroshima was the location of a major military headquarters.

But it's clear you and I are not going to agree on this because of what each of us views as the primary covenant.

My covenant is with the state I declare my fealty to (within the bounds of moral reason which I do not see the atomic PARTIAL annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as taking precedence over).

Where you and I part ways is in the issue of the civilians.

I don't advocate the wholesale extermination of civilians. But I am willing to sacrifice SOME OF the innocent of my enemy's state to lessen my own casualties. Yet in spite of that, you still have serious moral issues with the extermination of so many civilians. Whether it's because of the suffering of the aftereffects of a nuclear weapon or a violation of your own moral ethics is now immaterial to me. I really don't want to get into the specifics of the price the innocent have to pay here and now, but some day, if you and I debate enough, I will disclose my feelings there.

Anyway, I really felt I had a pretty good idea of why you opposed the bombings of those two cities.

After reading ALL your posts again after reading this one, I confess I was wrong about why you took your position.

You will see me say this a lot (and I have said it a lot in other threads).

You and I will just have to agree to disagree.

I disagree with you because I believe the advisors that Truman had at his disposal who warned him that an invasion would be far more costly than any devastation that the A-bomb may have wrought were correct. I BELIEVE his advisors were accurate even though none of us will know for sure if they truly were on the money. I believe the supposition that not only would over 1 million of my soldiers would be lost (my primary concern), but that over 3 million (enemy) civilians would also be lost.

I won't ask you how you feel about the claims of Truman’s advisors.

I'm not going to butt heads with you on what YOU believe.

I've watched your posts. I disagree wholeheartedly with MOST of them. But you never seem to let your passions get the best of you. Lots of people that argue with you do (I did too, to a point).

But you don't.

I disagree with you. You failed to convince me, I failed to convince you.

I am done arguing with you, Sir.

I am NOT going to agree with you. I respect you. But you made a statement I will NEVER ... EVER be able to come anywhere close to being able to understand.

I realized I didn't understand your point of view.

I analyzed it as best I could and I feel that I MIGHT have come close to seeing why you perceive things the way that you do.

And I may be way off base. But what I perceive may be a demonstration of brutish inepitude. Yet here it is. The statement YOU made beckons me to a position that does not allow me ANY room for compromise based on my own sense of values.

You said : "How many of my soldiers die should take second place, as long as I can still achieve my objective."

THAT is an issue of dissent that I feel you and I won't be able to compromise on under ANY circumstances.

I vehemently disagree with you here.

Period.

But I will respect you.

I like the way you debate. You keep a cool head. That, above everything else forced me to really take a look at your point of view and read your posts two and three times again. You didn't lose your cool. I did NOT mistake that for a lack of passion.

A lot of people here (myself included) can learn a lesson here from your even-keeled approach to debate.

This is my opinion...

No offense intended, but I think I learned more from this exchange than you did. I truly do.

I hope to debate more issues with you going forward.

I can't honestly say whether or not the USA should have done it because I wasn't there and I wasn't in that situation at that time. I don't know what was going through the American's minds, the only way for me to find out would be to ask my grandparents and see how they felt about it and other people who were around then.

I hope to debate more issues with you going forward.
Thank you very much.
I'm glad everything stayed civil, and I too hope that we can meet again...
:)

This is a good debate, that's not brought up too much anymore, and I'd like to hear your opinions.

For a bit of review:

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were two Japanese cities that were bombed by U.S. nuclear weapons. It was near the end of World War II, and even though the U.S. severely outpowered Japanese forces, the Japanese government and troops would have pursued a long, drawn-out war that they were certain to lose than surrender. Their government was designed so that they'd need unanimous support in order to agree to a cease-fire, making a peace agreement practically impossible.

They also justified the attack, by saying that it would save lives. Originally, it was estimated that an invasion of Japan would cost 20,000 to 110,000 American lives, although years later they changed that figure to 500,000. As a result of the bombings and the nuclear aftermath, a little under 250,000 Japanese people were killed. So, in effect, a quarter of a million Japanese people, including civilians, were killed so that 20,000 to 500,000 American soldiers would be spared.

Using the bombs were also extremely risky, because they were only the second and third nuclear weapons to ever be detonated in history, during a time when many scientists had speculated that nuclear weapons may ignite the Earth's atmosphere and kill all life on the planet.

A substantial amount of top military officials also either weren't consulted or afterwards believed there was no justification for the bombings.

The top officials who opposed the bombings were:
General Douglas MacArthur (highest-ranking official for Pacific military operations)
Fleet Admiral William Leahy (White House Chief of Staff)
General Carl Spaatz (commander of the Air Forces in the Pacific)
Brigadier General Carter Clarke
Major General Curtis LeMay
Admiral Ernest King (U.S. Chief of Naval Operations)
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz (Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet)

So, it wasn't merely hippies and communists that opposed the bombings. The Japanese also weren't notified of the bombings and it's possible that a warning, either in the form of a message or nuking a small, off-shore facility would have been enough to frighten the Japanese into surrendering.

It's also important to remember that this was a time when there was great prejudice against the Japanese in the U.S., because of Pearl Harbor. The Japanese not only faced the same kind of bigotry Muslims face today, but worse, as all Japanese people in America were rounded up into internment camps. Whereas, within this decade, our detainee camps contained less than a couple thousand people.

This is a good debate, that's not brought up too much anymore, and I'd like to hear your opinions.

For a bit of review:

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were two Japanese cities that were bombed by U.S. nuclear weapons. It was near the end of World War II, and even though the U.S. severely outpowered Japanese forces, the Japanese government and troops would have pursued a long, drawn-out war that they were certain to lose than surrender. Their government was designed so that they'd need unanimous support in order to agree to a cease-fire, making a peace agreement practically impossible.

They also justified the attack, by saying that it would save lives. Originally, it was estimated that an invasion of Japan would cost 20,000 to 110,000 American lives, although years later they changed that figure to 500,000. As a result of the bombings and the nuclear aftermath, a little under 250,000 Japanese people were killed. So, in effect, a quarter of a million Japanese people, including civilians, were killed so that 20,000 to 500,000 American soldiers would be spared.

Using the bombs were also extremely risky, because they were only the second and third nuclearw eapons to ever be detonated in history, during a time when many scientists had speculated that nuclear weapons may ignite the Earth's atmosphere and kill all life on the planet.

A substantial amount of top military officials also either weren't consulted or afterwards believed there was no justification for the bombings.

The top officials who opposed the bombings were:
General Douglas MacArthur (highest-ranking official for Pacific military operations)
Fleet Admiral William Leahy (White House Chief of Staff)
General Carl Spaatz (commander of the Air Forces in the Pacific)
Brigadier General Carter Clarke
Major General Curtis LeMay
Admiral Ernest King (U.S. Chief of Naval Operations)
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz (Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet)

So, it wasn't merely hippies and communists that opposed the bombings. The Japanese also weren't notified of the bombings and it's possible that a warning, either in the form of a message or nuking a small, off-shore facility would have been enough to frighten the Japanese into surrendering.

It's also important to remember that this was a time when there was great prejudice against the Japanese in the U.S., because of Pearl Harbor. The Japanese not only faced the same kind of bigotry Muslims face today, but worse, as all Japanese people in America were rounded up into internment camps. Whereas, within this decade, our detainee camps contained less than a couple thousand people.



I thought the estimates were several million dead and the entire Marine Corps wiped out? Either way, if you look at it from a utilitarian's point of view, it would be soooo justified. From my point of view...it's the lesser of two evil outcomes.

You forgot to put ':Topic #3,896,987' at the end of the title.

Oh goody another pointless topic about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What do we have to do one of these topics at least once a week? :rolleyes:

IMHO, the use of nuclear/biological/chemical weapons is never justified.

I thought the estimates were several million dead and the entire Marine Corps wiped out? Either way, if you look at it from a utilitarian's point of view, it would be soooo justified. From my point of view...it's the lesser of two evil outcomes.
Not at all.

250,000 Japanese civilians > 20,000 to 500,000 American soldiers

Come on, don't be silly. We only lost 280,000 in the war with Vietnam, that lasted for nearly 20 years.

So, claiming 500,000 or even worse, SEVERAL MILLION would've been killed is idiotic.

Those biased figures you're mentioning didn't come out until years after the war was over. The original, unbiased statistic was far more realistic, 20 to 110 thousand.

AGH!!!!!!!! not again!!

AGH!!!!!!!! not again!!


hehehehe yeah.. again :D

Also, according to philosophical ethics, there is the "principle of double effect," which states that in some circumstances you can allow evil things to happen for a positive purposes, but you can never achieve a positive goal with an evil act.

In other words, Bin Laden believes that his people are being oppressed by America. So, what he percieves as a positive goal is getting America out of the Middle East, so he can instate a Muslim theocracy. But he accomplishes this goal through what is CLEARLY evil, killing civilians.

So, justifying Hiroshima and Nagasaki justifies 9\11. You can allow civilian casualties to happen, but you can't kill civilians to get to the enemy, like terrorists do.

Goddamnit this topic AGAIN?

Look, those who ***** now about this didn't live in the time when there was a REAL threat to them as a drafted GI in the American infanty or Marine. They are just nay sayers who really have not studied the situation and the extent of their historical knowledge is what they grab from cable shows talking about the subject.

Flat out here is another reason. It is NOT against our Constitutional law to enact such measures in a total war scenario. It was an illegal act to have Japanese Americans in concentration camps because that WAS violating the Constitution meant to secure rights to all American citizens. The moral situation then is different than it is now but it did not violate our own moral guidelines. Most of you haven't even BEGUN to understand what the situation was back then. Your sitting here comfortable on you computers debating moral semantics that in reality is subjected to relativity. Had you been living back then as a drafted American individual who was sent to the infantry, you'd praise the bomb because it is YOUR life being sacrificed for the sake of protecting an aggressor nation.

It was war people. It was not a ****ing game.

here is the link to the other Hiroshima/Nagasaki Debate. why rehash it?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=431350

Also, according to philosophical ethics, there is the "principle of double effect," which states that in some circumstances you can allow evil things to happen for a positive purposes, but you can never achieve a positive goal with an evil act.

In other words, Bin Laden believes that his people are being oppressed by America. So, what he percieves as a positive goal is getting America out of the Middle East, so he can instate a Muslim theocracy. But he accomplishes this goal through what is CLEARLY evil, killing civilians.

So, justifying Hiroshima and Nagasaki justifies 9\11. You can allow civilian casualties to happen, but you can't kill civilians to get to the enemy, like terrorists do.


Wow. Moronic.

How many threads do you need for this topic? It's history!

How many threads do you need for this topic? It's history!

Apparently, one a week. And act as if there is a new angle on it that we hadnt considered.

They also justified the attack, by saying that it would save lives. Originally, it was estimated that an invasion of Japan would cost 20,000 to 110,000 American lives, although years later they changed that figure to 500,000. As a result of the bombings and the nuclear aftermath, a little under 250,000 Japanese people were killed. So, in effect, a quarter of a million Japanese people, including civilians, were killed so that 20,000 to 500,000 American soldiers would be spared.

250,000 Japanese civilians > 20,000 to 500,000 American soldiers

You're missing a MAJOR point here, though.

In essence, this argument assumes that SOMEHOW, American losses are the ONLY ones that matter in a ground invasion of Japan - which is what it would have taken to end the war in the Pacific.

You think Japanese civilians aren't going to die when you're fighting street to street in Japanese cities? What about the number of JAPANESE military casualties that would have died in such an invasion?

Without even suggesting if the action was tactically or morally justified, you have to accept that a great many American soldiers, AS WELL AS Japanese soldiers AND civilians would have died if the US hadn't dropped the atomic bombs.

When everything is said and done, the numbers might actually have been much closer to equal between the two options.

It was justified. The Japanese military was basicly evil by our standards. They forced PWO's into slave labor, where the prisoners were regularly starved and beaten. The Japanese government brainwashed its people into thinking that the Americans were barbarians who would "rape the women, bbq and eat the children". That was a quote form the History channel. They were trying to conquer the Pacific and felt that everyone else was inferior and not worthy of life. The Pacific theatre was different from Vietnam. While Europe was clearly being won, the Pacific was basicly a stalemate between Japan and everyone else there. If it wasn't for the bomb, WWII's cassualty numbers could have rivaled that of the American Civil war for the US. The Japanese had a tradition of not losing any wars and wanted to keep it that way. They fought to the death. When de-conquering places, the US had to literally kill all the Japanese. Plus, the Japanese were developing biological weaponry and jet-aircraft, so there you go. It was worth nuking Japan into submission.

Not at all.

250,000 Japanese civilians > 20,000 to 500,000 American soldiers

What about the Japanese soldiers a civilians that would have died during the invasion? We would have sent in heavy bombers to soften them up some more. That means Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Kyoto, Nagano, etc etc would still be getting hammered.

Also, in previous years, both Russia and China tried invading Japan. These are two countries with enormous populations and leaders with no problem throwing them into a meat grinder. They had to stop and pull out realizing the Japanese would make it too costly.

While American troops island hopped in the Pacific on the way to Japan, soldiers fought to the death and civilians that didn't fight comitted ritual suicide.

Imagine our battle ships off their coast blasting away, our heavy bombers leveling anything over 2 stories and our troops fighting house to house.


Come on, don't be silly. We only lost 280,000 in the war with Vietnam, that lasted for nearly 20 years.

Japan was far more our equal than the NA or VC. We also had advancements in helicopters and other aircraft that lessened the burden on ground forces. We also never tried a full scale invasion of the North.

Huge differences.

So, claiming 500,000 or even worse, SEVERAL MILLION would've been killed is idiotic.

Unless you know the facts. Then, its quite realistic.

Those biased figures you're mentioning didn't come out until years after the war was over. The original, unbiased statistic was far more realistic, 20 to 110 thousand.

And you have what to prove that? You're own bias against the fact that we used a powerful weapon during a war?


And by the way, we did warn Japan the bomb was coming.

Maybe the US was a bit extreme but the Japanese were pretty stupid for bombing Pearl Habor in the first place and getting the US into a war the Axis was winning. Had the US invaded Japan, there would have also been very high casualties from that. Either way, alot of people were going to die.

More people died during the Battle of Okinawa than all those killed during the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Casualties totaled more than 38,000 Americans wounded and 12,000 killed or missing, more than 107,000 Japanese and Okinawan conscripts killed, and perhaps 100,000 Okinawan civilians who perished in the battle, via bombings and mass suicides.


--One battle, over a tiny speck of island-- Imagine what would of happened if it was the larger home islands that needed invaided...

Seriously get your heads out of your asses, the bombings were actually the most humane way to end the war. a shitty pick out of a lot of even shitter picks.

Stop using todays perverted moralities for past events you time travelers.

Jesus, most people don't even know what the fuck they're talking about. It's just rumors and speculation.

It was a mistake, but nobody could have known that at the time.

1. The Japanese were planning to surrender, but they hadn't even told their own civilians yet, let alone the Americans (as far as we knew, they would fight to the death).

2. Nobody knew that the atomic bomb would cause radiation death. Even the scientists though it would a normal explosion, just bigger.

It was a bad decision in hindsight, but at the time nobody could have known.

And it might have stopped the cold war from erupting into a full conflict, because everybody was afraid that nuclear war would occur.

-edit- basically it was a choice between the lesser of 2 evils.

President Shrub, I think you need to go back in time, live in China, have your family barbecqued in front of your own eyes, they be beaten so badly that your eyes fall out of your head.

They did this to American soldiers. They did this to 14 year-old girls. They did this to old men. They were more brutal then the Nazis. Just because you'v never never been raped, tortured, and starved, you try to justify not brining the war criminals to justice. If we didn't nuke Japan, we might as well have not tried the Nazi bigwigs for war crimes, and we might as well shoudln't havce helped out the French or the Chinese, either.

Tell you what, if I had been rotting in a Jap POW camp for 3 years, and I heard that they all got blown into eternity by a gigantic bomb, I would be the happiest person on Earth.

This is what they did to the innocent civillians on Wake island.

:( :( :( :( :sniper:

Also, according to philosophical ethics, there is the "principle of double effect," which states that in some circumstances you can allow evil things to happen for a positive purposes, but you can never achieve a positive goal with an evil act.

In other words, Bin Laden believes that his people are being oppressed by America. So, what he percieves as a positive goal is getting America out of the Middle East, so he can instate a Muslim theocracy. But he accomplishes this goal through what is CLEARLY evil, killing civilians.

So, justifying Hiroshima and Nagasaki justifies 9\11. You can allow civilian casualties to happen, but you can't kill civilians to get to the enemy, like terrorists do.


The 1945 Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are in no way justifing the attacks on the WTC in New York City. The Bombings in japan where measures used to destroy japanese morale and to show the japanese that fighting in the Pacific theatre was a pointless act when the Americans had one bomb capable of taking out entire cities. The dropping of the bombs in japan brought about an ultimate peace in the form of the Japanese formally surrendering abord the USS Missouri.

The Terrorist attacks in the United States were an act of extremist Agression against the cultural well being of the american way of life. They (The Terrorists) want to destroy us by destroying the way we live our day to day lives. It is quite the opposite of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

One thing I've never heard is why they had to choose two cities for the use of the atomic bombs? Could they not have chosen more legitimate targets, like military bases? (However in some ways I know part of the answer all ready, as I have read that it was predicted that with those two targets the devastation would be greater, and so they were chosen for that reason, quite sickeningly. Note also that overall I might just about agree with the bombings, though I still find them sickening and extremely distasteful and shameful.)

One thing I've never heard is why they had to choose two cities for the use of the atomic bombs? Could they not have chosen more legitimate targets, like military bases? (However in some ways I know part of the answer all ready, as I have read that it was predicted that with those two targets the devastation would be greater, and so they were chosen for that reason, quite sickeningly. Note also that overall I might just about agree with the bombings, though I still find them sickening and extremely distasteful and shameful.)


The United States at the time wanted the candidate locations for the bombs to be large cities that would best show evidence of the devistation these bombs can cause to the eye of someone not very bomb savvy. (ie: Japanese Civilians.)

Why does everyone forget that Tokyo Fire Bombings and bombings in Dresdin killed thousands more than both of the Atom bombs combined? The fact that everyone is still awestruck by the use of atomic bombs really proves the point that US wanted to show off its technology to Russia in order to deter them. Unfortunately we got a nuclear arms race.

One thing I've never heard is why they had to choose two cities for the use of the atomic bombs? Could they not have chosen more legitimate targets, like military bases?

They were military industrial cities making war machines for Japanese Army. They were legit targets to hit.

Consider this:
1. The Soviets were thinking of invading Japan and making it part of the USSR.

2. One big blast feels more terifying than a million small blasts.

3. Hindsight is 20/20.

4. The Japanese were developing biological weapons and jet warplanes.

5. 200,000<what it most likely would have cost to finally defeat the Japanese any other way.

6. We needed the war to end as soon as possible.

7. I like pie.

Definitely not. To kill or injure civilians to punish their government is always wrong.

It's tantamount to murder.

Definitely not. To kill or injure civilians to punish their government is always wrong.

It's tantamount to murder.

So would you have supported an invasion of Japan that would've resulted in MORE civilian casualties? BTW: Did you know that the firebombings killed more civilians than BOTH atomic bombs combined?

One thing I've never heard is why they had to choose two cities for the use of the atomic bombs? Could they not have chosen more legitimate targets, like military bases? (However in some ways I know part of the answer all ready, as I have read that it was predicted that with those two targets the devastation would be greater, and so they were chosen for that reason, quite sickeningly. Note also that overall I might just about agree with the bombings, though I still find them sickening and extremely distasteful and shameful.)

As has been exponded here and in other threads on this topic, the two cities were legitimate military targets. Unless you can somehow argue that, in Hiroshima, the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters (commanding the defense of all of southern Japan), various military communications centers, storage points, and troop assembly areas are not military targets.

Nagsaki was of course not the initial target of Fat Man. That was the arsenal at Kokura. However, Nagasaki held a number of military/industrial targets. It's also notable that Nagasaki was bombed convntionally on August 1st.

The United States at the time wanted the candidate locations for the bombs to be large cities that would best show evidence of the devistation these bombs can cause to the eye of someone not very bomb savvy. (ie: Japanese Civilians.)

Sorry, but no. All available evidence points to the choice of those two cities on a military value basis. They were less militarily important than what had been bombed before, but just happened to be next on the list.

Consider this:
1. The Soviets were thinking of invading Japan and making it part of the USSR.

2. One big blast feels more terifying than a million small blasts.

3. Hindsight is 20/20.

4. The Japanese were developing biological weapons and jet warplanes.

5. 200,000<what it most likely would have cost to finally defeat the Japanese any other way.

6. We needed the war to end as soon as possible.

7. I like pie.

1) Yes, and possibly. If the USSR had managed a foothold beyond the Northernn Territories, the likely result would have resembled the European split.

2) Hmmmm. maybe?

3) Yes, and?

4) No and no. Biologicals had already been deployed. And it was the Germans who were developing jets. (But Japan did have an advanced nuclear program.)

5) Low end range.

6) Hmmm... maybe?

7) Whatever.

Hiroshima was probably a necessary evil, but they should of held off the other one for longer.
If those figures are accurate, (80,000), then the Japanese got of light because as I remember, they killed more P.O.W.'s than that (~100,000).
Not sure if anyone has noticed, but the present Japanese, especially teenagers and 20 somethings have no idea what utter bastards their countymen were in WWII. They need to leave Japan to realise what happened in the Pacific War

Maybe the US was a bit extreme but the Japanese were pretty stupid for bombing Pearl Habor in the first place and getting the US into a war the Axis was winning. Had the US invaded Japan, there would have also been very high casualties from that. Either way, alot of people were going to die.


Pearl harbor was an attack on the Fleet of the United States, not their population. There is a big difference. Nowadays Using a Nuclear weapon in warfare or not and targeting a City or other populated area would be considdered an act of Terrorism, which it was.

The 1945 Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are in no way justifing the attacks on the WTC in New York City. The Bombings in japan where measures used to destroy japanese morale and to show the japanese that fighting in the Pacific theatre was a pointless act when the Americans had one bomb capable of taking out entire cities. The dropping of the bombs in japan brought about an ultimate peace in the form of the Japanese formally surrendering abord the USS Missouri.

Sure, 11/9 can not becompared too the 1945 bombing on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But the same mistake was made with the WTC as with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Of course, for the Terrorists it was no mistake, they didn't only want too cripple the World Tradings but also kill innocent people. But, the United States was only after Crippling the japanese Industry in '45, but blowing up a city with it is not excusable. Even if the japanese placed the industry there intentionally. What the americans did is called terrorism since they intentionally wanted too Terrorize the Japanaes by killing those people.

It comes close too another way of thinking:

"We are gonna kill all these people because if most of them are potential soldiers" Which is Genocide and a War crime.

Also we have this one:

"We are gonna kill the entire race/population since their believes are a potential threath too us." Which is National-Socialism.

The americans didn't need too blow up the industry, they just needed too show what power they had. They could have done that without so many Deaths.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were industrial cities that made war supplies. If the US wanted to just kill civilians, why not nuke Tokyo first? Plus, the Japanese were arming women and children and telling them to fight to the death. The US nuked two industrial cities hoping that if the Japanese didn't surrender, they would at least have little to no support from their own industries. Plus, bombing civilian cities was the big thing back then. Everyone did it. I don't think the Japanese did it because they might have been too busy shooting kids and torturing everyone they "spared". They were basicly the Nazis of the Pacific.

It was nessercary in the War, JApan would not have surrendered if it had not been used every man woman and child would have died for General Tojo and the Emperor. They were NOT going to give in.

By the way im studying History at Bristol Uni

They where not oging too give in een if they would have had a Nulcear explosion on their soil? Just a forest or something? Not even when the Americans where at their doorsteps?

I saw someone had mentioned 9/11... when (allegedly) Muslim fanatics take jet planes, and crash them into the WTC, it is terrorism... right?

Well, I look up a definition for terrorism, and I find:

"terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear"

The US authorised the deliberate bombing (calculated use of violence) of two cities (against civilians), in order to force the Japanese government to surrender, rather than force a landwar (in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature)... through fear of further bombing - as reinforced with the bombing of a second city (this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear).


Regarding the numbers of fatalities: "The atomic bomb that exploded over Hiroshima killed civilian women and children in addition to soldiers. Hiroshima's population has been estimated at 350,000; approximately 70,000 died immediately from the explosion and another 70,000 died from radiation within five years".

"The terrain of Nagasaki prevented the bomb from doing as much damage. Yet the decimation was still great. With a population of 270,000, approximately 70,000 people died by the end of the year".

versus... 3000-ish dead in the WTC?

Actually, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were industrial centers for the Jepanese war machine. That gives them strategic value, making this not an act of terrorism.

If it were really meant to scare civilians (who had no say in their government's policies anyway), then we would have bombed Tokyo and Kyoto, two cities Truman explicitaly ruled out.

I saw someone had mentioned 9/11... when (allegedly) Muslim fanatics take jet planes, and crash them into the WTC, it is terrorism... right?

Alleged? We know that they were muslims! Mostly from Saudi Arabia.

Well, I look up a definition for terrorism, and I find:

"terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear"

Nice definition. Unfortunately, it does not fit in the World War II. I suggest you stop using today's morality for yesterday's wars and put yourself in Truman's shoes. What would you have done?

The US authorised the deliberate bombing (calculated use of violence) of two cities (against civilians), in order to force the Japanese government to surrender, rather than force a landwar (in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature)... through fear of further bombing - as reinforced with the bombing of a second city (this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear).

Incorrect. The bombing was against Industrial Targets. That means we attacked two cities that were legitament military targets. How is hitting military targets an attack on civilians when they were assisting in building up arms for thier military or had military headquarters inside the city?

Regarding the numbers of fatalities: "The atomic bomb that exploded over Hiroshima killed civilian women and children in addition to soldiers. Hiroshima's population has been estimated at 350,000; approximately 70,000 died immediately from the explosion and another 70,000 died from radiation within five years".

For a grand total of? 140,000 casualties at Hiroshima, a legit military target. An Industrial City and not to mention home to HQ for an Entire Jap Army.

"The terrain of Nagasaki prevented the bomb from doing as much damage. Yet the decimation was still great. With a population of 270,000, approximately 70,000 people died by the end of the year".

And Nagasaki was another legit target. Another Industrial City that was being used to stage troops not to mention build arms for the Japanese Army. In no way was it a civilian target.

versus... 3000-ish dead in the WTC?

Now this was a terrorist act.

Actually, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were industrial centers for the Jepanese war machine. That gives them strategic value, making this not an act of terrorism.

If it were really meant to scare civilians (who had no say in their government's policies anyway), then we would have bombed Tokyo and Kyoto, two cities Truman explicitaly ruled out.

Ahhh but Tokyo was firebombed time and time again. More people died or went missing during this campaign than died during Hiroshima and Nagasaki Combined.

If it were really meant to scare civilians (who had no say in their government's policies anyway), then we would have bombed Tokyo and Kyoto, two cities Truman explicitaly ruled out.

Both cities were bombed. Tokyo was bombed on several occassions, starting with the Doolittle Raid of April 18, 1942 (well before Truman was president ;)).
Kyoto was bombed a few times - Nishijin and Higashiyama-ku, if I remember correctly.

And just to add, Kyoto was number one on the shortlist for the second bomb. Stimpson pushed it down on the list, supposedly due to it's cultural heritage. (source (http://www.doug-long.com/stimson5.htm))

Ya, and? Both of their industrial capacities were all but wiped out.

Unless you are both telling me we should have bombed Tokyo and Kyoto.

Ya, and? Both of their industrial capacities were all but wiped out.

Unless you are both telling me we should have bombed Tokyo and Kyoto.God I hope not... had we taken out the Government, then the Japanese people would've fought to the bitter end.

God I hope not... had we taken out the Government, then the Japanese people would've fought to the bitter end.

I have to agree with this.

For those interested in this topic in general:
I recently came accross this site: http://www.dannen.com/decision/index.html

It has a very interesting colloection of documents on the decision to drop the atomic bombs and the choice of targets. One interesting bit is that, according to a diary entry, Truman had ordered it's use against a purely military target.

Ya, and?

You said:
If it were really meant to scare civilians (who had no say in their government's policies anyway), then we would have bombed Tokyo and Kyoto, two cities Truman explicitaly ruled out.

I simply corrected your facts. Both cities were certainly bombed, and both were bombed before Truman took office. Neither was excluded from bombing by Truman. Nor was either excluded from an atomic bomb by Truman (by the . When discussing the morality of certain historical incidents, it is of the utmost importance to get the facts of the case straight to the best of our ability. To claim that Truman ruled out bombing Kyoto and Tokyo would be akin to claming that Andrew Johnson ruled out the bombardment of Ft. Sumter.

Both of their industrial capacities were all but wiped out.

Yes in the case of Tokyo. Not really so in the case of Kyoto.

Unless you are both telling me we should have bombed Tokyo and Kyoto.

:confused:

What part of both cities were bombed did you not understand. That Tokyo was bombed has been made clear repeatedly here. The bombings of Kyoto are less well known, largely due to the small nature of said bombings.

I was refering to the A-bomb.

I'm surprised no-one's said yet that the Japanese were trying to surrender before the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The fact is, the Soviets were preparing an invasion of Hokkaido in summer 1945, and the American government feared that Japan might be divided up between the US and USSR, like Germany would be (along with France and Britain, in that case).

Truman wanted to use the nuclear bomb so that Japan would surrender unconditionally to them and not the Soviets. As a bonus, it scared the Soviet Union, although this was an unwise move as it caused a 50-year-long Cold War...

I'm surprised no-one's said yet that the Japanese were trying to surrender before the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The fact is, the Soviets were preparing an invasion of Hokkaido in summer 1945, and the American government feared that Japan might be divided up between the US and USSR, like Germany would be (along with France and Britain, in that case).

Truman wanted to use the nuclear bomb so that Japan would surrender unconditionally to them and not the Soviets. As a bonus, it scared the Soviet Union, although this was an unwise move as it caused a 50-year-long Cold War...(it was mentioned before... earlier in the thread) The Japanese wanted to surrender on their own terms, while Truman wanted an unconditional surrender.

and as for the Cold war... it would've happened anyway. the only benefit to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings is that the true horrors of the atomic/nuclear weapons were brought to light and so the desire to use such weapons were reduced to almost nil.

No they should not have done that!!! The bombs have killes and injuried so many people!! There are still wounded people there in Japan because of these bombs!!! NO!!!!

MAKE PEACE NOT WAR!!!


Tell that to the widows of all of those men who died on the USS Arizona. Go watch Pearl Harbor in its entirety and you will see why the A bombs were dropped. I truly regret the suffering and pain of the innocent lives who were affected but hey Japan didnt give a damn about our suffering either. They attacked us very viciously I might add. Maybe the bomb should have been on a military location.

Japan was beaten and they knew it. They had no oil, no ships and were rapidly running out of fighters. Sure, they weren't going to surrender unconditionally, but they did want peace. Realpolitik isn't worth the lives of those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And as for the Cold War: it created a nuclear arms race. Of course, nobody wanted to use the bomb, but they were prepared to on a daily basis, and the world came close on several occasions to nuclear annihilation. Was it really worth an experiment on humans to see how terrible the atomic bomb is?

@ Sezyou: As the song goes, the film Pearl Harbour sucked. And I don't think you can use an attack on military targets (which killed about 3000, IIRC) to justify attacking civilian targets (which killed tens of thousands). Revenge is wrong.

Japan was beaten and they knew it. They had no oil, no ships and were rapidly running out of fighters. Sure, they weren't going to surrender unconditionally, but they did want peace. Realpolitik isn't worth the lives of those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. and the people would fight as long as the Emperor said fight. that was already established. the propoganda that the Japanese were feeding their people made it certain that there was going to be death... either American or Japanese. Their surrender terms were ludicrise and a joke.

And as for the Cold War: it created a nuclear arms race. Of course, nobody wanted to use the bomb, but they were prepared to on a daily basis, and the world came close on several occasions to nuclear annihilation. Was it really worth an experiment on humans to see how terrible the atomic bomb is? think about it. can you imagine one of todays MEGATON bombs being used for the first time? without the actual data from battlefield use, which city would you want vaporized?
2) without that knowledge of the devistation of the A-bomb (a firecracker compared to today's arsinal) There wouldn't be the safeguards there are today. Thus more Nations would have Nuclear capabilities and thus Terrorists would have access to Nuclear Weapons. can you imagine 9/11 and 7/7 having been accomplished with Nuclear devices instead.

so was it worth the lives of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to insure that no other Nuclear weapons are used in future conflicts? what do you think, couple hundred or a couple million?

@ Sezyou: As the song goes, the film Pearl Harbour sucked. And I don't think you can use an attack on military targets (which killed about 3000, IIRC) to justify attacking civilian targets (which killed tens of thousands). Revenge is wrong.but a sneak attack, an unprovoked attack as long as it's on a military target is ok? Remember, Pearl Harbor was a sneak attack by the Japanese Military. and you really don't know how close they were to crippling the entire Pacific fleet. couple of hundred feet is how close they came to shutting down the entire Pacific Fleeet.

Japan was beaten and they knew it. They had no oil, no ships and were rapidly running out of fighters. Sure, they weren't going to surrender unconditionally, but they did want peace. Realpolitik isn't worth the lives of those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Ahhh finally DSP, we meet! LOL! Ok, We wanted Unconditional Surrender. They wanted terms, we said unconditional, they said no and the war continued. BOOM! No more Hiroshima. Asked to surrender! No Response. BOOM! No more Nagasaki. Five DAYS LATER, they surrendered unconditionally and even then, it nearly didn't happen due to an attempted coup that took place. It occured because the EMPEROR ordered the unconditional surrender. Then in early September, the formal surrender ceremony took place in Tokyo Bay.

And as for the Cold War: it created a nuclear arms race. Of course, nobody wanted to use the bomb, but they were prepared to on a daily basis, and the world came close on several occasions to nuclear annihilation. Was it really worth an experiment on humans to see how terrible the atomic bomb is?

As much as I hate to say this, yes because it prevented the use of nukes during the cold war.

@ Sezyou: As the song goes, the film Pearl Harbour sucked. And I don't think you can use an attack on military targets (which killed about 3000, IIRC) to justify attacking civilian targets (which killed tens of thousands). Revenge is wrong.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually full scale military targets!