NationStates Jolt Archive

Before I start, let me say that I harbor no ill-will due to the people of Japan for the events that occured in WWII, the same as I dont blame Germans today for the atrocities committed by the Nazi government. I can only hope no one will take any offense as to what I will say.

Now, I was reading this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8681159/) article a few minutes ago, and a part of it made me somewhat angry.

"For 63-year-old Masashi Muroi of Tokyo, the attacks with atomic bombs “were mass, indiscriminate killings and perhaps violated international law."

The only thing I can think of to this is...oh? and the Empire of Japan didnt conduct mass, unjustified killings and savage brutality during this war? I have heard grim stories of what happened to Chinese in Manchuria and U.S. forces that had to surrender at the Philippines, Wake Island and other places.

So now that I've gotten that out of my system, this brings me to the point of the article...is a first nuclear strike justifiable? I have no doubt in my mind that at the time the Empire of Japan should such technology have been ready to be used would have done so against the United States, but was it necessary for the United States to drop two atomic bombs on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

At this point in the war, defeat was inevitable for Japan, so why did we need to use this weapon?...revenge is the first thing that comes to mind, an eye for an eye if you know what I mean. I cannot bring myself to decide wether or not the use of both atomic bombs were justified, I mean the first one possibly, as it would have been a show of force and a deathblow to the Japanese morale, but I can hardly think the second was remotely necessary.

So I'm wondering about what opinions others might have on this subject.

So I'm wondering about what opinions others might have on this subject.
Hehe, it's only about 4 or 5 days that the last Hiroshima thread died...

Suffice to say, I am of the opinion that they could and should have tried to demonstrate the bombs first by dropping them in an unpopulated area, preferrably telling the Japanese they were about to do so so that they can see it for themselves.

Additionally, in my opinion there were other factors in the Japanese surrender than the bombs, which had not been fully understood and comprehended just yet.

I don't consider the A-Bomb to be "first strike" really...the attack on Pearl Harbor is closer to first strike, and there are even people who debate that..

According to the poll on the last thread on this topic (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=431350) (which was only 4 days ago), there seems to be a very stong yes naswert to your question.

Hehe, it's only about 4 or 5 days that the last Hiroshima thread died...

This topic is getting to be as bad as the conscription question that was so popular the last half of last year. I hope we don't see it rehashed again and again and again and again and again like that was. :headbang:

According to the poll on the last thread on this topic (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=431350) (which was only 4 days ago), there seems to be a very stong yes naswert to your question.



This topic is getting to be as bad as the conscription question that was so popular the last half of last year. I hope we don't see it rehashed again and again and again and again and again like that was. :headbang:

Alright, alright, alright...I'm sorry I didnt go digging back 4 days worth in threads to make positive that this hadnt been polled, but in my defense, that is a ton of threads to check.

No! Not the A-bomb again! :(

*sob*

Although I think the use of the A-Bomb on Hiroshoma and Nagasaki was wrong (they should have done a demo first), it has shown what these weapons do. If only humans were intelligent enough to realise that they do more harm than good...

Alright, alright, alright...I'm sorry I didnt go digging back 4 days worth in threads to make positive that this hadnt been polled, but in my defense, that is a ton of threads to check.

It looks like you've been around long enough to have seen that thread drag on and on (at least according to this (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=Qxaar).

It looks like you've been around long enough to have seen that thread drag on and on (at least according to this (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=Qxaar).

No I havent, I'm still fairly new to NS so that is part of the reason why I missed the other thread. In any case, I'm sorry for re-posting a thread that has appearantly been done to death.

Its was needed to knock the heads of the japanese leaders who for the most part were willing to sacrifice there population and also stoped a very bloody invsion of japan

At this point in the war, defeat was inevitable for Japan, so why did we need to use this weapon?...revenge is the first thing that comes to mind, an eye for an eye if you know what I mean. I cannot bring myself to decide wether or not the use of both atomic bombs were justified, I mean the first one possibly, as it would have been a show of force and a deathblow to the Japanese morale, but I can hardly think the second was remotely necessary.

it wasnt for revenge and we used the bombs because even though defeat was inevitable by attacking the japanese mainland both sides would lose hundreds of thousands if not millions of troops, the bombs saved many american lives and they also saved many japanese lives. we had also warned them that the bombs were coming and how powerful they were and they didnt believe us, we had not wanted to use the bombs on them, we just wanted to end the war with as few american casualties as possible

the japanese would never have surrendered if we hadnt used the bombs we would have had to go over there and slowly and painfully and with lots of bloodshed take all the islands and then they might have stopped, if we had done it for revenge we would have dropped one on tokyo or some city like that

i think everyone who has a little education in the matter will agree it was a necessary measure and we can stop debating it finally

it wasnt for revenge and we used the bombs because even though defeat was inevitable by attacking the japanese mainland both sides would lose hundreds of thousands if not millions of troops, the bombs saved many american lives and they also saved many japanese lives. we had also warned them that the bombs were coming and how powerful they were and they didnt believe us, we had not wanted to use the bombs on them, we just wanted to end the war with as few american casualties as possible

the japanese would never have surrendered if we hadnt used the bombs we would have had to go over there and slowly and painfully and with lots of bloodshed take all the islands and then they might have stopped, if we had done it for revenge we would have dropped one on tokyo or some city like that

i think everyone who has a little education in the matter will agree it was a necessary measure and we can stop debating it finally

So if someone doesnt agree with you then they are not well educated in this matter? What an idiotic statement.

How can you justify the second a-bomb? As I said before, I can perhaps see the need for the first as it proved we had this technology and were committed to ending the war in the Pacific swiftly, even if it meant use of this weapon. What was the second? a little proof that we had more then one? or that the use of the first was not simply a fluke?...I can hardly believe revenge did not play a part in this, speak with almost any WWII vet and you will get the distinct feeling that they hated the Japanese military and wanted to hurt them anyway possible.

Still today, the fact that Pearl Harbor was attacked even before a formal declaration of war by the Empire of Japan angers me, as does the treatment of American PoW's by Japan...they were ruthless and you cant tell me that the use of both of these a-bombs were not, at least partly kicking Japan while they were down in the name of revenge and justice. Sure, I agree that they helped end the conflict, I cannot even imagine what the morale of Japanese commanders must have been when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked, it must have been horrific.

Never.

We talked about this in history class last year.

The majority of the class said yes, the A-bomb was necessary. The projected deaths were much higher than the affects of the bomb, and the projected deaths for the bomb were much lower than the actual number of deaths. It was a horrible thing, but it had to be done.

However, the teacher then asked, if it was necessary, was it justified. Almost everyone said it wasn't...How does that work? It was entirely necessary, but it wasn't justified at all. We should have done it, but it wasn't the right thing to do...


In any case, that would be another example of why I don't have any faith in public schooling or the public in general.






Personally:
Yeah, it was a horrible thing to do, but any alternative was worse. And if you EVER think that we did a bad thing with the bombs, take two seconds and think about what they would have done to us if they had gotten the bomb first...It wouldn't have been two cities...

Personally:
Yeah, it was a horrible thing to do, but any alternative was worse. And if you EVER think that we did a bad thing with the bombs, take two seconds and think about what they would have done to us if they had gotten the bomb first...It wouldn't have been two cities...

These Nuke threads are terrific for peeling back the layers of old racist antipathies I thought had died out by the mid-1960s, aren't they? I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone discussing the 'Yellow Peril', honestly.

Go ahead and prove your claim.

These Nuke threads are terrific for peeling back the layers of old racist antipathies I thought had died out by the mid-1960s, aren't they? I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone discussing the 'Yellow Peril', honestly.

Go ahead and prove your claim.

I think your jumping the gun in using the word "racist" here, the Japanese military of this time was savage and ruthless, its not personal opinion its pure fact. I too believe that if the Empire of Japan had developed and had a-bombs ready to deploy that they would have used them, of course they would have.

Exactly...It's like calling someone racist for saying Nazis were bad people. Does that make Germans bad people? No, it makes the Germans at a certain point in their history bad people.

What people also like to conveniently forget is what the Japanese did to POWs. They were almost as bad as the Nazis to the Jews. I read an autobiography by a Chaplain who was taken prisoner. He was a non-combatant, but they treated him just as bad as the others. They marched them for miles without water in the hot, humid Japanese weather. A lot of them died from dysentary because they drank from the pools by the trails. If anyone did something wrong, they were put in virtual ovens...exposed metal boxes the size of closets. They had to sit in their own feces, because the only way to get rid of it was push it out the door when the guards came to give what little water and bread they got. Half of them were too weak to do even that. The chaplain only got out because he was sick, and the medic told the guards they could get infected. The bomb was bad. Worse things were already going on.

Take Pearl Harbor...now give the Japanese nukes. What would have happened then? How 'bout kamakazes? What if they loaded every plane with a nuke instead of just explosives? Do you honestly think that a nation bent on world domination would have chosen not to use the most powerful weapon created?

I sat down and listened too my grandad about what that was like.... his theory was that as no Japanese soldier would be taken as prisoner, they thought it was more honourable to die for thier country, so the Allies would have to take over japan, and the japanese would fight every inch of the way so the A-bomb was neccesery but the second was not... To sum up, I think I'm right in saying that no-one on this thread actually fought in WWII and would not know what those times were like... but anyway ask yourself would you drop the A-bomb if there was a chance of saving the lives of you're country men

Take Pearl Harbor...now give the Japanese nukes. What would have happened then? How 'bout kamakazes? What if they loaded every plane with a nuke instead of just explosives? Do you honestly think that a nation bent on world domination would have chosen not to use the most powerful weapon created?

Desperate people do desperate things, and the Japanese Empire at this point in time, nearing the end of the war in the Pacific was the definition of desperation. Should Japan have had nuke's ready for use, I am almost 100% certain that they would have been used without a second thought as a way to negotiate more favorable terms of peace on the part of Japan.

I sat down and listened too my grandad about what that was like.... his theory was that as no Japanese soldier would be taken as prisoner, they thought it was more honourable to die for thier country, so the Allies would have to take over japan, and the japanese would fight every inch of the way so the A-bomb was neccesery but the second was not... To sum up, I think I'm right in saying that no-one on this thread actually fought in WWII and would not know what those times were like... well they were worst for us Brits what with the rationing and such... but anyway ask yourself would you drop the A-bomb if there was a chance of saving the lives of you're country men

The Japanese soldiers were regarded their Emperor as a god, and thought there was much more honor in dying in combat or killing yourself then surrendering to the enemy. Honor, I believe was and still is a cornerstone of Japanese soceity, dont quote me on this though, I do not claim to be an expert on Japanese history and society.

Times were hard on alot of people in WWII, Russians didnt exactly have it easy and I am positive the peoples in German and Japanese occupied territory did not have an easy time. I can hardly think air raids over London and having to ration can even compair to what happened in concentration camps, so I think your statement of "well they were worst for us Brits" in refering to the times of WWII is hardly true.

And I dont blame my country for dropping both A-bombs, if thats how I am coming across then I sincerely appologise as it is not how I feel.I can put myself into the shoes of a U.S. citizen after hearing of the atrocities committed by Japan and Nazi Germany, I feel I can relate, even if just a little bit to what they felt.

so I think your statement of "well they were worst for us Brits" in refering to the times of WWII is hardly true.



I guess