NationStates Jolt Archive

I've heard many opinions. I personally lean towards no but I'm intrested in seeing what other people have to think.

No more or less justified than any other wartime act of killing.

They were necessary to show the world how dangerous they are. Without them, US and USSR would have destroyed the world during the cold war.

They were necessary to show the world how dangerous they are. Without them, US and USSR would have destroyed the world during the cold war.

Or the Allies would have kept marching East and taken out the USSR after the Nazi's surrendered.

Yes. The estimate for the number of people that would have died had the U.S. been forced to invade Japan numbered well into the hundreds of thousands and in some cases into tens of millions.

Look at the battles leading up to what would have been an invasion of Japan. (Tarawa, Philippines, Iwo Jima, Okinawa) The casualties on both sides were enormous. The invasion of the mother country would have been much worse.

It depends...
Do you mean the invention and later making of them,
or those dropped over Japan?

For the first, I would have to say yes, because every invention is a step in knowledge and technology.

For the latter...I don´t know.
It did put a stop to the war, and keeps the "super powers" in check.
But it cause untold,long, suffering and pose a sever threat to the world in large.

I guess it was justified, Japan would of likely thought to the bitter end otherwise

the fact that wiping out whole cities was being done for the sake of it anyway also lends some power to dropping nukes to kill people in a more humane way

I did a report on this last year, using the estimated casualties for U.S. and Japanese forces along with civilians and people dying in Japanese occupied territories if the war had continued and japan had to be invaded several million people would have been killed than how many were killed by the bombs. So Im gonna say yes they were nessecary.

Absolutely unreservedly yes.

Or the Allies would have kept marching East and taken out the USSR after the Nazi's surrendered.

yeah using outdated infantry tactics and Sherman spamming :p

and massive bombing campaigns and maybe a nuke on Moscow!

100% justified. Not only for the lives it saved, but also as an instructive lesson of what happens to you when you act like a shower of bastards.

In terms of scaring future generations out of using them, I'm not so sure how much of an effect the two bombs on Japan were. For a while after WWII, nuclear war was considered a good alternative to war as they knew it. I think that was probably because the two world wars were so horrific and brought about all kinds of new notions of war that the world had never seen (shell shock/battle fatigue, known as PTSD to us, not to mention the insane number of wartime casualties and the inevitable deaths of hordes of civilians.)

In terms of stopping the war, the first atom bomb was absolutely justified. The second one was debatable. I've heard that, after the first bomb but before the second, the Japanese Emperor was ready to surrender; because of the military government's suppression of the message, however, few people knew about it. The second bomb may have expedited a surrender, but it's difficult to say it was necessary. That and the Americans were fire-bombing the hell out of Japan at the time anyway, so with most of the country going up in smoke, it's hard to see how the Nagasaki bomb was all that necessary. The Japanese probably would have surrendered anyway, even if it took a little longer (although at the rate the Americans were butchering the Japanese, perhaps saving all that time was beneficial and saved some lives in the end.)

I heard somewhere that there were expected to be only 50,000 casualties from an invasion of mainland Japan. Considering how dedicated the Japanese were to the cause, I don't see how that's possible unless both sides were armed only with beer bottles. The war would have dragged into 1946 without a doubt, perhaps into 1947, and let's be honest - the Americas were getting a little impatient. There was no longer a feeling of, "We're going to kick the Nazis and Japanese straight into hell!"; it was more a feeling of, "We got them beaten back! Let's finish them!" The A-Bomb was the most efficient way of doing so.

It doesn't matter whether they were justified or not. They were used.

However, I am inclined to say that they were. For a number of reasons:

1. Technology
It was going to be developed anyway. Whether or not the Americans, Germans, Russians, or Japanese developed it first, or even some other country later, the first use for such a destructive power is a weapon. Its within human nature; if you've got something that can blow the enemy to hell, you're not going to just leave it there undeveloped, especially if its as powerful (even with the low estimates of the times) as the atom. Peacefully, if we didn't develop the weapons (which are a raw, unrestricted use) we would never have developed the technologies that stem from nuclear technology. Sure, the logical manner would have been to develop the base science and apply it to a peaceful application, but please, we're talking manipulated humanity here.

2. Demonstration
Without the use, we would never have found out what happens when a nuclear explosion goes off. The US used its ability to establish its power among the nations in the world as the first (and at the time, only) nuclear power. It strengthened the power of the nation and the administration (to some degree), so of course it was used. I'm not saying that the US is the best, or that I agree that it should be used that way, but this was probably part of the justification.

3. Conflict
If we didn't end the war with Japan using these weapons, we would have been forced to invade. Alternate plans just didn't provide a way to end it. If we invaded, not only would we be forced to fight all the way to japan, we would be forced to throw thousands upon thousands of soldiers lives away. The japanese would have fought to the last man, woman, child, and elderly pensioner. By demonstrating the tremendous power of destruction, the US convinced Japan (perhaps falsely) that it could wipe it off the map easily. If we invaded, the cost of lives and property would by astronomical, many times that of two cities being destroyed. Instead of cities we'd be talking percentage of population. The cost of American lives for the bombings was zero. This alone made it the best choice to make for America. The Japanese cost was catastrophic, yes, but this shows that the cost of lives, property, and politics was much lower than if America has purged the nation of all resistance.

The continued conventional bombing campaign, combined with the strangling blockade of Japan would make it seem likely to have killed far more people than those who died when the bombs were dropped.

yeah using outdated infantry tactics and Sherman spamming :p

So outdated the Soviets use those tactics to this day.

Yes, it was a war. It is illogical to suggest that the Allies should have sacrificed something in the region of 1,000,000 men simply because Nucleur weaponry is a little too effective for some.

In terms of stopping the war, the first atom bomb was absolutely justified. The second one was debatable. I've heard that, after the first bomb but before the second, the Japanese Emperor was ready to surrender; because of the military government's suppression of the message, however, few people knew about it. The second bomb may have expedited a surrender, but it's difficult to say it was necessary. They did not need to hit the heart of a city. It was not a military target.

If the purpose was to demonstrate the horrible power of the bomb.. they should have it dropped on the outside of Tokyo, So they(the Emperor, the Generals, and the citizens of the Capital) can see the destructive power, a big mushroom like a thousand suns.. without killing so many men women and children in a city.

At least once before striking a city.

I think this is an unanswerable question. None of us was in command of the US armed forces at the time, so we don't know what the arguments for and against really were or how they were perceived by the people involved. None of us today can look at atomic bombs with ignorance of what they can do, the way the commanders back then did. And frankly, from today's point of view, looking in hindsight, I don't think it matters now whether they were justified then.

For the record, I think the dropping of the bombs were no more nor less justifiable than any of the other extremely questionable things the allies did during WW2. It was the deliberate targeting of civilian centers, just like the bombing of Dresden. In that, it was a violation of the Geneva Conventions, and thus, not justifiable. However, as a tactic of war, was it practical? Did it save everyone from even worse conditions, if the war had not been ended that way? Who can know that? That's an alternative history debate.

In hindsight, all I can say about the bombs was that building them and deploying them was a mistake, in my opinion. It raised the ante on all war from that day forward, and introduced a new danger to the world that has prevented us from again achieving the sense of peaceful stability that countries knew between wars, before the bombs (according to my grandparents, who are old enough to know first hand). The bombs are toxic, not only physically but socially and psychologically as well, and they poison the world whether they are being used or not.

But this mistake was probably unavoidable because the science that made them had been in progress for a long time and was not going to stop, war or no war. It is human nature to solve puzzles and gain knowledge, even if that knowledge comes at high cost. That's why the Greeks had that myth about Pandora's box. We sure as hell opened it that time.

They did not need to hit the heart of a city. It was not a military target.

If the purpose was to demonstrate the horrible power of the bomb.. they should have it dropped on the outside of Tokyo, So they can see the destructive power, without striking the heart of the city.

At least once before striking a city.

There's a lot that could have been done differently, sure. If I understand correctly, Nagasaki was a military target, or part of it was...perhaps it would have been more justified to hit them first, but unfortunately, some of these people deal in the notion of, "Look at how many people that thing killed. We better give up." Killing civilians may have been the only thing that got through to the military government of Japan.

Striking Nagasaki and taking out a military target was probably a better idea, though. That or they could have just fire-bombed the hell out of Japan in greater capacity.

Of course, ideally the solution would have been a call to the Emperor to say, "Surrender or we drop the bomb." The Emperor was sane and might have gone for issuing a public surrender under that threat. Of course, with the wraps that the Emperor was under, such a move was next to impossible.

at the time the Japanese were completely destroyed they had hardy remaining air force

the bomb killed killing 70,000 directly 140,000 by the end of the year

the only reason was the emperor was considered a god and admitting defeat meant admitting he was not a god

enola gay actually missed its intended target (due to poor bombing practices they flew to high and could not actually identify its target the military and industrial areas of the city ) and hit a more residential area . the overwhelming majority were civilians men women and children

atomic weaponry is absolutely horrific. Near ground zero, everything flammable burst into flame, including human flesh.

you would be the lucky ones to be killed instantly.
Some estimates state up to 200,000 may have died by 1950, due to cancer

japan had lost the war but had not surrendered there was no warning of the nuclear in attack in the treaty that was proposed to the Japanese (do you think if they knew they would have surrendered).the Japanese did warn the states of there attack on pearl harbour in accordance with the Geneva convention.

and it brought an easy end to the war and it tested new technology on living targets so ya im for it

I've heard many opinions. I personally lean towards no but I'm intrested in seeing what other people have to think.

They certainly made things easier for America.

Ethically the dropping of those bombs combined with the 100,000 other Japanese non-combatants U.S. killed before the atom bombs were dropped makes us monsters. We dropped incendiaries on the cities. The pilots had to wear gas masks because the burning flesh smelled so bad.

Not that I am concerned with ethics. However I do think we could have won the war without doing that. By that time of course, Russia may have occupied a part of Japan, and they'd end-up like West/East Germany.

atomic weaponry is absolutely horrific. Near ground zero, everything flammable burst into flame, including human flesh.


Sounds a whole hell of a lot better by being run through with a serrated bayonet...

Sounds a whole hell of a lot better by being run through with a serrated bayonet...

And having experienced the pain of both, you can make that informed decision right? Oh....

In other news.... popcorn anyone? :)

And having experienced the pain of both, you can make that informed decision right? Oh....

In other news.... popcorn anyone? :)

It's a pretty easy guess. One is instant and painless: The other is filled with pain and fear and takes a half hour if you're lucky.

In terms of stopping the war, the first atom bomb was absolutely justified. The second one was debatable.


If you drop 1 atom bomb, you have 1 atom bomb. If you drop 2 atom bombs, you have 1000 atom bombs.

Or the Allies would have kept marching East and taken out the USSR after the Nazi's surrendered.

I'm not following your logic here.

We bombed the Japanese well after the Germans surrendered, for one.

Also, the USSR didn't obtain the Atomic Bomb for a couple years there after, either, so they posed no threat in that regard.

So, care to explain how:

Not Dropping the Bomb=Taking out the USSR

I'm honestly not following this logic.

In terms of deaths caused, nothing spectacular really.

In terms of lives saved, don't come with that argument because it's only a hypothesis and I've heard good estimates ranging from 10k to 1 million lives saved.

However, in terms of atrocity, it was not justified. It didn't just kill people, it eliminated the possibility for people to live in that area for a while.

The only valid argument that remains then is that it avoided similar atrocities in the future.

If you drop 1 atom bomb, you have 1 atom bomb. If you drop 2 atom bombs, you have 1000 atom bombs.

what?

I'm not following your logic here.

We bombed the Japanese well after the Germans surrendered, for one.

Also, the USSR didn't obtain the Atomic Bomb for a couple years there after, either, so they posed no threat in that regard.

So, care to explain how:

Not Dropping the Bomb=Taking out the USSR

I'm honestly not following this logic.

Well the USSR didn't have atomic bombs in '45, so if the Allies had kept going and defeated USSR then there would have been no Cold War, and no threat of annihilation.

In terms of deaths caused, nothing spectacular really.

In terms of lives saved, don't come with that argument because it's only a hypothesis and I've heard good estimates ranging from 10k to 1 million lives saved.

However, in terms of atrocity, it was not justified. It didn't just kill people, it eliminated the possibility for people to live in that area for a while.

The only valid argument that remains then is that it avoided similar atrocities in the future.

how long untill people can live in those areas?

In terms of deaths caused, nothing spectacular really.

In terms of lives saved, don't come with that argument because it's only a hypothesis and I've heard good estimates ranging from 10k to 1 million lives saved.

However, in terms of atrocity, it was not justified. It didn't just kill people, it eliminated the possibility for people to live in that area for a while.

The only valid argument that remains then is that it avoided similar atrocities in the future.
I don't consider arguments based on fortunetelling to be valid. There is no way to say that something has been prevented in the future, and the fact is that the existence of the bombs has made their future use possible. The threat of them hangs over us permanently, creating an ever present fear ready to be exploited by unscrupulous people like George Bush.

[QUOTE=Psychotic Mongooses;13177070]And having experienced the pain of both, you can make that informed decision right? Oh....

So because he hasn't been both bayonetted and nuked AND survived both, his opinion doesn't count?

I've heard many opinions. I personally lean towards no but I'm intrested in seeing what other people have to think.

Perhaps not justified, but inevitable. They were going to be used. When you hand a toy like that to the over-grown children our politicians are, there was no chance an excuse wasn't going to be found to use it.

And they'll be used again. Probably not by one of the big nations, at first, but definitely by a smaller nation flexing their muscles, or by an individual who manages to get his hands on one (which will happen).

does cancer your children dead your home destroyed seem worse than a bayonet



and your flesh bursting into flames is not as bad ether i can't agree with you on that one


would you rather be crucified, than a knife wound

what?


If it happens once, it can be considered an isolated, non-repeatable event. As such, it would be unfortunate for Japan, but something that would not hamper their plans to hold the islands.

Once it happens twice (especially within a few days) it is now a repeatable event. Now they are wondering where the third crater is going to be. and the fourth, fifth, sixth... They will have to intercept every B-29 coming to the islands. Is Tokyo next on the vaporization parade? Concievable there could be no islands left to hold. Thats why if you drop a second bomb, you have 1000. Or 10,000.

atomic power is great but only for civil use :sniper:

does cancer your children dead your home destroyed seem worse than a bayonet



and your flesh bursting into flames is not as bad ether i can't agree with you on that one


would you rather be crucified, than a knife wound

I do sympathize with the people who were affected by radiation and didn't die right away.

On a plus side japan is doing pretty good since the war ended

Yes. The estimate for the number of people that would have died had the U.S. been forced to invade Japan numbered well into the hundreds of thousands and in some cases into tens of millions.



Maybe so, but people are still dieing because of those bombs today. At some point, the death toll will equal, if not become higher than, the number of deaths that could have been if Japan had been invaded.

(Sorry I couldn't phrase this correctly, but you get the gist of it.)

I've heard many opinions. I personally lean towards no but I'm intrested in seeing what other people have to think.

No. Slaughter of civilians with a weapon of terror is never justified. Remember we didn't drop the bomb on an enemy formation we dropped it on a CITY (two of them in fact).

Actualy only estimating how many people would had died in invasion of Japan is incomplete for measuring how many more lives would had been lost. Fighting continued also in rest of Asia(China, Indonesia etc.).

how long untill people can live in those areas?

People are living there now (Hiroshima).

I dunno if it's healthy though.

So because he hasn't been both bayonetted and nuked AND survived both, his opinion doesn't count?
In judging which hurts more?

Yes, it doesn't count.

http://limewoody.files.wordpress.com/2006/03/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg

One thing people ignore... hindsight is 20/20. The estimates they had to go on at the time were 500,000 to 1,000,000 dead just for the US. For Japan, figures would have been much higher. Additionally, the firebombing of Japanese cities would just have continued (more died in Tokyo and Dresden than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki from this tactic) until the cities were conquered.

Lastly... and you know the government had to be thinking of this... If we had chosen not to use the bomb, and the casualty estimates they had at the time had proven correct... what would have happened if the American people had later learned that we had possessed a weapon that would have ended the war immediately, but the government had chosen not to use it and instead spend hundreds of thousands of lives in a bloody invasion?

I would have to say that yes, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified. I am agreed with most of the posters that an invasion of Japan would have cost many American, British, Australian, New Zealander, Russian, Chinese and Japanese lives - these troops had already been through six years of hell and that would have been a picnic compared to the invasion of Japan. The American Army had already ordered half a million Purple Hearts to give to the wounded; a stock that is still being used today.

Also, bear in mind that 100,000 people would have automatically died had an invasion of the Japanese homeland taken place - this was the number of POWs that the Japanese had and orders had been given for their execution the minute that news of an invasion had broken. At least these families could see their brothers, sons, husbands and uncles again.

Also, I do believe that the atomic bombing of Nagasaki was justified, even after the bombing of Hiroshima - not only did it terrify the Japanese, but it made a nice end to the war: the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works in Nagasaki had produced the bombs that had been used on December 7, 1941

Furthermore; the Americans were about to start a campaign to annihilate the Japanese Railway infrastructure. After the war, they found out that they only needed to take our six railway junctions and the Japanese nation would have been split in two - Northern Japan would have had a glut of food, while Southern Japan would have been starving. In 1946, the Japanese barely survived, this was with their railways intact and ease of transportation. Imagine if the rail network had been annihilated.

Also, to answer Markeliopia's question - the year after the atomic bombings, there were American troops stationed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and by 1949, there were plans to rebuild Hiroshima after the atomic bombing, and after Typhoon Ida, which struck only a month and a half after the bombs.

I've heard many opinions. I personally lean towards no but I'm intrested in seeing what other people have to think.

Hey! We have not had one of these in a long time.

Answer: Yes.

I did a report on this last year, using the estimated casualties for U.S. and Japanese forces along with civilians and people dying in Japanese occupied territories if the war had continued and japan had to be invaded several million people would have been killed than how many were killed by the bombs. So Im gonna say yes they were nessecary.

NOt to mention that Chemical weapons were possibly going to be used...

They did not need to hit the heart of a city. It was not a military target.

Actually...it was a military target. Both of them were.

Actually...it was a military target. Both of them were.

In a previous post, someone stated that Enola Gay actually missed its intended target (the industrial part of Hiroshima) and so wound up dropping it in the middle of a residential area. So yes, the target was military, but the aim was crappy and so ground zero ended up not being in a military area.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Japan was cognizant of the horror which perpetrating an aggressive war against an innocent people entailed, yet they nonetheless persisted in their reckless bellicosity. If anything, we should have continued bombing Japan even after it had surrendered as just retribution for the atrocities it devilishly committed.

I think the Americans should have made it more clear to the Japanese of the power of the bombs before dropping them. Also, they were dropped on cities, though that was just a continuation of other abuses committed on civilian targets, it in no way justifies it.

However, their continued presence has certainly provided a large deterrent to any large-scale wars in the last half century.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Japan was cognizant of the horror which perpetrating an aggressive war against an innocent people entailed, yet they nonetheless persisted in their reckless bellicosity. If anything, we should have continued bombing Japan even after it had surrendered as just retribution for the atrocities it devilishly committed.

I love this guy, he amuses me

does cancer your children dead your home destroyed seem worse than a bayonet



and your flesh bursting into flames is not as bad ether i can't agree with you on that one


would you rather be crucified, than a knife wound
I'm sorry, but you obviously don't know much about the effects of nuclear weapons. So let me lay them out for you.

1. Pressure Wave
The compression of the air from the tremendous amount of energy released. Ranges from 50psi at ground zero to about 1psi around 3-5 miles out. Causes tremendous amounts of damage to structures, but humans can survive naturally about 3-4 psi without incapacitating or damaging injury. Radiates through every medium; causes the overpressure wave (air or water) and seismic pulse (earth and solid).

2. Thermal Radiation
This, I believe, is what you refer to. The thermal pulse is the physical manifestation of the tremendous amount of heat released, in the form of radiated heat. At 4 or less miles out, it can give you 3rd degree burns, especially if you have dark clothing. At 5 miles out, 2nd degree burns; and 6, 1st degree. However, due to the actual presence of (gasp) water in your body, which if you don't know needs a lot of energy to heat relative to other materials, especially from radiation; you would die before your skin actually burst into flames from the sheer thermal effects alone (it, after all, disrupts bodily function). It does, however, have the effects to light already dry materials up into a firestorm, but that does not mean you can extrapolate to a material 70% water or more.

3. Ionizing Radiation
This are your 'cancer rays'. They take the form mostly of ultraviolet and other high frequency radiation. It propagates a couple miles but loses range, due to the fact that it is line of sight. Unfortunately for your notions, Radiation does not necessarily give you cancer if you are exposed to it. One, we only see a positive correlation between radiation and cancer rates, so yes, we can assume that radiation is carcinogenic, but absorption rates, individual tolerances, health, and how much is absorbed make it not a definite matter. In fact, the only direct effect we can quantify at the moment of absorption is radiation sickness progression, which gives ranges of absorption. Unfortunately, your body will be killed by the wave (directly or indirectly) or the thermal radiation if you are exposed to the radiation anyway, so if you are underground absorption is minimal.

4. EMP
The Electromagnetic Pulse is a disruption of the electromagnetic field that causes electrostatic discharge in electrical devices. In other words, it is a far ranging effect that can take out sensitive electronics we are so dependent on. Once again it is not definite but there is a good possibility that the EMP will kill any sophisticated device. A device detonated about a mile above Kansas would take out most of the U.S. Its in almost any Nuclear Weapons website (I suggest www.atomicarchive.com).

5. Fallout
This is the after effect one. Its the radioactive remains of the fission reactions. This is the stuff that causes long term radiation effects. Depending on dispersal pattern, which is dependent on prevailing winds, the fallout could subside to a tolerable amount or accumulate. The half lives dictate that the danger is similar to an inverse variation function; tremendous amounts at first, rapidly subsiding, and gradually slowing until it becomes nearly zero, but never actually gone; keep in mind that once at a certain level it is negligible on humans.

There are a couple other minor ones, ask if you don't know or if I forgot one you needed info on.

I seriously think two atomic bombs on a civilian population were punishment enough :headbang:

Well the USSR didn't have atomic bombs in '45, so if the Allies had kept going and defeated USSR then there would have been no Cold War, and no threat of annihilation.

The allied front was damn near broken by several years of war. It could fight, but there is no way in hell it would break through to Russia and do any serious damage to the Russian, who were now at full strength. Granted, the Ruskies had taken a beating by the Germans, but they were hardly in a dilapitated state.

As well, we still had Japan to deal with after the Germans surrendered, and quite frankly the USSR was on the back-burner in the American minds, as we still had the enemy that had actually attacked us to take care of. This meant most of the war resources went to the Pacific after the German defeat.

They did not need to hit the heart of a city. It was not a military target.
Yes it bloody well was. How many times does it need to be pointed out that Hiroshima was home to a very, very large military industrial complex AND the HQ of part of the Imperial Army?

If the purpose was to demonstrate the horrible power of the bomb.. they should have it dropped on the outside of Tokyo, So they(the Emperor, the Generals, and the citizens of the Capital) can see the destructive power, a big mushroom like a thousand suns.. without killing so many men women and children in a city.
Considering that outside of Tokyo is either straight up or down due to the mountains or ocean, I doubt that would work out too well. Besides, how do you get the Emperor and the Imperial High Command to look at it? Send engraved invites and hope?

the only reason was the emperor was considered a god and admitting defeat meant admitting he was not a god
The whole god thing is very misleading. The Emperor was thought to be a kami, which is translated into god in English, but is far closer to Native American spirits than gods in the Western sense.

Besides, it wasn't admiting that he wasn't a kami that was keeping the Japanese from surendering, it was the fact that unconditional surender would strip the Imperial Throne of power and could lead to an uprising that would lead to the overthrow of the Throne.

enola gay actually missed its intended target (due to poor bombing practices they flew to high and could not actually identify its target the military and industrial areas of the city ) and hit a more residential area . the overwhelming majority were civilians men women and children
Um... It missed, it missed by about 1km. It was aiming for a T shaped bridge in the middle of the city and instead detonated over a hospital on the bank of the river that the bridge was on.

People are living there now (Hiroshima).

I dunno if it's healthy though.
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not only fully rebuilt, they are quite a bit larger than they were before the war. The background radiation isn't that much higher than normal, so it's perfectly safe to live there.

One thing people ignore... hindsight is 20/20. The estimates they had to go on at the time were 500,000 to 1,000,000 dead just for the US. For Japan, figures would have been much higher. Additionally, the firebombing of Japanese cities would just have continued (more died in Tokyo and Dresden than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki from this tactic) until the cities were conquered.

You don't need hind sight to know that droping bombs, fire, nucular, or otherwise on a CITY is the act of a terrorist and a coward. The only difference between those pilots and the suicide bombers we see these days is that the pilots didn't have the decency to off themselves as well as untold numbers of civilians.

You don't need hind sight to know that droping bombs, fire, nucular, or otherwise on a CITY is the act of a terrorist and a coward. The only difference between those pilots and the suicide bombers we see these days is that the pilots didn't have the decency to off themselves as well as untold numbers of civilians.

Um...wow. Someone has no grasp of 1930 and 40s Japan.

You don't need hind sight to know that droping bombs, fire, nucular, or otherwise on a CITY is the act of a terrorist and a coward. The only difference between those pilots and the suicide bombers we see these days is that the pilots didn't have the decency to off themselves as well as untold numbers of civilians.

Here's what I think you don't get. Japan is several ISLANDS. They don't have the room to build an inductrial city miles away from a suburban residential area. They build what they need to build whereever they can fit it. Blow up a factory and a hospital gets hit. Shoot up a factory and stray rounds hit schools and houses. Japan isn't all that big.

This is World War II. To beat an enemy, you have to take away their gun and tank factories. In Japan, you couldn't hit a war factory without hitting a school. Again, Japan is only a bunch of islands. Not that much room to build factories away from schools and hospitals.

I think you might just be anti-American or just ignorant of Japan at the time. The Japanese didn't give a damn about human rights. If they did, would the Rape of Namking or whatever it was called have happened? The Japanese were also developing wmds, except the Japanese were more interested in cheaper viruses and bacteria than expensive atoms.

The allies had two options. Nuke Japan to kingdom come or a costly invasion, with the Soviets controlling half, if not all, of postwar Japan. It would be like Germany, except a lot more Japanese.

Um...wow. Someone has no grasp of 1930 and 40s or WWII.
*Not so much fixed but improved.

It seems to me that they had to drop the atom bombs so that they could stop their own firebombing of Tokyo. The firebombing was killing more civilians than the combined deaths from the 2 atom bombs, and they couldn't stop the firebombing if they had to invade it later... Classic catch 22.

Plus, of course, they had to hurry up and give Japan a reason to surrender to the US instead of the Soviets who were coming on fast. Additionally, they had to show the Soviets why they couldn't continue further into the southern Asia countries to capture Japanese held territories or, into Europe further, regardless if the American Army was there to stop them or not, it would only take one bomber to put an end to further aggression so the Soviets would stop and hold what they had but not continue for more ground.

I don't think they had any choice to drop the bombs once they had them. And they had to make them because there were rumors that others were trying to make them… It as all seemingly inevitable.

If the purpose was to demonstrate the horrible power of the bomb.. they should have it dropped on the outside of Tokyo, So they(the Emperor, the Generals, and the citizens of the Capital) can see the destructive power, a big mushroom like a thousand suns.. without killing so many men women and children in a city.

At least once before striking a city.... how do you get the Emperor and the Imperial High Command to look at it? Send engraved invites and hope?how? Sound effects.


If someone would detonate a Nuke outside Washington in the 30's... I am guessing that when the WhiteHouse staff and the Congressmen hear a Huge thunder.. I am guessing they would come out and see the thousand-suns Mushroom on the horizon..

Instead of vaporising the Cities of Denver and San Diego.

The atom bomb is the single most prevalent thing in the 20th century which promoted peace instead of actual war (excluding wars by proxy, but still...small in comparison to a USA vs USSR war on a global scale).

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is the reason why we avoided WWIII and the absence of MAD in modern times is the reason why every state is so scared of the USA and its military power. With the USA being the last superpower in the world, there is no longer checks on its actions (as we can see presently).

The atom bomb is the single most prevalent thing in the 20th century which promoted peace instead of actual war (excluding wars by proxy, but still...small in comparison to a USA vs USSR war on a global scale).

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is the reason why we avoided WWIII and the absence of MAD in modern times is the reason why every state is so scared of the USA and its military power. With the USA being the last superpower in the world, there is no longer checks on its actions (as we can see presently).

And that's what some people don't get. Without MAD, there would be less peace. If the Manhatten Project had been a fialure, someone else would have developed the bomb. Please don't fool yourself into thinking that the US, Germany, and Japan were the only ones developing WMDs. The world isn't a simple "killing bad. not killing good". Ironic or not, death is a part of life, no matter how opposite they are. People are going to die. Instead of complaining, one should find the greatest good and fight for it. Fight hard, because your greatest good will interfere with someone else's greatest good.

A few of you have mention the land invasion of Japan that would have surely had to happen if Japan was to be forced to surrender, and how insanely costly it would have been, and that is absolute truth.
Not just for the military casualties but Japanese civillians as well.
Remember that the mindset of the time was one of a Bushido-like mentality.
No defeat, no surrender, death before dishonor.
You can easily find old color footage of Japanese women and children throwing themselves off of cliffs, rather than be taken prisoner by the Americans.

Now imagine what kind of hell a full-scale landfall invasion of Japan would have been like.

What no one has mentioned is the prolonged jungle warfare that would have persisted for years on the South Pacific. Guerilla warfare would have gone on for years until every pocket resistance group had been systematically eliminated, costing many, many lives, and not just from war, but malaria as well.

Cruelly, its a matter of numbers.
Most people would justify the murder of 200,000 people to save the lives of ten times that number. It doesnt make it easier, its simple numbers.

The only way to get the Japanese to surrender was to show them that they faced annihilation if they did not immediately surrender.
Its a horrible fact, but it was the only way to do it, without killing millions more, in a war that had already claimed millions.

War is a motherfucker.

how? Sound effects.


If someone would detonate a Nuke outside Washington in the 30's... I am guessing that when the WhiteHouse staff and the Congressmen hear a Huge thunder.. I am guessing they would come out and see the thousand-suns Mushroom on the horizon..

Instead of vaporising the Cities of Denver and San Diego.
Again, you miss the small problem of Tokyo's location. You have either very large, crowded cities (Which you don't want to bomb), mountains, or the ocean. Washington DC is much smaller than Tokyo was at the time and the Imperial Palace literally sits in the middle of the capital. To get it outside of Tokyo would be far enough that you probably wouldn't see anything all that spectacular from that location.

Not to mention that said bomb would either just flatten some trees or make a giant splash, neither of which would have been all that impressive.

Furthermore, you assume that said bomb was the reason why the Japanese surrendered, it was not. It provided the face saving reason, but the bombings did not make the Showa Emperor suddenly go, "Oh my, them Americans are scary. I better surrender now".

I've heard many opinions. I personally lean towards no but I'm intrested in seeing what other people have to think.

Wow, I think the last one of these was last Xmas vacation!

Having seen this go through several rounds here at NSG, here's the condensed version of what's going to happen:

1) Many people will expose there ignorance of both the events surronding the bombings and Japanese culture.

2) People will argue over the comparative numbers of deaths of an invasion versus the bombings. Nobody will be able to reach a well informed and reasonable conclusion on that issue.

3) An argument will break out over whether the two cities were legitimate military targets. (As far as I'm concerned this is part of the ignorance allueded to above.) When the various actual military targets in both cities are listed, the question will turn to the legitimacy of attacking military targets near civilans.

4) The question of Japan's attempts to surrender will be brought into the thread and discussed.

5) The napalm bombing of major cities will largely be ignored, as will the blockaide.

6) The question of alternate targets will be discussed. Someone will point out, incorrectly, that the US avoided hitting Kyoto for cultural reasons.

(NEVRUN, what else have I forgotten?)
I think that was probably because the two world wars were so horrific and brought about all kinds of new notions of war that the world had never seen (shell shock/battle fatigue, known as PTSD to us, not to mention the insane number of wartime casualties and the inevitable deaths of hordes of civilians.)

Combat Stress Reaction, or CSR (being the latest term, and note it's slightly different from PTSD), was known at least as far back as the US Civil War, when it was called "soldier's heart". It was first recognised as a mental disorder by the Russians during the Russo-Japanese War.

The continued conventional bombing campaign, combined with the strangling blockade of Japan would make it seem likely to have killed far more people than those who died when the bombs were dropped.

Personally, this is where I also stand.

They did not need to hit the heart of a city. It was not a military target.

A city? Two cities, both legitimate military targets, were hit.

If the purpose was to demonstrate the horrible power of the bomb.. they should have it dropped on the outside of Tokyo, So they(the Emperor, the Generals, and the citizens of the Capital) can see the destructive power, a big mushroom like a thousand suns.. without killing so many men women and children in a city.

At least once before striking a city.

There was no military need to do so. Tokyo, and it's military facilities, was for all practical purposes already in ruins, as were most militarily important targets. Note that the March 1945 napalming of Tokyo produced a like number of deaths to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It was the deliberate targeting of civilian centers, just like the bombing of Dresden. In that, it was a violation of the Geneva Conventions, and thus, not justifiable.

This ignores the multiple militarily important targets in both cities that were bombed.

If I understand correctly, Nagasaki was a military target, or part of it was...

Actually, Hiroshima had a larger number of military targets.

Striking Nagasaki and taking out a military target was probably a better idea, though. That or they could have just fire-bombed the hell out of Japan in greater capacity.

The atomic bombs were seen at the time as just another great big version of the napalm that was used in the fire bombings.



Hey! We have not had one of these in a long time.

Indeed, indeed. (How's scholl treating you these days?)

how long untill people can live in those areas?
Maybe so, but people are still dieing because of those bombs today. At some point, the death toll will equal, if not become higher than, the number of deaths that could have been if Japan had been invaded.

(Sorry I couldn't phrase this correctly, but you get the gist of it.)
People are living there now (Hiroshima).

I dunno if it's healthy though.
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not only fully rebuilt, they are quite a bit larger than they were before the war. The background radiation isn't that much higher than normal, so it's perfectly safe to live there.

Having lived near Nagasaki city my first year here, I can personally attest that it is safe. Yes, there are a few people around who still suffer from the effects of the initial exposure - about 250,000 hibakusha remain. If you were to count all the remnaining hibakusha deaths as a result of the bombings (as opposed to old age - they're almost all in their 70s now), the number of deaths attributable to the bombings would max out at far fewer that a million. Now, while the deaths from an invasion are up for speculation, I am fairly confident that civilian deaths could have easily topped one million.

Yes, there are a few people around who still suffer from the effects of the initial exposure - about 250,000 hibakusha remain.

I recently watched a documentary on the subject, and one of the things it mentioned was that many of the people, "hibakusha", i beleive you called them are often shunned publicly simply becuase of thier conditions.

Is this really true, and if so...why?

Wow, I think the last one of these was last Xmas vacation!

Having seen this go through several rounds here at NSG, here's the condensed version of what's going to happen:

1) Many people will expose there ignorance of both the events surronding the bombings and Japanese culture.

2) People will argue over the comparative numbers of deaths of an invasion versus the bombings. Nobody will be able to reach a well informed and reasonable conclusion on that issue.

3) An argument will break out over whether the two cities were legitimate military targets. (As far as I'm concerned this is part of the ignorance allueded to above.) When the various actual military targets in both cities are listed, the question will turn to the legitimacy of attacking military targets near civilans.

4) The question of Japan's attempts to surrender will be brought into the thread and discussed.

5) The napalm bombing of major cities will largely be ignored, as will the blockaide.

6) The question of alternate targets will be discussed. Someone will point out, incorrectly, that the US avoided hitting Kyoto for cultural reasons.

(NEVRUN, what else have I forgotten?)
I think you pretty much got it, except the thread then degenerates into a pro-American side that screams the bombs were the only way, by God and an anti-American side who accuse the US of committing war crimes because of being afraid of the Soviets with you and I in the middle smacking our heads against our desks due to all of the above. ;)

I recently watched a documentary on the subject, and one of the things it mentioned was that many of the people, "hibakusha", i beleive you called them are often shunned publicly simply becuase of thier conditions.

Is this really true, and if so...why?
Sadly, yes. It HAS gotten better, but many families who are descended from hibakusha try to hide their connections. In many cases it has to do with people's fear of radiation and the bombs, but there's also a darker undertone about how the hibakusha are living embodiments of Japan's defeat and humiliation.

Sadly, yes. It HAS gotten better, but many families who are descended from hibakusha try to hide their connections. In many cases it has to do with people's fear of radiation and the bombs, but there's also a darker undertone about how the hibakusha are living embodiments of Japan's defeat and humiliation.

See, I guess that must be the primary difference in philosophies between East and West, becuase I for one, simply cant understand that kind of mentality.

How prevailant is this, and what kind of shunning are talking about?

See, I guess that must be the primary difference in philosophies between East and West, becuase I for one, simply cant understand that kind of mentality.
In Japan, function always follows form.

How prevailant is this, and what kind of shunning are talking about?
http://www.nci.org/0new/hibakusha-jt5701.htm

In Japan, function always follows form.


http://www.nci.org/0new/hibakusha-jt5701.htm

I think what boggles me so much about this, is that a nation can be so technologically advanced and as culturally advanced as any other, and yet still harbors fears towards these people that borders on the superstition.

You don't need hind sight to know that droping bombs, fire, nucular, or otherwise on a CITY is the act of a terrorist and a coward. The only difference between those pilots and the suicide bombers we see these days is that the pilots didn't have the decency to off themselves as well as untold numbers of civilians.

Sounds like someone's not worth trying to reason with...

No more or less justified than any other wartime act of killing.

Almost QFT.

I think that attacks on civilians (or indiscriminated attacks on mixed civilians and military) are unjustifiable.
Most countries in WW2 (I say most because all countries I can think of in WW2 have attacked sistematically civilian targets - yes, even France) have shown high disregard for these rules of ethical behaviour. Then again, war is generally the negation of all basical rules of ethical behaviour, like "don't do unto others what you don't want done to you" etc...

So, to sum it up:
Ethically justified: NO. Understandable in the context of WW2: YES.

Personally I prefer the idea of fire bats, but what isn't justified during wartime?

The allies had two options. Nuke Japan to kingdom come or a costly invasion, with the Soviets controlling half, if not all, of postwar Japan. It would be like Germany, except a lot more Japanese.

So, basically you're confirming that the nuclear bombings were one of the first acts of Cold War, and not the ending shots of WW2.

Hence, the bombs were used more to scare CCCP than to topple Japan.

Neh?

I think what boggles me so much about this, is that a nation can be so technologically advanced and as culturally advanced as any other, and yet still harbors fears towards these people that borders on the superstition.
Japan is like that. There's still some very ancient thought that comes through from time to time, some of it is charming, some of it is frighting. IMO, I think part of it comes from Shinto which puts a LOT of emphasis on being 'clean'. I remember a class on Japanese culture where the professor was noting that a lot of Japan's obsession with being clean (Bathing as a national pastime, removing shoes when entering the house, and so on) comes from Shinto rituals about cleaning yourself and remaining pure. The Japanese tend to get jittery when anything might not be pure or contaminated and this could be the same reaction.

Hmm. From what little I know about the Japanese culture, that makes a bit of sense. Purity seems to be highly important, even down to how formal tea is served, and how thier martial arts were formed and practiced.

Still, as an American, I see stories of a man in his 70's, who survived the event, and whos bones are so brittle, he could break a rib with a sneeze.
His body is so damaged you can see his heart beat beneath his skin, and think this guy is one brave motherfucker and deserves my respect, and maybe free freaking healthcare.

Its sad to think that this guy would be treated as a leper and makes me wonder if this is a difference between American and Japanese ways of thinking, or East/West.

Is it merely a social shunning, or does it ever become anything more than a few rude neighbors?

Still, as an American, I see stories of a man in his 70's, who survived the event, and whos bones are so brittle, he could break a rib with a sneeze.
His body is so damaged you can see his heart beat beneath his skin, and think this guy is one brave motherfucker and deserves my respect, and maybe free freaking healthcare.
Well, he IS getting free health care, the hibakusha receive a lot of care from the government to help them out. The respect thing... well, that's trickier. You see, the Japanese both pity and avoid the hibakusha. A lot of Japanese war veterans receive the same treatment.

Its sad to think that this guy would be treated as a leper and makes me wonder if this is a difference between American and Japanese ways of thinking, or East/West.
Not really, think about how some Holocaust survivors have been treated at times, or AIDS sufferers for that matter. People don't want to face the bad parts of their past and any bogyman can get people rilled up.

Is it merely a social shunning, or does it ever become anything more than a few rude neighbors?
Mostly social. I've never heard of there being a physical attack (Japan usually doesn't go for that, social shunning is the worst thing that can happen to a Japanese. The culture is very much one based upon placement within the group, being turned out of the group is harsh).

Well, he IS getting free health care, the hibakusha receive a lot of care from the government to help them out.

YAAAY!!!


The respect thing... well, that's trickier. You see, the Japanese both pity and avoid the hibakusha. A lot of Japanese war veterans receive the same treatment.
This falls under the same category as before, I dont undertsand that kind of mentality. Im no soldier, and I loathe war, but no to have respect for a veteran, regardless of wether I agree with the war, is something I cant fathom.



Not really, think about how some Holocaust survivors have been treated at times, or AIDS sufferers for that matter. People don't want to face the bad parts of their past and any bogyman can get people rilled up.

Ahh..this makes much more sense when you put it like that.


Mostly social. I've never heard of there being a physical attack (Japan usually doesn't go for that, social shunning is the worst thing that can happen to a Japanese. The culture is very much one based upon placement within the group, being turned out of the group is harsh).

In this case, it seems doing so to a victim of a freaking nuclear attack seems quite excessive to my gaijin ears, but then again, technically speaking, its still illegal in my state to sell liquor to a native American, so maybe this is making more sense.

You don't need hind sight to know that droping bombs, fire, nucular, or otherwise on a CITY is the act of a terrorist and a coward. The only difference between those pilots and the suicide bombers we see these days is that the pilots didn't have the decency to off themselves as well as untold numbers of civilians.

War's not about honor and courage, war is brutal, bloody and ugly. It's about making the other guy die before he can make you die, and any implement that can make more other guy's die, or make the other guy's die faster is fair game in war.

All you need to do is read this

An Invasion Not Found in the History Books (http://www.waszak.com/japanww2.htm)

and you'll have your answer

War's not about honor and courage, war is brutal, bloody and ugly. It's about making the other guy die before he can make you die, and any implement that can make more other guy's die, or make the other guy's die faster is fair game in war.

No, thats not true.
Thats why we dont allow certain kinds of weapons, or certain tactics in modernfare.

Poisoning the enemy's water supply for instance is big no-no.
Bullets designed to tumble in air immediately, causing massive damage are banned.

Even war has rules.

So, basically you're confirming that the nuclear bombings were one of the first acts of Cold War, and not the ending shots of WW2.

Hence, the bombs were used more to scare CCCP than to topple Japan.

Neh?

Nyet.

It was a pragmatists policy to achieve both ends by dropping the bombs: To kill two birds with one stone.

No, thats not true.
Thats why we dont allow certain kinds of weapons, or certain tactics in modernfare.

Poisoning the enemy's water supply for instance is big no-no.
Bullets designed to tumble in air immediately, causing massive damage are banned.

Even war has rules.

Begging the question, though, how thoroughly do you think these rules are adhered to by actual belligerents?

Begging the question, though, how thoroughly do you think these rules are adhered to by actual belligerents?

Well, of course, therein lies the rub.
I believe that the only "thoroughness" in warfare can be the elimination of ones enemy.
You cant completely enforce all such rules all of the time.
Soldiers arent "supposed" to kill civillians, Geneva Conventions arent "always" followed.
NATO arms treaties arent always followed.

This isnt right, however, and they should be followed whenever possible.
I believe that strict adherence to such rules is the available moral high ground one can obtain while slaughtering ones foes.

Has everyone forgotten that the A-bomb had already been tested in White sands, NM. We knew what would happen, but I guess on the same token we needed to let the world know what it was capable of.

Well, of course, therein lies the rub.
I believe that the only "thoroughness" in warfare can be the elimination of ones enemy.
You cant completely enforce all such rules all of the time.
Soldiers arent "supposed" to kill civillians, Geneva Conventions arent "always" followed.
NATO arms treaties arent always followed.

This isnt right, however, and they should be followed whenever possible.
I believe that strict adherence to such rules is the available moral high ground one can obtain while slaughtering ones foes.

Of course, but I hardly expect a belligerent to really adhere to pre-existing rules all that well, especially the longer a conflict continues.

Indeed, indeed. (How's school treating you these days?)

I graduated in May and now finishing up application for Grad School.

I think you pretty much got it, except the thread then degenerates into a pro-American side that screams the bombs were the only way, by God and an anti-American side who accuse the US of committing war crimes because of being afraid of the Soviets with you and I in the middle smacking our heads against our desks due to all of the above. ;)

Hey!!! You left me out :( I smack my head as well when those two sides butt heads.

Nyet.

It was a pragmatists policy to achieve both ends by dropping the bombs: To kill two birds with one stone.

I see that pragmatism is usually quite strong in american politics - that could be. Anyway, I still stand by my idea that Japan was going to fall anyway in months' time - so the bombs just sped up the process.

abso freaking lutely.

No, the a-bombs were not justified. They were left-aligned.

My brain ins't working to well today.

No, the a-bombs were not justified. They were left-aligned.

My brain ins't working to well today.

knocking your head into a wall of bricks like so will work :headbang:

Has everyone forgotten that the A-bomb had already been tested in White sands, NM. We knew what would happen, but I guess on the same token we needed to let the world know what it was capable of.
Well, actually, we didn't. We knew it would produce a very big boom. We didn't know about the radiation dangers, and someone apparently forgot to calculate the mountain problem that Hiroshima suffered.

And NO ONE had any idea about the black rain.

Well, actually, we didn't. We knew it would produce a very big boom. We didn't know about the radiation dangers, and someone apparently forgot to calculate the mountain problem that Hiroshima suffered.

And NO ONE had any idea about the black rain.

I'm a bit skeptical about the "not know about radiation" bit. Plutonium's radioactive. The fission process works by producing radiation (neutrons I believe). And somehow, nobody realized that the boom would scatter said radiation all over the place? I mean, understanding how to make the bomb work should have given you a rudimentary idea that it would create fallout at the least, if not the extent.

I see that pragmatism is usually quite strong in american politics - that could be. Anyway, I still stand by my idea that Japan was going to fall anyway in months' time - so the bombs just sped up the process.

I wouldn't say pragmatism was too absolute, it wasn't pragmatic for the Americans to demand unconditional surrender, only pragmatic for any politician that didn't want to get lynched to not accept anything less from the Japanese. That really is one of the two most important features in this debate that's often missed: there's a significant difference between keeping the Emperor because we allow you to keep the Emperor, and keeping the Emperor because of terms of the treaty. One is a significant beatdown, the other total, and the American public after years of conditioning to think of Japanese as brutal yellow-skinned subhumans was not in the mood for mercy, even in 1945.

The other important feature often missed in this debate is the fact that in a total war, civilians become a legitemate military target. If your goal is flatly to destroy the enemy's capacity to fight back, then killing the factories that make the bomb is in fact less good than killing the people who build the factories and man them. Is total war evil? Of course, but it's also a point where moral considerations simply don't matter any more.

I believe that strict adherence to such rules is the available moral high ground one can obtain while slaughtering ones foes.
Ah yes, the elusive moral high-ground. Be nice, open doors, and always give your enemies a chance to run and hide while you count to 100 with your eyes closed during war. A little courtesy here and there will make the whole experience much more fun for everyone and give you the moral high-ground. It won't matter that holding back whilst in a fight to the death will probably get you killed, you'll have the moral high-ground.

I'm a bit skeptical about the "not know about radiation" bit. Plutonium's radioactive. The fission process works by producing radiation (neutrons I believe). And somehow, nobody realized that the boom would scatter said radiation all over the place? I mean, understanding how to make the bomb work should have given you a rudimentary idea that it would create fallout at the least, if not the extent.
When you look at what precautions the project took for fallout (i.e. none) during that first test though... I mean, now we know that standing close to a blast with just leaded goggles to protect you is not a bright idea, but back then, no one knew.

The sad fact of the matter is that most of what we know about nuclear fallout and the effects of it are due to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and is something both the US and Japan are still studying.

When you look at what precautions the project took for fallout (i.e. none) during that first test though... I mean, now we know that standing close to a blast with just leaded goggles to protect you is not a bright idea, but back then, no one knew.

The sad fact of the matter is that most of what we know about nuclear fallout and the effects of it are due to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and is something both the US and Japan are still studying.

That still bugs me though. I mean, the guy who discovered the effects of uranium radiation ended up dying of it anyway, and when the plutonium was being shaped into a bomb, it certainly wasn't done by unprotected workers. They also did put it in a big lead casing IIRC to keep the actual transport crew from dying out.

It seems unlikely that they would have had no idea about the radiation at all. Maybe downplayed it in the light of some of the other worries like igniting the atmosphere, but they couldn't have totally not known the effects..

Ah yes, the elusive moral high-ground. Be nice, open doors, and always give your enemies a chance to run and hide while you count to 100 with your eyes closed during war. A little courtesy here and there will make the whole experience much more fun for everyone and give you the moral high-ground. It won't matter that holding back whilst in a fight to the death will probably get you killed, you'll have the moral high-ground.

Thats the difference apparently, between you and I.
You mistake mercy for weakness.

Its possible to systematically eliminate you opponent, and dominate them completely, without lowering yourself to that of a monster. Defeating someone doesnt always have to include wiping them off the map.
Slaughtering the women and children isnt nessecary, and makes you no better than the ones your fighting.

War should ALWAYS be the last resort, but when that need comes, a decisive victory should always be attained.
You just dont need to resort to the basest of tactics.

I've heard many opinions. I personally lean towards no but I'm intrested in seeing what other people have to think.

Well... the explosions looked cool.

Thats the difference apparently, between you and I.
You mistake mercy for weakness.

Its possible to systematically eliminate you opponent, and dominate them completely, without lowering yourself to that of a monster. Defeating someone doesnt always have to include wiping them off the map.
Slaughtering the women and children isnt nessecary, and makes you no better than the ones your fighting.

War should ALWAYS be the last resort, but when that need comes, a decisive victory should always be attained.
You just dont need to resort to the basest of tactics.

And yet, how many decisive victories does one need to have? I mean, we had a desive victory at Midway, Guadalcanal, Philippine Sea, Leyte Gulf, Iwo Jima, and Okinowa.

Japanese had clearly lost war by then, but they still insisted continuing fighting, with higher and higher suicidiality to cause more casualties for allies(kamikazes). Now usa got nuke.

Lets assume that they would had done as many suggest here, said to Japs about it, and blown it somewhere there Japanese HQ could see the blast, with as few civilian casualties as possible. What would that had demonstrated? Firstly that usa has bomb which makes really big fireball. But there is also second aspect, it would had demonstrated that there are doubts in using such weapon. That could had resulted japs HQ simply decide to continue fighting in assumption that USA has no will to nuke sh*t out from everything.

But then simply one town dissappeared in big bang, and few days later another one followed the suit, it created impression like USA could wipe whole Japan out, and had full intention to do so. Considering how suicidial Japanese defence was, demonstrating any weakness and doubts, could had reinforced their willingness to fight on. So decision to act ruthlessly could be actualy considered logical.

Two things, firstly you can't do a straight comparison of probable casualties, given that in an orthodox invasion they would have been soldiers as opposed to civilians, killing 100 soldiers in battle is more justified than bombing 50 civilians for example.

Secondly, while I can see the reason for the first one, I don't think the second one can be truly justified. Iirc then in those days Japan was still in wtf mode and trying to find out what had happened, had the US waited I think Japan would have surrendered without the need to level another city.

Were the atom bombs Justified?No. Mass murder is never justified.

Two things, firstly you can't do a straight comparison of probable casualties, given that in an orthodox invasion they would have been soldiers as opposed to civilians, killing 100 soldiers in battle is more justified than bombing 50 civilians for example.

Secondly, while I can see the reason for the first one, I don't think the second one can be truly justified. Iirc then in those days Japan was still in wtf mode and trying to find out what had happened, had the US waited I think Japan would have surrendered without the need to level another city.Yeah, but the typical American approach is to shoot first then ask. Cowboy mentality, you know.

Olmedreca;13180909']Lets assume that they would had done as many suggest here, said to Japs about it, and blown it somewhere there Japanese HQ could see the blast, with as few civilian casualties as possible. What would that had demonstrated? Firstly that usa has bomb which makes really big fireball. But there is also second aspect, it would had demonstrated that there are doubts in using such weapon. That could had resulted japs HQ simply decide to continue fighting in assumption that USA has no will to nuke sh*t out from everything.
If plan A (Nuke by Tokyo) dont work.. then you go to plan B ...then you do the savage thing.
At least you tried.
.
Olmedreca;13180909']But then simply one town dissappeared in big bang, and few days later another one followed the suit....Like I said plan B
.Olmedreca;13180909']So decision to act ruthlessly could be actualy considered logical.:confused:

Just like suicide bombers?

If plan A (Nuke by Tokyo) dont work.. then you go to plan B ...then you do the savage thing.
At least you tried.

Well, you failed to understand my point. Acting like that would had demonstrated that US is not really confident about using such weapon. Those same Imperial commanders who though that kamikazes are good idea could have thought that: "well, they aren't really sure about it, so if we take some hits, but still continue fighting, maybe we can push them to give up their demands of unconditional surrender". Its about appearance what you leave to your enemy. If enemy thinks that you are unsure and hesitant, then later you may be forced to drop ten times more nukes to fix that and convince them that you are seriously ready to go to the end.

Olmedreca;13180977']Well, you failed to understand my point. Acting like that would had demonstrated that US is not really confident about using such weapon. Those same Imperial commanders who though that kamikazes are good idea could have thought that: "well, they aren't really sure about it, so if we take some hits, but still continue fighting, maybe we can push them to give up their demands of unconditional surrender". Its about appearance what you leave to your enemy. If enemy thinks that you are unsure and hesitant, then later you may be forced to drop ten times more nukes to fix that and convince them that you are seriously ready to go to the end.:confused:
Let see if I understand you logic...

=============
fiction scenario:
Lets say you and your Family of 11 have are running away, I (a US Marshall) am running after you..at close range I scream to stop and fire one warning shot, since you all keep running I shoot-n-kill your Brother, since you all keep running I shoot-n-kill your sister..

So this is what your brain tells you "since Occean fired a warning shot first.. he wont dare kill us all" and you keep running.
====================

That has to be the studid-est thing I heard today.

No. Mass murder is never justified.

This coming from you is irony.

:confused:
Let see if I understand you logic...

=============
fiction scenario:
Lets say you and your Family of 11 have escaped from prison, I (a US Marshall) am running after you..at close range I scream to stop and fire one warning shot, since you all keep running I shoot-n-kill your Brother, since you all keep running I shoot-n-kill your sister..

So this is what your brain tells you "since Occean fired a warning shot first.. he wont dare kill us all" and you keep running.
====================

That has to be the studid-est thing I heard today.

You totally failed to understand my logic. Firstly marshall making warning shot is standard procedure, making demonstration of new weapon to opponent during total war, before using it, is not.

You seem to fail to understand that at that time Japan was lead by men, who, then everything was clearly lost, decided instead of surrendering, to use their people in massive suicide attacks. But those men would not qualify as "stupid", they knew very well what were Japanese casualtie rates in such attacks, and they still thought its viable tactic for pressuring allies into some kind of compromise. You do not want to show any weakness to such people.

For analogy, you know that policy: "we do not negotiate with terrorists" which is more or less succesfully followed? That uses exactly same logic, if you demonstrate weakness once, its f*cking hell to close that door later.

Olmedreca;13181024']You totally failed to understand my logic. Firstly marshall making warning shot is standard procedure, making demonstration of new weapon to opponent during total war, before using it, is not.

You seem to fail to understand that at that time Japan was lead by men, who, then everything was clearly lost, decided instead of surrendering, to use their people in massive suicide attacks. But those men would not qualify as "stupid", they knew very well what were Japanese casualtie rates in such attacks, and they still thought its viable tactic for pressuring allies into some kind of compromise. You do not want to show any weakness to such people.

For analogy, you know that policy: "we do not negotiate with terrorists" which is more or less succesfully followed? That uses exactly same logic, if you demonstrate weakness once, its f*cking hell to close that door later.The scenario does not work because I am US Marshall? :rolleyes:

Ok lets change the US Marshall thing
================
lets say I am not a Marshal.. lets say I am a soldier -Lock&Loaded- after you, you and your 11 dont have guns , I (a soldier) am running after you..at close range I scream to stop and fire one warning shot, since you all keep running I shoot-n-kill your Brother, since you all keep running I shoot-n-kill your sister..

So this is what your brain tells you "since Occean fired a warning shot first.. he wont dare kill us all" and you keep running.
===================

This is -tied for- the stupid-est thing I heard today.

Again, you miss the small problem of Tokyo's location. You have either very large, crowded cities (Which you don't want to bomb), mountains, or the ocean.Nuke a mountain... (a huge atomic mushroom exploding the highest mountain top... can surely be seen)

at least you tried.

escaped criminals do get a warning most of the time, why not give a warning shot that could save the lives of thousands of school children?

The war would have dragged into 1946 without a doubt, perhaps into 1947, and let's be honest - the Americas were getting a little impatient.

So were the Japanese. If they hadn't surrendered to us, in six months they would have surrendered to Stalin, provided there would have been anyone with the authority to do so still alive.

I doubt the use of the bombs had as much, if any, deterrent effect on the future use of the bombs. That's naive. Our nuclear free half century is the result of pragmatism and fear, not some schoolyard morality play.

The scenario does not work because I am US Marshall? :rolleyes:

Ok lets change the US Marshall thing
================
lets say I am not a Marshal.. lets say I am a soldier -Lock&Loaded- after you, you and your 11 dont have guns , I (a soldier) am running after you..at close range I scream to stop and fire one warning shot, since you all keep running I shoot-n-kill your Brother, since you all keep running I shoot-n-kill your sister..

So this is what your brain tells you "since Occean fired a warning shot first.. he wont dare kill us all" and you keep running.
===================

This is -tied for- the stupid-est thing I heard today.

Readiness to shoot enemy/prisoner/whatever is not really comparable to readiness to nuke one big town after another.
Btw, if you appear very unconfident in killing anyone to those running enemies, when if they have lot at stake they may still hope that you give up. Like you totally hate shooting someone, but hoping that it solves problem you shoot one runner, others continue running, in desperate hope that this time it will frighten them you shoot another, others continue running. Next you face question: "am I ready to kill them all if neccessary?" Different people will answer question differently. If you are no ready to kill them all, and stop at that point, then their gambling has justified itsself.

Of course you may say that chances to loose in such game are too high for taking such risks. But Japan at that time was lead by men who decided to continue clearly lost war, and sacrificing their people, despite enormous losses they already were suffering.

This coming from you is irony.What a rubbish.

Olmedreca;13181125'].. "am I ready to kill them all if neccessary?" Different people will answer question differently. If you are no ready to kill them all, and stop at that point, then their gambling has justified itsself.dude.. :confused:

If I just shot-down 2 of your family, of course I am ready to shoot.
Likewise if I nuked 2 cities, there is no question I a ready to nuke cities.

The only reason for you to keep running is that you hope you may out run me (and out run the bullets).
Cities cant run away.

Hey! How have you been?

Thats the difference apparently, between you and I.
You mistake mercy for weakness.


Ahh but you make the mistake of measuring morality 60 years later.

The Japanese at the time were not women and children. They were monsters waiting to slaughter.

Pearl, Nanking, etc. greatly helped in that image.

Its possible to systematically eliminate you opponent, and dominate them completely, without lowering yourself to that of a monster. Defeating someone doesnt always have to include wiping them off the map.


But that wasn't the thinking back then. When you had a war, you went in to completely break their will and ability to fight. The cold war changed that.

Slaughtering the women and children isnt nessecary, and makes you no better than the ones your fighting.

Can you name one massive conflict were women and children didn't get slaughtered?


War should ALWAYS be the last resort, but when that need comes, a decisive victory should always be attained.
You just dont need to resort to the basest of tactics.

War is the basest tactics.

Decisive victory? It will not work as it goes against human nature. France was overran and yet people fought on. Compare Great Britain and Germany at the time and yet GB fought on. The USSR had their asses handed to them and yet they fought on.

You cannot really claim that the atomic bombs were unjustified without also arguing that all other sorts of bombs were unjustified, cannon were unjustified, basically any weapon that explodes, burns, or can hurt someone other than the specific person you are trying to harm

The Japanese murdered millions of people. They needed to be stopped, and it was Japan's choice to intermix soldiers and civilians, war factories and schools.

dude.. :confused:

If I just shot-down 2 of your family, of course I am ready to shoot.
Likewise if I nuked 2 cities, there is no question I a ready to nuke cities.

The only reason for you to keep running is that you hope you may out run me (and out run the bullets).
Cities cant run away.

You speak like killing other human is piece of cake, you have lots of experiences with it? I don't(so if you have notable killcount I am fully ready to accept your better knowledge), but from what I have heard its not actualy so simple:
http://www.military-sf.com/Killing.htm
Also nuking town after town sounds easy at first, but do you think it sounds as easy also then you have nuked several towns, but it doesn't seem to have wished effect? After all, Japanese generals counted on Allied unwillingness to accept enormous amount of dead that would be neccessary for enforcing unconditional surrender.

Tangent time yet appropriate:

The pilot of the Enola Gay just died.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1678787,00.html

We were absolutley justified. If we hadn't forced Japan to surrender, we would have fought Iwo Jima thousands of times over. The millitary and civilian casualties and suicides would have been much worse than those killed in the blast.

Tangent time yet appropriate:

The pilot of the Enola Gay just died.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1678787,00.html

I heard about that. It's kind of a heart-sinking moment for me, since I met him in 2001 (lucky me, I'm from Columbus) and have a picture signed by him (a younger Tibbetts is standing in front of the Enola Gay in the picture.)

He was a life-long hero of my grandfather's, and meeting him was a highlight of my grandpa's life. RIP Paul Tibbetts.

I also read his outlook on dropping the bomb - he didn't like that he killed 80,000 people, but he never had a problem with the action, since he feels that many more would have died in an invasion. He was never happy with the massive underestimates of the number of Americans who would have died in an invasion. I'm sure part of it is that he felt the need to justify why he did what he did, but I believe he felt it was the right thing to do and didn't like the idea that he could be turned into the focal point of anti-A-bomb protests.

He also requested not to have a funeral or a headstone because he didn't want to create another hot spot for critics of the A-bomb.

I'll say this, though - if Reverend Fred Asshole Phelps were to picket a funeral of his (if he had one,) I would go kick his ass myself.

I'm sure part of it is that he felt the need to justify why he did what he did...no kidding Sherlock. ;)
.
He was never happy with the massive underestimates of the number of Americans who would have died in an invasion....well if that makes him happy tell him that his killing of thousands of Schoolchildren saved US soldiers.. and If he ask how many soldiers he saved.. tell him several Billions.. that way you are sure he is happy.

Tangent time yet appropriate:

The pilot of the Enola Gay just died.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1678787,00.html

May he rest in peace.

Nuke a mountain... (a huge atomic mushroom exploding the highest mountain top... can surely be seen)

at least you tried.
OceanDive, perhaps you should look at a goddamned map of Tokyo before saying something so silly. Really, you have NO idea of the layout of the land around there. No, it wouldn't work as if you tried to detonate something like that from the top of Fuji-san, all that would be seen from the Imperial Palace would be a bright flash of light. Wow, very impressive given the bombs at the time. It took Japan a couple of DAYS AFTER Hiroshima to confirm that, yes, it was an atomic bomb.

escaped criminals do get a warning most of the time, why not give a warning shot that could save the lives of thousands of school children?
What do you think all the battles and bombings of Japanese cities up till then had been? Love taps?

What do you think all the battles and bombings of Japanese cities up till then had been? Love taps?

I thought the fire raids were to make campfires so we could hold hands and sing songs.

Nuke a mountain... (a huge atomic mushroom exploding the highest mountain top... can surely be seen)

at least you tried.

escaped criminals do get a warning most of the time, why not give a warning shot that could save the lives of thousands of school children?

And suppose after announcing the arrival of this super-weapon, it fails to go off?

That was a distinct possibility at that point, as at the time we only had three nukes available (of two different types) and one had been tested. Reliability was not assured. If we just drop it on a city and it's a dud, it makes a small but significant thud, the Japs retrieve but have no idea what it is, how it works, or the degree of destruction that could have resulted. By contrast, the other way involves them retrieving a dud with some idea of what it was supposed to do, and you're now the Boy who Cried Wolf.

Wow, I think the last one of these was last Xmas vacation!

Having seen this go through several rounds here at NSG, here's the condensed version of what's going to happen:

1) Many people will expose there ignorance of both the events surronding the bombings and Japanese culture.

2) People will argue over the comparative numbers of deaths of an invasion versus the bombings. Nobody will be able to reach a well informed and reasonable conclusion on that issue.

3) An argument will break out over whether the two cities were legitimate military targets. (As far as I'm concerned this is part of the ignorance allueded to above.) When the various actual military targets in both cities are listed, the question will turn to the legitimacy of attacking military targets near civilans.

4) The question of Japan's attempts to surrender will be brought into the thread and discussed.

5) The napalm bombing of major cities will largely be ignored, as will the blockaide.

6) The question of alternate targets will be discussed. Someone will point out, incorrectly, that the US avoided hitting Kyoto for cultural reasons.

(NEVRUN, what else have I forgotten?)
Good list. Thanks. I look forward to using it as a guide to this thread. ;)

<snip>
Originally Posted by Muravyets
It was the deliberate targeting of civilian centers, just like the bombing of Dresden. In that, it was a violation of the Geneva Conventions, and thus, not justifiable.
This ignores the multiple militarily important targets in both cities that were bombed.
Yes, it does ignore it, deliberately, because it is my opinion that the presence of militarily legitimate targets within the civilian center does not make civilians legitimate targets under Geneva. If you need to go after a target in a civilian center, you should attempt to minimize civilian casualties. And the argument that the atomic bombs killed fewer people than conventional attacks would have is bunk for the following reasons:

1) It is impossible to know what would have been the outcome of the thing we chose not to do; and

2) The commanders who ordered the use of the bombs did not know what their full destructive capacity would be, nor how many people they would kill, so there is no way they could have been attempting to minimize civilian casualties in accordance with Geneva.

As in many other places in the Pacific and Europe, the armed forces on both sides of that war deliberately targeted civilian populations in direct contradiction of Geneva, and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no different from any of the other, similar violations by the Allies.

Has everyone forgotten that the A-bomb had already been tested in White sands, NM. We knew what would happen, but I guess on the same token we needed to let the world know what it was capable of.

Not true because they did not wait for all the test data to be compiled before deploying the bombs against the enemy. Indeed, most scientists had no clue that they should even be looking for a lot of that data. They had absolutely no idea about the after effects of the bombs. And, of course, they had no data about the effects of the bombs from surviving victims until after the "real" bombings. It does not matter how many times a new weapon is tested. Its real capabilities or limitations cannot be known until it is used in war.