• The Nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
    43 replies, posted
I've noticed that most of the debates here are either over existential and/or philosophical topics or current events, and thought I'd start a thread covering my favorite topic: History. There's been a great deal of debate as to the necessity and morality of the United State's decision to bomb the two Japanese cities in August of 1945. In the preceding July the Allied powers issued the Potsdam Declaration, which called for the surrender of Japan. Upon Japan's ignoring of the declaration, the bombs were dropped. 90,000–166,000 people were killed in Hiroshima and[SUP][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#cite_note-rerf-deaths-0"][/URL][/SUP] 60,000–80,000 were killed in Nagasaki[SUP][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#cite_note-rerf-deaths-0"][/URL][/SUP]. These cities were chosen due to their large size and geographical location to maximize the psychological effects of the bombings. I argue that the bombings were completely necessary and were the best way to end the conflict. All estimates predicted an immense amount of casualties from all participants in any invasion of the Japanese home islands, including Japanese civilian populations. The Japanese populace would likely have staged fanatical resistance, considering the indoctrination that Japanese children had in schools and the intense militarism that had been introduced into their society. I argue that the bombs saved more lives than they took. What do you think? Were the bombings necessary? Should terms of surrender more generous been given?
They could have chosen better targets. Chosing a naval base or soldiers instead of civillians would have been preferable. Over all, the use of nuclear weapons saved many more lives
Don't forget that the bombings saved 10x the lives of not only us, but the japanese solely because there would be mass suicides.
Option 2 was to invade them. Which would of had COUNTLESS more casualties, on both sides. I think the bombings were necessary.
There were many chances for them to surrender. Before any of the bombings we dropped leaflets and constantly told them we were going to use our atomic bomb. They didn't, we dropped the first bomb. We did the same thing, they didn't surrender and we dropped another bomb. They then surrendered. That's plenty of chances to surrender.
I support the reasoning why they did it. its a shame that it had to happen this way but it was probably for the best.
Using civilian targets was a horrendously atrocious idea and I think the idea that the bombings saved lives is a line of bullshit we've fed ourselves in order to justify what is essentially a crime against humanity.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;34008964]Using civilian targets was a horrendously atrocious idea and I think the idea that the bombings saved lives is a line of bullshit we've fed ourselves in order to justify what is essentially a crime against humanity.[/QUOTE] I think that the firebombing campaigns and "strategic bombing" in Europe were both outrageously awful, especially since they didn't work. But the Nuclear bombs did actually achieve what those campaigns couldn't, which was to bring Japan to surrender. It's all horrible, but I do contend that in preventing the invasion the 2 bombs did save lives.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;34008964]Using civilian targets was a horrendously atrocious idea and I think the idea that the bombings saved lives is a line of bullshit we've fed ourselves in order to justify what is essentially a crime against humanity.[/QUOTE] I disagree, even after we dropped the first one they still refused to surrender. How much more evidence than that do you need to believe that they would be willing to take incredible losses before surrendering
Keep in mind that the Japanese cabinet was harshly divided over whether or not to surrender. It was basically Navy against the Army. It should also be noted that the Americans pounced on the opportunity to use the bomb and it came when the Japanese Government announced their policy of Mokkusatsu(sp?) It had a dual meaning of to 'kill silently' or 'no comment.'
[quote]During World War II, the Second Army and Chugoku Regional Army were headquartered in Hiroshima, and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at Ujina port. The city also had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping.[13][/quote] Hiroshima wasn't [B]just[/B] civilians. Also they bombed cities because they needed to maximize the effect of the terror weapon. Heck even then the Japanese were close to not resigning, giving them the impression that the US was not willing to target cities probably would have kept them from resigning. Either way it was the lesser of two evils, as someone else said an invasion would have had a much higher death toll.
Besides contemporary thinking, it served as a good example of what could happen during the Cold War if the USA and USSR started hurling bombs at each other, and if they did then there would have been easily 10x as many deaths in 10x as many cities. Sure, by testing the weapons they knew the weapons were fucking monstrosities and knew that they would kill just about everything, but with the literal example of Hiroshima and Nagasaki people actually knew what could happen. I wasn't alive back then, but I doubt even the war hawks would try to levy war after that bombing.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;34008964]Using civilian targets was a horrendously atrocious idea and I think the idea that the bombings saved lives is a line of bullshit we've fed ourselves in order to justify what is essentially a crime against humanity.[/QUOTE] We mass produced Purple hearts for that one invasion and were still handing them out today. [quote]Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the 60 years following the end of World War II, including the Korean and Vietnam Wars, have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.[50] There are so many in surplus that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan are able to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to soldiers wounded on the field.[/quote] We know for a fact that Operation Downfall would have been catastrophic for both sides. Though dropping nukes on them wasn't much better. For me it's a morally grey zone. [editline]2nd January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=download;34007204]They could have chosen better targets. Chosing a naval base or soldiers instead of civillians would have been preferable. Over all, the use of nuclear weapons saved many more lives[/QUOTE] The majority of civilians were already gone and the city (Hiroshima) was being used by the military at the time.
The argument that an American invasion was indispensable for surrender isn't all that convincing given that the Soviet surprise declaration of war which ensued in crushing victories in Manchukuo and Korea were just as, if not more important in precipitating Japanese surrender. Furthermore Operation Downfall is portrayed as having been absolutely necessary for surrender. This isn't strictly true, it was because the Americans demanded UNCONDITIONAL surrender. The Japanese would have agreed to peace for some terms: -Preservation of the Imperial system -No occupation of the home islands -Allowing them to disarm themselves. Stalin did not want to demmand unconditional surrender to the Axis (Something Roosevelt insisted upon) because he knew this would prolong the war considerably. So in short, the whole 'that or invade' doesn't quite work given that the Japanese would have sued for peace if unconditional surrender weren't demmanded. Also saying that the majority of civilians were gone simply isn't true, my family is from Nagasaki and I can most certainly tell you that casualties were mostly civilian.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;34008964]Using civilian targets was a horrendously atrocious idea and I think the idea that the bombings saved lives is a line of bullshit we've fed ourselves in order to justify what is essentially a crime against humanity.[/QUOTE] The alternative is an invasion of Japan which would've resulted in the death of many more Allied forces. While that doesn't justify the slaughter of civilians, I believe it is a valid point. Besides, we warned them that we had a powerful weapon and that they should surrender. After they saw what happened from the first bomb they [i]still[/i] didn't surrender. But I do agree somewhat, they should've chosen different targets.
The Governments probably done worse things, this is just one thing that was really out in the open. It's tragedy all the same though.
[QUOTE=7DeadlySyns;34010000]The alternative is an invasion of Japan which would've resulted in the death of many more Allied forces. While that doesn't justify the slaughter of civilians, I believe it is a valid point. Besides, we warned them that we had a powerful weapon and that they should surrender. After they saw what happened from the first bomb they [i]still[/i] didn't surrender. But I do agree somewhat, they should've chosen different targets.[/QUOTE] See, it is this 'still' which bothers me, you always assume that demmanding unconditional surrender was the right and only choice and that the Japanese were nuts for not jumping on the opportunity to forfeit their sovereinty.
I think that the nuclear bombings were ultimately a good thing for us both in the short term and the long term. I mean, compare what actually happened to what could have happened and put yourself in the place of the japanese. You're a fanatic that's willing to not only die for your country, but you're willing to sacrifice everything you control and everything you know to keep these "western devils" off your land. You still have a strong ground presence but you've lost your own skies. So what's worse to you? A slow occupation of your borders by forces that are at a disadvantage by proxy? Or a singular event that can instantly remove a portion of the nation and, in the worst case scenario, remove the ability of the nation to function as a nation altogether? The first idea of invasion would have taken weeks, months or even years, being met by hostility both on the front and in the US itself. But an atomic raid could cut into the nation unopposed, it could have destroyed everything, it didn't even cost much for the americans, but worst of all; it could happen again and again and again. And that's just in the short term. Long term, it showed us the power of nuclear weapons. And since everyone knows that everyone has stacks of the things primed, any nation could instantly be wiped almost clean at the moment the word "declare" is said. Long story short, collateral is a great weapon for pressuring people to surrender. (Sorry for the wall)
My understanding is that a continued American campaign would have killed a similar amount, if not more civilians. The stigma being attached is that they were "scary" radiological weapons. Not to mention the difference between citizen and soldier is [I]very[/I] blurred when a country is fighting under the doctrine of total war. For instance, the conventional bombing of Tokyo killed more than Nagasaki, yet I've read maybe two people ever bat an eyelid about that. [editline]2nd January 2012[/editline] The vietnam war ended up killing about 2 million Vietnamese, yet people still question whether the atomic bombing were okay. Typical special treatment of "scary" radiological weapons
I've met someone describe the Tokyo firebombings, no doubt they were much much worse than the atomic bombings (just consider the sentence 'the water was tainted red with blood and children had to clear the charred corpses') And of course here the 'we warned ya!' excuse doesn't work given that the Potsdam declaration was after the Tokyo firebombings. Edit In regards to the argument that women and children made valid targets given Japan's full mobilisation: the allies also waged total war, but something tells me few will defend the nazis' choice to bomb London's populace following Germany's eight attempts to sue Britain for peace.
[QUOTE=chumchum;34010188]Edit In regards to the argument that women and children made valid targets given Japan's full mobilisation: the allies also waged total war, but something tells me few will defend the nazis' choice to bomb London's populace following Germany's eight attempts to sue Britain for peace.[/QUOTE] Germany wasn't suing for peace. Germany was trying to bring Britain to her knees and surrender so that Germany can continue their conquests throughout Europe. There is no sense of "peace" during that time. So that's irrelevant. During the 19th and 20th centuries, Japan had their children indoctrinated continuously as early as 5 or 6 which began the training process of turning them into soldiers. The entire country was functioning through the Bushido code with extra emphasis of militarization and expansion. Their self-retained superiority complex is a significant reason why they were brutal in their conquests (Everyone should know by now how China was treated during WWII against the Japanese). I'm sure the Chinese don't regret the droppings of the bombs. The dropping of 'The Bombs' is obviously an unfortunate necessity. There was no sense in pressing for a continuation of war beyond what was already necessary. The Japanese were cornered. They were done. But their arrogance and delusional pride brought more harm to them than good. Ultimately, they paid the price and I have to feel sorry for those civilians. Since then, not a single nuclear device has been used as a weapon in conflict again. We've learned well from history in that regard. We like to act like morally self-righteous individuals when it comes to discussing topics like these but you can't revise history on standards and beliefs on our current, modern society. In context, the bombs ended a war that should have been avoided to begin with. But history is already written.
-fuck it
[QUOTE=download;34007204]They could have chosen better targets. Chosing a naval base or soldiers instead of civillians would have been preferable. Over all, the use of nuclear weapons saved many more lives[/QUOTE] Not really. The use of nuclear weapons was not military victory but demoralisation and causing an unwillingness to fight. Targeting strictly military facilities would have resulted in the military to mix in far more within the civilian sphere and would have led to a greater loss of life. Admittedly the destruction caused by the two nuclear weapons wasn't that great when comparing it to the firebombing of a number of European major cities. Warsaw and Dresden were more or less leveled clean for instance. Hamburg as well. There were other cities, mostly german that went trough the same. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the same tactics as the Nazis used on London and what was used on Dresden.
The bombing of Nagasaki was done to frighten the Russians so it was a completely unjustified bombing.
Could they perhaps have done it in a low poopulated area out in the country, like "look at what fucking massive bombs we have, woe could've fucked up ur cities, but we didn't, the jig is up." However im pretty sure hiroshima was chosen in a valley so the impact of radioactive dust would be minimized.
[QUOTE=bull3tmagn3t;34015340]Could they perhaps have done it in a low poopulated area out in the country, like "look at what fucking massive bombs we have, woe could've fucked up ur cities, but we didn't, the jig is up." However im pretty sure hiroshima was chosen in a valley so the impact of radioactive dust would be minimized.[/QUOTE] Waste of a bomb and wouldn't show off the destructive capability of the weapon very well.
[QUOTE=acds;34009522]Also they bombed cities because they needed to maximize the effect of the terror weapon.[/QUOTE] lol "we needed to kill civilians because that's how you instill terror into people" is probably the worst moral justification for something ive ever heard [editline]2nd January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;34015403]Waste of a bomb and wouldn't show off the destructive capability of the weapon very well.[/QUOTE] oh ok lets kill people so as not to waste a bomb.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;34008964]Using civilian targets was a horrendously atrocious idea and I think the idea that the bombings saved lives is a line of bullshit we've fed ourselves in order to justify what is essentially a crime against humanity.[/QUOTE] The alternative invasion would've included dropping 15 atomic bombs, if I remember correctly.
Moral justifications in war are either ad hoc or ex post facto The just war is one that is not fought [editline]3rd January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=SnowCanary;34015537]The alternative invasion would've included dropping 15 atomic bombs, if I remember correctly.[/QUOTE] My understanding was that they were planning on dropping more atomic weapons as they became avaliable. Fortunately for Japan, they surrendered quickly.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;34015497]lol "we needed to kill civilians because that's how you instill terror into people" is probably the worst moral justification for something ive ever heard [editline]2nd January 2012[/editline] oh ok lets kill people so as not to waste a bomb.[/QUOTE] Well that's war for you. I never said I liked war, but to say one amount of killings is worse than another is ridiculous. Plus the American's have a moral high ground as it was the Japanese who attacked them first, which is why they're usually portrayed as morally superior in WW2 [editline]2nd January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=SnowCanary;34015537]The alternative invasion would've included dropping 15 atomic bombs, if I remember correctly.[/QUOTE] The US lied about that to scare the Japanese into surrendering.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.