Was it right to nuke Japan?

[Afternoon Tea]

Was it truly necessary to nuke Japan? Was it right to drop an Atomic bomb on Japan in World War 2? If we hadn't then it would have cost 3 million allied soldiers lives to invade japan, and it would have cost even more in japanese lives, Japan might of looked different because the USSR would of wanted ownership of Japans land since they did declare war on them. ect, but was it right to destroy city's with nuclear weapons. What is your Opinion on this? Please post intelligently if possible was the nuke right?

Hiroshima

Hear first-hand accounts from the air and ground, re-telling every memory from the day the world first witnessed atomic warfare.

Nagasaki

Scary Cartoon of the Bomb

[Vexx]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing... the usual argument is that the Allies would have had to conduct a ground assault of Japan at the cost of many more lives both civilian and military - and quite probably the destruction of most/all the ancient sites of Japan, possibly its entire culture. They really had little understanding of the long term effects of 'dirty bombs' (the hiroshima and nagasaki bombs were both tiny and dirty by modern standards). The Hiroshima bomb was 20 kiloton yield .... 20. A single ALCM or SRAM can carry that and a B-52 has slots for 24 such devices not including the gravity weapons (which can be 1000s of kilotons in yield). A single B-52 can turn an entire country in a glass sheet.... another reason to stop electing buffoons to Congress or the Presidency.

It really isn't a black or white question. The Japanese say "never again" to which a natural response is, "Don't put a nation in the position of having to decide then". The Japanese government didn't really seem to give a damn about their citizens at times in that war.

[Kagayaki]

This is tied in pretty closely with the Allied strategic bombing of Japan in general. The largest of the incendiary bombing raids on Tokyo had a death toll on the same order of magnitude (in the 100,000's) as the atomic bombings. However, World War 2 (in Britain as well as Japan) showed that strategic bombing campaigns didn't have anywhere near the effectiveness generals believed they did before the war. Unfortunately, they still conducted them anyways, but from a civilian casualties point of view, the atomic bombings weren't radically different from bombings that had happened earlier in the war.

The main reason the nuclear weapons were more effective at making Japan surrender was that Hiroshima and Nagasaki implied the US had more, or at least the ability to create more in a short timeframe. This forced the Japanese to come to terms with the fact that their defeat was inevitable, even though this was true even before the bombs were used. So in this sense, using the nuclear weapons was certainly more efficient (in terms of number of lives lost) at breaking the Japanese will to fight than an invasion would have been.

Futhermore, this was a wartime situation, and given the choice between a "final battle" with heavy casualties on both sides, and one with casualties on the enemy side, it's not surprising which one the US chose.

Another option would have been to blockade Japan, which would have run out of food very quickly and had to surrender. Starving the entire country versus destroying two cities is not the easiest question of moral calculus. A blockade may have been better, but it's hard to say for certain, and there's a lot of math and estimation involved

Of course, the US had just developed this intimidating new weapons technology and they wanted to use it to assert their dominance. So that was a factor too. Perhaps they could have demonstrated them on uninhabited areas or something and still made Japan surrender. Who knows.

So I don't think we can confidently say that what the US did was wrong (or any argument that did would have to be a very long, very detailed one). So it was right in that sense, which I guess is as good as you can hope for in war.

[WordShaker]

Whoo. I have to say, in my experience, the amount of controversy this topic generates is crazy. Like Vexx said, it's a gray area depending on one's perspective. The contradictory history surrounding the nuclear bombings is troublesome as well.

I would have to say "no," however. I can elaborate if pressed.

[Urzu 7]

Basically, I think that the first bomb dropped was better than an invasion. However, I don't agree with the second bombing. They gave Japan about three days to decide what to do next before dropping the second bomb. Maybe in five days time they would have surrendered. I don't think the second bomb should have been used, especially after only three days. Why rush such a terrible thing? They should have been hesitant to use another A bomb, not rushing to use another one.

[Asuras]

Is it right to bomb anyone? Ever?

To this question I simply say, "No," it was not right to bomb Japan. I shall never condone the use of nuclear weapons, or weapons in general for that matter. It was not right, but it surely was tactical.

They sure make for awesome movies however.

[Haladflire65]

From a Korean's point of view, it was only because of the bomb we were able to be liberated from Japan's control. If Japan hadn't been bombed I might have been born a Japanese person... I felt that in my grade 10 history class last year, the course discussed the bombings in great detail, creating a sympathetic view in all the students, but didn't mention anything about the brutalities that Korea, China and other Asian countries suffered under Japanese rule... Honestly, Japan killed just as many people as what they lost because of the bombing - massacring and torturing many, many innocents. I can't forgive them for that and I can't help but feel glad that a disaster happened for them, after all they did to my ancestors.

[Qikz]

Originally Posted by Asuras

Is it right to bomb anyone? Ever?

To this question I simply say, "No," it was not right to bomb Japan. I shall never condone the use of nuclear weapons, or weapons in general for that matter. It was not right.

I'm going to agree with this. I don't even think they should have dropped the bomb in the first place, Japan had lost the war and I'm sure even the stupid militaristic generals and leaders from back then of all the nations understood that.

I really hate humanity sometimes for having to resort to violence to fix anything. I've had arguments that "it's in our nature", Well, let's go against our nature and think intelligently about things for a change. It amazes me how many people still think wars solve problems. They solve nothing and only add innocent civillians killed or soldiers who don't even want to fight be sent to their death.

[Asuras]

Originally Posted by Qikz

I'm going to agree with this. I don't even think they should have dropped the bomb in the first place, Japan had lost the war and I'm sure even the stupid militaristic generals and leaders from back then of all the nations understood that.

I really hate humanity sometimes for having to resort to violence to fix anything. I've had arguments that "it's in our nature", Well, let's go against our nature and think intelligently about things for a change. It amazes me how many people still think wars solve problems. They solve nothing and only add innocent civillians killed or soldiers who don't even want to fight be sent to their death.

As System of a Down put it; "Why do they always send the poor? Why don't the presidents fight the war?"

Unfortunately, words are just that. Words. They have no real tangible effect on reality or a physical basis. Fists, however, do. When humans disagree, and both are firm that they are both right, and the other is wrong, words cannot help. That's where the fists come in. Fighting may not necessarily be in our nature, but disagreement surely is.

[idiffer]

well, its wrong to drop bombs on savillians, just as it is wrong for my county's ppl (Russia) to say that "americans are shit". on the other hand, i did hear that japan invaded china and caused some VERY heavy casualties in millions.
anyway, i think that war pretty much sucks for most ppl involved.
and really. imagine this. IF a soldier was asked whether he would go on and assault japan on land instead of a bomb dropped on 2 cities, what would most say? really, think about that. the bombings were decided by no more than a dozen men probably.

[MeoTwister5]

The atomic bomb made the prospect of future war unendurable. It has led us up those last few steps to the mountain pass; and beyond there is a different country.
- J. Robert Oppenheimer

[Cream]

Well , its either we lose millions of american soldiers or kill a few thousand Japanese civilians. I don't mean to put it in a way that it was right for us to kill innocent people. But come on , being a patriotic american i feel as though it was for the better of America that we dropped the bomb. Do i respect the decision depending on the situation? Hell yeah i do. Do i think it was right , would i gloat about it ever in a debate ? No, never.
But being a patriotic american , i wouldn't want my troops dying because our opponents don't want to surrender because they want to keep their 'honor' .
[pureopinion.nofacts]

[Afternoon Tea]

Originally Posted by Cream

Well , its either we lose millions of american soldiers or kill a few thousand Japanese civilians. I don't mean to put it in a way that it was right for us to kill innocent people. But come on , being a patriotic american i feel as though it was for the better of America that we dropped the bomb. Do i respect the decision depending on the situation? Hell yeah i do. Do i think it was right , would i gloat about it ever in a debate ? No, never.
But being a patriotic american , i wouldn't want my troops dying because our opponents don't want to surrender because they want to keep their 'honor' .
[pureopinion.nofacts]

I feel the same patriotic way. Its hard to say when you love your country so much, and it comes down to American Lives vs Japanese lives, on a ongoing war that has already killed millions of people. America at the time (in my opinion) was thinking what was best for the American People.

Even though the people of the Manhattan project rejected and said "No, do not use this bomb"

"Now I am Become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds"

[MeoTwister5]

It's also patriotism that helped fuel this mess in the first place.

[Flower]

I don't think it was "right" ... in a certain sense killing another person is never "right".

However, we do not live in a perfect world by any means, and very often people are put in a difficult place where they have to weigh difficult choices, like: "If I do not kill this person attacking my family he will kill my family." Is it "right" for him to kill the attacker? Personally, objectively, I would say no, but I could certainly understand him if he would try to stop the attacker by killing him. That person who killed the attacker would still have to deal with the emotional aftermath and turmoil, etc. of having killed another human being though.

That is why soldiers have one of the toughest jobs in my opinion ... often sent places without fully knowing what is going on and finding themselves in very difficult situations where they might have to make similarly intense choices very, very often. Even if they are "in the right", they still have to deal with the internal aftermath when their duty stops.

In the case of the Japanese side of things their soldiers were being sent into a war and no doubt many felt they were "in the right" to a certain extent while I am sure many also had reservations. People will still be people, after all.

But then there is the issue of civilians getting caught in the "crossfire" or exploited, etc. by another country's (or even sometimes their own country's) army.

I guess for me the book "Crime and Punishment" really helped to drive some of these basic principles home.... For me there is an "easy" answer in general, the difficulty is both knowing this and learning to live with, grow from, learn from one's actions - particularly those that would not be clearcut (like the case of someone killing an attacker who was in turn attacking his family to kill them). It is even harder for those stuck in positions of authority and responsibility....

[thakandu]

I have to say that it was a necessary decision by the US to nuke the Japan cos

1 - US had already lost many soldiers fightng the nazi German.
2 - Soviet army was gettng ready to invade Japan.
3 - Japanese soldiers were samurai with guns willing to die then surrender for emperor Hirohito, so US had to show the emperor chances of winning is slim.
4 - Japanese conducted one of the most inhuman experiment ever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...=Unit+731&aq=f

[justsomeguy]

The Japanese had refused to surrender despite their inevitable defeat. Their army was out of control and had crazy plans to force even civilians to fight to the death. An invasion would have been a bloodbath for both sides, with the Joint Chiefs predicting 1.6 million American deaths and even more Japanese. The use of nukes convinced the government to surrender at the cost of 250000 lives, a lesser evil than the invasion option.

[idiffer]

Originally Posted by Cream

Well , its either we lose millions of american soldiers or kill a few thousand Japanese civilians. I don't mean to put it in a way that it was right for us to kill innocent people. But come on , being a patriotic american i feel as though it was for the better of America that we dropped the bomb. Do i respect the decision depending on the situation? Hell yeah i do. Do i think it was right , would i gloat about it ever in a debate ? No, never.
But being a patriotic american , i wouldn't want my troops dying because our opponents don't want to surrender because they want to keep their 'honor' .
[pureopinion.nofacts]

yeah, and you know, i wouldn't want 20 million russians dying in the second world war (if you don't know - that number is true). but guess what? despite what they taught me in school, the USA opened the second front only when the russians were half way to berlin or more. you know, losing a couple of thousand soldiers seems well, i dunno...you find the word. so no, i don't think that the bombs would have killed LESS ppl than if a full scale war began.
EDIT
it was only egoistic of the US to drop the bombs. it wasn't with regard to whatever "allies" it had. when americans get hurt - its hell on earth. when others get hurt - well, tough shit. if pearl harbor hadn't happened, i'm not sure that US would have even considered bombing japan.
and you know, their honor is worth fuck more than the thing they may call honor in many other countries. suicide to defend your honor. ring a bell?
Haladflire65
and what, you would hurt innocent ppl just because they hurt your innocent ppl??? god, that is just...well. what kind of sick logic is that? yeah, YOU should go to the army and bomb someone, it will suit you well.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by Haladflire65

From a Korean's point of view, it was only because of the bomb we were able to be liberated from Japan's control. If Japan hadn't been bombed I might have been born a Japanese person... I felt that in my grade 10 history class last year, the course discussed the bombings in great detail, creating a sympathetic view in all the students, but didn't mention anything about the brutalities that Korea, China and other Asian countries suffered under Japanese rule... Honestly, Japan killed just as many people as what they lost because of the bombing - massacring and torturing many, many innocents. I can't forgive them for that and I can't help but feel glad that a disaster happened for them, after all they did to my ancestors.

I can understand disliking Japanese soldiers from WW II for their war crimes, but to be fair, the Japanese people that were bombed (fire bombings and nuclear bombings)...well, most of them weren't those terrible people who committed the war crimes. Sure, they supported their gov't and military, but during then, with no accurate coverage of the war by the Japanese media, the Japanese people (most of them) had no idea how awful their service men were, I'm sure (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

[Afternoon Tea]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

I can understand disliking Japanese soldiers from WW II for their war crimes, but to be fair, the Japanese people that were bombed (fire bombings and nuclear bombings)...well, most of them weren't those terrible people who committed the war crimes. Sure, they supported their gov't and military, but during then, with no accurate coverage of the war by the Japanese media, the Japanese people (most of them) had no idea how awful their service men were, I'm sure (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

I have Japanese Heritage in me, but The Bombing of Pearl Harbor and learning about broke my heart as an American. Pearl Harbor was probably another moral boost for the nuke on Japan