Hiroshima And Nagasaki - Was It Right?

[Fellbeast58blue]

Well, I'm sure you guessed by the title of the thread that this is a debate on whether the droppings of the two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was acceptable. Please post your opinions on why or why not it should have happened, and please go in depth and back your statements with good claims. Let's also not turn this into a flame war of "America is evil and needs to admit to their war crimes!" or stuff like that.​

~My Opinion~​

Causing utter destruction and claiming hundreds of thousands of lives, many of them innocent, is never good. I get that. However, WW2 in the Pacific had toiled on for too long. Despite the fact that the US had practically defeated Japan, their national pride and fanatic militarism prevented them from surrendering. We would continue to regularly bomb their cities, breaking civilian morale and crippling their economy. However, the Japanese struggled on, and the war went on, claiming more lives, both American and Japanese. In order to end the war, a land invasion would seem necessary. However, this would cost millions of lives on both sides.

Thus, the Americans decided that the use of the atomic bomb was a much better option. Now, you may be thinking "Well how could this country just all of the sudden decimate these cities, unprecedented?". Keep in mind, at Potsdam, we warned Japan that if they didn't surrender soon, they would be met with destruction. We gave them warnings in many forms that a lot of force would be used to force them to surrender, yet they still refused to surrender. So we started out by bombing Hiroshima. This shocked everyone, however Japan still did not sue for peace. Frustrated, we then destroyed Nagasaki, and finally Japan surrendered.

It was horrible. Two beautiful cities were obliterated, and many, many people were killed, injured, and made homeless. These two events scarred the world, making them fearful of nuclear weaponry. As much as I think this was terrible, and should never happen again, I do believe it was the most efficient option for ending the war. Although thousands upon thousands of people died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was far less than what the potential death toll would've been if the US had to initiate a land invasion on the Japanese mainland. The catastrophic bombs brought a war that could've lasted for many more years to a complete end.

 

[Billy_Rage]

Having studied WW2 in depth I can say that America was right to drop the bomb. I am not saying that killing millions is right I am saying this because they were not the only ones building an atomic bomb. Japan, Germany and Russia all had atomic bombs in research. They took the step that the world would have taken eventually, so using it to end a war is probably the best way to first use a weapon such as an atomic bomb.

 

[Joelinco]

I believe that dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was the best way to end the war, and as @Fellbeast58blue said if America would have put boots on the ground it would have killed millions of people on both sides. Quoting @Billy Rage Japan had atomic bombs under research, and would have bombed America if America didn't bomb them.

 

[Sven_Tu]

As much as I think this was terrible, and should never happen again, I do believe it was the most efficient option for ending the war.

Click to shrink...

Pretty much sums up my feelings on this matter. I wish bad things didn't happen. And yet it is only because they happen that things get better. Ending it more peacefully would have been ideal, but that would have also been asking far too much from humanity.

...Japan had atomic bombs under research, and would have bombed America if America didn't bomb them.

Click to shrink...

I'm not so sure about this. While all the countries were researching atomic weaponry, Japan didn't seem to be near a stage where they would have usable bombs anytime soon.

 

[The Genie]

Hm. Personally, I'd say that it was devastating and killed thousands of innocents, but it ended the war. I believe nuclear warfare is extremely dangerous and unwise, but if I were a world leader, I'd probably just threaten to nuke countries I'm at war with to kingdom come. But, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary. We didn't start the war, but we finished it. It wasn't America's problem if we killed thousands, it was Japan's fault for picking a fight with us. They got what was coming to them. They endangered their own citizens by starting the war with America. The blood is on the man who started it. Saying it was America's fault is like saying if someone's trying to kill you in a dark alley and you shoot them and kill them that you did something horrible and it's all your fault.

(Don't find this post offensive, please. But, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.)

 

[Sven_Tu]

I, personally, am not a fan of anything Nuclear. Japan got wiped out 2 times due to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the Tsunami that blew up a Nuclear power plant. Then there is Chernobyl, which had a nuclear power plant explode and detonate the whole city.
I wish humanity got the hint the Nuclear stuff isn't good for your health.

Click to shrink...

The counterargument is that, despite being extremely devastating, these are just isolated incidences. Anything has the potential to be dangerous to health but nuclear power is still a fairly reliable source of energy.

Hm. Personally, I'd say that it was devastating and killed thousands of innocents, but it ended the war. I believe nuclear warfare is extremely dangerous and unwise, but if I were a world leader, I'd probably just threaten to nuke countries I'm at war with to kingdom come. But, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary. We didn't start the war, but we finished it. It wasn't America's problem if we killed thousands, it was Japan's fault for picking a fight with us. They got what was coming to them. They endangered their own citizens by starting the war with America. The blood is on the man who started it. Saying it was America's fault is like saying if someone's trying to kill you in a dark alley and you shoot them and kill them that you did something horrible and it's all your fault.

Click to shrink...

One could argue that you shouldn't have been in a dark alley to begin with.
Food for thought: America may not have started the war directly, but Japan has mostly been living in isolation for most of history. It was only under the (forced) intervention of Matthew Perry that Japan opened up to the rest of the world. One could say that America was responsible for their following military expansion as they tried to secure themselves in the world.
Japan didn't "pick a fight" with America. America wasn't some innocent bystander before all this. Both sides were threats to each other. Both sides were already amassing forces because war with each other was a very real possibility. Japan simply struck first in an attempt to neutralize America. Except they didn't have atomic bombs.

 

[The Genie]

One could argue that you shouldn't have been in a dark alley to begin with.
Food for thought: America may not have started the war directly, but Japan has mostly been living in isolation for most of history. It was only under the (forced) intervention of Matthew Perry that Japan opened up to the rest of the world. One could say that America was responsible for their following military expansion as they tried to secure themselves in the world.
Japan didn't "pick a fight" with America. America wasn't some innocent bystander before all this. Both sides were threats to each other. Both sides were already amassing forces because war with each other was a very real possibility. Japan simply struck first in an attempt to neutralize America. Except they didn't have atomic bombs.

Click to shrink...

I'm not saying that you decided to go down a dark alley, but like if someone shoves/pulls you into one and you have no choice in the matter. And, that is definitely a reasonable point, but, if two people are competing in some way over something and one guy punches the other, then the other one beats the crap out of the other guy, is that wrong? Nope. In my opinion, we wouldn't have gone to war if it weren't for Japan bombing us. It might have been a similar situation to the Cold War with Japan, but we most likely wouldn't have attacked them.

 

[Sven_Tu]

... if two people are competing in some way over something and one guy punches the other, then the other one beats the crap out of the other guy, is that wrong?

Click to shrink...

'course not. But my point is that your post seemed to put a lot of blame and responsibility on Japan when in reality it's more complicated than that.

In my opinion, we wouldn't have gone to war if it weren't for Japan bombing us. It might have been a similar situation to the Cold War with Japan, but we most likely wouldn't have attacked them.

Click to shrink...

My own opinion is that America's entrance into World War II was inevitable. America would have eventually gone to aid Britain against Germany which meant Japan as well. Japan simply took the initiative.

 

[The Genie]

↑
... if two people are competing in some way over something and one guy punches the other, then the other one beats the crap out of the other guy, is that wrong?
'course not. But my point is that your post seemed to put a lot of blame and responsibility on Japan when in reality it's more complicated than that.

↑

In my opinion, we wouldn't have gone to war if it weren't for Japan bombing us. It might have been a similar situation to the Cold War with Japan, but we most likely wouldn't have attacked them.
My own opinion is that America's entrance into World War II was inevitable. America would have eventually gone to aid Britain against Germany which meant Japan as well. Japan simply took the initiative.​

Click to shrink...

Fair enough. Well, I'm a biased person. I know it's more complicated, but still. They were the ones that actually made the first blow. It's as simple as that. I suppose we would have joined the war eventually, but, they forced us into it first.

 

[Simcity_4]

What did I get myself into?

 

[Tommyaka]

In my opinion, the first atomic bombing of Hiroshima was necessary to end the war the fastest with less casualties from the American side (which was strategically wise) but the second atomic bombing of Nagasaki was a simple case of "trigger happy". Japan itself was already devastated with extensive use of resources (e.g. food) and had an exceeding low chance of winning the war... The Japanese people are honorable and would fight to the death but they weren't stupid, they knew they were going to have to surrender. Sadly the Japanese did not realize the extent of what the first atomic bomb had caused until yet another atomic bomb was dropped onto Nagasaki; if only TIME was given for the leaders of Japan they would have no doubt surrendered within the next week to month. These cities were mostly occupied civilians that probably didn't want to participate in the war and tried to live their daily lives; surely it was possible to bomb more military assigned areas compared to cities.
The long term devastation of these bombs are even worse, the radiation that survivors were exposed to meant that near all fertility was mutated and impaired. These atomic weapons did not just kill people on the day of the bombings; it killed the children of pregnant women, it impaired the child's life, it impaired the lives of everybody. Even if you were to survive this horrific event, you were to face days, months, years of agony from mutation, radiation and other horrid exposures. You would die of cancers, diseases, a ticking time bomb and you would have felt that you should have just died with your loved ones then to suffer for so long. If you were a Japanese soldier, if you were ANY soldier, you know you had the chance of dying in combat but you were doing it for the protection of your loved ones, your family, your culture, your nation, what you believe in, but to have the people that did NOT harm anybody else within the war, innocent lives, to die instead of yourself... You would have felt the deepest of grief; wondering why they died when it was your own duty to protect those people.
I think what happened was completely uncalled for personally, but in a strategic sense the first bombing WAS necessary whilst the second, well... It caused more bloodshed then needed.

(Sorry if you find ignorance in this post or if this has offended you.)

 

[hentem]

I say it was needed, the Japanese did tonnes of horrible shit to nearly all their surrounding countries.

Ever heard of unit 731? The mimizuka tomb? Nanking? The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was needed to end the war quickly, and I doubt they would ever surrender to "normal" warfare, besides, a full scale invasion would result in the death of even more Japanese civilians, as the Japanese population would rather sudoku themselves than surrender. Thousands of civilians were killed by the bomb, but even more were killed by Japanese soldiers prior to the bombing, they lead a brutal war and committed more war crimes than I can keep on two hands.

Hadn't the bombs been dropped, even more innocent people would be tortured and killed by the Japanese soldiers, nuclear weapons wasn't a nice solution, but it was probably the best option.

 

[Xanderab]

I say it was needed, the Japanese did tonnes of horrible shit to nearly all their surrounding countries.

Ever heard of unit 731? The mimizuka tomb? Nanking? The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was needed to end the war quickly, and I doubt they would ever surrender to "normal" warfare, besides, a full scale invasion would result in the death of even more Japanese civilians, as the Japanese population would rather sudoku themselves than surrender. Thousands of civilians were killed by the bomb, but even more were killed by Japanese soldiers prior to the bombing, they lead a brutal war and committed more war crimes than I can keep on two hands.

Hadn't the bombs been dropped, even more innocent people would be tortured and killed by the Japanese soldiers, nuclear weapons wasn't a nice solution, but it was probably the best option.

Click to shrink...

Another terrible thing the Japanese did was even.. eat American soldiers, this story is told by the memory of ex-president George HW Bush on telegraph.co.uk "
The former President George Bush narrowly escaped being beheaded and eaten by Japanese soldiers when he was shot down over the Pacific in the Second World War, a shocking new history published in America has revealed.

The book, Flyboys, is the result of historical detective work by James Bradley, whose father was among the marines later photographed raising the flag over the island of Iwo Jima.

Lt George Bush, then a 20-year-old pilot, was among nine airmen who escaped from their planes after being shot down during bombing raids on Chichi Jima, a tiny island 700 miles south of Tokyo, in September 1944 - and was the only one to evade capture by the Japanese.

The horrific fate of the other eight "flyboys" was established in subsequent war crimes trials on the island of Guam, but details were sealed in top secret files in Washington to spare their families distress.

Mr Bradley has established that they were tortured, beaten and then executed, either by beheading with swords or by multiple stab-wounds from bayonets and sharpened bamboo stakes. Four were then butchered by the island garrison's surgeons and their livers and meat from their thighs eaten by senior Japanese officers."

It's true that the Nuclear bombing was harsh, but if America had done something lighter, the Japanese may have not surrendered and some of us might not be here today. Even think about it, it took two nukes for the Japanese to surrender and the death toll was in a range of 90,000–166,000 deaths, yet they didn't surrender and that was Hiroshima alone. A few days later, Japan surrendered AFTER Nagasaki suffered the same fate with a death toll of 60,000–80,000 deaths.

 

[HeartAched]

Honestly it wasn't the best option but President Truman wanted the Japanese to surrender, which they didn't , thus leaving dropping the atomic bomb the only choice left without harming the American military, I felt it was necessary , but just my opinion.

 

[The Genie]

I think what happened was completely uncalled for personally, but in a strategic sense the first bombing WAS necessary whilst the second, well... It caused more bloodshed then needed.

Click to shrink...

Well, you have a good point, but, I believe the second was necessary. The first angered the Japanese, but, the second was the finishing blow. In order to kill a vampire, you have to drive the stake through the heart. That's what Nagasaki was. The stake. (And, no, I'm not saying the Japanese are vampires.)

 

[Waminer]

The amount of casualties America would need to take over the Japanese home islands if the Emperor did not order a surrender would be in the millions just on the American side. If they had done that, in all likelihood the USSR would have taken even more land for themselves in the world and possibly not fallen. America would be Economically crippled and the growth the was omnipresent in the late 1940's, 1950's and the 60's would have not happened. As well, Japan would lose so many people, (Likely as much as 10 million) money and infrastructure it would cease to be a self-sufficient nations for decades. It would during that time have to be propped up by America or given up and likely become communist, leading to the likely loss of the Korean war making Communism even stronger in Asia. Taiwan would also likely fall as it would be without US protection and the US could not provide support to it. This extra strength combined with the lack of money that the US could use to prop up anti-communist regimes India and Pakistan may very well have become Communist as well, and some of the middle east would likely fall under direct USSR control.

To sum it up.
Millions more Japanese dead.
Millions more Americans dead.
Millions more Japanese disfigured, abused/tortured, and/or mentally scarred.
Millions more Americans disfigured, abused/tortured, and/or mentally scarred.
Trillions of dollars of Japanese economic development lost.
Trillions of dollars of American economic development lost.
Trillions of dollars of Korean economic development lost be extension.
The rise a of ridiculous number of Communist or totalitarian (e.g. North Korea) states in Asia
A weakened western world, possibly leading the the fall of some western European states to communism, Russian influence, or near communist level socialism.

While it may have been horrible overall it was worth it, and even though it does not make killing thousands of women and children in some of the most horribly brutal was imaginable right, it had to be done.

(Le Sources)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Imperial_Japan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

 

[TheSonicBullet]

The way i see it, we killed people to prevent more killing. Thats all i have to say.

 

[Epaftw]

[In this comment, I am talking about the long run on the use of nuclear weapons against Japan]

It is right and wrong. It was the correct decision in the short run (because it ended WWII for Japan and US). However, the nuclear bombs for Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a gateway for production of greater, and more dangerous weapons.

Renowned scientist, Albert Einstein said "I made one great mistake in my life-when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made but there was some justification-the danger that the Germans would make them." Einstein himself even says that one of his "great mistake in [his] life] was when he signed the letter to the president recommending the atomic bombs. The creation of nuclear weapons has caused tension between powerful countries; for example, Russia and America.

Overall, I believe that it is both because it stopped WWII with Japan. In the long run, it became a gateway for more devastating weapons. Additionally, it caused humans to be farther from nature and be more towards savages. Also, remember the Cold War? We were in the brink of engaging in a nuclear war. Because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a nuclear war is inevitable (in my opinion, of course).

 

[KyleDinny]

I believe what they done to the two cities was wrong, but at the time it would've seemed like a good idea. A land invasion by Russia (with the aid of America and perhaps China (even though Japan annexed a significant part of it)) would've and should've been put forward the lives of these civilians have been effected and even today deformities happen as a result from the fallout some 60 years ago. America flaunting its military might is okay to stop wars but there is a limit on what the world should view as acceptable, in my opinion America should have reached out to places close to Japan asked for help on making a land invasion and then sent half the amount of soldiers to fight along side these temporary allies. Russia may not have helped since tension with communism and capitalism were on the rise, but we've seen a fascist Germany ally with communist Russia before. All in all more ideas should've been considered.

 

[KyleDinny]

I don't really think you can rate it that because I was on topic and if I wasn't I'd love to know how

 

[Drake_968]

Many others have stated it perfectly already, but I would like to say that the Atomic bombings were the right decision. The war had been raging for quite a while and the death toll was crippling for both sides. A quick, forceful, and powerful end to the war was absolutely necessary. Not to mention the japanese were responsible for the bombing of Pearl Harbor, which claimed the lives of thousands of American soldiers. While many innocent lives were taken, in the end it served its job, to end a brutal and devastating war. It was either drag out a already gruesome war for many more years until one country gave up, or a fast and quick means of victory.

 

[babbleboi]

Hm. Personally, I'd say that it was devastating and killed thousands of innocents, but it ended the war. I believe nuclear warfare is extremely dangerous and unwise, but if I were a world leader, I'd probably just threaten to nuke countries I'm at war with to kingdom come. But, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary. We didn't start the war, but we finished it. It wasn't America's problem if we killed thousands, it was Japan's fault for picking a fight with us. They got what was coming to them. They endangered their own citizens by starting the war with America. The blood is on the man who started it. Saying it was America's fault is like saying if someone's trying to kill you in a dark alley and you shoot them and kill them that you did something horrible and it's all your fault.

(Don't find this post offensive, please. But, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.)

Click to shrink...

It's just the decisions of few that affect the lives of many; that's how the world works. It's not the people that deserve it, it's the government and their officials that started it- their decision was what caused all of it.