...I’m doing a survey again about what you think about the dropping of the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities. Do you think it was right that the U.S. dropped the bomb on Japan and can you give me a reason why you think that? Thanks a lot if you can help me out. This topic will end by tomorrow because this assignment is due tomorrow...heh. I should learn by now that procrastinating is a bad thing...guess I will never learn...heh.

This discussion can go either way. The americans knew that if they were to invade Japan, there were going to be ALOT of casualties on their side. The japanese wouldn't have surrendered that easily, that's just not their nature.

So from an American point of view it's totally justifiable. By dropping the big one on Hiroshima and nagasaki, and then threatening to drop one on Tokio, they killed a lot of Japanese civillians, but saved the lifes of possibly tens of thousands of GI's. Not a very tough decision if you ask me.

[ 02-10-2004, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: johnny ]

I say no. I just did a report on this too and here are some key facts to note.

1. The bombings of both cities killed more than double that of Pearl Harbor, and so the arguement of "the Japanese deserved it because of Pearl Harbor" is totally silenced right there.

2. Military Generals who commanded and fought against the Japanese all agreed that the bomb was not necessary to have Japan surrender (MacArthur for one, Eisenhower, and others). Japan was also practically in shambles before the bomb was dropped, and would not have lasted longer.

3. There were other means to negotiated a favorable surrender via Russians that Truman consciously knew about, but did not consider that idea.

The following may sound cynical, but as it comes from a mostly America-critic European (me ;) ) rest assured it's no right-wing parole, but simply a assertion of possible facts.

I think that the main reason to drop the bomb was to "show off", and I also think that
1.) It worked
2.) It was justified if not even necessary

Let me explain:
By dropping the A-bomb the US achieved several things
1.) They took the place as the world's first and foremost superpower, thus suppressing a possible upcoming conflict with the USSR by intimidation. This worked both ways and quickly turned into the Cold War. now a lot of bad things have been said about this time, but just try to imagine how a "Heated" war between comunist and wester countries (without A-bombs in that case) would/could have looked.
2.) An uncomparable destructive power ended WWII, making this war even more abhorrent than WWI and keeping most of the involved countries from entering a major conflict ever again.
3.) Public respect/fear of major war increased dramatically and has not decreased since.

Now I admit that this may not have been intended, and I would not support any nuclear strike now nor would I have back then.
Whatever the gain, I consider human life (regardless of numbers) to be a too high price for ANY of it. But I can see the political agenda behind it, I do get its point and I am quite content with the global political outcome.

To sum up:
IMHO
The US had no ethical right to drop the bomb (nobody has the right to take thouands of lifes).
The US had good reason to drop the bomb.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a political and strategical success.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the greatest human tragedy of the 20th century.

[ 02-10-2004, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

Totally in agreement with Faceman here.

And another reason for why the bomb shouldn't have been dropped. Cold War, thats why. IMHO, this was the beginning to the cold war. We could have possibly avoided this or possibly prolounged it (along with a faster resolution as society advances) entirely.

Well, if it wasn't for the cold war, there would have probably been a real one. Take your pick.

I agree with the above posts and something to add:

The American forces were suffering heavy casualties from kamikaze fighters in the fight for Okinawa. If they are going to lauch a full scale attack on the mainland Japan, the losses would be even more devastating, thus dropping the A-bombs is a more cost effective action.

[ 02-11-2004, 01:37 AM: Message edited by: Paladin2000 ]

I've never heard point #1 used as a justification for dropping the bomb, EVER.

Argument 2 is also questionable. The consensus among the military AT THE TIME, was that the Japanese were more than prepared for a protracted defense of the Japanese Homeland. Estimates indicated that the US could have suffered over 1 million casualties (!) in a invasion. Military officials were shocked when investigations of post-war Japan revealed that the Japanese had hidden substantial military assets, including hundreds of newly manufactured JET FIGHTERS (modelled after the Messerschmitt ME 262 - using German technology), in secret hangers throughout Japan. Military intelligence prior to the surrender had totally failed to reveal their existence.

The Russians were a late entry into the war against Japan, and the US desperately wanted to avoid a protracted land war against the Japanese homeland, not only to minimize US casualties but ALSO to avoid allowing the Russians to make post-war territorial claims in the Pacific. A quick resolution to the war was required. As it was, the Russians were still able to claim several smaller islands which are still in dispute today.

Sorry, but I think dropping the First bomb was necessary if for no other reason than to save US soldiers lives. Prior to the dropping of the first bomb, the Japanese were also stubbornly holding out for a Negotiated Peace; one that would have allowed them to retain territory seized in the war. The US and its Allies insisted on an unconditional surrender. Had the Japanese realized the inevitability of their position and surrendered unconditionally, the second bomb would NOT have been dropped. Regrettably, the Japanese stubbornly held out. The second bomb convinced them of the futility of their position.

Whether I like it or agree with it is immaterial. The point in war is to defeat your enemies, and this means killing a whole lot of people. The military minds of the time made this decision and the result was the quick end to the war. Remember also that there was no declaration of war when Pearl Harbor was bombed. I think there was some heavy revenge motivation there. I always become puzzled when people bring casulty amounts into discussions about war. After all, war and death are pretty much synonymous aren't they? [img]tongue.gif[/img] Personally I'd like to see humankind evolve out of the need for war, but with the power mongers I see in the world theatre today, I guesss it's not going to happen anytime soon.

I guess my rambling (it's early) answer would be yes, it was justified. If I'm forced into battle I am going to win by any means necessary. I'm not there to fiddle around. Viet Nam should have taught us that. That's why I'm basically pacifistic. If I have to fight, there will be a world o' whoop ass...

no, i dont think it was justified
as was mentioned earlier the war would likely have been won without those civilian casualty producing devices. when we kill civilians like that, we are really no better (and probably worse) than terrorists like bin laden.

If russia had managed to gain more land out if it, so what? japan is an island with few natural resources - which is why japan went to war in the first place, because they wanted to conquer areas with the resources they need.

the cold war would probably occur still even if we did not drop the bombs, there was massive military testing of nuclear weaponry on some island so they knew just how powerful it was. and the scientist who leaked the info. would probably still leak it in the alternate future.

I believe the bombing was right as it was the only way to end the war as neither side would have given up. If the Japanese had had the chance to nuke the American's first then they would have as well.

I don't see it as a right or wrong but rather a question to ask ourselves why should we do it and what would happen if we did not. We meaning the US Government/Military, not me.

By dropping the bomb: It ended the war alot sooner. The downside is the loss of innocent lives, an unfortunate effect of war. IMO using a WMD weapon is cowardly. To never have seen your enemy. To never have known your adversary that there is a possible kindred, innocent spirit occupying a human body, trying to be human just as you are. WAR sucks no matter how we "play" it. Sometimes it's sadly a necessity, but we should always regret having to do it. To not do so, then you've not allowed yourself to evolve your humanity.

By not dropping the bomb: The war would go on alot longer. And a possibility to further stress the earth's resource: more human lives, prolonged emotional and spiritual stress & trauma (happens anyway also by dropping the bomb), etc.

Either choice we make, we must deal with the consequence and responsiblity. Since the bombs were dropped, both sides must make amends to each other and learn from this lesson of war. No matter what we choose to do, there can be no right or wrong, just the responsiblity we must accept. To answer right or wrong, then we may further divide this world. Pointing fingers continues the cycle of battles and war, trying to prove who is right or wrong. We should strive for harmony and most of all a mutual collaboration between our differences. It's what the world needs now more than ever.

Well.. at least it showed the world how devastating an A-bom could really be.

Hmmm... interesting, well my project is already done and due. It’s kinda interesting what some of you said. Well here’s my opinion, it was wrong that U.S. dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The U.S. never even bothered to warn the Japanese that we were going to drop the a-bomb on them if they didn’t surrender. Hundred of thousand of innocent lives were killed instantly and thousand of lives after the war from the cause of radiation. A military general said the Japanese would have surrendered if we warned them since they were already crippled and the blockade of resources were already weakening them. Yes maybe the dropping of the a-bomb ended the war sooner, but would it have really killed one million American lives? We will never know since it never happened.

Think about it, when Pearl Harbor was bombed, Americans responded in rage and said the Japanese were “barbaric” because they attacked civilians. Well what happened in those two Japanese cities? We killed innocent lives too, how did Americans respond to this? They said that they deserved it. If you compared the death toll, Japanese lost far more lives then the attack on Pearl Harbor. I’m not trying to be anti-American, I’m proud to be an American. I just hate how the history was formed, like what happened to the Native Americans, slavery, how ignorant people were and still are.

Well, here are some things that I haven't seen mentioned that might be useful to remember.

With the destruction of her merchant fleet, starvation was going to be a huge issue for Japan durring the winter of 1945-1956. Things were so bad that the Japanese government was looking at plans to convert things like acorns into foodstuffs.

If the US had made the decision not to drop the atomic bomb, then there would have been no reason to not systematiclly destroy every Japanese city by firebombing. Take the March 9-10, 1945 raid on Tokyo, 100000 killed, a million injured, almost 16 square miles of the city destroyed. Now consider that by Oct 1st the 60 most important Japanese cities would have been destroyed, and that by Jan 1st 1946, every major Japanese city would have been destroyed.

Also, something for those who keep claiming that Japan was ready to surrender. If they were so ready, then why did they reject the Potsdam Declaration on July 28th 1945? It wasn't until August 10th that Japan decided that it should accept the Potsdam Declaration.

In short, Japan wasn't close to an unconditional surrender, and there would have been a lot more dead Japanese if the US hadn't used the bomb (this is true even if you ignore the bloodbath that the invasion of the home islands would have been).

Way to put Hitler in his place.

I think perhaps I can see Hiroshima and Nagasaki being justified as worse than Hitler... Perhaps... Perhaps, in fighting evil, we had lost a bit of ourselves in the process?
Yes, the Holocaust was horrid, but the slaughter was spread out over years.
This was lives being taken in the blink of an eye. Before they could even react.
This was *America* with the blood of innocents on its hands, not Hitler. Perhaps that is why it's tragic.

DISCLAIMER: These are not necessarily Illumina's opinions. Illumina is just trying to see it from a different point of view.

While Hitler was the first example to spring to mind, he wasn't the only one. There were a lot of very bloody incidents durring world war two. The March 8-9 firebombing of Tokyo killed over 100,000 and injured over a million. The firestorms in Hamburg killed 50,000, the RAF bombing of Dresden in February 1945 killed between 37,000-100,000 (The US was no stranger to killing civilians Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not that much more horrific then a lot of Allied air operations). The Rape of Nanking involved the killing ~370,000 and the rape of ~80,000.

In sort, World War II was full of these things. I don't know why someone can just point at two and decide that they are more important.

1. Warned them - They will intercept the bombers and the 2 only nuke in the US arsenal at the time would have been lost.

2. It was a tough call - Japanese civillian casualties vs American GIs. If you were the president, whom would you rather loose?

3. There is little chance for precision bombing - even equipped with the infamous Norden Bombsight, the B-17s would have targeted a larger area in order of the bombs to hit their mark, which means some of the bomb would also hit the sorrounding buildings e.g. schools and houses. In WWII, civillian casualties can only be minimized to a certain "acceptable" level.

4. AFAIK US did issue a warning, although not a very clear indication of the incoming A-bombs, but the Generals of Imperial Japanese Army/Navy just couldn't decide if they should surrender or convert all their civillians into homeguards to defend their country.

The problem with the Japanese is their Code of Bushido-- They would rather die "gloriously" in battle than to surrender. It would be crazy for the American GIs to go against hordes of civillians whom would rather die fighting; as if fighting suicidal soldiers aren't bad enough.

5. In the war, the loosers are the villian whereas the victors are always protrayed as the champions/saviors; make no mistake about it. If Hitler had won the war, US and Europe would be written in the history books as the villians of WWII.


My conclusion -- War is bad. Something that should have not been started. But once you have started, you have better prepared to end it quickly, at all cost.

[ 02-13-2004, 01:01 AM: Message edited by: Paladin2000 ]

Even though is thread is old, that number can hardly be stated without comment. Considering that pearl harbour took 3.500 fatalities, and hiroshima & nagasaki took roundabout 350.000, it's not twice but the hundred times of pearl harbour.

Wow, some really good stuff here.

From a soldiers standpoint. (I guess I could mention that I had family serving on both sides of the World during this space of devastation).

The bomb was not a decision to win the war. It catapulted the US into the forefront of Superpowerdom. Cut and Dry!

From a tactical standpoint. The kamakazi pilots were wreaking havoc, so what, sooner or later they would have run out of both pilots and planes.

We had Marines poised to invade many a location, and some battles were fierce. However, at this point we were back in control of the Pacific, and had air superiority. Remember both bombs were dropped from aircraft. We had also started at will bombings of Japan, and their industry was suffering.
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/p...xz/i-yamto.htm

From my military history standpoint. Gen MacArthur was itching for a real victory after he had left the Philipines.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarth...re/bataan.html
GOA Eisenhower, was not prepared to handle a drawdown of forces in Europe with the Allied Russians at the gate. He did not have the equipment readily available to transport to the Pacific rim. Also, we were stretching the livelihood of young Americans. True, in those days there was little complaint about fighting for freedom. Trust me on this, the strike at Pearl had a physcological effect on Americans that the Japanese never understood until there country laid in ruins. There is a quote by the Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, I have seen it in both written form and media form. "I feel that all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant".

Gen Patton was ready to take the fight into Russia but was put on hold by GOA Eisenhower. Could this have prevented the "Cold War"?

The loss of live may be a fact of war. However, it is every soldiers obligation to provide safety and humanity to the civilian populace. There was no other way to "show the world" what we had, and what we could do.
http://www.donstivers.com/fulls/timetoheal.jpg
Was it needed to win the war? No.
Was it used for personal gains? No.
Was it used as a WoMD? Yes.
Did it work? Yes.
Did it prevent future conflict? No.
We were fighting in Korea in 1951. Vietnam in early 64. Raids in the middle east in the 70's. Somalia, and other little spots in the 80's. The desert in the 90's. And now in the millenium back in the desert.
So, the only unanswered question is. Did it prevent a live war instead of the Cold War?

Now, anyone for a little controversy?
http://www.ussmissouri.com/

Way to put Hitler in his place. </font>[/QUOTE]I had feared that I would have to elaborate that one ;)
I called it the greatest human tragedy, because here people who entered the war to save a civilized world order rather than for personal gain (be it industrial or land), used an unprecedessed tool of destruction as the ultima ratio.
This is the stuff the Greek tragedies are made of: People with good intentions drift into a catastrophy they believe not to be or actually ARE not able to prevent.
Cynical as it may sound to some who can't follow my semantics: A villain butchering his victim is what I consider sad/gruesome/horrible/... but not "tragic". :(
Calling the holocaust a "tragedy" (and I'm talking about the sense here and not the actual words) is IMHO one of the biggest mistakes still made in my country or Germany. It is fatalistic and suggests that the German people (and especially the active Nazis) had no choices against their doing. It presents this ultimate regress of civilisation as their inevitable fate, which is just not true. These people had choices and made the wrongest ones possible.
This is not a tragedy, it is wrongdoing.
Circumstances may have been deceiving, but at the end of the day everybody has got to take responsibility for his choices (NOT necessarily for his actions).
The US had to make ONE far more difficult choice on the a-bomb matter and took a devastating one which we still don't know about if it was actually "wrong" (as this discussion proves). THIS is tragedy!

[ 02-15-2004, 05:50 AM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

Well, I've always thought this was covered by the message sent to Japan in late July that stated I would say that the A-bomb basically did exactly what the US, UK and China told Japan they would do.

There is a reason some can't follow your semantics, it's because what you really mean seems doesn't seem directly related to the words that you use. Were not talking about plays, or other works of art, we're talking about a real event where real people died. I would suggest you consult a good dictionary.

tragedy:
1)a) A drama or literary work in which the main character is brought to ruin or suffers extreme sorrow, especially as a consequence of a tragic flaw, moral weakness, or inability to cope with unfavorable circumstances.
b) The genre made up of such works.
c) The art or theory of writing or producing these works.
2) A play, film, television program, or other narrative work that portrays or depicts calamitous events and has an unhappy but meaningful ending.
3) A disastrous event, especially one involving distressing loss or injury to life4) A tragic aspect or element.

As the WWII was not a literary work, a work of art, a play, a film or a television program, the acceptable definition to be appled to a statement like "the bombing of Hiroshima and "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the greatest human tragedy of the 20th century." would be #3.

[ 02-16-2004, 01:30 AM: Message edited by: Seraph ]

I'd go with Seraph that you should have "elaborated that one" right away. It was plain impossible to understand it in the sense you explained in your second post (imho), and the danger of misunderstanding was all too imminent.

And even in the sense explained there are many tragedies in 20th century which compete. Take the russian revolution as one, which was started by people with best intentions, and ended in another great 20th century catastrophe.

I heartily apologize for the misunderstandings I may have caused.
It's a personal flaw that I tend to use words with greek or latin etymology in senses very close to their origin. I admit that the word tragedy has been generalized over the last centuries to represent ANY disastrous event not just these "tragic" (in the original sense) character. I should have considered that to avoid misunderstandings.
Again I'm truly sorry.