Dropping the Nuclear bombs on Japan: necessary?

[theweapon]

Dude, I'd like to help you develop the skills to search and critically appraise info. To start, try something like a google search on something like "America sanctions Japan Pearl Harbour" .. or something like that.

well im about to go o sleep im very sleepy ima search it tomorrow but can you sum it up so i get an idea of what ima read about?

 

[Ironslave]

well im about to go o sleep im very sleepy ima search it tomorrow but can you sum it up so i get an idea of what ima read about?

America was putting economic sanctions on Japan that hurt them, BIG TIME.

 

[Daniel Andersson]

I going to stick my foot out a little bit here.

If I remember it right America had sanctions on Japan and that pissed them of so they bombed Pearl harbour as a "reveange". America later answered with a bombing of Tokyo.
And to finish WWII America dropped Little boy over Hiroshima and Fat man over Nagasaki

I think Little boy and Fat man was a way of saying "Look what we've got "

 

[Ryeland]

Oppenheimer said it best.

"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"

While I do not believe the nuking of Japan (twice) at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was warranted or the right thing to do, I understand its application in this instance. The Japanese are revered for their stubbornness when it comes to matters such as war. The shame of defeat is taken with a much higher price than in our culture. The americans knew this, there was going to be no easy surrender even when hopelessly outmatched. The amount of death on both sides during a land invasion to make the Japanese concede defeat was going to be astronomical. The cost to the civilians, economy, infrastructure was going to be immense.

Now for those of you who question whether or not the Japanese would have accepted defeat by a land force without total annihilation of the country I pose this fact. After the bomb at Hiroshima was dropped, and that city, the people in it, was wiped out of existence in the blink of an eye the Japanese did not surrender. An entire city, thousands of people, annihilated in a flash with one bomb and the governing body of Japan did not see fit to surrender. The enemy possessed the capacity to wipe the entire country of the map at a whim, with no method of preventing this and Japanese thought it would be a good idea to persist. So a second bomb was dropped, only then did they surrender.

As I said I do not agree with dropping the bomb on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. I might even classify it as a war crime. But I am left wondering what kind of country is willing to antagonize another with no means to fight back knowing that their entire populace could be destroyed in a few hours? That being said I think the Americans were too eager to try this thing out.

 

[lifterdead]

In short:

1) America provoked Japan into making the initial attack.

2) Japan would have surrendered even if we didn't drop the A-bombs, but it would have cost many, many lives on both sides.

 

[Bulkboy]

Oppenheimer said it best.

"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"

While I do not believe the nuking of Japan (twice) at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was warranted or the right thing to do, I understand its application in this instance. The Japanese are revered for their stubbornness when it comes to matters such as war. The shame of defeat is taken with a much higher price than in our culture. The americans knew this, there was going to be no easy surrender even when hopelessly outmatched. The amount of death on both sides during a land invasion to make the Japanese concede defeat was going to be astronomical. The cost to the civilians, economy, infrastructure was going to be immense.

Now for those of you who question whether or not the Japanese would have accepted defeat by a land force without total annihilation of the country I pose this fact. After the bomb at Hiroshima was dropped, and that city, the people in it, was wiped out of existence in the blink of an eye the Japanese did not surrender. An entire city, thousands of people, annihilated in a flash with one bomb and the governing body of Japan did not see fit to surrender. The enemy possessed the capacity to wipe the entire country of the map at a whim, with no method of preventing this and Japanese thought it would be a good idea to persist. So a second bomb was dropped, only then did they surrender.

As I said I do not agree with dropping the bomb on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. I might even classify it as a war crime. But I am left wondering what kind of country is willing to antagonize another with no means to fight back knowing that their entire populace could be destroyed in a few hours? That being said I think the Americans were too eager to try this thing out.

this is an awesome post. i also believe that dropping the bombs saved alot of lives. it was estimated that the cost of a land invasion would be something like 1 million americans and 3-4 million japanese. they would not surrender, but would have fought on every streetcorner. now offc these are brutal weapons that i hope will never be used again. but i do think the cost of a land invasion would have been worse.

also, IS. those sanctions america posed on japan were after my understanding because of japans imperialistic ambitions in Asia. japan relied heavily on american oil and steel to continue its war efforts in china. which btw is one of the most brutal wars the world has ever seen. when japan continued to invade south east asia it became necessary to put further embargos on them.

 

[alex]

The U.S wanted to save the life's of the soldiers on the already devastated youth of their country.If they invaded japan they would loose many more,i would probably do same if i was in their position

 

[lifterdead]

also, IS. those sanctions america posed on japan were after my understanding because of japans imperialistic ambitions in Asia. japan relied heavily on american oil and steel to continue its war efforts in china. which btw is one of the most brutal wars the world has ever seen. when japan continued to invade south east asia it became necessary to put further embargos on them.

Nope. The sanctions reflected an agreement reached prior to Japan's invasion of Asia. America demanded Japan return ALL of its territory gained after the original agreement (which Japan was NOT party to, btw.) This is in stark contrast to the way the US dealt with Western powers, e.g. Russia, Germany, etc. Japan sent quite a few delegation to Washington trying to reach some sort of compromise with the US before it resorted to war. Washington rejected all of the Japanese offers.

Interestingly, the same advisor that helped hold America to the "all or nothing" policy with Japan eventually went on to instruct the Bush family in international policy at Harvard, I believe...

 

[Braaq]

Oppenheimer said it best.

"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"

While I do not believe the nuking of Japan (twice) at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was warranted or the right thing to do, I understand its application in this instance. The Japanese are revered for their stubbornness when it comes to matters such as war. The shame of defeat is taken with a much higher price than in our culture. The americans knew this, there was going to be no easy surrender even when hopelessly outmatched. The amount of death on both sides during a land invasion to make the Japanese concede defeat was going to be astronomical. The cost to the civilians, economy, infrastructure was going to be immense.

Now for those of you who question whether or not the Japanese would have accepted defeat by a land force without total annihilation of the country I pose this fact. After the bomb at Hiroshima was dropped, and that city, the people in it, was wiped out of existence in the blink of an eye the Japanese did not surrender. An entire city, thousands of people, annihilated in a flash with one bomb and the governing body of Japan did not see fit to surrender. The enemy possessed the capacity to wipe the entire country of the map at a whim, with no method of preventing this and Japanese thought it would be a good idea to persist. So a second bomb was dropped, only then did they surrender.

As I said I do not agree with dropping the bomb on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. I might even classify it as a war crime. But I am left wondering what kind of country is willing to antagonize another with no means to fight back knowing that their entire populace could be destroyed in a few hours? That being said I think the Americans were too eager to try this thing out.

Great post, I don't think I could have said it any better.
But lets not forget, Stalin said he would join in on the war with Japan six months after VE day. We did not want this because we did not want to divy up Asia like we were forced to with Europe. When the war last almost 6 months after VE day and Russia was preparing to invade we dropped the bombs to end the war with Japan without a costly ground invasion and to show to the world (especially Russia) our atomic might. It saved thousands of American soldier's lives, saved Japan from the cold grip of the Red Army and was dealt as a powerful playing card to Stalin to show our power.

No one is trying to say this was a right thing to do, but if any of you don't understand or see the necessity of dropping the bomb then there is not point in continuing this debate because it is clear your opinion will not be swayed.

 

[lifterdead]

My biggest beef with Japan is the way they present the dropping of the bomb. They use a the atomic bombs to make Japan out as a 'victim" of WWII.

:angrydude:

 

[Braaq]

My biggest beef with Japan is the way they present the dropping of the bomb. They use a the atomic bombs to make Japan out as a 'victim" of WWII.

:angrydude:

Exactly, regardless of how they were "forced to war" by "sanctions" they attacked us. Then when given chances to surrender with the warning of annihilation from Truman and not surrendering after the first bomb they want to act as victims? It was a horrific event, but "victims" they were not.
They can just blame it on their government then, like how we can do the same. Just a shame we had to bomb innocent people to win.

 

[El Freako]

My biggest beef with Japan is the way they present the dropping of the bomb. They use a the atomic bombs to make Japan out as a 'victim" of WWII.

:angrydude:

Go to Hiroshima and visit the peace museum. What happened to all those innocent civilians was horrific and its aftermath lasted for decades. Sure the Japanese government was in the wrong but they were not the ones who suffered the most. I'll admit that as a tool to stop the war it was effective and maybe justified as a last resort, but the US was far from beyond reproach. Japan started something horrible and the US finished it with one of the most horrific acts of the 20th century. There were victims on both sides.

 

[Braaq]

^^ I won't argue with that one bit. Good post El Freako

 

[Ironslave]

Exactly, regardless of how they were "forced to war" by "sanctions" they attacked us. Then when given chances to surrender with the warning of annihilation from Truman and not surrendering after the first bomb they want to act as victims? It was a horrific event, but "victims" they were not.
They can just blame it on their government then, like how we can do the same. Just a shame we had to bomb innocent people to win.

Blake, you know that I like/respect you, but you're really patriotic with regards to America's power. How can you not admit that those tens of thousands of civilians who died were not victims? Did Japan attack American schools/hospitals, or a military base? I will never condone an act of violence, but America was again, acting as a big bully. They wanted to get into the war, but the public would have never accept it, without pretext.

The notion that "dropping the bomb" saved millions of lives, because Japan wouldn't have surrendered otherwise could not be any more wrong. It was the worst action committed in the history of the world, bar none. It was a war crime, and it was completely unnecessary.

First, let's look at the 8 point plan implemented by FDR, Captain McCollum, and others, which was published over a year before the Pearl Harbor attack. Japan was trying to strengthen it's position in southeast Asia, which could have interfered with American interests.

"If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better. At all events we must be fully prepared to accept the threat of war." -- A. H. McCollum

Admiral James Richardson had warned FDR on more than one occasion that Pearl Harbor was unprepared in case the Japanese ever attacked. In February 1941 when he refused to follow one of the eight points in the plan and keep the Pacific Fleet in Hawaii, FDR transferred him out.

In March 1941, FDR signed the "Lend-Lease Act", and began sending war supplies to the UK, Soviets, China, France, and other allied powers. Since the war had already begun, this was an act of war, yet Japan/Germany didn't bite.

In July, 1941, FDR froze all Japanese assets in America. Japan then didn't have money to purchase war supplies (while the allies were getting war supplies from America), and their oil was basically cut off.

At this point, Japan pretty much HAD to do something. "If the present condition is left unchecked," asserted Teiichi Suzuki, president of the board, "Japan will find herself totally exhausted and unable to rise in the future." The blockade, he believed, would bring about Japan's collapse within two years, and he urged that a final decision on war or peace be made "without hesitation." [13] The Navy's view was equally gloomy. There was only enough oil, Admiral Osami Nagano told the Emperor, to maintain the fleet under war conditions for one and a half years and he was doubtful that Japan could win a "sweeping victory" in that time.

They tried to negotiate, but America played big time hardball, and eventually, Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, which was mainly done to interfere with America's ability to respond to another concurrent swift attack on British/Dutch forces, where they hoped to gain control of the resources in the Philippians, and other places in southeast Asia to gain control of the resources. Finally, they attacked.



This is an incredible explanation of all the events, for anyone who might be interested in reading. (aka, anyone who's name doesn't rhyme with "hulk toy".)

http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_04.htm

Blake, I know you love your country, but I'll say this, your country is like the playground bully. Tomorrow, I'll discuss why dropping the bombs were unnecessary.

 

[Samoan-Z]

Well my personal belief was we dropped the bomb to intimidate the world, think of all the country in the world as each a single person. US, was fist fighting Japan, Germany. Then we pull out a .45 and pop japan in the head.

It was an event meant to shock and strike fear into friend and foe alike, and basic set American up as "The" current world super power.

At the time Germany (Nazi Germany) and the Soviet Union was researching nuclear bombs, with us dropping not one but two, kinda declares the crazy asshole in the room and to stop what you are doing to give him space.

As an American I can actually say we are bullies, but like a authority figure with weapons it keeps everyone else in line, soon another nation will replace us as the world bully, Rome to England to Nazi Germany to a Stalemate with Soviet Union and US and then just the US and now we might have a peaceful stalemate with China.

 

[lifterdead]

Go to Hiroshima and visit the peace museum. What happened to all those innocent civilians was horrific and its aftermath lasted for decades. Sure the Japanese government was in the wrong but they were not the ones who suffered the most. I'll admit that as a tool to stop the war it was effective and maybe justified as a last resort, but the US was far from beyond reproach. Japan started something horrible and the US finished it with one of the most horrific acts of the 20th century. There were victims on both sides.

I was waiting for someone to say this.



I have been to Hiroshima and visited the peace museum. Multiple times. I've also spoken, in Japanese, with a survivor of the blast, Mrs. Yamaoka. Yes, the bombing was terrible. But IT WAS NOT THE WORST THING DONE IN WWII.

In the multiple times I've been to the peace park, I'm always pissed off when I read the Japanese explanation as to why Americans dropped the bomb. The sign says we did it to intimidate Russians. Not to save lives, not to end the war, but to show off, more or less. This bothers me.

Furthermore, Japanese high school history books spend 3 pages on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and one paragraph on war crimes like the Rape of Nanking. Several of my students in Japan even admitted to me they think it was fabricated by the Chinese to rally hate against Japan.

I've also been to the "patriots' museum" in Yasukuni. Unless you want to hear a *really* long rant, I'll leave that one alone.......






:ihavesandinmyvagina


Japan was not a victim of WWII. They were an aggressor. If anything, they were a victim of their own refusal to accept defeat.

 

[El Freako]

I was waiting for someone to say this.



I have been to Hiroshima and visited the peace museum. Multiple times. I've also spoken, in Japanese, with a survivor of the blast, Mrs. Yamaoka. Yes, the bombing was terrible. But IT WAS NOT THE WORST THING DONE IN WWII.

I did not say that it was, but it was one of the most heinous acts of the 21st century, this is undeniable.

In the multiple times I've been to the peace park, I'm always pissed off when I read the Japanese explanation as to why Americans dropped the bomb. The sign says we did it to intimidate Russians. Not to save lives, not to end the war, but to show off, more or less. This bothers me.

I'm aware that Japan is very good at ignoring the truth, but here you are trying to do the same.

Furthermore, Japanese high school history books spend 3 pages on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and one paragraph on war crimes like the Rape of Nanking. Several of my students in Japan even admitted to me they think it was fabricated by the Chinese to rally hate against Japan.

See above. The same thing happens all over the world.

I've also been to the "patriots' museum" in Yasukuni. Unless you want to hear a *really* long rant, I'll leave that one alone.......






:ihavesandinmyvagina


Japan was not a victim of WWII. They were an aggressor. If anything, they were a victim of their own refusal to accept defeat.

If you reread my post you'll see that I did not once say Japan was blameless, I said the civilian citizens of Hiroshima were innocent. This is not a clean cut case. Japan committed many atrocities, Germany too and in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki the USA joined those ranks. Now I'm not trying to rank the USA up there with wartime Japan and the Nazis in terms of evilness but by definition the bombings were just that, atrocities.

Spoiler

atrocity

Main Entry:
atroc·i·ty
Pronunciation:
\ə-ˈträ-sə-tē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural atroc·i·ties
Date:
1534

1 : the quality or state of being atrocious 2 : an atrocious act, object, or situation <the…sufferings and atrocities of trench warfare — Aldous Huxley>



atrocious

Main Entry:
atro·cious
Pronunciation:
\ə-ˈtrō-shəs\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Latin atroc-, atrox gloomy, atrocious, from atr-, ater black + -oc-, -ox (akin to Greek ōps eye) — more at eye
Date:
1658

1: extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel : barbaric2: appalling , horrifying <the atrocious weapons of modern war>3 a: utterly revolting : abominable <atrocious working conditions> b: of very poor quality <atrocious handwriting>
— atro·cious·ly adverb
— atro·cious·ness noun

You can jump up and down and try and defend your country's act but the truth is clear (from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Japan):

The bombs killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, roughly half on the days of the bombings. Since then, thousands more have died from injuries or illness attributed to exposure to radiation released by the bombs. In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians.

They may well have done it to end the war and to stop the meaningless waste of life, but as has been said they also did it to make a statement to Russia (and maybe the rest of the world). If you try to deny this you are effectively doing what you accused Japan of doing, denying the truth. I am glad you have at least been to Hiroshima but maybe you did not take away from it what you should have if the only emotion you felt was anger at the Japanese.

 

[lifterdead]

You can jump up and down and try and defend your country's act but the truth is clear (from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Japan):

The truth is clear from wikipedia?

LOL





You don't read very well.


Let me explain my posts in the simplest way possible: Japan has done a horrible job of representing its involvment in WWII. I know this through first hand experience. It doesn't have to be this way. I know plenty of Germans who are well-educated and informed about the atrocities committed by their country in WWII. Having taught history in an inner city school, I can say that American schools are at least trying to teach about the terrible things done by the United States in WII.

I am glad you have at least been to Hiroshima but maybe you did not take away from it what you should have if the only emotion you felt was anger at the Japanese

Not sure where you drew this conclusion from. As I said in my first post, my biggest beef Japan's willful ignorance. I never said I didn't feel compassion for Mrs. Yamaoka, other Japanese civilians, or any of the Korean slave laborers at Hiroshima.

My points stands; Japan is doing a terrible job of educating its youth about WWII. The monbugakusho puts waaaaay too much importance on the atomic bombs. Most students in Japan have no idea why most of Asia still hates them. When high ranking government officials also make claims that certain events never took place during WWII, I feel like tearing my hair out. No matter how many times you quote wikipedia, you're not going to change the fact that most Japanese people are ignorant of their countries crimes in WWII.



What can I say? Try teaching in Japan for a few years and get back to me.



Anyways, you're pretty bad at drawing meaning from my posts. I advise you to think a little bit more before responding again.





Personally, I'm sick of hearing about the atomic bombs. We seem to place special importance on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because a single weapon killed so many, yet fail to give equal attention to crimes where larger numbers of people were killed, perhaps more slowly and more cruelly, by thousands of individuals.

 

[Braaq]

Good post IS, but as I said, no one is doubting that Japan was somehow coerced to attack us through indirect means. But I already posted below the reasons why we saw the need to drop the bomb instead of a ground invasion. But if you missed it I will re-post below:

But lets not forget, Stalin said he would join in on the war with Japan six months after VE day. We did not want this because we did not want to divy up Asia like we were forced to with Europe. When the war last almost 6 months after VE day and Russia was preparing to invade we dropped the bombs to end the war with Japan without a costly ground invasion and to show to the world (especially Russia) our atomic might. It saved thousands of American soldier's lives, saved Japan from the cold grip of the Red Army and was dealt as a powerful playing card to Stalin to show our power.

No one is trying to say this was a right thing to do, but if any of you don't understand or see the necessity of dropping the bomb then there is not point in continuing this debate because it is clear your opinion will not be swayed.

I don't think it was a good thing that we dropped a bomb that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. I am just arguing the side of necessity for dropping the bomb. Of course there could have been other options, but with several variables at stake it was the best for the US at the time. If Japan was really ready to surrender as you say, then why did they not surrender when threatened with annihilation and after the first bomb was dropped??

Also, I do not mean to be overly patriotic. I am aware that we are the "playground bully" of the world and that is something I wish we would change.

 

[Duality]

The truth is clear from wikipedia?

LOL





You don't read very well.


Let me explain my posts in the simplest way possible: Japan has done a horrible job of representing its involvment in WWII. I know this through first hand experience. It doesn't have to be this way. I know plenty of Germans who are well-educated and informed about the atrocities committed by their country in WWII. Having taught history in an inner city school, I can say that American schools are at least trying to teach about the terrible things done by the United States in WII.



Not sure where you drew this conclusion from. As I said in my first post, my biggest beef Japan's willful ignorance. I never said I didn't feel compassion for Mrs. Yamaoka, other Japanese civilians, or any of the Korean slave laborers at Hiroshima.

My points stands; Japan is doing a terrible job of educating its youth about WWII. The monbugakusho puts waaaaay too much importance on the atomic bombs. Most students in Japan have no idea why most of Asia still hates them. When high ranking government officials also make claims that certain events never took place during WWII, I feel like tearing my hair out. No matter how many times you quote wikipedia, you're not going to change the fact that most Japanese people are ignorant of their countries crimes in WWII.



What can I say? Try teaching in Japan for a few years and get back to me.



Anyways, you're pretty bad at drawing meaning from my posts. I advise you to think a little bit more before responding again.





Personally, I'm sick of hearing about the atomic bombs. We seem to place special importance on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because a single weapon killed so many, yet fail to give equal attention to crimes where larger numbers of people were killed, perhaps more slowly and more cruelly, by individuals.

wow. very interesting to read your posts and hear about what you've done. you make very good points.

why the hell isn't lifterdead in any MOTM talk ever? posts like this are the ones that deserve reppage.