70 years ago this week the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A week later, Japan surrendered World War II. Were we right to use the bombs?
We weren't morally right for it but strategically, it was effective.
Sucks that we always have to loose so many lives for stupid war.
Japan would never surrender and it was estimated that there would be more casualties if the U.S. Invaded the mainland instead of the U.S. bombing them
Dropping the bombs cost less casualties than any invasion strategy we could of used.
you can justify the first bomb, but the second bomb? really?
I think creating Nuclear Weapons is the mistake
Iran and North Korea don't care
Karma is a bitch
Kind of ironic that almost 92% of Republicans back the action and only 55% of Democrats do, when a liberal Democrat made the decision. Funny how the parties have changed their foreign policies decade to decade.
The bomb killed a lot of people, yes, but it saved more. Operation downfall (An inland invasion and alternative) was estimate to kill over 1,100,000 USA and Japanese lives. D-day would have been a pick nick compared to an inland invasion of Japan.
If anyone doesn't believe Japan wasn't guilty of human rights offensives, read Flyboys. They almost make the Nazis look like boy scouts. They were horrible towards the Chinese also.
TexasBOS: First of all just because we warned people doesn't justify it. If I anonymously tell a school in going to come in there and shoot it up on Tuesday and they don't do anything that doesn't make justify me doing it
That isn't what justified it tho
Do you really think they took us seriously when we said "we have a bomb that could destroy a city?" Of course not. If they took us seriously they would have surrendered. Firebombing had killed just as many people but didn't force them to surrender.
We needed something that would scare them so much, it would force the most stubborn nation in the world, one who would never think of surrendering, to surrender.
It's justified because an invasion of Japan would have killed millions on both sides. Which is why Truman droped the bombs because it was the better of two evils.
I wrote about that two comments up actually
Sometimes u have to do what's necessary for the greater good.
Don't forget about Pearl Harbor. We didn't start the war with Japan. We only finished it.
We were not right to bomb Nagasaki. After Hiroshima, Japan was more then ready to surrender. Bombing Nagasaki was overkill.
Japanese military leaders were in the US when it all happened. We asked them to surrender or we would drop another. They didnt agree to the terms. Dropped the second. Then they agreed. We had another bomb but didnt use it when they surrendered.
They didn't agree to the terms because they were completely irrational, 100,000 people didn't need o die for unconditional surrender
To the victor go the spoils.
Unnecessary spoils, they were asking to keep the imperial family and prevent total occupation, both of which were included in the final peace agreement.
Don't you people understand that the U.S. targeted these places because they were the only places not already destroyed. We targeted the places with the most civilians!
They did not sign up for that war and we targeted them. To date more than 300,000, most civilians, have died from the affects of the bomb
. Shame on America. At least if weed invaded on ground the people who would die would have signed up for it. If anyone ever did this to us to win a war because there was "no other way" they'd be branded terrorists. Shame on America
We warned the cities before we dropped. Besides the fact that we targeted Nagasaki because it had a military shipyard. And Hiroshima because it had military installations.
About 1 million Americans would have died and a lot of Japanese children and men would have died because they had a child army set up.
TexasBOS: First of all just because we warned people doesn't justify it. If I anonymously tell a school in going to come in there and shoot it up on Tuesday and they don't do anything that doesn't make justify me doing
TexasBOS: Sure they had some military facilities, but the main reason we chose them was because these cities were left untouched and the U.S. wanted the test the power of the bomb. Still doesn't justify killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.
My grandfather was in the Pacific theater and likely saved by ending the war quickly rather than a long ground battle.
The killing of civilians on such a massive scale would be portrayed as a heinous act if it had been done by the losing side. Both sides were guilty of similar acts during the war, and each one was a tragedy.
Whoever said no needs to understand the amount of pressure was on the USA and how many more casualties there would've been for both sides if we hadn't if done it.
Morally right - no
Strategically - yes
This is entirely the wrong question to ask, because it's a symptom of a much larger problem. That problem being that, throughout the war, governments decided it was okay to kill tens of thousands of civilians to get to "military targets".
It was a heinous act that not only killed but tortured and maimed infants and children. It seems to me you guys get caught up in your academic theories and military strategies and can't fathom what this type of human suffering is like.
You are young.
Quite a few of the military strategists agree that an atomic bomb was completely unnecessary and that the war only would've lasted 1 or 2 more months. We dropped them to show our power to the soviets.
Japan was actually ready to surrender and discussed plans with the soviets beforehand. It was totally unnecessary in my opinion.
There are no civilians when nations go to total war with unconditional surrender as the only conclusion. The entire society is mobilized so everyone is a combatant. What we did to Dresden was equally destructive it just took longer.
I'll say yes. I know a lot Japanese citizens got severely fucked over but I think an atomic bomb was almost needed for the world to realize "these wars are getting far out of hand."
I also think some more devastating bombs would have been dropped in future wars if the atomic bomb had not been showcased.
I'm a bit surprised about the results.
I can guarantee you that Chinese and the Koreans felt and still feel dropping the bomb was justified after what Japan did to them. Let's not forget how vicious Japanese forces were for years before.
Unfortunately it was inevitable a lot of people were going to die invading Japan
I wish we had given them a demonstration first before attacking civilians. Maybe they would have surrendered without those cities being destroyed.
Yes, more Japanese lives alone would have been lost if we had to invade mainland Japan, which would have been necessary to win the war
My anniversary is on the Nagasaki bombings.
Unfortunately the cities we bombed were harmless. It was silly of us to.
Absolutely. Look at the long term impact of the way WWII ended. Japan essentially abandoned their military and became extremely committed to peace.
Was it tragic losing all those lives? Absolutely! But war IS tragic. And that action ended the war faster than it likely would have otherwise.
Considering they were so honorable that they were never gonna stop fighting until we took them all out, and it was only until when they realized we could do just that easier than expected that they did stop, I say yes.
They also could have detonated bombs off the coast to say "This is what we have - surrender or we'll use them".
Or, the US could have just stopped fighting and hold their islands. It's not like Japan would try to invade the US... we were safe.
The problem was that the USSR declared war on Japan. If we hadn't dropped the bombs and or just sat back Japan probably would have been invaded by the USSR. The United States wanted to rebuild Japan since they became a very important ally afterwards.
The atom bombs were supposed to be set off on the nazis
Maybe. It's probably true that there were fewer deaths overall then a full scale invasion, but to kill civilians intentionally is a gross, gross violation of international law.
In other words, war crimes
So you think it would be better if thousands of Americans lost their lives instead? The job of the President is to protect those lives - which he did.
We do not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon and yet we killed 140,000 people in a few seconds. Does this seem unfair to anyone but me?
Different times...that was their war, not ours. Ours just keeps draining our resources and lives...decades later.
Wait, Iran should have nukes because we bombed Japan in ww2????
The difference is Israel, our allies, believe that if Iran had nukes that they would destroy Israel. History shows that would likely happen. We put trade restrictions to slow them in order to protect our allies. Its not a moral issue. Its politics.
Netanyahu has said Iran will get a nuclear bomb in a few days since the early 80s.
" History shows that would likely happen."
Iran and quite frankly everyone else has wanted to wipe Israel off the map since it became a nation again. And thats why we fought Iran and put trade sanctions on them. Israel has been bombed by all its neighbors since it became a nation.
"Iran and quite frankly everyone else has wanted to wipe Israel off the map since it became a nation again."
Wow. The American conservative propaganda machine really works well on you. Especially considering Iran is one of our former closest allies.
And would not have touched Israel before the 70s but would have fought for it.
Also Netanyahu has been saying the same thing since the 80s and only fox covers it to see if low IQ people believe it. Israel has been "under invasion" for 35 years now.
Actually I don't watch fox. But what was the six day war than?
A war with almost all middle eastern nations EXCEPT IRAN.
And also saying someone is stupid and not giving evidence against it is not debating.
"1948 Arab–Israeli War, and in the period leading up to June 1967 tensions became dangerously heightened. As a result, following the mobilisation of Egyptian forces along the Israeli border in the
Sinai Peninsula, Israel launched a series of preemptive airstrikes against Egyptian airfields on June 5."
Yeah like most war, Israel attacked first. But we had to defend them because Jesus and Israel does no wrong. Vote Mike Huckabee 2016!
Actually Jews don't really believe in Jesus but that's ok.
I was talking about you...
Well I think every government makes wrong choices. I dont support organized religion and Huckabee is kind of a moron. You probably shouldn't try to make cheap shots. It kinda makes what you stand for look bad.
I don't like nuclear weapons at all and think they should be straight up BANNED internationally, but Iran wants them to destroy a country and for use on the offensive.
US did to end a six year war and on the defensive, and rebuilt Japan after.
You're wanting to invade Iran because of a right-wing nut job who says we need to invade "before they do" .....and I'm the one who looks bad?
Rotavele is a troll guys, FYI
Logicman has 540 extra chromosomes guys
Cry for me troll
Don't worry, I cry for humanity every time you talk.
Don't quit your day job of being a degenerate, comedy isn't your thing sport
If Truman hadn't dropped the bombs, thousands of soldiers would have died invading Japan and likely the same amount or more of Japanese civilians.
Also, if it had come out later that Truman could have dropped the bombs and the war would have ended, it would be a disaster for him.
Wrong to use them on a city? Yes. I realize hindsight is 20/20 and the Truman administration had an incredibly, immeasurably tough decision, but today this would denote a war crime
As opposed to the fire bombing of cities both in Europe and Japan?
No, definitely not opposed to. Both strategies were equally horrifying in their affect on innocent civilians. The Fire Bombing of Dresden is just as tragic.
But killing soldiers who were drafted and forced into combat is ok? Not busting your balls, just saying killing is not good, but if you have to do it, do it fast, hit really hard, and make sure the other guy doesn't get up.
Actually I believe, if war is declared and it was, that bombing cities is not a war crime. I'm not sure though. But it was targeting military factories.
We were right in every way. It's better to drop that bomb and suffer 90,000 deaths than to invade and have over 1 million deaths in both sides. It's wrong but it had to be done
Let's remember the Japanese had the chance to surrender after the first A bomb. They decided to continue thus the second. Without the bomb the only way they were going to surrender was invasion, and many more deaths on both sides
I think military history and strategy are lost to many people. It's dirty work and confusing to them why we all can't hug it out.
They refused to surrender after the second bomb as well. Little known to most Americans, two days later Russia declared war on Japan. Japan surrendered rather than face Russia.
Imperial Japan was ruthless - Hideki Tojo was on par with fascist Italy and nazi Germany.
People don't realize how dangerous they were. So many 100,000's more could have been killed and drawn on for years.
Wait...we couldn't have tried beating bongo drums in a field while we twirled in the name of peace? SMH We have crazy, violent people running dangerous regimes. Violence is a last resort but produces results.
There could have maybe been some sort of demonstration on a less populated but highly visible area. I've heard that one before.
No. I am against nuclear power, nuclear weapons and nuclear waste
But aren't you for American and Japanese lives?? Sure the bombs killed people but many, many more would have died if we had had to invade Japan.
What is your reason to be against it?
Wow people like you exist?
Yes we used the bomb wisely. Japan forced us into it
I feel like the people of SOH would really benefit from the podcast: Dan Carlins Hardcore History. Theres a lot of good and thought provoking stuff
My favorite podcast by a mile!
People don't like the idea of 50000 other people dying in an instant I get that but those peoples deaths caused a surrender that ultimately saved millions of lives. I believe it's justifiable.
Meant to reply to your other post haha
@eradicator right there with ya bud :)
Access to their oil supply which violated neutrality anyhow
Oh your talking about the germans. Yeah, but most of them received their fue punishment during the doctors trial. Unfortunately, many escaped to brasil and argentina, where a good few were the subject of vigilante justice, but not enough
The whole rationale behind the dropping of those bombs was logical insanity. It seemed like the right thing to do at the time, but it was a warcrime. We willingly dropped those bombs on heavily populated civilian centers. But at the same time, it was
Seen as the humanitarian option to continued firebombing of japan, which was killing about as many people
But would also have allowed them to continue to bomb us... So that number grew a bit from the "same number of people"
Talking about on the japanese side
The Japanese would have never stopped. The war would have gone on for years more if we didn't drop the bombs.
War crime my ass! We targeted legitimate military targets and dropped leaflets to warn the civilian population to leave. What more could we have done to minimize US. Casualties? What we did saved American and Japanese lives in the long run
We dropped the bombs on city centers, not at the refineries and manufacturing plants that the US was attempting to eliminate.
It was a deliberate targeting of civilian life. That is a war crime
But we still dropped flyers, plus the Japanese would have never surrendered. If we didn't drop them we would have needed to invade. That would cost far more lives than the bombs did.
The issue with that argument (which i dont necessarily disagree with) is that we dont know what would have happened. We chose to drop the bombs and thats the course of history we now live with.
Im not saying it wasnt the right thing to drop the bomb
Just that people should recognise the word insanity we found ourselves in, that killing a lot of people fast was better than the alternative, and that what we did, was in fact a war crime
If you look at how the Japanese were fighting at the end of the war with kamikaze, and banzai bombers. (This isn't mention the battle where an entire town of people killed themselves due to a loss) It's clear they would fight till everyone was dead
Hence why i dont disagree with that argument. But my point still stands
It wasn't a war crime simply because we won the war. One of the advantages to winning a war is writing history and deciding the faits of the loser. Plus they estimated one million Americans would die in an invasion and more Japanese so not......
... An insane idea also we did it because Russia was coming from the west and we couldn't let them take Japan. That had a lot to do with the decision to nuke them as well. Also the two city's were military targets and it didn't matter were we.....
.... Dropped the nukes in the cities because the still took out the targets and then some.
Lets say someone wins a race by cheating. They did something wrong in order to win. By your logic, that cheating was ok because the cheater won in the end, which is untrue
The ends don't justify the means.
War is not compatible to a race that is Apple to oranges. And yes in the case the end does justify the mean. Plus dropping a nuke isn't cheating.
TSS they were legitimate targets. The Japanese war machine relied on those cities. There were military targets there.
1) given the nature of the dropping of those bombs, we have no historical comparison to discuss this philosophy
2) if you predicate your argument with moral relativism be ready for someone to challenge it
Japan committed a War crime by bombing Pearl Harbor. Add to that the baton death march...etc etc. The Japanese were much more ruthless than the Germans and more brutal
1) The japanese formally declared war prior to the bombing of pearl harbour, but do to poor communications it wasnt received until after the fact
2) they hit the base not the civilian population
3) prior to attack, we had been cutting off japans
It was a war crime to kill red cross members by the japs
The Japanese committed many war crimes during WWII. This list is extensive, but was mostly overshadowed in history by the barbaric acts in the nazi death camps
Of course the japanese committed war crimes, the every side in the war commited horrible atrocities at one time or another
Agreed, even the Allied forces did so...but there is a distinct difference between some troops getting out of hand and murdering unarmed civilians or surrendering soldier and deliberate war crimes such as "medical experiments" carried out by
Not only the nazis in Germany on "undesirables" (Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc) but also in Japan, many times on captured American troops, mostly aviators.
I know the japanese unit (unit 731) your speaking of, and, interesting tidbit: the US hired most of them immediately following the end of the war and continued funding for their projects
Too bad the bombs were ever created. Knowing a couple of power hungry people could basically destroy the world with a push of the button is frightening and sad.