Show of HandsShow of Hands

Show Of Hands August 7th, 2015 12:42pm

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?

63 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

mandiemyztic florida
08/17/15 5:17 pm

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.

NICKKO1
08/14/15 3:56 pm

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

Reply
Eric232
08/12/15 3:51 pm

Dropping the bombs cost less casualties than any invasion strategy we could of used.

ghostdad420
08/11/15 5:12 pm

you can justify the first bomb, but the second bomb? really?

AICT Missouri
08/11/15 10:04 am

I think creating Nuclear Weapons is the mistake

Reply
WWEMarvelGuyDMK
08/17/15 6:23 pm

Iran and North Korea don't care

RINOTom Peoria, IL
08/10/15 9:01 pm

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.

Reply
paytonvdh Wisconsin
08/10/15 8:34 pm

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.

ladyniner81 no hope for humanity
08/10/15 1:58 pm

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.

Reply
Delinsuk
08/10/15 10:08 am

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

Reply
Lightning85 Tennessee
08/10/15 5:18 pm

That isn't what justified it tho

paytonvdh Wisconsin
08/10/15 8:39 pm

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.

paytonvdh Wisconsin
08/10/15 8:40 pm

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.

scriblescrable
08/10/15 10:18 pm

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.

paytonvdh Wisconsin
08/10/15 10:21 pm

I wrote about that two comments up actually

delta3204 CA
08/09/15 4:30 pm

Sometimes u have to do what's necessary for the greater good.

Reply
Striker1435 Texas
08/09/15 2:27 pm

Don't forget about Pearl Harbor. We didn't start the war with Japan. We only finished it.

Reply
CottonClouds Southampton Massachusetts
08/09/15 1:24 pm

We were not right to bomb Nagasaki. After Hiroshima, Japan was more then ready to surrender. Bombing Nagasaki was overkill.

Reply
semperdog21 Oklahoma
08/09/15 4:59 pm

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.

EquaISideEcon more conservative than u
08/09/15 7:45 pm

They didn't agree to the terms because they were completely irrational, 100,000 people didn't need o die for unconditional surrender

semperdog21 Oklahoma
08/09/15 7:47 pm

To the victor go the spoils.

EquaISideEcon more conservative than u
08/09/15 7:50 pm

Unnecessary spoils, they were asking to keep the imperial family and prevent total occupation, both of which were included in the final peace agreement.

Delinsuk
08/09/15 9:32 am

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!

Reply
Delinsuk
08/09/15 9:33 am

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

Delinsuk
08/09/15 9:33 am

. 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

TexasBOS Not in the city
08/09/15 6:51 pm

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.

Storm3020 Missouri
08/10/15 1:31 am

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.

Delinsuk
08/10/15 10:09 am

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

Delinsuk
08/10/15 10:15 am

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.

weallhave1 Tennessee
08/08/15 4:40 pm

My grandfather was in the Pacific theater and likely saved by ending the war quickly rather than a long ground battle.

Reply
BenedictPius Pennsylvania
08/08/15 11:04 am

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.

Reply
DropDeadJonny
08/08/15 10:56 am

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.

Reply
TheIndian Virgo Supercluster
08/08/15 10:02 am

Morally right - no
Strategically - yes

Reply
dashm
08/08/15 7:09 am

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".

Reply
beejanevee Jeffersonville Indiana
08/08/15 7:04 am

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.

Reply
EndTheFediFunny Iowa
08/08/15 5:26 am

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.

Reply
addisonbry Virginia
08/09/15 7:35 am

Japan was actually ready to surrender and discussed plans with the soviets beforehand. It was totally unnecessary in my opinion.

shark
08/08/15 4:26 am

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.

Reply
Shreveport New York
08/08/15 12:18 am

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."

Reply
Shreveport New York
08/08/15 12:18 am

I also think some more devastating bombs would have been dropped in future wars if the atomic bomb had not been showcased.

briebb DC
08/08/15 12:11 am

I'm a bit surprised about the results.

Reply
Jieming Santa Monica
08/07/15 11:21 pm

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.

Reply
azco
08/07/15 10:21 pm

Unfortunately it was inevitable a lot of people were going to die invading Japan

catpillow Florida West Coast
08/07/15 10:20 pm

I wish we had given them a demonstration first before attacking civilians. Maybe they would have surrendered without those cities being destroyed.

bowtieguy wishin I was fishin
08/07/15 8:22 pm

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

Reply
lip massholevania
08/07/15 7:25 pm

My anniversary is on the Nagasaki bombings.

davenap97
08/07/15 6:58 pm

Unfortunately the cities we bombed were harmless. It was silly of us to.

Reply
jsnks
08/07/15 5:59 pm

Humanity sucks!

Reply
unforgivnn
08/07/15 5:53 pm

Absolutely. Look at the long term impact of the way WWII ended. Japan essentially abandoned their military and became extremely committed to peace.

Reply
unforgivnn
08/07/15 5:53 pm

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.

Wackacrat Harford County
08/07/15 5:46 pm

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.

Reply
Wooperth Blue Dog Democrat
08/07/15 5:38 pm

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.

Reply
Liberatheist Mustafar
08/07/15 9:47 pm

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.

Storm3020 Missouri
08/10/15 1:33 am

The atom bombs were supposed to be set off on the nazis

Wooperth Blue Dog Democrat
08/07/15 5:36 pm

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.

Reply
Wooperth Blue Dog Democrat
08/07/15 5:41 pm

In other words, war crimes

CTYankee!!! Connecticut
08/07/15 5:10 pm

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.

Reply
browniescout georgia
08/07/15 2:31 pm

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?

Reply
vstrom Washington
08/07/15 3:06 pm

Different times...that was their war, not ours. Ours just keeps draining our resources and lives...decades later.

CoffeeNow Powderpuff Leftist
08/07/15 4:20 pm

Wait, Iran should have nukes because we bombed Japan in ww2????

semperdog21 Oklahoma
08/07/15 4:36 pm

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.

Rotavele Alabama
08/07/15 4:44 pm

Netanyahu has said Iran will get a nuclear bomb in a few days since the early 80s.

" History shows that would likely happen."

Lolwat?

semperdog21 Oklahoma
08/07/15 4:48 pm

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.

Rotavele Alabama
08/07/15 4:50 pm

"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.

Rotavele Alabama
08/07/15 4:51 pm

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.

semperdog21 Oklahoma
08/07/15 4:53 pm

Actually I don't watch fox. But what was the six day war than?

Rotavele Alabama
08/07/15 4:54 pm

A war with almost all middle eastern nations EXCEPT IRAN.

semperdog21 Oklahoma
08/07/15 4:55 pm

And also saying someone is stupid and not giving evidence against it is not debating.

Rotavele Alabama
08/07/15 4:56 pm

"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

Rotavele Alabama
08/07/15 4:57 pm

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!

semperdog21 Oklahoma
08/07/15 5:05 pm

Actually Jews don't really believe in Jesus but that's ok.

Rotavele Alabama
08/07/15 5:05 pm

I was talking about you...

semperdog21 Oklahoma
08/07/15 5:29 pm

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.

Wooperth Blue Dog Democrat
08/07/15 5:39 pm

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.

Rotavele Alabama
08/07/15 5:40 pm

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?

CoffeeNow Powderpuff Leftist
08/07/15 5:45 pm

Rotavele is a troll guys, FYI

Rotavele Alabama
08/07/15 6:03 pm

Logicman has 540 extra chromosomes guys

CoffeeNow Powderpuff Leftist
08/07/15 6:08 pm

Cry for me troll

Rotavele Alabama
08/07/15 6:26 pm

Don't worry, I cry for humanity every time you talk.

CoffeeNow Powderpuff Leftist
08/08/15 5:21 am

Don't quit your day job of being a degenerate, comedy isn't your thing sport

tsd715 New York City
08/07/15 2:30 pm

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.

Reply
tsd715 New York City
08/07/15 2:30 pm

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.

Hardincz Hardin Co, Ohio
08/07/15 2:09 pm

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

Reply
vstrom Washington
08/07/15 3:07 pm

As opposed to the fire bombing of cities both in Europe and Japan?

Hardincz Hardin Co, Ohio
08/07/15 3:30 pm

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.

vstrom Washington
08/07/15 4:22 pm

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.

semperdog21 Oklahoma
08/07/15 4:39 pm

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.

ArceusBlitz Left wing Libertarian
08/07/15 2:02 pm

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

Reply
hudsondl
08/07/15 1:47 pm

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

Reply
DocLove
08/07/15 4:20 pm

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.

MrTony Colorado
08/07/15 5:18 pm

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.

bnnt Los Angeles
08/07/15 12:54 pm

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.

Reply
DocLove
08/07/15 4:23 pm

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.

eradicator JC
08/07/15 12:44 pm

There could have maybe been some sort of demonstration on a less populated but highly visible area. I've heard that one before.

ozzy
08/07/15 11:47 am

No. I am against nuclear power, nuclear weapons and nuclear waste

Reply
Independent101 Be For America
08/07/15 12:04 pm

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.

mikemain OKC
08/07/15 12:15 pm

What is your reason to be against it?

Captainbstring Biden is a Clown
08/07/15 10:55 am

Yes we used the bomb wisely. Japan forced us into it

TheSwyftSaint The Sun Also Rises
08/07/15 10:53 am

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

Reply
eradicator JC
08/07/15 12:40 pm

My favorite podcast by a mile!

imbatman Georgia
08/07/15 12:52 pm

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.

imbatman Georgia
08/07/15 12:53 pm

Meant to reply to your other post haha

TheSwyftSaint The Sun Also Rises
08/07/15 1:25 pm

@eradicator right there with ya bud :)

TheSwyftSaint The Sun Also Rises
08/07/15 3:19 pm

Access to their oil supply which violated neutrality anyhow

TheSwyftSaint The Sun Also Rises
08/10/15 10:44 am

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

TheSwyftSaint The Sun Also Rises
08/07/15 10:45 am

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

Reply
TheSwyftSaint The Sun Also Rises
08/07/15 10:46 am

Seen as the humanitarian option to continued firebombing of japan, which was killing about as many people

jaysin586 SoH HQ
08/07/15 10:50 am

But would also have allowed them to continue to bomb us... So that number grew a bit from the "same number of people"

skittlkiller57
08/07/15 11:18 am

The Japanese would have never stopped. The war would have gone on for years more if we didn't drop the bombs.

PyroSadist like my comments follow
08/07/15 11:18 am

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

TheSwyftSaint The Sun Also Rises
08/07/15 11:27 am

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

skittlkiller57
08/07/15 11:31 am

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.

TheSwyftSaint The Sun Also Rises
08/07/15 11:36 am

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

TheSwyftSaint The Sun Also Rises
08/07/15 11:37 am

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

skittlkiller57
08/07/15 11:42 am

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

TheSwyftSaint The Sun Also Rises
08/07/15 11:48 am

Hence why i dont disagree with that argument. But my point still stands

imbatman Georgia
08/07/15 12:26 pm

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......

imbatman Georgia
08/07/15 12:29 pm

... 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.....

imbatman Georgia
08/07/15 12:30 pm

.... Dropped the nukes in the cities because the still took out the targets and then some.

TheSwyftSaint The Sun Also Rises
08/07/15 12:33 pm

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.

imbatman Georgia
08/07/15 12:48 pm

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.

PyroSadist like my comments follow
08/07/15 1:20 pm

TSS they were legitimate targets. The Japanese war machine relied on those cities. There were military targets there.

TheSwyftSaint The Sun Also Rises
08/07/15 1:24 pm

@Imbatman
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

vstrom Washington
08/07/15 3:12 pm

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

TheSwyftSaint The Sun Also Rises
08/07/15 3:19 pm

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

Storm3020 Missouri
08/10/15 1:40 am

It was a war crime to kill red cross members by the japs

PyroSadist like my comments follow
08/10/15 8:36 am

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

TheSwyftSaint The Sun Also Rises
08/10/15 8:59 am

Of course the japanese committed war crimes, the every side in the war commited horrible atrocities at one time or another

PyroSadist like my comments follow
08/10/15 10:39 am

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

PyroSadist like my comments follow
08/10/15 10:41 am

Not only the nazis in Germany on "undesirables" (Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc) but also in Japan, many times on captured American troops, mostly aviators.

TheSwyftSaint The Sun Also Rises
08/10/15 10:42 am

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

bs75758 Michigan
08/07/15 10:28 am

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.

Reply