The atomic bombing of Japan? Justified?

I am nary a great general but I would justify it all easily. Here we have a threat that can kill my family and friends. Shame on them cus they made a mistake they chose the fight they were wrong about me. I would hate to have pushed that button knowing the pain it would bring so many generations later. However it's my family. That the big one, You see some asshole in Detroit who I will never meet is still more important then some poor soul who attacked me and mine. They would as well used the bomb if they had the chance. Here's one.. If the enemy saw we had waited and purposedly not attacked them. In the affairs of my Family they could honors thgeir own and stood down..Not really a question cus I understand honor. They could have stood down with honor they did not. The blood on our hands can not be counted as it was the Japanese in this case. Who severed our hands.


Tolerant and Apologetic
It is a shame that we went so far. But it scared them off our nether regions.

Therian

Op. Your numbers are incorrect.
The Total number of Casualties from Hiroshima and Nagasaki is: 199000.

www.atomicarchive.com...

As horrifying as it is, you might feel differentially if you put it in perspective.
In the battle of Okinawa alone, about 219,000 people died, and the war in the Pacific was still far from over.

www.globalsecurity.org...

My personal opinion is that it definately was not justified.

Even though this was a war, I don't think the use of a nuclear weapon can ever be justified.
For me it seems that America used the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki more as a "real world" testing
ground to gauge the power of their newly developed bomb. The tests in the desert was all good, but it did not give them the proper measure of the bombs power.

It was purely a scare tactic, with devastating effects, to scare the country into surrender. It worked, but at what cost?

VVV

reply to post by jrod


Actually the POW camps were outside of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they saw the Mushroom clouds.
There are many a written documents to this.

Hiroshima was justified. It was a port and a major industrial hub; it also housed some parts of the Japanese army.

Second, NAGASAKI Was in no way left untouched, nor specifically designated as a target.

Nagasaki wasn’t even meant to be 'the one' on that day, the first 2-3 targets were too covered in cloud, and Nagasaki was infact almost aborted as well, but at the last moment the cloud's opened up and they dropped the bomb.

Hiroshima was a necessary strike. It did a number of things
1. Prove that the weapon was there, and that any future ideas of militaristic adventures would be dealt with quick.
2. So the Japanese understood that unless they surrendered they would be entirely destroyed. No longer would the allies waste $$$ on carpet bombing.

Nagasaki wasn’t necessary. It was a scientific test.

Different weapon, different topological aspects for all the second sites.



The most interest thing about the bombings, was that when the crews dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, the people actually applauded. They clapped and cheered.

They believed the plane was damaged and the 'entity' dropped from it was a US serviceman who ejected the aircraft because it was going down.

Imagine that, staring and applauding and then having your eyes burnt out by the flash.

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep


I agree it was a scare tactic it said" hey look here" and after the first and succintly the second. The Japanese lost. Here is what I am saying regardless of culture. religion. or creed. You put my family in your sights and i will show you how savage i can be. Listen if I simply slapped you on the hand.Wait that was done next step would be bad names... Did that they would not step down. How do you make someone give up. Lets see we shared blood all through the war. How else. Bad names? We put our own citizens in prisons much to our remorse. very good chance one of our American Asian family members would have done it before, instead we tried bad names.. Atomic war was not the right answer but it did answer the question. America is ready to kill to win. This is not my answer. Mine does change with the facts. In such as it was Atomic was the answer. I would Have bombed a few fishing villages more hurt them at the roots. Along time before I asked one of my men to fight I would have made Japan a parking lot

Right
Therian

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

Even though this was a war, I don't think the use of a nuclear weapon can ever be justified.

Even when the alternative is worse ?
Aspects of the scientific community who helped instigate or design the Bomb came out against its use once it looked like Germany was going to be or was defeated .

The tests in the desert was all good, but it did not give them the proper measure of the bo mbs power

Nah those who made the key decisions were more concerned about the reliability of the bomb , security measures and what the target would be . I recommend that you read Ruin from the Air the Atomic Mission to Hiroshima by Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan -Witts . ISBN number 0-586-06705-1

It was purely a scare tactic, with devastating effects, to scare the country into surrender. It worked, but at what cost?

To be frank in the long run Japan did well for itself . In between Marshal Aid and MacArthur Post War reforms ultimately one of the worlds top economies was born . Credit has to go to the Japanese people who transformation aided by a dose of western consumerism nobody outside MacArthur and his staff would have believed possible . The Japanese transferred the fanaticisms(SP?) that they fought the war with to rebuilding there country , improving production lines and innovations. IMO just reading about Japan transformation today is startling .

Even when the alternative is worse ?

reply to post by xpert11



What was the alternative?

As for Japan doing allright for themselves, sure they are. Using your logic, we can argue that by bombing Japan, it was the kick in the back they needed to "do allright" for themselves?

It is a very controversial topic. And again using your logic, why not just nuke the current war raging in the Middle East, surely that is also better than the alternative?

I am sure America has had many oppertunities to use the nuke after ww2, but since then it has never been used. They rather used the "alternative" way.


You see friend, a nuclear weapon is never better than the alternative. The aftermath of a nuke is even worse than the initial explosion. I sure as hell would never like to see another nuke detonated anywhere on earth.

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep


Political circumstances, MacArthur enormous ego and aspects of Japanese cultural all conspired to help that country . A different geo political and strategic situation existed in the Post War period and now exists in the Middle East your comparison is just plain daft in the extreme . You never explained how Japan would have been better off as counterpart to its some of its poorer corrupt neighbours that is the alternative you speak of and its ill effects would be still be present today . No where did I advocate the future use of Nuclear weapons as it doesn't pertain to the topic .

Cheers xpert11.

reply to post by xpert11


I completely understand you mate.

But I asked you what was the alternative? You said the nuke was a better choice than the alternative? What can be worse than the nuke and it's resulting fallout?

VVV

reply to post by Darkrunner


Newtons 3rd law.
For every action, there is an equal, and opposite reaction.
The Japanese hit Pearl Harbor. The Americans Hit Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

No offence, but they brought it on themselves.

Originally posted by GetRadNZ
reply to post by Darkrunner

 

Newtons 3rd law.
For every action, there is an equal, and opposite reaction.
The Japanese hit Pearl Harbor. The Americans Hit Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

No offence, but they brought it on themselves.

Indeed mate, but did the Japanese hit Pearl Harbor with a nuke? And yeah we can speculate, that if they had one, maybe they would have used it, but that is just pure speculation.

The Japanese hit Pearl Harbour with planes. The American NUKED Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
Even a carpet bombing run would have been better.

So no offence, but there is a huge difference between conventional weapons and nuclear weapons.

Vvv

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep


But I asked you what was the alternative?

Well I already explained the alternatives in my first post in this thread .
Which part do I need to make clearer ?

What can be worse than the nuke and it's resulting fallout?

Three quarters of Japan population being wiped out by either starvation and other health problems or direct fighting . Japan becoming another corrupt third world country with the accompanying poverty and other ills that come with such status , would have been far worse then the after effects of the bomb , Think about it even with the terrible after effects of the bomb Japan population came into prosperity . Things were going take a bad turn either way .
Under the non existent better alternative who knows what nut cases would have ended up running Japan ?

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep


I guess so.
But that's the way things work on Earth.
You antagonize the tiger, It's not going to be pretty.

But the Japanese couldn't have gone into Pearl Harbor thinking that the Americans were going to take this lightly.
In my opinion, it is justified.
They antagonized the tiger.

Cheers
Brady

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
So no offence, but there is a huge difference between conventional weapons and nuclear weapons.

Exactly what is the difference to the people being bombed? Why does this difference matter? Why didnt Japan surrender after the first bomb?

reply to post by dereks


Please read the follow link.

Read the quotes and see what Eisenhower where saying. See what everyone in command positions were saying, and then decide if it was still justified.

Who disagreed with the atomic bombing?

Please read the link and the quotes from them.

Vvv

Genocide is never justified

when they dropped the H Bomb they did not know what exactly would happen...

hmm but they still dropped it.

Originally posted by Thurisaz
when they dropped the H Bomb they did not know what exactly would happen...

hmm but they still dropped it.

When exactly did they drop the H bomb on Japan.... Care to name the time and town it was dropped on?

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
See what everyone in command positions were saying

Wrong, just some in command positions, many more in command positions wanted them dropped.

and then decide if it was still justified.

Yes, it was still justified. If Japan was about to surrender they would have surrendered after the first bomb, but it took the 2nd bomb and the personal intervention of the Emperor for Japan to surrender.

Stop trying to rewrite history

reply to post by dereks


Dude, cmon, you know the guy made a mistake. It was an atomic bomb, not an H bomb.

Have you read my link yet?

VVv

Originally posted by Darkrunner
After a recent discussion with a friend about this very topic, I have to ask. Was it justified?

Well, that would depend IMHO, if you agree that "the end justifies the means" ... then obviously yes.

Originally posted by Darkrunner
I questioned his outrage over the loss of Japanese civilians, and asked where his outrage was about the estimated 500,000 civilians (countless among them women and children) that died during allied bombing raids over Germany towards the end of the war. Are the loss of their lives any more regrettable?

Of course not, but life is life and we should strive to learn to live together on this planet, we call mother Earth. But in war, civilian casualties are just numbers in statistics ...

Originally posted by Darkrunner
I think of General Sherman's quote from the American civil war:

"War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over."

What do you think?

I don't think the German civilians or Italian citizens are somehow worthy of any less outrage than we have about the Japanese citizens.

No doubt, but what makes the Japanese civilian casualties special is that they occurred due the use of nuclear bombs for the first time in the war and possibly in human history. What's done is done and we -there is no we!- should strive to learn to coexist peacefully and work together to explore Space: The Final Frontier.