Using the A-bomb

[ScruU2wice]

this is a topic i don't think i could take sides on because it raises the whole "what if" question. I've heard alot of arguments for this and against it. people gave me evidence for either side but either thought that it was totally skewed, or just plain forgot it. Do you guys think it was wrong for the US should have used the Atomic bomb on Japan in WWII?

[AChimp]

No, because in the end, it probably saved more lives than deaths that resulted from it.

Land invasion of Japan would have been long and bloody. Of course, victory would have been inevitable; a little island like Japan can only take so much pounding before it starts to give. Russia was preparing to invade in a few months, and Canada had already told the U.S. that we'd be onboard for an assault from our side.

There's a lot of speculation over whether or not Japan would have just surrendered anyways once the Allies moved their European forces to the other side of the world. It had already gotten to the point where American planes could fly over Japan virtually unmolested. I've argued both sides here over the years.

[ScruU2wice]

See this is where people start perdicting numbers, like someone told me that it would cost more than a Million american lives to take the japanese mainland because everyone there was willing to die for there country and ready to commit mass suicides attacks before they would surrender.

I don't like thinking though that the people we killed were non-combatants and if the US did invade the mainland, i'd think they'd only take down the people that would be fighting. So maybe an invasion of the mainland might be slightly cleaner on our conscience.

But the plus side of not invading is that we didn't lose hundreds or thousands of american lives it would take to attack the mainland. I can't perdict how many people would die but you can't doub that a certain number of soldiers would become casualties...

[AChimp]

Have you seen the films where they show Japanese women and children practicing with bayonets? A land invasion would have probably been the shitstorm to end all shitstorms.

Of course, there's no way to say for sure. The bomb was dropped, the Japs crapped their pants, the war was over, end of story.

[Drew Katsikas]

Hey, don't use "JAPS." That's a racist abbreviation!

[mesobe]

I think it was a good idea to drop the bomb. Remember the Japanese stood up to 2 bombs. They didnt give up the first round... so with that I would make a personal assumption that they would put up a pretty long fight if there was an invasion instead.

[glowbelly]

i'm pretty sure that they didn't know a second one was on it's way.

i just don't like the hypocricy of it all. the us is the only country to ever use a wmd on another country and we're the ones that insist on taking them away from other "threatening" countries.

i see the point, it's just hypocritical. in an ideal world, they would all be taken away from every country on earth. it makes me sad that this will never happen.

[mburbank]

We didn't even attempt a demonstration. We could have invited the Japanese to watch as we obliterated an atoll. We could have dropped the bomb on a rural section of Japan.

We chose to drop the bomb on a city. We chose to obliterate non combatants, the elderly women and children. We did this for among other reasosns to impress upon the Russians that we were more than willing to use the bomb on civillians.

We are, to date, the only nation that has used a nuclear weapon on another nation. We have never even attempted to examine the ethics of this act. To this day, the very idea of even looking at the question at the Smithsonian caused a public relations disaster.

If, and almost certainly when Nuclear weapons are used against civillians again, we will have been the ones who opened that door. No matter how many lives it may have saved in the long run (and that is always pure speculation) the United States set the precedent for atomic warfare, the wholesale destruction of life in a single, easy moment. We had other options and we chose not to pursue them. As victors we have excorcised the right not to evaluate our actions ever since.

I think our use of the Atom bomb is without a doubt the worst thing we ever did as a country, and is perhaps the worst thing mankind has ever done. I mean that quite seriously. In the scope of history, very little time has passed since the day we destroyed Hiroshima. The ripples from that stone in the pond are still spreading. Our current adminstration is actively persuing the developement of so called 'mini' nukes, a sure indication that the idea that just possessing these weapons is a deterent in and of itself is already fading and being replaced by an idea that nukes could be tactical, just another level of battlefield ordinance.

Wether or not this is a pandora's box that would have been opened by someone sooner or later, we will always be the nation that opened it.

[AChimp]

It's interesting to note that at the beginning of WWII, the bombing of civilians was considered barbaric by all sides. The Nazis opened that door with Hitler's proclamation that he wanted no stone atop another to remain in Britain.

Mesobe is right, though. The Japanese government held out through two bombs. They didn't surrender immediately after the first attack, nor immediately after the second attack. I've even heard that the Japanese even tried a conditional surrender before they gave up completely. Now undoubtedly, there was a big push to surrender right away after they realized what an atomic bomb was, but the people making the decisions still thought they could prevail. I think that alone is an indicator of how long they could have held off a conventional land invasion.

As Max has stated, too, the use of the bomb was partly political (to show the Russians the potential consequences of getting greedy in Europe), but I disagree that the ethics and other options were not considered. The U.S. army spent years developing the bomb and thought about whether or not they would actually use it and where. The scientists working on the project actually petitioned Truman NOT to use it after the Manhattan Project was successfully tested. They knew it was going to be a big bomb, but they had no idea of the actual destruction it could cause.

The locations for the bombings was carefully chosen for dozens of reasons. One of the main factors in the decision was the effect on morale. They also wanted an area that had enough infrastructure to deal a substantial blow to the Japanese war machine and so that they could fly over afterwards and get a really good idea of the its true destructive powers on an inhabited area.

The Japanese would have simply laughed at the bombing of an atoll or rural area and then claimed they could withstand whatever we threw at them.

I think the use of the bomb was a necessary evil, and the images of the actual result of its use against people is probably one of the biggest deterrents of its use against more people in the future.

[ScruU2wice]

Yeah, maybe our world is scared of using nuclear weapons now, but this was the case with world war I where several countries made alliances and lines were drawn. No one started the fight because they were afraid of taking on a team of nations.

Just because that no country is radical enough to use an Nuclear weapon yet, doesn't mean their never will. But on the other hand I think the invention of nuclear and atomic bombs was innevitable because the US had greatly underestimated the nuclear capabilities of the USSR during the cold war meaning that the Russia was also developing a nuclear program parallel to America's. However the credibility of this and tons of other information about the bomb is questionable

[Helm]

No, because in the end, it probably saved more lives than deaths that resulted from it.

I can't even being to explain how much I dissagree with this statement. It's arguable if it's true in the first place (speculative) but even if it's true, should morality be judged on the basis of damage v.s. profit? I think not.

[AChimp]

This isn't about a philosophical debate where everyone can sit down and talk about what's right and what's not. It was a war, plain and simple. You end up making decisions that you'll have to live with later.

What would the costs have been if the war had dragged on for another six months? A year? Two?

If, rather than dropping atomic bombs, the Allies had formed an impenetrable blockade around Japan instead, everyone would be talking about what a shitty, reprehensible idea that was because millions of Japanese starved to death.

[da blob]

Ah - ha. It's war, so morals don't enter into it. Interesting - not surprising, unfortunately.

[Bobo Adobo]

The war could have dragged on for maybe even a decade, the japanese were on the verge of discovering and perfecting major technoligical brackthroughs at the time. These included being able to launch a 100% sub-marine based offensive(including aircraft carrying subs), and Jet fighters that could easily outmatch allied planes. They also were developing the first attack helicopters.

In the end the allies would still would have won, since they would have been reinforced with with men fighting on the european front. it would have taken a lot longer, and a lot more deaths so all in all I think the bomb had to be dropped. Maybe not in Hiroshima, but it had to be dropped.

[AChimp]

Ah, but they do. There are rules to war, or at least everyone talks about how there are.

It's hard to sympathize with an enemy who seems to break every rule in the book, though. Nobody can imagine our side intentionally destroying hospital ships, killing medics or sending POWs to their deaths in labour camps and yet Axis forces did all of these things and more.

It's easy for people to assume that there's an unwritten code for what can and can't be done, because all we can relate to is what our own culture would dictate. What happens if the enemy's culture says that it's best to kill everyone who surrenders? How do you hold to your principles in the face of something like that, when you're the one the gun is being pointed at?

Long wars inevitably turn into a gray mess where all that matters is that your side loses the least.

[Helm]

This isn't about a philosophical debate where everyone can sit down and talk about what's right and what's not. It was a war, plain and simple. You end up making decisions that you'll have to live with later.

I dissagree because war is war and there are war crimes and when you discuss aspects of the war after the war has ended you're making moral judgements that can and should be discussed in a moral framework rather than in a WE ARE AT WAR WE DO WHATEVER IT TAEKS TO WIN framework you know what I'm saying ha ha you have no position but I like you cause you're a chimp which is close to ape and ape shall not kill ape as the saying goes right guys?

[img][img][/img]

list

code

[Helm]

There are atrocities on all long wars. Yes. Does this fact mean that we should not be so hard on war atrocities? I do not understand where you're going with this. I think dropping the bomb was in many ways the only thing the US could do (bobo explains better than I could) but that doesn't make it a GOOD thing. It makes it a profitable thing for the Allies at that certain historical situation. Those are not the one and the same. Much in the same way I would consider it a necessity to kill someone who is trying to kill me in self-defense, but still not consider my action a GOOD action.

My point is not a big one, but it's a point I needed to make.

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by mburbank

We didn't even attempt a demonstration. We could have invited the Japanese to watch as we obliterated an atoll.

And then what when they told us to go fuck ourselves? There was an attempted coup by the military even after we dropped the first bomb (thats why we didn't know the government was actually surrendering before the second bomb). What makes you think dropping it on some deserted island would let them know what kind of devestation they would be facing?

We could have dropped the bomb on a rural section of Japan.

Name a rural section of Japan that doesn't play a vital role to their economy.

We chose to drop the bomb on a city.

That were major centers for producing military equipment. If the bombs didn't force a surrender, which was a realistic possibility, at least their defenses would be weakened for an invasion.

We chose to obliterate non combatants, the elderly women and children. We did this for among other reasosns to impress upon the Russians that we were more than willing to use the bomb on civillians.

And to stop the single most destructive conflict in human history. That was the primary reason. Scaring the Russians was bonus points.

We are, to date, the only nation that has used a nuclear weapon on another nation. We have never even attempted to examine the ethics of this act. To this day, the very idea of even looking at the question at the Smithsonian caused a public relations disaster.

Yes, because there aren't thousands upon thousands of pages on every angle. Universities all over America don't still hold symposiums debating the use of the A-Bomb. And Truman didn't agonize over the use and have heated edebates amongst his advisors and put it all down in his diareies that have been published for everyone to view.

If, and almost certainly when Nuclear weapons are used against civillians again, we will have been the ones who opened that door. No matter how many lives it may have saved in the long run (and that is always pure speculation) the United States set the precedent for atomic warfare, the wholesale destruction of life in a single, easy moment.

And now we know the dangers of it.

Would you have prefered we held off and let the Russians launch theirs or put us in a spot where we had launch our next gen nukes without first hand knowledge of their horror?

We had other options and we chose not to pursue them.

What were they?

I think our use of the Atom bomb is without a doubt the worst thing we ever did as a country,

Some would say the obliteration of the Indians, but I'll bite.

and is perhaps the worst thing mankind has ever done. I mean that quite seriously. In the scope of history, very little time has passed since the day we destroyed Hiroshima. The ripples from that stone in the pond are still spreading.

Holocaust killed 6 million Jews and 6 million others, not to mention the war that surrounded it. This eventually led to the current conflict in the most volitile areas in the world. Thats was horrible and still has ripples that affect the entire world.

Our current adminstration is actively persuing the developement of so called 'mini' nukes,

That idea has been around a long time, in fact, its documented that Russians actually produced several "suit case nukes".

a sure indication that the idea that just possessing these weapons is a deterent in and of itself is already fading and being replaced by an idea that nukes could be tactical, just another level of battlefield ordinance.

The dark side of progress. I'm sure people said the same thing of machine guns, tanks, and aircraft.

Wether or not this is a pandora's box that would have been opened by someone sooner or later, we will always be the nation that opened it.

And we have to live with it and deal with it. We also have a responsibility to make sure it never happens again.

[Zhukov]

I don't fel like getting into this argument, but...

Have you seen the films where they show Japanese women and children practicing with bayonets? A land invasion would have probably been the shitstorm to end all shitstorms.

Have you seen the films showing German women and chldren larning to use panzerfausts? How many Allied soldiers were lost in the invason of Germany? Over a million? I'm asking a qustion here, not making a point.

Of coure, I am against the use of the A - Bomb.

Holocaust killed 6 million Jews and 6 million others, not to mention the war that surrounded it.

Well, it was at least 9 mill Poles and many more Russians, so you are a bit low. It doesn't matter, really.

Russians actually produced several "suit case nukes".

They made two, and one's missing!

in an ideal world, they would all be taken away from every country on earth. it makes me sad that this will never happen.

I find it sad that so many people say this. It will eventually happen. Be happy :/

[AChimp]

The world needs nukes to protect us from meteors.

[Sethomas]

I find the argument that the bombs saved more lives than they ended to be utter bullshit. A land invasion was never necessary because the Japanese power structure had been collapsing for some years when the decision was made to use the nukes. We should have used Fabius' strategy of the Second Punic War: keep your eye on the enemy but never engage them. A study was done in 1945 that concluded that the Japanese empire would have collapsed within another six months of sustaining all their forces in their territorial holdings. Absolutely no blood was necessary; they were spread out too thin to last for much longer.

Kurt Vonnegut made the point that while the bombing of Hiroshima is a highly contestable point, the bombing of Nagasaki was a deafening proclamation "Fuck you, dirty yellow bastards!" and nothing more. What I find interesting is that while around 200,000 civilians died in the nuclear bomb droppings, it's estimated that over a million civilians died in the constant fire storms we unleashed upon Tokyo.

[The_Rorschach]

Just out of curiousity Glowbelly, are you saying that if it were another country besides the United States possessing either nuclear and ballistic aresenals attempted to limit retention of the same within other countries, you would support them because they had no experience using such weaponry in the past?

A country, like say, Samoa?

[El Blanco]

A land invasion was never necessary because the Japanese power structure had been collapsing for some years when the decision was made to use the nukes. We should have used Fabius' strategy of the Second Punic War: keep your eye on the enemy but never engage them. A study was done in 1945 that concluded that the Japanese empire would have collapsed within another six months of sustaining all their forces in their territorial holdings. Absolutely no blood was necessary; they were spread out too thin to last for much longer.

So, you would rather we just sat back and watched as Japan ate itself. Ya, that wouldn't have led to military coups, riots and civilian deaths. I'm sure they would have just made the transition peacefully. Its not like its a society with a tradition of ritualistic suicides or anything.

Or, they would have gotten desperate and lashed out ferociously at our fleet( ever heard of a kamikaze?) in a final act of defiance. More death and estruction.

And in either scenerio, I'm sure the Russians would have been glad to step in a take a foothold amidst all the chaos. Is that a better situation? [/quote]

[glowbelly]

ror:

no. i'm saying that it's hypocritical for the us to limit other countries development of nuclear weapons while we invest a bunch of money into developing better ones for ourselves.

i think if we're going to limit development in other countries, that we should do the same in our own.

do you see what i'm sayin?

[El Blanco]

But the thing is, what if those countries don't while we do?

I know we are big and bad and can still do a lot of damage, but why squander such an advantage?