Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/6743


discuss. and please, lets try and and keep patriotic stupidity out.

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/culture/history/4362-the-morality-of-dropping-the-atomic-bomb-on-hiroshima-and-nagasaki.html


Not a counter-argument by any means. I would just like to hear your opinion of this theory

Originally posted by Lestov16
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/culture/history/4362-the-morality-of-dropping-the-atomic-bomb-on-hiroshima-and-nagasaki.html


Not a counter-argument by any means. I would just like to hear your opinion of this theory

its joke. and a nationalistically spiteful one at that. most of the claims{of which there arent many} are often repeated urban myths ,long since disproven in historical scholarship, and a few are directly dealt with in the video i just post.

we are talking about the same country here which payed off a newyork time pulitzer prize winning reporter/emminent physicist to lie and completely deny the presence of radiation poisoning of the bombed cities and the following plague.

more than anything, it is uncontreversial in any serous scholarly discourse that the second bomb was completely unnecesary.

It seems obvious that the 2nd bombing was unnecessary. The 1st, I am still making my mind up over.

My position has always been that bombing Nagisaki was unneeded but that the attack on Hiroshima probably saved a lot of lives, not just by quickly ending the war but by (cold as this may be) having the first use of the bomb be on a fairly small population. I don't think people would be nearly so opposed to nuclear weapons if we only knew about them in the abstract. Yes, 100000 people dead is terrible but I'd rather not have the world learn that lesson by an attack on Berlin or New York or Moscow.

The one good argument I've heard in favor of Nagisaki had nothing to do with the Japanese, rather the second bombing was to prove to the Russians that the US not only had the bomb but had the capacity to produce them.

Hiroshimna=Yes! Nagasaki=Impatient Overkill.



But as a whole, nuking Japan was necessary. Just not twice. In three days.

I'm not even sure we should've continued after we crippled Japan's Navy. That's why I'll never be elected as president.

If Harry Truman, Henry Fonda, and Kevin Pollack have taught us anything, it's that in times of extreme crisis, a president must be willing to nuke people.

As horrific as they were I personally think it was better to learn the lesson of how terrible nuclear weapons could be when they were relatively weak. I think that if Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't happen then the lesson would've been learned much later and at much greater cost through the use of the hydrogen bomb on large cities.

A land invasion of Japan would have resulted in much higher casualties for both Japanese and Americans.

Furthermore, the United States would have continued aerial bombings, producing greater loss of life.

Finally, the United States had to devote its forces against Germany. It needed to end the Pacific Theatre quickly.

Anybody with university access should check out a few articles via Jstor.org, namely Hiroshima; Historian Reassess. Anyone with an interest in Japan itself should consider buying the introductory "Contemporary Japan". The latter has a few chapters on wartime and Japan's relations with America. It's written by Duncan McCargo, one of the foremost academic minds on asian studies and history related to that field.

It should no longer be a matter of personal opinion, since it seems like historians (those working independently and not in the interest of preserving amurricah) have been reaching a consensus for some time. Both bombings were completely unnecessary. Shortcuts taken not just to demonstrate power, but to cripple Japan's ability to compete economically. Whether or not an invasion by land would have been necessary is up for debate considering that Japan was already in the process of retreating and surrendering.

It was war, mistakes were made and so on.

Originally posted by finalhorseman
to cripple Japan's ability to compete economically. That worked well in the long run. he

Originally posted by Korto Vos
A land invasion of Japan would have resulted in much higher casualties for both Japanese and Americans.

Furthermore, the United States would have continued aerial bombings, producing greater loss of life.

Finally, the United States had to devote its forces against Germany. It needed to end the Pacific Theatre quickly. Originally posted by Quark_666
I'm not even sure we should've continued after we crippled Japan's Navy.

Just how crippled was the Japanese Navy? It certainly seemed that the nation wasn't going to surrender until US unleashed the atomic bomb.

No, it was not necessary.

It's hard for me to say.

Looking back, I think the initial target was well chosen.




In a perfect world of war, not one single citizen dies: only military. In that respect, I do not agree with the killing of citizens. That's some nasty stuff, right there.



But the overall lives potentially saved? I don't know about that, either.



However, one thing is clear: those actions have strongly deterred further murdering use of nuclear weapons all over the world. I must say that Nukes are quite dirty. If they were not so dirty, I probably would not care so much about the bombings in WWII. I still don't like the loss of civilian life, though.





My conclusion: I am not upset, distraught, or hateful to my nation for the deciision. I am rather neutral.

Originally posted by Korto Vos
Just how crippled was the Japanese Navy? It certainly seemed that the nation wasn't going to surrender until US unleashed the atomic bomb.
Most likely this is just an opinion based hearsay and impressions you've picked up in the media. No offense, but this is an uneducated opinion.

Originally posted by finalhorseman
Most likely this is just an opinion based hearsay and impressions you've picked up in the media. No offense, but this is an uneducated opinion.

I have participated in several pro/con atomic bomb debates back in high school, therefore don't be quick to pass judgement as to whether someone is "uneducated" on a matter.

I directed a question to someone asking the extent to which he believed the Japanese Navy was crippled. And by your logic, unless you are an expert on the field who has researched this matter thoroughly, most of your knowledge comes from a mass media source.

I agree that the bombings were fundamentally immoral. And Nagasaki should never have been bombed. Yet, just how militarily unnecessary the bombings were is a matter of controversy. Nimitz stated that the Japanese had effectively been defeated. Toyoda stated that it was Russian entry into the war that led to Japanese surrender. It's difficult to say, but Hirohito rejected the Potsdam Declaration.

If the atomic bombings weren't unleashed, US would have commenced Operation Downfall, a land invasion split into Operation Olympic and Coronet. JCOS estimated around 270,000 American deaths, while the Navy estimated between 400,000-800,000 lives. And there would have multiple million casualties for the Japanese.

I think if we waited on Nagasaki, the Japanese would have surrendered anyway out of fear of the atomic bomb's destruction and the entrance of the Russians into the fray.

Think about it in hindsight. Let's say Operation Downfall did occur, and US lost 350,000 soldiers and Japan suffered several million civilian deaths.

Then the Armed Forces discloses it had an atomic weapon capable of mass destruction that would have cost around 200,000 Japanese lives, but would have ended the Pacific Theatre and prevented a land invasion.

What would we be arguing then?

Where do you get these numbers? becase your estimate wildly conflicts with that of scholars well versed in the field.

Let's have a look at some proper numbers here. Duncan McCargo and Leslie Dower's respective works both have the actual projected death-toll between 25 - 46k. This is for a planned American invasion, should it be necessary. The Truman administration even made lies putting the estimate at half a million! Half a million soldiers is well over the entire force they would have needed to force a surrender from an already surrendering nation. Alperovitz supports all of this in Hiroshima: Historians reassess.

I'm not going to bring up any research donw by other Japanese, considering their obvious stance on the matter. On the same side I think you should try and do a little better than the prediction of people who are obviously trying to defend a terrible decision. American scholars have -nothing- to gain and everything to lose by admitting fault here. Apply some critical thinking to your selection of sources here, don't just go with whatever pops up first at google or what you can remember from school.

I'm not familiar with JCOS, are you referring to JCO, the japanese company? Their say on matter carries very little weight. I'm afraid your experience of high-school debates help little as well. My logic has nothing to do with your own personal experience in researching the matter (though it would help), but you should at least have read some books on the matter. And not the garbage curriculum you were fed in High School.

Have you done any lengthy research into the Japanese mindset in the wartime context? The emperor could not simply pull out. The American government had scholars show a surprisingly acute understanding of the Japanese way of mind when they forced them into attacking Peal Harbor, but surprisingly lacking when it came to making them surrender. Well, I suppose that's up for debate, since you have to consider whether or not they had ANY desire for a peaceful withdrawal on Japan's part. They wanted to drop those nuclear bombs and fixed the numbers to do so.

You can reason that it was necessary based on America's motivations, but not in relation to projected losses from an invasion by land.

Originally posted by Korto Vos
Just how crippled was the Japanese Navy? It certainly seemed that the nation wasn't going to surrender until US unleashed the atomic bomb. It didn't have any carriers left. We could have starved them out. Surrender was well established as a matter of when, not of if.

Originally posted by Korto Vos
It certainly seemed that the nation wasn't going to surrender until US unleashed the atomic bomb. They wanted to wait as long as possible to maintain dignity. Their whole religion at the time was based off their honor.

Originally posted by finalhorseman
Where do you get these numbers? becase your estimate wildly conflicts with that of scholars well versed in the field.

Let's have a look at some proper numbers here. Duncan McCargo and Leslie Dower's respective works both have the actual projected death-toll between 25 - 46k. This is for a planned American invasion, should it be necessary. The Truman administration even made lies putting the estimate at half a million! Half a million soldiers is well over the entire force they would have needed to force a surrender from an already surrendering nation. Alperovitz supports all of this in Hiroshima: Historians reassess.

I'm not going to bring up any research donw by other Japanese, considering their obvious stance on the matter. On the same side I think you should try and do a little better than the prediction of people who are obviously trying to defend a terrible decision. American scholars have -nothing- to gain and everything to lose by admitting fault here. Apply some critical thinking to your selection of sources here, don't just go with whatever pops up first at google or what you can remember from school.

I'm not familiar with JCOS, are you referring to JCO, the japanese company? Their say on matter carries very little weight. I'm afraid your experience of high-school debates help little as well. My logic has nothing to do with your own personal experience in researching the matter (though it would help), but you should at least have read some books on the matter. And not the garbage curriculum you were fed in High School.

Have you done any lengthy research into the Japanese mindset in the wartime context? The emperor could not simply pull out. The American government had scholars show a surprisingly acute understanding of the Japanese way of mind when they forced them into attacking Peal Harbor, but surprisingly lacking when it came to making them surrender. Well, I suppose that's up for debate, since you have to consider whether or not they had ANY desire for a peaceful withdrawal on Japan's part. They wanted to drop those nuclear bombs and fixed the numbers to do so.

You can reason that it was necessary based on America's motivations, but not in relation to projected losses from an invasion by land.

1. JCOS --> Joint Chiefs of Staff

2. If there is a recent major reevaluation as to the projected losses from Operation Downfall, then a lot of books, articles, and videos discussing the atomic bombing of Japan have to be trashed. Everything I have read before has placed the count well above 150,000 American deaths, and humongous Japanese civilian casualties.

3. Are you suggesting the United States intended on the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor? Look, all I know is that the US anticipated a attack on the Philippines and Malaysia, not on Pearl Harbor.

4. I'm not going into any government conspiracy theory business. Perhaps these new books that you have read state everything contrary to what's been taught and rationalized before. War is an arena of madness, and the decision to drop the bombs was reprehensible. If it really saved more lives than it cost, then Hiroshima was justified.

Originally posted by Quark_666
It didn't have any carriers left. We could have starved them out. Surrender was well established as a matter of when, not of if.

They wanted to wait as long as possible to maintain dignity. Their whole religion at the time was based off their honor.

If that's the case, why was the land invasion necessary? It's clear that bushido would have compelled the Japanese to fight to the last man, thereby prolonging the Pacific Theatre.

necessary

Originally posted by finalhorseman
My logic has nothing to do with your own personal experience in researching the matter (though it would help), but you should at least have read some books on the matter. And not the garbage curriculum you were fed in High School.

Ah yes, the unassailable standard of "some books", truly you are a beacon of knowledge in your generation.

Originally posted by Quark_666
It didn't have any carriers left. We could have starved them out. Surrender was well established as a matter of when, not of if.

They wanted to wait as long as possible to maintain dignity. Their whole religion at the time was based off their honor.

Starving them out doesn't mean waiting peacefully in a circle around the country until they wave a flag. It means letting them batter themselves against the American fleet until they give up, fighting without taking more ground, wasting more Japanese and American lives. Japan isn't a fort, it's a country with industrial capacity and its own food supplies. We would have needed to keep bombing them even in a siege.

It would also have given Russia a chance to conquer Japan, they were in Korea when the bombs were dropped I think. Not to mention that the Japanese were in the process of doing horrible things to the Chinese on the mainland (though I'm not sure if the US knew that).

about the idea of Japanese surrender:

one of the main targets considered by the Americans was the emperor's palace and the emperor himself. the Americans decided not to bomb him either from fortuitous circumstances or through uncanny incite, because after the bombing, the determination of the Japanese generals was incredibly high. they wanted to continue fighting even after the nukes had gone off. iirc, it was only because the emperor agreed to the surrender that the war ended.

it is not at all clear that some type of siege of Japan, which had always been a successful isolated nation anyways, would have produced a surrender.

In the context of war the first Atomic Bombing was a grisly affair but more...I hesitate to say 'justified', but certainly more easily excusable than many of the conventional bombings visited on Germany and Japan (see Dresden).

The second bombing was necessary from a military point of view. The USA needed to show Japan that the first bomb wasn't just a fluke...a one time performance that the US would never be able to replicate. It succeeded in that regard.

The thing about the Atomic Bombings that unsettles me is the double standard with which they're regarded compared to Pearl Harbor. Far too many people I know believe that Pearl Harbor was more heinous and unforgivable than both Atomic Bombings simply because it was a surprise attack whereas the Atomic Bombings happened during actual hostilities. Never mind that Pearl Harbor killed just a fraction of H+N and that Pearl Harbor was a purely military target (albeit there were some civilian casualties).

I believe on principle the USA should apologize to Japan for the bombings. That isn't to say that things would have been better had we not dropped at least the first bomb (from my point of view thousands of deaths are superior to possibly millions of deaths and a divided Japan like what happened in post-war Korea and Germany) just that as a country America shouldn't be too proud to admit that such a horrific incident doesn't deserve some contrition.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The thing about the Atomic Bombings that unsettles me is the double standard with which they're regarded compared to Pearl Harbor. Far too many people I know believe that Pearl Harbor was more heinous and unforgivable than both Atomic Bombings simply because it was a surprise attack whereas the Atomic Bombings happened during actual hostilities. Never mind that Pearl Harbor killed just a fraction of H+N and that Pearl Harbor was a purely military target (albeit there were some civilian casualties).

I'd call bombing a place out of no where, during what was effectively peace, time is incredible heinous much more so than an attack like that would be during a war. I'm not sure I'd say that it was *more* henious just because of that, though.

People tend to forget in the drama that surround the event that Hiroshima was a valid military target. It had a larger civilian population than Pearl Harbor but it did house the headquarters of major parts of the Japanese Navy and Army, plus it was an important supply center for that part of the Pacific Theater.

Originally posted by Korto Vos
If that's the case, why was the land invasion necessary? Originally posted by Quark_666
I'm not even sure we should've continued after we crippled Japan's Navy. That's why I'll never be elected as president. Obviously if we assumed everything any nation did during history was necessary, we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?

Originally posted by Korto Vos
It's clear that bushido would have compelled the Japanese to fight to the last man, thereby prolonging the Pacific Theatre. Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Starving them out doesn't mean waiting peacefully in a circle around the country until they wave a flag. It means letting them batter themselves against the American fleet until they give up, fighting without taking more ground, wasting more Japanese and American lives. Japan isn't a fort, it's a country with industrial capacity and its own food supplies. We would have needed to keep bombing them even in a siege. But in the case of the island hopping that was said to potentially consume endless American lives, the Japanese warriors didn't have a fleet to escort them around - they were stuck. So how does that work with them fighting to the last man? While I don't doubt their ability to swim I struggle to see how do they batter themselves against the American fleet....

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It would also have given Russia a chance to conquer Japan, they were in Korea when the bombs were dropped I think. Russia declared war on Japan AFTER the Hiroshima bomb

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not to mention that the Japanese were in the process of doing horrible things to the Chinese on the mainland (though I'm not sure if the US knew that). Valid point.Originally posted by inimalist
about the idea of Japanese surrender:

one of the main targets considered by the Americans was the emperor's palace and the emperor himself. the Americans decided not to bomb him either from fortuitous circumstances or through uncanny incite, because after the bombing, the determination of the Japanese generals was incredibly high. they wanted to continue fighting even after the nukes had gone off. iirc, it was only because the emperor agreed to the surrender that the war ended.

it is not at all clear that some type of siege of Japan, which had always been a successful isolated nation anyways, would have produced a surrender. Agreed, and I did overstate that part of my point. On the other hand, the possibility does not appear to have been considered, either.

^On the issue of Russia. The Western Allies and Japan both knew that the Soviet Union was going to attack Japan once Germany was down. They just didn't know when.

What I find interesting is that many historians today are of the opinion that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria (and how damn successful it was) was more an impetus for surrender than the bombs.

When the Russians steamrolled over an army that had been having its way with the Chinese for a decade in just a few days and then pushed into Korea and did the same with the Japanese army there (and I'm sure the Japanese were at least dimly aware of what the Russians had done to the defeated Germany) there was suddenly a bitter realization that they were ****ed unless they capitulated.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd call bombing a place out of no where, during what was effectively peace, time is incredible heinous much more so than an attack like that would be during a war. I'm not sure I'd say that it was *more* henious just because of that, though.

People tend to forget in the drama that surround the event that Hiroshima was a valid military target. It had a larger civilian population than Pearl Harbor but it did house the headquarters of major parts of the Japanese Navy and Army, plus it was an important supply center for that part of the Pacific Theater.
I'd argue that as dishonorable as a surprise attack is there is more honor in attacking an unprepared military target (seeing as there's a sort of unspoken contract by any military that death and destruction is a possibility) than in attacking a prepared civilian target.

Well the same could be said about 90% of the targets of Allied bombing during the war. Cities have factories, cities have military assets. They also have lots of civilians. And while you might make an argument that by supporting the war effort the Japanese civilians in Hiroshima made themselves legitimate targets I don't think you or I wish to take that route

Originally posted by Quark_666
But in the case of the island hopping that was said to potentially consume endless American lives, the Japanese warriors didn't have a fleet to escort them around - they were stuck. So how does that work with them fighting to the last man? While I don't doubt their ability to swim I struggle to see how do they batter themselves against the American fleet....

Was the fleet completely annihilated? The generals supposedly thought there were still assets they could use. Even without the fleet I could imagine the Japanese making Q-ships, forcing the Americans to fire on any ship they saw in Japanese waters. It would be like the insurgency in Iraq but directed by an intact central government with trained soldiers and tacticians at its command.

The French rode bikes and taxis to the front line. Insurgents all over the world turn jeeps into armored fighting vehicles.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Russia declared war on Japan AFTER the Hiroshima bomb

I'll admit, I did not know that. So wait, did Russia declare war after the surrendered or in the days between the bombs?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Was the fleet completely annihilated? The generals supposedly thought there were still assets they could use. Even without the fleet I could imagine the Japanese making Q-ships, forcing the Americans to fire on any ship they saw in Japanese waters. It would be like the insurgency in Iraq but directed by an intact central government with trained soldiers and tacticians at its command.

The French rode bikes and taxis to the front line. Insurgents all over the world turn jeeps into armored fighting vehicles.

The Japanese fleet had essentially been destroyed as a legitimate threat to the American fleet during the Battle of the Leyte Gulf. They had actually attempted to beach their two biggest battleships to use them as shore batteries, but the US sank them.


The latter. Though to be fair they had been gearing up for it basically since before Germany even surrendered and had been planning to do it since 1938.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
^On the issue of Russia. The Western Allies and Japan both knew that the Soviet Union was going to attack Japan once Germany was down. They just didn't know when.

What I find interesting is that many historians today are of the opinion that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria (and how damn successful it was) was more an impetus for surrender than the bombs.

When the Russians steamrolled over an army that had been having its way with the Chinese for a decade in just a few days and then pushed into Korea and did the same with the Japanese army there (and I'm sure the Japanese were at least dimly aware of what the Russians had done to the defeated Germany) there was suddenly a bitter realization that they were ****ed unless they capitulated.

Okay, maybe our biggest reason to drop the bomb was to compete with the Russians. Any surprises there?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Was the fleet completely annihilated? The generals supposedly thought there were still assets they could use. Even without the fleet I could imagine the Japanese making Q-ships, forcing the Americans to fire on any ship they saw in Japanese waters. It would be like the insurgency in Iraq but directed by an intact central government with trained soldiers and tacticians at its command.

The French rode bikes and taxis to the front line. Insurgents all over the world turn jeeps into armored fighting vehicles. I don't know. But I do know these questions are never asked before Americans justify the dropping of the bomb, and it makes me angry. I also see how with the political environment of the United States at the time, the Truman Administration had an obvious motive to downplay other options as logically sound. And as evidence of such options being downplayed, I recall learning in history class that only two options were even possible: A-bomb or island hopping. As evidence of the racism of the decision, nobody ever argued that we should drop an A-bomb on Berlin. So in the absence of answers, I'm inclined to put two and two together and conclude that the bomb was probably not the only possible solution.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Okay, maybe our biggest reason to drop the bomb was to compete with the Russians. Any surprises there?

I don't know. But I do know these questions are never asked before Americans justify the dropping of the bomb, and it makes me angry. I also see how with the political environment of the United States at the time, the Truman Administration had an obvious motive to downplay other options as logically sound. And as evidence of such options being downplayed, I recall learning in history class that only two options were even possible: A-bomb or island hopping. As evidence of the racism of the decision, nobody ever argued that we should drop an A-bomb on Berlin. So in the absence of answers, I'm inclined to put two and two together and conclude that the bomb was probably not the only possible solution.

EDIT: Berlin surrendered before we'd developed the bomb.

Actually the Atomic Bomb was developed to be dropped on Berlin.

The main impetus for the Manhattan Project was American fears that the Germans were already well on their way to developing one.

Before the planned invasion, projected casaulties were 1 million plus. The Japanese government had no plans on surrendering. They had twisted the Bushido code into something perverted and diabolical. Even after the second bombing and the Emperor said 'enough, we've lost' the Japanese High Command attempted a coup to continue the war. They were already in the process of training women and kids to fight to end. When Hitler killed himself, Admiral Doerniz (hope I spelled that right) realized the situation and surrendered a week later. At the least the German Navy and Army had the sense to not waste senseless lives.

BTW, apologizing to the Japanese out of the question. Just do some research on their treatment of POWs.

Originally posted by Quark_666
I don't know. But I do know these questions are never asked before Americans justify the dropping of the bomb, and it makes me angry.

Missed this before.

How do you know that it wasn't part of the discussion?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/6743


discuss. and please, lets try and and keep patriotic stupidity out.

Necessary as in 'would have Japan been defeated without nuking them'? Then no, it wasn't necessary.

Was it smart to nuke them into submission; not waste American lives in what would have been a much longer ground war against the Japanese military and armed civilians? Yes.

I absolutely feel no remorse for Japan. They were the aggressors in WWII and they like the Nazis committed horrific war crimes. They has been seeking their own nuclear program with the intent of nuking US cities, though they were years behind. They were developing biological warfare weapons which they kindly tested on Chinese civilians with claims of up to 500k deaths.

Around 180-250k Japanese died from the bombings and many thousands more after due to sickness. Boo-fvcking-hoo. Japan murdered(not deaths during battles) an estimated 6-7 million Chinese, Korean, Filipino and Westerners during WWII. Be it death camps, labor camps or weapons testing. Google "Japanese War Crimes" if you're interested.

I do love the "hate America" sentiment Hiroshima and Nagasaki bring up, like those haters need this to hate America.

i don`t think so why country make these kind of things

Originally posted by Darth Truculent


BTW, apologizing to the Japanese out of the question. Just do some research on their treatment of POWs.
I don't think their military brutalizing POWs makes them unworthy of compassion/respect considering it wasn't the entire country committing those atrocities.

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Before the planned invasion, projected casaulties were 1 million plus. The Japanese government had no plans on surrendering. They had twisted the Bushido code into something perverted and diabolical. Even after the second bombing and the Emperor said 'enough, we've lost' the Japanese High Command attempted a coup to continue the war. They were already in the process of training women and kids to fight to end. When Hitler killed himself, Admiral Doerniz (hope I spelled that right) realized the situation and surrendered a week later. At the least the German Navy and Army had the sense to not waste senseless lives.

BTW, apologizing to the Japanese out of the question. Just do some research on their treatment of POWs.
By that logic, the treatment of native americans by the government = justifying pearl harbor... that's just silly thinking that proves nothing about anything. It wasn't the japanese POWs that made us bomb them so that is just "apples to oranges".

I see that it didn't even post my message, just the quote from the initial post in the thread.

Briefly what I said was: I don't think civilians, especially children, should be a part of warfare - for that reason I opposed the bombing.
And I also oppose nuclear power in general - radiation lasts too long and is too dangerous.

My grandfather fought in ww2. He said yes it was

You should never target civilians in war. So no. I think nuking a bunch of civilians was completely wrong.

In war civilian casualties are likely unavoidable, but that doesn't mean you specifically target them. You still try to do everything in your power to avoid them.

neither Hiroshima or Nagasaki, nor Kyoto (another potential target) were strictly civilian targets though. all played a major role in the Japanese war machine. it's not like America bombed downtown Tokyo.

Originally posted by inimalist
neither Hiroshima or Nagasaki, nor Kyoto (another potential target) were strictly civilian targets though. all played a major role in the Japanese war machine. it's not like America bombed downtown Tokyo.

Even so, you don't slaughter civilians who get in your way. It's like a bank robber taking a hostage and the police shooting the hostage in the head, and then arresting the robber.

You don't sacrifice innocent people to get what you want. Leave civilians out of it.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You should never target civilians in war. So no. I think nuking a bunch of civilians was completely wrong.

In war civilian casualties are likely unavoidable, but that doesn't mean you specifically target them. You still try to do everything in your power to avoid them.
How would you have suggested defeating Japan?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Even so, you don't slaughter civilians who get in your way. It's like a bank robber taking a hostage and the police shooting the hostage in the head, and then arresting the robber.

You don't sacrifice innocent people to get what you want. Leave civilians out of it.

then you would have to make the exact same claim about the entire allied campaign in Europe. the bombing of Berlin being a prime example

Originally posted by King Kandy
How would you have suggested defeating Japan?

That's an unfair question. I'm not a military strategist, nor do I have knowledge of the military situation at that time.

I don't need to know military strategy to know that vaporizing civilians isn't okay.

Originally posted by inimalist
then you would have to make the exact same claim about the entire allied campaign in Europe. the bombing of Berlin being a prime example

I stand by what I said. Massacring civilians isn't acceptable. If your plan involves the deaths of mass amounts of innocent civilians, think of a new one.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I stand by what I said. Massacring civilians isn't acceptable. If your plan involves the deaths of mass amounts of innocent civilians, think of a new one.

Prolonging the war involves the deaths of mass amounts of innocent civilians, most of them Chinese and Korean.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Prolonging the war involves the deaths of mass amounts of innocent civilians, most of them Chinese and Korean.

And we should try our best to avoid those deaths. Not try fixing them by adding on more.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That's an unfair question. I'm not a military strategist, nor do I have knowledge of the military situation at that time.

I don't need to know military strategy to know that vaporizing civilians isn't okay.
facepalm

This is why I think talking to you is an exercise in futility. If you don't know anything about the situation, then obviously you aren't qualified to make any judgments about it. Please don't post unless you do a little research before hand.

Originally posted by King Kandy
facepalm

This is why I think talking to you is an exercise in futility. If you don't know anything about the situation, then obviously you aren't qualified to make any judgments about it. Please don't post unless you do a little research before hand.

To make the claim that "Only people who are well versed in military strategy and can come up with a full military war plan can debate this topic" is untrue.

I can't tell you the exact military movements we should have been doing, or where we should place our troops. That doesn't mean I'm not allowed to look at an action we performed and determine if it was right or wrong.

It's similar to the reasoning that "unless you can think up something better, my plan is right."

That's not logically valid.

Originally posted by TacDavey
To make the claim that "Only people who are well versed in military strategy and can come up with a full military war plan can debate this topic" is untrue.

I can't tell you the exact military movements we should have been doing, or where we should place our troops. That doesn't mean I'm not allowed to look at an action we performed and determine if it was right or wrong.

It's similar to the reasoning that "unless you can think up something better, my plan is right."

That's not logically valid.
Its completely valid. This was not a case where they had unlimited choice of options. The only choices were those that would win the war. Since you can't even come up with a single alternative, this is the only option under consideration, and therefore, its the one that's picked.

In a war, "unless you can think up something better, my plan is right." Is the only valid approach you can take.

Lets say you were hired by an engineering company to stop their computer from overheating. Your JOB is to figure out a SOLUTION to this problem. Now, you can ask "is it morally right to have computers?" That is beside the point. Its your job and you HAVE to come up with a solution, because that's what engineers are for.

You'll notice the question in this thread was "was it NECESSARY", not "was it MORAL".

Originally posted by TacDavey
That's an unfair question. I'm not a military strategist, nor do I have knowledge of the military situation at that time.

I don't need to know military strategy to know that vaporizing civilians isn't okay.


Yeah, you do need to look at the big picture. In order to defeat Japan, Japan's ability to wage war needed to be stopped/crippled.

Ask yourself, where were the Japanese planes, boats, bullets, grenades etc. coming from? Why were the allies bombing Berlin and why was Germany bombing London? (hint: it wasn't just to kill civilians)

War has changed somewhat since the 40's, luckily.

Originally posted by TacDavey

I stand by what I said. Massacring civilians isn't acceptable. If your plan involves the deaths of mass amounts of innocent civilians, think of a new one.

we actually agree entirely

Originally posted by King Kandy
Lets say you were hired by an engineering company to stop their computer from overheating. Your JOB is to figure out a SOLUTION to this problem. Now, you can ask "is it morally right to have computers?" That is beside the point. Its your job and you HAVE to come up with a solution, because that's what engineers are for.

You'll notice the question in this thread was "was it NECESSARY", not "was it MORAL".

I didn't understand the computer analogy at all.

And I still disagree with the idea that "without an alternative, I'm right."

That's just a flawed way of thinking. The simple fact that I can't produce another option has absolutely NO bearing on whether your option is right or wrong. It's right or wrong regardless of what I can think of and what I can't.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, you do need to look at the big picture. In order to defeat Japan, Japan's ability to wage war needed to be stopped/crippled.

Ask yourself, where were the Japanese planes, boats, bullets, grenades etc. coming from? Why were the allies bombing Berlin and why was Germany bombing London? (hint: it wasn't just to kill civilians)

War has changed somewhat since the 40's, luckily.

That seems to suggest that nuking civilians was the only way to win the war. That there was quite literally no other option available to us. I don't think that's true. And even if the destruction of those facilities WAS the absolute only way to win the war, we should be targeting the facilities, not the entire city.

If we learned that a bunch of terrorists were hiding out in a city in Iraq, would you fully support the decision to level the entire city full of civilians to get them?

Originally posted by inimalist
we actually agree entirely

That doesn't happen often.

EDIT: I did respond to the others on the bottom of the last page. I didn't ignore you.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That doesn't happen often.

haha, true that

Originally posted by TacDavey

That seems to suggest that nuking civilians was the only way to win the war. That there was quite literally no other option available to us. I don't think that's true. And even if the destruction of those facilities WAS the absolute only way to win the war, we should be targeting the facilities, not the entire city.

If we learned that a bunch of terrorists were hiding out in a city in Iraq, would you fully support the decision to level the entire city full of civilians to get them?

No, there were other options. Japan knew it was losing, it didn't have the resources and it spread itself too thin. Japan would have called in its troops and war-machines; preparing itself to repeal a US land invasion.

-The US would have had to obliterate Japan's remaining naval power first.

-Then US troops would have landed and had to fight their way inward. Fighting both soldiers and civilians(men, women and children of age, commanded by the Emperor) armed with whatever they could get their hands on (bamboo spears was what they were mostly trained with).

-All the while making conventional bomb-drops on prime targets/fortifications.

This would have cost many more civilian lives and US military deaths. Or the US could have asked Japan to surrender on Japan's terms.

Your scenario is comparing apples to oranges in regards to Japan and warfare in WWII.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, there were other options. Japan knew it was losing, it didn't have the resources and it spread itself too thin. Japan would have called in its troops and war-machines; preparing itself to repeal a US land invasion.

-The US would have had to obliterate Japan's remaining naval power first.

-Then US troops would have landed and had to fight their way inward. Fighting both soldiers and civilians(men, women and children of age, commanded by the Emperor) armed with whatever they could get their hands on (bamboo spears was what they were mostly trained with).

-All the while making conventional bomb-drops on prime targets/fortifications.

This would have cost many more civilian lives and US military deaths. Or the US could have asked Japan to surrender on Japan's terms.

Your scenario is comparing apples to oranges in regards to Japan and warfare in WWII.

Wait, killing only civilians that attack you is MORE deaths than just killing every single civilian in the city? That doesn't seem quite right. Even if we accept your timeline of events as what would happen, this would still produce less civilian deaths than the alternative. Not to mention the fact that fighting civilians allows for us to take them captive or let them flee. Nuking them does not.

And yes, would could have asked for Japan to surrender.

not without the bomb. even afterwards, the Japanese generals wanted to go down fighting, it took the bombs to even get the emperor at the bargaining table

I recall seeing a documentary on the History Channel that suggests that the straw that really broke the camel's back was neither the Atomic Bombs nor the USSR entering the war but rather a conventional (and relatively small scale) bombing raid that inadvertently thwarted the Officer's Coup. If it hadn't happened the Emperor's recording would have never reached the public and the military would have totally taken over (instead of just mostly being in charge as they were )

Originally posted by TacDavey
Wait, killing only civilians that attack you is MORE deaths than just killing every single civilian in the city? That doesn't seem quite right. Even if we accept your timeline of events as what would happen, this would still produce less civilian deaths than the alternative. Not to mention the fact that fighting civilians allows for us to take them captive or let them flee. Nuking them does not.

And yes, would could have asked for Japan to surrender.

Which part of a massive and lengthy land invasion would have resulted in more death can't you grasp? War isn't perfect where children and anti-war people just happen to not get blown up or shot in what would have been a massive combat zone. Until the second nuke, Japan had a 'death first' mentally.

It would have been under Japan's terms. Which would have resulted in Japan keeping its emperor, not having to disarm and likely several other stipulations. Would have been closer to a separate peace with the US than Japan surrendering.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Wait, killing only civilians that attack you is MORE deaths than just killing every single civilian in the city?

Japan's population is much larger than the city of Hiroshima.

And no, it wouldn't just be civilians that attack you. If you standard for a war you'd be okay with is no peaceful people being harmed at all you have no choice to be let the Japanese destroy mainland China.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I didn't understand the computer analogy at all.

And I still disagree with the idea that "without an alternative, I'm right."

That's just a flawed way of thinking. The simple fact that I can't produce another option has absolutely NO bearing on whether your option is right or wrong. It's right or wrong regardless of what I can think of and what I can't.
Again this is not about right or wrong. The question is "was it necessary". And since you actually know nothing about the military realities, you obviously are unqualified to answer this question. I am not even taking sides on whether it was necessary. My point was that you always jump to conclusions with absolutely no research or thought, and that's true because instead of actually reading about the conditions of war, you just jumped to a meta-debate. But no amount of this logical manipulation will change the fact that you literally do not know what you're talking about and came into the thread uninformed.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That seems to suggest that nuking civilians was the only way to win the war. That there was quite literally no other option available to us. I don't think that's true. And even if the destruction of those facilities WAS the absolute only way to win the war, we should be targeting the facilities, not the entire city.

If we learned that a bunch of terrorists were hiding out in a city in Iraq, would you fully support the decision to level the entire city full of civilians to get them?
Again, you can do nothing but bring up hypothetical analogies. It seems clear that you have no knowledge of world war II. If there were alternative options, bring a single one up. Prove you know anything about the topic.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I recall seeing a documentary on the History Channel that suggests that the straw that really broke the camel's back was neither the Atomic Bombs nor the USSR entering the war but rather a conventional (and relatively small scale) bombing raid that inadvertently thwarted the Officer's Coup. If it hadn't happened the Emperor's recording would have never reached the public and the military would have totally taken over (instead of just mostly being in charge as they were )
That coup is blown out of proportion. Hirohito was in control for most all of the war, he was a brutal dictator whose cult of personality extended to all facets of society. Trying to say the military was "mostly" in charge is like saying the SS was "mostly" Hitler's boss... it just doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by TacDavey
And yes, would could have asked for Japan to surrender.


Should also have added. Japan was asked to surrender; they refused. Then even refused after the first bomb. (as noted above)They did not like the terms, they wanted it on their own terms.

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration

Originally posted by TacDavey
And yes, would could have asked for Japan to surrender.
This proves it, you literally do not know anything about the war. They were asked several times. This is a basic fact that should have been taught to you since middle school.

all is fair in love and war

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
all is fair in love and war I nuke all my past lovers.

Originally posted by Robtard
Which part of a massive and lengthy land invasion would have resulted in more death can't you grasp? War isn't perfect where children and anti-war people just happen to not get blown up or shot in what would have been a massive combat zone. Until the second nuke, Japan had a 'death first' mentally.

It would have been under Japan's terms. Which would have resulted in Japan keeping its emperor, not having to disarm and likely several other stipulations. Would have been closer to a separate peace with the US than Japan surrendering.

Civilians might have died, but they should have died accidentally. You shouldn't ever intentionally target civilians. And if a civilian has chosen to put their life on the line and fight, then that's one thing. Bombing a bunch of people who did not decide to enter the fight and purposely killing tons of innocent people just isn't acceptable.

Like I said, if your plan involves the deaths of a mass amount of innocent people, think of a new one.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Again this is not about right or wrong. The question is "was it necessary". And since you actually know nothing about the military realities, you obviously are unqualified to answer this question. I am not even taking sides on whether it was necessary. My point was that you always jump to conclusions with absolutely no research or thought, and that's true because instead of actually reading about the conditions of war, you just jumped to a meta-debate. But no amount of this logical manipulation will change the fact that you literally do not know what you're talking about and came into the thread uninformed.

And I'm saying that I can make an observation about an action without knowing about an alternative. I don't have to research possible alternatives to our decision to know if it was a good or bad one. I'm not just jumping to conclusions. My stance is that vaporizing a mass of civilians isn't acceptable, regardless of our motivations for doing so. I very much doubt that was the absolute only way to win the war. It was likely just the easiest.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Again, you can do nothing but bring up hypothetical analogies. It seems clear that you have no knowledge of world war II. If there were alternative options, bring a single one up. Prove you know anything about the topic.

Like I said, I don't have to bring up alternatives. To make the claim that nuking Japan was literally the one, single way to win the war is a radical claim. Life is never that simple. In any situation there are tons of ways to approach it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
This proves it, you literally do not know anything about the war. They were asked several times. This is a basic fact that should have been taught to you since middle school.

The "ask Japan to surrender" point was added to a hypothetical in which we destroyed their naval fleet and had them withdrawn into their country.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Japan's population is much larger than the city of Hiroshima.

And no, it wouldn't just be civilians that attack you. If you standard for a war you'd be okay with is no peaceful people being harmed at all you have no choice to be let the Japanese destroy mainland China.

If you have to kill a civilian who decides to shoot at you that's one thing. But you shouldn't attack civilians if you don't have to.

If a civilian picks up a weapon and tries to kill you, I would consider a soldier justified in defending himself.

I would not consider a soldier justified in walking into a Japanese school and unloading a clip into a bunch of preschoolers. Which is effectively what we did on a much larger scale.

Fight those who want to fight you and only those who want to fight you.

I don't know how this means we should let the Japanese destroy China...

Would you under no circumstances consider the death of a mass amount of civilians as the best alternative? I mean is there no scenario you can think of?

And how much is a mass to you?

Originally posted by TacDavey
I would not consider a soldier justified in walking into a Japanese school and unloading a clip into a bunch of preschoolers. Which is effectively what we did on a much larger scale.

Not really.

If you want to use that metaphor:

A soldier unloaded is weapon into a military base that needed to be destroyed, knowing that he would kill the preschoolers, and believing that he was fighting an enemy that would kill the preschoolers before they gave up.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't know how this means we should let the Japanese destroy China...

Because you're fighting a war and if you can never take any risk of hurting someone you will lose. There's no two ways about this. Either you fight and deal with the consequences (doing everything you can to reduce them) or you give up.

The nuclear bombs were both horrible. They were much less horrible than dragging the war out even longer while the Japanese committed genocide, kill American troops, and were killed in huge numbers by American troops. Because that's what would have happened. You can say that there's always a better option as much as you like but when every minute of delay is killing people all that matters is that you pick the best solution on the table.

It's also relevant, philosophically, that you said this: "Fight those who want to fight you and only those who want to fight you."
This would mean that America should have like the Japanese torture, rape, and kill the Chinese and Koreans up until Peral Harbor, since the Japanese didn't want to fight America. I'm not very comfortable with that kind of moral isolationism.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Would you under no circumstances consider the death of a mass amount of civilians as the best alternative? I mean is there no scenario you can think of?

And how much is a mass to you?

Well, you can craft a hypothetical that could call for it. For example, if you don't kill all these civilians the world will blow up.

You can do the same to pretty much anything, but I don't consider examples like these as anywhere close to being logically plausible.

So, no. I don't see any realistic situation in which a mass of civilian deaths is the best option for anything.

I don't have a set number for "mass". I just use it to mean a lot. I would consider a city full to be a mass, for example.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Civilians might have died, but they should have died accidentally. You shouldn't ever intentionally target civilians. And if a civilian has chosen to put their life on the line and fight, then that's one thing. Bombing a bunch of people who did not decide to enter the fight and purposely killing tons of innocent people just isn't acceptable.

Like I said, if your plan involves the deaths of a mass amount of innocent people, think of a new one.


It's easy to ignore the the facts and realities (esp of the time) and just take the moral "don't kill civilians" high-ground. Anyone can do that, but in reality, it doesn't work.

As I told you:

-Japan did not want to surrender (unless it was on their terms and it wouldn't have been a surrender). The fact that they didn't surrender after one atom bomb should have made you wise to their mind-set, ie 'death before defeat'

-The other option in defeating Japan would have been a lengthy naval battle followed by a massive ground battle, which thousands more Japanese soldiers, civilians and Allied (mostly US) soldiers would have died in the process of conventional bombings, bullets and tooth and claw style fighting. Instead of two cities being atom bombed, it would have covered many more being destroyed. Close to half a million lives were lost in the battle of Normandy, from D-Day's beach landing onward. Just food for thought as a comparison of another massive land battle.

King Kandy pegged you right, you didn't bother to look up even the basics of Japan in WWII. You've been given the facts by several people, if anything go read up on it yourself and come up with a better scenario the US could have taken.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not really.

If you want to use that metaphor:

A soldier unloaded is weapon into a military base that needed to be destroyed, knowing that he would kill the preschoolers, and believing that he was fighting an enemy that would kill the preschoolers before they gave up.

You presented that like it was an okay option. If someone kidnapped a bunch of preschoolers and loaded them into a military base, you don't destroy the military base.

That's dangerously close to "the ends justify the means".

You said the Japanese would be willing to kill the preschoolers before they gave up. Does that seem wrong to you? The fact that the Japanese were perfectly willing to slaughter children if it helped them reach their goal?

I consider that wrong. Isn't that what the soldier was doing in the example? Slaughtering the preschoolers if it helped him reach his goal? In that sense, the soldier was no better than the Japanese.

Like I said before, if a robber takes a hostage, you don't shoot the hostage to get the robber. Even if it was likely the robber would kill the hostage anyway.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because you're fighting a war and if you can never take any risk of hurting someone you will lose. There's no two ways about this. Either you fight and deal with the consequences (doing everything you can to reduce them) or you give up.

I never said you don't risk hurting people. That's MUCH different that purposely hurting people. You do whatever you can, however, to avoid killing civilians. Nuking civilians isn't avoiding hurting civilians, and it isn't "taking a risk of hurting someone". It's just flat out hurting someone.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The nuclear bombs were both horrible. They were much less horrible than dragging the war out even longer while the Japanese committed genocide, kill American troops, and were killed in huge numbers by American troops. Because that's what would have happened. You can say that there's always a better option as much as you like but when every minute of delay is killing people all that matters is that you pick the best solution on the table.

The Japanese killing innocent people is wrong. You do what you can to stop them. You don't stop them by killing innocent people, because as we just said, that's wrong.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's also relevant, philosophically, that you said this: "Fight those who want to fight you and only those who want to fight you."
This would mean that America should have like the Japanese torture, rape, and kill the Chinese and Koreans up until Peral Harbor, since the Japanese didn't want to fight America. I'm not very comfortable with that kind of moral isolationism.

That's not completely what I meant. I don't mean "let people do whatever they want unless they want to fight you."

I think we should step in and stop people who are doing evil things. So you fight those who are doing the evil. You don't fight civilians.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's easy to ignore the the facts and realities (esp of the time) and just take the moral "don't kill civilians" high-ground. Anyone can do that, but in reality, it doesn't work.

As I told you:

-Japan did not want to surrender (unless it was on their terms and it wouldn't have been a surrender). The fact that they didn't surrender after one atom bomb should have made you wise to their mind-set, ie 'death before defeat'

-The other option in defeating Japan would have been a lengthy naval battle followed by a massive ground battle, which thousands more Japanese soldiers, civilians and Allied (mostly US) soldiers would have died in the process of conventional bombings, bullets and tooth and claw style fighting. Instead of two cities being atom bombed, it would have covered many more being destroyed. Close to half a million lives were lost in the battle of Normandy, from D-Day's beach landing onward. Just food for thought as a comparison of another massive land battle.

King Kandy pegged you right, you didn't bother to look up even the basics of Japan in WWII. You've been given the facts by several people, if anything go read up on it yourself and come up with a better scenario the US could have taken.

Again you are saying "Hey, if you got nothing better, I guess I'm right."

As I said, that doesn't determine if the action was right or not. I don't need to come up with another option to know that this option was the wrong one.

I don't think the second option would necessarily involve more civilian deaths. If a civilian decides to fight against soldiers, I don't really consider that person a "civilian" anymore. And while there would likely be more American and Japanese soldiers deaths, I know this sounds cold, but better the death of soldiers than the death of civilians.

If civilians accidentally get caught in the crossfire of a battle that's one thing. It's bad, and it should be avoided at all costs. But I know it's an unfortunate reality. The difference here is that civilians didn't accidentally get caught in the crossfire. They were, in fact, part of the target.

I find that unacceptable.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Again you are saying "Hey, if you got nothing better, I guess I'm right."

As I said, that doesn't determine if the action was right or not. I don't need to come up with another option to know that this option was the wrong one.

I don't think the second option would necessarily involve more civilian deaths. If a civilian decides to fight against soldiers, I don't really consider that person a "civilian" anymore. And while there would likely be more American and Japanese soldiers deaths, I know this sounds cold, but better the death of soldiers than the death of civilians.

If civilians accidentally get caught in the crossfire of a battle that's one thing. It's bad, and it should be avoided at all costs. But I know it's an unfortunate reality. The difference here is that civilians didn't accidentally get caught in the crossfire. They were, in fact, part of the target.

I find that unacceptable.

So ignore the facts of the time/situation and just say "no, it was wrong, something else which I can't say would have been better."

Considering it's obvious you have read little to nothing about WWII, how can you say you're qualified to think "less civilians deaths would have happened"? Especially considering the facts people have laid before you. A massive land battle over many parts of Japan would have indeed resulted in heavier civilian (and soldier) loses. The US would have had to bomb the shit out of Japan and civilians die in the process, be it an armed peasant or a baby. That and tanks, bullets, grenades etc. Fighting in cities/towns = civilian deaths, there's little to be done to avoid this.

As noted, it's easy to ignore the realities of the situation and just say "no.".

Fast forward to the present for a few lines. The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are not military. They are mostly tribal elements under the control of a peaceful religion that has been hijacked by radical clerics and terrorists. They go out during the day with AK-47s and return home for dinner at night. What's the difference?

Back to WWII - if a civilian is firing a weapon at uniformed military personel, then the soldier is authorized to use deadly force. Remember, WWII was the most destructive conflict in human history. It was total war taken to the extreme. Robtard, I hate to correct you on one aspect because I respect you greatly, but toward the final days of the war, the Japanese Navy was virtually destroyed. They had very few surface vessels left and most of their submarines had been sunk.

The invasion of Japan would have more likely have been another Iwo Jima and Okinawa scenarios only magnified by ten. The entire public had been brainwashed with the twisted Bushido code the military had fed them. They were ready to die for their home. I think the average American would die defending our land from a foreign power. Didn't General Patton say "the object of war is not to die for one's country, but to make the other son-of-a-***** die for his."

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Robtard, I hate to correct you on one aspect because I respect you greatly, but toward the final days of the war, the Japanese Navy was virtually destroyed. They had very few surface vessels left and most of their submarines had been sunk.

I read that Japan had pulled in their remaining ships to prepare for the expected land US invasion, seems I was off in the strength of it. No worries and thanks for the correction.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You presented that like it was an okay option. If someone kidnapped a bunch of preschoolers and loaded them into a military base, you don't destroy the military base.

That's dangerously close to "the ends justify the means".

You said the Japanese would be willing to kill the preschoolers before they gave up. Does that seem wrong to you? The fact that the Japanese were perfectly willing to slaughter children if it helped them reach their goal?

I consider that wrong. Isn't that what the soldier was doing in the example? Slaughtering the preschoolers if it helped him reach his goal? In that sense, the soldier was no better than the Japanese.

Like I said before, if a robber takes a hostage, you don't shoot the hostage to get the robber. Even if it was likely the robber would kill the hostage anyway.

When the robber is killing a different preschooler every hour that you delay then, yes, you do. I'm not willing to let people die out of moral paralysis (this is why metaphors aren't useful, by the way, they rapidly get strained beyond the breaking point)

Originally posted by TacDavey
I never said you don't risk hurting people. That's MUCH different that purposely hurting people. You do whatever you can, however, to avoid killing civilians. Nuking civilians isn't avoiding hurting civilians, and it isn't "taking a risk of hurting someone". It's just flat out hurting someone.

Nuking civilians is avoiding hurting all the other ones you were going to kill anyway because you have no choice. Philosophy has to be applicable to reality, not just to fantasy worlds.

Originally posted by TacDavey
The Japanese killing innocent people is wrong. You do what you can to stop them. You don't stop them by killing innocent people, because as we just said, that's wrong.

But when your faced with a situation where you can either kill hundreds of thousands of people or kill tens of thousands of people what do you?

Rob, what was left of their navy was ordered to defend the homeland, but it was little more than an understrength task force with a few gunboats and armed fishing vessels. They didn't have a single carrier, wheras the U.S. Navy had 600. They had built enough Zeroes to use them as Kamikasi's and conned enough poorly trained pilots to kill themselves on suicidal attacks.

What remained of the Army was isolated on indefinsible outposts throughout the Pacific and what was stationed on Japan was a total joke. They were going to rely on the public to fight with spears and IEDs. I do not condone the killing of civilians or the use of nuclear weapons, but it had to be done. It convinced the Emperor that enough is enough - we've lost. Close to 2 million Japanese military and civilians had been killed and further loss of life would not justify fighting for an already destroyed and defeated nation.

Originally posted by TacDavey
And I'm saying that I can make an observation about an action without knowing about an alternative. I don't have to research possible alternatives to our decision to know if it was a good or bad one. I'm not just jumping to conclusions. My stance is that vaporizing a mass of civilians isn't acceptable, regardless of our motivations for doing so. I very much doubt that was the absolute only way to win the war. It was likely just the easiest.
And this is where we part ways again. I don't think you can decide if something is right without doing any research on the subject; at the very least, if you have an uninformed opinion, you should keep it to yourself. I never post my view unless I feel I have a solid grasp on the topic.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Like I said, I don't have to bring up alternatives. To make the claim that nuking Japan was literally the one, single way to win the war is a radical claim. Life is never that simple. In any situation there are tons of ways to approach it.
You're the one saying that there is never a situation where killing civilians is acceptable; and i'm the one oversimplifying things? As I said earlier, I don't even have a view one way or another, I am still deciding. I just feel like if you haven't done research, and have no intention of ever doing research, then you aren't productively contributing to the thread.

Originally posted by TacDavey
The "ask Japan to surrender" point was added to a hypothetical in which we destroyed their naval fleet and had them withdrawn into their country.
Unfortunately, that's not a hypothetical: that's what actually happened. So they did exactly what you wanted, now what?

Originally posted by Robtard
So ignore the facts of the time/situation and just say "no, it was wrong, something else which I can't say would have been better."

Considering it's obvious you have read little to nothing about WWII, how can you say you're qualified to think "less civilians deaths would have happened"? Especially considering the facts people have laid before you. A massive land battle over many parts of Japan would have indeed resulted in heavier civilian (and soldier) loses. The US would have had to bomb the shit out of Japan and civilians die in the process, be it an armed peasant or a baby. That and tanks, bullets, grenades etc. Fighting in cities/towns = civilian deaths, there's little to be done to avoid this.

As noted, it's easy to ignore the realities of the situation and just say "no.".

I would think bombing Japan using normal bombs instead of nuclear ones would be less damaging to civilians. Especially if we focus them on military targets and no so much entire cities.

If we are fighting through Japan, the civilians in the way at least have a chance. They have no chance getting nuked. Like I said, better soldiers die than civilians, unfortunately. And, if civilians chose to fight back against us, then I wouldn't consider them "civilians" in the same way at that point. At that point, I think it's justifiable to fire back. But I do not accept plans involving actively attacking non combatants.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
When the robber is killing a different preschooler every hour that you delay then, yes, you do. I'm not willing to let people die out of moral paralysis (this is why metaphors aren't useful, by the way, they rapidly get strained beyond the breaking point)

Then you do your best to stop the robber. You still don't kill preschoolers in the process. It's not like you options are "watch the robber kill preschoolers or kill a bunch of preschoolers to stop him." You do something about it, but something that doesn't involve the killing of preschoolers.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nuking civilians is avoiding hurting all the other ones you were going to kill anyway because you have no choice. Philosophy has to be applicable to reality, not just to fantasy worlds.

So the US was going to kill everyone in those cities anyway? I don't think so. It's not like a battle involves soldiers walking into houses and blasting families huddled in the corner. You aren't suppose to fire on civilians. Unless they fire at you.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But when your faced with a situation where you can either kill hundreds of thousands of people or kill tens of thousands of people what do you?

The one that has less civilian deaths. I don't think we chose that one, though.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You're the one saying that there is never a situation where killing civilians is acceptable; and i'm the one oversimplifying things? As I said earlier, I don't even have a view one way or another, I am still deciding. I just feel like if you haven't done research, and have no intention of ever doing research, then you aren't productively contributing to the thread.

I haven't done research on possible military alternatives. That doesn't mean I can't contribute to the thread, it just means I can't contribute military alternatives to the thread.

Admittedly, when I first posted I thought it was a "should we have done it" question. If it was intended to be a "what other possible ways could we have handled it" question, then it's true I have little to nothing to contribute. My mistake.


Originally posted by King Kandy
Unfortunately, that's not a hypothetical: that's what actually happened. So they did exactly what you wanted, now what?

Then that didn't work. Think up a new plan.

Why didn't they just use normal bombs to specifically target the military bases by the way?

Originally posted by TacDavey
I would think bombing Japan using normal bombs instead of nuclear ones would be less damaging to civilians. Especially if we focus them on military targets and no so much entire cities.

If we are fighting through Japan, the civilians in the way at least have a chance. They have no chance getting nuked. Like I said, better soldiers die than civilians, unfortunately. And, if civilians chose to fight back against us, then I wouldn't consider them "civilians" in the same way at that point. At that point, I think it's justifiable to fire back. But I do not accept plans involving actively attacking non combatants.


What you think and what were factual of the time are two different things. But two atom bombs (of the time) were projected to cost less lives than several more months of conventional fighting.

Then you pretty much have a "no one should have fought in WWII" stance, as bombs don't magically avoid non-combatants. It's easy to take the moral high-ground while ignoring truths.

The Japaneese were like the Germans at that time. They only knew what the propaganda they were being fed.

So in a way they were innocent, really should be mad at their own government for putting them in such a situation.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I haven't done research on possible military alternatives. That doesn't mean I can't contribute to the thread, it just means I can't contribute military alternatives to the thread.

Admittedly, when I first posted I thought it was a "should we have done it" question. If it was intended to be a "what other possible ways could we have handled it" question, then it's true I have little to nothing to contribute. My mistake.
Great. So now that you've moved past that mistaken impression, I assume you are going to start doing research now?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Then that didn't work. Think up a new plan.

Why didn't they just use normal bombs to specifically target the military bases by the way?
There had been a huge conventional bombing campaign in the months preceding (which actually killed more civilians than the atomic bombs themselves).

You know we didn't have "smart bombs" btw, so its not so simple as saying "just don't hit the stuff around it".

ask people in Pakistan how indescrimitate smart bombs are...

Originally posted by inimalist
ask people in Pakistan how indescrimitate smart bombs are... Well, the ones that are still alive can't have too bad an experience with them.

Originally posted by inimalist
ask people in Pakistan how indescrimitate smart bombs are...
Yeah, i'm aware that those are actually unreliable... in WWII the very idea of such precise bombing, is unthinkable.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, the ones that are still alive can't have too bad an experience with them.

lol

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yeah, i'm aware that those are actually unreliable... in WWII the very idea of such precise bombing, is unthinkable.

for sure, I wasn't trying to pick a fight, that was more my reasoning as well. even modern bombs kill more civilians than soldiers

Originally posted by Robtard
What you think and what were factual of the time are two different things. But two atom bombs (of the time) were projected to cost less lives than several more months of conventional fighting.

Then you pretty much have a "no one should have fought in WWII" stance, as bombs don't magically avoid non-combatants. It's easy to take the moral high-ground while ignoring truths.

A smaller explosion does less damage. I don't see the reasoning behind, "We want to avoid hitting things that aren't our target. Let's use a much bigger explosion."

And again, the lives lost fighting may have been higher on the soldiers end, but I don't see how it could have been higher in terms of civilians. As long as you don't actively attack civilians, any deaths would be accidental. How can this lead to more deaths than actively targeting civilians?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Great. So now that you've moved past that mistaken impression, I assume you are going to start doing research now?

What? Homework? Aw...


Originally posted by King Kandy
There had been a huge conventional bombing campaign in the months preceding (which actually killed more civilians than the atomic bombs themselves).

You know we didn't have "smart bombs" btw, so its not so simple as saying "just don't hit the stuff around it".

That should be the goal though. An atomic bomb obviously doesn't have that goal in mind at all. It's goal is more like:

"Let's hit the target as well as as much extra stuff as we possibly can."

And we used THAT bomb to hit a target in a city?

If we really had to take out those targets, we should have done so attempting to have the least amount of civilian casualties as we could.

Originally posted by TacDavey
A smaller explosion does less damage. I don't see the reasoning behind, "We want to avoid hitting things that aren't our target. Let's use a much bigger explosion."

And again, the lives lost fighting may have been higher on the soldiers end, but I don't see how it could have been higher in terms of civilians. As long as you don't actively attack civilians, any deaths would be accidental. How can this lead to more deaths than actively targeting civilians?

Yes, a smaller explosion does less damage and would potentially kill less people, if we(you) keep ignoring the factors and stick to ignorance. Now thousands and thousands and thousands of smaller explosions (bombs, tanks, bullets, grenades, fire strikes etc) over weeks to possibly months would have done more damage, ie more deaths. No idea why this basic concept is hard to follow for you.

BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN INVASION OF JAPAN ITSELF AND JAPAN WAS FULL OF CIVILIANS.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That should be the goal though. An atomic bomb obviously doesn't have that goal in mind at all. It's goal is more like:

"Let's hit the target as well as as much extra stuff as we possibly can."

And we used THAT bomb to hit a target in a city?

If we really had to take out those targets, we should have done so attempting to have the least amount of civilian casualties as we could.
Well, I disagree that the military targets were the main reason. The carpet bombing campaigns killed more civilians, and destroyed more military targets, than the atomic bombs ever did. But those never extracted a surrender, and the a-bomb did, because of the psychological impact of a weapon of that power. Before the bomb, Hirohito and the military could delude themselves into thinking they'd fight to the end and thwart a land invasion through total war. The bomb's chief strength was that it removed all hope of victory in the future; after all, they had no idea how many bombs we might have had in our armory. With that sort of shock and awe maneuver, high command was finally made to realize they were totally at the mercy of the US.

Originally posted by TacDavey
A smaller explosion does less damage. I don't see the reasoning behind, "We want to avoid hitting things that aren't our target. Let's use a much bigger explosion."

And again, the lives lost fighting may have been higher on the soldiers end, but I don't see how it could have been higher in terms of civilians. As long as you don't actively attack civilians, any deaths would be accidental. How can this lead to more deaths than actively targeting civilians?


If the civilians are doing Bonzai charges with sharpened bamboo spears it becomes difficult not to kill them without suffering heavy casualties.

After what's happened in Vietnam and the Middle East I don't doubt for a moment that the Japanese civilians wouldn't have fought back against an armed invasion even if they'd lose twenty or thirty for every American killed.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well, I disagree that the military targets were the main reason. The carpet bombing campaigns killed more civilians, and destroyed more military targets, than the atomic bombs ever did. But those never extracted a surrender, and the a-bomb did, because of the psychological impact of a weapon of that power. Before the bomb, Hirohito and the military could delude themselves into thinking they'd fight to the end and thwart a land invasion through total war. The bomb's chief strength was that it removed all hope of victory in the future; after all, they had no idea how many bombs we might have had in our armory. With that sort of shock and awe maneuver, high command was finally made to realize they were totally at the mercy of the US.
An interesting footnote is how the Japanese just before surrendering were issuing white uniforms to some soldiers because it was observed that people wearing white clothes were less burnt than others (can't remember why that is). That implies that at least one guy high up was planning to fight a war where atomic bombings would be common.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, a smaller explosion does less damage and would potentially kill less people, if we(you) keep ignoring the factors and stick to ignorance. Now thousands and thousands and thousands of smaller explosions (bombs, tanks, bullets, grenades, fire strikes etc) over weeks to possibly months would have done more damage, ie more deaths. No idea why this basic concept is hard to follow for you.

BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN INVASION OF JAPAN ITSELF AND JAPAN WAS FULL OF CIVILIANS.

I'm talking about the military targets specifically, not bombing all of Japan. If we wanted those targets gone, we should have taken them out without killing everyone around them.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well, I disagree that the military targets were the main reason. The carpet bombing campaigns killed more civilians, and destroyed more military targets, than the atomic bombs ever did. But those never extracted a surrender, and the a-bomb did, because of the psychological impact of a weapon of that power. Before the bomb, Hirohito and the military could delude themselves into thinking they'd fight to the end and thwart a land invasion through total war. The bomb's chief strength was that it removed all hope of victory in the future; after all, they had no idea how many bombs we might have had in our armory. With that sort of shock and awe maneuver, high command was finally made to realize they were totally at the mercy of the US.

So killing all those civilians was the goal? That's what I can't accept.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
If the civilians are doing Bonzai charges with sharpened bamboo spears it becomes difficult not to kill them without suffering heavy casualties.

After what's happened in Vietnam and the Middle East I don't doubt for a moment that the Japanese civilians wouldn't have fought back against an armed invasion even if they'd lose twenty or thirty for every American killed.

But those are people who have decided to fight. So killing them is justified.

Originally posted by TacDavey
But those are people who have decided to fight. So killing them is justified.

I'm not sure I get this...

you see no moral problems with killing people who could even half way be defined as soldiers?

Like, I'm with you on the pacifism thing because I think all death in war is immoral, especially the young men and women who die on battlefields.

It seems strange, like, not only are you arguing against the pragmatism of the nuclear bomb, but you are then dividing people into camps where, it is ok that some died, but not all.

If only "soldiers" were killed by the nuke, you would have no problems with it?

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not sure I get this...

you see no moral problems with killing people who could even half way be defined as soldiers?

Like, I'm with you on the pacifism thing because I think all death in war is immoral, especially the young men and women who die on battlefields.

It seems strange, like, not only are you arguing against the pragmatism of the nuclear bomb, but you are then dividing people into camps where, it is ok that some died, but not all.

If only "soldiers" were killed by the nuke, you would have no problems with it?

I don't want to sound like I want people to die. Obviously, it would be better if no one were killed.

But if someone attacks you and you fire back, that's justified. If you can avoid killing them, I think you should, but I don't think you should just sit there and let them kill you.

If a "civilian" picks up a weapon and decides to fight you, I think you are justified in fighting back. Like soldiers, they are making the decision to put there life on the line for their country.

I have a much greater problem with actively attacking non combatants. So in a sense, yes, I'm saying it's better to kill some people and not others.

But again, if you can avoid killing them I think you should. If a guy charges you with a sharpened stick, I'm betting you can stop him without killing him.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't want to sound like I want people to die. Obviously, it would be better if no one were killed.

But if someone attacks you and you fire back, that's justified. If you can avoid killing them, I think you should, but I don't think you should just sit there and let them kill you.

If a "civilian" picks up a weapon and decides to fight you, I think you are justified in fighting back. Like soldiers, they are making the decision to put there life on the line for their country.

I have a much greater problem with actively attacking non combatants. So in a sense, yes, I'm saying it's better to kill some people and not others.

But again, if you can avoid killing them I think you should. If a guy charges you with a sharpened stick, I'm betting you can stop him without killing him.
This is all besides the point as the argument that I was commenting on was that an invasion of Japan wouldn't have in your view led to more civilian deaths than the Atomic Bombings inflicted.

Whether the killing would be justified or not isn't what I was talking about, I was addressing the fact that all indications pointed to a prospective invasion of Japan as being horribly bloody for Americans but more so for the Japanese people.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
This is all besides the point as the argument that I was commenting on was that an invasion of Japan wouldn't have in your view led to more civilian deaths than the Atomic Bombings inflicted.

Whether the killing would be justified or not isn't what I was talking about, I was addressing the fact that all indications pointed to a prospective invasion of Japan as being horribly bloody for Americans but more so for the Japanese people.

that may be true, but to someone who rejects all forms of violence as being immoral, killing 1000 to save 100000 doesn't come up as a morally acceptable solution.

would you rather murder 8 innocent children or 25? well, from a pacifist point of view, those are just too few options.

Originally posted by TacDavey
So killing all those civilians was the goal? That's what I can't accept.
But i'm not sure what you think the better alternative is. The "conventional" bombing you suggested, actually killed MORE civilians. So the bomb was the LESS destructive alternative.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But i'm not sure what you think the better alternative is. The "conventional" bombing you suggested, actually killed MORE civilians. So the bomb was the LESS destructive alternative.

Less destructive to who? And if the bombs destructive ability was what we were trying to demonstrate, why didn't we drop one on an isolated military base? Why did we dump it in the middle of a civilian filled city?

We were either actively trying to kill civilians (Not acceptable under any circumstance)

Or the specific military set ups in the city were our target, in which case we could have done a normal bombing run and done the least amount of damage to the surrounding populace.

if regular bombing runs kill more people, how is that less destructive?

Originally posted by inimalist
that may be true, but to someone who rejects all forms of violence as being immoral, killing 1000 to save 100000 doesn't come up as a morally acceptable solution.

would you rather murder 8 innocent children or 25? well, from a pacifist point of view, those are just too few options.
The world is a very difficult place for pacifists sometimes.

And in any case, I wasn't discussing the rightness or wrongness of it, just commenting on the fact that he claimed that civilian deaths would have been 'accidental' in the event of an invasion. I pointed out that it ceases being accidental when said civilians attack the soldiers and make themselves into targets.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Less destructive to who? And if the bombs destructive ability was what we were trying to demonstrate, why didn't we drop one on an isolated military base? Why did we dump it in the middle of a civilian filled city?

We were either actively trying to kill civilians (Not acceptable under any circumstance)

Or the specific military set ups in the city were our target, in which case we could have done a normal bombing run and done the least amount of damage to the surrounding populace.

A conventional bombing wouldn't have had the same impact and would have required us to do it again and again. America gave up on strategic bombing after they found out it wasn't working, 500000 Japanese were already dead from the new methods. Continuing that would have been a disaster in terms of human life lost. Going back to the strategic bombings would have meant leaving the civilians in China and Korea to die.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The world is a very difficult place for pacifists sometimes.

And in any case, I wasn't discussing the rightness or wrongness of it, just commenting on the fact that he claimed that civilian deaths would have been 'accidental' in the event of an invasion. I pointed out that it ceases being accidental when said civilians attack the soldiers and make themselves into targets.

no, totally

I also don't see how the civilian deaths in that case are any more accidental than in the atomic bomb drops.

Originally posted by inimalist
if regular bombing runs kill more people, how is that less destructive?

Multiple bombing runs across more civilized areas cause more destruction. I'm talking specifically about the targets in the city.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
And in any case, I wasn't discussing the rightness or wrongness of it, just commenting on the fact that he claimed that civilian deaths would have been 'accidental' in the event of an invasion. I pointed out that it ceases being accidental when said civilians attack the soldiers and make themselves into targets.

I wouldn't consider them "civilians" in the same way. They are now basically less trained, less protected soldiers. The difference is in the choice to fight. I would say you are justified in defending yourself against someone who picks up a weapon and decides to fight you. The people in the city didn't do that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A conventional bombing wouldn't have had the same impact and would have required us to do it again and again. America gave up on strategic bombing after they found out it wasn't working, 500000 Japanese were already dead from the new methods. Continuing that would have been a disaster in terms of human life lost. Going back to the strategic bombings would have meant leaving the civilians in China and Korea to die.

If the object was to "create an impact" they didn't need to bomb a city to do that. Any place would have been acceptable to show the bombs power.

But it seems like they bombed the city because that would kill the most people. Never mind the fact that the vast majority of these people were non combatant civilians.

If that's true, then the civilians WERE a part of the target. And actively targeting civilians is wrong. Plain and simple.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I wouldn't consider them "civilians" in the same way. They are now basically less trained, less protected soldiers. The difference is in the choice to fight. I would say you are justified in defending yourself against someone who picks up a weapon and decides to fight you. The people in the city didn't do that.

Are you justified in killing a person who picks up a gun and is forced to fight you? (Not that I know of the Japanese planning to do this, I just think it's an interesting moral question).

Originally posted by TacDavey
If the object was to "create an impact" they didn't need to bomb a city to do that. Any place would have been acceptable to show the bombs power.

A very reasonable argument.

Originally posted by TacDavey
But it seems like they bombed the city because that would kill the most people. Never mind the fact that the vast majority of these people were non combatant civilians.

Do we know this for sure? People were already being removed from the outlying islands like Hiroshima and the island apparently had a military staging area on it. I can't seem to find any numbers about how the ratio of civilian to military casualties (though it would make sense fore the city to have far more civilians than military).

Originally posted by TacDavey
If that's true, then the civilians WERE a part of the target. And actively targeting civilians is wrong. Plain and simple.

Where did I saw civilians were actively targeted?

Originally posted by TacDavey



I wouldn't consider them "civilians" in the same way. They are now basically less trained, less protected soldiers. The difference is in the choice to fight. I would say you are justified in defending yourself against someone who picks up a weapon and decides to fight you. The people in the city didn't do that.
So IYO its better to kill a million "poorly trained soldiers" than to kill a hundred thousand civilians?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Less destructive to who? And if the bombs destructive ability was what we were trying to demonstrate, why didn't we drop one on an isolated military base? Why did we dump it in the middle of a civilian filled city?

We were either actively trying to kill civilians (Not acceptable under any circumstance)

Or the specific military set ups in the city were our target, in which case we could have done a normal bombing run and done the least amount of damage to the surrounding populace.
You aren't paying attention. We DID, and that "normal" bombing run, killed MORE civilians than the atomic bomb.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm talking about the military targets specifically, not bombing all of Japan. If we wanted those targets gone, we should have taken them out without killing everyone around them.

Cos that's how war works, especially in the 1940's. You drop a bomb and it magically doesn't kill anyone you deem not acceptable. Same goes for fighting in the streets, the bullets and shrapnel magically avoid the mother and child hiding in the house but kill the soldier and three peasants turned samurai.

Weeeee, it's fun to avoid reality and take the moral high-ground. I'm starting to think you're purposely ignoring everything people have told you of the situation at the time and are doing it for a laugh.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Are you justified in killing a person who picks up a gun and is forced to fight you? (Not that I know of the Japanese planning to do this, I just think it's an interesting moral question).

I would say so, if that is the only option available to you.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do we know this for sure? People were already being removed from the outlying islands like Hiroshima and the island apparently had a military staging area on it. I can't seem to find any numbers about how the ratio of civilian to military casualties (though it would make sense fore the city to have far more civilians than military).

Indeed. It was far more city than military base.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Where did I saw civilians were actively targeted?

I didn't mean to imply you claimed this, that's the conclusion I came to. If we bombed the city to show it's power, we must have been looking to kill as many people as possible.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So IYO its better to kill a million "poorly trained soldiers" than to kill a hundred thousand civilians?

As I said, cold as it sounds, it's better to kill soldiers than civilians.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You aren't paying attention. We DID, and that "normal" bombing run, killed MORE civilians than the atomic bomb.

Over more bombing runs and more targets. I'm talking about this one target specifically.

Originally posted by Robtard
Cos that's how war works, especially in the 1940's. You drop a bomb and it magically doesn't kill anyone you deem not acceptable. Same goes for fighting in the streets, the bullets and shrapnel magically avoid the mother and child hiding in the house but kill the soldier and three peasants turned samurai.

Weeeee, it's fun to avoid reality and take the moral high-ground. I'm starting to think you're purposely ignoring everything people have told you of the situation at the time and are doing it for a laugh.

I'm not saying bombs don't kill civilians. I've already clarified that. I'm saying we shouldn't actively try to kill civilians. Civilians who get caught in the cross fire are accidental deaths. We should do everything we can to avoid them. Nuking civilians isn't doing everything we can.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm not saying bombs don't kill civilians. I've already clarified that. I'm saying we shouldn't actively try to kill civilians. Civilians who get caught in the cross fire are accidental deaths. We should do everything we can to avoid them. Nuking civilians isn't doing everything we can.

So your end point as it pertains to Japan in WWII (if we don't ignore the reality of the situation) is you're okay with more civilians dieing (what would have happened in a land invasion); as long as they're not actively targeted/nuked.

Brilliant and moral.

Originally posted by TacDavey
As I said, cold as it sounds, it's better to kill soldiers than civilians.

The issue is that it's foolish to look at it in such a binary way when many of those "soldiers" are going to have been "civilians" just the previous day. A quick war by me prevents those civilians from turning into soldiers for you to kill.

There's not much point in looking at the bomb decision in isolation. A view that 'we should not intentionally target civilians' is all very well and noble, but you'd have to turn the clock back a long way in the war to make that call.

The Allies had been intentionally targeting civilians in Germany and then Japan for years by the point the bomb was used, and if the bomb had not been used the US would've flattened those cities with conventional explosives anyway with probably more civilian deaths.

No-one should be under any illusion that precision bombing of military targets was the way things were done in Japan. Civilians were not collateral damage. It was mass indiscriminate firebombing designed to kill and uproot as many civilians as possible.

So as far as the practicality of the question is concerned not using the bomb would not have saved civilians, and I don't think there's much point in trying to avoid that.

If you want to say the entire Allied bombing strategy in World War 2 was immoral, then sure, and plenty think that. It's a much bigger issue than just the bomb though.

-

All that said, though- I have never been convinced that the Japanese would not have surrendered without the bomb. I think that is a convenient mode of thought some liked to adopt at the time but not the strategic reality, and the decision to use the bomb was more influenced by its political consequences than its military.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Over more bombing runs and more targets. I'm talking about this one target specifically.
Well, given the decision was based on defeating the entirety of Japan, talking about it that way doesn't carry much weight.

What alternative plan do you think could have defeated the empire? One target means nothing, when facing a whole country.

Originally posted by Robtard
So your end point as it pertains to Japan in WWII (if we don't ignore the reality of the situation) is you're okay with more civilians dieing (what would have happened in a land invasion); as long as they're not actively targeted/nuked.

Brilliant and moral.

No, I'm saying we figure out what point that bomb had in defeating Japan. If the goal was to destroy the military targets in the city, that could have been done without an atomic bomb.

If the point was to show off our flashy new weapon, then we didn't need to show it off on a city filled with civilians.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The issue is that it's foolish to look at it in such a binary way when many of those "soldiers" are going to have been "civilians" just the previous day. A quick war by me prevents those civilians from turning into soldiers for you to kill.

All soldiers were civilians at one point. It matters what they are now, not what they were. If they are actively fighting against you, then I don't consider them "civilians" any more. Not in the same way.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well, given the decision was based on defeating the entirety of Japan, talking about it that way doesn't carry much weight.

What alternative plan do you think could have defeated the empire? One target means nothing, when facing a whole country.

How did this move defeat Japan? Was it because those specific military targets were destroyed? If that was the case, they could have done a normal bombing run targeting just those bases.

If it was the fact that we showed we had a weapon that they couldn't stand against we didn't need to bomb a city full of innocent people to send that message. Dropping that thing on an isolated military base would have been just as good a display of it's explosive ability.

Originally posted by TacDavey
No, I'm saying we figure out what point that bomb had in defeating Japan. If the goal was to destroy the military targets in the city, that could have been done without an atomic bomb.

If the point was to show off our flashy new weapon, then we didn't need to show it off on a city filled with civilians.


Point was to force Japan to surrender unconditionally and end the war as they had previously rejected the Potsdam Declaration on 7/26/45. Point failed to work on 8/6/45. Point worked on 8/9/45.

Because nuking a mountain would have made Japan surrender when they didn't surrender after 6-7 months of conventional and fire bombings over 60+ of their cities and the nuking of Hiroshima? This actually makes sense to you? Explain.

Originally posted by TacDavey
How did this move defeat Japan? Was it because those specific military targets were destroyed? If that was the case, they could have done a normal bombing run targeting just those bases.

If it was the fact that we showed we had a weapon that they couldn't stand against we didn't need to bomb a city full of innocent people to send that message. Dropping that thing on an isolated military base would have been just as good a display of it's explosive ability.
I already explained this to you. Dropping it on a military base doesn't prove a thing. When Truman hinted to Stalin that they had a super-bomb, Stalin's response was basically "yeah right". Seeing is believing.

How does destroying a military base prove that you can destroy a city? What data are they supposed to provide? No one would have seen the thing; it would have been unproven hearsay and in no way would Japan have surrendered based on it. Japan didn't even surrender when the hiroshima bomb was dropped killing hundreds of thousands? But an isolated base; yeah, that would have been the ticket.

Please try actually reading a book before you talk to me again.

Originally posted by Robtard
Point was to force Japan to surrender unconditionally and end the war as they had previously rejected the Potsdam Declaration on 7/26/45. Point failed to work on 8/6/45. Point worked on 8/9/45.

Because nuking a mountain would have made Japan surrender when they didn't surrender after 6-7 months of conventional and fire bombings over 60+ of their cities and the nuking of Hiroshima? This actually makes sense to you? Explain.

I didn't say a mountain, I said a military base. Why did bombing the city make Japan surrender? Was it because they were so heart broken over the loss of civilians that they just couldn't go on anymore?

I don't think so, considering we had to bomb another city before they did anything.

Why, then, did the atomic bomb lead to surrender? Was it because we destroyed those military bases in the city?

Maybe, but I kinda doubt it. And even if that was the reason, a normal bombing run would kill less civilians.

Or was it because we showed we had a super powerful weapon? If that's the case, we did not need to drop the bomb on a city to send this message. The explosion would have been just as big anywhere else.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I already explained this to you. Dropping it on a military base doesn't prove a thing. When Truman hinted to Stalin that they had a super-bomb, Stalin's response was basically "yeah right". Seeing is believing.

How does destroying a military base prove that you can destroy a city? What data are they supposed to provide? No one would have seen the thing; it would have been unproven hearsay and in no way would Japan have surrendered based on it. Japan didn't even surrender when the hiroshima bomb was dropped killing hundreds of thousands? But an isolated base; yeah, that would have been the ticket.

Please try actually reading a book before you talk to me again.

Actually, I did do some reading before coming back here.

What data is it suppose to provide? The explosion would have been just as big no matter where you dropped it. I don't think the Japanese would look at a nuclear explosion at a military base and think:

"Hey, did you see how that thing incinerated the base and almost everything around it? That thing would have done no damage to a city, though."

The destructive power of the bomb could be seen regardless of where it was dropped. It wasn't as if Japan couldn't see the destructive power of the bomb unless it was killing civilians.

the first bomb, dropped on a city, didn't make them surrender

most of the generals wanted to keep fighting after the second

Originally posted by TacDavey
Actually, I did do some reading before coming back here.

What data is it suppose to provide? The explosion would have been just as big no matter where you dropped it. I don't think the Japanese would look at a nuclear explosion at a military base and think:

"Hey, did you see how that thing incinerated the base and almost everything around it? That thing would have done no damage to a city, though."

The destructive power of the bomb could be seen regardless of where it was dropped. It wasn't as if Japan couldn't see the destructive power of the bomb unless it was killing civilians.
Well actually, no they wouldn't have seen that thing. They would have been dead. The important thing about Hiroshima was that there were countless witnesses to the effects. Destroying a military base wouldn't have demonstrated the effects such as toxic radioactivity, or destructive winds. Actually, the place the bomb is dropped, is the part that takes the least damage; in all likelihood, the military base could have still been standing by the end of it.

They didn't see it, even when the first one WAS dropped on a city. Obviously, dropping it on a military base would not have been convincing. Dropping it on Hiroshima was unconvincing to many. You know what high command would have thought of dropping it on a base? "Yay, they used it up on something worthless".

Originally posted by TacDavey
I didn't say a mountain, I said a military base. Why did bombing the city make Japan surrender? Was it because they were so heart broken over the loss of civilians that they just couldn't go on anymore?

I don't think so, considering we had to bomb another city before they did anything.

Why, then, did the atomic bomb lead to surrender? Was it because we destroyed those military bases in the city?

Maybe, but I kinda doubt it. And even if that was the reason, a normal bombing run would kill less civilians.

Or was it because we showed we had a super powerful weapon? If that's the case, we did not need to drop the bomb on a city to send this message. The explosion would have been just as big anywhere else.

You're defeating your own purpose now and King Kandy already proved this point of yours to be nonsense. Nuking a military base (which one btw? As most bases are by cities/civilians) would have accomplished what? It took two nukes on cities to force then to bend knee, it's insane to think nuking a military base would have been more effective.

Why did Japan surrender after Nagasaki? Probably because they didn't want a 3rd city nuked, as by number 2 the US had shown it's capability.

Most agree that "showing the rest of the world" was part of it and no, nuking a desert or like wouldn't have been the same and more to the point, Japan wouldn't have surrendered.

Again, you're not paying attention, you've been told 5-6 times now by several people that Japan was conventionally/fire bombed for about 6 months or 60+ cities (which caused more deaths than the nukes) prior to Hiroshima; they did not surrender. Read up.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well actually, no they wouldn't have seen that thing. They would have been dead. The important thing about Hiroshima was that there were countless witnesses to the effects. Destroying a military base wouldn't have demonstrated the effects such as toxic radioactivity, or destructive winds. Actually, the place the bomb is dropped, is the part that takes the least damage; in all likelihood, the military base could have still been standing by the end of it.

They didn't see it, even when the first one WAS dropped on a city. Obviously, dropping it on a military base would not have been convincing. Dropping it on Hiroshima was unconvincing to many. You know what high command would have thought of dropping it on a base? "Yay, they used it up on something worthless".

The bombs point was to show it's power, right? That can be accomplished without the need of a city full of innocent people. You say they wouldn't have seen the bomb if it was dropped on a military base, but that isn't necessarily true. There are ways they could have tweaked it to allowed for survivors or placed it near enough to a place with people for there to be witnesses.

Some of the main arguments presented in the debate so far have been that Japan doesn't care about killing off it's civilians. As many people have pointed out a number of times Japan sat back and watched us bomb city after city, killing tons of civilians, and didn't care. So killing the people of that city was obviously not what made them decide to surrender.

What did, I assume, was the bombs destructive power. It's possible for their to be witnesses to a bombs destructive ability without having to drop it right on them. Even dropping in near a city would have provided just as many witnesses (probably more, since half of them wouldn't be ash) without needing to kill a mass amount of innocent people.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're defeating your own purpose now and King Kandy already proved this point of yours to be nonsense. Nuking a military base (which one btw? As most bases are by cities/civilians) would have accomplished what? It took two nukes on cities to force then to bend knee, it's insane to think nuking a military base would have been more effective.

Why did Japan surrender after Nagasaki? Probably because they didn't want a 3rd city nuked, as by number 2 the US had shown it's capability.

Most agree that "showing the rest of the world" was part of it and no, nuking a desert or like wouldn't have been the same and more to the point, Japan wouldn't have surrendered.

Again, you're not paying attention, you've been told 5-6 times now by several people that Japan was conventionally/fire bombed for about 6 months or 60+ cities (which caused more deaths than the nukes) prior to Hiroshima; they did not surrender. Read up.

That's my point! Japan didn't care about killing civilians. So obviously that isn't what made them surrender. We didn't need to target civilians because Japan didn't care about them in the first place. All we had to do was show we had a big bomb. We didn't need to drop it on people for people to see it's a destructive force.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That's my point! Japan didn't care about killing civilians. So obviously that isn't what made them surrender. We didn't need to target civilians because Japan didn't care about them in the first place. All we had to do was show we had a big bomb. We didn't need to drop it on people for people to see it's a destructive force.

Hahahahaa, dude. No and no; massive oversimplification. Japan surrendered after Nagasaki, they obviously cared to a point of not wanting to get nuked after it was shown what a nuke to a city (not a deserted place) can do.

You have no argument, you're just fishing now as it's been clearly obvious King Kandy pegged you right 4+ pages ago, you know little to nothing about WW2; didn't do any reading on the subject and just came in talking about right and wrongs.

Originally posted by TacDavey
The bombs point was to show it's power, right? That can be accomplished without the need of a city full of innocent people. You say they wouldn't have seen the bomb if it was dropped on a military base, but that isn't necessarily true. There are ways they could have tweaked it to allowed for survivors or placed it near enough to a place with people for there to be witnesses.

Some of the main arguments presented in the debate so far have been that Japan doesn't care about killing off it's civilians. As many people have pointed out a number of times Japan sat back and watched us bomb city after city, killing tons of civilians, and didn't care. So killing the people of that city was obviously not what made them decide to surrender.

What did, I assume, was the bombs destructive power. It's possible for their to be witnesses to a bombs destructive ability without having to drop it right on them. Even dropping in near a city would have provided just as many witnesses (probably more, since half of them wouldn't be ash) without needing to kill a mass amount of innocent people.
And this is the core of your problem. You could actually read testimonies from the people involved, and find out what DID make them decide; or, you could continue to throw out hypotheticals. Based on your logic, the US could have simply publicized the results of the trinity test, and Japan would have surrendered from that alone. This is a clearly absurd comparison.

Hitting a depopulated area would not have showed anything about the destructive capabilities. The "fireball" is not all that; like I said, the "ground zero" sites of detonation are usually the least harmed. What causes the bulk of the destruction is the vacuum created by the explosion, which triggers high-powered winds that literally blew Hiroshima down. In some desolate area, this would have been an unnoticed effect. And, of course, there is the radioactivity; if the bomb hit a depopulated area, the radiation factor would have been basically nothing. So your plan (demonstrating the destructive power without civilians), would fail. The fireball is really not all that impressive.

Then there's your ridiculous idea of bombing "near" the city. Obviously, there is a huge problem here: the radioactivity would still get them and cause horrible results. Now you can say, "they should drop it far away enough for the radiation to subside". Except, nobody knew how far its effects would be damaging; that was only data we were able to collect because of the bomb.

Originally posted by Robtard
Hahahahaa, dude. No and no; massive oversimplification. Japan surrendered after Nagasaki, they obviously cared to a point of not wanting to get nuked after it was shown what a nuke to a city (not a deserted place) can do.

You have no argument, you're just fishing now as it's been clearly obvious King Kandy pegged you right 4+ pages ago, you know little to nothing about WW2; didn't do any reading on the subject and just came in talking about right and wrongs.

I did read up on it. You say I have no argument, but I have supplied it already. The only refutation posed against it is your insistence that the only way for Japan to be shown the destructive abilities of a bomb is to drop it on a city.

I disagree. Dropping it on a city is not necessary for the Japanese to understand it's destructive ability. This seems to operate under the assumption that the Japanese would look at the explosion and just ignore it unless there were enough deaths involved. I find this very hard to believe. If someone threatened us with a super bomb, then we had a giant explosion go off anywhere on our land, we would be investigating the explosion intently. That's just common sense. You really think they would just let that go?

Originally posted by King Kandy
And this is the core of your problem. You could actually read testimonies from the people involved, and find out what DID make them decide; or, you could continue to throw out hypotheticals. Based on your logic, the US could have simply publicized the results of the trinity test, and Japan would have surrendered from that alone. This is a clearly absurd comparison.

Hitting a depopulated area would not have showed anything about the destructive capabilities. The "fireball" is not all that; like I said, the "ground zero" sites of detonation are usually the least harmed. What causes the bulk of the destruction is the vacuum created by the explosion, which triggers high-powered winds that literally blew Hiroshima down. In some desolate area, this would have been an unnoticed effect. And, of course, there is the radioactivity; if the bomb hit a depopulated area, the radiation factor would have been basically nothing. So your plan (demonstrating the destructive power without civilians), would fail. The fireball is really not all that impressive.

Then there's your ridiculous idea of bombing "near" the city. Obviously, there is a huge problem here: the radioactivity would still get them and cause horrible results. Now you can say, "they should drop it far away enough for the radiation to subside". Except, nobody knew how far its effects would be damaging; that was only data we were able to collect because of the bomb.

Again, I am not suggesting we drop it in a desert. As I stated above, you seem to suggest that the Japanese would simply ignore the bomb unless it was dropped on a city. That just makes no sense. You drop something like an atomic bomb anywhere even remotely near civilization and the Japanese are going to investigate. They aren't going to look at a nuclear explosion and shrug it off.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I did read up on it. You say I have no argument, but I have supplied it already. The only refutation posed against it is your insistence that the only way for Japan to be shown the destructive abilities of a bomb is to drop it on a city.

I disagree. Dropping it on a city is not necessary for the Japanese to understand it's destructive ability. This seems to operate under the assumption that the Japanese would look at the explosion and just ignore it unless there were enough deaths involved. I find this very hard to believe. If someone threatened us with a super bomb, then we had a giant explosion go off anywhere on our land, we would be investigating the explosion intently. That's just common sense. You really think they would just let that go?



Again, I am not suggesting we drop it in a desert. As I stated above, you seem to suggest that the Japanese would simply ignore the bomb unless it was dropped on a city. That just makes no sense. You drop something like an atomic bomb anywhere even remotely near civilization and the Japanese are going to investigate. They aren't going to look at a nuclear explosion and shrug it off.
Its about the sentiment involved. Look at all the worst tragedies in the last 100 years, be they natural disasters or man made.

What do most of them have in common? They hit cities, major cities most of the time.

You can't seriously suggest that nuking an empty field, the ocean, an isolated military base, or a small town will have the same or even close to the same impact as the destruction of a major city.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Its about the sentiment involved. Look at all the worst tragedies in the last 100 years, be they natural disasters or man made.

What do most of them have in common? They hit cities, major cities most of the time.

You can't seriously suggest that nuking an empty field, the ocean, an isolated military base, or a small town will have the same or even close to the same impact as the destruction of a major city.

Impact in what way? Emotional? Sadness? Pain? No.

Those aren't what made Japan surrender, nor should it be our goal to inflict those on other people.

Impact in showing off a really big, destructive explosion? Yes.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Impact in what way? Emotional? Sadness? Pain? No.

Those aren't what made Japan surrender, nor should it be our goal to inflict those on other people.

Impact in showing off a really big, destructive explosion? Yes.
Yes it was. It was the fear that if they kept fighting they'd lose all their cities and possibly all their people. The idea that it was now possible for America to wipe them off the face of the Earth given enough time and enough bombs was one of the things that caused the surrender.

The fact that the fireball is really big is a sidenote. Who cares if you can make a really big explosion if you don't use it to harm your enemy.

By your logic all one must do to win a war is to send a bunch of soldiers to your enemy's border and have them shoot their guns in the air.

When the remaining garrisons in the Japanese Empire outside of Japan proper were told of the armistice they were explicitly told that Japan was surrendering due to the 'Inhumanity of the Atomic Bomb'. Inhumanity. Atomic Bomb.

We're surrendering because the Atomic Bomb killed a lot of people.

They didn't say 'we're surrendering cuz gosh those bombs were bright and loud!'

Originally posted by TacDavey
Again, I am not suggesting we drop it in a desert. As I stated above, you seem to suggest that the Japanese would simply ignore the bomb unless it was dropped on a city. That just makes no sense. You drop something like an atomic bomb anywhere even remotely near civilization and the Japanese are going to investigate. They aren't going to look at a nuclear explosion and shrug it off.
I already pointed out why that would not be a good indication of its power, read my post.

Another reason why your logic really fails is because by bombing a remote area, you demonstrate that you aren't willing to kill civilians. So actually they would have nothing to fear from the bomb, because they know you won't use it.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I did read up on it. You say I have no argument, but I have supplied it already. The only refutation posed against it is your insistence that the only way for Japan to be shown the destructive abilities of a bomb is to drop it on a city.

I disagree. Dropping it on a city is not necessary for the Japanese to understand it's destructive ability. This seems to operate under the assumption that the Japanese would look at the explosion and just ignore it unless there were enough deaths involved. I find this very hard to believe. If someone threatened us with a super bomb, then we had a giant explosion go off anywhere on our land, we would be investigating the explosion intently. That's just common sense. You really think they would just let that go?


BECAUSE THEY ALREADY IGNORED THE FIRST ONE.

Do you honestly think they would have surrendered if "little boy" had been dropped on a desolate military base and then "fat man" on some deserted rice field? This actually makes sense to you?

I have to say, I agree with these guys Tac.

You drop your biggest bombs in the backyard of the country your at war with, and kill nobody with it, in effect proves that it is the biggest paper tiger in history. It proves that your unwilling to go all the way.

Japan was a country willing to fight to the death, down to the last soldier, but the bomb proved one thing. It stoked a fear of total annihilation. Their way of life, their very existance was threatened. It is this, and only this, that forced their surrender. The Japanese battle tactics at the time proved what they where willing to do in order to win.

To answer the question, yes.

To try to Monday morning quarterback something like this, senseless.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
I have to say, I agree with these guys Tac.

You drop your biggest bombs in the backyard of the country your at war with, and kill nobody with it, in effect proves that it is the biggest paper tiger in history. It proves that your unwilling to go all the way.

Japan was a country willing to fight to the death, down to the last soldier, but the bomb proved one thing. It stoked a fear of total annihilation. Their way of life, their very existance was threatened. It is this, and only this, that forced their surrender. The Japanese battle tactics at the time proved what they where willing to do in order to win.
Pretty much what I said. uhuh

I think Japan (at least thought) it could fight to the death if there were American soldiers they could take down with them. That's an honorable, heroic (note, I mean from a warrior's perspective, not from the perspective of an ethical theorist) struggle.

With the Atomic Bombs, short of intercepting or shooting down the bombers (which was incredibly difficult given how high the B-29s flew and given how deficient Japanese Radar was compared to that of the Allies) there really was no way for the Japanese to fight back.

You can rally peasants to fight marines with bamboo sticks...you cannot rally peasants to throw empty bottles and rocks at high altitude bombers.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
you cannot rally peasants to throw empty bottles and rocks at high altitude bombers.

But it would have been funny to watch, another missed moment in the annals of all that is LoLz.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You can rally peasants to fight marines with bamboo sticks...you cannot rally peasants to throw empty bottles and rocks at high altitude bombers.
Actually, Japan had a program where if planes went overhead, people were supposed to thrust their spears towards the sky to scare them off. As far as I know, it had a pretty low success rate.

I'm confused. The Japanese got scared of the atomic bomb because it threatened to destroy a lot of their cities and civilians? Harming their way of life? But they had absolutely no problem letting their cities and civilians be destroyed through conventional bombing runs which, as you guys stated, actually killed more people and caused more destruction?

And I don't think sending the message of "don't screw with us, we kill civilians" is right either. Isn't that exactly what terrorists do?

They did have a problem with that; it is generally considered that the air campaign is what brought them to the negotiating table.

The rationale for using the bomb is that it would force them to accept the unconditional surrender rather than a negotiated one, and this it apparently did though some say the Soviet invasion of Manchuria was a bigger issue- though let's not forget it is the bomb the Emperor directly referred to in his announcement of surrender (that said, after the war he said it was the combination of the air campaign in general and the Soviets).

So what was the difference? Speed and shock; with atomic bombs the US could do in days what the firebombing campaign would take weeks to do, was all. The final result- the obliteration of all Japanese cities with massive loss of civilian life- was pretty much the same.

Of course, that was a bluff; the US did not have enough such bombs to do it.

Is killing civilians in war wrong? A complex issue indeed, but actually very little to do with the invention of the bomb itself. The only truth is that every side did it, repeatedly, for years, and the Allies got the results they wanted from such a policy.

Tac:

how many civilian lives would have been ok to sacrifice with the atom bomb?

like, I don't get how you can take a moral stance against the bomb in Hiroshima, but only because there was too high a population density... As if you are saying a smaller massacre of human lives is totally acceptable. An axiom something like: War is moral so long as only 10% of the casualties are civilians?

Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm confused. The Japanese got scared of the atomic bomb because it threatened to destroy a lot of their cities and civilians? Harming their way of life? But they had absolutely no problem letting their cities and civilians be destroyed through conventional bombing runs which, as you guys stated, actually killed more people and caused more destruction?

And I don't think sending the message of "don't screw with us, we kill civilians" is right either. Isn't that exactly what terrorists do?
There's a big difference in the psychological impact of killing people over the course of a year, and doing it all at once, what we call a "shock and awe" maneuver. People in high command could still pretend they could "hold out" through the bombing, which means we would have had a lengthy campaign of bombing that would have exceeded the a-bombs many times over. But there was no pretending they could hold out against nuclear weaponry, because it was obvious after two bombings that we seemingly could keep this up indefinitely, until they were totally annihilated.

Originally posted by inimalist
Tac:

how many civilian lives would have been ok to sacrifice with the atom bomb?

like, I don't get how you can take a moral stance against the bomb in Hiroshima, but only because there was too high a population density... As if you are saying a smaller massacre of human lives is totally acceptable. An axiom something like: War is moral so long as only 10% of the casualties are civilians?

No, I don't think any civilian deaths is acceptable. But if you are going to kill them anyway, you could at least kill the least amount possible. If it were up to me, no civilians would ever be targeted for any reason in war ever. But people don't play by my rules.

The thing is, they were dead set on using that bomb to destroy something, apparently. If you have to destroy a civilian target, the least you could do is not make it a crowded city. Preferably, you wouldn't be bombing civilians at all.

Originally posted by King Kandy
There's a big difference in the psychological impact of killing people over the course of a year, and doing it all at once, what we call a "shock and awe" maneuver. People in high command could still pretend they could "hold out" through the bombing, which means we would have had a lengthy campaign of bombing that would have exceeded the a-bombs many times over. But there was no pretending they could hold out against nuclear weaponry, because it was obvious after two bombings that we seemingly could keep this up indefinitely, until they were totally annihilated.

Okay, I suppose I can see the difference. I still don't see why bombing a military base wouldn't have made the same, or at least a very similar impression. It isn't like anyone who directly experienced the explosion lived to tell about it anyway. And the assessment of the damage from the blast was all gathered after the explosion anyway. Why is looking at the chard remains of a military base so different from looking at the chard remains of a city? Other than the loss of life, obviously?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Okay, I suppose I can see the difference. I still don't see why bombing a military base wouldn't have made the same, or at least a very similar impression. It isn't like anyone who directly experienced the explosion lived to tell about it anyway. And the assessment of the damage from the blast was all gathered after the explosion anyway. Why is looking at the chard remains of a military base so different from looking at the chard remains of a city? Other than the loss of life, obviously?

Because the japanese mentality was deftly aware of the loss of life in military service, it didn't matter to them how many soldiers they lost in the line of duty, And yes, many soldiers died in those blasts too. Japan did have military bases and fortifications inside the cities, as they where preparing for an allied ground invasion, they never knew of the bombs.

Another reason to target cities was to cripple ecomony and production capability. It was less about killing civilians and more about stopping the imperial war machine.

Yes.... many lives where lost.... and that is regrettable..... but consider the alternatives.... and you must also consider what Japan had done previously in the war. They had committed genocidal atrocities across the western Pacific and all over eastern Asia. And sometimes that included the calculated decimation of civilian targets.

Of course it wasn't necessary. Japan would have eventually surrendered... however, America wanted to end the pacific campaign before the Soviets could really get involved, and for this... it was necessary.

As for the loss of lives, it's hard to know whether using the bomb on them killed or saved more lives; as many sources from Japan tell us that they were close to surrender... but would not give up their emporer (and the allies wanted unconditional surrender). However, the Soviets not having a real stake in the pacific camgaign?... that possibly stoped Japan falling behind the iron curtain.


You can argue whether it was right or wrong until the cows come home... but the Pacific war was an ugly one. The island hopping cost large losses on both sides. And if a full scale invasion of Japan was mounted... It would have undoubtly cost far more. The bombs seem to me as the lesser of two evils. Civilian losses were large, but they were large in any bombing campaign during the time period.


Pros: Kept the Soviets out of the Pacific debate; giving 100% control of Japan to the Americans after the war (much better of 2 evils), ended the war more quickly and it saved the lives of more soldiers.

Cons: Possibly more civilian lives. (Possibly because more bombing runs were going to have to happen, an Japanese buildings and houses were tinderboxes.)

Yes it was.

Back then Japan was one of the most ruthless nations.
They showed no remorse over their abusive actions towards the territories they conquered.

I personally have heard/read accounts of brutal events they did back in my hometown.
My mother's parents are victims of such abuse. Millions of people were slaughtered and many women were raped for no apparent reason.
They were savages.

However, I don't see the point of dropping 2 bombs. I mean, the first was enough, the second was just overkill.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Because the japanese mentality was deftly aware of the loss of life in military service, it didn't matter to them how many soldiers they lost in the line of duty, And yes, many soldiers died in those blasts too. Japan did have military bases and fortifications inside the cities, as they where preparing for an allied ground invasion, they never knew of the bombs.

Apparently, they didn't care about civilians either. So the deaths of the civilians couldn't have been the reason either.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Another reason to target cities was to cripple ecomony and production capability. It was less about killing civilians and more about stopping the imperial war machine.

I don't think this is what led them to surrender, though. Their "war machine" was apparently already crippled enough. And most of the reports I've seen never list a production/economy loss as the reasons for their surrender.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Yes.... many lives where lost.... and that is regrettable..... but consider the alternatives.... and you must also consider what Japan had done previously in the war. They had committed genocidal atrocities across the western Pacific and all over eastern Asia. And sometimes that included the calculated decimation of civilian targets.

So the calculated decimation of civilian targets is wrong for Japan but okay for America? The fact that Japan was doing something wrong is not a valid excuse for us to do the same.