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

At the time when these weapons were used on Japan there were obviously people who approved of doing this. There were others that were vehemently against using these weapons. Now many decades later we have a much clearer view of the war then people did back then.

So should we of used these weapons in the manner we did? If the answer is no then what would you of done differently in order to end the war, but avoid using these weapons?

Yup.

the answer is yes. the japanese weren't going to quit. look at japan now. thriving and one of our allies.

yes.

Yes and the firebombings killed way more then the nukes.

People try to make this an issue because their etears pour hard for radical nations hell bent on destroying America.

No people make it an issue because the instant killing of tens of thousands of people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was horrifying, albeit, arguable necessary.

It's actually a really interesting debate, and one of the most divisive and the arguments have gone back and forth over the later half of the 20th century.

There's the arguments over lives saves/lives lost, the morality of civilian targeting etc. It's especially interesting because if done today it would 100% be considered a war crime. But in the same way, so would the civilian bombings on major cities that most nations undertook in WW2.

I think whether it was 'right' for it to be used depends on your perspective about how important ending the war right there and then was. And that in itself is related to 'what if?' history, which is problematic at best. Did it kill less than would have died through an extended campaign? Would Japan have backed down otherwise after things turned against them more? It's problematic because the rationalization of it is (by necessity) at this weird place between conjecture and analysis of the situation.

I mean it is very much the ultimate endgame of Total War as a theory/method, and as such raises a number of interesting questions.

I'm not sure whether it was right or not can be satisfactorily answered. Especially as this board is generally made up of American/European users, who have grown up with a very different cultural narrative about the bombings than people in Japan etc.

TL/DR: It's a very difficult question when you go deep into the details. It's very easy to just say 'Yes it was alright' or 'No it was unforgivable', but overall it almost certainly falls somewhere in the middle, a morally awful action seemingly justified by necessity.

/ History degree hat off

Instantly killing them vs slowly killing them is wrong and more horrifying?

That goes against all common sense principles we go by today.

No, civilians vs soldiers.

Yes it would have been longer and more drawn out, but the atomic bombings killed thousands of innocent people. Whereas a longer military campaign would have killed a multitude of soldiers, as oppose to civilians. Which in itself is one of the great debates of warfare in the 20th century; what classifies as a military target? And yes this debate extends to non-atomic bombings, but is still worth considering when talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

My point basically was it's willfully ignorant to give a blanket answer which justifies it. It was a ludicrously complex situation. And no matter what, even if you think it was the best thing to do, it's still awful.

This is a lot better insight of it, since you want to get technical.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2014/08/05/the-nuking-of-japan-was-a-military-and-moral-imperative/#2dcf6a2c553b

Originally posted by AlmightyKfish
No, civilians vs soldiers.

Yes it would have been longer and more drawn out, but the atomic bombings killed thousands of innocent people. Whereas a longer military campaign would have killed a multitude of soldiers, as oppose to civilians. Which in itself is one of the great debates of warfare in the 20th century; what classifies as a military target? And yes this debate extends to non-atomic bombings, but is still worth considering when talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

My point basically was it's willfully ignorant to give a blanket answer which justifies it. It was a ludicrously complex situation. And no matter what, even if you think it was the best thing to do, it's still awful.

I disagree. A longer military campaign would have killed a multitude of BOTH japanese civilians and soldiers. As well as allied soldiers as well. And IIIRC didn't the emperor of Japan give the mandate that every civilian household sacrifice themselves in case foreign invaders come in?

It would have been an ugly ugly land war.

Like I said, it's a complex issue with various arguments, with conjecture being a big part of it all.

I mean within that article, it states that there were assumptions (not unfounded assumptions, but still assumptions) of a hostile populous and also a direct continuity of strategy by the Japanese government at the time. It also fails to mention that, if the conflict continued, there's a chance that the USSR could have gotten involved and aided with the theoretical continued offensive of Japan.

But yeah basically, it's a very interesting and difficult question. With elements of conjecture and 'what ifs' and also is related to an ongoing debate about the 'total war' methods that began in WW1 and continued as a trend throughout the 20thC

We shouldn't have dropped the nukes on the Japanese. We shoulda chucked em at the Commies.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
We shouldn't have dropped the nukes on the Japanese. We shoulda chucked em at the Commies.

Yeah your (at the time) allies who won the Second World War for the Allies.

Whether this is trolling or ignorance, it's a pretty stupid opinion.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I disagree. A longer military campaign would have killed a multitude of BOTH japanese civilians and soldiers. As well as allied soldiers as well. And IIIRC didn't the emperor of Japan give the mandate that every civilian household sacrifice themselves in case foreign invaders come in?

It would have been an ugly ugly land war.



Always on point

Originally posted by AlmightyKfish
Yeah your (at the time) allies who won the Second World War for the Allies.

Whether this is trolling or ignorance, it's a pretty stupid opinion.


Go put on a shirt. COMMIE!

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Go put on a shirt. COMMIE!

Apart from the fact that more civilians would have died from a land invasion of Japan, we likely would have ended up with a North and South Japan had the Soviets invaded Hokkaido.

So no one agree's with fishs wild theories that less civilians would have died in a land invasion vs nuke.

The U.S was also concerned with mass Japanese civilian suicide/kamakazi events like what happened on the outer islands. Where entire families would leap to their deaths off of cliffs and whatnot.

Yea I know the civilian population was just as nuts are the military..anyone who thinks different is plain wrong. That country at that time complete maniacs. Hence the kamikaze's.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So no one agree's with fishs wild theories that less civilians would have died in a land invasion vs nuke.

My point was that it's a very unclear issue. Personally, I do think that it was probably the safest way to go ahead with it all. But at the same time, it's worth considering because no matter the justification, it was horrifying.

The fact that any arguments about 'what could of happened' are speculation does not help. No-one knows what might've happened if the land war continued. A ally-less Japan could conceivably have changed it's positions as months went on.

Basically my point is that it's a ludicrously complex issue, one that just saying 'Yeah it was justified' doesn't properly address. Especially as sometimes that position is used to ignore the actual horror that those decisions were.

Not that I'm saying anyone here is ignoring the horror there, it's just that people have ignored the fact it was terrible in the past, via the 'justified' argument. It's one of those key events that should remind people that things aren't easy and clear, no matter how moral or righteous your perspective may seem.

We do know what would have happened with a land war, hence why we dropped two nukes on them.

The war instantly ended and they surrendered.

I think you are also forgetting the biggest part in this story, they picked a fight with us.

They started it, and we ended it.

We are back to back World War Champions.

Originally posted by Surtur
At the time when these weapons were used on Japan there were obviously people who approved of doing this. There were others that were vehemently against using these weapons. Now many decades later we have a much clearer view of the war then people did back then.

So should we of used these weapons in the manner we did? If the answer is no then what would you of done differently in order to end the war, but avoid using these weapons?

Right? No.

Necessary? Yes, I believe so, as I don't want to imagine how bad it would have gotten in the Eastern theatre if they hadn't.

Oh sorry my omniscient friend, of course we know exactly how every cog of a nation was working, thus the only option was killing a hundred thousand civilians.

The fact is we don't know know exactly what could/would have happened. Yes we can assume, but either way the bombings were a reprehensible but maybe justifiable (especially from the data known at the time) thing to do.

But just saying 'Yeah we did, it it worked, they surrendered, no more people died' is a simplified narrative of events that ignores debate over the morality of such an action. Especially when we're talking about whether it was 'right or wrong'- an explicitly moral perspective.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I disagree. A longer military campaign would have killed a multitude of BOTH japanese civilians and soldiers. As well as allied soldiers as well. And IIIRC didn't the emperor of Japan give the mandate that every civilian household sacrifice themselves in case foreign invaders come in?

It would have been an ugly ugly land war.

Originally posted by AlmightyKfish
Oh sorry my omniscient friend, of course we know exactly how every cog of a nation was working, thus the only option was killing a hundred thousand civilians.

The fact is we don't know know exactly what could/would have happened. Yes we can assume, but either way the bombings were a reprehensible but maybe justifiable (especially from the data known at the time) thing to do.

But just saying 'Yeah we did, it it worked, they surrendered, no more people died' is a simplified narrative of events that ignores debate over the morality of such an action. Especially when we're talking about whether it was 'right or wrong'- an explicitly moral perspective.

What they did was wrong, they started a war, what we did was right, we ended it quickly. Thats all there is too it, you can debate all you want about it but it wont change the history, and the history favors the USA.

It wasn't right, but it was probably the best course of action.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
It wasn't right, but it was probably the best course of action.
I think this position is the best one.

It was the best in a list of bad choices.

Yeah, but I would've hit Tokyo too. I'd drop a few on Moscow as well, Stalin was no better than Hitler. We'd let those Soviets know who the Alpha country was before Cold War got started.

I agree with these weapons being used, but I also feel it is a shame because the people who truly deserved to die didn't die. The civilians were essentially sacrificed so those in power could continue their war.

Far far more civilians died during WW2 when compared to soldiers and those in power. The people who caused this unfortunately weren't always the ones who paid for it.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Yeah, but I would've hit Tokyo too. I'd drop a few on Moscow as well, Stalin was no better than Hitler. We'd let those Soviets know who the Alpha country was before Cold War got started.
It's not like we had that many nukes at that point in time.

If Japan hadn't surrendered when they did, I'm not even sure we had another one ready in August of 45.

Originally posted by Surtur
I agree with these weapons being used, but I also feel it is a shame because the people who truly deserved to die didn't die. The civilians were essentially sacrificed so those in power could continue their war.

Far far more civilians died during WW2 when compared to soldiers and those in power. The people who caused this unfortunately weren't always the ones who paid for it.
There's a historical novel called The Gods of Heavenly Destruction by Jennifer Cody Epstein (good read), and it covers the firebombing of Tokyo late in the war. Those firebombings actually killed more people than the atomic bombings.

Originally posted by Surtur
I agree with these weapons being used, but I also feel it is a shame because the people who truly deserved to die didn't die. The civilians were essentially sacrificed so those in power could continue their war.

Far far more civilians died during WW2 when compared to soldiers and those in power. The people who caused this unfortunately weren't always the ones who paid for it.


Yeah. I always wondered why they didn't drop on a civilian-free military base? Would have had the same demonstration-of-power effect.

A tremendously complex area. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that the Japanese were ready to surrender anyway, and that the main thing that made them do so was the Soviet invasion, not the bomb. But that's a hindsight judgement, and you do have to consider Truman's position- does he take the chance of waiting and possibly extending the war, or does he take the option that seemed a lot more certain?

It likely would have been a better world if it had not been used, and I don't think there would have been higher casualties- but no-one knew that at the time. Heck, they didn't even fully know about the radiation issue.

Basically was it right to kill civilians? I actually argued this topic already on MVC, I killed them; left them for dead.

The answer is no, it wasn't right to kill civilians. And the question is the wrong one, whether it was wrong or right is not even really debatable. Japan had lost the war and both America and Japan knew this. Japan was defeated but was hoping to get some frivolous conditions but the US wanted a complete surrender of Japan.

The nukes are justified by people because they claim it helped win the war, but the two main causes for Japan's surrender were the fire bombings and the Russians that were closing in.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
We do know what would have happened with a land war, hence why we dropped two nukes on them.

The war instantly ended and they surrendered.

I think you are also forgetting the biggest part in this story, they picked a fight with us.

They started it, and we ended it.

We are back to back World War Champions.
Oh boy.

Oh my.

Do you honestly think that the Japs just bombed Pearl Harbor for no reason?

Outside the US, there is a consensus that other countries fought the axis power and when Germany was already dizzy the USA punched Germany in the face and declared themselves the saviours. To say the USA are world champs when European nations and Russia did most of the fighting and wearing down, is not only ignorant and naive but utterly disrespectful for the soldiers that gave up their lives.

Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
Oh boy.

Oh my.

Do you honestly think that the Japs just bombed Pearl Harbor for no reason?

Outside the US, there is a consensus that other countries fought the axis power and when Germany was already dizzy the USA punched Germany in the face and declared themselves the saviours. To say the USA are world champs when European nations and Russia did most of the fighting and wearing down, is not only ignorant and naive but utterly disrespectful for the soldiers that gave up their lives.

Correct. 80% of German troop losses were on the eastern front.