was it necessary to drop the atomic bombs on japan?
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/6743
discuss. and please, lets try and and keep patriotic stupidity out.
was it necessary to drop the atomic bombs on japan?
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/6743
discuss. and please, lets try and and keep patriotic stupidity out.
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.htmlNot 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.