was it necessary to drop the atomic bombs on japan?

Originally posted by majid86
No, because Japan was already on it's way to defeat via the complete destruction of it's navy and US conventional airstrikes on the country and not to mention the USSR had declared war on Japan by around late July 1945.

But i can understand why the US used nuclear weopons against Japan and that was to scare the Soviets.

And that did not work because the Soviets built their own nuclear arsenal 4 years later.

And as Libya recently showed, winning a war by air power alone is incredibly difficult with modern technology, let alone with the relatively primitive bombers of that time.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Wrong. The USSR declared war after Hiroshima.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
No, but it would be the most effective place. Nothing says "Surrender or die" like vaporizing a couple of cities.

That doesn't mean vaporizing a couple cities is okay.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Tell that to Dresden and Hamburg. If ever there was a time in recent modern history when annihilating cities full of civilians en masse was tolerated, it was WWII. Suddenly straying from that mentality right when you've developed the most efficient means to carry it out, is very questionable and a good way to notify your enemies that something's up at HQ. Something retarded.

Just because it was tolerated in WWII doesn't mean it was acceptable. I would have a problem with any other example of targeting civilians at any other point.

Originally posted by Robtard
Glad you agree you're incorrect.

shocking I see what you did there...

Originally posted by Robtard
For being so convinced you're right, you do answer with "I don't know" a lot.

"...everyone knows, when you make an assumption, you make an ass out of "u" and "umption". -Mitch Henessey circa 1996

That's because the answers to those questions are irrelevant to my stance.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't think this thread is really asking if it was "right" per se, more if it was a necessary means to winning the war on as good terms as possible.

I'm not convinced it was necessary. That seems to hinge on the idea that Japan surrendered because of the very specific reason of:

"They saw we had a super weapon and the willingness to use it on cities."

And I haven't seen anything yet to support the idea that Japan surrendered because of that specific reason.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
And before you draw too close a parallel between 9/11 and Hiroshima you must understand that Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually accomplished their goals whereas 9/11 not only failed to accomplish Bin Laden's goals but actually blew up in his face and led to the fall of the Taliban regime and eventually led to a moderate Muslim backlash against extremism.

An action isn't acceptable or not based off of whether it achieved it's intended goal.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You can argue whether or not morality should be centered on consequences but if we look at the bombings vs 9/11 from a consequentialist standpoint they are very different.

Perhaps, but I don't think we are looking at them from a consequentialist stand point.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I am not "alright" with the atomic bombings. If I had been in Truman's shoes though I can't say I wouldn't have done the same thing.

It was a regrettable chapter in American history and human history at large but when all is said and done it did hasten the end of the most destructive conflict in human history.

I have no problem with the intended goal. I have a problem with the means implemented to achieve said goal. Nuking cities certainly didn't help avoid the "most destructive conflict in human history" title.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That doesn't mean vaporizing a couple cities is okay.

Just because it was tolerated in WWII doesn't mean it was acceptable. I would have a problem with any other example of targeting civilians at any other point.

i strongly say No,why did they have to do,i believe there is nothing big that couldn't be have been solved if they sat down and agreed on something.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That's because the answers to those questions are irrelevant to my stance.

And your stance is "bombs where bad, should have done something else", which you can't really say what else and just circle with "I don't know" answers while taking the moral high-ground.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
War itself isn't okay. If you're gonna get so involved in one though, you better be prepare to flex your muscle. And if that means wiping out a couple of cities to ensure your superiority is acknowledged, more to you.

😐

War is not one of those times you go "Well, if I'm gonna do it, I'm gonna go all the way." You want to kill the least amount of people as you can. Killing masses of innocent people so that you can look strong is a terrible goal.

Originally posted by Robtard
And your stance is "bombs where bad, should have done something else", which you can't really say what else and just circle with "I don't know" answers while taking the moral high-ground.

As I've explain quite a few times already, the fact that I have no plan b, or my plan b isn't very good, is completely irrelevant to whether plan a was any good. And I did submit an alternative, by the way.

Originally posted by TacDavey
😐

War is not one of those times you go "Well, if I'm gonna do it, I'm gonna go all the way." You want to kill the least amount of people as you can. Killing masses of innocent people so that you can look strong is a terrible goal.

As opposed to more conventional bombings of more cities?

As opposed to a North and South Japan that would all too likely end up going to war with one another sometime during the Cold War?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
As opposed to an invasion of the mainland?

As opposed to more conventional bombings of more cities?

As opposed to a North and South Japan that would all too likely end up going to war with one another sometime during the Cold War?

I said killing masses of people so you can look strong is a terrible goal.

As I said, I fully support ending the war quickly. I don't support vaporizing cities full of innocent people.

Originally posted by TacDavey
😐

War is not one of those times you go "Well, if I'm gonna do it, I'm gonna go all the way." You want to kill the least amount of people as you can. Killing masses of innocent people so that you can look strong is a terrible goal.

😐

Originally posted by TacDavey
I said killing masses of people so you can look strong is a terrible goal.

As I said, I fully support ending the war quickly. I don't support vaporizing cities full of innocent people.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I said killing masses of people so you can look strong is a terrible goal.

As I said, I fully support ending the war quickly. I don't support vaporizing cities full of innocent people.

After reading this entire thread, I think the best course of action for you to take is to hop on Wikipedia or some site similar, read up EVERYTHING about the campaigns of WWII, and find the logical flaw that the generals who actually lived at that time missed. The only way you are going to convince anyone of your view is to offer a plausible alternative. You keep saying it was wrong, but whenever someone asks you to present a plausible alternative, you can never deliver. So I would heavily suggest that you get to reading. Please, allow me to help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War
http://www.ww2pacific.com/

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Terribly awesome.

😐

I never looked at it that way...

Originally posted by Omega Vision
How would you propose to end the war quickly otherwise?

Show the Japanese we have a super weapon they can't defeat and do so on a target that isn't a city fully of non-combatants.

The whole defense for bombing the cities hinges on the idea that Japan would have simply shrugged off the nuclear bombs unless they were dropped on cities. I see no reason to believe this is true.

Originally posted by Lestov16
After reading this entire thread, I think the best course of action for you to take is to hop on Wikipedia or some site similar, read up EVERYTHING about the campaigns of WWII, and find the logical flaw that the generals who actually lived at that time missed. The only way you are going to convince anyone of your view is to offer a plausible alternative. You keep saying it was wrong, but whenever someone asks you to present a plausible alternative, you can never deliver. So I would heavily suggest that you get to reading. Please, allow me to help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War
http://www.ww2pacific.com/

That's the thing, though. I've been explaining that I don't need to propose an alternate plan in order to know this one is good or bad. It's like saying "This plan is good unless you can make a better one". Which is not logically sound.

And wait... you read the whole thing?

Originally posted by TacDavey
"This plan is good unless you can make a better one". Which is not logically sound.

I don't understand why that isn't logically sound

what is the specific error in logic? have you, like, tried to abstract the actions of the generals currently fighting a war to some acontextual ground where they aren't in a situation where they had to do something?

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't understand why that isn't logically sound

what is the specific error in logic? have you, like, tried to abstract the actions of the generals currently fighting a war to some acontextual ground where they aren't in a situation where they had to do something?

Take that logic to the extreme.

My plan is to run into Japan with a hand gun and demand they surrender. Also, my plan states that if they don't, we will.

Now say, that for some reason, no one is able to think up a better plan. They all blanked out simultaneously and no one could come up with another plan.

By that logic, that plan was good for the sole reason that another one could not be provided.

Obviously whether a plan b is made or not holds no bearing on whether plan a is good or bad. It's good or bad all on it's own.

Originally posted by TacDavey

That's the thing, though. I've been explaining that I don't need to propose an alternate plan in order to know this one is good or bad. It's like saying "This plan is good unless you can make a better one". Which is not logically sound.

And wait... you read the whole thing?

I've been following this thread since it's inception. And "this plan is good unless you can make a better one" is indeed logically sound. When you are given a choice of options and have no other options but those, the one with the highest moral vigor is in fact the "good" choice. Compare if you were forced to shoot either a child or a pregnant woman. Neither choice is inherently benevolent, but you will choose the one you believe to be the most morally righteous, the "good" choice. There are no other options (well there are, but we are not focusing on those). The same goes for the Allies. The only had two options, and had to choose which one was the most morally righteous of the two. They weren't entirely morally righteous, but they were more righteous than the other choice, thus making it the "good choice"

Originally posted by Lestov16
I've been following this thread since it's inception. And "this plan is good unless you can make a better one" is indeed logically sound. When you are given a choice of options and have no other options but those, the one with the highest moral vigor is in fact the "good" choice. Compare if you were forced to shoot either a child or a pregnant woman. Neither choice is inherently benevolent, but you will choose the one you believe to be the most morally righteous, the "good" choice. There are no other options (well there are, but we are not focusing on those). The same goes for the Allies. The only had two options, and had to choose which one was the most morally righteous of the two. They weren't entirely morally righteous, but they were more righteous than the other choice, thus making it the "good choice"

But notice what you use to decide the "Good choice" or the "Bad choice". Is it whether or not another plan can be produced? No.

Look to my previous post for an example of "this plan is good unless another can be provided" logic being used. It's flawed because it bases the worth of a plan on whether or not another plan, completely separate from the first, can be produced. Which is not what determines if a plan is good or bad.

The rest of your post seems to suggest that nuking the cities was their only viable option. Which is something you have to back up.

More of this crap about nuking a isolated military base?

If you understood the Japanese mentality of that time you'd know that only immense suffering could override their will to fight.

It's like in 1984 where the protagonist is tortured by Big Brother and holds out until he is confronted by his greatest fear, a torment so unthinkable (for him) that force of will and defiance cease to matter and he's reduced to his basic survival instinct. The Japanese were confronted with perceived total annihilation. Anything less may not have been enough.

It isn't the Atomic Bomb's intrinsic nature that compelled the Japanese to capitulate nor is it even the bomb's power. The Atomic Bomb was valuable as a means of ending the war only insofar that it was used to destroy a pair of cities and cause such fear and dismay that the Japanese spirit was broken.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
More of this crap about nuking a isolated military base?

If you understood the Japanese mentality of that time you'd know that only immense suffering could override their will to fight.

It's like in 1984 where the protagonist is tortured by Big Brother and holds out until he is confronted by his greatest fear, a torment so unthinkable (for him) that force of will and defiance cease to matter and he's reduced to his basic survival instinct. The Japanese were confronted with perceived total annihilation. Anything less may not have been enough.

It isn't the Atomic Bomb's intrinsic nature that compelled the Japanese to capitulate nor is it even the bomb's power. The Atomic Bomb was valuable as a means of ending the war only insofar that it was used to destroy a pair of cities and cause such fear and dismay that the Japanese spirit was broken.

I don't see any clear evidence that that was the case. As far as I have heard, it isn't completely clear whether it was the show of force with the nuke or whether it was the horrific nature of bombing civilians that motivated the Japanese to surrender. At the very least we should have tried bombing a none civilian target first.

Originally posted by TacDavey
the horrific nature of bombing civilians that motivated the Japanese to surrender. At the very least we should have tried bombing a none civilian target first.