was it necessary to drop the atomic bombs on japan?

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 [conventional] 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 [naval]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 [Japan] 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
[B]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 TacDavey
[B]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 TacDavey
[B]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 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 [conventional] 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.

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?

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...

Originally posted by inimalist
ask people in Pakistan how indescrimitate smart bombs are...

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.

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?

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.

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.