was it necessary to drop the atomic bombs on japan?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.