Was it right to use nukes at the end of world war 2?
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?
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
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.
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
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