Nuclear Weapons

[Iron Man]

Ok, I am writing a paper on the argument that nuclear weapons should be banned. I want to get my fellow teen members input on this, so, should we keep nukes, or ban them?

[Perseus]

I think banning them would be a good idea. I mean, what purpose do we need weapons that can really mess up the Earth? Nukes just will cause more harm than good in the world if one is shot off. Radiation, death of innocents, and political turmoil, to name a few.

[Asylum]

i say destroy all nuclear weapons and don't create any, ban them and vanish their exsistence

[Peace God]

Nuclear weapons can only destroy.

[karl]

Nuclear weapons are terrible, but are the main reason there hasn't been a world war like WW11. In the 1960s the Russians would have marched all over Europe, and we wouldn't have been able to stop them. The USA would have done a deal with them.

[nick]

I agree with Karl that the existence of nukes probably stopped there being a WWIII. In a perfect world we would now say that their job was done and just get rid of them. The trouble is that the world is far from perfect and if all the existing nuclear powers agreed to disarm there would always remain the risk of some other country building its own nukes and then being able to dictate and threaten others. So in my opinion, sadly, we need to retain a small capability just to deter other crazy regimes from any stupid ideas.

[Whisper]

Your poll sux

I'm for Nukes remaining with the nuclear powers to maintain the current power balance but I dont think any new nations should be allowed
Not a big fan of nuclear proliferation

[The Dark Lord]

Nuclear weapons have to stay. It would be suicidal to sacrifice and endanger our country's safety as Iran and Korea are too dangerous and unpredicable to comprend scrapping nuclear weapons

[MichaelAdams1993]

I think that nuclear weapons should be banned, destroyed, and never again created. However, this change would have to be global somehow. For one country, such as the USA, to decide to no longer associate with nuclear weaponry while the rest of the world continues would be suicidal in deed. When others have the power then we are weaker with out it.

I am against nuclear weapons though, in the end I believe they will be the end to all human existance on earth. However if we get rid of them, other countries must also join or it would be tipping the scales towards OUR deaths!

[Disco Jones]

How would you enforce a nuclear weapons ban? It sucks that the threat of nuclear attack is necessary to maintain peace, but a sudden ban could cause more problems than it solves.

[Iron Man]

Well, the very existence of nuclear weapons will make people uneasy. Even nations like Iran or North Korea wanting to make their own isn`t helping. When Kazakhstan gave up their nukes to the USSR back in the day, their security actually improved. Nukes can`t even be used because even one launch by a rogue nation will result in the massive retaliation by other countries, which could make the battle a stalemate.

[Tnelson]

Well i have to say that Matty is the only smart post in this thread, getting rid of the nuclear weapons will mean certain doom for hundreds of millions of people. I think that this country has lost it's backbone ever since Obama wormed his way into leading this country. Did you ever notice how you hear more and more about North Korea and its rockets pointed towards the US and Iran messing with uranium to make the nukes, ok suppose your in an alleyway and someone pulls a knife and says he "will kill you" and you remembered that you have a gun with you are you just going to drop the gun and not stand up for yourself. That means facing death, are you willing to get rid of a weapon just to be killed by another. My grandpa once said to me, " If your opposition has something better than you, you need to stick your leg out and step ahead of them and always stay ahead. Alright im getting off subject but i say the nukes should STAY!!!

[Iron Man]

Well i have to say that Matty is the only smart post in this thread, getting rid of the nuclear weapons will mean certain doom for hundreds of millions of people. I think that this country has lost it's backbone ever since Obama wormed his way into leading this country. Did you ever notice how you hear more and more about North Korea and its rockets pointed towards the US and Iran messing with uranium to make the nukes, ok suppose your in an alleyway and someone pulls a knife and says he "will kill you" and you remembered that you have a gun with you are you just going to drop the gun and not stand up for yourself. That means facing death, are you willing to get rid of a weapon just to be killed by another. My grandpa once said to me, " If your opposition has something better than you, you need to stick your leg out and step ahead of them and always stay ahead. Alright im getting off subject but i say the nukes should STAY!!!

So, if you were at war with another country and you were losing, would you launch a radiation-laden bomb that could kill millions of innocent people just to get another one launched at you that would kill more innocent people, not to mention the environmental consequences?

[Strength]

first of all, it's impossible to regulate such a ban. 2nd, they are there as a deterrence. can you imagine china and the usa with no nuclear weapons? they're be an eventual war between the two. the only thing preventing a 3rd world war is nuclear weapons. they act as a deterrence. you see my point.

[Ryhanna]

They should be banned.... but not yet.
I mean, think about it. N. Korea and all those other countries who are supposedly creating nuclear weapons would go ape shit if we banned them. Literally, they'd throw all kinds of crap at us to get control. Without nuclear weapons, they aren't nearly as threatening.
So they should be banned AFTER such issues are resolved.
If that ever happens, of course.

The thing is that once one issue is resolved about 7 million more pop up in it's place. We don't want the world plangued into war again, but we also need to find a way to resolve issues without wars and threatening to blow up a country with a nuke.

The main reason they should be banned is safety. These things have to power to wipe humans out - countries that want power that badly are utterly insane... but that's why we have to fight back with nuclear weapons. If we appear helpless then they win. Hardly any doubt that eventually this will lead to full on nuclear war in which case the world will be run by cockroaches. Which is why we have to find alternative methods of problem solving before crazies push the boundry and go 10000000000000% insane.

[Iron Man]

Wars can be fought without nuclear weapons. They were fought for 5000 approx. years without them. Nuclear weapons are completely immoral. We are always worrying about terrorists getting their hands on them but, in reality, they already have. If a country posesses them or even threatens to use them, they are inflicting terror on countries so they will answer to their whim. So, does that make us terrorists? Answer that one for me.

[Ryhanna]

Wars can be fought without nuclear weapons. They were fought for 5000 approx. years without them. Nuclear weapons are completely immoral. We are always worrying about terrorists getting their hands on them but, in reality, they already have. If a country posesses them or even threatens to use them, they are inflicting terror on countries so they will answer to their whim. So, does that make us terrorists? Answer that one for me.

Can you elaborate on that, I'm not getting it?
If they have nuclear weapons and threaten to use them, we don't let them win - we invade them. I'm pretty sure that's the main reason we all went into Iraq.

[Iron Man]

Iraq never had nukes. It was just a lie by our moronic president whose family vendetta was the sole purpose we invaded. Nuclear weapons cause more problems than they solve. For all we know, countries like North Korea and Iran are building up their nuclear stockpiles because they feel threatened by other nuclear-capable nations.

[Jess]

hate nuclear weapons but there will be no way there will be a ban

[peaceloverugby]

Nuclear weapons serve no purpose other than to cause diplomatic strife between countries. Everyone is too afraid of the consequences to actually use them, so what's the point of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to maintain them? It doesn't make sense.

[Iron Man]

Well said. They can destroy the environment, kill civillians, and drain wallets. They need to be banned.

[peaceloverugby]

It's truly ridiculous, if they had looked at atomic bombs from an ethical standpoint, we wouldn't even be talking about this right now....not enough people say "SHOULD we do this?" They just say "CAN we do this?"

[Disco Jones]

That's because the practical questions are the important ones. Everybody would like a world without nukes, but the implications of a ban are a lot more complicated than that. How would you enforce it? What do you do with groups that build nuclear weapons anyway? How do you deal with situations like Israel, where the threat of nuclear attack is the only thing stopping a dozen different countries from kicking their ass? "NUKES ARE BAD SO WE SHOULD BAN THEM" is a very limited view of a very complex issue.

[Perseus]

It's truly ridiculous, if they had looked at atomic bombs from an ethical standpoint, we wouldn't even be talking about this right now....not enough people say "SHOULD we do this?" They just say "CAN we do this?"

It would have taken longer to end WWII because the Japanese wouldn't surrender; that's why no one asked, "should we do this?"

[Hyper]

What would this banning mean, practically? Really..

I foresee it, if it would ever happen, being the exact same thing it is right now - large powerful nations keep their nuclear weapons while making damn sure nobody else gets them because everyone else IS EVIL! And would MISUSE!

So intervention begins with embargoes and inspections and all sorts of propaganda and mumbo jumbo following up to just blowing crap up.

The nukes are going to stay nobody is going to give them up just picture America and some other country being the last 2 to give up their nukes.. They'd all be staring at each other and saying '' You first, please ''

If not from the start, at least with the last 2 nukes ;P

So I don't think they should be ''banned'' as it would end up being another ridiculous farce. Should there be none at all? Sure that would be a pretty world but as long as we know how to make them getting rid of them completely would be even more stupid than making more of them.

[Disco Jones]

remember that movie where Superman took away all the nukes and they turned into a bad guy?

God, what a shitty movie

[Iron Man]

I don`t, but it sounds like a terrible movie.

[peaceloverugby]

It would have taken longer to end WWII because the Japanese wouldn't surrender; that's why no one asked, "should we do this?"

So we should just decimate hundreds of thousands of CIVILIANS because a government won't surrender? Japan had no allies, no resources, and the Russians were coming. There was no need to use those bombs. If people had used ethics (asking the "should" question, not "can"), the war wouldn't have happened in the first place, but it was a little late for that. They only made it worse by developing this despicable weapon of mass destruction.

[Disco Jones]

Using the bombs probably took less lives overall than an invasion would have.

[Whisper]

Using the bombs probably took less lives overall than an invasion would have.

It would have thats why it was done
NOBODY wanted another Okinawa
At that kind of scale to take the entire main island of Japan the death toll would have been unimaginable

The nuclear bombs were the best option
it was a shitty situation
But the allies didn't start the war with Japan

The first bombs were actually destined for Berlin, but Germany fell before they were completed

[Iron Man]

Using the bombs probably took less lives overall than an invasion would have.

Yeah. Innocent, civilian lives. People who were just doing something one day that was normal and then BOOM!!! Gone in an instant. Imagine that, but on a global scale?

[Perseus]

Yeah. Innocent, civilian lives. People who were just doing something one day that was normal and then BOOM!!! Gone in an instant. Imagine that, but on a global scale?

Scenario. America is on the verge of victory. Invasion is planned for the Japanese islands. Aircraft carriers on the shores. Bombings in every city. Tanks rolling through cities, foot mobiles on the prowl.

More people would die because a lot more cities would have been hit by bombings, attacks, and other things. The Japanese would not surrender in battle, why would they surrender when they're invaded? More people would have died, if you think about it.

[Disco Jones]

Perseus has it right. Ideally, the Japanese would have just surrendered, but they weren't going to so we had to use the least costly option.

[kingpinnn]

if you want a reason there has not been a war between major powers since the cold war it is because of three words: M.A.D. Mutually Assured Destruction...

So we should just decimate hundreds of thousands of CIVILIANS because a government won't surrender? Japan had no allies, no resources, and the Russians were coming. There was no need to use those bombs. If people had used ethics (asking the "should" question, not "can"), the war wouldn't have happened in the first place, but it was a little late for that. They only made it worse by developing this despicable weapon of mass destruction.

we kill 200,000 of their people to avoid the deaths of 1-2,000,000 of our people
you think that the lives of the people that started the war are 10x more valuable than ours?

[Perseus]

we kill 200,000 of their people to avoid the deaths of 1-2,000,000 of our people
you think that the lives of the people that started the war are 10x more valuable than ours?

The citizens of the country didn't start the war. They weren't like, "hey, let's bomb America, guys."

[Patchy]

In an ideal world, yes I voted yes.

But will it ever happen? No because if all countries ban nukes terrorist groups would develop them etc. so even though I'd like it to happen, it won't.

[kingpinnn]

The citizens of the country didn't start the war. They weren't like, "hey, let's bomb America, guys."

but they supported the war, and iot was the only war to get the message through to the kamakazee japan...

[Perseus]

but they supported the war, and iot was the only war to get the message through to the kamakazee japan...

Not everyone supported the war. Just because you support a war doesn't mean you should get bombed. Look at it from their perspective. America screwed them over. America placed an oil embargo on them, so they were angry. (them being the higher up people). I bet you support the Afghan war. Would you like it if they brought planes over America and dropped atomic bombs on you because you believe what you're told? I doubt you'd like that, and I bet you wouldn't be saying the same thing you are saying if you'd been bombed.

[Disco Jones]

They're just Japanese, Perseus. It's not like they're people. That's Americans.

[kingpinnn]

Not everyone supported the war. Just because you support a war doesn't mean you should get bombed. Look at it from their perspective. America screwed them over. America placed an oil embargo on them, so they were angry. (them being the higher up people). I bet you support the Afghan war. Would you like it if they brought planes over America and dropped atomic bombs on you because you believe what you're told? I doubt you'd like that, and I bet you wouldn't be saying the same thing you are saying if you'd been bombed.

we put an embargo on them because we were supplying 80% of it and we didnt want to support the war they were fighting...the end result was terrible for the japanese people, but it was either dropping the bomb or sacrifice over a million of our sodier's lives to take down the japanese empire...

[kingpinnn]

They're just Japanese, Perseus. It's not like they're people. That's Americans.

if i had the choice between a million american soldier's and 200 thousand japanese i would choose the american soldiers...and we didnt want to kill all the civilians, but the way that the japanese economy had worked was that the people produced a lot of their products in their homes and not in big factories...we never intentionally kill civilions, but it is colatoral damage that was unavoudable in the war with japan

[Disco Jones]

We did intentionally kill civilians. It may have been necessary and it may have been the best possible option, but it was still regrettable to say the least.

[Whisper]

Countdown to zerro - embedding disabled (gaaaaaaay) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mn-1LuLhrw)

[Atonement]

See, its a dual-edged sword for me.

If no one has them, if someone gets them, they have the upper hand and we have no retaliation..

If everyone has them, one stroke would launch into chaos. And "rogue" nations would scare the shit out of everyone.

[kingpinnn]

We did intentionally kill civilians. It may have been necessary and it may have been the best possible option, but it was still regrettable to say the least.

ok...regrettable, but necessary...they were produing stuff in their homes and they didnt have a lot of actual factories...we had to bomb their homes to stop production of stuff i.e. clothes

[quartermaster]

we put an embargo on them because we were supplying 80% of it and we didnt want to support the war they were fighting...the end result was terrible for the japanese people, but it was either dropping the bomb or sacrifice over a million of our sodier's lives to take down the japanese empire...

Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that we could have cared less about the Chinese and Korean people that the Japanese were killing (if we really did, we would have been most morally opposed to funding or even allying with Soviet Russia). The real reason we put an embargo on Japan was because we did not like their increasing hegemony within South East Asia. Traditionally, the United States was the supreme power in the Pacific (they had been since 1898, with their tremendous victory in the Spanish-American war), and the colonial Europeans respected that sphere of influence; the Japanese, however, were a growing power that had expansionist, imperialist ambitions of their own that was becoming an increasing threat to U.S. dominance. The expansion into Manchuria and Korea was extremely alarming to the United States and created even more fears that the Japanese would become the major power in Asia, undermining American hegemony and influence. Imperial Japan, moreover, championed the phrase "Asia for Asiatics," as to say, that they were to take Asia back from the imperialist Westerners.

The Japanese brutality in Asia was only a convenient coincidence, as it were, that the Roosevelt administration used to justify an embargo that was "just in time."

[Disco Jones]

talk of japanese bombing always reminds me of this Fog of War clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekdt0QwFQw

[quartermaster]

talk of japanese bombing always reminds me of this Fog of War clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekdt0QwFQw

This is a very good documentary, I recommend it for anyone who has not seen it.

[kingpinnn]

talk of japanese bombing always reminds me of this Fog of War clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekdt0QwFQw

that was a very good video..can you say subliminal messaging? lol...jk jk
the thing was, that those incendiary bombs did more destruction tan the atomic bombs, so if we ask if atomic bombs are bad, then we must ask the question if all bombs are bad and if al bombs should be taken away...the Japanese could grapple with the fact that it took all those incendiary bombs could destroy those cities, but they could not handle 1 bomb destroying 1 city..think about that... 1 bomb=1 city...that is why they surrendered, because they knew we could destroy them once they saw what we were capable of...and yes, i think we we would have been with crimes against humanity...but once again...they attacked us first.

[Disco Jones]

I wouldn't say the Japanese people can "grapple" with incendiary bombs killing 100,000 civilians overnight.

[kingpinnn]

I wouldn't say the Japanese people can "grapple" with incendiary bombs killing 100,000 civilians overnight.

then why did they surrender after the atom bomb and not after the incendiary bombs, even though the incendiary bombs did more destruction total

[quartermaster]

then why did they surrender after the atom bomb and not after the incendiary bombs, even though the incendiary bombs did more destruction total

Kingpinn, I think the main question you have to ask yourself is why did the United States need to end the war so quickly?

We tend to group this as a zero-sum game, but that is one thing this is not. Are we to accept the argument that we absolutely had to invade in order to win the war? That a few months of war, where a simple blockade would suffice in breaking the remaining Japanese resolve, was a larger opportunity cost than 200,000+ human lives, many of whom were civilians? That is to say, that a few more months of a war blockade and the prolonging of that war, was more costly than 200,000+ human lives?

Using mainstream history—given the fact that we killed more people firebombing the other cities of Japan, than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings combined—it simply does not add up that the United States NEEDED to either drop the atom bomb or invade. The Japanese navy and army had been completely decimated, all of their foreign land holdings had been seized and their economy was in absolute shambles; by August, 1945, the Japanese no longer posed even an ounce of strategic threat to the United States. Why then, did we need to end the war immediately, especially given the fact that anything that was to end the war at once, was going to have a tremendous civilian toll? The firebombing of Japanese civilians was atrocious within itself, but the atom bombs were, quite simply, overkill.

The United States could have simply continued to have blockaded the islands (we had more than the capability to do so) and bombed military targets, as was necessary, effectively forcing the Japanese into a position where they absolutely had to surrender. Again, this was no zero-sum game, it was not either we defeat the Japanese today or we will be defeated and/or threatened in the future.

To be sure, the Japanese surrendered because of the atomic bombs, but one has to ask oneself if ending the war immediately was worth 200,000+, mostly civilian, casualties? Because, in the end, despite what many say, it was not about the amount of troops "saved" by not having to invade, because it was never necessary to invade in the first place. We know, today, in fact, that the Japanese were on the verge of surrender even before the two bombs were dropped, as the complete destruction of many of their cities and murder of their civilians was, indeed, as Disco Jones put it, hard to "grapple" with.

Given all of the facts, the only logical explanation for dropping the bombs was because of Soviet Russia. The potential for a Soviet invasion, no doubt, prompted the United States to drop the bombs and end the war immediately, because by spring, 1945, it had already become apparent to the United States that they were going to be in direct competition with the CCCP after the war. In fact, before May of that year, the “rush” had already begun for influence and land accumulation by the two great powers.

At the end of the day, McNamara got it right, that if the United States had lost the war, many of our top generals would have been, and rightfully so, tried and condemned as war criminals. To address my original question: I imagine, since Japanese lives were evidently held to such a small estimation, it would not be a stretch to say that the killing of 200,000 people (more than the US lost in the entire Pacific Theater) was really a lower cost to the US, than wasting resources on a continued blockade.

Edit:

but once again...they attacked us first.

So, a guy beats you up who you have been picking on for the past three years and you retaliate by breaking into his house and shooting him and his family while they are sleeping. Sure, he attacked you first (with a little provocation by you previously, no doubt), but does that justify you going into his house and killing everyone?

Compared to the atom bombs, the firebombing and the blockade, Pearl Harbor was just a bloody nose. Proportionality is always key, especially when you are dealing with civilians; the Libertarian non-aggression axiom holds that self-defense is more than acceptable, but to the point where it is no longer self-defense, you become the clear aggressor.

[kingpinnn]

Kingpinn, I think the main question you have to ask yourself is why did the United States need to end the war so quickly?

We tend to group this as a zero-sum game, but that is one thing this is not. Are we to accept the argument that we absolutely had to invade in order to win the war? That a few months of war, where a simple blockade would suffice in breaking the remaining Japanese resolve, was a larger opportunity cost than 200,000+ human lives, many of whom were civilians? That is to say, that a few more months of a war blockade and the prolonging of that war, was more costly than 200,000+ human lives?

Using mainstream history—given the fact that we killed more people firebombing the other cities of Japan, than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings combined—it simply does not add up that the United States NEEDED to either drop the atom bomb or invade. The Japanese navy and army had been completely decimated, all of their foreign land holdings had been seized and their economy was in absolute shambles; by August, 1945, the Japanese no longer posed even an ounce of strategic threat to the United States. Why then, did we need to end the war immediately, especially given the fact that anything that was to end the war at once, was going to have a tremendous civilian toll? The firebombing of Japanese civilians was atrocious within itself, but the atom bombs were, quite simply, overkill.

The United States could have simply continued to have blockaded the islands (we had more than the capability to do so) and bombed military targets, as was necessary, effectively forcing the Japanese into a position where they absolutely had to surrender. Again, this was no zero-sum game, it was not either we defeat the Japanese today or we will be defeated and/or threatened in the future.

To be sure, the Japanese surrendered because of the atomic bombs, but one has to ask oneself if ending the war immediately was worth 200,000+, mostly civilian, casualties? Because, in the end, despite what many say, it was not about the amount of troops "saved" by not having to invade, because it was never necessary to invade in the first place. We know, today, in fact, that the Japanese were on the verge of surrender even before the two bombs were dropped, as the complete destruction of many of their cities and murder of their civilians was, indeed, as Disco Jones put it, hard to "grapple" with.

Given all of the facts, the only logical explanation for dropping the bombs was because of Soviet Russia. The potential for a Soviet invasion, no doubt, prompted the United States to drop the bombs and end the war immediately, because by spring, 1945, it had already become apparent to the United States that they were going to be in direct competition with the CCCP after the war. In fact, before May of that year, the “rush” had already begun for influence and land accumulation by the two great powers.

At the end of the day, McNamara got it right, that if the United States had lost the war, many of our top generals would have been, and rightfully so, tried and condemned as war criminals. To address my original question: I imagine, since Japanese lives were evidently held to such a small estimation, it would not be a stretch to say that the killing of 200,000 people (more than the US lost in the entire Pacific Theater) was really a lower cost to the US, than wasting resources on a continued blockade.







the Japanese did not stop and would not stop the war, as can be seen with their kamikaze attacks...they had fishing boats rigged with explosives and the civilians were ready to take up arms if we had done a land invasion...and we had an embargo on them the entire time we were at war with them, and they still did not give up...

So, a guy beats you up who you have been picking on for the past three years and you retaliate by breaking into his house and shooting him and his family while they are sleeping. Sure, he attacked you first (with a little provocation by you previously, no doubt), but does that justify you going into his house and killing everyone?

Compared to the atom bombs, the firebombing and the blockade, Pearl Harbor was just a bloody nose. Proportionality is always key, especially when you are dealing with civilians; the Libertarian non-aggression axiom holds that self-defense is more than acceptable, but to the point where it is no longer self-defense, you become the clear aggressor.

we stopped shipping supplies to them, we did not attack them...your example says that i skip fighting with the other guy and goes straight to me killing his family...you should have added to your example that he had been picking on my friends which was why i had been picking on him...and in between him iving me a bloody nose and me killing his family, you should have put in me beating him up, then he uses up all his resources in trying to beat me up, it is clear that he would kill me if he had the capability to and i dont wanna take that risk so i kill him and his family...
anyways...the problem with your example is that it basically says that after pearl harbor we dropped the atomic bomb on them, which ws not the case at all.

i am just wondering, what is your opinion on dropping the bomb...do you think we should or should have not? i ask this because i tend to make arguments i dont support all the time because it is fun to learn new information and i am sometimes made to take the other side in debate tournaments i go to

i do have to say Quartermaster, you are my favorite poster :D

[josh93]

yes and no in a way bacause we need to keep some but not as many as we do.

[Disco Jones]

A possible justification for not wanting the war to drag on is the imminent Soviet invasion.

[Number02]

Nukes as a weapon are bad.. But they're useful on an international basis in terms of.. Diplomacy, and just general war deterrent.

[quartermaster]

the Japanese did not stop and would not stop the war, as can be seen with their kamikaze attacks...

Last desperate move which was near ineffective in many cases and the Japanese quickly ran out of materials for planes and even able-bodied individuals to fly them. The Japanese’s last, desperate attempts did not mean that the only way to win the war was by dropping the A-bomb or invading. Again, we know for a fact, excluding a few radical fringes, that the Japanese high command were on the verge of surrender even before the bombs were dropped. It does not follow that there were only two ways to end the war.


they had fishing boats rigged with explosives

Another desperate move that would have been easily dealt with.


and the civilians were ready to take up arms if we had done a land invasion...

Yes, they were, but I’m afraid I don’t get your point. I never made the assertion that the Japanese were absolutely ready to surrender in August, 1945, I contended that under a continued siege, they would have been forced to capitulate.


and we had an embargo on them the entire time we were at war with them, and they still did not give up...

Yes, but a blockade is much different than an embargo, a blockade would mean almost no ships come in and out; that means the Japanese would have run out of their already near depleted fuel sources and food would have become hard to come by. I think you are missing my point with these red herrings; it was not that the Japanese were ready to surrender at that very point and time, it was that an immediate surrender was unnecessary.


we stopped shipping supplies to them, we did not attack them...your example says that i skip fighting with the other guy and goes straight to me killing his family...you should have added to your example that he had been picking on my friends which was why i had been picking on him...


I would have added that if that were the truth, but the U.S. only cared about the Japanese expansion because it threatened the U.S. sphere of influence and dominance in Asia and the Pacific. The U.S. response was strictly business, a geopolitical move to remain the main player. Again, the US did not care about the Chinese, Koreans etc., and they could barely care about the British, French and Dutch colonists either, except for the fact that they allowed for business as usual in the Pacific. The U.S. was afraid that under a Japanese dominated Asia, they would no longer be a major player, as such, they imposed an embargo to stop Japanese expansion.

That is not the say that the Japanese were not being viciously aggressive and committing unspeakable atrocities, but that is to say that such things truly did not concern the U.S. government.


and in between him iving me a bloody nose and me killing his family, you should have put in me beating him up, then he uses up all his resources in trying to beat me up, it is clear that he would kill me if he had the capability to


Yes, because at that point, the Japanese were trying to protect their empire and their captured assets from the United States. The interesting thing about the Japanese total strategy is that they never thought they could win a war, pound for pound, with the United States; they knew they could not. Even the attack on Pearl Harbor (as naive as this may sound, today) was not meant to launch the two powers in total war, but was a calculated move by the Japanese to force the United States' hand; that is to say, to force the U.S. out of the Pacific by destroying their fleet. This would, in turn, show Japanese might, as well as bring the U.S. to the bargaining table, as such an attack would panic the government and populace into leaving Asia only. Japan simply wanted Asia and the Pacific up to Hawaii, to be their sphere of influence, and wanted the U.S. to stop “budding” into their business. The Japanese figured a cost-benefit analysis, in that it was better for the U.S. to leave Asia to Japan, than fight Japan. This, of course, failed miserably as the Japanese miscalculated the motives of the U.S. government and the fervor of which the populace would react.

After the Japanese realized that the U.S. was not going to back down and in fact were willing to fight the Japanese, their new plan was to inflict as much damage as possible. The Japanese high command reasoned that because the U.S. was a democracy, if enough U.S. soldiers die, the populace would force the government to come to terms. Indeed, they were correct, the Japanese inflicted such massive casualties to the U.S., that public opinion did change, but at the end of the day, the U.S. propaganda machine (which played on nationalistic and even racist sympathies) won out over Japanese inflicted casualties. That all said, for Japan, it was not about invading the U.S., subjugating their populations, killing U.S. civilians etc., because they knew at the end of the day, they did not even have such a capability, they knew that the U.S. was vastly more powerful, with a huge industrial base and endless resources to boot; Japan, inversely, only had enough resources, even with expansion, to last them a few years of fighting (and that’s under strict rationing). For Japan, it was about making the U.S. pay dearly for every inch of ground that they took of Japanese soil (captured or not) as to show the U.S. that such a war was simply not worth it; indeed, they did make us pay, but ultimately they paid more.


and i dont wanna take that risk so i kill him and his family...


What risk? There was no risk of any real Japanese attack, by August, 1945.


anyways...the problem with your example is that it basically says that after pearl harbor we dropped the atomic bomb on them, which ws not the case at all.


My example is exactly apropos, when you see in what context it was used in. Your comment justified the bombs by saying “they attacked us first,” my response is showing you the proportionality of the U.S. response to the initial Japanese attack, as that is all you addressed. It is like justifying the vicious murder of an entire family in their house because the father gave you a bloody nose; so yes, much happened in between the two cases, but remember, in the comment that I responded to, you never took those events into account either, your justification was “they attacked us first.” My point simply put is: you yourself in that comment did not justify the casualties of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by talking abut the war in its entirety, but by simply justifying the casualties based entirely off of who made the first move, so why would it be prudent for me to add in all of those intricacies if they are irrelevant to your justification anyway?

My analogy was not to address the war in its entirety, but show you the flaw in your justification.


i am just wondering, what is your opinion on dropping the bomb...do you think we should or should have not? i ask this because i tend to make arguments i dont support all the time because it is fun to learn new information and i am sometimes made to take the other side in debate tournaments i go to


Given all of the information I have compiled (some of which you can see above) and my application of the non-aggression and non-coercion axioms, I am against the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That said, I am also against the indiscriminate firebombing of Japanese cities; I do not buy into the notion of “victory at all costs” or “do a little evil so that good may come.“ As a person who use to support the dropping of the atom bomb on Japan, I have come to realize that the zero-sum game that many people hold about the choices being either 200,000 people die now or 3 million die later down the line, is illusory. I see now, that such a false paradigm ignores the fact that the U.S. did not have to actually invade, but there were many other ways to force the Japanese to capitulate, such as a continued blockade. To be sure, these alternatives would not have ended the war instantly, but the war did not have to be ended instantly.

Even given the threats of the CCCP, we know now, and it was fairly understood then, that the Soviet Union was in no position to launch an invasion on Japan by August, 1945. Again, all things considered, I cannot support the murder of 200,000+ people (and even millions, when including the firebombing) under some arbitrary time constraint, that somehow the war needed to be ended immediately, at all costs.


i do have to say Quartermaster, you are my favorite poster :D

I do appreciate that, and I hope you take all the things I have posted into consideration; I use to believe what you believe, but after doing my homework, I simply do not think it makes much logical sense, if we are going to put a “moral” head on the atomic bombs.

[kingpinnn]

you know what...you changed my mind, and i am able to admit it instead of continually arguing when it is clear that your argument has beaten mine and makes ore sense...but i do think we need atomic bombs as a deterrent and the MAD policy has kept the major world powers out of war with each other.

[Disco Jones]

I think the pressure of wanting to end the war soon was much greater in 1945 than in retrospect today. 200,000 Japanese civilians had to die to save the time and money of a blockade so everybody could focus on reconstructing the world. Less nobly, the US wanted to appear strong in front of the USSR. The Soviet invasion cannot be discounted that easily, because it shows that even if the US wasn't going to finish it, someone else would. That wouldn't have made us look good. It was all a shitstorm that led to something as horrible as nuclear attack. The Japanese should have just surrendered and ended it, but they're not the ones who dropped the bomb.

[quartermaster]

I think the pressure of wanting to end the war soon was much greater in 1945 than in retrospect today.

As I stated a few posts above, the prime and only logical reason for dropping the bomb was the USSR, that I agree. I am not falling into the historians fallacy here and in fact your analysis is fairly accepted in many schools of thought that reject the traditionally held zero-sum game of the mainstream.


200,000 Japanese civilians had to die to save the time and money of a blockade so everybody could focus on reconstructing the world.

I don't buy this, as the U.S. had just spent billions on a war and continued to spend billions on new war-stuffs and munitions that they probably would not need, but they could not spend any more resources to save 200,000 lives, because the world needed to be reconstructing instantly, all of sudden. No, I don't think I buy that.


Less nobly, the US wanted to appear strong in front of the USSR.

I do not think I would call this less nobly, as it implies the first one is a noble pretense at all; I think the proper term would be the more likely.


The Soviet invasion cannot be discounted that easily, because it shows that even if the US wasn't going to finish it, someone else would. That wouldn't have made us look good. It was all a shitstorm that led to something as horrible as nuclear attack. The Japanese should have just surrendered and ended it, but they're not the ones who dropped the bomb.

I would argue that a possible CCCP invasion is an insufficient reason to instantly incinerate 200,000+ plus individuals. That means, firstly, that the U.S. was basing 200,000 lives off of probability; a cost-benefit analysis based off of 200,000 lives against the credible commitment of the Soviet Union. Such thinking, as to place so many human lives off of probability, is insanely egregious. Then again, it is certainly not surprising, as the U.S. showed very little real regard for civilian casualties.

With that said, the Soviet invasion was by no means imminent or inevitable in August 1945. Make no mistake, it was not from a lack of will, it was simply a matter of logistics, the CCCP did not have the capability to invade Japan in August and would not have been ready for perhaps a few months, if not more. The Soviet Union throwing T-34s at Nazi Germany was one thing, but an amphibious assault of such magnitude requires a lot of logistics, assault vehicles and naval capability. To be sure, the sense of urgency was there and do not mistake my downplaying of the need for that urgency for a complete disregard of the threat, because that is not at all my function. In scope, I see this as the U.S. having acted extremely rashly in response to a threat that was neither forgone nor immediately possible. Even then, I do not see the absolute credible commitment of a Soviet attack to be at all a sufficient reason to drop the atom bomb.

[Disco Jones]

Europe was finished and the Pacific was pretty much finished except for Japan still struggling. It was time to end the war, bring the UN into force, and start rebuilding everything instead of delaying all that to fight the Japanese. It wouldn't have to be delayed, but the US wouldn't have been able to emerge as a world leader and major funder of reconstruction if it was still spending its time and money on a blockade, especially in the Pacific. Why would the Soviet Union need to invade by August? Would the United States get in the way of any future invasion? That would be another conflict to deal with. And if the USSR invasion didn't happen and they left Japan to America, they would be free to become the main leader of European reconstruction.

[Antares]

They should be banned just for the simple fact that if someone gets mad at someone else, they will kill off the entire planet.

But even if they are banned it doesnt matter because it doesn't mean people will listen to the international law...since no one does it seems lol

[CaliKid24]

i think that they shoodnt be banned, but they shoodnt be used.

[Whisper]

i think that they shoodnt be banned, but they shoodnt be used.
that's contradictory.

just out of curiosity, what would you do to prevent and combat nuclear proliferation?

apparently there's an estimated 23,000 functional nuclear weapons on earth at this very moment
and we don't know where they all are.....

[CaliKid24]

that's contradictory.

just out of curiosity, what would you do to prevent and combat nuclear proliferation?

apparently there's an estimated 23,000 functional nuclear weapons on earth at this very moment
and we don't know where they all are.....

i know its contradictory but what i meant was that because we don't know where the nukes are it seems to dangerous to get rid of ALL of our nukes. i think it we best to just keep them as an intimidation strategy until we develop a defense system that is proven to work.

[quartermaster]

Europe was finished and the Pacific was pretty much finished except for Japan still struggling. It was time to end the war, bring the UN into force, and start rebuilding everything instead of delaying all that to fight the Japanese.


At the expense of 200,000 lives? My goodness, you bring utilitarianism to a new level; not to mention, it was not about "rebuilding" the world, but about consolidating land gains as to create a military sphere to challenge the growing Soviet Block. You are attempting to put a benevolent face, like the history books do, on geopolitical power plays that were purely made to reinforce hegemony. Rebuilding Europe under the U.S. sphere was merely a means to an end.


It wouldn't have to be delayed, but the US wouldn't have been able to emerge as a world leader and major funder of reconstruction if it was still spending its time and money on a blockade, especially in the Pacific.

Really? And where, pray tell, did you get such groundbreaking information? The U.S. was, by wars end, hands down the largest economy and the wealthiest nation-state on earth (it was a creditor nation), and you are telling me a blockade would have been so expensive as to mean that reconstruction in Europe (which had already been underway by August, mind you) would not have been possible, or would have been deterred, despite the fact that massive reconstruction was in America's geopolitical interest? Are you trolling, son?

Not to mention, you are justifying an egregious action based off of the information we know today. They did not know that the U.S. would lead the Western world into prosperity, all they knew was that the CCCP was growing in power, and to their minds, had to be stopped. The fact that the end result was good for the West and Japan does not justify their action, most certainly since they did not know what the end result would be.


Why would the Soviet Union need to invade by August? Would the United States get in the way of any future invasion?


No one said they needed to invade by August, that was just quite simply when the U.S. dropped the a-bomb on Japan. It is commonly said that the war needed to be ended immediately, as to detour a Soviet attack on Japan, when in actuality when the bombs were dropped (August, 1945), the CCCP was in no position to launch such an attack. The nuclear bombs on Japan were a power play against the Soviet Union, that can be said with near certainty, but be not fooled as to believe that the U.S. was panicked to believe that the Soviets were ready to attack immediately.


That would be another conflict to deal with. And if the USSR invasion didn't happen and they left Japan to America, they would be free to become the main leader of European reconstruction.

I'll be completely honest, I do not know what you are trying to say here; all of the words "connect," but your lines of reasoning are a bit deficient. Nonetheless, I believe I have more than thoroughly made my point; you are using knowledge of today and implying such knowledge existed back then. You seem to be putting a benevolent face on geopolitical moves made by the U.S., as if they were made in concern of the Europeans and not made in order to consolidate control and hegemony against the growing Soviet block. You seem to be applying utilitarian principles to something that merely involved ending the war quickly so that America could consolidate its war gains vis-à-vis the Soviet Union.

All that said, I agree the U.S. dropped the nuclear bombs to end the war so that they refocus completely on balancing against the Soviet Union. We are of alike mind on that issue, however, I would argue that that was not necessary. You do not "write off" 200,000 people simply because you are already thinking about the next conflict; I understand geopolitical thinking, but geopolitical thinking cannot have an amoral application, as that, my friend, is the slippery slope we have descended into today.

[Disco Jones]

Then why do you keep bringing up that the Soviets wouldn't be ready to invade by August? I'm operating in the situation that the US went ahead with the blockade and made no plans to nuke Japan. The Soviets can take their time and prepare. What would have stopped their invasion?

All of the options are shitty and end with many dead Japanese, and in some cases dead Allies. The nuke is just the least shitty one. As long as Japan kept fighting the war, they were going to lose people. The best case scenario would have been their surrender before any US action.

[ThomasB.]

Yes. They could potentially kill off the human race.. I think if one was to go, WW3 would begin.. Not a good idea =S

[Kohta]

Lets hope that North Korea doesn't go to All Out War like they have been threatening to do for the past couple of weeks because of South Korea

[Whisper]

Lets hope that North Korea doesn't go to All Out War like they have been threatening to do for the past couple of weeks because of South Korea

Oh jesus
that will never happen
its north korea
they threaten war all the time

their like a spoiled international toddler.

[quartermaster]

Then why do you keep bringing up that the Soviets wouldn't be ready to invade by August?

My point about August, which I am quite surprised is lost to you, is that when the U.S. decided to drop the bomb, the Soviets were in no way prepared to launch an invasion. The significance being, that there was no serious need to end the war immediately, vis-à-vis nuclear weapons, as there was no absolute urgent threat that would prompt such an immediate end (even though I would argue, the immediate threat of a Soviet attack is still an insufficient reason). That is to say, that the U.S. could and should have waited and focused its efforts on a blockade, instead of sacrificing 200,000 individuals because of some arbitrary time constraint.

I am operating in the situation that the US went ahead with the blockade and made no plans to nuke Japan. The Soviets can take their time and prepare. What would have stopped their invasion?

You are arguing with the mindset that the Japanese would not have surrendered between the period of August and when the Soviets would be, theoretically, even capable of launching an attack of such magnitude. The idea of a prolonged blockade being necessary to make the Japanese high command capitulate, is one unsubstantiated. Given the fact that the Japanese were already considering surrendering, even before the bombs were dropped, it is more than likely that the blockade would have forced them to surrender well before a Soviet attack.

Again, my point, altogether, holds that the U.S. did not need to drop the bomb and could have laid a strict blockade on Japan, which would have forced them to capitulate, more than likely, before a Soviet attack could have come to fruition. I more than adequately understand the precariousness of the U.S. situation and above all the U.S. mindset during this time; however, I would still argue that these geopolitical realities do not justify the dropping of the nuclear bombs, most certainly without the adequate application of alternative methods (such as a blockade) when there is no threat of an immediate Soviet attack of which to balance against.

Ultimately, this discussion has become so convoluted, that I am actually curious as to what our point of contention exactly is. Are you arguing that the nuclear bombs were necessary for the world to “move on,” as it were, or are you arguing that the U.S. saw this as a “necessary evil” to curb the expansion of the CCCP?

[Greg17]

I say no purely because i feel anything that is discovered is there for a reason, even if its not a good one.
Just gives more reason as to why we should live our lives because we never know what might fall on us.

[Disco Jones]

I am arguing those points and I am also arguing that the bomb would be the least bloody option because a blockade would have resulted in a Soviet invasion. They already attacked Manchuria inbetween the bombs, so . It is possible that the Japanese would have surrendered before the USSR completely attacked the main islands, but this is based on information we know today. As far as the world knew, Japan was still under a no-surrender policy and a blockade wouldn't change that before the USSR finished the job.

[quartermaster]

I am arguing those points and I am also arguing that the bomb would be the least bloody option because a blockade would have resulted in a Soviet invasion.They already attacked Manchuria inbetween the bombs

I would argue that this statement is unsubstantiated; it discounts the time and organization that an amphibious assault takes, that is apparent by you comparing a Soviet incursion into Manchuria, with an amphibious assault on a Japanese main island. Even with the Japanese thoroughly destroyed by the United States, for the CCCP, having no real amphibious capability at the time, to invade would require a significant amount of resources and rearmament. That is not to say that it could not have happened, but that is to say that it would take a large amount of time, if the Soviets actually planned on launching a successful invasion.

Even then, it still would have taken the U.S. a month or so (if not longer) to launch a major offensive on the Japanese main islands and they had been fighting and innovating their assault techniques and sea logistical strategies for the better part of four years. Taking that into account, one can really begin to grasp how long it realistically would have taken for the Soviets, a country with very limited amphibious experience or capability, to be ready for such an attack. Moreover, it helps one grasp how much of a logistical nightmare an amphibious assault actually is.


It is possible that the Japanese would have surrendered before the USSR completely attacked the main islands, but this is based on information we know today.

No, that is based on the information we knew back then, but it was Truman (not even the Allies, as Churchill advised against the continuation of this policy even before Postdam) and his Cabinet's obsession with an unconditional surrender policy at ALL costs, that made surrender a "sticky" issue for the Japanese.


As far as the world knew, Japan was still under a no-surrender policy and a blockade wouldn't change that before the USSR finished the job.

Japan was NOT under a "no-surrender" policy, that is a common myth perpetrated even in academia. The Japanese were willing to surrender and even notified the U.S. that they were, but they were not willing to give an unconditional surrender. Truman was notified that the Japanese were willing to surrender, but only under the condition that their constitution was upheld and Emperor was not dethroned and subject to being tried for war crimes. Mind you, this condition was let known to Truman in May, 1945, three months before the bombs were dropped!

The strangest, most shocking part of the U.S. not entering the peace process under these terms of conditional surrender in May, is that after they dropped the nuclear bombs in August, they still honored the conditions of the Japanese proposal (which, technically, still makes the Japanese surrender in Tokyo Bay, a conditional surrender).

So, again, under a unconditional policy, the Japanese were willing to fight on through August, but undoubtedly would have been forced to capitulate due to a blockade, more than likely before a Soviet attack could have come to fruition. Moreover, the Japanese were not under some "no surrender" policy, as they had offered a conditional surrender (which terms were, apparently, by no means unacceptable to the U.S.) months before the U.S. dropped its nuclear bombs.

[Disco Jones]

I should have been more specific with "no-surrender" and noted that we demanded it to be unconditional. The position of emperor still ultimately became less powerful and the constitution was changed. This would have been different from allowing Japan to keep the same government that started the war. As far as the US knew, Japan wasn't going to surrender to their demands before a Soviet invasion. Out of curiosity, how long do you estimate it would actually take for the USSR to invade and how long would the US blockade last before a surrender? I do not think the Soviet navy was so unprepared or the Japanese military so prepared that an invasion would have taken that long. They took the Kuril islands in August too, though that's not the same as an assault on the mainlands.