Hiroshima neccessary?

[Asylum]

So we discussed in class today whether it was neccessary for America to drop the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I said no. like i stated in my other post there is no way to peace, peace is the way. America killed lots of Japenese citizins. Innocent people involved in the war. People who were agaisnt what their country was doing... They didn't deserve to die like that... What is your opinion? State why please! oh before you post your decision watch this video, it's interesting, trust me its not boring!
_rHrV2QhArA

[Sage]

It wasn't necessary, but a lot more people would've died if they tried to mount a conventional invasion.

[Asylum]

true, they didn't want mre Americans to die...

[MadManWithaBox]

Well the principle of it was, and one I believe was right, was that if the americans had attempted an invasion of mainland japan, the loss in life, not just for the americans, but the japanese civilian and military casualties would have been masisve, perhaps more than what the bomb caused.

[Cloud]

If its a debate or discussion like this can you please post it in ROTW

Moved to ROTW

[Asylum]

I will next time sorry Cloud

[Triceratops]

If its a debate or discussion like this can you please post it in ROTW

Moved to ROTW

Hooray for first mod actions. :D

No no no no no. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tragic events that shouldn't of taken place. Regardless of whether it was politically necessary or not, so many innocent people suffered and were brutally killed from the atomic bombings; if history were to rewind and start over, those attacks should not have happened, due to the sheer destruction it had caused to the area and -most importantly - the people in it. Truman was one cruel bastard.

[MadManWithaBox]

Would people not be saying now, if the bombs hadn't been dropped, if the americans had invaded mainland japan, that their should have been a way to prevent it, an easier way? or what if they had waited to use it until korea, or vietnam, when it would have been much more powerful, and more people would have died. I think truman was right.

[Disco Jones]

There's actually a discussion (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=73209&page=4) going on about this right now in the Nuclear Weapons thread. quartermaster argues that neither an invasion or a nuclear attack was necessary and that a blockade would have been a better option.

[HillBillyWilly]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were only two cities. plus it ended the war, which all countries desperatley needed. if America had tried to invade Japan, they would have had to rat out every little bunker and weapons cache. instead, they dropped two bombs on two major cities, killing less civilians, and less American soldiers.


Plus Germany fell too, it took a long time to reclaim Europe and Africa, and would ahve drawn out the war even longer if we had to invade Japan.


It was nessecary

[Jess]

yes it was necessary even though many people died

[Zeh Crazy]

I don't agree with the decision. Because yeah, it killed lots of innocent people and it was the United State's mission to keep peace and promote blah blah and all that nonsense. Doesn't sound like peace...Just because they bombed us, doesn't we should do the same.

[Sage]

it was the United State's mission to keep peace

No, I'm pretty sure the mission was to destroy Imperial Japan and end WWII.

[Disco Jones]

we were already bombing the shit out of them way before the nukes ever dropped

[Tiberius]

We were correct in dropping the nuclear bombs on Japan rather than invading Japan outright. The U.S casualties alone from invading just the two islands of " Kyushu and Honshu invasion operations could range from 250,000 to one million men. " That's not to mention what would have happened when we invaded the rest of Japan or the number of Japanese civilians and soldiers that would have died. Also, you might want to take into account of what it would have done to Japan's infrastructure and it's economy over the next century. Japan would have been totally crippled from the fight with the U.S limping away.

Anyone would would wish the death of tens of millions of people rather than the death of about 230,000 people really need to have their heads examined.
Sources:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/giangrec.htm
http://mothra.rerf.or.jp/ENG/A-bomb/History/Damages.html

[scuba steve]

i don't think that America truly understood the collosal power of the atomic bomb at the time as they didn't understand the extent of nuclear science in the 1940's, therefore not considering the various consequences of the bomb like the radiation poisoning that can still be seen in newborns today. it was although necessary i believe as it did honestly scare the absolute shit out of the imperial Japanease who surrendered to the Americans not long after the two bombs where dropped.

[Skeln]

I don't think that it was the only way to win the war, but when your main objective was to prevent American loss of life then it was necessary. Japan showed no signs of giving up (Asian countries rarely do without a huge fight) so the best way for the US to deal with Japan without losing any more soldiers was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, whether it was necessary is not really relevent to the present, right? It happened, so we just have to accept it.

[scuba steve]

I don't think that it was the only way to win the war, but when your main objective was to prevent American loss of life then it was necessary. Japan showed no signs of giving up (Asian countries rarely do without a huge fight) so the best way for the US to deal with Japan without losing any more soldiers was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, whether it was necessary is not really relevent to the present, right? It happened, so we just have to accept it.

i agree with this guy, without the bombing of two major cities in Japan, the Imperialists would most likely have kept on going until they were truly defeated by means of gaining control of all territories under the Empire of Japan at the time. which as Skeln had said would see many more losses within American and indeed the likes of British ranks who would then have enevitably been dragged into the conquest, with the struggle most likey lasting after the fall of the Third Reich. Plus. Without the intial use of the Atom bomb on their 'trial usage' the world would not have been able to witness the true devastating power the bomb could deliver upon actual civilisation rather than being simply tested deep in the Nevada desert.

[MadManWithaBox]

I am extremely anti american, yet I believe the decision was right. The loss in life, american, british, commonwealth, japanese, chinese, was worth it. In my opinion.

[dead]

I think it was necessary, but where ground zero was, was completely unnecessary.

[Disco Jones]

I don't get the idea that the bomb should have been dropped somewhere remote. That kind of defeats the whole purpose of dropping it. Sooner or later the US was going to have to show that it was willing to kill people with the bomb, or the threat wouldn't have been taken seriously.

[dead]

I don't get the idea that the bomb should have been dropped somewhere remote. That kind of defeats the whole purpose of dropping it. Sooner or later the US was going to have to show that it was willing to kill people with the bomb, or the threat wouldn't have been taken seriously.

Did I say remote? No. Ground zero was in the middle of a city away from a military base.

[scuba steve]

Did I say remote? No. Ground zero was in the middle of a city away from a military base.

did they not also build model towns out in the Nevada desert aswell to help them see the true effects if it was used on civilisation?

[Tiberius]

Did I say remote? No. Ground zero was in the middle of a city away from a military base.

War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.
William Tecumseh Sherman
War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.
William Tecumseh Sherman
Dropping the bomb on the Japanese people and not some military base was the only way to make them demand peace from their government. We had to make them howl.

[tripolar]

It's progress, When there is a newer easier way to do something it will be done. The atom bomb was the newest in wartime destruction. It was tested several times and was seen to be the most deadly and destructive weapon around at the time.

An invasion could have been done, but thousands if not hundreds of thousands of troops would be lost and millions of more dollars would have been pumped into war efforts. Another reason behind a bombing is it would make a statement. Showing the entire world the United States has a weapon that can cause catastrophic damage and they are a force to be reckoned with.

Was a bombing necessary? everyone has different views some see it as a crime against humanity, others see it as the necessary solution to a difficult problem. I think it was necessary, yes many innocent lives were lost, but even with an invasion innocent lives would have been lost too.

[Junky]

Tiberius pretty much mirrors my thoughts on this. You have to understand the mindset of the people and leaders at that time. It was either us or them, do you really think Japan or Germany would have hesitated for 1 second if they had a nuclear device? Of course not. They were ruthless and brutal in carrying out their plans. You also need to examine the mindset of the Japanese; they would have fought to the last man, women and child to protect their emperor and Japan. In a war i would sacrifice 100 of any enemy to save 1 American.

"We're in a war, dammit! We're going to have to offend somebody!" -John Adams :yeah:

[dead]

In a war i would sacrifice 100 of any enemy to save 1 American.
Even if you could go a way that minimize the deaths of the enemy?

[The Batman]

What makes us better than the people that flew into WTC?

[Junky]

Even if you could go a way that minimize the deaths of the enemy?
Yes because I'm at war and killing the enemy wins wars.
What makes us better than the people that flew into WTC?
I'm not killing innocent people unprovoked. What do the WTC's have to do with Hiroshima?

[dead]

Yes because I'm at war and killing the enemy wins wars.

I'm not killing innocent people unprovoked. What do the WTC's have to do with Hiroshima?

It has a huge thing to do with Hiroshima. We didn't kill soldiers with the bomb, but instead innocent citizens and on purpose.

[The Batman]

Yes because I'm at war and killing the enemy wins wars.

I'm not killing innocent people unprovoked. What do the WTC's have to do with Hiroshima?

Because we pretty much did the same thing they did and they "They hit us first" argument won't work here because they bombed a Naval base not civilians who weren't holding a weapon against them. The people that flew into WTC felt provoked, and felt as if they had to do it for their country the same reason we bombed Hiroshima. If you want to fight a war, you go after the soldiers that are trying to kill you not the civilians.

[Junky]

It has a huge thing to do with Hiroshima. We didn't kill soldiers with the bomb, but instead innocent citizens and on purpose.
And we won the war, right? or did i miss something? It is also important to note they were supporting the war effort so they can be targets. Plus it saved American lives therefore justified.

[The Batman]

Plus it saved American lives therefore justified.
Our lives are of no more value than theirs.

[dead]

And we won the war, right? or did i miss something? It is also important to note they were supporting the war effort so they can be targets. Plus it saved American lives therefore justified.

So Americans are are better than people in other countries?

[Junky]

So Americans are are better than people in other countries?
Our lives are of no more value than theirs.
Actually in a war they are, you do remember we were at war right?
Because we pretty much did the same thing they did and they "They hit us first" argument won't work here because they bombed a Naval base not civilians who weren't holding a weapon against them. The people that flew into WTC felt provoked, and felt as if they had to do it for their country the same reason we bombed Hiroshima. If you want to fight a war, you go after the soldiers that are trying to kill you not the civilians.
The Military personal in Pearl Harbor weren't holding a weapon against the Japanese. Remind me again how we provoked the WTC bombers? Actually you do fight a war by going after civilians! If their are no more factories, or workers to sustain an economy you have won the war! hussah! :yeah:

[dead]

Actually in a war they are, you do remember we were at war right?

The Military personal in Pearl Harbor weren't holding a weapon against the Japanese. Remind me again how we provoked the WTC bombers? Actually you do fight a war by going after civilians! If their are no more factories, or workers to sustain an economy you have won the war! hussah! :yeah:

Great Job at being a nationalist! Scoad.

[Junky]

Great Job at being a nationalist! Scoad.
Hmm did i hit a nerve perhaps? You know you've lost a debate when all you can do is insult the other side. :yeah:

[The Batman]

Actually in a war they are, you do remember we were at war right?
War or not, our lives are of the same value. It's stupid to go after the unarmed man, woman, and child rather than the guy put there to kill you. Bomb a military base or something not a city.
The Military personal in Pearl Harbor weren't holding a weapon against the Japanese. Remind me again how we provoked the WTC bombers? Actually you do fight a war by going after civilians! If their are no more factories, or workers to sustain an economy you have won the war! hussah! :yeah:I didn't say we provoked them I said they felt provoked. Whether or not our military were holding guns against is beside the point, the point I'm making is that they bombed a NAVAL Base, the place where the soldiers are they didn't go to a major city and do it like we did. If it would have happened the other way around we wouldn't be calling them heroes.

[dead]

Hmm did i hit a nerve perhaps? You know you've lost a debate when all you can do is insult the other side. :yeah:

I wasn't insulting you defined yourself as it.

[Junky]

War or not, our lives are of the same value. It's stupid to go after the unarmed man, woman, and child rather than the guy put there to kill you. Bomb a military base or something not a city.

If you bomb a military base and kill military civilians will step up and take their place. Its an undeniable fact that if we invaded Japan more American and Japanese lives would have been lost, therefore the bomb saved lives. That is reason enough right there.

I didn't say we provoked them I said they felt provoked. Whether or not our military were holding guns against is beside the point, the point I'm making is that they bombed a NAVAL Base, the place where the soldiers are they didn't go to a major city and do it like we did. If it would have happened the other way around we wouldn't be calling them heroes.

You totally dodged my question which i will rephrase: how did the WTC bombers feel provoked? They took civilians prisoners too, my great grandfather being one of them he was lucky to survive because they worked them to death. Once again it saved both military and civilian lives on both sides, which justifies it. No i probably wouldn't, and I'm not saying we are heroes, at least not in the context your talking about.

[The Batman]

If you bomb a military base and kill military civilians will step up and take their place. Its an undeniable fact that if we invaded Japan more American and Japanese lives would have been lost, therefore the bomb saved lives. That is reason enough right there.
The point I'm making is that we did not go after soldiers we went after civilians, I don't care that they dropped the bomb the only thing I don't like is WHERE it happened I read the 4 or 5 other times someone has brought that up in this thread and if I didn't care then odds are I still don't care now.

You totally dodged my question which i will rephrase: how did the WTC bombers feel provoked? They took civilians prisoners too, my great grandfather being one of them he was lucky to survive because they worked them to death. Once again it saved both military and civilian lives on both sides, which justifies it. No i probably wouldn't, and I'm not saying we are heroes, at least not in the context your talking about.

First: I was talking about the 9/11 attacks not the bombing.
Second:On December 27, 2001, a second bin Laden video was released. In the video, he states, "Terrorism against America deserves to be praised because it was a response to injustice, aimed at forcing America to stop its support for Israel, which kills our people", but he stopped short of admitting responsibility for the attacks.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks)

[dead]

If you bomb a military base and kill military civilians will step up and take their place. Its an undeniable fact that if we invaded Japan more American and Japanese lives would have been lost, therefore the bomb saved lives. That is reason enough right there.

Um its not a undeniable fact. It's an opinion.

[Hanyo]

Well, its easy to take the moral high ground and criticize when you're safe in the comforts of your home and not worried about your family being any day by the enemy...

When I think about Hiroshima and Nagasaki being nuked, I do feel bad for the people who died, especially since I've come to like Japanese culture very much, and have always found the Japanese to be quite friendly and honest.

But, keep in mind that the US was not a participant in WWII at first. It was Japan that struck first by bombing Pearl Harbor. The US didn't get involved until after that. Does the bombing of Pearl Harbor justify nuking 2 cities full of civilians? Not really, but its not really about revenge, its about ending the war.

If Japan would have agreed to a ceasefire, the war could have ended at any time. That's simplifying things, but Japan was taking heavy losses already and never opted to ask for peace. How can you end a war when one side refuses to stop fighting?

The general opinion of the strategy "experts" at the time was that the loss of life without using the nukes would have been far more than what the result of using the nukes was. So yeah, it sucks that it happened, but it was the option for ending the war that appeared to have the smallest loss of life involved. What would you do? Sacrifice a million innocents to end the war, or allow the war to continue and let EVEN more innocents die??

I do feel bad about it, but I don't see that there were any better options available at the time.

[Junky]

Um its not a undeniable fact. It's an opinion.
Read up on your history:

During the 1930s, the military established almost complete control over the government. Many political enemies were assassinated, and communists persecuted. Indoctrination and censorship in education and media were further intensified. Navy and army officers soon occupied most of the important offices, including the one of the prime minister.

http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2129.html

" The invasion of Iwo Jima caused 6,200 American deaths, and the U. S. outnumbered the Japanese by four to one. Okinawa cost 13,000 U. S. servicemen, and they outnumbered the Japanese by two and one-half to one. These 13,000 men made up more than 35% of the U. S. landing force. Consequently, Admiral Leahy came to the conclusion that it was absurd to think that any less than 35% of the American force that invaded Japan would be killed. Based on the estimate of 560,000 Japanese soldiers on Kyushu as of early August, Leahy predicted that at very minimum over 250,000 American soldiers would lie dead as a result of an invasion of the Japanese islands.

It was later found that the troop strength on Kyushu was greatly under-estimated, and that by August 6 the Japanese had over 900,000 men stationed on Kyushu, nearly twice as many as thought. Leahy’s estimates that the Americans would have a preponderance, when in fact the 767,000 American soldiers who would comprise the landing force were already greatly outnumbered three months before Operation Olympic was actually to begin. By November, Japanese troop strength could easily double or triple, making between 500,000 and 1,000,000 American deaths conceivable. The Japanese army was already training its civilians to fight with sharpened bamboo poles. According to samurai tradition, there was no more honorable way to die than to do so for Japan and the emperor, and the civilians were quite prepared to take this philosophy to heart. Using sharpened pikes the Japanese could easily prevent a military government from being effective in those towns which the U. S. captured. Futher, and even more brutal, was the training of young children to be “Sherman carpets.” Japanese children were to be strapped with TNT and throw themselves under American tanks, thereby dying in the most honorable way possible--by killing the enemy. It can be assumed that at least as many civilians would have died as soldiers, bringing the totals somewhere around 200,000 to four million Japanese dead, along with the 50,000 to one million American dead, totaling 250,000 to five million total dead. "
http://www.essortment.com/all/presidenttruman_rywp.htm

The Japanese believed their emperor was a living god and would follow anything they said till their deaths( dying in the most honorable way possible). An enormous loss have life would have occurred in any scenario.
The projected least amount of deaths was 250,000 on both sides, while the projected maximum deaths would total 5,000,000. So you make the decision on what would be the best course 2 atomic bombs on 2 cities of 5,000,000 dead?

[dead]

Read up on your history:
What happens when are military has no arms? You have to consider every factor.

[Junky]

What happens when are military has no arms? You have to consider every factor.

I apologize but I'm not quite following what your saying, elaborate please?

[dead]

I apologize but I'm not quite following what your saying, elaborate please?

The arms are in the military base and we could easily take that completely out with a nuke aswell as all the military there.

[Junky]

The arms are in the military base and we could easily take that completely out with a nuke as well as all the military there.
They were planing on doing that had they not bombed the cities. It simply didn't produce the desired effect, we did not have the nucs or the production capability to bomb every army, air force, and naval base. Even if we did could you imagine the large amount of radiological fallout that would ensue? They would have made more arms, or recalled some of their forces stationed in Manchuria. I mean for god sake they planned on fighting with sharpened sticks and kids with explosives.

[dead]

They were planing on doing that had they not bombed the cities. It simply didn't produce the desired effect, we did not have the nucs or the production capability to bomb every army, air force, and naval base. Even if we did could you imagine the large amount of radiological fallout that would ensue? They would have made more arms, or recalled some of their forces stationed in Manchuria. I mean for god sake they planned on fighting with sharpened sticks and kids with explosives.

They only had one base left.

[Junky]

They only had one base left.

which was?

[dead]

which was?

Okinawa.

[Skeln]

Okinawa.

Um...I could be wrong but I believe that the US had more prime target areas other than just Hiroshima and Okinawa. It just happened that they had the shorter stick when it came to weather conditions. They were some of the more desired spots but the US had other hot spots that they could have bombed. It all depended on the weather.

[Junky]

Okinawa was not their only military base, there was the air force bases Tachikawa Airfield, Yokota Air Base,Misawa Air Base, Kadena Air Base, and Iruma Air Base. Navy base: Naval Air Facility Oppama, Yokosuka, Kanagawa Prefecture(thats one place, can you say mouthful?) Sasebo Air Base, and Atsugi Air Base. I can't find much information on the army and marine bases but their can't be much doubt that their were quite a few.

And Skeln is right they planned on bombing the landing area with nuclear weapons, as scientists believed the radiation would be gone in a day or two (that could have been quite a mess).

[Jufjufjuf]

Well I mean I looke at it from my standpoint, it wasn't right but it helps us in the future. If they hadn't of dropped it, we probably wouldn't have nuclear treaties right now.

[CaliKid24]

it wasnt necessary but with the circumstances of the war it was the best way to end the war.

[dead]

What I find sad is that there are worst things that can happen to America (and other countries) then getting bombed by Nuclear weapons.

[Junky]

What I find sad is that there are worst things that can happen to America (and other countries) then getting bombed by Nuclear weapons.
You're kinda just rambling on now, don't really know what your point is?

[dead]

You're kinda just rambling on now, don't really know what your point is?

There is none.

[Junky]

There is none.
Than i have won the debate unless someone else wants to debate? :confused:

[dead]

Than i have won the debate unless someone else wants to debate? :confused:

No you didnt win, but you did hold up good rebuttals unlike my half ass'd ones.

[Hanyo]

Hahhahah, very good Reverse_Reality, you're a good sport.

Yes, Junky has made very good points. I also thought about directly attacking the military bases (or military "forces" directly) vs the cities, but the realization quickly came up that yeah, there are a lot of military targets to go after, and it would be really hard to destroy their ability to wage war that way. There were way too many bases, and too many fielded forces.

Moreover, even as you destroy bases and fielded forces, they would still have the ability to conscript more soldiers out of the population, and produce more weapons. Most of Japans production capability was centered in the cities, which is why they were firebombing Japanese cities repeatedly before they dropped the nukes. They were trying to destroy production capability and drain Japan's ability to wage war. The problem was that it wasn't working very well. The nukes however brought Japan to the negotiating table quickly.

It would have been nice if there had been a way to end the war with less loss of life that would have worked, but I don't see that there were any better options available at the time.

[Decapitated]

We warned them. We told them to stop attacking or WE WOULD BOMB YOU! They didn't listen. We do what we must because we can.