Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[Saint Fawkes]

I recently had a very shocking realization. My whole life I've believed that the nuclear (I meant atomic) bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WWII were immoral and unnecessary. However, I recently had reason to study WWII (story upcoming, by the way), and I discovered that, had the U.S. not bombed Japan, the number of lives lost on both sides would most likely have been significantly larger than the number of Japanese lives lost in the bombings; in effect, murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians was the moral course of action.

Thoughts?

P.S. I would have made a poll, but I couldn't figure out how. Help meeeeeee!!!

[Imelda]

Of course it was immoral and unnecessary to bomb Japan like that. It's immoral to kill anyone, ever, unless they're about to kill you, and I don't think Japan was going to overwhelm mainland America with their army any time soon.

Of course I know none of the facts, because I replaced them with more interesting information several years ago ...

[walkingcompilation]

The Japanese were on their way to defeat anyway. The bomb just gave them an honourable reason to quit. Their way of thinking was "Death before Dishonour". It was honourable to quit and save the lives of their people by doing so.

[The Old Fart]

It wasn't a decision that was come to lightly. Truman hated to make that decision and regretted it. But the outcome of not bombing them with atomic bombs, not nuclear by the way, would have been devastating not only for the Japanese but for America as well. We needed to end the war because the war engine was going to bankrupt us. Remember, we were mostly the only ones fighting over in the Pacific. Mostly, there were other countries there, but it was basically the U.S. check that was being cashed. Without the European Theater to offset the costs the American economic model would have collapsed and the country would have fallen into another depression likely far worse than the other one. Couple that with the fact that tens of thousands of American and Japanese soldiers would die due to having to do another D-Day type invasion on the coast. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands. It saved America and Japan at the same time. The offshoot is that after it happened, some years later, America helped Japan get back on its feet and now they are one of the most competitive nations for electronics in the world. It turned out for the best.

[walkingcompilation]

The atomic bomb was nasty, but before that they were dropping incendiaries on Japan. INCENDIARIES! On WOODEN cities! It was not a nice way to die. The atomic bomb wasn't good, but it stopped the war.

[Hypocrit]

The ends NEVER justify the means. Period.

[Imelda]

God!!!!!!! If they wanted to stop the war, there's such a thing as a truce! All this honour nonsense is ridiculous! It was civilians who died when they dropped the bombs--how many of those never wanted to go to war in the beginning? It's like bombing London to stop the Iraq stuff. CRAZY!

[The Old Fart]

It is ridiculous, but the Japanese would never have agreed to a truce. They are probably the only society that actually places extreme value on honor and actually adhere to those codes to this day. It would have worked out wonderfully if a truce could have come out of it...

[Imelda]

How hard can it be to just *stop fighting*? Something is seriously wrong with a society when it's honour kicks in more strongly than its life-preserving instincts.

[The Old Fart]

That's what happens when countries industrialize too fast without allowing time for the old beliefs to settle in and adapt. Japan became an industrialized nation when it still held firm to code, honor before life, and Emperor before honor. The Emperor was their god, sort of, so if was the ultimate duty of classes like the Samurai to do the Emperor's bidding and to adhere to a very strict moral code that included killing oneself when one did some dishonorable or failed horribly. It meant perfection and it worked. But such ideals don't work when one is being massacred. One cannot hold on to honor when the threat of annihilation stands at your door. One must find ways to bend honor. So, they surrendered after the second bomb. Remember, they didn't budge when the first bomb hit. It took two to change their minds. They realized that with firepower like that there was no winning.
To them, honor did preserve their lives.

[Saint Fawkes]

Japan was not going to surrender easily to a land invasion. In past battles, they (meaning soldiers and civilians) had chosen, when faced with certain defeat, to kill themselves rather than surrender. Also, Japan had trained all its people (men, women, and hcildren) to fight to the death rather than surrender and face dishonor. A land invasion of Japan would have cost huge numbers of lives on both sides; both Japan and America would most likely have lost more lives individually then Japan alone did from both bombings combined. Even after one of their major cities had been hit with A-bombs, they didn't surrender until another was destroyed.

EDIT: Oh, Fart already said this.

[Kaluil_Lover_of_Cake]

none of the "japan would never surrender" shit matters in this case. that doesn't remedy the fact that those atomic bombs killed about 140 thousand INNOCENT civilians at hiroshima and about 75 thousand at nagasaki instantly, severly or fatally wounded many others, and released harmful nuclear fallout on the surrounding areas, causing genetic diseases to appear in children born in those cities to this day. my question now is this: how the fuck is the bombing of innocent civilian cities justified in the end? they didn't bomb military targets. they killed civilians. men, women, and children. that is NEVER necessary.

[The Old Fart]

none of the "japan would never surrender" shit matters in this case. that doesn't remedy the fact that those atomic bombs killed about 140 thousand INNOCENT civilians at hiroshima and about 75 thousand at nagasaki instantly, severly or fatally wounded many others, and released harmful nuclear fallout on the surrounding areas, causing genetic diseases to appear in children born in those cities to this day. my question now is this: how the fuck is the bombing of innocent civilian cities justified in the end? they didn't bomb military targets. they killed civilians. men, women, and children. that is NEVER necessary.

And what would have happened if there had been a land invasion? Some hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians would have died the invasion. Tens of thousands of American soldiers would die in the J-Day that would have come. Japanese soldiers would be killed in bombings and artillery fire.
Don't get mad at the people who dropped the bomb. First off, American didn't ask to be attacked at Pearl Harbor. We didn't wave a big flashy sign that said "attack us, we'll be friendly". Japan attacked us. Next, Japan was asked to surrender numerous times BEFORE the first bomb was dropped and asked again after Hiroshima fell. It took two of those bombs to get them to surrender and to ultimately save not only two nations, but to save millions of lives. J-Day would have been a thousand times more devastating to Allied and Axis troops that D-Day. There isn't a lot of open coastline to go to on Japan. We're talking the destruction of cities too. The war would have been dragged on for another 5-10 years. Both countries would be economically and morally devastated. That's how the ends justify the means. Sacrifices sometimes have to be made. This was a sacrifice. In war a sacrifice that can save the lives of many more is the better choice.

[Kaluil_Lover_of_Cake]

What the fuck? Are you kidding me? We did all but wave the flashy sign at Japan! They attacked us preemptively! We had just taken the Philippenes as a result of the Spanish-American war and had put down a rebellion to our presence there. We had also just taken Hawaii and numerous other tactical naval islands in the Pacific AND had just recently stopped all trade with Japan. Japan saw the war in Europe, figured that our attack was coming, and attacked a naval base before we could attack them. If you really think that Japan's entering into WWII was unwarranted, you really need to study history better.

[The Old Fart]

What the fuck? Are you kidding me? We did all but wave the flashy sign at Japan! They attacked us preemptively! We had just taken the Philippenes as a result of the Spanish-American war and had put down a rebellion to our presence there. We had also just taken Hawaii and numerous other tactical naval islands in the Pacific AND had just recently stopped all trade with Japan. Japan saw the war in Europe, figured that our attack was coming, and attacked a naval base before we could attack them. If you really think that Japan's entering into WWII was unwarranted, you really need to study history better.

Okay, I'm going to just assume you went to an American High School based on the fact that you don't really have any clue what happened.

Japan was an isolationist country. It had been for thousands of years and our magical presence in their general vicinity hadn't changed that. In fact, Japan is historically known to kill and push out people coming in to do what we would call as "missionary" work today. The first attempts to bring Buddhism and Christianity there were met with violence and subsequently the 'missionaries' left in failure. What changed for them is what will be discussed in just a moment. Now bear with me, I know that History is really boring, but I'm not your history professor or teacher, so I'll try to make this a little fun.
Now, as for your other statements. First off, Japan joined in allegiance with Hitler. You might have missed this because WW2 is glossed over in History 101 in High School. Think of Hitler as the evil bunny rabbit and Japan as the evil Weasel. They were an ally of Hitler, who was attacking an ally. Now, we told Japan that military actions against China--such as, oh I don't know, the slaughterings and massacres and rapes and what not, but maybe that was left out too...in fact, let's just ignore that because who cares about rapes and massacres...really, I mean, we might as well ignore the holocaust too with that line of thinking...--would not be tolerated from a trading partner. We already were not a military trading partner, but an oil trading partner. They relied on us for their oil, essentially. They refused to listen, we cut off their oil.
America was an isolationist state during that time. What this means is that if Evil Bunny and his side kick Evil Weasel are off blowing everyone else up, we're not a part of it in any way at all. Now, obviously completely isolationist tactics don't work, and full on imperialistic tactics such as what Britain once was up to and what America is up to now obviously don't work. There is a delicate balance. So, when Evil Weasel, I mean Japan, realized that we basically cut off their lifeline--because oil ran their entire military machine--they secretly made motions to attack Pearl Harbor in an attempt to make a statement. They knew that many ships would be docked there, though not to the extent as we knew was the reality. So, they attacked. America had no plans that magically disappeared to attack Japan. In fact, because of our negotiations with little Winnie the Pooh, that's Churchill, we couldn't actually engage Japan. Any attack on U.S. sovereign soil from either Axis member would result in us aiding Pooh and little Bubbly, that's England, in the European theater first. So, to think that we would intentionally do something to spark a war is absurd seeing how the ultimate objective wouldn't be to get engaged in two fronts, which we did, but in one single front, which we didn't and had no chance to do.
Now, I'm just going to say this to make sure, because from your statements I get the impression that you might think otherwise. You do know that Pearl Harbor happened before we engaged in war with Hitler right? In fact, it's a surprise that Japan didn't perform further attacks on U.S. soil as they had the military capability to actually move as far in to the mainland as Texas, which would actually give them the oil and tolls they needed to continue their pillaging and destroying of Chinese women and child....wait, sorry we were supposed to ignore that stuff.

[Common Sense]

The President knew of Pearl Harbor in advance, it probably could have been prevented or atleast made as to where the casulties were not as high (At Pearl Harbor)

[The Old Fart]

The President knew of Pearl Harbor in advance, it probably could have been prevented or atleast made as to where the casulties were not as high (At Pearl Harbor)

That would be what is called a Conspiracy theory since there is not real proof, just a lot of hocus pocus. I saw the movie Pearl Harbor too...with Ben Affleck and that other kid. Lots of lies in there. There's no real proof of any sort of 'knowledge' of a Japanese attack in Hawaii.
And how would allowing the attack to take place benefit anyone at all? Just the knowledge that an attempted attack on U.S. territories would insight American hatreds to want to start a war...

[Saint Fawkes]

Firstly, Kaluil, the 8 Mile quote in your siggy is wrong; it supposed to be "All's well that ends ok, so I'll end this shit with a fuck you and have a nice day."

Back on topic.

Secondly, we're not talking about whether Japan was justified in attacking us. We're talking about whether using the A-bomb was, in the long run, the right choice. And as I said, invading Japan would have cost more civilian lives, since Japan had taught its people to fight to death or even kill themselves rather than face dishonor, and the Japanese soldiers and civilians had already shown their absolute willingness to do so.

[Kaluil_Lover_of_Cake]

Ok, first of all, I never said that America had plans to attack Japan. What I said was that, to Japan, it sure looked like it. Second, Japan attacked China to add them to their Prosperity Sphere, which was a plan to unite and build up Asian nations under one banner, which would have helped China in the future. Third, Japan had no interest in taking over the United States. They needed to trade with us to continue their hopes of uniting Asia. So yes, I agree (as hard as that is to do right now) that part of the reason for the attack on Pearl Harbor was a warning concerning the trade boycott. It was mostly, however, a preemptive strike. And finally, don't talk to me like i'm a fucking moron. It really takes a lot away from your argument.

[Saint Fawkes]

Then don't ignore facts jsut becuase you don't like them.

And if they were trying to help China, they had a pretty twisted way of doing it. Have you ever heard of something called "The Rape of Nanking"?

[Common Sense]

That would be what is called a Conspiracy theory since there is not real proof, just a lot of hocus pocus. I saw the movie Pearl Harbor too...with Ben Affleck and that other kid. Lots of lies in there. There's no real proof of any sort of 'knowledge' of a Japanese attack in Hawaii.
And how would allowing the attack to take place benefit anyone at all? Just the knowledge that an attempted attack on U.S. territories would insight American hatreds to want to start a war...

Please don't insult intelligence by thinking I got the information from a shitty movie like Pearl Harbor.

Preparation for one. The attack was unknown to the people stationed there. If you were prepared, lives could have been saved. I stand by what I said earlier.

[Saint Fawkes]

The government had knowledge that Japan would probably attack somewhere on U.S. soil soon. Granted, more preparation should have been made, but its not like they walked up to the POTUS and said, "Japan is gonna bomb Pearl Harbor in Hawaii this December," and he just said, "Fuck 'em."

[Kaluil_Lover_of_Cake]

Firstly, Kaluil, the 8 Mile quote in your siggy is wrong; it supposed to be "All's well that ends ok, so I'll end this shit with a fuck you and have a nice day."

Back on topic.

Secondly, we're not talking about whether Japan was justified in attacking us. We're talking about whether using the A-bomb was, in the long run, the right choice. And as I said, invading Japan would have cost more civilian lives, since Japan had taught its people to fight to death or even kill themselves rather than face dishonor, and the Japanese soldiers and civilians had already shown their absolute willingness to do so.

Firstly, I wasn't quoting 8 Mile. I have no real intrest to see that movie.
Secondly, the fact is, there's no way we can know that. To end so many civilian lives just like that is insane. We could've attacked military targets, or at least warned Japan about exactly what we were capable of. Japan was never told about our Nuclear weapons. They were told that "great destruction" would come if they didn't surrender. They had no idea what we meant by that.

[Saint Fawkes]

There is a way we can know that, and that's past experience. They were not surrendering, even when they had no chance of survival whatsoever. You think if we invaded them we would have precision sniped the soldiers and left the civilians alone? No, for two reasons: one, because its impossible not to harm civilians when invading populated areas, and two, because the civilians would have been attackign them. I don't know how many different ways I can tell you this.

[The Old Fart]

Ok, first of all, I never said that America had plans to attack Japan. What I said was that, to Japan, it sure looked like it. Second, Japan attacked China to add them to their Prosperity Sphere, which was a plan to unite and build up Asian nations under one banner, which would have helped China in the future. Third, Japan had no interest in taking over the United States. They needed to trade with us to continue their hopes of uniting Asia. So yes, I agree (as hard as that is to do right now) that part of the reason for the attack on Pearl Harbor was a warning concerning the trade boycott. It was mostly, however, a preemptive strike. And finally, don't talk to me like i'm a fucking moron. It really takes a lot away from your argument.

Yes, because rape, murder, massacres, slaughter, and genocide would really help China. That make sense. You're right. In fact, the holocaust would have helped the Jews in the long run if we would let Hitler go through with it right? I mean, hey, it's good for the Jews to be afraid to go outside or to announce their heritage, or to worry about whether their house will be raided next week. Yup, that's right. That's a perfect argument there.
No, talking to you like you don't know what your talking about actually makes it easier for me to keep my argument in perfect order. Time for more history, since you don't know it very well. The U.S.A. bought the Philipines from Spain in 1898 and fought until about 1902, which means that the Philipines was an occupied country with its own republic. That being said, Hawaii actually signed a treaty with the United States allowing the U.S. to annex it as a U.S. territory. This allowed friendly trade between the two nations, a nice little port for the U.S. in the pacific to, well protect against attacks like Pearl Harbor, and we see how well that worked. That was all in the same year I believe--1898. So, yes, Japan just sat around for 40 years deciding "hey, we don't like the U.S., let's attack them even though they sell us oil and we have a generally good economic arrangement with them". Yup, that makes perfect sense.
It wasn't a preemptive strike. The U.S. had no desire to be in a war with Japan. The U.S. wanted nothing to do with it. This is why the American people have so much power. Iraq started because the American people fell for the lies and said "hell yes kill those bastards". In the case of WW2, the American people wanted to stay out of it. Of course, some wanted to be in it, but the American people said no. Once we say yes, we lose all that power obviously, but anyway.
It wasn't preemptive. In fact you have nothing to even prove that point to me. You're just making it up as far as I'm concerned. It makes no sense that Japan would make no outward approaches to express its general hatred for the U.S. and its policies while relying on it for the necessities. They had 40 years to make an attack. Unless you are trying to tell me that they were thinking about it for a while and finally just did it, well, no proof. There's nothing to suggest otherwise. In fact, you just disproved your own point in your post. You said that Japan had no desire to invade the U.S., but to maintain trade. Explain to me how attacking us would result in better trade relationships? How does that work I wonder? "I'm going to attack you, but you have to be nice to me afterwards". Makes no sense.

[Kaluil_Lover_of_Cake]

Then don't ignore facts jsut becuase you don't like them.

And if they were trying to help China, they had a pretty twisted way of doing it. Have you ever heard of something called "The Rape of Nanking"?

I'm not ignoring any facts. And yes, I have heard of it and by no means do I condone it. That, however, was the choice of soldiers, not a military command...hmm, kind of like a little incident called the My Lai massacre...ever heard of it?

[Saint Fawkes]

Fart, I'm gonna leave this one in your hands. I don't have the patience to write essays, and because I need to go eat junk food and watch TV.

[The Old Fart]

Firstly, I wasn't quoting 8 Mile. I have no real intrest to see that movie.
Secondly, the fact is, there's no way we can know that. To end so many civilian lives just like that is insane. We could've attacked military targets, or at least warned Japan about exactly what we were capable of. Japan was never told about our Nuclear weapons. They were told that "great destruction" would come if they didn't surrender. They had no idea what we meant by that.

Well, warning them wouldn't have done any good. They saw the first bomb and didn't believe we had the capabilities to produce a second. So telling them "hey we can blow up a city" wouldn't have done any good. They new after the first bomb. They had the opportunity to surrender then.
And yes we do know that an invasion of Japanese land would have resulted in a costly loss of lives, and unnecessary entirely. Did you even pay attention to what happened in D-Day and the campaign that followed? It wasn't like we waltzed in and it was over. Japan was well fortified, had the advantage of familiar terrain--which the Germans did not seeing how they occupied most of Europe and were spread thin. It would have cost thousands upon thousand upon thousands. It would have been devastating. Death tolls would skyrocket.
Bombing Japan might not have been the good decision, but it was the only decision offered. The U.S. didn't have the capability we have today to bomb a country into submission with well targeted cruise missiles.

[ADH093]

We don't have that ability today. Our missiles keep hitting our allies.

[The Old Fart]

I'm not ignoring any facts. And yes, I have heard of it and by no means do I condone it. That, however, was the choice of soldiers, not a military command...hmm, kind of like a little incident called the My Lai massacre...ever heard of it?

What exactly does a massacre that occurred almost 20 years later have to do with WW2 and what we are discussing? We're not discussing later U.S. actions. We're talking WW2 and that's it.

[The Old Fart]

We don't have that ability today. Our missiles keep hitting our allies.

Occasionally. More often or not they are relatively accurate within 10m or so. But it's electronic equipment programmed and made by humans, so there is error there.

[Kaluil_Lover_of_Cake]

Yes, because rape, murder, massacres, slaughter, and genocide would really help China. That make sense. You're right. In fact, the holocaust would have helped the Jews in the long run if we would let Hitler go through with it right? I mean, hey, it's good for the Jews to be afraid to go outside or to announce their heritage, or to worry about whether their house will be raided next week. Yup, that's right. That's a perfect argument there.
No, talking to you like you don't know what your talking about actually makes it easier for me to keep my argument in perfect order. Time for more history, since you don't know it very well. The U.S.A. bought the Philipines from Spain in 1898 and fought until about 1902, which means that the Philipines was an occupied country with its own republic. That being said, Hawaii actually signed a treaty with the United States allowing the U.S. to annex it as a U.S. territory. This allowed friendly trade between the two nations, a nice little port for the U.S. in the pacific to, well protect against attacks like Pearl Harbor, and we see how well that worked. That was all in the same year I believe--1898. So, yes, Japan just sat around for 40 years deciding "hey, we don't like the U.S., let's attack them even though they sell us oil and we have a generally good economic arrangement with them". Yup, that makes perfect sense.
It wasn't a preemptive strike. The U.S. had no desire to be in a war with Japan. The U.S. wanted nothing to do with it. This is why the American people have so much power. Iraq started because the American people fell for the lies and said "hell yes kill those bastards". In the case of WW2, the American people wanted to stay out of it. Of course, some wanted to be in it, but the American people said no. Once we say yes, we lose all that power obviously, but anyway.
It wasn't preemptive. In fact you have nothing to even prove that point to me. You're just making it up as far as I'm concerned. It makes no sense that Japan would make no outward approaches to express its general hatred for the U.S. and its policies while relying on it for the necessities. They had 40 years to make an attack. Unless you are trying to tell me that they were thinking about it for a while and finally just did it, well, no proof. There's nothing to suggest otherwise. In fact, you just disproved your own point in your post. You said that Japan had no desire to invade the U.S., but to maintain trade. Explain to me how attacking us would result in better trade relationships? How does that work I wonder? "I'm going to attack you, but you have to be nice to me afterwards". Makes no sense.

Ugh...First of all, Hawaii didn't just sign an agreement happily and fairly because the US offered them a good deal. They were forced, much like Japan was, to open their ports. Except in the case of Hawaii, they were forced to join the United States. Second of all, AGAIN, I NEVER SAID THE US WAS PLANNING TO ATTACK JAPAN. I said Japan thought it. Third, yes, Japan probably was contemplating an attack on the US. Why did they wait 40 years? Well, if you knew your history, you'd know that Japan wasn't really an industrial power until the 1920's and even then, they were still relatively weak militarily. They couldn't attack us until about the time that they did. They also didn't really have to until the US stopped trade. That was just as good as a declaration of war in the eyes of Japan. It's not like Japan just randomly said "Hey, let's go attack those fuckheads over in the US because we can! Oh, and let's attack a naval base to cripple them, but not attack the mainland just to be dicks!" It's not like the Japanese were the inherent evil to counter our inherent good.

[Kaluil_Lover_of_Cake]

Well, warning them wouldn't have done any good. They saw the first bomb and didn't believe we had the capabilities to produce a second. So telling them "hey we can blow up a city" wouldn't have done any good. They new after the first bomb. They had the opportunity to surrender then.
And yes we do know that an invasion of Japanese land would have resulted in a costly loss of lives, and unnecessary entirely. Did you even pay attention to what happened in D-Day and the campaign that followed? It wasn't like we waltzed in and it was over. Japan was well fortified, had the advantage of familiar terrain--which the Germans did not seeing how they occupied most of Europe and were spread thin. It would have cost thousands upon thousand upon thousands. It would have been devastating. Death tolls would skyrocket.
Bombing Japan might not have been the good decision, but it was the only decision offered. The U.S. didn't have the capability we have today to bomb a country into submission with well targeted cruise missiles.

We gave Japan three days before attacking with the second bomb. And we still could've attacked military targets, not random civilian-based cities.

[The Old Fart]

Ugh...First of all, Hawaii didn't just sign an agreement happily and fairly because the US offered them a good deal. They were forced, much like Japan was, to open their ports. Except in the case of Hawaii, they were forced to join the United States. Second of all, AGAIN, I NEVER SAID THE US WAS PLANNING TO ATTACK JAPAN. I said Japan thought it. Third, yes, Japan probably was contemplating an attack on the US. Why did they wait 40 years? Well, if you knew your history, you'd know that Japan wasn't really an industrial power until the 1920's and even then, they were still relatively weak militarily. They couldn't attack us until about the time that they did. They also didn't really have to until the US stopped trade. That was just as good as a declaration of war in the eyes of Japan. It's not like Japan just randomly said "Hey, let's go attack those fuckheads over in the US because we can! Oh, and let's attack a naval base to cripple them, but not attack the mainland just to be dicks!" It's not like the Japanese were the inherent evil to counter our inherent good.

Woo, this is fascinating. Okay, so because history must have been rewritten in the last hour...
Hawaii was being annexed by other nations. The U.S. stepped in and said they were interested and said no other nations should make attempts to take it. The U.S. negotiated and signed a treaty that benefited Hawaii as a whole--and that's not saying too much as the U.S. is known to fuck up its deals.
If the Japanese saw the stop of trade as a declaration of war then obviously it wasn't preemptive. You again prove my point. Preemptive means to preempt something that might occur. So, to make a preemptive attack that would imply that the U.S. had done something that made the Japanese make accurate plans to do something before the U.S. could. So, seeing the stop of trade as a declaration of war and preempting a war are vastly different things.

And I know my history, thank you. I know that Japan was not an industrialized nation in the early 1900's. That exactly proves my point that they weren't thinking of a major attack on U.S. soil or U.S. territories. You keep proving my points for me. It amazes me we're still arguing over this.

[The Old Fart]

We gave Japan three days before attacking with the second bomb. And we still could've attacked military targets, not random civilian-based cities.

Three days is plenty of time to make a decision. If you were posed with the question: Do we surrender now or in 3 days have them destroy another city?, I think you would make the decision to surrender. Again, though, the honor system in Japan prevented this.
There were military targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact, a huge faction of soldiers were stationed in Hiroshima and were doing exercises when the bomb hit. Bombing a military base wouldn't have done anything. We already tried bombing factories, that only incited more hatred and animosity.

Now, I'm going to bed, but I expect there will be many replies awaiting me tomorrow afternoon.

[MHD]

The bombing was wrong. So many innocent people died because of it. Civilians and normal people just BURNED to death. And in some references, some people were crushed nearly to death by books, children were buried alive...

It was just wrong to make people suffer like that.

[Saint Fawkes]

Yeah, it is, but what would you have had them do?

[Imelda]

Umm ... not bomb them. Maybe use, and here's a weird thought, the soldiers who volunteered to join the army to fight Japan's soliders and see who wins. OooooOOOoooo. What. A. Bizarre. Concept.

Civilians should never be involved in conflict, full stop.

[Saint Fawkes]

Melda, I'm tired of saying the same things over and over again. Just read my other posts on this thread.

[Imelda]

Fine, but once a civilian takes it upon themselves to fight, they're a soldier.

[walkingcompilation]

Discriminate bombing wouldn't have worked. If the soldiers were willing to fly their planes into ships, then they wouldn't care if they were bombed. The honour would have kept the war going. The atom bomb was bad, but it ended the war, and japans doing fine now. It was actually the death of innocents which inspired the Japanese to surrender to save lives, which is honourable. Civilians were dying before anyway, because of the indiscriminate bombing with the use of incendiaries, But it was the effect of the atom bomb that was just so mind numbing and scary that caused the surrender. It's not important now, anyway.

And Japan was trying to unite Asia, claiming to care, but the British occupied countries in Asia surrendered too easily, and this disgusted the Japanese.

[Empress Artisan]

The Japanese were on their way to defeat anyway. The bomb just gave them an honourable reason to quit. Their way of thinking was "Death before Dishonour". It was honourable to quit and save the lives of their people by doing so.

You have no idea what their way of thinking was. Just because the samarai and maybe a few people have a stupid motto doesn't mean it gives reason to drop a freaking bomb on them.

The ends NEVER justify the means. Period.

Exactly.


Yes, because rape, murder, massacres, slaughter, and genocide would really help China. That make sense. You're right. In fact, the holocaust would have helped the Jews in the long run if we would let Hitler go through with it right? I mean, hey, it's good for the Jews to be afraid to go outside or to announce their heritage, or to worry about whether their house will be raided next week. Yup, that's right. That's a perfect argument there.


That is exactly right. Many Chinese people [the older generation] still carry hateful feelings towards Japan--in the same way many Jewish people feel towards Germany.


And Japan was trying to unite Asia, claiming to care, but the British occupied countries in Asia surrendered too easily, and this disgusted the Japanese.

Uniting Asia by what--brute force? Killing and slaughtering? They deserve to be disgusted and they deserve failure if that was the case.

[walkingcompilation]

It's politics. Japan wasn't going to surrender, so they had to be made to surrender. The bomb was horrible, but it happened, and i've said already that there was plenty of civilians dying in air raids before, so the bomb put a stop to that. Not good, but better than more fighting.

I have proof of how the bomb may have saved more than it killed. My grandpa served as a medic in the war. After the war was over in Europe they were going to send him to Japan to serve over there. But then the bomb was dropped and Japan surrendered soon after, so American, British, Japanese people were all saved.

[ADH093]

Actually, Eva, it wasn't a few people. You have to understand Japan was at the time a very isolated culture, and the whole country was run on the basis of honor. As Mac has said, Japanese civilians and soldiers alike killed themselves rather than face surrender.

[Empress Artisan]

Oh I see. Ok.

[The Old Fart]

Fine, but once a civilian takes it upon themselves to fight, they're a soldier.

I agree with you to a point. The problem is that whether we bombed a city or not, civilians were going to be affected. Whether it be from air raids on military targets within cities or during military maneuvers within the country. There were massive military targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don't like killing, but at the same time if the inevitable outcome of not doing it would have been countless lives that would have died--and not just soldiers, but civilians too--then I can see the reasons for doing it. I would hate to see another bomb dropped. So hopefully that never happens again...

And on a note of honor. Honor still has heavy emphasis in Japan today. They are probably the only society left that actually places honor above all else. Plenty business deals have gone sour with American business men because such men were considered dishonorable. Granted, the honor system has become somewhat lenient, but still.

[insekki]

It's not entirely true that Japan had no intention whatsoever of surrendering before the Atomic-bombings due to honour or any other reason. Japan's leaders had always wanted a negotiated settlement to the war. Their pre-war planning expected a rapid expansion, consolidation, eventual conflict with the United States and then a settlement in which they were able to retain at least some of the new territory they had conquered.

By spring 1945 it was clear they had lost and they knew it. Japan's leaders were in agreement that the war was going badly, but they disagreed over the best means to negotiate an end to it. There were two camps: the so-called "peace" camp, which favored a diplomatic initiative to persuade Joseph Stalin to mediate a settlement with the US; and the hard liners, who favored fighting one last "decisive" battle that would mead to one final military success, so that the US would be willing to offer more lenient terms.

It is true that when Admiral Suzuki Kantaro was first chosen to replace General Koiso Kuniaki as prime minister, his "Fundamental Policy" was to fight on, and to choose "honorable death of the hundred million" over surrender. However this idea was abandoned very quickly once he realised how weak Japan's position really was. On June 9th 1945 Foreign Minister Togo Shigenori was authorized to approach the Soviet Union, seeking to maintain its neutrality, or hopefully, to even form an alliance. On June 22, the Emperor summoned his chiefs of staff to a meeting. He said: "I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts made to implement them."
Japan also tried to send prince Konoe as a special envoy to the Soviet Union, but he was unable to reach Moscow before the Potsdam Decleration.
After the Potsdam Decleration, the reasons for Japan's delay in surrendring was mainly because they were waiting for a reply from Stalin before deciding how to deal with the ultimatum before them, it was not because they chose to reject it.
After Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima, at first Japan believed it to be a lie, and it took two days for the the damage reports to be completed. The supreme council met at 10:30 on the morning of August 9th. They were willing to accept the terms of potsdam, with one additional condition. As they were finalizing thier discussion and descision to finally surrender, the report came in regarding Fat Man and Nagasaki.

As for the whether or not the use of the A-bombs was justified, well I have my opinions, but I'm going to keep them to myself for now as I don't really feel like getting in to this at the moment. However I just wanted to clear this up.

[The Old Fart]

It's not entirely true that Japan had no intention whatsoever of surrendering before the Atomic-bombings due to honour or any other reason. Japan's leaders had always wanted a negotiated settlement to the war. Their pre-war planning expected a rapid expansion, consolidation, eventual conflict with the United States and then a settlement in which they were able to retain at least some of the new territory they had conquered.

They had no intention of surrendering under the terms of the U.S. Which was an unconditional surrender. To think they would be allowed to keep anything they stole after what they did to the U.S. is rather arrogant and selfish. But, then, all nations do things like that. :glare:

By spring 1945 it was clear they had lost and they knew it. Japan's leaders were in agreement that the war was going badly, but they disagreed over the best means to negotiate an end to it. There were two camps: the so-called "peace" camp, which favored a diplomatic initiative to persuade Joseph Stalin to mediate a settlement with the US; and the hard liners, who favored fighting one last "decisive" battle that would mead to one final military success, so that the US would be willing to offer more lenient terms.

It is true that when Admiral Suzuki Kantaro was first chosen to replace General Koiso Kuniaki as prime minister, his "Fundamental Policy" was to fight on, and to choose "honorable death of the hundred million" over surrender. However this idea was abandoned very quickly once he realised how weak Japan's position really was. On June 9th 1945 Foreign Minister Togo Shigenori was authorized to approach the Soviet Union, seeking to maintain its neutrality, or hopefully, to even form an alliance. On June 22, the Emperor summoned his chiefs of staff to a meeting. He said: "I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts made to implement them."
Japan also tried to send prince Konoe as a special envoy to the Soviet Union, but he was unable to reach Moscow before the Potsdam Decleration.
After the Potsdam Decleration, the reasons for Japan's delay in surrendring was mainly because they were waiting for a reply from Stalin before deciding how to deal with the ultimatum before them, it was not because they chose to reject it.
After Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima, at first Japan believed it to be a lie, and it took two days for the the damage reports to be completed. The supreme council met at 10:30 on the morning of August 9th. They were willing to accept the terms of potsdam, with one additional condition. As they were finalizing thier discussiona dn descision to finally surrender, the report came in about Fat Man and Nagasaki.

As for the whether or not the use of the A-bombs was justified, well I have my opinions, but I'm going to keep them to myself for now as I don't really feel like getting in to this at the moment. However I just wanted to clear this up.[/QUOTE]

Some of your information seems a little shaky. I'm wondering where you acquired it from. This isn't an attack on you, but I would like to know the source. I say this because it was Suzuki who made the statement on the 9th of June in 1945 that Japan would not accept the terms of surrender by the U.S.--which were unconditional--and would rather fight to the end. Shortly after that Japan began to resist. From that point on, since they were going to lose, resistance failed in the Philippines (June 18) and Okinawa (June 22). Togo also was one of the proponents for accepting the unconditional surrender...I dunno, just seems fuzzy. I'm finding lots of conflicting information on this particular point in history which suggest to me that perhaps there isn't a clear indication as to what happened and when.
But I can see many of your other points, especially in regards to Potsdam and the Soviet Union. Though I think the Soviet Union's declaration of war against Japan only made the possibility of unconditional surrender more difficult...