Do you think nuking Japan was a necessary evil?

[YUPPIE]

After witnessing Obama (whom I despise) set foot into Hiroshima presumably to simply to assert his American might seeing how he made no apology or feel any real remorse, coupled with the responses of other Americans, this old topic came to mind again. Was nuking Japan necessary? I mean for how we demonize the act in one end, other Americans would remind you that Japan was ax-crazy during those times and we forced them into a surrender that saved more lives.

[Polyxo]

I think given the analysis from pretty much all of the US's military leadership at the time, probably not.

[Khadgar]

Obviously yes, it ultimately saved hundreds of thousands of lives by preventing a Japan mainland invasion from the US, it also stopped a Japan mainland invasion by the Soviet Union, which would've only made things worse as well.

[NineSpine]

After witnessing Obama (whom I despise) set foot into Hiroshima presumably to simply to assert his American might seeing how he made no apology or feel any real remorse, coupled with the responses of other Americans, this old topic came to mind again. Was nuking Japan necessary? I mean for how we demonize the act in one end, other Americans would remind you that Japan was ax-crazy during those times and we forced them into a surrender that saved more lives.

The idea that it would save lives was not rooted in reality. It was the opinion of a couple of people. Most prominent among whose who disagreed is obviously Eisenhower, who thought it was unnecessary. In reality, the wholesale destruction of a city was not new. The bomb was definitely scary due to it's mystique, but numerous cities had similar levels of destruction through just firebombing. Japan was more concerned about the threat of land invasion from Russia, which was looming as Russia had just broken it's non-aggression pact with them. It's very clear that the dropping of the bombs was rushed to get done before Japan surrendered anyway.

[Endus]

I think given the analysis from pretty much all of the US's military leadership at the time, probably not.

Pretty much this. They had intelligence at the time they were making this decision that the Japanese Government was seeing the military party lose ground, and surrender was almost certain. It was just a matter of time, waiting for the political pressures to play out, a matter of weeks. The possibility of a land invasion of Japan proper was basically not going to happen either way.

Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was more about demonstrating to Stalin that the Americans had beaten them to nuclear technology, since Russia had started to flex its muscles by then, than for any military objective in the WWII theater itself.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

"Assert his American might???" wtf????

[Baneth]

After witnessing Obama (whom I despise) set foot into Hiroshima presumably to simply to assert his American might seeing how he made no apology or feel any real remorse

having an opinion is one thing, but don't let it cloud your judgement.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/201.../#.V0ievJErK00

Bit of A long article, but details what was said and discussed during his visit as the first US president to visit hiroshima.

Also an interesting video on this very subject:
https://youtu.be/30xQFNEn-DQ

Do I think that it was necessary at the time? Short answer: yes.

Do I believe that there were other options that could have the same outcome? Also yes. However, it would have undoubtedly cost the lives of 10's of thousands of American troops, possibly even 100's of thousands. Coupled with the fact that the political and current borders of today would not have existed as they currently do, due to outside (non US and Japanese) forces working in and around the asiatic region.

All this aside - I do feel remorse and regret for the outrageous loss of life lost in the war, and hope that no other conflict in the future comes close to the devastation wrought from nuclear conflict.

[NineSpine]

Obviously yes, it ultimately saved hundreds of thousands of lives by preventing a Japan mainland invasion from the US, it also stopped a Japan mainland invasion by the Soviet Union, which would've only made things worse as well.

Japan was not going to fight through a full scale land invasion. The notion that they would is rooted in the racist caricature of the Japanese as mindless savages that was prominent during the war. It wasn't really based on reality.

[Endus]

Japan was not going to fight through a full scale land invasion. The notion that they would is rooted in the racist caricature of the Japanese as mindless savages that was prominent during the war. It wasn't really based on reality.

And ignores the increasing clamor of the Japanese civil population who were demanding the government surrender, at the time. The only party pushing for war in the Japanese government was the military party, and they were steadily, and swiftly, losing ground. And the Americans in charge of the decision to launch the bombs knew this, at the time.

[YUPPIE]

"Assert his American might???" wtf????

sometimes you have to further intimidate your subjects to remind them who is in charge...

[nox597]

Cracked has an interesting theory on this...

http://www.cracked.com/article_19120...-world_p2.html

[Cradyz]

Incoming Americans claiming the nukes were the sole thing that ended the war. They weren't and I don't think they were necessary. Yes, Japanese culture was centered around ultimate dovotion of life and death to the semi-divine emperor. Yes, an invasion of the mainland would probably result in millions of death as the Japanese would rather die than submit or get killed in the advance. But in 1945 what the regular citizen and soldier may have done didn't matter.

Tokyo was a burning pile of ash, more people died there alone than in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Japanese navy and airforce were gone and the government could for a long time not decide what to do. The Japanese government was split right down the middle between the doves who wanted the war to end and the hawkes who wanted to fight whether Japan would win or not. The bombings continued and the government was split, the nukes dropped and the government was split, the soviets invaded japanese manchuria and the government remained split. Only then did the emperor intervene and made the deciding vote in favour for peace ( he had to deal with an attempted coup because of it).

The Japanese had to deal with the obstructionist hawkes and the question of accepting unconditional surrender from the allies or keep the war going and push for better terms. The soviet invasion ended that discussion. All in all the nukes were dropped at a point in which Japan was allready going to surrender. The question was when and on what terms. The soviet invasion made that clear, the emperor recognised that and peace was made with the Allies.

So yeah the nukes contributed as much as the fire bombings did, but I think the soviet invasion is what made the Japanese surrender happen earlier.

[NineSpine]

And ignores the increasing clamor of the Japanese civil population who were demanding the government surrender, at the time. The only party pushing for war in the Japanese government was the military party, and they were steadily, and swiftly, losing ground. And the Americans in charge of the decision to launch the bombs knew this, at the time.

All correct, and the Emperor was only conceding ground to that military because he was afraid of a coup. Again, this notion of unity among the Japanese is rooted in those same caricatures I referenced.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

sometimes you have to further intimidate your subjects to remind them who is in charge...

I don't think your thoughts are based in reality.

[Uzkin]

No, mass-murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians is wrong pretty much under any circumstances.

[Endus]

All correct, and the Emperor was only conceding ground to that military because he was afraid of a coup. Again, this notion of unity among the Japanese is rooted in those same caricatures I referenced.

Right.

I don't know that I'd go so far as to say that dropping the bombs was the "wrong thing to do", but the arguments as to whether it was justified has a lot more to do with Russia than with Japan.

[Narwal]

It's impossible to know how many people would die if the war were to continue. People can speculate all they want, but without allowing that path to go to fruition, we can't say. The bomb did do what it set out to do, end the war with a known cost, which we speculated would save more lives than the decision to proceed with the war as usual.

The question of morality is a tough one. Would it be moral to go back in time and kill a serial murderer when they were a child, while they were innocent? Is it moral to kill someone with a deadly disease who is trying to break their quarantine and enter the general public putting them in danger? Is morality simply a numbers game? Is it always moral to choose the decision that results in the least amount of damage in the whole view of things?

[Dreknar20]

seeing how he made no apology or feel any real remorse

what reason would he need to apologize or feel remorse?

If your at war with Japan your whole purpose is to kill Japanese.

[NineSpine]

No, mass-murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians is wrong pretty much under any circumstances.

Let's imagine for a moment that some group the U.S. warred with did the same. For example, the U.S. has taken part in overthrowing numerous democratically elected governments. Imagine one of them did the same, nuking San Francisco and New York. Americans would teach it as the day we were unlawfully terrorized by maniacs.

- - - Updated - - -

what reason would he need to apologize or feel remorse?

If your at war with Japan your whole purpose is to kill Japanese.

No, that isn't the purpose of war. That was the purpose of Nazis going to war though, which makes your comment ironic and amusingly ignorant.

[Daymanmb]

Absolutely not. It was only good to strike fear in and kill citizens and assume control as a world power.

- - - Updated - - -

If your at war with Japan your whole purpose is to kill Japanese.

So youre okay with slaughtering civilians? Bet the Vietnam war was a good one for you too, huh?