Do you think nuking Japan was a necessary evil?

[zorothusian]

Considering they were already suing for peace several months before the bomb was dropped it wouldn't result in the death of millions.

They weren't suing for peace they approached the Soviet Union about it but never asked for peace or peace terms. The Soviet Union didn't pass this along why cause they promised the Untied States that after the war in the west they would attack Japan.

[Project 501D13R]

But why was a mainland invasion necessary. They're an island and their air force and navy were pretty much crushed by that point. It's not like they were going to march their army across the pacific or anything.

The thing was they didn't surrender, their plan was to rebuild that navy and air force, then try again.
And yes, that plan completely ignored that they were basically out of oil at that point to wage war with.

[Bollocks]

It was necessary but it was NOT evil. It saved American lives by ending a brutal war with an enemy that was committing horrible atrocities against women and POWs. We should be thankful and proud that America ended such brutality in such a convincing manner.

They were already going to surrender, soviet invasion on one hand and american invasion on the other, Japan had no chance and civil pressure grew. The only reason America decided to end the war in such an abrupt way was to intimidate Soviets and restrict their power in the peace conventions.

[Collegeguy]

They were already going to surrender, soviet invasion on one hand and american invasion on the other, Japan had no chance and civil pressure grew. The only reason America decided to end the war in such an abrupt way was to intimidate Soviets and restrict their power in the peace conventions.

Agreed, would have been better if Japan was divided up like Germany.

[PACOX]

They were already going to surrender, soviet invasion on one hand and american invasion on the other, Japan had no chance and civil pressure grew. The only reason America decided to end the war in such an abrupt way was to intimidate Soviets and restrict their power in the peace conventions.

So you would rather have had a partially Soviet Japan vs 2 bombs that amounted to your average bombing runs?

[Fencers]

Except there were multiple high ranking officials of the USA saying the bombs were unnecessary.

That doesn't mean they were correct, a particular course of action was preferable or that they had the authority to make the final decision.

Can't go back in time.

[Independent voter]

When the Emperor declared he was going to surrender, members of the Japanese military lead a rebellion against him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident

They were led by this guy



They failed but it proves that even after two nukes, Japan wasn't 100% into surrendering, maybe just 51%.

[Deleted]

The real question is, how did it become normal to bomb cities, isn't it? When did cities become military targets as a whole, just because there were factories in them? Look at what other cities in Japan suffered during the time. 50'000 deaths or more were common even for conventional bombings.

I'm not legitimating the atomic bombings, they were a war crime, full stop. But I think the whole context of WWII was insane, so the actions were insane. It's much more worrying to me that some crackpots even discussed the use of nuclear weapons in Korea in the 50's.

The effects of radiation are, in my opinion, a bit exaggerated, or at least dominated by the effects of burnings. But I would be interested in proper literature on this.

[ringpriest]

The real question is, how did it become normal to bomb cities, isn't it? When did cities become military targets as a whole, just because there were factories in them? Look at what other cities in Japan suffered during the time. 50'000 deaths or more were common even for conventional bombings.

I'm not legitimating the atomic bombings, they were a war crime, full stop. But I think the whole context of WWII was insane, so the actions were insane. It's much more worrying to me that some crackpots even discussed the use of nuclear weapons in Korea in the 50's.

"I destroyed and tore down and burned with fire the city (and) it houses, from its foundations to its parapets. I tore out the inner and outer walls, temples, the ziggurat of brick and earth, as many as there were, and threw them into the Arahu river. I dug canals through the city and flooded its place with water, destroying the structure of its foundation. I made its devastation greater than that of “the Flood.” So that in future days, the site of that city, its temples and its gods, would not be identifiable, I completely destroyed it with water and annihilated it like inundated territory."
-Sennacherib: The Capture and Destruction of Babylon, over 2700 years ago.

It's been "normal" as long as their have been cities - from Troy, Babylon and Nineveh to Dreden, Hiroshima, and Ramadi - but generally speaking, it is a net loss to civilization; when cities are destroyed, only chaos and suffering win.

[Crispin]

Ofcourse not, they're is no excuse for dropping nukes on cities and Obama should have brought an apology, but in the end the nature of how the allied bombed Germany in Dresden f.ex and in the end Japan was despicable, and I fail to see how it changed anything.

[Zoldor]

Was it a necessary evil? Judging from a seat decades later, it depends on what you mean. Was it necessary to end the war? No, probably not at all. Was it something done to prove a point and changed the course of history? Probably, but that is insanely hard to judge. More than likely the US or Russia was going to drop one at some point. The reason we don't drop them now or didn't there after beyond testing is basically the "Oh, fuck, what have we done factor." Without foreseeing an alternate future where they don't get dropped in WWII we have no idea when and where them being dropped would have happened and what the repercussions of that would have been.

Necessary evil is false term used by folks who make choices that have horrific outcomes to justify those actions. In this case, do I think one or two would have been dropped somewhere else on another group of people, yes. Do I know what that would have meant for the world or the reaction it would have caused, no. Can I say that doing it to one group is better than another, no. It is evil to slaughter that many people, no matter the reason. Who knows what would have happened had one been dropped at a time when the other side or someone else also had the ability to do the same.

In my eyes it is a no win situation. It will always be a horrifically evil act. That there is no feasible reason for, in reality we shouldn't be bombing cities in mass to begin with. Let alone with bombs of that caliber. Humanity should be better. And as others have said when this occurs no one wins and only civilization looses.

[EliWallach]

So you're faced with a decision. End the war in a few weeks or let it drag on at the cost of hundreds or thousands of American soldiers, even without an invasion. In addition, the continued bombing of Japan's largest cities would likely kill tens of thousands of civilians anyway. What do you do?

[Rooflesstoofless]

A country that was trying to negotiate peace...

They should have tried harder.

[Deletedaccount1]

Of course it was completely justified. It wasn't even close to the worst thing done on either side. Liberals will say American needs to apologize to Japan meanwhile Japan still denies the historical accuracy of comfort women.

[turboether]

Populist anti-war support owes a lot to the bombs for its popularity. It made people sit up and notice, for the better. It is a much cleaner and simpler example to demonize than the raping and pillaging of East and South-East Asia by the Imperial Japanese regime at the time, at least.

[Karnak]

Yes.

It saved about 1 million American and British lives and about 10 million Japanese lives. At least those were the estimated costs in lives of an invasion of Japan. It also saved Japan from being split into a Allied controlled "South Japan" and Soviet controlled "North Japan".

It also gave us a preview of the horrors of nuclear warfare without us and the Soviets chucking hundreds of bombs at each other in '63. Perhaps gave Kruschev and Kennedy more reasons to avoid doing so.

[Deleted]

Of course it was completely justified. It wasn't even close to the worst thing done on either side. Liberals will say American needs to apologize to Japan meanwhile Japan still denies the historical accuracy of comfort women.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35188135

"Japan has apologised and will pay 1bn yen ($8.3m, £5.6m) - the amount South Korea asked for - to fund victim" "Only 46 former "comfort women" are still alive in South Korea."

So evrything is completely justified as long sombady else do worse things?

- - - Updated - - -

They should have tried harder.

Quit hard to negotiate a peace then it go like this,

-we want to negotiated a surrender.
-unconditional surrender or nothing.

The irony is that US did accepted a negotiated surrender in the end, Japan did negotiated the right to keep there emperor after the bombs.

[Vurdah]

those things are not related

Unless you really believe that there are people who are like "daddy died in Iraq today, but I'm neither sad nor angry cause its a regular justified part of war yaaaay"

This is exactly how your statements sound. As if it is just a regular justified part of war. That is what I said and what I was pointing out. So your comprehension skills are lacking. I've never used my ignore button in the six years I've been on MMO Champ but in the last 24 hours I have ran into two really dens mofos who I don't think it is worth to ever talk to again. Sad day.

[delus]

War is an unpleasant thing. No one gets out of it without some blood on their hands. The Japanese are responsible for many atrocities themselves including the rape of Nanking and Unit 731.

[Deleted]

War is an unpleasant thing. No one gets out of it without some blood on their hands. The Japanese are responsible for many atrocities themselves including the rape of Nanking and Unit 731.

So whats your argument? War is very unpleasant thing? or its justified to do atrocities as long as you do not surpasses the enemy?