Do you think nuking Japan was a necessary evil?

[tj119]

I didn't say it was unusual, I said it is morally unthinkable and unjustifiable in my opinion. I am welcoming you to provide evidence to the contrary, which I am still awaiting. It is probably inevitable that large wars will continue to be fought as you say, but for the betterment of our species, we should work together to steer clear of that. That is my argument.

unfortunately, morals are meaningless in this world. Trust, I understand where you are coming from and I would love nothing more than for a peaceful world where we can politically solve all issues without race, wealth, land and religion wars. But I'm a realist before anything, and this world is an evil place and sadly will not be changing soon. There is no argument, only the truth, this world sucks and is controlled by people and governments that benefit from war. We are just the middle men who truly don't mean much, and the farther technology goes, the more difficult it becomes for the middle and lower class man to overcome the powerful.

Honestly, I don't think there is truly any "bettering" our society when it comes to peace, cultures, religion, race, it all clashes and causes too many problems. I dislike it just as much as you do. But like you said, it is inevitable.

[Laerrus]

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.

It's good that he didn't, we should not have to apologize for our Grandparent's dropping those nukes and neither should Japan for the atrocities that their elders committed (Nanking, Pearl Harbor, etc.). Most of the people from that generation are either dead or confined to a wheelchair by now, it's not your fault nor is it the fault of the average Japanese Citizen.

I still believe it was necessary. Let's continue to learn from it and move on.

[tj119]

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.

The normality came with a win the war at all cost attitude. Seriously...what do 100,000 Japanese citizens mean to the U.S. government, nothing. Government officials and top military personnel would sacrifice as many of our own soldiers as it takes to win a war if it adds to their own personal gain. Whether it be financially or just establishing dominance as the top dog, most powerful military.

[Forogil]

The discussion was about the explosive power of nuclear fuel.

There are indications that part of problem in Chernobyl was a partial nuclear explosion of nuclear fuel, but just equivalent to 10 tons of TNT, not 10,000 tons as in these nuclear bombs, and 10,000,000 tons (or more) as in fusion bombs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherno..._and_explosion

(And remember that Xenon poisoning is bad.)

[Paklaaji]

Then you are totally fucking clueless about the insidious, indiscriminate and fascistic nature of deaths caused by radiation contamination.

insidious, indiscriminate and fascistic

Holy buzzwords batman!

A side effect is a side effect. Big deal. It`s no better or worse than all the fires and shrapnel damage caused by ordinary bombing runs.

- - - Updated - - -

This is categorically false. The Japanese had been suing for peace since May. This is part of public record.

Not really.

The first argument was initially supported by available historical evidence, including the idea that Emperor Hirohito was opposed to the war, and had decided to compel capitulation before the bombing. Later, historical study found a more complex reality. Hirohito had not opposed the attack on Pearl Harbor. Nor had Hirohito decided to capitulate. There were some advisors who felt it was necessary, but they were marginal.

The thinking in July 1945 was still that Japan must find a way to win a victory over U.S. forces, and set the stage for a negotiated settlement. The battle of Okinawa, at which the kamikaze strategy was introduced, was an attempt to create that victory. The Japanese leadership saw a battle on Kyushu in Japan, where the Japanese expected a landing and where a landing was planned, as another opportunity to inflict that defeat.

The Japanese were not yet stripped of either air power or ground forces. In Okinawa, they had demonstrated the effectiveness of kamikaze, and on Kyushu they intended to inflict massive casualties to induce the Americans to negotiate. Given that they were defending their homeland against occupation, this was not an irrational hope, and contrary to myth, the Japanese were not yet without the capabilities needed. It is true that submarine warfare had cut the line of supply but there was still enough military strength in Japan for this final battle.

Recall that Tokyo was decimated and this did not induce a Japanese surrender. There were advocates for surrender but some were killed by extremist officers who were threatening a coup if surrender was considered. Remember also that the U.S. was wary of Japanese diplomatic initiatives. The Japanese might use the time they gained to prepare an attack. Pearl Harbor was attacked in the midst of such an initiative. This initiative was so indirect and vague that it could not be assumed that Japan was seriously engaging in diplomacy. Plus, the initiative rejected unconditional surrender, which was the basis of Allied war-making strategy.

The Japanese may have been on the verge of defeat but the Japanese leadership, including the emperor, didn’t accept that premise. And at the same time, as the final act was being played out, the war in China still raged. For example, in March 1945, while the U.S. was shaping its war plans, Japan’s China Expeditionary Army – a group within the Japanese military – launched a massive offensive in China between the Yellow and Yangtze rivers, hoping to capture U.S. airbases. In all Japanese offensives in China, the number of Chinese deaths were horrendous due to Japanese warfighting doctrine. China lost approximately 14 million in the war against Japan. It is impossible to calculate the casualties in this offensive, but based on a conservative estimate, 100,000 dead in a month of offensives is not out of the question.

You can claim ''but they were totally serious about it!'' only with the hindsight. The Japaense at the time were cheating, lying, scumbagging cunts who used tactics the Americans previously hadn`t experienced. They were seen as irrational. And they were treated as irrational actors.

[Deleted]

It wasn't necessary, but it's really anchored in the spirits of Occidental population that it was. So nowadays, most people think it was justified (Just look at the poll).

[Forogil]

Who said country? It destroyed 90% of Hiroshima though!
http://www.world-nuclear.org/informa...ns-testin.aspx

There is always some that says "drop a few nukes and destroy country X", or just posting a picture of a large crater in the middle east with text "problem solved".
Nuclear bombs are not that powerful.

For Hiroshima the meaning of the cited 90% destruction of city is unclear, estimates are that less 50% of the population was killed (immediately or before the end of 1945) and 70% of the buildings were destroyed. The numbers are lower for Nagasaki due to the hilly nature of the city.
Doesn't make it better for the ones included in those percentages.

[Wikko]

While it might have been necessary at the time to stop the war, I dont understand why Obama and the US wouldn't apologize now for the deaths of the innocent. It doesnt automatically make the bombing not necessary etc.

[Guaricana]

I imagine if it had been Russia's nuking of Japan, it would have been blamed by US badly. Even now Russia is blamed by US and Europe for saving thousands of lives in Crimea from civil war in Ukrane which is obviously the most important thing in the Crimean story. But when it comes to US nuking the civilians at the time when WWII outcome is already decided they say it was necessary and people really believe that. Jeez, that US propaganda works really well!

[Paklaaji]

While it might have been necessary at the time to stop the war, I dont understand why Obama and the US wouldn't apologize now for the deaths of the innocent. It doesnt automatically make the bombing not necessary etc.

After the Japanese apologize for their behaviour in all of the occupied regions of Asia at the time - China, Korea and elsewhere.
And their treatment of PoW`s.

[PACOX]

What bothers me the most about this question (which comes up a lot) is how people try to demonize the US as if Japan innocent country caught in a war with the US. Japan at the time was literally the eastern equivalent of Nazi Germany. Japan had its way with the Pacific and had horrific programs that rivaled Germany's in terms of the sick shit they did to people. Japan sailed across the Pacific and decided to enter the US into the war. Japan brainwashed/forced its citizens/soldiers to take up a no surrender/suicidal doctrine. Japan chose to prolong the lost war. Japan thought the US was bluffing after the first bomb. Lets not forget that Japan was the aggressor in the Pacific theater.

People seem to have a hard time equating the Anime Empire to WW2 Japan.

[Paklaaji]

Jeez, that US propaganda works really well!

Your ''what if`s'' are irrelevant.
And I truly have no idea what you mean with the phrase I quoted.

US took a shortcut to ending the war. Best case scenario, it would`ve been another ''rush to the Berlin'' with of allies soldiers, Japanese and the Chinese dying for no good reason. Worst case scenario you would have Soviet occupation of Japan and seeing how that worked out for the countries that were under the Sovier rule, thank fuck it didn`t happen.

- - - Updated - - -

Lets not forget that Japan was the aggressor in the Pacific theater.

And the fact that at the time when they attacked Pearl Harbour, there were courting the Americans for ''peaceful resolution of the problem'' which turned out to be nothing but a distraction/deception tactic.

As I said - they were seen as irrational actors. They were treated as irrational actors accordingly.

[Forogil]

what does starting a war have to do with anything.....

If a country is attacked it is seen as having the right to defend itself , so a war of (collective) self-defense is seen as justified. Thus it matters who starts the war.
UN charter article 51.
NATO article V.

However, WWI was a complete mess (including the assassination that started it) - Germany wasn't the first aggressor, but did attack France.

[tj119]

After the Japanese apologize for their behaviour in all of the occupied regions of Asia at the time - China, Korea and elsewhere And their treatment of PoW`s.

No sir, that's the U.S.'s fault too. We should apologize for how the Japanese did those evil things.

On a serious note, the past is the past. Apologies and I'm sorry are meaningless words. We have more than made up for what has happened with peace and acceptance with each other's cultures since. When I want to Japan I felt like a giant, I was treated wonderfully and on the streets of Tokyo and Osaka people practically flocked to me. Some thought I was some sort of athlete due to my height and tattoos, but they embrace Americans, as we do with them here. Apologies are words, they hold no weight.

[Paklaaji]

It amuses me how people argue that it`s less morally reprehensible to launch massive bombing raids, conventional ground attacks (and all that it entails) than a launch of single nuclear strike.

For f- sakes people, in a war where +60 million people died, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a rounding error.

[Deleted]

It's pretty obvious why Obama couldn't issue an apology for the Hiroshima attack. The discussion and indeed this entire thread is not something that can be trivialised to a "this was right" or "this was wrong" argument and I find it alarming that so many people attempt to do. All Obama could do was honour the victims and it was very symbolic that he was the first US president to do so.

[zhero]

While it might have been necessary at the time to stop the war, I dont understand why Obama and the US wouldn't apologize now for the deaths of the innocent. It doesnt automatically make the bombing not necessary etc.

why would you apologize for something you believe was necessary, that happened long before your time, when most of the people involved in it are dead?

[Macaquerie]

What bothers me the most about this question (which comes up a lot) is how people try to demonize the US as if Japan innocent country caught in a war with the US. Japan at the time was literally the eastern equivalent of Nazi Germany. Japan had its way with the Pacific and had horrific programs that rivaled Germany's in terms of the sick shit they did to people. Japan sailed across the Pacific and decided to enter the US into the war. Japan brainwashed/forced its citizens/soldiers to take up a no surrender/suicidal doctrine. Japan chose to prolong the lost war. Japan thought the US was bluffing after the first bomb. Lets not forget that Japan was the aggressor in the Pacific theater.

People seem to have a hard time equating the Anime Empire to WW2 Japan.

The irony is that the peaceful, cutesy, oddball image we have of modern Japan would likely never have developed at all if not for the atomic bomb. The bombings made sure that there was not going to be any peace with honor, any saving face, or any glorious suicidal last stand for the Japanese, and sent the strongest message possible that any continued militarism on their part would result in complete annihilation. This paradoxically was probably the best thing to ever happen to Japan, just think about all the things that they have managed to achieve in the 70 years since that would never have been possible if they had held on to that aggressive, fascistic attitude of the past.

[Deleted]

If a country is attacked it is seen as having the right to defend itself , so a war of (collective) self-defense is seen as justified. Thus it matters who starts the war.

Which would entirely justify ISIS given Iraq was invaded by the US and the regime subsequently installed began a campaign of genocide against the Sunni regions where ISIS draws strength.
You want to be very fucking careful about justifying atrocities like this.

[Paklaaji]

the regime subsequently installed began a campaign of genocide against the Sunni regions where ISIS draws strength.

You fucking liar.

al-Maliki was elected by the Iraqis. He`s the one who went full retard mode, alienating majority of the country.
If anything, he was the least favourite candidate,politician that Washington had to deal with in Iraq since al-Yawer.