why Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

[smrund]

see this is my point exactly... think all the atrocities are bad instead of seeing one atrocity as horrible while another was good or just a necessary evil >_> Its just rationalizing and cognitive dissonance

"good" and "necessary" are not the same. One is a moral judgement. The other is a strategic one.

If A achieved B and therefore C was achieved, then A was a "necessary" or at least strategically sound move.

If A was a bad thing but brought about a good thing which led to an even better thing, that's a personal judgement call.

"good" and "bad" aren't rationalizing, they're moralizing.

[Purlina]

If A was a bad thing but brought about a good thing which led to an even better thing, that's a personal judgement call.

I would say that A would still be "bad" despite whatever "good" it creates / causes

But yes good, and bad is subjective and based on ones code of morality

In my case I consider mass murder of civilians bad, and doubt that there will ever a situation where it is justifiable. (In my eyes)

[NineSpine]

The U.S. knew that Russia was gearing up for a full scale land invasion of Japan. There is absolutely no ethical reason the United States couldn't wait two weeks to see what effect this would have on the Japanese government. The U.S. government knew that they would lose their chance to show their weapon off if Japan surrendered, which was definitely a possibility. You can blather on all day about the possible casualty figures of a U.S. land invasion (which were grotesquely overestimated anyway), but the reality is that dropping the bombs AFTER seeing if the threat of Russia would cause a surrender would have had the same effect. There is absolutely NO excuse for not allowing that possibility to exhaust itself first. The slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people is not truly justifiable as even a last resort, but to rush it when there are other options is pure evil, no matter how you spin it.

[smrund]

The U.S. knew that Russia was gearing up for a full scale land invasion of Japan. There is absolutely no ethical reason the United States couldn't wait two weeks to see what effect this would have on the Japanese government. The U.S. government knew that they would lose their chance to show their weapon off if Japan surrendered, which was definitely a possibility. You can blather on all day about the possible casualty figures of a U.S. land invasion (which were grotesquely overestimated anyway), but the reality is that dropping the bombs AFTER seeing if the threat of Russia would cause a surrender would have had the same effect. There is absolutely NO excuse for not allowing that possibility to exhaust itself first. The slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people is not truly justifiable as even a last resort, but to rush it when there are other options is pure evil, no matter how you spin it.

Why do people keep bringing ethics into this? This is moralizing, it's an irrational judgement call based on personal opinion.

The US wanted a speedy end to the war and therefore needed an unconditional surrender from Japan. They dropped a nuclear bomb, checked how Japan reacted and given the results were promising but not what they wanted, they dropped another a few days later. Japan surrendered unconditionally.

Did A(the bombing) achieve B(the unconditional surrender)? Yes. Did B achieve C(the end the war)? Yes.
Therefore the bombing was effective.

We could debate the morality of the bombing till the cows come home, but suggesting that it was a less effective because you disagreed with the methods is a very poor line of reasoning.

[Senathor]

The American government didn't plan and execute the destruction of those cities becuase they wanted to annihilate people. They did it becuase Japan was becoming increasingly aggresive and could potentionally launch missiles them selfs to destroy American cities. They had to show them that they had the means to cause the nation great harm. After the first bomb they still didn't surrender, after the second one they did. America just wanted to show them that the Japanese empire was the underdog in that particular case. The bombs were not used to kill people, becuase obviously they would've sent them to a more popuated area. They simply had to do what they did.

Also, the title shouldn't be "why Hiroshima or Nagasaki", it should be "Why Hiroshima and Nagasaki" as both of them actually got bombed. I thought every school in the developed world teached this. Do they not?

[smrund]

The American government didn't plan and execute the destruction of those cities becuase they wanted to annihilate people. They did it becuase Japan was becoming increasingly aggresive and could potentionally launch missiles them selfs to destroy American cities. They had to show them that they had the means to cause the nation great harm. After the first bomb they still didn't surrender, after the second one they did. America just wanted to show them that the Japanese empire was the underdog in that particular case. The bombs were not used to kill people, becuase obviously they would've sent them to a more popuated area. They simply had to do what they did.

Also, the title shouldn't be "why Hiroshima or Nagasaki", it should be "Why Hiroshima and Nagasaki" as both of them actually got bombed. I thought every school in the developed world teached this. Do they not?

LOLWHUT.

Japan, or ANY nation for that matter didn't have "missiles" that could reach across the ocean. Not to mention, NOBODY had nuclear weapons at the time EXCEPT America. The technology for ICBMs wasn't even developed until after WWII when many ex-Nazi scientists came to work for the major powers in the world.

[NineSpine]

Why do people keep bringing ethics into this? This is moralizing, it's an irrational judgement call based on personal opinion.

The US wanted a speedy end to the war and therefore needed an unconditional surrender from Japan. They dropped a nuclear bomb, checked how Japan reacted and given the results were promising but not what they wanted, they dropped another a few days later. Japan surrendered unconditionally.

Did A(the bombing) achieve B(the unconditional surrender)? Yes. Did B achieve C(the end the war)? Yes.
Therefore the bombing was effective.

We could debate the morality of the bombing till the cows come home, but suggesting that it was a less effective because you disagreed with the methods is a very poor line of reasoning.

I didn't question it's effectiveness. I questioned it's necessity.

[Purlina]

Why do people keep bringing ethics into this? This is moralizing, it's an irrational judgement call based on personal opinion.

The US wanted a speedy end to the war and therefore needed an unconditional surrender from Japan. They dropped a nuclear bomb, checked how Japan reacted and given the results were promising but not what they wanted, they dropped another a few days later. Japan surrendered unconditionally.

Did A(the bombing) achieve B(the unconditional surrender)? Yes. Did B achieve C(the end the war)? Yes.
Therefore the bombing was effective.

We could debate the morality of the bombing till the cows come home, but suggesting that it was a less effective because you disagreed with the methods is a very poor line of reasoning.

If we are only talking about logic then yes, it was a logical way for the US to end the war with minimum casualties on their end.

But then again suicide bombings / gorilla warfare / terror tactics is also logical when your country's army is vastly outnumbered & outgunned.

[smrund]

If we are only talking about logic then yes, it was a logical way for the US to end the war with minimum casualties on their end.

But then again suicide bombings / gorilla warfare is also logical when your country's army is vastly outnumbered & outgunned.

Sure, and they were highly effective when the USA was having it's revolution. Though I think in the long run, suicide attacks largely targeted at the civilian populace are counterproductive. It may erode support for your enemy, but it is unlikely to engender your enemy's allies(whom you are targeting) to become your friends, at least not friends who won't stab you in the back first chance they get.

I didn't question it's effectiveness. I questioned it's necessity.

Your statement questioned it's rationale on the basis that we should have seen how an invading Russian army would have dealt with things. I think we'd seen how well invading Russians worked in Eastern Europe at the fall of Germany(which was significantly before the fall of Japan). We KNEW what would happen if the USSR invaded Japan. Many words in your post question it's efficacy as a tactic though a moral lens.

[NineSpine]

Sure, and they were highly effective when the USA was having it's revolution. Though I think in the long run, suicide attacks largely targeted at the civilian populace are counterproductive. It may erode support for your enemy, but it is unlikely to engender your enemy's allies(whom you are targeting) to become your friends, at least not friends who won't stab you in the back first chance they get.

9/11 was wildly successful based on bin Laden's stated goals.

Your statement questioned it's rationale on the basis that we should have seen how an invading Russian army would have dealt with things. I think we'd seen how well invading Russians worked in Eastern Europe at the fall of Germany(which was significantly before the fall of Japan). We KNEW what would happen if the USSR invaded Japan. Many words in your post question it's efficacy as a tactic though a moral lens.

That's not what I said. I said they should have waited to see if the imminent threat of Russian land invasion would have caused a surrender, which it likely would have.

[Purlina]

Sure, and they were highly effective when the USA was having it's revolution. Though I think in the long run, suicide attacks largely targeted at the civilian populace are counterproductive. It may erode support for your enemy, but it is unlikely to engender your enemy's allies(whom you are targeting) to become your friends, at least not friends who won't stab you in the back first chance they get.

I was also referring to the kamikaze attacks which several people seemed to have an issue with

[smrund]

That's not what I said. I said they should have waited to see if the imminent threat of Russian land invasion would have caused a surrender, which it likely would have.

I find that doubtful, considering the "personality" of the Japanese at the time and how long the USSR spent on Germany's Eastern Front before the Western Front was even opened. Beyond that, we knew that the USSR wasn't going to "threaten" to invade, it just would. A Soviet occupied Japan(begin moralizing) was seen as a worse outcome than an American one.

Considering what happened to Eastern Europe at the hands of Stalin and the USSR, I think if we're looking at the "big picture" in hindsight, a Soviet-occupied Japan would have been a much worse outcome, both for international politics throughout the next few decades and for the Japanese people.

[Purlina]

Also I am curious as to what the result would have been if another country obtained nuclear bombs instead of the US.

Would we see the same support & opposition for using the weapon if a different country had the capability of doing so?

Japan using it on the US for example?

[smrund]

Also I am curious as to what the result would have been if another country obtained nuclear bombs instead of the US.

Would we see the same support & opposition for using the weapon if a different country had the capability of doing so?

Japan using it on the US for example?

Assuming they won. Victors do write history.

[Therdin]

I certainly think they should have hit hard military targets rather than cities at first. While no one claiming that war crimes were committed, the intentional targeting of civilian targets is not something i can endorse.

In war hard choices have to be made, we have the benefit of never seeing a real full blow war. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq are but drops in the bucket compared to the unimaginable horror of living during world war I and II. There was a constant fear of axis powers taking over the world, not some dictator being a dick in his homeland, we are taking about global domination. Saving lives meant killing or demoralizing your enemy so much they would shudder at the mere mention of your military might.

America didn't want to risk japan trying this shit again a few years later, not to mention the fact America was still pretty pissed off at japans unprovoked attack on pearl harbor. How do you accomplish this? You have nukes, do you bomb a military target, or a civilian one?

Well Japan bombed pearl harbor, a military target, with what result? It Galvanized America and as such the U.S Joined in World War II
Here America had a bomb that, at the time, held unimaginable power. In an effort to demoralize Japan so badly that they would never try a stunt like pearl harbor again, and to send a clear message to the rest of the world; The U.S chose to target 2 cities for both it's military importance and it's Civilian demoralization. The point didn't sink in with the first Nuke, so America a few days later sent the same message to another city. That got the point across, and japan surrendered.

one of the greatest quotes about war came from around this time came from Bertrand Russell: "War doesn't determine who's right - only who's left."

We have the privileged of of looking back and scrutinizing those peoples decisions. We weren't there, we weren't generals who sent thousands of boys to die a bloody horrible death, we weren't in the trenches in the blood and the guts. We didn't sit in fox holes scared out of our minds at an enemy that did not fear death, and would kill you anyway they could. We didn't watch our friends get burned alive, blow into a thousand pieces, or shot to death. We can sit and talk about the moral outrage of targeting a city, because we weren't there at the time. We have zero emotional investment in that decision. Something NO ONE living at that time had.

[Purlina]

Assuming they won. Victors do write history.

Actually now I am curious as to what they write in Japan's history books >.<

Hehe...

[NineSpine]

I find that doubtful, considering the "personality" of the Japanese at the time and how long the USSR spent on Germany's Eastern Front before the Western Front was even opened. Beyond that, we knew that the USSR wasn't going to "threaten" to invade, it just would. A Soviet occupied Japan(begin moralizing) was seen as a worse outcome than an American one.

Considering what happened to Eastern Europe at the hands of Stalin and the USSR, I think if we're looking at the "big picture" in hindsight, a Soviet-occupied Japan would have been a much worse outcome, both for international politics throughout the next few decades and for the Japanese people.

The "personality of Japan" thing is a racist meme from WWII propaganda that somehow stuck. It is not and was never true. The idea that the Japanese people were some unique brand of bloodthirsty, ultra-nationalistic savages is bogus. Their soldiers surrendered in the same fashion European soldiers did when beaten. The difference was minor at best. The cases of soldiers or civilians fighting to the death and refusing to ever surrender were overblown and the same thing happened sometimes in Europe.

Russia had agreed not to attack Japan. We knew that they were going to break this pact and invade Manchuria (a Japanese territory) but chose to drop the first bomb THREE DAYS before Russia invaded, and the second the same day, instead of simply waiting three days for the invasion to happen (which it was going to either way) to see how Japan would react. Even if the chances were only 10% that this would cause Japan to surrender, it is fundamentally *evil* (not just wrong, or immoral, but EVIL) to rush the dropping of the bomb at that point.

Even if it was GRANTED that Russia would somehow occupy the entire nation of Japan mere moments after taking Manchuria (which is ludicrous) it is STILL fundamentally evil to slaughter hundreds of thousands of people simply to prevent another nation from taking Japan, no matter what that nation is.

[smrund]

The "personality of Japan" thing is a racist meme from WWII propaganda that somehow stuck. It is not and was never true. The idea that the Japanese people were some unique brand of bloodthirsty, ultra-nationalistic savages is bogus. Their soldiers surrendered in the same fashion European soldiers did when beaten. The difference was minor at best. The cases of soldiers or civilians fighting to the death and refusing to ever surrender were overblown and the same thing happened sometimes in Europe.

I was simply referring to a "fight to the end" mentality. None of that silly other stuff, but again, if it's little different than any other nation, we should take a good look at what happened to Eastern Germany.

Russia had agreed not to attack Japan. We knew that they were going to break this pact and invade Manchuria (a Japanese territory) but chose to drop the first bomb THREE DAYS before Russia invaded, and the second the same day, instead of simply waiting three days for the invasion to happen (which it was going to either way) to see how Japan would react. Even if the chances were only 10% that this would cause Japan to surrender, it is fundamentally *evil* (not just wrong, or immoral, but EVIL) to rush the dropping of the bomb at that point.

But you're failing to look at the larger picture here. We KNEW what the USSR would do once it got a foothold in Manchuria and Japan. I don't believe that you can moralize the claim that we took a strategic move to prevent a nation(the USSR) who we knew wasn't truly an ally as an evil thing. Even the idea that you are attempting to portray it as such a moralistic thing is just...mind boggling.

Even if it was GRANTED that Russia would somehow occupy the entire nation of Japan mere moments after taking Manchuria (which is ludicrous) it is STILL fundamentally evil to slaughter hundreds of thousands of people simply to prevent another nation from taking Japan, no matter what that nation is.

The USSR was closer and had more troops, the FACT that they would be able to occupy Japan faster than we could even get there if we waited is obvious. The USSR was NOT an ally in anything other than name only, for all intents and purposes it can be readily argued that the atomic bombings were a sound strategic move to prevent an aggressive foreign power from conquering another country. If Britain had bombed Dresden into the ground when Hitler demanded the Sudetenland WWII might have never gotten off the ground. The fact that Japan was a front for the USA and the USA and USSR were not true allies, a Soviet invasion of the Japanese mainland could have led to a continuation of the war but now between two world powers. Stopping the Soviet spread at the time was just as important as stopping Hitler should have been seen by the European powers back in '39.

Actually now I am curious as to what they write in Japan's history books >.<

Hehe...

If you ever think American textbooks are bad, don't say I didn't warn you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanes..._controversies

It isn't pretty and how out many government officials are about is rather disturbing.

[dan828]

Maybe the wanted to send a message that they weren't afraid to harm innocent civilians(plus they were pissed about Pearl Harbor). /shrug

The firebombing campaign that had been going on for some time had already told them that.

[NineSpine]

I was simply referring to a "fight to the end" mentality. None of that silly other stuff, but again, if it's little different than any other nation, we should take a good look at what happened to Eastern Germany.


But you're failing to look at the larger picture here. We KNEW what the USSR would do once it got a foothold in Manchuria and Japan. I don't believe that you can moralize the claim that we took a strategic move to prevent a nation(the USSR) who we knew wasn't truly an ally as an evil thing. Even the idea that you are attempting to portray it as such a moralistic thing is just...mind boggling.


The USSR was closer and had more troops, the FACT that they would be able to occupy Japan faster than we could even get there if we waited is obvious. The USSR was NOT an ally in anything other than name only, for all intents and purposes it can be readily argued that the atomic bombings were a sound strategic move to prevent an aggressive foreign power from conquering another country. If Britain had bombed Dresden into the ground when Hitler demanded the Sudetenland WWII might have never gotten off the ground. The fact that Japan was a front for the USA and the USA and USSR were not true allies, a Soviet invasion of the Japanese mainland could have led to a continuation of the war but now between two world powers. Stopping the Soviet spread at the time was just as important as stopping Hitler should have been seen by the European powers back in '39.



If you ever think American textbooks are bad, don't say I didn't warn you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanes..._controversies

It isn't pretty and how out many government officials are about is rather disturbing.

The idea that you can just declare the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people to be above moral judgement is just mind boggling and nonsensical.

The USSR was going to invade Manchuria *no matter what we did*. They DID take Manchuria. Our bombing didn't prevent that and nobody thought it would. The question is whether it was right to not wait five days to see how Japan reacted. it wasn't right. It was evil.