why Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

[Sunseeker]

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?

[Sunseeker]

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.

[Sunseeker]

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.

[Linaver]

I was not nation bashing. I was generation bashing. All of them in fact.

Nobody came out on a white horse in shining armor out of that war. War crimes were commited by all sides, they always are.

Japan, I don't even know what they wanted. Glory I guess.

Russia wanted a bigger piece for itself. Well, dictatorial leaders who were not elected but appointed by those who took the power by force. You want to know how much USSR lost in this war? 11 million military deaths and 16 million civilian deaths. In contrast 6 million jews were killed. United States lost just over 400k soldiers with practially no civilian deaths. It left a huge scar on the country that is still there today, I never knew either of my grandparents or my grandmother because of this. And despite all this I am first to admit that USSR leaders knew of Germany's invasion plans of europe. We practially made an agreement not to interfere. Because there was greed. And when Germany started seeing USSR as a potential threat there was no hesitation to go to war. It was like when two wolves who hunted together went to kill each other when there was no more prey.

Germany? Same idea, crazy nationalism enforced by the top leaders overcame all common sense and caused the worst of humanity to come out.

USA? Did you ever notice how late you entered into the war? So what happened when Germany was invaiding countries and commiting crimes against humanity? You sold weapons and armor to all sides. To Japan, to Russia, to England, to Germany. A huge part of why you prospered after the war was because of how much money you've made with so little losses. USA ONLY entered the war when Germany started sinking your merchant ships that were delivering goods to England. You started to lose profit. You know why you never hear about this? Because no one told you. Not one country admitted to it's own faults (except perhaps Germany in present times, oh the irony). In every single country Nationalism and Patriotism overcame all common sense. Because then your government can do whatever it wants to and you will wholeheartedly support it. Every single country in WW2 called upon patriotism making sure their people saw their side as the side of the truth.

There were no good guys or good decision made in WW2. It was a war. That's what a war is.

[Therdin]

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.

It is fundamentally wrong to engage in war, it is wrong to kill people. War is wrong, Period! You are just blowing smoke up your own ass trying to argue who was more wrong >.>

[dan828]

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

Hehe...

My understanding is, that for the most part, Japanese children are not taught much about WW2 at all. I remember reading of a poll done a few years ago (sorry, no source, just an anecdote) that not only did most Japanese teens not know about WW2, many were shocked to discover that the US and Japan had ever fought a war.

[Therdin]

There were no good guys or good decision made in WW2. It was a war. That's what a war is.

Exactly like I said a couple pages back

war does not decide who is right - only who is left

[Sunseeker]

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.

I'm not saying it's above moral judgement.

I'm saying using a moral judgement to analyze the efficacy of the tactic is pointless because morality is OPINION. You can't rationally debate the advantages or disadvantages of morality because it's MORALITY and that shit ain't absolute.

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.

Why is that the question? Why are we even asking about morals? Was the bombing an EFFECTIVE tactic? Yes, or no. Did it achieve our stated goals? Yes or no?

Moral? Oh a lot of shit in war is immoral. Hell war by nature is immoral. The whole thing from day one was immoral.

[NineSpine]

It is fundamentally wrong to engage in war, it is wrong to kill people. War is wrong, Period! You are just blowing smoke up your own ass trying to argue who was more wrong >.>

You have a right to defend yourself against imminent threats. That doesn't make it right to slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians because you percieve a possible threat on the horizon, somehow.

---------- Post added 2011-11-28 at 08:04 PM ----------

I'm not saying it's above moral judgement.

I'm saying using a moral judgement to analyze the efficacy of the tactic is pointless because morality is OPINION. You can't rationally debate the advantages or disadvantages of morality because it's MORALITY and that shit ain't absolute.


Why is that the question? Why are we even asking about morals? Was the bombing an EFFECTIVE tactic? Yes, or no. Did it achieve our stated goals? Yes or no?

Moral? Oh a lot of shit in war is immoral. Hell war by nature is immoral. The whole thing from day one was immoral.

That's nice. I didn't speak to the efficacy of dropping the bomb. If you don't like the topic of morality, don't speak to me about the subject.

[MasterOfNone]

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.

Huhwhat? Please do research on Russia before you make your rediculous accusation. Make sure it encompasses the ural mountains and where hitler came into this equation with pressure from that side.

[Deleted]

This is a good point, but I don't know that your analogies are quite right. What you are saying, is that if a bully punches you and it hurts, you should punch him back so it hurts more? I feel like this would only piss the bully off. The goal was not to make the bully mad, it was to make the bully cry (without killing him, mind you) to force respect.

While it was a harsh decision and I would argue that there may have been other options, hindsight is always 20/20. This was the safest option to keep the people of America safe. Who is to say the war would not have gone on to kill more than the 2 atomic bombs killed? War's a really hard thing; and the fact that the Japanese people did not necessarily even support the war makes it that much harder. But even still, from what I know the bombs ended the war, and in that saved lives. There's no way to tell how many.

To be more on topic, I believe as others have stated on why these two locations for the bombing: to show what kind of force we had in possession.

EDIT:


What was the initial purpose of Al Qaeda, and what was the purpose of the bombs? If you take an honest look, I believe one was to start a war and the other was to end one.

The Japanese embassador for peace was already negotiating a peace treaty (Full surrender I mind you) when the bombs dropped. Yeah Good job ending the war. And why these cities? To show the Soviets that nobody is safe. Simple act of terrorism.

[Therdin]

You have a right to defend yourself against imminent threats. That doesn't make it right to slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians because you percieve a possible threat on the horizon, somehow.

---------- Post added 2011-11-28 at 08:04 PM ----------



That's nice. I didn't speak to the efficacy of dropping the bomb. If you don't like the topic of morality, don't speak to me about the subject.

I dont think it's moral to defend yourself by taking a life at all, so ergo i'm better then you and you're evil. See what I did there

War is immoral & evil; Japan was evil for bombing pearl harbor, Germany was evil for invading poland and then the rest of europe, America was evil for going to war with both. blah blah blah blah blah and more blah. All three sides thought they were in the right, yet none of them where.

Evil deeds done by evil men to other evil people. You are once again arguing right and wrong in the case of war. there is no right in war, there is only wrong

[NineSpine]

Huhwhat? Please do research on Russia before you make your rediculous accusation. Make sure it encompasses the ural mountains and where hitler came into this equation with pressure from that side.

o rly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_...n_of_Manchuria

---------- Post added 2011-11-28 at 08:19 PM ----------

I dont think it's moral to defend yourself by taking a life at all, so ergo i'm better then you and you're evil. See what I did there

War is immoral & evil; Japan was evil for bombing pearl harbor, Germany was evil for invading poland and then the rest of europe, America was evil for going to war with both. blah blah blah blah blah and more blah. All three sides thought they were in the right, yet none of them where.

Evil deeds done by evil men to other evil people. You are once again arguing right and wrong in the case of war. there is no right in war, there is only wrong

Your attempt to automatically even the score because it's all war is weak and pointless. To infer that the British and the Germans who carried out the holocaust are on even ground is morally repugnant and a sad, sad effort to absolve your own country of responsibility.

[punkbusster]

At that point in time, a large majority of the American people supported the total annihilation of the Japanese, to the extent of genocide.

I think it was the other way around.

People forget even after the second bomb was dropped that the Japenese didn't surrender.

What made the empreror surrender was that we flew squadrons of B-29 over Japan as if to say, all these planes have bombs and if you don't surrender we will drop them. Also the invasion of Manchuria by teh Russians had a huge impact.

People also forget that the firebombing of Tokoyo was more horrific that the bomb and they still didn't surrender. They were that stubborn and if it wasn't for the stuborness the bomb would not have been dropped.

Learn your history you little uneducated morons.