The Decision to Drop: WWII Atomic Bomb

Was it the right decision?

Yes, it was a neccessity.	31.4%	[ 38 ]
No, it was immoral.	26.4%	[ 32 ]
It was immoral BUT a neccesity.	31.4%	[ 38 ]
On the fence.	10.7%	[ 13 ]
Total Votes:			[ 121 ]

[Tettsure]

YAYrunrunrunoops

well we were the ones who brought japan out of its policy of isolation. we forced them then and forced them again in WWII with weapons and attacks. i think its kind of our fault. besides, there are some cultural differences that we both need to understand.

How did we force Japan out of isolation in WW2? Though we may have known of PH, we did not force them to issue attacks and lead to their involvement in the war.

[ratrapid]

Tettsure

YAYrunrunrunoops

well we were the ones who brought japan out of its policy of isolation. we forced them then and forced them again in WWII with weapons and attacks. i think its kind of our fault. besides, there are some cultural differences that we both need to understand.

How did we force Japan out of isolation in WW2? Though we may have known of PH, we did not force them to issue attacks and lead to their involvement in the war.

True but that's not what we're discussing. Your younger brother might steal your chocolate but you wouldn't chop his arm of.

[Tettsure]

ratrapid

Tettsure

YAYrunrunrunoops

well we were the ones who brought japan out of its policy of isolation. we forced them then and forced them again in WWII with weapons and attacks. i think its kind of our fault. besides, there are some cultural differences that we both need to understand.

How did we force Japan out of isolation in WW2? Though we may have known of PH, we did not force them to issue attacks and lead to their involvement in the war.

True but that's not what we're discussing. Your younger brother might steal your chocolate but you wouldn't chop his arm of.

Oh, I've already said my piece on the issue of the nuclear bomb. I was specifically addressing a part of her post.

[Jed Dye]

Tettsure

mistercombine

Tettsure

mistercombine

Well, let me put it in perspective. Compared to the millions of lives lost, both Military and Civilian, during the entire course of the war, nearly Two Hundred thousand people is nothing. It was neccissary, also, because the projected Allied casualties for X-Day (The Invasion of main land Japan) was close to a Million and a Half. Think about it.

Combine, Huma said something about continued airbombing being effective. If so, why then would they decide an invasion of Japan if they were going to surrender and the bombings would just eventually bring about surrender, while invasion would lead to more causalities?

Considering the fact that they were not about to surrender, they had two options, drop the bomb and minimalize casualties on both sides, or invade and let the death toll continue to mount.

I thought many army high ranking army officials, such as Eisenhower, stated that Japan was ready to surrender, that they asked for surrender, but the US refused. Or did they only say they were going to in the sense that they may surrender due to being surrounded?

the U.S. refused due to unconfirmed reports that japan was faking the surrender and was planning yet another suprise attack. they asked for surrender hoping we would put our guard down.

[willneverhurtagain]

they were warned but we didn't need to bomb civilians... that was dirty warfare. pearl harbor was bad yes but the populous there were indeed in the military or atleast associated with it. oh and our excuse for dropping them "we didn't know they would created such devastation" "we thought they were duds" ^^

[Tettsure]

Dakota Engage

Tettsure

mistercombine

Tettsure

mistercombine

Well, let me put it in perspective. Compared to the millions of lives lost, both Military and Civilian, during the entire course of the war, nearly Two Hundred thousand people is nothing. It was neccissary, also, because the projected Allied casualties for X-Day (The Invasion of main land Japan) was close to a Million and a Half. Think about it.

Combine, Huma said something about continued airbombing being effective. If so, why then would they decide an invasion of Japan if they were going to surrender and the bombings would just eventually bring about surrender, while invasion would lead to more causalities?

Considering the fact that they were not about to surrender, they had two options, drop the bomb and minimalize casualties on both sides, or invade and let the death toll continue to mount.

I thought many army high ranking army officials, such as Eisenhower, stated that Japan was ready to surrender, that they asked for surrender, but the US refused. Or did they only say they were going to in the sense that they may surrender due to being surrounded?

the U.S. refused due to unconfirmed reports that japan was faking the surrender and was planning yet another suprise attack. they asked for surrender hoping we would put our guard down.

I'm not too sure on that for it seems the B-29 bombing combined with the first atomic bomb is what made Japan ask for surrender, but they wanted an unconditional surrender for Japan asked to surrender as long as they kept the emperor (one of the people preventing the war type people in the cabinet from continuing the attacks), but due to the desire for unconditional surrender, sent the 2nd bomb. That is what forced Japan to just surrender and let the US decide on the conditions, though the conditions set by US were exactly what Japan had asked for the first time. Actually, wasn't their army at home drastically hindered by the B-29 bombings?

[Tettsure]

willneverhurtagain

they were warned but we didn't need to bomb civilians... that was dirty warfare. pearl harbor was bad yes but the populous there were indeed in the military or atleast associated with it. oh and our excuse for dropping them "we didn't know they would created such devastation" "we thought they were duds" ^^

They really did not know of the true devastation the first bomb would bring, the tests only revealed really the radius of the explosion and the effect on buildings, and that was really it. A test can only show so much in some cases.

[Jed Dye]

Tettsure

Dakota Engage

Tettsure

mistercombine

Tettsure

mistercombine

Well, let me put it in perspective. Compared to the millions of lives lost, both Military and Civilian, during the entire course of the war, nearly Two Hundred thousand people is nothing. It was neccissary, also, because the projected Allied casualties for X-Day (The Invasion of main land Japan) was close to a Million and a Half. Think about it.

Combine, Huma said something about continued airbombing being effective. If so, why then would they decide an invasion of Japan if they were going to surrender and the bombings would just eventually bring about surrender, while invasion would lead to more causalities?

Considering the fact that they were not about to surrender, they had two options, drop the bomb and minimalize casualties on both sides, or invade and let the death toll continue to mount.

I thought many army high ranking army officials, such as Eisenhower, stated that Japan was ready to surrender, that they asked for surrender, but the US refused. Or did they only say they were going to in the sense that they may surrender due to being surrounded?

the U.S. refused due to unconfirmed reports that japan was faking the surrender and was planning yet another suprise attack. they asked for surrender hoping we would put our guard down.

I'm not too sure on that for it seems the B-29 bombing combined with the first atomic bomb is what made Japan ask for surrender, but they wanted an unconditional surrender for Japan asked to surrender as long as they kept the emperor (one of the people preventing the war type people in the cabinet from continuing the attacks), but due to the desire for unconditional surrender, sent the 2nd bomb. That is what forced Japan to just surrender and let the US decide on the conditions, though the conditions set by US were exactly what Japan had asked for the first time. Actually, wasn't their army at home drastically hindered by the B-29 bombings?

well considering the initial radius of the explosion + plus the radiation given off after it i think that could be correct. and you said you werent sure about what i said? think about it: japanese warfare was very based on trickery and surprise, which worked very well for them, and because of that why wouldnt they try to pull a stunt to try and trick us again? "ruses and feints were extensively employed"

[pockybot]

If the Tokyo Firebombings, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were "justified"...

Then I guess the 9/11 attacks, Bush's "Shock and Awe" bombing campaign in Iraq,
and the Oklahoma City Bombing were also "justified".

[Thousand years of Ween]

pockybot

If the Tokyo Firebombings, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were "justified"...

Then I guess the 9/11 attacks, Bush's "Shock and Awe" bombing campaign in Iraq,
and the Oklahoma City Bombing were also "justified".

Like a broken record rolleyes

[Mobilize For War]

On the one hand, I could see the logic behind using the bombs. However, given that we'd already firebombed them to hell and back and that the nukes would NEVER have been used against a white nation, even Germany, I have to say they were unnecessary.

[PC Zombie Troll]

I can understand why they dropped the first nuke, but dropping the second one was certainly overkill. For the first one no one was sure what it would do, how big the explosion would be et cetera. When they dropped the second one they knew. They knew and they dropped it in civilian heavy areas. It was overkill.

[False Dichotomy]

holdingontobelieve

Here's an interesting topic for all of you history buffs out there. (Or people who enjoy moral debates. wink )


The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuclear attacks near the end of World War II against the Empire of Japan by the United States at the executive order of U.S. President Harry Truman.
The bombs killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945. Since then, thousands more have died from injuries or illness attributed to exposure to radiation released by the bombs.

- Those who argue in favor of the decision to drop the bombs generally assert that they caused the Japanese surrender, preventing massive casualties on both sides in the planned invasion of Japan. That they had to cause mass panic to get the Japanese people who'd been brainwashed to surender.

- Those who argue against the decision to drop the bombs characterize them as inherently immoral, crimes against humanity, and state terrorism. They may also argue that they were militarily unnecessary, claiming that Japan was going to surrender anyway.


Once again I'm asking my fellow Gaians. xp What's your opinion?
The bombings gave a speedy end to the war and was much safer than an invasion. But what was the cost? Thousands of civilian lives. Mothers, daughters, children... the list goes on.
...Does the end justify the means? How far can we go to ensure our own security?

JAPAN DIDN'T SURRENDER AFTER THE FIRST BOMB. They weren't gonna surrender without a second one.

Now I will grant that dropping that bomb on CIVILIANS was morally wrong. The bad side was that if it were dropped on a military base, the true extent of it's damage would not be shown.

The US basically said "We can and will wipe your tiny little country off the face of the Earth if you continue this war."

It did not take 1 bomb for them to surrender, it took a second one before they understood the first one wasn't a "rash decision".


(btw, making sure, but you do realize there was significant time inbetween the 2 bombs for the government to decide surrender was their best choice, right? Japan sent no messages to the US. No peace was even considered.)

[Tettsure]

Dakota Engage

Tettsure

Dakota Engage

Tettsure

mistercombine

Considering the fact that they were not about to surrender, they had two options, drop the bomb and minimalize casualties on both sides, or invade and let the death toll continue to mount.

I thought many army high ranking army officials, such as Eisenhower, stated that Japan was ready to surrender, that they asked for surrender, but the US refused. Or did they only say they were going to in the sense that they may surrender due to being surrounded?

the U.S. refused due to unconfirmed reports that japan was faking the surrender and was planning yet another suprise attack. they asked for surrender hoping we would put our guard down.

I'm not too sure on that for it seems the B-29 bombing combined with the first atomic bomb is what made Japan ask for surrender, but they wanted an unconditional surrender for Japan asked to surrender as long as they kept the emperor (one of the people preventing the war type people in the cabinet from continuing the attacks), but due to the desire for unconditional surrender, sent the 2nd bomb. That is what forced Japan to just surrender and let the US decide on the conditions, though the conditions set by US were exactly what Japan had asked for the first time. Actually, wasn't their army at home drastically hindered by the B-29 bombings?

well considering the initial radius of the explosion + plus the radiation given off after it i think that could be correct. and you said you werent sure about what i said? think about it: japanese warfare was very based on trickery and surprise, which worked very well for them, and because of that why wouldnt they try to pull a stunt to try and trick us again? "ruses and feints were extensively employed"

From what I have read that B-29 bombings leading to the beginning of seeking peace negotiations with the US and the fact after the first atomic bomb, they only were willing to surrender as long as they were able to maintain their Emperor and that the B-29 bombings performed tremendous damage on their industry and especially their military based at home, why would they not seek to try an under-handed move after the 2nd bomb? Simply because of its sheer power and fear of such a weapon that they had seen before and were scared of a 3rd launching?

[SoulSalvage]

♠The dropping of the bombs was, while not a neccesity, better than the other option.♠