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 ]

[Herobane]

I think that nuclear weapons should never be used. Ever. I would rather have invaded Japan.

On the other hand though, we needed that demonstration to show how horrible nuclear weapons are... Hmmm.... Now I'm confused... :S

[Sahandrian]

I Was A Revolutionary

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.

Wanna bet?

[Tettsure]

Herobane

I think that nuclear weapons should never be used. Ever. I would rather have invaded Japan.

On the other hand though, we needed that demonstration to show how horrible nuclear weapons are... Hmmm.... Now I'm confused... :S

You know they were using B-29 bombings as propaganda against the US to show how evil they were and were training and arming citizens with weapons (mostly spears), even children, hoping the US would choose such a maneuver and throw their entire population as an infantry force. Such an event may have further devastated Japan's population seeing they were prepared to fight to the the death if such an option was chosen.
And apparently I cannot find clear links that address Japanese propaganda.
But here's one stating arming of citizens

http://meshappsychology.blogspot.com/2008/09/dropping-atomic-bomb-on-japan-was-act.html

[Herobane]

Tettsure

Herobane

I think that nuclear weapons should never be used. Ever. I would rather have invaded Japan.

On the other hand though, we needed that demonstration to show how horrible nuclear weapons are... Hmmm.... Now I'm confused... :S

You know they were using B-29 bombings as propaganda against the US to show how evil they were and were training and arming citizens with weapons (mostly spears), even children, hoping the US would choose such a maneuver and throw their entire population as an infantry force. Such an event may have further devastated Japan's population seeing they were prepared to fight to the the death if such an option was chosen.
And apparently I cannot find clear links that address Japanese propaganda.
But here's one stating arming of citizens

http://meshappsychology.blogspot.com/2008/09/dropping-atomic-bomb-on-japan-was-act.html

That strikes me as being a point to their devotion over the US. Besides, tactically they hardly even count. It's not like they'd've been much of an obstacle to overcome.

Edit: Cool link by the way, thanks for that!

[Tettsure]

Herobane

Tettsure

Herobane

I think that nuclear weapons should never be used. Ever. I would rather have invaded Japan.

On the other hand though, we needed that demonstration to show how horrible nuclear weapons are... Hmmm.... Now I'm confused... :S

You know they were using B-29 bombings as propaganda against the US to show how evil they were and were training and arming citizens with weapons (mostly spears), even children, hoping the US would choose such a maneuver and throw their entire population as an infantry force. Such an event may have further devastated Japan's population seeing they were prepared to fight to the the death if such an option was chosen.
And apparently I cannot find clear links that address Japanese propaganda.
But here's one stating arming of citizens

http://meshappsychology.blogspot.com/2008/09/dropping-atomic-bomb-on-japan-was-act.html

That strikes me as being a point to their devotion over the US. Besides, tactically they hardly even count. It's not like they'd've been much of an obstacle to overcome.

Edit: Cool link by the way, thanks for that!

The US would not have much to overcome, but the war would have been longer which would lead to more deaths and either side seeing they would may have very likely used their citizens as soldiers and may have induced more damage upon Japan whom was hoping such an action was taken and may very well have sacrificed many (since the island as a whole would be invaded) lives before coming to a peace settlement. Though, it is very likely continued B-29 bombing would have brought surrender and led to less devastation than invasion and atomic bombing.

[Sir_Huma]

Herobane

Tettsure

Herobane

I think that nuclear weapons should never be used. Ever. I would rather have invaded Japan.

On the other hand though, we needed that demonstration to show how horrible nuclear weapons are... Hmmm.... Now I'm confused... :S

You know they were using B-29 bombings as propaganda against the US to show how evil they were and were training and arming citizens with weapons (mostly spears), even children, hoping the US would choose such a maneuver and throw their entire population as an infantry force. Such an event may have further devastated Japan's population seeing they were prepared to fight to the the death if such an option was chosen.
And apparently I cannot find clear links that address Japanese propaganda.
But here's one stating arming of citizens

http://meshappsychology.blogspot.com/2008/09/dropping-atomic-bomb-on-japan-was-act.html

That strikes me as being a point to their devotion over the US. Besides, tactically they hardly even count. It's not like they'd've been much of an obstacle to overcome.

Edit: Cool link by the way, thanks for that!

There wasn't an obstacle to overcome at all.

He's what happened basically.

The U.S. had Japan surrounded. Their forces were stuck, unable to harm the U.S. Their navy defeated. Seeing a loss, and wanting to save lives, the Japanese agreed to surrender. They had one condition, that their emperor remain. He was the only one who was able to restrain the hardcore military officials who wanted the war to continue, and he was their "god". The U.S. declined, pushing for an unconditional surrender. They then dropped the two atomic bombs. After the bombings the U.S. accepted the Japanese conditional surrender anyways.

[pockybot]

1. So why didnt the US drop the atomic bomb on the military?
2. Why did the US let go the masterminds of the horrific Unit 731, Nanking, Baton, and other war crimes events?
3. If Germany had been the ones to do Pearl Harbor, you people think for a second that the US would have put all German/German looking people in camps? Hardly
4. How come noone brings up the just as insidious Tokyo Firebombing and other raids on innocent Japanese?

[John Ryder]

Herobane

On the other hand though, we needed that demonstration to show how horrible nuclear weapons are... Hmmm.... Now I'm confused... :S

The Japanese could just have been invited to the Trinity test. Enough to scare the s**t out of anyone.

Edit: Although the Atomic Energy Council at that time was headed by rather nefarious and paranoid people. They figured that revealing the atomic bomb through means of a test would push the Japanese and Germans to either start or accellerate their own bomb projects rather than just scare them. At that time, they had no other bombs and would have had to bluff that there were more.

[John Ryder]

pockybot

1. So why didnt the US drop the atomic bomb on the military?

Bah, I can't seem to find the section of my book where Truman and (the then) General Eisenhower discuss how and where it should be used... I'll keep looking though.

Quote:

4. How come noone brings up the just as insidious Tokyo Firebombing and other raids on innocent Japanese?

"I remember Mr. Stimson [the secretary of war] saying to me," Oppenheimer later remarked, "that he thought it appalling that there should be no protest over the air raids which we were conducting against Japan, which in the case of Tokyo led to such extraordinarily heavy loss of life. He didn't say that the air strikes shouldn't be carried on, but he did think there was something wrong with a country where no one questioned that..."

[FleetingChevalier]

THe A-bomb drop is less shocking when you put it into context with the firebombing campaign by USAF against Japanese cities, or more to the point deliberately targeting cities with icendiaries for the explicit purpose of igniting wooden buildings which made up the majority of structures in 1940's Japan.

The A-bomb is infamous more so for the destruction caused instantly rather than in scale, plus the horrific after-effects of radiation, but when the massive and sustained campaign of firebombing on all major cities throughout the course of the war is also taken into account it's hardly shocking to think the US would use atomic bombs, after burning Japanese alive for three years.

[Sparatcus]

Herobane

I think that nuclear weapons should never be used. Ever. I would rather have invaded Japan.

And dragged the war out an indeterminate number of years. I'd rather just under 200,000 (Both bombs combined) deaths, than a couple million on both sides.

It just makes numerical sense to me, I dont know

200,000 < 2,000,0000

[John Ryder]

Sparatcus

And dragged the war out an indeterminate number of years. I'd rather just under 200,000 (Both bombs combined) deaths, than a couple million on both sides.

It just makes numerical sense to me, I dont know

200,000 < 2,000,0000

It was widely known that Japan was very close to surrendering anyway. It was less about Japan and more about showing Russia that the US had the nuke.

[Sparatcus]

John Ryder

Sparatcus

And dragged the war out an indeterminate number of years. I'd rather just under 200,000 (Both bombs combined) deaths, than a couple million on both sides.

It just makes numerical sense to me, I dont know

200,000 < 2,000,0000

It was widely known that Japan was very close to surrendering anyway. It was less about Japan and more about showing Russia that the US had the nuke.

Yes yes conspiracy conspiracy. It had nothing to do with, oh, lets say
America pulled off one D-Day against all odds, invading Japan would involve the same luck
The whole world had had enough of this war
It was a war, who cares about the "enemy", millions were dead, America wrapped the war up nice and quickly. They cared about their own numbers, not the Japanese's

And finally
It's been done. You can b***h all you want about OH MAN AMERICA DID THE WRONG THING THEY ARE TERRIBLE THEY ALWAYS HAVE BEEN, but it was a different time, with different values, and you can't apply hindsight to it while at the same time being fair to the people of the time

[John Ryder]

Sparatcus

Yes yes conspiracy conspiracy. It had nothing to do with, oh, lets say
America pulled off one D-Day against all odds, invading Japan would involve the same luck
The whole world had had enough of this war
It was a war, who cares about the "enemy", millions were dead, America wrapped the war up nice and quickly. They cared about their own numbers, not the Japanese's

And finally
It's been done. You can b***h all you want about OH MAN AMERICA DID THE WRONG THING THEY ARE TERRIBLE THEY ALWAYS HAVE BEEN, but it was a different time, with different values, and you can't apply hindsight to it while at the same time being fair to the people of the time

Conspiracy? There are transcripts between Truman and his generals in which they discussed the surrender of Japan and whether the bomb/invasion was even needed. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's historical fact that you can find in any library.

And at what point did I even suggest that I didn't agree with the bombing?

[CommandoDude]

holdingontobelieve

- 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.

Anyone who says this is a bald faced lier and does not understand the 40's Japanese psych.

EDIT: While the Japanese Emporer pushed for a surrender. The military hardliners were in control of Japan. Not the Emporer, and pushed to keep the war going. The entire populace was brainwashed with propoganda and ready to die, or commit suicide, rather then surrender.