Debate Atomic bombing of Japan in WW2

I believe that dropping an atomic bomb on Japan was morally wrong. However, America wanted the war to end as the casualties slowly rose and we feared a stronger Japanese offensive on America. We could of, however, at least informed the Japanese of the devastation caused by the atomic bomb and negotiate terms of the war.

 

Yes and no... yes because like other people said if we didn't imagine what the world would be like now and yes I also agree that we were getting back for pearl harbor... but no because that made us be the first country to use a nuclear weapon's on another country.

 

Although the morality of the bombing is often called into question it is much less discussed about the morality of the bombing of Pearl Harbour. Japan, in my opinion, brought the tradgedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki upon themselves. America was not involved in world war II until the attack of Pearl Harbour. Also, the Japanese government did not surrender after the bombing of Hiroshima. They were too proud and it is Japanese culture to fight until no one is left standing. Nagasaki was only to coerse the government further. WWII had already taken the lives of millions and America's rational at the time was to kill one to save one thousand. America also should not be held accountable for the Radiation Sickness caused by the bombs because they were unaware of it's devastating affects. The estimated power was only around a 2 mile radius, roughly 2 tons of dynamite. This did not happen though. Although they should have been better informed for the bombing of Nagasaki the bomb was made of a different core, Plutonium as opposed to Uranium. Also the Japanese government did not allow word of what happened to get out.

Directly after Nagasaki Hiro Hito (The Japanese ruler) still didn't surrender. It was not until weeks after that Japan finally surrendered.

It was mentioned above that the Japanese did not have nuclear technology;however, the Germans were the ones whom we stole the plans for the nuclear bomb from. The Germans and Japanese were both Axis powers therefore it would be reasonable to assume they had nuclear potential.

 

Well we needed to test it on someone lol.
Seriously though we save many more lives than if we had a land invasion and had to kill ALL of the Jappaneese because thats what they were willing to do to protect their homes. So the atomic bomb actualy saved lives if you get what im saying.

 

Just so you know, Hirohito, although the Emperor, was not in effective command of Japan. It was the Army and Navy generals/admirals that were in command. They were REMF (Rear echelon motherfuckers)

 

Although we did indeed steal the plans for nuclear technology from **** Germany (a la X-Wing), Hitler already was diverting the efforts of Weapons Technology R&D into just war effort. They had many incredibly weird, wacky, and powerful war technology, but after the initial surge of victories, Hitler felt it was slacken off from weapons development. Once he realized that the Allies were back on their feet and giving a stronger fight, he started weapons research again, but by that time it was too late.

 

I don't see how anyone could think it wasn't necessary.

The Japanese believed it better to die in war then to surrender, and every single Japanese citizen, civilian or military, would have fought tooth and nail until the end. That's the Japanese culture and the propaganda of the Japanese government.
From the point of view of American soldiers, the bomb was necessary reaction to Pearl Harbor and the cruel treatment of American POW's.

Operation Downfall was the name of the proposed invasion of the Japanese mainland.
It was assumed in the plan that the population would be "highly and fanatically hostile".
Estimations of fatalities included:
Joint Chiefs of Staff- 277,000 American Casualties - at least 50,000 more than the casualties of the atomic bombs, and this doesn't include Japanese casualties which would be much higher.
A study done for the Secretary of War estimated that there would be 400,000-800,000 American fatalities total, with 5-10 MILLION Japanese fatalities.

So, would you rather have 220,000 Japanese fatalities, or 5-10 million?
Or maybe 0 American fatalities compared to hundreds of thousands?

The Japanese "civilians" could not be considered as such, because all were told by propaganda to fight until death, and that they would not simply watch as the depleted Japanese military was overrun. No, they would fight. The women and children, and the old men, everyone.

Even from Japanese citizens today, I'm sure some would prefer the bomb, as it prevented any Soviet intervention and a situation similar to Germany, Korea, and Vietnam. As you can see with North Korea today, Soviet interfered nations aren't very stable, opposed to the economic prosperity of Japan today.

The reason some people might view the bombs as immoral and genocide is because the casualties happened so quickly, within seconds. However, MANY MORE casualties would have happened with other options, just over a longer period.

For those of you who think the second bomb wasn't necessary, the Japanese military rejected any chance of surrender after it was dropped, and they had 3 days to rescind the rejection. 3 days is enough to see the destruction.

 

1. While SOME may have been cooperative, that doesn't mean there weren't hostile citizens, as they were ordered to fight to save the "godlike" Emperor Hirohito. They were brainwashed by propaganda

2. What is the other option? Is God going to smite the Japanese?
Since the Japanese rejected surrender after the first bomb, there's no way they would surrender if we dropped a bomb off the coast of Japan

3. Would you rather have 220,000 of your people die, or 5-10 million? Tough decision there...

 

Yeah, we finished what they started. They attacked and killed hundreds at Pearl Harbor. The japanise werent going to give up so we had mo other choice other than to risk the lives of thousands of men. They got what they had coming.

 

USA's intelligence reports at the time depicted a Japan weakened by years of war in Asia abroad and firebombing by the US. They were going to surrender anyway. They were at the end of their ropes. The war couldn't have continued very much longer. The bombs were NOT a means to stop the war. It was practically already over. Japan had lost. The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were to send a message to Russia about the military might of the USA. They were dropped to justify the cost of making them. And, they were dropped to field test the carnage an atomic bomb could cause on a city. They were not the end of WWII. They were the start of the Cold War. Keep in mind, also, that the atomic bombs didn't do nearly as much damage or kill nearly as many people as the firebombing of Japanese cities that went on for ages during the war.

The attack on Pearl Harbour was planned and anticipated to get USA involvement in the war (as most Americans took an isolationist point of view and did not want to get involved) and break out of the depression - to make money. The troops at Pearl Harbour were set up in an undesirable position where planes could not be visible until it was too late - the General (I think) who was in charge of the troops at Pearl Harbour noticed an obvious flaw in the set-up of the troops but was fired from his position.

Sorry I could not find my sources but I'm not just making this up.

In general, there is a lot of deception and carnage involved in war. I don't know how war in general can be right, agreeing that dropping those bombs was necessary is like agreeing that killing thousands of innocent people is okay. If you want to blame anyone for the loss of American troops, blame USA itself. Both USA and Japan did their share of killing, deceptions, and several other war acts.

Edit: I like to look at both sides of the story, read between the lines. What you are taught in school history can be biased. American history books wouldn't talk about American losses or any war crimes they committed. They would not talk about victories of other countries. History books would only mention that Pearl Harbour was attack by Japan only because they wanted more land and power (selfish Japanese, Poor American's ambushed), but no mention of what USA did to make Japan attack them.

 

Well, that made the entire post irrelevant. But I'll argue some of it.

What, we stopped giving them oil and giving them supplies to attack US allies? How dare us.

So the war was basically over, even though after the first bomb was dropped the Japanese government rejected any idea of surrendering? Wow, they must of been really close. While there was little doubt that the US wouldn't have prevailed, the Japanese mainland invasion was the only other alternative that has been presented in this thread and that was considered at the time (as far as I know). The mainland invasion would have caused millions of more deaths on both sides, and perhaps wouldn't have led to the unconditional surrender of Japan. This unconditional surrender allowed for Gen. MacArthur and the US to rebuild Japan, which obviously played a huge part in the economic power and US ally that Japan is today.

 

That's just a conspiracy theory. I tend not to listen to these ideas because the only proof or evidence they have is just speculation or interpretations of events.

I believe that Japan bombed the U.S. because they knew that the U.S. was sending more supplies to the allies and Japan knew that eventually they (U.S.) would join the allies. So Japan decided to attack first and push the U.S. out of the pacific theater all the way back to Hawaii. This helped Japan gather as much resources for industry as the U.S. was busy building up their navy. Though in the end the American Industry out performed the Japanese Industry.
Source

 

You are partially correct. Hitler slowed arms research and development due to victories in Western Europe, but he never stopped them. Perhaps you are not familiar with the V1 and V2 Rockets and their existence in World War 2 as a very realistic threat, being the first ballistic missile ever created. See here. The major missile bases were located in the low countries, most notably those of Norway and the Netherlands, many of which had a large impact on the British outlook on the war, most immediately in the Battle of Britain. Anyhow, Hitler never slackened research development, he simply redirected forced labor and the funds of a very strained economy to better suit the needs of the Luftwaffe, the Wermacht, the Abwher, the Kriegsmarine, the Schutzstaffel (SS), the Gestapo (which had already absorbed the many branches of the German Security Force including the SS and the SA), and the Einsatzgruppen to name a few. You get the point; his foresight was limited and the demands of his multi-faceted war machine were high.

As to the original question posed, the bombing of Japan is a highly controversial issue. To use the terms right and wrong is a naive and uneducated approach. Perhaps justified and unjustified would better suit your argument, and that argument should most certainly be that the bombings were justified. Allow me to recount some facts of the War in the Pacific, a struggle that began with the surprise bombing of an American Naval Base in Hawaii known as Pearl Harbor. In and of itself, the absence of the entire aircraft carrier fleet during this tragedy makes it something speculated by historians to be one of the worst timed attacks in history for reasons outside of the blatant ineffectiveness of the attack, but I will not go into that. Before this assault, throughout the years 1931-1941, Japan had continuosly engaged in systematic interventions in East Asia. Interventions meaning attacks and brutal slaughterings in China, Korea and the Manchu Peninsula, and Southeast Asia. During this time period, the Rape of Nanjing occured as well as the use of Korean comfort women; the former a brutal slaughtering of nearly 60,000 Chinese civilians and the latter the forced prostitution of Korean birth for the satisfaction of the Imperial Army. The Japanese justified their actions by claiming they had the interests of Asia at heart and sought to establish a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Such atrocities are only a few among the campaign of Japanese aggression in the East but truly personify the attitudes of the Imperial army.

Later, hundreds of thousands of American Soldiers led by General Douglas McArthur and Admiral Nimitz perished fighting the Japan off the swampy, tropical islands of the South Pacific. The battles of Guadalcanal and Midway are two major historical encounters that symbolized the difference between the two powers at play. The Kamikaze and Banzai tactics of the Japanese versus the strategies of the American Navy. Furthermore, deep hatred and rivalries led to mistreatment of POW's and executions, both of which violated the code of war. All are important aspects to consider that the American People suffered without end.

Finally, the islands surrounding Japan itself were cleared of Japanese Forces, but not without considerable and sizable losses of American lives. As the generals and politicians of the United States considered their next move, they were informed by reconnaissance missions as well the Japanese government that surrender was not an option. The general statements of the Japanese Government indicated that the Japanese People would never surrender; every man, woman, and child would die before they gave into the Americans. Reconnaissance reported that major fortifications had been built and were being constructed on all beach heads as well as that all urban and metropolitan centers (including homes and schools) had been coerced into the war effort and would serve either as factories, barracks, or bunkers. Knowing this, the American Military understood that any landing or invasion of Japan would be catastrophic at best.

So, we told them precisely what was going to happen. On numerous occasions, in fact. In the last warning, President Harry Truman (FDR had recently died of Polio) called for the unconditional surrender of the Japanese Forces and the installation of a Democratic Government. If the Japanese government did not accept the Potsdam Ultimatum, the United States of America would drop a Nuclear Bomb on any one of her major cities. Japan knew this. She replied that no amount of bombing would cause the Empire of the Rising Sun to capitulate to the barbaric Americans*. We dropped the first Atomic Bomb, "Little Boy" on Hiroshima on August 6th. We asked again. Again, the Showa Regime refused, claiming to fight to the last. Nagasaki was hit on August 9th with "Fat Man." Japan surrendered. On a final note, these bombings were not an American tactic to avenge Pearl Harbor but rather a form of sparing more American (and perhaps Japanese) Lives, ending the war in a more timely manner, and demonstrating that America had not made an idle promise.

In lieu of the military and social atrocities committed by the Japanese armies for over one and a half decades and the warnings of the American Government as to exactly what would happen should Japan refuse her ultimatums, the bombings were well-justified. It is also an educated speculation to assume that they may have even prevented further atrocities that would undoubtedly have occured should an invasion of Japan have been carried out. Such a question has no answer in terms of "right" or "wrong" as these are subjective terms that each person must define for himself. If I were in your position, I would explain to my teacher that the prompt is a naive one and that I would be happy to elucidate upon my opinions from a more objective standpoint as it could be supported by historical evidence. Whether it is right or wrong, well that is for the individual considering it to decide not for any man to tell another.

*An interesting side-note: When the Japanese Premier Kantaro Suzuki responded to the Potsdam Ultimatum, he was trying to remain as neutral as possible without angering his own government or that of the Allies. When asked to surrender, he used the word mokusatsu which bears two definitions. The first is "withhold comment for the moment" and the second is "ignore." He meant that the Japanase governemnt was respectively withholding comment, but the Japanese News Agency translated it as ignoring the Allied demands**. The response was broadcast to the world by Radio Tokyo and upon hearing it, President Truman reluctantly decided to stay the course and honor his word. The bombs were dropped and the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were virtually annhiliated, partially due to the careless vocabulary of the elderly Premier.

** The Greatest Stories Never Told --Rick Beyer

 

Well, Desert Fox about summed it up all into one post. There isn't much room for argument, well done.

 

1. How about the hundreds of Vidoes of Japanese Civilians burning American Flags, and spreading morale to fight to the end.

2. Ok, so what do we do? Bomb their cities with regular bombs until they surrender, pay them to surrender, ask politely, kill their emperor. Lower their morale by killing tons of civilians?

3. Where was the ignorance, he did not state many opinions and provided facts on regards of the bombing.

Do you think Americans would like it if you told them that 200,000 more should have died instead of dropping the bombs?

 

Desert Fox is absolutely correct. Picture yourself in Truman's place. The president is just died. All of a sudden YOU are president. The war is now on your hands. You have just been informed of an atomic bomb, and our means to use it. After the invasion and capture of Iwo Jima, we realized what a massive land invasion of Japan would be like. Estimates predicted that one million American lives would be lost in the attack.
Compared to the hundred thousand or so Japanese citizens, which seems more valuable? Truman drops the bomb to save these million Americans, after, ans Desert Fox has stated, warning the Japanese SEVERAL times. Now picture this: Assume those 1 million Americans each had two children. That's three million lives saved by this bomb. If each of those children has two children, that's a total of seven million people. Over time, this number of people saved by those bombs keeps increasing and will continue increasing forever.. THAT is why dropping the bomb was right.

 

Dan has a good point. Japsn Also stated that they would not surrender so our best option was to drop the bombs because after seeing the destruction they had no choice but to surrendeer saving American and potentially Japanese lifes.

 

The bombing also saved japenese soldiers' lives that were on the other islands and other parts of Japan. The japenese would never have surrendered if we didn't bomb them, they could have been exterminated.

 

The Japanese didn't surrender after the second bomb, it was the threat of cluster-nuking Tokyo that made them surrender. The bombings were a demonstration to the Japanese what the United States could do to them. The bombings didn't directly end the war, but they indirectly did. It was the 'best' choice.

If the United States hadn't bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they would have to land troops and invade hundreds of islands costing millions of American lives, and millions more Japanese. That's just the soldier, who knows how many Civillians could have died. I estimate another million Japanese could have died because the Japanese governent had propaganda showing Americans as monster (just like the United States did to them), so many families would rather die tan submit to the Americans.

Also, the Soviets were about to join the Pacific Theatre, and there would also be many Soviet casualties.

100,000 Japanese lives is worth much less than 4,000,000 Japanese, American, and Soviet lives.