Should the US apologise for Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Scroll to see replies

Quite shocking to see people actually justifying the use of an atomic bomb.

To answer your question this article pretty much sums it all up: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/08/hiroshima-war-japanese

Some interesting quotes near the bottom of the page.

Reply 21

sweeneyrod

Original post by M14B

I object to pressing a button knowing that you are killing hundreds of civilians.
End of.

Is that a yes or a no?

Reply 22

M14B

Original post by sweeneyrod

Is that a yes or a no?

Do not throw your weight on me.
You are attempting silly comparisons.

Reply 23

sweeneyrod

Original post by M14B

Do not throw your weight on me.
You are attempting silly comparisons.

I'm not "throwing my weight" (what does that even mean?!)
I asked you a sensible, simple question, with two clear possible answers. Why won't you answer it?

Reply 24

username1022139

Original post by Konahagakure

It's a topic that I would like to hear peoples opinion on, especially after Obamas visit to Hiroshima.

There is a lot of people today who will still testify that dropping atomic bombs on Nagasaki on Hiroshima was the wrong decision, but consider this:

- It ended an inevitable war between Japan and the US with much less casualties.
- It sent a message to the USSR that the US can and will use weapons of mass destruction.
- It showed the Soviet Union that the USA would not take lightly to military aggression.

Many people might argue that the US's use of nuclear weapons forced the USSR and the US into a Cold War, and although the Manhattan Project led to the amass of nuclear stockpiles we see today, there is no denying that in the context of international warfare they are a huge deterrent.

I'm by no way a fan of US foreign policy, especially since it's based off knee-jerk interventionism and self-preservation, but to say the US made the wrong decision in 1945 is so obtuse and delusional it borders plain idiocy.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 25

1420787

Japan has apologised to pretty much every country in Asia for its atrocities, which by and large it recognises.

American officials and diplomats were aware Japan was seeking a peace treaty before the bombs were dropped. Enough said.

Perhaps also worth mentioning that the only reason bombs weren't dropped on larger cities was that they had already been bombed to hell. A particular highlight was identifying that most residential buildings in Tokyo were constructed from wood, then choosing to firebomb the city because of this.

Reply 26

M14B

Original post by sweeneyrod

I'm not "throwing my weight" (what does that even mean?!)
I asked you a sensible, simple question, with two clear possible answers. Why won't you answer it?

I already answered the question.
Goodbye.

Reply 27

sweeneyrod

Original post by M14B

I already answered the question.
Goodbye.

You clearly haven't done so. I'll presume for now that you think declaring war on Hitler was a bad idea, unless you want to tell me otherwise.

Reply 28

Wee.Guy

No

Firstly, i dont believe that the bombing was any more wrong than the mass bombings that were done, more people died in the fire bombing of Tokyo than either nuclear bombs.

Secondly, i dont agree of apologising for past events like this.

Reply 29

Tempest II

It's very easy to apply 21st Century Western values to historical events.
By modern standards RAF/USAAF strategic bombing against Germany & Japan would be classed as war crimes (especially attacks like Dresden). Even the 617 Sqn strike against the Dams would be classed a war crime by modern doctrine. That doesn't make them good or evil - after 6yrs of total war the mindset is totally different to the mindset most people have these days.
After seeing how the Japanese fought in defence of places like Iwo Jima & Okinawa along with their general treatment of "sub-humans" (including Allied POWs) certainly ensured the USA was going to look at alternative options to invasion. The fact that suicide attacks had been incorporated into general Japanese military doctrine by 1945 shows how much they did not want to surrender. Even after the bombs were dropped officers of the Japanese military wanted to fight on.

Reply 30

1420787

Original post by Tempest II

Legally the strategic bombing of civilians was already a war crime decades before WW2!

It just gets a little hard to find the stomach to try those responsible when you're responsible yourself...

Reply 31

vickidc18

What was supposed to happen? An attack on the mainland which would have cost millions more lives including allies, people were very tired of war, would you press a button knowing it would end the war & your brother, father, son didn't have to go over & possibly lose their lives, they could come home. I would press that button we are applying peace time logic to the bloodiest war in history, I can't imagine what it was like, it wasn't a good thing but the war needed to end, the Japanese people believed the emperor was a god, he ordered the people of sapian to commit suicide which 1000s did when they lost the battle. Imagine how many casualties there would have been if the allies attacked the mainland.

Reply 32

Sir Donald

Why is it only a big crime when atomic bombs are used? the fire-bombings of Tokyo have estimates nearing 100k people, making it the most deadly air raid in history and deadlier than Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a single event.

Germany also had many fire-bombings against it, including on civilian towns with no military significance. Of course Germans did plenty of bombing themselves, but not quite as devastating.

Reply 33

Wide_Awake

Sure and apologize for the bombings on German civilians too carried out by Americans and British.

Thank you liberators for freeing us from fascism!

Reply 34

Trapz99

No. The USA's actions were justified imo. Japan should have surrendered earlier.

Reply 35

RezzBerry

Spoiler

Cuz I'm missing more than just your dead body.

Reply 36

the bear

The Japanese Emperor should apologize for not surrendering after the first nuke... he made his people endure a second one... what a doofus.

Reply 37

Rakas21

Hell no.

Japan committed an act of war and went on to lose. They should be grateful that the US never nuked Tokyo.

Reply 38

math42

No, but just because basically everyone alive now had nothing to do with it. I am yet to be convinced that it was "the only way" or whatever. And I am not sure if I subscribe to usual "the ends justify the means" thinking. So many people extend every-day pragmatism to a situation of far, far greater magnitude. Maybe it was the rational thing to do, but as to it being the moral thing to do, I have many doubts..

Reply 39

Rorschach II

I think this video highlights the arguments quite nicely; a scene taken from Fate/Zero.

[video="youtube;6wyk5tGYTjY"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wyk5tGYTjY[/video]

Should the act of killing have laws and ideals?
Or do the ends justify the means?