Why did America get away with bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo
LOL that's such a lie. (Not your lie, a lie the USA has propagated for the last 70 odd years to legitimise their actions).
I challenge your belief that that statement is a lie.
To fully bring Japan under control using conventional methods would have meant clearing each and every Japanese Island of Imperial Army forces.
Something know as Island Hopping.
There would have been far greater lives lost if the more conventional route were taken.
@OP to throw the question back at you... why did Britain get away scot-free after the Amritsar Massacre ?
Original post by Komakino
I'm obviously questioning whether the use of a nuke or a full invasion were the only feasible options.
Yes, they were the only options.
The Japanese had at the time aspirations to create a Nippon Empire.
After their pillaging and violence in South East Asian colonies of the west they had shown their true colours : they were violent people. (that doesnt mean I consider all Japanese at that time or presently to be violent savages)
In addition you must understand American sentiments were running high after Pearl Harbour.
America needed swift and decisive action.
The only way to combat Japan is from a distance, I mean who wants to fight
Original post by Ari Ben Canaan
Yes, they were the only options.
The Japanese had at the time aspirations to create a Nippon Empire.
After their pillaging and violence in South East Asian colonies of the west they had shown their true colours : they were violent people. (that doesnt mean I consider all Japanese at that time or presently to be violent savages)
In addition you must understand American sentiments were running high after Pearl Harbour.
America needed swift and decisive action.
The Japanese had at the time aspirations to create a Nippon Empire.
After their pillaging and violence in South East Asian colonies of the west they had shown their true colours : they were violent people. (that doesnt mean I consider all Japanese at that time or presently to be violent savages)
In addition you must understand American sentiments were running high after Pearl Harbour.
America needed swift and decisive action.
Was their intel so poor that they didn't know any key governmental or military targets? If so then this shows how shabby their military leadership was.
Original post by Ari Ben Canaan
In addition you must understand American sentiments were running high after Pearl Harbour.
America needed swift and decisive action.
America needed swift and decisive action.
So swift it happened just 4 months shy of 4 years after Pearl Harbor....
Original post by Komakino
Was their intel so poor that they didn't know any key governmental or military targets? If so then this shows how shabby their military leadership was.
No it wasn't. They had other targets, but from memory Hiroshima was something like the 3rd or 4th target ontheir list - the other, better, targets were obscured by cloud so a clean drop couldn't take place.
Original post by Drewski
So swift it happened just 4 months shy of 4 years after Pearl Harbor....
No it wasn't. They had other targets, but from memory Hiroshima was something like the 3rd or 4th target ontheir list - the other, better, targets were obscured by cloud so a clean drop couldn't take place.
No it wasn't. They had other targets, but from memory Hiroshima was something like the 3rd or 4th target ontheir list - the other, better, targets were obscured by cloud so a clean drop couldn't take place.
And what were they going to drop- a nuke?
Like you said this would still have killed many civilians. And given they had no civilian casualties on their homesoil they must be held to account for this.
Why do I get the impression that you amongst others are using this as some sort of typical "evil Americans" slur? What wasn't evil during the world wars? Those bombings are responsible for 250,000~ deaths of a total 70,000,000~. Correct me if I'm wrong here but necessary or not they were still at war with Japan and it's ****ing beyond retarded to try and apply today's ethics in not only a time of war but the most deadliest conflict in history.
I know it's an evil thing to say but opposing sides in the world wars obviously didn't give a **** about killing people who were not their own as is evident by the civilian bombings/ground invasions/sieges. From what I understand it was either invade mainland Japan (lost t least 20k troops capturing islands) and have countless more of your own die or drop a bomb and kill people you don't care about. It's debated as to whether an invasion or dropping the bomb was even necessary but can anybody (with sources) say for sure that with no invasion or bombing the war in the pacific would have stopped immediately? If not then the fighting would have continues, the relentless bombing of other Japanese cities would have continued etc.
Also from what I understand the B-29 firebombing killed more people and caused more ground damage than both atom bombs combined. The soviet involvement and the realization that unless they surrender unconditionally the Allies would completely level Japan lead to the decision.
The actual bombing probably hastened the decision on the "if we don't surrender they're going to destroy Japan" basis so yes it did have a part to play in the outcome but it wasn't the sole nor biggest reason.
It did however lead to Japan adopting a strict no nuclear weaponry policy (not an actual law). Just be glad it was Little Boy and Fat Man and not something like the Tsar Bomba which had 1400x the combined power of them both. Although this was detonated in 1961 it was in development by the USSR/USA just years after the Japan bombings. I mean could you imagine if such a thing would have been used?
(Not claiming facts here so feel free to correct anything I posted. it's an interesting topic and if you can say why I'm wrong and provide sources that would be great.)
I know it's an evil thing to say but opposing sides in the world wars obviously didn't give a **** about killing people who were not their own as is evident by the civilian bombings/ground invasions/sieges. From what I understand it was either invade mainland Japan (lost t least 20k troops capturing islands) and have countless more of your own die or drop a bomb and kill people you don't care about. It's debated as to whether an invasion or dropping the bomb was even necessary but can anybody (with sources) say for sure that with no invasion or bombing the war in the pacific would have stopped immediately? If not then the fighting would have continues, the relentless bombing of other Japanese cities would have continued etc.
Also from what I understand the B-29 firebombing killed more people and caused more ground damage than both atom bombs combined. The soviet involvement and the realization that unless they surrender unconditionally the Allies would completely level Japan lead to the decision.
The actual bombing probably hastened the decision on the "if we don't surrender they're going to destroy Japan" basis so yes it did have a part to play in the outcome but it wasn't the sole nor biggest reason.
It did however lead to Japan adopting a strict no nuclear weaponry policy (not an actual law). Just be glad it was Little Boy and Fat Man and not something like the Tsar Bomba which had 1400x the combined power of them both. Although this was detonated in 1961 it was in development by the USSR/USA just years after the Japan bombings. I mean could you imagine if such a thing would have been used?
(Not claiming facts here so feel free to correct anything I posted. it's an interesting topic and if you can say why I'm wrong and provide sources that would be great.)
Original post by Ari Ben Canaan
@OP to throw the question back at you... why did Britain get away scot-free after the Amritsar Massacre ?
@OP to throw the question back at you... why did Britain get away scot-free after the Amritsar Massacre ?
Your question makes it seem like i'm trying to justify any actions made.
Original post by Komakino
And what were they going to drop- a nuke?
Like you said this would still have killed many civilians. And given they had no civilian casualties on their homesoil they must be held to account for this.
Like you said this would still have killed many civilians. And given they had no civilian casualties on their homesoil they must be held to account for this.
You must remember that the attitudes to nukes then was very very different to the attitude to which they're held now. I don't think any politician/Government in the world could order their use nowadays, but back then it was a war, we can't begin to imagine what it was like.
And that's not true, some US civilians were killed by Japanese action, albeit a very small amount. The Japanese had a paper-balloon type device that held small bombs and these were floated across the Pacific, dropping [mostly harmlessly] into the US, but some people were injured and kiled by them.
I think this is a very flawed perspective on war. Unfortunately, it is one that I hear all the time.
For instance, Israel got into a lot of heat over the use of white phosphorous on Palestinians. The world seemed to have pointed the finger at Israel. They should have looked at Hamas.
It is no good - at a time of war - to go to the USA and ask them why they did this and the other. You have to go to the Japanese and ask THEM why they acted in such a way to put lives at risk.
For instance, Israel got into a lot of heat over the use of white phosphorous on Palestinians. The world seemed to have pointed the finger at Israel. They should have looked at Hamas.
It is no good - at a time of war - to go to the USA and ask them why they did this and the other. You have to go to the Japanese and ask THEM why they acted in such a way to put lives at risk.
Original post by Komakino
Was their intel so poor that they didn't know any key governmental or military targets? If so then this shows how shabby their military leadership was.
Hiroshima had great military and industrial significance plus it was a dense urban area meaning maximum damage and effectiveness. Same for Nagasaki.
Also reading here for the people saying that the bombs had no effect on the outcome. Following the Soviet declaration of war on Japan they were preparing for martial law which would prevent anybody from attempting to making peace. Then come the second bomb and the Soviet movement they surrendered. This was from Hirohito
Moreover, the enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.
Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers.
Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers.
When he addressed his soldiers etc at a later date he put it down to the Soviet involvement and made no mention of the bombings. I don't know if it was a pride thing or he simply didn't want to mention the horrors of it all but it definitely looks like the bombings played a large role in sealing victory in a time when Japan were trying to hold out on terms and fighting was still happening.
While I won't argue the use of the Atomic Bomb and its aftermath were absolutely horrific, some of the things that I've read of what the Japanese did to their prisoners of war (more so than other countries) disgust me on a probably equal level.
Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom! You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall! You need me on that wall! We use words like "honor", "code", "loyalty". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline! I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "Thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!
Incidentally, I would argue that our own bombing of Dresden was, morally, far less defensible. Germany were practically finished by this point, it was purely revenge.p
Original post by Drewski
You must remember that the attitudes to nukes then was very very different to the attitude to which they're held now. I don't think any politician/Government in the world could order their use nowadays, but back then it was a war, we can't begin to imagine what it was like.
And that's not true, some US civilians were killed by Japanese action, albeit a very small amount. The Japanese had a paper-balloon type device that held small bombs and these were floated across the Pacific, dropping [mostly harmlessly] into the US, but some people were injured and kiled by them.
And that's not true, some US civilians were killed by Japanese action, albeit a very small amount. The Japanese had a paper-balloon type device that held small bombs and these were floated across the Pacific, dropping [mostly harmlessly] into the US, but some people were injured and kiled by them.
Nevertheless, they launched a nuclear weapon and have been the only country to ever do so. They must be held to account for this, indeed it is with the greatest level of hypocrisy that they never have been. Have they actually apologized for it?
Original post by Kiwiguy
Either way. American won. And the japs were nuked. End of really.
Do you play WoW or something?
Original post by thisisnew
Hiroshima had great military and industrial significance plus it was a dense urban area meaning maximum damage and effectiveness. Same for Nagasaki.
Also reading here for the people saying that the bombs had no effect on the outcome. Following the Soviet declaration of war on Japan they were preparing for martial law which would prevent anybody from attempting to making peace. Then come the second bomb and the Soviet movement they surrendered. This was from Hirohito
When he addressed his soldiers etc at a later date he put it down to the Soviet involvement and made no mention of the bombings. I don't know if it was a pride thing or he simply didn't want to mention the horrors of it all but it definitely looks like the bombings played a large role in sealing victory in a time when Japan were trying to hold out on terms and fighting was still happening.
Also reading here for the people saying that the bombs had no effect on the outcome. Following the Soviet declaration of war on Japan they were preparing for martial law which would prevent anybody from attempting to making peace. Then come the second bomb and the Soviet movement they surrendered. This was from Hirohito
When he addressed his soldiers etc at a later date he put it down to the Soviet involvement and made no mention of the bombings. I don't know if it was a pride thing or he simply didn't want to mention the horrors of it all but it definitely looks like the bombings played a large role in sealing victory in a time when Japan were trying to hold out on terms and fighting was still happening.
Targeted bombing, surely they had the technology. It may have been a long time ago, but I don't see why couldn't have carried out targeted bombing with low flying aircraft.
You said yourself, they knew the areas were densely populated with civilians and yet they still carried out the nuclear attack. How is this not a warcrime, a genocide even? Perhaps it isn't the latter, but only in specifics; because the laws are different in times of war.
Original post by Komakino
Nevertheless, they launched a nuclear weapon and have been the only country to ever do so. They must be held to account for this, indeed it is with the greatest level of hypocrisy that they never have been. Have they actually apologized for it?
No, they shouldn't.
Stop being ridiculous. We have no more right or ability to hold the US Government to account for the actions of those that went before them [some 70yrs before them] than we have the right to chastise the modern German Government for the Holocaust, the Mongolians for Genghis Khan, the Macedonians for Alexander the Great or Berlusconi for the Romans.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- EPQ Help!
- Ideas for what I could do a EQP on
- Help
- EPQ ideas help!!!
- Any Help?
- How can I get started on my NEA for History A-Level?
- Med Diaries (2nd Yr Med School GYG)
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- English books set in Japan/China for NEA English Literature A-Level
- Name a country or city with the last letter of the previous one
- I think i'm losing a friendship because of the Israel-Palestine conflict
- Help on EPQ title please!
- What kind of questions will she ask about my IRP (Spanish A level)
- who is donald trump
- Terrorist NHS worker planned to bomb hospital
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- Will she come back?
- Make it More Nuke-ey !!
- Optometrist UK to USA?
- I want to become a musician
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
