Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Difficult to say. Much of the Japanese manufacturing used for the war was decentralised and carried out in small units and around residences by civilians. This made these people legitimate targets for attack.

    I'm not sure nuking was necessary to destroy the facilities, and I'm certain many innocents who had nothing to do with the war effort were killed, but the spectacle of utter destruction probably was necessary to weaken the government/national resolve which drove them on in their war effort even as Germany surrendered and their own resources became stretched.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think we should also apologise for what we did to the Germans.



    We entered that war on a lie!

    Poland was invaded, so what? at least Germany had some kind of claim to it given their history.

    Once defeated, the British let the Communists have it.


    British like to act like they are on the right side of history and superior to the rest. Have you seen what they were doing in Palestine? What about the Bengal famine in India...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I've never understood why an atomic bomb couldn't have been dropped on some remote, uninhabited island as a show of power. I'd expect that Hirohito would have surrendered at that point, knowing that his cities were next.

    When questioned about whether the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified, people always seem to present a dichotomy: If the bombs hadn't been dropped, the only alternative was many more years of war and millions of Japanese and Allied casualties. But all dichotomies are false and those are pretty clearly not the only two options.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Yes. However, I think this depends on your interpretation of what was necessary to end the Second World War officially, between the West and Asia.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EU NWO exposed)
    I think we should also apologise for what we did to the Germans.



    We entered that war on a lie!

    Poland was invaded, so what? at least Germany had some kind of claim to it given their history.

    Once defeated, the British let the Communists have it.


    British like to act like they are on the right side of history and superior to the rest. Have you seen what they were doing in Palestine? What about the Bengal famine in India...
    You clearly do not understand history at all.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    I believe that American shouldn't apologise, the bombing likely saved lives in the long run and reduced the duration of the war, which is obviously a good thing. If an apology was given for the atom bombs it brings into question a lot of other wartime conduct, the fire bombing of Japanese and German cities being the events that come to mind.

    That doesn't mean to say there weren't alternatives to dropping the bomb that could have been considered first. A weapons test in order to shock/scare Japan into surrendering should have been considered. The counter to this is that it reduced the shock that the weapon would have on the Soviets, who America were rapidly beginning to see as rivals. Ironically, Stalin knew of the weapon before Truman (US president who authorised the bomb) through espionage.

    Furthermore, a distinction must be made between the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hiroshima was first, and also home to a significant military garrison and industrial area, making the bombing there much more legitimate than that of Nagasaki, in which a different model of weapon was used, leading to the allegation (that I largely agree with) that Nagasaki was used more as a weapon test than as a legitimate act of war. Also, in Hiroshima that aiming point for the bomb was the city centre, not the industrial area, showing further a rather immoral reasoning on the part of the Americans.
    Despite all of this, I still see both bombings as justified and not requiring an apology.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    I've never understood why an atomic bomb couldn't have been dropped on some remote, uninhabited island as a show of power. I'd expect that Hirohito would have surrendered at that point, knowing that his cities were next.
    I do actually wonder that myself. A demonstration may have at least have saved one of the cities. I doubt it would have saved both as even after the first B-29 strike the Japanese didn't surrender.
    I also don't know how many nukes the USA had in the summer of 1945 but I can't imagine it was more than 3 or 4 so I can understand why they may not have wanted to use one simply as a demonstration however (I'll see if I can find a solid number on the internet).
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    NO
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    Summed up perfectly.

    They should absolutely not apologise, or even consider the possibility until the Japanese apologise properly for their actions.
    Whilst I don't necessarily think an apology is due either, the argument "they're not apologising so I won't either" is ridiculous and immature.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M14B)
    There is no justification ever, for killing tens of thousands civilians.
    Period.
    We see history through Western eyes
    Except, there is, and he just gave you the justification.

    So you're saying it'd be a better idea to invade Japan and kill millions rather than drop two nukes and kill at most a couple hundred thousand?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by popcornjpg)
    Except, there is, and he just gave you the justification.

    So you're saying it'd be a better idea to invade Japan and kill millions rather than drop two nukes and kill at most a couple hundred thousand?
    The rules of engagement of an army is not to kill civilians.

    Your comment highlighted in red, is truly shameful.
    Goodbye.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    "The U.S. had already intercepted communications from Japan showing that the emperor had asked the Russians to mediate a surrender, and almost every top U.S. military leader from the time later came forward saying that Japan was already defeated before the bombs were dropped. The remaining debate between historians is less about whether Japan was already going to surrender, and more about why the U.S. used the atomic bombs at all. On the one hand, some argue that President Truman saw the bomb as just one more legitimate weapon to continue fighting with until the end, but others insist that the actual purpose was to intimidate the Russians and secure the U.S. as the winner at the beginning of the Cold War."



    Possibly the worst single action ever undertaken by the human race.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M14B)
    The rules of engagement of an army is not to kill civilians.

    Your comment highlighted in red, is truly shameful.
    Goodbye.
    Millions of civilians over hundreds of thousands of civilians.

    The Japanese were not going to surrender. They were preparing for defence. They wanted the Americans to invade. This would have taken millions of lives and ruined Japan beyond recognition.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Whilst I don't necessarily think an apology is due either, the argument "they're not apologising so I won't either" is ridiculous and immature.
    It isn't just a case of that though, the lack of a serious apology from the Japanese for their army's war crimes is an ongoing issue for their neighbors.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    It isn't just a case of that though, the lack of a serious apology from the Japanese for their army's war crimes is an ongoing issue for their neighbors.
    I completely agree, that doesn't mean that you can't rise above it and do the right thing.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I really don't get the arguments of people saying no, especially the people saying Japan should have surrendered sooner and somehow forgetting the last line of Churchill's speech being "we will never surrender". You can believe you took the right course of action and still be sorry that you had to do it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WhisperingTide)
    "The U.S. had already intercepted communications from Japan showing that the emperor had asked the Russians to mediate a surrender, and almost every top U.S. military leader from the time later came forward saying that Japan was already defeated before the bombs were dropped. The remaining debate between historians is less about whether Japan was already going to surrender, and more about why the U.S. used the atomic bombs at all. On the one hand, some argue that President Truman saw the bomb as just one more legitimate weapon to continue fighting with until the end, but others insist that the actual purpose was to intimidate the Russians and secure the U.S. as the winner at the beginning of the Cold War."

    Possibly the worst single action ever undertaken by the human race.
    Any sources on this arguement? Moreover, does it explain why Japan didn't surrender after Hiroshima? If they were already preparing to surrender, why did it take two bombs?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by popcornjpg)
    Any sources on this arguement? Moreover, does it explain why Japan didn't surrender after Hiroshima? If they were already preparing to surrender, why did it take two bombs?
    http://classroom.synonym.com/evidenc...der-10861.html
    References below.

    *Shrug* I don't know, I don't pretend to understand politics.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    I've never understood why an atomic bomb couldn't have been dropped on some remote, uninhabited island as a show of power. I'd expect that Hirohito would have surrendered at that point, knowing that his cities were next.

    When questioned about whether the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified, people always seem to present a dichotomy: If the bombs hadn't been dropped, the only alternative was many more years of war and millions of Japanese and Allied casualties. But all dichotomies are false and those are pretty clearly not the only two options.
    Pretty sure they bombed those locations because that's where their military installations were, they just happened to be in civilian dense cities.

    There would have been no surrender, they would have fought until the end and killed themselves. Many did kill themselves when they realised American troops were advancing on the outer islands. They needed a clear and definitive message that Japan had lost the war.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M14B)
    There is no justification ever, for killing tens of thousands civilians.
    Period.
    We see history through Western eyes
    If the US hadn't have used the nuclear bombs far more people would have died in the bloody conflict that would have occurred.No matter what happens in warfare people die so arguments about killing people aren't that justified considering loads of people would die if you didn't do that, Japan would have probably launched many more strikes in USA as well killing many more civilians there.

    I am not sure I agree with the concept of war crimes in war you have to do whatever you can to win the war no matter what the costs(its kinda of us vs them sort of thing), I believe that people should be held accountable for the causes of the war.The idea with a war is that whatever is being fought must be won for better long term benefits, that is the morality of war.

    You know who I blame for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? the Japanese Government for attacking the USA, thats what caused the USA to unleash the nuclear bombs in the first place.They had no justification to declare war on the USA it was entirely malicious and annihilation was to be expected as the USA and the allies were much more powerful than Japan.Fortunately, for Japan USA used the nuclear bombs and thus not as many people were killed and Japan wasn't really annihilated.The Japanese Government should apologise for attacking the USA and causing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.