This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The Atrocities of Hiroshima

65 years ago today, the US dropped an Atomic bomb on Hiroshima devastating its population. Thousands of innocent civilians died that day and many more are still born with deformities today directly due to the decision made by President Truman 65 years ago.

http://gizmodo.com/5606053/this-it-how-it-feels-to-be-under-a-nuclear-attack

This Gizmodo article gives us different accounts from survivors of their experiences with the bombing.

Do you think the Americans use of force was justified in dropping the A-bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Should we hold the US government who gave the orders accountable or the men who carried out the orders? Should the US compensate the victims of the attack and those that still suffer from its affects today?

Reply 1

oscarwildelike

War is an ugly thing, and people are only going to act in their own self interest.

Reply 2

fire2burn

17

Those people would have still lost their lives, Japan was refusing to surrender. The Americans would have simply carpet bombed the place before launching a massive ground invasion. That was the other option.

Hundreds of thousands died in Europe due to the bombing of cities with conventional munitions and then later incursions using ground troops and artillery. That is what Japan would have faced were it to continue to refuse to surrender.

Reply 3

CombineHarvester

16

Inb4 "they had to do it to force the Japanese to surrender" which is completely false. The Japanese were already negotiating their surrender before the atom bombs dropped. The main reasons for doing it were so the US could illustrate its own military power and stamp its authority on the world in the post WW2 world and it'd finally answer the doubt that many countries had (importantly the Soviet Union) as to whether the US would ever actually use its nuclear weapons on a country. Back then it was the only country to have such weapons so it could kill thousands of innocents and deter future military threats by showing it was willing to drop nuclear bombs on cities.

Reply 4

Cesare Borgia

10

More Japanese civilians would have died in a conventional invasion, along with untold numbers of soldiers on both sides.

Reply 5

Cesare Borgia

10

CombineHarvester

The Japanese were already negotiating their surrender

Trying, they tried to offer terms of surrender but the allies would accept nothing but unconditional surrender, the same as with Germany.

Reply 6

CombineHarvester

16

Cesare Borgia

Trying, they tried to offer terms of surrender but the allies would accept nothing but unconditional surrender, the same as with Germany.

Japan had already been defeated militarily and were willing to surrender with the Emperor intact before the atom bombs were dropped. After the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki this is exactly what happened so nothing would have changed as a result of it and it didn't.

Reply 7

Cesare Borgia

10

CombineHarvester

Japan had already been defeated militarily and were willing to surrender with the Emperor intact before the atom bombs were dropped. After the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki this is exactly what happened so nothing would have changed as a result of it and it didn't.

They were playing games with surrender terms and trying to gain a more favourable deal from the Soviets. And had any peace somehow been negotiated it would have been blocked by the army who would probably have staged a coup. A land invasion was inevitable.

Reply 8

Suetonius

9

An invasion and blockade would've resulted in the deaths of over a million Japanese troops and civilians, as well as the deaths of over a million U.S. troops. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined resulted in 200,000 deaths. Putting yourself in Truman's shoes, the logical position - to prevent the war in the Pacific extending way into the 1950s - would be to drop the bomb. The difference, however, between the magnitude of war crimes by the Axis Powers, and the behaviour also of the Allies, is that the former would never have worked to rebuild - and restore the quality of - the powers they conquered/attacked. Also, one must consider that the atomic bombings provided humanity with a clear example of the chaos which results from such weapons. Post-Cold War, we can retrospectively look at the damage such weapons cause - using Hiroshima as an example - and focus on non-proliferation. It's just a shame that we have manic, vile states like Iran trying to break this rule.

Reply 9

concubine

17

I am a member of the 'it would have been worse if it didn't happen' camp.

That and I find it amazing that people can get so up in arms over Hiroshima/Nagasaki and basically not give a **** about something like the fire bombing of other Japanese cities, the near obliteration of Dresden, etc.

Reply 10

WrigglyMammoth

11

oscarwildelike

War is an ugly thing, and people are only going to act in their own self interest.

isn't that why we do everything

Reply 11

concubine

17

War is great for

war. :3

Reply 12

BeanofJelly

15

I can understand the "better than a land invasion" argument, but why did the Americans have to have an unconditional surrender at all?

What would have been the harm in just ending the war by no longer continuing to attack the japanese? Or agreeing to a surrender with terms?

Bringing the emperor to his knees was not worth the 200,000 deaths.

Please though, if my argument is flawed pick on it :wink:

I'm a little ignorant on this subject.

EDIT: Also was it not the case at the time, that the Americans knew little of the potential environmental/global effects of igniting such a powerful bomb? Wasn't there some theory (false admittedly) that the atmosphere could be ignited? They took that risk for the whole world without consent.

Reply 13

dn013

14

BeanofJelly

I can understand the "better than a land invasion" argument, but why did the Americans have to have an unconditional surrender at all?

The war wasn't like modern day Afghanistan or Iraq. It was the most expensive war in history, and one of the toughest. How are you going to explain to all the mothers of the boys that were killed in the Pacific. "Yea Tojo is still in power, but hey at least we conquered Okinawa!!"

That wouldn't have flew very far.

There is also the WW1 argument. Surrender with conditions breeds resentment, leaders to another war.

Look at Germany after WW1. Poor, couldn't recover started WW2.

Germany and Japan after WW2: Second and Third largest economies for quite some time.

To your edit: Who gives a flying ****, dropping the bomb succeeded in ending the worst war in human history. A war that the United States was reluctant to enter, being forced into it because of Pearl Harbor.

Reply 14

abc101

17

It's criminal that people don't care more about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There aren't words to describe the disgusting, horrific, appalling nature of these atrocities. People today are still suffering from the after-effects of the atomic bomb. How can vaporising hundreds of thousands of innocent people be an acceptable form of warfare?

Reply 15

BeanofJelly

15

dn013

The war wasn't like modern day Afghanistan or Iraq. It was the most expensive war in history, and one of the toughest. How are you going to explain to all the mothers of the boys that were killed in the Pacific. "Yea Tojo is still in power, but hey at least we conquered Okinawa!!"

That wouldn't have flew very far.

There is also the WW1 argument. Surrender with conditions breeds resentment, leaders to another war.

Look at Germany after WW1. Poor, couldn't recover started WW2.

Germany and Japan after WW2: Second and Third largest economies for quite some time.

I think it could have waited that is all. Japan and the US had little to gain from one another but death in continuing the war, and both were eager to finish it.

I think there was a fair chance that a reasonable agreement could have been made with Japan in the next year or so. The Americans could have offered the emperor amnesty. But they didn't. It's my belief that that's because they wanted to test their bombs.

*And are you talking about Japan having resentment? What greater resentment could you breed in giving them friendlier surrender terms as opposed to the legacy of a nuclear atrocity?

I just think, the emperor was a terrible man, the japanese committed terrible war crimes - but it would have been better to have let them away, as much is pains me to say it, than to commit such a terrible atrocity against innocent civilians (or to conduct a land invasion that would cost many more lives).

And, what if the japanese had not surrendered? I don't think from certain policies and propaganda put out in Japan at the time, that the emperor had much respect for the lives of his people. If he hadn't surrendered how many cities would they have been willing to bomb? I've heard they planned 10. I'm not entirely convinced the bombings were decided on moral grounds that's all.

I'm sorry I don't mean to sound ranty or blinkered :o:

but I just can't reconcile myself to it.

Reply 16

dn013

14

BeanofJelly

I think it could have waited that is all. Japan and the US had little to gain from one another but death in continuing the war, and both were eager to finish it.

I think there was a fair chance that a reasonable agreement could have been made with Japan in the next year or so. The Americans could have offered the emperor amnesty. But they didn't. It's my belief that that's because they wanted to test their bombs.

*And are you talking about Japan having resentment? What greater resentment could you breed in giving them friendlier surrender terms as opposed to the legacy of a nuclear atrocity?

Hindsight is excellent isn't it.

Although I don't care how we ended it as long as the war was over and as few American troops were killed.

Reply 17

CAPTAIN101

10

TheCrackFox

65 years ago today, the US dropped an Atomic bomb on Hiroshima devastating its population. Thousands of innocent civilians died that day and many more are still born with deformities today directly due to the decision made by President Truman 65 years ago.

http://gizmodo.com/5606053/this-it-how-it-feels-to-be-under-a-nuclear-attack

This Gizmodo article gives us different accounts from survivors of their experiences with the bombing.

Do you think the Americans use of force was justified in dropping the A-bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Should we hold the US government who gave the orders accountable or the men who carried out the orders? Should the US compensate the victims of the attack and those that still suffer from its affects today?

stop asking so many ******* questions

Reply 18

I-love-japan!

Oh my god the atrocity of the A-bombs!

Those poor innocent japs who were not involved in any inhumane treatment and were even pacifists! They did not deserve to be bombed!

I can't believe in a modern war people would get hurt, this is just silly!

Reply 19

BeanofJelly

15

dn013

Hindsight is excellent isn't it.

I don't think I have used hindsight in my argument at all.

That the Japanese would hate the Americans for nuking them ought top have been pretty obvious before the event tbh.

The bombed Nagasaki 3 days after Hiroshima. Even if you could justify Hiroshima.. they could have waited longer than 3 days for a surrender after the first attack, or dropped another bomb in an unpopulated area. They could have showed some humanity with Nagasaki but all they wanted to show was force.

They were testing their bombs. That's why the left Nagasaki and Hiroshima unbombed until the attack. Because they wanted to see the unadulterated power of the nuclear bombs.

The whole thing, just the whole thing reeks terribly of the total lack of regard for the people they were killing. There were more choices than than the lesser of two evils.

The Atrocities of Hiroshima

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you