bombings on japan, were the really needed Options

[Mr. Psychotic]

do u guys think the 2 bombs dropped on japan during WW2 were really needed?
i say no because they just killed innoc3nt people in those 2 citys and it left a perment mental damage on my grandma (im japanese)
so what do u guys think

[*CEP*]

The Japenese were clearly losing even before the two bombs were dropped. They could've just surrendered through diplomatic means, but I guess the US had to make a statement of some sort.

- CHinkieeyedpnoi

[Yemmerz]

the us didnt have to bomb japan. they could of done what bush is doing with iraq

[Mr. Psychotic]

The Japenese were clearly losing even before the two bombs were dropped. They could've just surrendered through diplomatic means, but I guess the US had to make a statement of some sort.

- CHinkieeyedpnoi

no the japanese were going strong for the fight for the rising sun and the bombs were just a last attempt to stop the japanese in the war over in the pacific and even one my teachers said that. And surrendering would bring dis-honor to the japanese people thats why instead of getting captured they would kill them selfs and die for the rising sun and their familys

[IIO__oII]

well... the bombs DID make the japanese surrender...
but i feel sorri for all the innocent civilians there...
stupid government. x]

no the japanese were going strong for the fight for the rising sun and the bombs were just a last attempt to stop the japanese in the war over in the pacific and even one my teachers said that. And surrendering would bring dis-honor to the japanese people thats why instead of getting captured they would kill them selfs and die for the rising sun and their familys

just like the samurais in the last samurai!! [haha i just saw that.... x] goood movie]

[Spirited Away]

To answer this question, I asked myself: Was it really necessary for Japan to attack Pearl Harbor? Was it necessary for the Kamikazes to kill themselves and take the lives of other people?

[*krnxswat*]

Well as much as I want to say it wasn't, I think it had quite an effect because it allowed to Japanese to surrender right away; right after the second bomb, of course. The US could also have used other means of attack strategies, such as sending troops, or sending ships to attack but that'd take too long.

Anyways, I agree with Uninspirefae.

[Mr. Psychotic]

To answer this question, I asked myself: Was it really necessary for Japan to attack Pearl Harbor? Was it necessary for the Kamikazes to kill themselves and take the lives of other people?

see they had honor in their country and they attacked military but the US attacked normal citys which is pretty messed up!

[*krnxswat*]

see they had honor in their country and they attacked military but the US attacked normal citys which is pretty messed up!

What's the difference? They still killed hundreds of U.S troops.

[177emories]

yes that it did kill innocent ppl... but then it ended the war.. and no MORE ppl were killed... all those troops and so on... even the troops that fight are innocent ppl too!

[Spirited Away]

see they had honor in their country and they attacked military but the US attacked normal citys which is pretty messed up! 

And attacking Pearl Harbor without declaring war is honor? The declaration of war was late... very late. Where's honor is attacking when one is unprepared? (Edit:: It's like kicking a man when he's down). You call that honor?

Why attack Pearl Harbor at all?

EDIT::
I realize that Pearl Harbor was a strategic base and that there are benefits to its destruction...

BUT YOU CAN'T attack someone and not expect to be attacked back... What kind of childish thinking is that?

Oh I hit you, but you can't hit me back...

Sounds like something I would say to my older brother after I bruised him.

And they killed a couple of thousands of troops in Pearl, I think.

[tkproduce]

from a lot of european countries' point of view, the pearl harbour bombings were necessary because otherwise the united states wouldn't have joined the war and without their help, hitler would have conquered half of europe.

the point of the debate isn't that anyway. it's asking whether the use of nuclear weapons was necessary to make the Japanese surrender. quite clearly, by the stage the bombs were dropped, the Japanese were not going to win the war. however, they would probably not have stopped fighting until each and every part of their military was destroyed. but are "time" and "inquisitiveness" justifiable enough reasons for killing totally innocent people? wasn't it more morally justifiable to kill each and every fighting soldier, rather than civilians, until they surrendered?

[Spirited Away]

Here is a weak attempt to justify the nuclear bombs, and you did make a good point of it being a nuclear bombing.

The Japanese were readied with the bloodiest welcoming ever had the Allies invaded Honshu, and Truman would never have been able to hold office if he had a working weapon and chose not to use it. To add to the pressure, the Alliance was growing shaky because of the Soviets, and we had to show the world that we wern't afraid to use a WMD.

The second bomb was intentionally shifted a bit off the target, which killed less people... Yes, yes, but that doesn't include the radiation effects.

[tkproduce]

The second bomb was a bit pointless wasn't it?

[Spirited Away]

The second bomb was a bit pointless wasn't it?

Agreed.

However, the WMD broke the political stalemate at that time and the Japanese would have continued fighting, albeit with less strength, but that means more firebombing of Japanese cities and the war would continue.

I think though, the bomb gave the Japanese some face to go about stoping the war. With their strong belief in honor and strong sense of patriotism, they wouldn't have stopped until they were fully and truly defeated (and who knows how long that would've taken).

But you know, after the bombs were dropped their military still withstand surrender until the Soviet decided to enter the war. They only stop then because of a threat of a third bomb, this time targeting Tokyo (they found out when the captured an American pilot lied(?) about the US having '100' more bombs).

So, I thought that the bombs was justified.

[ComradeRed]

Getting Japan to surrender was just a pretext. They were about to anyway. The REAL reason we atomic-bombed Japan was to scare teh Soviets into not trying to make a grab for all of Korea. Instead, they were forced to settle for just the Northern Part. Remember, Russian soldiers were advancing on Japan from the land at this time too.

[xscore]

What's the difference? They still killed hundreds of U.S troops.

wtf?
im sure you've heard the saying "two wrongs don't make it right"

[Spirited Away]

wtf?
im sure you've heard the saying "two wrongs don't make it right"

It could be close to a right, if the wrong is justified.

That saying is only for people who don't like the 'i hit you, you hit me back' scenario. It's okay for me to hit you, but don't you hit me back because you would be wrong for doing so... Right, so bullies can just steal kiddies lunch money without fear of getting in trouble.

What did the Japanese expect when the attacked Pearl? That Americans will overlook it?

[onenonly101]

The bombings were needed, just not in the place they were dropped the bombs. I understand

see they had honor in their country and they attacked military but the US attacked normal citys which is pretty messed up!

that. They shouldn't have dropped the bobms on cities filled with innocent people they should've dropped it on thier militay bases, BUT them dropping them on the cities they did stopped the war because they didn't want to see any more of their citizens killed.

[juliar]

Getting Japan to surrender was just a pretext. They were about to anyway.

They were not going to surrender. They were into Shintoism [sp?] which is the religion of their ruler, and they wouldnt leave their ruler.

[ComradeRed]

Uh... yes they were. The Emperor himself already prepared surrender transcripts on August 2, four days before the Hiroshima bombing.

[Spirited Away]

Well, the US gave many warnings in advance but Japan didn't surrender until the second bomb, and also with the threat of a third bomb targeted at Tokyo.

ComradeRed: Were the surrender transcripts that the Emperor prepared meant to be an unconditional surrender? I'm not sure of the details, but I thought Emperor Showa didn't agree to it until 8/14?

To those who said that we should have bombed a military base instead of these two cities, PLEASE consider these:

During World War II, Hiroshima was a city with that contained the 2nd Army Headquarters, and one of the key storage and communication center.

As for Nagasaki, it was one of the largest sea ports responsible for various industries (ship, military equipments... etc).

[ComradeRed]

It was not an unconditional surrender. It was a surrender on the condition that the Emperor would be allowed to retain his ceremonial title, similar to the Queen of Great Britain. This would have been a good idea, being a 1400-year-old tradition in Japan and all. We could've used him to gain more support and make rebuidling the country less costly and less heavy-handed. After the bombings, a group of military hardliners staged a coup and tried to arrest the Emperor to prevent the release of the surrender transcripts. This coup, obviously, failed.

[Spirited Away]

The US wanted an unconditional surrender, but Japan was allowed to keep their Emperor. Doesn't that mean that the US was lenient with their demands?

Eidt:: Well, of course ridding the country of the Emperor would make them hate US wouldn't it?

[ComradeRed]

Originally hardliners within the US demanded that the Emperor be tried for War Crimes and removed. This caused hardliners in Japan to stage their coup...

An unconditional surrender, by definition, has no strings attached. With an unconditional surrender, there was no guarantee from the Americans that the Emperor would not in fact be harmed.