bombings on japan, were the really needed Options

[yellowgurl]

I think the bombings were unnecessary because both bombings has left everlasting effects from the radiation that not only harmed those that were living then but those who live now as well.

[uLoVeMikeRoch]

They weren't going to surennder. Infact the Korea thing was just a small added reason. The Japanese were going to not back down, and the US had to attack. They stopped Island Hopping and had to attack directly. They could have attacked with soldiers and ships and such, but that would have taken too much time, too many soldiers, and their lives, and their supplies and stuff, etc etc. SO they went for the least cost effective, least time consuming, least time waiting for a response route, The Atom Bomb.

[muffingirlsays]

Based on what I know, the Americans chose to unleash the bombs on the Japanese because they didn't fear death as we do (I'm not saying ALL of them. Military-wise). So, we decided to show the military the fear of death on a wide scale - attacking two large cities. If they didnt fear death on the battle field, maybe they'd fear death on a large scale.

...just for the record, I'm 1/3 Japanese

[flc]

Well I dunno..many people say that if we didn't bomb them, they wouldn't have stopped fighting with us.

But I still don't think what we did was justified. It's kind of disgusting.

[*Blow_Don't_SUCK*]

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!

sorry to be awfully late but...

didn't the bombs cause radiation to most of the Japanese and diagnosed them with luekemia(sp)? So it didn't just make them surrender, a lot of the victims died from the luekemia, and afterwards I thought the bomb was unnecessary, but then again the other attacks were just as unneeded.

[think!IMAGINARIL...]

some excerpts from my crappy social studies exit project on the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Many people think that the bombing of Japan was unnecessary and cruel and that it was a war crime to bomb Japan. Supporters of the bombing believe that the bomb spared American lives and that it was necessary in order to end the war. The bombings, along with other attacks on civilians, were possibly in violation of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 which was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1902 and 1908. The 1907 Hague Convention, Article 25, states: "The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited." This means that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which killed mostly civilians) was illegal and contradicted the 1907 Hague Convention. Up until this day, the controversy of the bombing of Japan is still being debated.

At 8:15, Enola Gay dropped Little Boy over the center of Hiroshima; it exploded 2,000 feet above Hiroshima with an explosion equivalent to 13 kilotons of explosives. Little Boy killed about 80,000 people, including several US POWs, instantly (and several thousands more due to radiation poisoning and other reasons).

the total death count in Hiroshima is about 210,000 [or something like that]. most died due to radiation poisoning.
and did you know that Nagasaki was the secondary target? their primary target was Kokura, Japan.

i agree with the bolded sections of the first excerpt.

edit:;

and while researching, i think i read something about the Japanese planning to surrender before the bombings. so i think there ws really no reason to bomb Japan.

[sadolakced acid]

both nagasaki and hiroshima were targets of military importance, both having factories involved in the war effort.

and i seriously doubt they didn't have anti-aircraft guns.

[Shahin]

I think the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified, for reasons stated by other people.

[emazing]

I don't think the bombings in Japan were needed. There were so many innocent lives that were taken away the day we bombed the Japanese; so many lives that were wrecked and probably will never be the same. I don't think that the authorities in charge of the bombings had ever thought about resolving these conflicts with Japan in a civilized and calm way, but what's done is done. We can never go back into the past and change it; otherwise, things would be way different now in the present.

[Spirited Away]

I don't think the bombings in Japan were needed. There were so many innocent lives that were taken away the day we bombed the Japanese; so many lives that were wrecked and probably will never be the same. I don't think that the authorities in charge of the bombings had ever thought about resolving these conflicts with Japan in a civilized and calm way, but what's done is done. We can never go back into the past and change it; otherwise, things would be way different now in the present.

Check earlier arguments; we've covered the "resolving these conflicts... in a 'civilized' and calm way".

Oh yea, P.S. what is ever civilized and calm in War?

This post has been edited by Spirited Away: May 5 2006, 03:21 PM

[magicfann]

if i were given a nuke, no sh*t i would drop it on a country, what else would you do with it?

[think!IMAGINARIL...]

as soon as i come back here, i see that 'yes' is about two times more than 'no'. has ANYONE even read my post?

if i were given a nuke, no sh*t i would drop it on a country, what else would you do with it?

it killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF LIVES. read my post. Japan was getting ready to surrender before they were bombed. besides, if another country, lets say Iran, had a nuke and their #1 enemy is the US. and they bomb us at every major city.

now how would you feel?

[Spirited Away]

as soon as i come back here, i see that 'yes' is about two times more than 'no'. has ANYONE even read my post?
it killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF LIVES. read my post. Japan was getting ready to surrender before they were bombed. besides, if another country, lets say Iran, had a nuke and their #1 enemy is the US. and they bomb us at every major city.

now how would you feel?

Why don't you read previous posts?

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.

no, the US just didn't want to invade japan. they invaded okinawa, and the civillians were waiting on the beach with sharpened bamboo sticks to "kill" the americans with

the japanesse were going to fight to the death. an invasion of the main island was slated to cost 1 million american lives and 75% civilian casualties.

plus, if the bombs hadn't been developed, the US invasion plan was this:::

at huntsville, al. they had already made tons of nerve gas. this was based on experience with okinawa.

they would first, gas the entire island and send troops in with gas masks to kill off the people who survived to resist.
the bombs were the lesser of two evils, but much lesser.

and the placing two was a bluff. the japanesse thought we only had one bomb. by dropping two, we tricked them into thinking we had a whole stockload. but all we had were two.

Well, when Japan attacked Pearl, they killed many innocents, too. Why is that America must bare the burden of attacking "civilians" when Japan did just the same?

Second, not only were we faced with War, but also a our relationship with Russia was wavering. Japan was ready for a bloody confrontation in their country and if we had waited and Japan did not surrender, there would be more casualities and damage than the results of the two bombs combined.

Imagine a full scale attack on Japan by Russia and the US forces combined; imagine the US and Russia duking out their difference on Japanese soil...

We needed to ensure surrender, not just guess that they would surrender, and we needed to show Russia that we weren't afraid to use a WMD.

everyone is asking, why drop 2 bombs. i'm going to answer it.

the japanesse though we only had one bomb. the bomb was something they had also been trying to help the Nazis develop. they knew how hard it was to make bombs

we had to drop 2 in quick succession, to make them thing we had big warehouses full of bombs, that we could kill the entire island. it was a bluff.

we had to trick the japanesse into thinking we had unlimited bombs.

so we acted like we had tons and were going to drop one every few days.

droping one shows you have the power to deveolp one bomb. droping two shows you have the power to make tons of bombs and destroy them.

the emperor tried to surrender. some people took over, saying it was cowadice. the emperor wa a living god. it was high treason. but they still did it. because he was going to surrender.

the thing is, we couldn't have waited. because, we had to strike in quick succesion for the bombs to have extreme psycological effect.
by the way, the second bomb, fat man, it missed nagasaki, although not compeletly.

it's about a display of power.

they were going to. but then they kidnapped thier own emperor. thier surrender wasn't just a white flag to them. it was a big deal. an honourable death on the battle fieldis better than the cowardly death years later. that is thier philosophy, and they followed it.

Well, if you want justification in the dropping of the bombs, it exists.

The Japanese didn't just attack the military bases in Pearl Harbor, they killed over 150 civilians in Honolulu as well (from improperly fused shells).

I find it quite the double-standard to say "It's okay, you killed 150 innocent people in Honolulu, we'll take our licks and let that one slide."

Like uninspiredfae [Spirited Away] said, it's a war, not a game. Japan didn't follow the rules, we didn't either.
We didn't waste money by dropping the bombs, because dropping them was actually economically sound. We utilized what we spent so much money towards. Bombs are built and recreated everyday, but when they sit around for 50 years and become inactive, we scrap them for the metal, or they become an underground tourist site like the one I visited in Colorado. The missile I saw was 65 years old, and is still pointed at Russia, but it won't work anymore.

Like it or not, the United States' existence relies on enforcing our clout.

Japan attacks us and kills 2,400+ people, injuring over 1,000, we retaliate with 50 times the force.

Also, belive it or not, dropping the bomb was for the good of the Japanese people. At that time they were just as tenacious as the Americans (perhaps more) and would have fought down to the last man (regardless of Germany's defeat), spelling the demise for that country in the future.

After we dropped the bomb we were able to go in and help to rebuild the economy of Japan, giving them a real position in the world. One they hold to this day, and one they never would have had if they had kept fighting after Germany went down.
I think you exaggerate the numbers when you say millions of Japanese died...
Yeah, well extremity is what our country depends upon.

[priyas]

First off:

The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor first because the USA cut of their supplies. If the US, had not bombed Japan, the war would not have stopped.

The Japanese were being cruel to the Chinese.

[think!IMAGINARIL...]

First off:

The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor first because the USA cut of their supplies. If the US, had not bombed Japan, the war would not have stopped.

The Japanese were being cruel to the Chinese.

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Hi...ma_and_Nagasaki

[Spirited Away]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Hi...ma_and_Nagasaki

From that same source...

Although supporters of the bombing concede that the civilian leadership in Japan was cautiously and discreetly sending out diplomatic communiques as far back as January 1945, following the Allied invasion of Luzon in the Philippines, they point out that Japanese military officials were unanimously opposed to any negotiations before the use of the atomic bomb.

While some members of the civilian leadership did use covert diplomatic channels to begin negotiation for peace, on their own they could not negotiate surrender or even a cease-fire. Japan, as a Constitutional Monarchy, could only enter into a peace agreement with the unanimous support of the Japanese cabinet, and this cabinet was dominated by militarists from the Japanese Imperial Army and the Japanese Imperial Navy, all of whom were initially opposed to any peace deal. A political stalemate developed between the military and civilian leaders of Japan with the military increasingly determined to fight despite the costs and odds. Many continued to believe that Japan could negotiate more favorable terms of surrender by continuing to inflict high levels of casualties on opposing forces, and end the war without an occupation of Japan or a change of government.

Historian Victor Davis Hanson points to the increased Japanese resistance, futile though it was in retrospect, as it became more and more obvious that the result of the war could not be overturned by the Axis powers. The Battle of Okinawa showed this determination to fight on at all costs. More than 120,000 Japanese and 18,000 American troops were killed in the bloodiest battle of the Pacific theater, just 8 weeks before Japan's final surrender. In fact, more civilians died in the Battle of Okinawa than did in the initial blast of the atomic bombings... The Japanese would not give up easily because of their strong tradition of pride and honor—many followed the Samurai code and would fight until the very last man was dead.[/b]

According to some Japanese historians, Japanese civilian leaders who favored surrender saw their salvation in the atomic bombing

The Japanese military was steadfastly refusing to give up, as were the military men in the war cabinet. (Because the cabinet functioned by consensus, even one holdout could prevent it from accepting the Declaration.)

Supporters of the bombing also point out that waiting for the Japanese to surrender was not a cost-free option—as a result of the war, noncombatants were dying throughout Asia at a rate of about 200,000 per month.

In addition to that, the atomic bomb hastened the end of the Second World War in Asia liberating hundreds of thousands of Western citizens, including about 200,000 Dutch and 400,000 Indonesians ("Romushas") from Japanese concentration camps. Moreover, Japanese troops had committed atrocities against millions of civilians (such as the infamous Nanking Massacre), and the early end to the war prevented futher bloodshed.

And so on.. wasn't it convenient for you to leave the other side of the argument out?

[vash1530]

yes in the fact that we needed it to immeadiately stop the war

no because we would'ev eventually beat thtem

[sw33t_rouge]

I htink what they did was wrong. the radiation from the bobmbs affect the next generation of people in Japan. which people die from, nuclear weapons are scary >:

[think!IMAGINARIL...]

I htink what they did was wrong. the radiation from the bobmbs affect the next generation of people in Japan. which people die from, nuclear weapons are scary >:

i think so too. the nuclear radiation killed over 100,000 people alone in the aftermath!
the US could have just used their method of firebombing to make the Japanese surrender.
Firebombing would have been a better idea and it wouldn't have had caused radiation poisoning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Kobe_in_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_To...in_World_War_II

From that same source...
And so on.. wasn't it convenient for you to leave the other side of the argument out?

i only left the other side out 'cause i don't care about it. i think that the bombings of Japan were wrong. if you think killing hundreds of thousands of civilians for no reason is ok, then why don't you just go out and murder people? we could have just killed some troops and their leaders and that probably would have ended the war.

The Manhattan Project had originally been conceived as a counter to Nazi Germany's atomic bomb program, and with the defeat of Germany, several scientists working on the project felt that the United States should not be the first to use such weapons. Two of the prominent critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard, who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Szilard, who had gone on afterwards to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued: "If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them." In the days just before their use, many scientists (including American nuclear physicist Edward Teller) argued that the destructive power of the bomb could have been demonstrated without the taking of lives.

Some have claimed that the Japanese were already essentially defeated, and therefore use of the bombs was unnecessary. General Dwight D. Eisenhower so advised the Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, in July of 1945. The highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater, General Douglas MacArthur, was not consulted beforehand, but said afterward that he felt that there was no military justification for the bombings. The same opinion was expressed by Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials); Major General Curtis LeMay; and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard, and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.

this was said by Gen. Eisenhower himself.

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."

[Spirited Away]

i think so too. the nuclear radiation killed over 100,000 people alone in the aftermath!
the US could have just used their method of firebombing to make the Japanese surrender.
Firebombing would have been a better idea and it wouldn't have had caused radiation poisoning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Kobe_in_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_To...in_World_War_II
i only left the other side out 'cause i don't care about it. i think that the bombings of Japan were wrong. if you think killing hundreds of thousands of civilians for no reason is ok, then why don't you just go out and murder people? we could have just killed some troops and their leaders and that probably would have ended the war.
this was said by Gen. Eisenhower himself.

Earlier you said that no one read your post, and I made a point that you should read previous posts as well, but I do not think have taken my advice because you're still talking funny. We've discussed why we thought the bombs were justified in the posts that I copied for your convenience and, in order for people to respect your point of view, you should respect others--that is if you've actually read our POVs instead of ranting off.

Also, as a reminder, you are in what's called a "debate" forum. You cannot seriously say you "don't care about [the other side of the argument]" without making yourself... unfit to debate.

Yea, I read ALL of what your source had to say, but I didn't have selective understanding of it as you seemed to; I actually got what both sides are saying. And yea, Gen. Ike said that, but as I quoted, there were JAPANESE who felt that the bombs were "salvation". So again, understand what your source is telling you: that there are TWO sides to the story. And just because you "don't care" doesn't mean the other side doesn't exist.

And since you so bolded the word "civilians", I wonder if you think that no one at Pearl was a civilian.

[think!IMAGINARIL...]

And since you so bolded the word "civilians", I wonder if you think that no one at Pearl was a civilian.

at Pearl Harbor, only about 2,400 people were killed [according to Wikipedia]. at Nagasaki and Hiroshima, over 100,000 [also according to Wikipedia] people were killed instantly [and over 100,000 more due to radiation poisoning]. i wonder if you think 2,400 Americans matter more than 100,000 Japanese.

[Spirited Away]

at Pearl Harbor, only about 2,400 people were killed [according to Wikipedia]. at Nagasaki and Hiroshima, over 100,000 [also according to Wikipedia] people were killed instantly [and over 100,000 more due to radiation poisoning]. i wonder if you think 2,400 Americans matter more than 100,000 Japanese.

Haha oh yea, and that excuses the loss of lives, right? And you were asking why don't I go out and murder people? Well, right back at you.

As I've said before many times on this thread, and if only you'd pay a little more attention to other views aside from your own you'd get it by now. 1) People die because it was a war, 2) Japanese attacked Pearl without any prior warning, and 3) you cannot seriously think that it was okay for Japan to attack Pearl and get away with it. And before you run off to do research again, let me clarify something for you. When America attacked Japan, it was war. When Japan attacked Pearl, it was NOT war because there was no declaration of war; thus, it was more like... a mass killing/MURDER of roughly 2,400 Americans. That's another way to look at it, huh?

I understand about the radiation, I really do, and I've covered a little about that, too, and so have others in previous posts. I'm peeved at the hypocrisy you said about people not reading your post, because you're not reading any of ours. That's all.

[NoSex]

3) you cannot seriously think that it was okay for Japan to attack Pearl and get away with it.

That doesn't mean that we would be justified in dropping the bomb as we did. Not to mention, you have been seeming to make it out as if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were retaliation for the attacks on Pearl Habor. Well, such a proposition is highly suspect. As far as I can tell, the dropping of the bombs were not actualized, in any way, as a revenge for a surprise attack on Peral Harbor.

Also, it is almost meaningless to talk about Pearl Harbor here. Two wrongs don't make a right. And eye for an eye makes the world blind. But, most importantly, this is a debate about the consequence, and justifications behind the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Pearl Harbor seems kind of irrelevant in that sense; unless you want to make that case where two wrongs do indeed make a right. Maybe you want to draw a moral justification to killing innocent people in an aim to end war by drawing out how it was wrong to kill people in the first place? In which case, I think you might have already lost the debate.

Either way, I suggest you stick to trying to prove that the suffering weighed to the choice of dropping the bombs is less than if we were to never have dropped the bombs. How much more money, time, and lives would be in question in each case? What alternatives did we have, and why would it not have been wise to take said alternatives?

[think!IMAGINARIL...]

Either way, I suggest you stick to trying to prove that the suffering weighed to the choice of dropping the bombs is less than if we were to never have dropped the bombs. How much more money, time, and lives would be in question in each case? What alternatives did we have, and why would it not have been wise to take said alternatives?

an alternative would be firebombing, which i think would have been a better idea bacause it wouldn't cause radiation poisoning and kill over 100,000 people.

The first firebombing raid was on Kobe on February 3, 1945, and following its relative success the USAAF continued the tactic. Much of the armor and defensive weaponry of the bombers was also removed to allow increased bomb loads; Japanese air defense in terms of night-fighters and anti-aircraft guns was so inadequate that it was hardly a risk. The first such raid on Tokyo was on the night of February 23-24 when 174 B-29s destroyed around one square mile (~2.56 km²) of the city. Following on that success 334 B-29s took off from the Mariana Islands on the night of March 9-10 heading for Tokyo. After 2 hours of bombardment the wooden city of Tokyo was engulfed in a firestorm. These fires were so hot they would literally ignite the clothing on individuals as they were fleeing. What was particularly horrifying was a lot of the women were wearing what were called 'air-raid turbans' around their heads and the heat would ignite those turbans like igniting a wick on a candle to start consuming the flame. The aftermath of the incendiary bombings lead to an estimated 100,000 Japanese dead. This may have been the most devasting single raid ever carried out by aircraft in any war including the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Around 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city was destroyed in the fire storm. The destruction and damage was at its worst in the city sections east of the Imperial Palace. In the following two weeks there were almost 1,600 further sorties against the four cities, destroying 31 square miles (80 km²) in total at a cost of 22 aircraft. There was a third raid on Tokyo on May 26.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_To...in_World_War_II

[Spirited Away]

That doesn't mean that we would be justified in dropping the bomb as we did. Not to mention, you have been seeming to make it out as if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were retaliation for the attacks on Pearl Habor. Well, such a proposition is highly suspect. As far as I can tell, the dropping of the bombs were not actualized, in any way, as a revenge for a surprise attack on Peral Harbor.

Also, it is almost meaningless to talk about Pearl Harbor here. Two wrongs don't make a right. And eye for an eye makes the world blind. But, most importantly, this is a debate about the consequence, and justifications behind the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Pearl Harbor seems kind of irrelevant in that sense; unless you want to make that case where two wrongs do indeed make a right. Maybe you want to draw a moral justification to killing innocent people in an aim to end war by drawing out how it was wrong to kill people in the first place? In which case, I think you might have already lost the debate.

Either way, I suggest you stick to trying to prove that the suffering weighed to the choice of dropping the bombs is less than if we were to never have dropped the bombs. How much more money, time, and lives would be in question in each case? What alternatives did we have, and why would it not have been wise to take said alternatives?

Er, thanks, but no thanks for the suggestion. I've made my case already about... well all that you've said in earlier posts, I really did and so did Mr. Acid and Justin... etc. Within the context of this thread, I've made my case with more than Pearl. If you've read it all and still think my case was weak or "lost", then to each his own.

Again, that was why I was peeved with the whole "no body read my post" thing, cuz everyone's doing it. Haha.

My very simple respond to your comment, in summarizing my general view about Pearl Harbor, is this. While two wrongs oftimes don't make a right, it doesn't have to do with two wrongs in my mind, it has more to do with justification. When people ask if the bombs were necessary or justified, I ask "was Pearl necessary/justified?", such that the bombs were as necessary and justified to the US as attacking Pearl was necessary and justified for Japan.

an alternative would be firebombing, which i think would have been a better idea bacause it wouldn't cause radiation poisoning and kill over 100,000 people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_To...in_World_War_II

http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php...pic=16464&st=75

My point? It's all would have's and could have's... Could bomb raids alone have delivered the same psychological and political impact? We would never know for sure... but you're welcome to speculate, just don't try to pass it off as a fact though.