Um...I think the bombing just made the surrender come faster. I don't know if it was nesecary or if the president just panicked big time. No one will ever know, most likely.

Okay...quite queasy right now (taking medication)...so let's see if I have my head put on straight.

So I have two quotes to get at...

Okay...so about the Emperor: The US didn't want the Japanese to keep the emperor, AT ALL. They really wanted the emperor to drop down from his position and this was already going to produce more conflict in the situation. You see, they wanted the emperor to drop down to make the situation 'all better' but of course this wasn't going to happen. The Japanese saw the emperor as a god, and was the thing that held together the Japanese culture and people.

Okay, about the Stalin incident (well: kryogenix's quote): Okay, yes maybe the US had to enter the war quick, but why drop TWO atomic bombs, thus killing more innocent people, which only one atomic bomb could have been enough. I just don't see the logic in that. FDR asked for the two bombs to be dropped, but how is it that even Albert Einstein mentioned after that the atomic bombs shouldn't have been placed (after much consideration, he saw that it was unnecessary, stating that he regrets consenting the bomb to be placed). Over 59 scientists oposed the dropping of the bombs...so doesn't that say something?

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.

I hope you'll feel better...



But as the loser, they were still allowed to retaine their Emperor. You said it yourself that they were not going to let it happen, they were stubborn til the end. Of course I see their reasoning for it: honor, I presume, but America had to defend its honor as well.

You don't attack someone and not expect a retaliation. It was a war, not a game.



These scientists were worried about innocent lives that was lost or could be loss in Japan. The president had to worry about innocent lives that would be lost AROUND THE WORLD if the War was to continue. You said yourself that the Japanese wasn't going to let go of their Emperor so easily and that means that they were still willing to fight.

Thanks

Of course war isn't a game, but the fact of the matter is that unconditional surrender wasn't going to bring about peace. The bombings on Japan weren't necessary and there were possibly other ways to prevent the deaths of many people (including American soldiers). I'm just still debating on placing two atomic bombs...I just don't think that dropping the bomb in Nagasaki was truly necessary.

(hehe, we had a debate on this in class. I was obviously on the con side...yup I did a lot of research on this for class )



Yes, the Japanese were still willing to fight before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, but then after intercepting those messages from the Emperor, he stated that he was going to surrender. The American Military didn't care and were still going to drop the bomb on Nagasaki anyways. Basically, those intercepted messages didnt' mean squat.

I agree in that the second bomb on Nagasaki was unnecessary (I conceed to that much while debating with comradered), but as kyro said the second one ensured surrender. Not only that it brought a sense of security during the time of confusion to America, especially while our relationship with Russia was wavering. After all, Truman would've been bashed by many Americans if it was known that we had WMD and did not use it to secure surrender of the country that attacked Pearl.

While I agree that it was unnecessary, I will maintain that the bombs were justified.



Nagasaki was never the intended target. At first, the target was to be Kokura, now part of Kitakyushu, however, heavy cloud diverted the target to nearby Nagasaki. The damage to Nagasaki was wasn't as intense as in Hiroshima because of the city's topography.

Truman was under time pressure to keep Stalin's forces out.

If the war was prolonged there would have been more casualties.

No such weapon of mass destruction has ever been created. Its power could not have been conceived by those who do not know the weapon for what it is, as was the case of most Americans.

Understanding the military culture of Japan during that era, surrender would be considered disgrace. It's was hard to know whether or not the Emperor's word of surrender would be carried out by the military.

Sorry...btw that I didn't respond earlier...I have been busy this week and kind of drowsy, but I think I'm okay now .

Anywhoo...the Americans could have tested it to see the damage...but they refused to.

Sadly...the bombing on Japan still caused tension between the Soviet Union and the US, considering the fact that the Cold War started after WWII.

Atleast Japan was spared from further tension between Russia and the US. The Japanese would've suffered more if Russia had occupied parts of Japan and refused to leave.

At the time of the bombings, the Soviets and the US were still on the Allied side together. Stalin had no interest in staying in Japan, he was bribed to fight there in the first place.

Stalin entered the war in Japan at the behest of Roosevelt and Churchill at the Yalta conference in Feb. 1945 (they promised him the southern half of Sakhalin island, which Russia lost to Japan in 1905, if he would help them against Japan). Truman became president in April 1945 when Roosevelt died. He did not come to blows, as it were, with Stalin until after Japan surrendered and it became glaringly obvious that the Soviets were disregarding the free election policies discussed at Yalta and the German occupation policies agreed to at Potsdam.

Of course there was tension between the Soviets and Americans at the time, Stalin had always been suspicious of his western allies, but the atomic bombs were dropped to get a surrender from the Japanese, not to stop the advance of Soviet allies.

That's the part that I want to emphasize.

It was to get a surrender from the Japanese, but also to show the enemies and possible enemies that the US was not afraid to use WMD.

I agree with that.. but additionally, the atomic bombs were used because
a. it saved hundreds of thousands of US soldiers that would've died in a land invastion (millions of Japanese died in their place..)
b. by preventing a land invasion, the US also prevented Communism from spreading to Japan.. Communism spread to N Korea because the Soviets accepted the Japanese surrender there and were able to establish themselves.. the atomic bomb was a defense against communism as much as it was against the Japanese

most agree the bomb was necessary. the first one.

the second one was needed to show that we had the capibilities to do it again.

EXAMPLE:

senario 1.
say that al quida detonates a dirty bomb in a major city.

we clean up the mess, beef up security, start blaming people.

senario 2.
say that al quida detonates a dirty bomb in a major city.

we clean up the mess, beef up security, start blaming people.

then two days later they hit another major city. now everyone's worried. where will they strike next?


the psycology of getting hit once when you're not expecting it,

and then getting hit again with all your defenses up, but harder,
that's what got the surrender.

Um.. you spelt "scenario" wrong both times same with "quaeda"

but see.. the diff is that they have to somehow sneak their way in and we can stop them with security measures.. the Japanese had little chance to stop the two bombs. they didnt have any chance to rebuild any defenses of sorts after the first bomb was dropped

haha. i was in a hurry.

we had to sneak past thier air defenses

flak cannons, zeros

it's not easy to bomb another country.



oh, but you see. the japanese could have stopped the bombs. all they had to do was shoot down the bomber. the bomb wasn't even armed before about 2 hours before bombs away.

one bomber

hiroshima didn't have an air base. it was a military support area, not an are base.

the japanesse were not idmediatly wounded. it was a long term wound, to prevent the japanesse from manufacturing supplies.


thier air defenses were quite adequete, i tell you.

Air defenses adequate.. I dont know about that.. it was over major cities.. oh well.. but anyways.. were not immediately wounded.... ??? what are you talking about? how many ppl were killed? you call that not immediately wounded? And two bombs were dropped.. why were both necessary?

i ment militarily wounded.

they were still able to fight after hiroshima. they were still willing.

we had to prove that we had more than one bomb, that we could make more bombs.

they knew how hard it was to make the bombs. they were trying to help germany.

we had to prove that we had the capibilities to flatten the island. to convince them to surrender.

Gotcha


Where do you get this?



Wouldnt you say the measures were a bit extreme? Couldnt we have given them a little more time to surrender after the first bomb?

well......if the US hadn't dropped the two bombs, thousands of other people would have died buh by droppin the bombs it caused long term damages to many people
of japan

soooo i would have to say.... iono

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.

Yeah... well it still caused horrendous amounts of damage


I still say its a bit extreme


And why didnt one bomb wiping out an entire city have enough of a psychological effect?

ROCK ON!!

Tom Cruise is in fault for this!!
If he didn't convince the emperererer to not sign the treaty, the US and JAPAN would have been in PEACE!!

"sorry sir, if i may" - ambassador

"so sorry ambassasdor, but you may not!" -empepepereerer





Justin £¤¥¤£™

Hahaha was that movie even historically accurate? I mean.. did someone realli convince the emperor?

because we wanted to try to trick them into thinking we could drop atomic bombs on them every day.

Not necessarily...we just wanted them to surrender, which they were going to...but the US didn't take in consideration that they should have tested the bomb to the Japanese before they actually dropped it. It's supposed to show the destructive effect to see if they would surrender after seeing the negative effects...but the US didn't do that...a cowardly act.

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 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.

We flew bombing raids over Japan as well


And why was 50 times the force necessary?


Um... no.. perhaps the Generals were.. but not the civilians


Yet we also caused devastation long term effects due to the radiation by the atomic weapons


Perhaps a little. but they were mainly innocent women and children


Realli.. so you're for the preemptive invasion of Iraq?
And we should go and invade every other country that holds terrorists threats against us?

the civilians were.

at okinawa, when the americans did a conventional invasion this is what happened:

civillians were waiting on the beaches to kill the americans. with sharpened bamboo stakes.

as the americans aproached villages, entire villages would jump off cliffs instead of being captured.

to do that for the entire home islands? you crazy? that was the alternative to two bombs.

The second bomb was dropped primarily as a test. The bombs used were of different types, and the military wanted to see which type was more effective.

Were either bombing necessary? It has been suggested that the bombs could have been dropped on an uninhabited Japanese island, and the psychological impact of the destruction would've been enough to force the Japanese into surrender.

Of course, the argument is a moot point; the bombs were dropped, and that's something that can't be changed. At least we have been smart enough not to use atomic weaponry again.

And then the radioactive wind would have blown over to the populated areas of Japan, and people would get sick, and possible die.

It was too drastic. They could have used other bombs more innocent died than soldiers.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on distance, wind, and so forth; furthermore, the atomic bombs dropped then were not nearly as powerful as bombs of today, so the fallout may or may not have been as widespread. At any rate, it would not have caused the same fatalities as the direct hits on the cities.

And even so, the drop on Hiroshima was arguably necessary; but the drop on Nagasaki was mostly for scientific testing.

the nagasaki bombing was key.


imagine if september 14th, the empire state building and the chyrsler building were hit by planes.

that's what nagasaki was like.

boom, hiroshima's gone. eveyone knows about it. but they think we only have one bomb. two days later, nagasaki goes up with a bigger boom. now, it looks like we can bomb all of japan in a week.

But Japan already knew we could utterly destroy them with our weaponry; in fact, they were planning to surrender before Nagasaki was hit.

nagasaki sped things up.

the japanese didn't know we only had two bombs. but before nagasaki, they thought we only had one bomb.

we wanted them to think we had tons of bombs.

the japanese were planning to surender, but there was a coup against the emperor when he was going to surender, even after nagasaki.

do you think that the japanese people would have surrendered that easily? the top military commanders surely wouldn't.

You are incredibly naive. It's war.

War Pearl harbor necessary?



Exactly.

I completely agree with the United States involvement of Atomic weaponry to end the war with Japan. The Army estimated that a minimum of 500,000 G.I.'s would be killed or wounded taking the main island of Japan. That's too much to fathom, hell, I would have dropped the bomb myself.

It helped more than just Japan. It made the world realize that America is the land of the free and is not to be messed with. A war with Japan just after WW2 was too large a risk. Another war would have dampened the spirits of citezens. America needed the morale boost to continue the administrations role as being "good officials." The united states despises war. Politically it was the right thing to do. Look what happened with vietnam. Morally and logically it was the right thing to do. "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few or the one." There is no question in my mind whether or not the bombings were necassary. I'm not saying it isn't tragic what happened to those japanese cities, but the world's problems can only be solved with sacrifice. It sounds horrible, but people have to die so that other people can live. History shows us this same lesson over and over. For anyone to be happy and free and live jubilantly in peace and prosperity someone has to die or live disgraced, in jail, sad, lonely, hungry, and poor. One of the main fault's of American capitolism. The only way to succeed or get money is to take it from someone else. Communism, the leaders need to have all the money and power and land so that the peoples will worship and respect the state. Everything is give and take. Equivalent exchange.

ya.
I think that Americans should have only dropped one bomb..
I think (and also read somewhere) that the reason america dropped the second bomb on Nagasaki was because they wanted to revenge what happened at Pearl Harbor.

Actually, I don't think it's based on power. It's more on efficiency. Inefficient bombs will spread more radioactive materials, efficient ones make a bigger boom, if I'm not mistaken.

And the drop on Nagasaki was for psychological reasons. But Mr. Acid already explained so no reason to beat a dead horse.

Arguably for "psychological purposes", but again, was that necessary? Perhaps not. A field-test of the weapon was also a motivation for the drop.

yet even after the nagasaki, the top army commanders stil held a coupe against the emperor.

if nagasaki didn't happen, more of them would have helped, and overthrown the emperor.

think osaka. villages with bamboo stakes waiting at the shore to meet the GIs. women and children jumping off cliffs because death was better than capture.

if the US had to resort to a land invasion of japan, do you see what would happen?

the army saw. the plan was to gas the entire island with nerve gas. and then go in with GIs.

sounds much better than bombing a city, right?

There was a coup of some military officers that was stopped without much difficulty. It happened even with the bombing of Nagasaki, so I don't see how you can say that it would definitely have been successful without the bombing of Nagasaki. The fact is, Hirohito was likely going to surrender after Hiroshima, and it was likely that most of his government would go along with his plan.

hiroshima put japan off balance. they were ready to surrender. nagasaki tipped them to a for certain.

that military coup would have been much larger had nagasaki not been bombed. The military would have said "they only have one bomb- they can't hit us again"

nagasaki might have merely infuriated them to fight more, to fight bitterly, to have the entire nation fight, from children of 8 years old to grandmothers of 80, all with bamboo stakes.

is that the fight that you'd want, instead of bombing a city?

I'm not sure what evidence you offer for justification of your statements. I'm basing mine on historical facts; yours seems to be based entirely on unfounded hypotheticals.

these are historical facts:

- the military coup took place even after the second bombing.

- the US army's alternate to the bombings was to gas the entire island with nerve gas, then do a land invasion

- the US did not want to have to invade the japanese home islands. Because, the japanese civilians were told stories about the US GIs. bamboo stakes at the shore. it happened.

- nagasaki was a military target the city was of miltary importance.

So from that, you draw the conclusion that the bombing was a necessity? You don't seem to have a basis for the connections you make.

1. The military coup took place even after the second bombing.
Yes, and it may have taken place even after the first, no matter what. There were some disgruntled generals who did not want a surrender, but they would have been disgruntled no matter what. You have made no basis for your claim that more generals would have joined the coup without the second bombing.

2. The US army's alternate to the bombings was to gas the entire island with nerve gas, then do a land invasion.
A red herring. One could easily argue that no type of attack was justifiable.

3. The US did not want to have to invade the japanese home islands because, the Japanese civilians were told stories about the US GIs. bamboo stakes at the shore. It happened.
Again, what's the connection to the bombing? After the first, it was likely that an invasion was not necessary, since the Japanese were close to surrender. At this time of the war, the Japanese were on the run; they were badly beaten, and had little capacity to fight. Hirohito knew this, hence his plan to surrender; some generals didn't want that to happen, but that hardly represents a coup by the government as a whole.

4. Nagasaki was a military target the city was of miltary importance.
Another red herring. There was no need to destory every target of military importance, especially given the imminent end of the war.

Let's look at a few facts that were left out of the above:

1. The Japanese army was routed, in low morale, and in retreat--they were in no condition to fight. Some studies suggest the US estimate of casualties in a land invasion were exagerrated; at any rate, the Emperor had no plan to fight back--he wanted to surrender.

2. The second bomb was of a different type than the first; the US wished to test the effects of that type versus the first type.

3. The second bomb could've been dropped on an uninhabited island, if all the US wished to do was prove that we had multiple nuclear weapons.

ever heard of a guerilla resistance?

just because the emperor would have surrendered doesnt' mean japan would have.

you argue that the second bombing was only a display of force. where's your evidence? nagasaki was undenyably a military target.

Actually, I believe you're the one arguing that the second dropping was a display of force, not me.

Merely being a military target does not immediately justify the bombing. The "evidence" I have is noted in the above post; any student of Japanese history will recognize those facts. My assessment of the bombing as a test comes from an analysis of those facts, combined with several facts about the Manhattan Project, its researchers, and their testimonies to various government officials of the time.

oh what, so bombing a military target isn't justified?