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?