57 years ago today the US killed 10's of thousands of civilians

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,825
6,374
126
Regardless of the moral implications of the events, it is important to remember them. Though some would like to downplay the savagery and brutal cruelty inherent in atomic warfare and in light of other atrocities of equal horror, nevertheless the use of the atomic bombs on Japan forever changed humanity. I doubt that many of those who made the decision to use the bombs had even a vague understanding of what the implications were. The American public were dumbstruck by their nations newfound power and it is my belief that the impact is still affecting the American psyche.

Into the 1950's America rode a wave of post war euphoria, until the Soviets developed their own atomic weapons and the launching of Sputnik. Suddenly it became quite clear that every American was now a potential target to Atomic weaponry. Euphoria turned to paranoia, McCarthyism(sp) reared it's ugly head and ruined many American lives through innuendo and suspicion, even though it was these peoples Constitutional right to believe what McCarthyism attempted to weed out of America, mass hysteria allowed the persecution to persist.

Until the 1950's, Christianity was the dominant religion/philosophy of America. As paranoia swept the nation, Christianity was replaced by Materialism as a source of comfort, reason for living, and life goal. Most Americans still identified themselves as Christian(as they do today), but it is quite clear, pre-50's Christianity != post-50's Christianity. The 60's Hippy movement was more than an Anti-Vietnam War protest, it was an affirmation of the shift of values that occured during the 50's. The Hippy's took their parents acceptance of Materialism over Christianity and went the final step to outright rejection of Christianity, but instead of embracing Materialism, they embraced Self-Gratification. Self-Gratification was acheived through extremely liberal sexual views and various drugs, but due to the inability of these things to acheive their philosophical goals( Peace and Love), the Hippy movement was short lived. The Hippy movement wasn't a complete failure, it's emphasis on Peace and Love re-invigorated and re-invented Christianity as many former Hippies gravitated to more traditional forms(religion) of life philosophies. Along with the growth in Christianity other religions, mainly of Asian origin, became more widely accepted.

The 70's were a complete wasteland, IMO. Former Hippies found meaning in religion or cults, but the majority wandered through the 70's still practicing the Self-Gratification of the Hippy movement, but without the philosophical trappings. It wasn't until the 80's when most of the generation that changed America re-discovered the Materialism of their parents, but they went further then their parents ever would consider, by declaring "Greed is good". The 80's was the begining and clear affirmation that America's philosophy was now Materialism and Money.

The 90's was less about the spiritual/philosophical views of Americans and more about Global Politics and America's place in a post-Soviet/Cold War world. Certainly there were many changes to America's foreign policy before and during the Cold War(Post-WWII military bases in Asia/Europe, Korea and Vietnam wars, supporting of many foriegn governments and rebel forces against Communism, etc), but it wasn't until the 90's that the internal spiritual/philosophical struggles of American's began to settle on a norm since WWII. Along with the end of the Cold War, the paranoia of Nuclear Holocaust also subsided. The US had expanded it's military presence in foreign bases during the Cold War in order to hold back the expansion of Soviet/Communist power on the world stage. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the US suddenly found itself with a Global military presence with nothing to hold it back. For the first time in history the US could have easily been a true Global Imperialist power, just by maintaining the status quo. It is my belief that the military budget cutbacks during the 90's were partially to prevent this from happening. Fate seems to be conspiring to draw the US into an Imperialist role however. Only time will reveal how that plays out.



Sorry for the long post, the above is my view on the implications to the US of the usage of the Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
japan was obviously asking for it....

Well, that's not how i would put it, but attacking the U.S. wasn't exactly the brightest move in the world. This was, after all, the same country that in a war just a few decades before, burned a good sized chunk of one of its own states down to the ground. If we had no problem with Sherman's March to the Sea, why does the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki come as a huge surprise?

Imagine we paraphrased "I can make Georgia howl!" and marched through Japan the same way, and cut a sixty-mile wide, 250 mile long swath of utter destruction through Honhsu Island. That's after all the American way of warfighting. I'd say Japan got off fairly lightly, all things told.

 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
Originally posted by: darren
i believe that hundreds of thousands died over the course of the two bombs.

i think there exists very strong arguments that the dropping of the bomb on hiroshima was not necessary to end the war. read correspondence between high ranking members of the military and presidential administration - been a while - i dont even remember their names.

there also exists a very strong moral argument that killing some 200,000 - 300,000 CIVILIANS via atom bomb is not the same as sending in our troops and suffering MILITARY casualties. theres a reason for the differentiation between soldier and civilian.

targetting civilians for the purpose of affecting political change is quite common in conflicts today. we witness it in the news all the time. people that knowingly target civilians are commonly called TERRORISTS. (i.e. IRA and HAMAS have planned attacks intending to kill civilians or at best knowing that civilians would be killed etc.)

unfortunately when our country does it, people like some patriotic or self-centered people on this board dont call it terrorism; instead they say "we'd do it again!" with a smiley face. wow.
certainly the difference may be that the US is the defender of freedom and therefore is right. perhaps being on the right (or just/fair side) entitles you to means that aren't normally 'allowed'. that is 'ends justify the means' mentality.
i believe that context (ends) does play a role in what are realistic options, but saying "we'd do it again!" with such lax enthusiasm is definitely taking 'ends justify the means' - mentality to the furthest extreme possible - and not being ashamed of it at all.

with that said i believe its really wrong to celebrate and say stuff like "yea! i or we'd do it again".

yes the japanese did kill lots of chinese and in very brutal ways. so lets go kill em.

It was not terrorism by any stretch of the imagination. There was a state of declared war and all combatants in the war dropped bombs on civilian populations. This was the way total war was conducted during WWII like it or not. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that had the roles been reversed Tojo would not have hesitated to use an atomic bomb against the US. As for the "celebration" I doubt anyone then or now enjoyed having to resort to using the atomic bomb. The reaction here is mainly due to the same old nonsense that is put forth every anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagsaki. The same voices that spew hatred and disdain for the US dropping the bombs are curiously silent whenever December 7 rolls around though.
 

NikPreviousAcct

No Lifer
Aug 15, 2000
52,763
1
0
Originally posted by: rahvin
On August 6th, 1945 the US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshama Japan in an attempt to end WWII. May history never repeat itself.

If they hadn't, many more would have been killed. May history never fail to teach stupid people what the hell was actually going on. Oops, too late.

nik
 

Dudd

Platinum Member
Aug 3, 2001
2,865
0
0
I can't understand how anyone can be against dropping the bomb. WWII was a huge war. Many millions died. In the scheme of things, killing 200,000+ to end it was a bargain. Maybe many of you have gotten the impression over the years that war is a small deal. All of the dumb little wars, the Bosnias, the Somalian campaign, the week long bombings of Iraq, those are infinitely small compared with WWII. How would you like to have been the president responsible for have a hundred thousand or more of your boys dead when just a couple of bombs could have ended the whole deal. Everyone is outraged over nukes, but you have to remember, just as many or more civilians died due to conventional bombing as well. We live in an age of smart bombs, but back then, whole cities had to be carpet bombed if you wanted to hit a military complex imbedded within. If you were faced with firebombing the whole country to the ground and then have to undertake a full scale invasion, or simply nuking two cities and hoping for a surrender, I'd have nuked them too. In a war that terrible, I wouldn't have left any hand unplayed.

Originally posted by: Shelly21
Should've dropped the bomb earlier before they raped Nanking.

Would have been nice, but the bomb was ready only at the very end of the war. Hell, it was so rushed that it had duck tape keeping it together.
 

Desslok

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2001
3,780
11
81
Japan is a foundi9ng memeber of the international whining club. Oh poor us! Screw that, what about the rape of Nanking, what about the inhuman medical experiments on POWs what about the Chinese that they slaughtered(more Chinese died than Jews did in the death camps). The Batan death march. They brought it on themselves!
 
May 31, 2001
15,326
2
0
Originally posted by: rahvin
On August 6th, 1945 the US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshama Japan in an attempt to end WWII. May history never repeat itself.

Imagine how many would have died if we had invaded Japan and engaged in a land war. Tens of thousands is a paltry number compared to how many would have died if Japan had not surrendered.
 

DanFungus

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2001
5,857
0
0
Originally posted by: pyonir
Originally posted by: vi_edit
Where's that 10 foot pole when you need it? Oh, I forgot. I left it in that "gay's coming out till 21 thread".

:)

haha...

*me puts on flame proof googles to watch the show*

lol..where'd you get a pair of googles?
:( about the bombing though.

 
Aug 16, 2001
22,505
4
81
Originally posted by: 0ops
Correct me if I am wrong (since I did not live through this),
Japan was practically already beaten before the the bombs were
dropped, and it did not end WWII since Germany kept on fighting
for a few more months. IMO the US just wanted to find out what
would happen if they dropped the bomb (just like they had used
bioweapons on one of their own ships to see what would happen).
This ranks as one of the worst acts of terror ever committed.

No, Germany surrendered before Japan.

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
I can assure you, the Military, the American Government and the American Population would have preffered Japan just surrender rather than having to drop the bomb. But since the Japs didn't, since they started the war and since they were doing their best to kill Americans anything at our disposal to quickly end the war was what was best for America and all those who were at war with Japan. What was best for the Japanese came in dead last as far as our priorities went during WW2. What happened in Nagasaki and Hiroshima was of their own doing.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: FrustratedUser
Originally posted by: 0ops
Correct me if I am wrong (since I did not live through this),
Japan was practically already beaten before the the bombs were
dropped, and it did not end WWII since Germany kept on fighting
for a few more months. IMO the US just wanted to find out what
would happen if they dropped the bomb (just like they had used
bioweapons on one of their own ships to see what would happen).
This ranks as one of the worst acts of terror ever committed.

No, Germany surrendered before Japan.

We've already been over that.

Many of you have mentioned the Soviet when giving reasons for dropping these bombs. It does make a bit of sense however I've read quite a bit about this and I've never seen this mentioned. If someone could point the way to something that show that it was a consideration I'd appreciate it.

Dave
 

Dudd

Platinum Member
Aug 3, 2001
2,865
0
0
I don't have a link for this, but my AP US class used a supplemental book called After the Fact, and it had a chapter on why the bomb was dropped. In addition to many other reasons, many of which have been stated here (more lives lost in an invasion, political suicide sending thousands of US soldiers to their deaths without using the bombs, the desire to put into use this billion dollar+ investment, etc), it mentions that it also was used as a deterrent to the Soviets. However, it concludes that it was a combination of these factors, not any one like most people simplify it down to, that resulted in the bomb being dropped. Unfortunately, it took about 25 or more boring pages to tell us this, so you guys are lucky to get the condensed version.
 

Cyberian

Diamond Member
Jun 17, 2000
9,999
1
0
rahvin -
I think you summed the whole thing up quite nicely right here.
Although I do think the use of the weapons was justified I do feel that we should remember the use of those weapons with reverence and pray that the world will never see the use of nuclear weapons again. Hiroshima and Nagasaki stand as monuments to the evil of war and as a reminder that we must be ever vigilant to prevent wars like that from ever occuring again.
 

PistachioByAzul

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,132
0
71
There always exists a better way than violence, it's just a matter of having the strength of character to choose that dangerous and unglorious path.

People can hide behind their technical euphemisms all they want, but we still murdered a few hundred thousand innocent people. There's no justification for that.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
People can hide behind their technical euphemisms all they want, but we still murdered a few hundred thousand innocent people. There's no justification for that.
Maybe not to your pampered ill informed mind but to Americans who were losing their loved ones to the Japanese Imperial Army it was more than justified.
 

Dudd

Platinum Member
Aug 3, 2001
2,865
0
0
Originally posted by: EngineNr9
There always exists a better way than violence, it's just a matter of having the strength of character to choose that dangerous and unglorious path.

People can hide behind their technical euphemisms all they want, but we still murdered a few hundred thousand innocent people. There's no justification for that.

What would be this great idea to avoid violence? We tried appeasing the Germans, let them violate Versaille, let them move troops into the Rhein Valley, let them take over Chezchoslavakia, all to avoid violence. What did that get us? The worst war mankind has ever known. You can try and hide behind your holier than thou veil, but the fact remains that sometimes, violence is the answer.

 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
There always exists a better way than violence, it's just a matter of having the strength of character to choose that dangerous and unglorious path.

People can hide behind their technical euphemisms all they want, but we still murdered a few hundred thousand innocent people. There's no justification for that.

Okay, let's try this another way which you might be able to wrap your mind around. Imagine for a moment i'm President Truman. My military advisors have just made their case for using the atomic bomb on Japan. Make yours for not using it.


I'll make this an open challenge to you, or any other person who thinks that dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was avoidable or a bad idea. <Hint> The concept of pacifism is not a valid answer to the thought experiment posed above.
 

Renob

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2000
7,596
1
81
57 years ago today the US killed 10's of thousands of civilians


Thank God we killed them, it saved Thousands of Americans.
 

darren

Senior member
Feb 26, 2000
401
0
0
LINFLAS say:
<<It was not terrorism by any stretch of the imagination. There was a state of declared war and all combatants in the war dropped bombs on civilian populations. This was the way total war was conducted during WWII like it or not. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that had the roles been reversed Tojo would not have hesitated to use an atomic bomb against the US. As for the "celebration" I doubt anyone then or now enjoyed having to resort to using the atomic bomb. The reaction here is mainly due to the same old nonsense that is put forth every anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagsaki. The same voices that spew hatred and disdain for the US dropping the bombs are curiously silent whenever December 7 rolls around though. >>

yea thats true everyone was dropping bombs on civilian populations from britain through germany to china and all the way to japan. that is a context but i still dont believe it AUTOMATICALLY gives any country the right to do it.

furthermore according to the logic written above, all it takes for hamas to justify what it does is a declration of war against israel? if thats true i think they've more than done that - they call for the destruction of the 'illegitimate state of israel'.
or perhaps since hamas is not a recognized state it doesnt have the right to be a 'legitimate participant' in any war / battle?
i think the argument we are addressing here continues to revolve on what legitimizes an action in war.
any thoughts?

december 7 is the day that japan sprung a surprise attack on our pearl harbor - a military base. are they terrorists cause they didnt declare war?

for now the issue that i'm engaging and that you partook in above revolves around 'rules of war' - without taking into consideration 'who is right'. i suppose your consideration of what japan would do if the situation was reversed. if we thought that japan DID have the bomb, first step of that is prisoner's dilemna and then the judgement - once again as to whether or not end justifies the means, at which point many would eagerly say definitely yes. i guess that'd be the next factor that may or may not our conclusions as to rules of war.

my two cents.
sorry i have more questions than answers but this seems to be a very productive engaging discussion :)
 

darren

Senior member
Feb 26, 2000
401
0
0
Sandorski:
<<Regardless of the moral implications of the events, it is important to remember them. Though some would like to downplay the savagery and brutal cruelty inherent in atomic warfare and in light of other atrocities of equal horror, nevertheless the use of the atomic bombs on Japan forever changed humanity. I doubt that many of those who made the decision to use the bombs had even a vague understanding of what the implications were. The American public were dumbstruck by their nations newfound power and it is my belief that the impact is still affecting the American .............................................................
>>

thats some interesting insight.
 

NikPreviousAcct

No Lifer
Aug 15, 2000
52,763
1
0
Originally posted by: Renob
57 years ago today the US killed 10's of thousands of civilians


Thank God we killed them, it saved Thousands of Americans.

I like the way you (and others here) think.

nik
 

Dudd

Platinum Member
Aug 3, 2001
2,865
0
0
Originally posted by: darren
LINFLAS say:
<<It was not terrorism by any stretch of the imagination. There was a state of declared war and all combatants in the war dropped bombs on civilian populations. This was the way total war was conducted during WWII like it or not. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that had the roles been reversed Tojo would not have hesitated to use an atomic bomb against the US. As for the "celebration" I doubt anyone then or now enjoyed having to resort to using the atomic bomb. The reaction here is mainly due to the same old nonsense that is put forth every anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagsaki. The same voices that spew hatred and disdain for the US dropping the bombs are curiously silent whenever December 7 rolls around though. >>

yea thats true everyone was dropping bombs on civilian populations from britain through germany to china and all the way to japan. that is a context but i still dont believe it AUTOMATICALLY gives any country the right to do it.

furthermore according to the logic written above, all it takes for hamas to justify what it does is a declration of war against israel? if thats true i think they've more than done that - they call for the destruction of the 'illegitimate state of israel'.
or perhaps since hamas is not a recognized state it doesnt have the right to be a 'legitimate participant' in any war / battle?
i think the argument we are addressing here continues to revolve on what legitimizes an action in war.
any thoughts?

december 7 is the day that japan sprung a surprise attack on our pearl harbor - a military base. are they terrorists cause they didnt declare war?

for now the issue that i'm engaging and that you partook in above revolves around 'rules of war' - without taking into consideration 'who is right'. i suppose your consideration of what japan would do if the situation was reversed. if we thought that japan DID have the bomb, first step of that is prisoner's dilemna and then the judgement - once again as to whether or not end justifies the means, at which point many would eagerly say definitely yes. i guess that'd be the next factor that may or may not our conclusions as to rules of war.

my two cents.
sorry i have more questions than answers but this seems to be a very productive engaging discussion :)

Those are some interesting questions. I think one thing we all can agree on is that war is not desireable. War is hell, always has been, always will be. But, sometimes war is necessary. That is what determines whether or not a military operation is right or wrong. Going on Pearl Harbor, I believe that the attack was in retaliation for the US cutting off oil supplies to Japan due to Japan's increased militance. To get oil, the Japanese needed to attack and gain control of oil rich islands in the Pacific. Fearing that the US might declare war when this attack occurred, they hoped to reduce the ability of the US fleet to make this a non-issue. To me, that is not a viable reason to attack a country out of the blue. Reducing military buildup in order to try and resume trade, finding alternative energy, any of those would have been a better solution. However, they attacked, and once they attacked they became the aggressor. To respond to this attack, the US had to declare war on Japan. Since Japan knew that their action would end with this result, they were to blame for the war in the Pacific. Once the war started, anything became fair game to end it, leading to the nuclear attacks and the end of the war. Now, I'm not a historian or anything, so feel free to point out any mistakes I've made.

 

poopaskoopa

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2000
4,836
1
81
My grandparents have never told me directly their opinions on the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They know that those bombs were horrible. But more than anything, I gathered they were glad that the war ended when it did. They live in Okinawa, where the U.S. troops and the Japanese forces fought on ground. There are still craters on certain parts of the island. If I remember correctly, about 1/3 of the population was wiped out, some(too many) were killed by Japanese soldiers. Getting killed is horrible, but by their accounts, living as refugees during those days with 7 kids, and coming back to Okinawa right after WW2 with nothing left wasn't easy either. It's amazing that they, and my uncles can talk about WWII with more dignity than some of you, but I guess that comes with the anonymity of internet forums. And Red Dawn, the word is Japanese, not Japs.