• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

did US did the right thing by bombing Japan ?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I am not trying to justify killing innocent people, but Japan did do the same thing in Manchruia and throughout other parts of China. I wished I had some numbers about how many innocent Japanese we killed to compare it to the amount of innocent people they killed. My guess is that they killed many more then we did just because it went on for years in China.
 
What's the big deal about dropping the bomb? Yes, many people died, and there was much destruction, but the fire bombing of Tokyo was far more devastating in lives lost and property damage..........does it make you revisionists feel better that it took many bombs to do that rather than one?
What's the difference? I see none. It is ridiculous to think that it would have been better to invade Japan rather than drop the bomb. It's easy to see what the long term implications are, but the leaders then didn't have the luxury of hindsight.
With the battle for Okinawa fresh in their minds, where most Jap soldiers died rather than surrender, the military was surely glad to find a way to end the war without a land battle for Japan itself.

Think of it this way: Since the Japanese were going to resist with soldiers, women, children, etc, then it's likely that hundreds of thousands of civilians would have been killed by our soldiers in an invasion, along with hundreds of thousands of our men.

If you had a way to kill maybe 70-100,000 Japanese and ZERO Americans, possibly ending the war, wouldn't you do it? Horrible choice, but given the alternative, I'd give the order, no hesitation.
 
yes and no:

yes, to end the mass murder and rape in East Asia by the Japanese.

no, because the bomb should have been directed at a military target.
 
Hell no. We only did it because we were the only ones with the bomb and it was an easy quick fix. Of course, we've done far worse than that. (Dresden, East Timor, Cambodia)
 
I'd have to say no. The U.S. needed something to show their power to the U.S.S.R. and they didn't want the Soviets to invade Japan and be a part of the treaty settlement. Afterwards, the U.S. was the only one involved in the rebuilding of Japan.
The Japanese were willing to surrender almost unconditionally. The only thing they wanted was for nothing to happen to the Emperor.(I think it was Hirohito) The U.S. wanted unconditional surrender, so they dropped the bombs. Most of the cities had already been leveled by bombing raids, anyway.

Plus the Japanese Government had been completely taken over by the military in the 30's. The parliament had been disbanded and the military had free reign to do what they wanted.
 


<< .... Furthermore, Japan's leaders were disputing terms of surrender among themselves even before the destruction of Hiroshima. Surrender would not have been absolute without the bomb, but it still would have taken place. >>



Which World War are we talking about again? They NEVER talked about surrender before the bomb. Even after the Emperor surrendered, many Japanese leaders tried to conceal the fact that Japan had surrendered. In thier minds surrendering WAS NOT an choice. Not surrendering has to do with the Bushio Code, which they have been following last 1000 years. The Emperor surrendered b/c his "idea" of fighting to the death, did not include being massacred by atomic weapons.
 


<< Hell no. We only did it because we were the only ones with the bomb and it was an easy quick fix. >>


Oh well yeah.....it would have been so much better for 10 MILLION men, Women & Children to die in a war which may well have lasted another 2 years by Japenese & U.S. accounts...........It's so easy to judge the past from the future, but think of what some would be saying now if we had gone the "conventional" route????????? "Those dumbasses had a bomb which could have been dropped once or twice and saved millions but they chose to prolong the war and kill millions more." 😉 Some people only look for the bad in anyhting........🙁
 
rape of nanking:

over 10 million women, children killed (i think)

And the japanese raped the women.

(read that book)

~fat
 


<< The Japanese were willing to surrender almost unconditionally. The only thing they wanted was for nothing to happen to the Emperor.(I think it was Hirohito) The U.S. wanted unconditional surrender, so they dropped the bombs >>


Sheesh!......What are we trying to do here????? Rewrite history?????? The Japenese never spoke of surrender before the dropping of the Nagasaki bomb! Reread your history! They knew full well of the U.S. ultamatuim that another would be dropped within 36 hours after Hiroshima if they failed to surrender, but, they admitted afterward that they did not think the U.S. posessed another bomb of that magnitude!!!!
 
When you can tell me the good in dropping a nuclear bomb on a heavily populated city that will not only instantly kill massive amounts of people, but will also affect generations for many years to come, I'll be all ears.
 
When you can tell me the good in prolonging a war which would have easily killed millions more Japenese men, Women, and Children, not to mention our own Men, I'll be all ears.😉
 
I think the fact that the first bomb was not enough to convince them to surrender.... the fact that a second bomb had to be dropped to convince the Emperor to surrender showed the strength of the Japanese desire to continue fighting.

US casualties would have been absolutely astronomically high in conquering the island... Sometimes you have to wage war against civilians to weaken their resolve in continuing the war effort, eroding their support of their nation. Civilian populations were attacked by all nations of World War II. World War II was a total war. This concept of avoiding civilians is a very recent one - brought on by the limited engagement plan that proved fatal in the Vietnam War.

The US use of weapons of mass destruction was defensible.


 


<< Would have? How do you know. You don't, I don't. We can only assume. Remember, we dropped the bomb on CIVILIANS. >>


Yeah.....I guess you're right....I mean so what if the U.S. and Japenese agreed shortly after the surrender was signed that although the atomic bomb caused massive destruction in a localized area a conventional war would have killed millions and totally destroyed Japan because the Japenese had equiped the elderly, women, and children with any weapons they could find to defend Japan's shores and cities...................but hey......I'm sure you know better than they right???? LOL!😉

 
Point taken, maybe back during those times it was feasible, but I bet if we knew the effects of nuclear radiation, we wouldn't have done it. Also, just because other countries kill civilians, doesn't mean we have to, today or yesterday.
 
yes, it definitely beat the option of having the US invade Japan and both sides losing millions of people, both soldiers and civilians... besides it showed the terrible effects of atomic weapons
 
After reading the whole thread (in avoidance of studying for final exams) - it is painfully obvious that many of you are buying in to patently false revisionist history. The Japanese were not ever on the cusp of surrender. Their ability to strike militarily had been curtailed due to serious logistical problems (most of their fleet was destroyed), but they were by no means totally defenseless.

The Bushido code was also followed by the millions of patriotic Japanese civilians who were unwilling to surrender. We were not at war with the Japanese military, but with their entire militaristic society. The Japanese were not this passive group of people. They ran roughshod over the better part of Asia looting, raping, murdering, and destroying their neighbors. The civilians stOod ready to fight to the death - house to house. Children had been trained to fight by many accounts... The civilians were prepared to engage in total was against the US. At this point, there were no true civilian targets. The entire nation was hostile, and each Japanese person posed a threat.

There was a need to destroy Japan - to prevent it from rising up to do this again (as Germany had been allowed to do before). There was a need to destroy the will of the people to fight and defeat them. Total defeat would be the only way to subdue their warrior culture.

Had the US troops landed to take the island (the only other real option), millions of lives, Japanese and American - civilian and military - would have been taken in the process. The bombing, though some of you may not be prepared to admit it, saved lives.

The US, in a time of war, had every right to dictate whose lives would be lost.
 


<< Would have? How do you know. You don't, I don't. We can only assume. Remember, we dropped the bomb on CIVILIANS. >>



It was either Invasion or the bomb. Either solution would lead to the death of many civilians.
 
"The US, in a time of war, had every right to dictate whose lives would be lost."


This is why you and I differ. Getting to my core beliefs, no one at any time ever has the right to dictate who lives and who doesn't. I think whether people believe in this or not heavily dictates whether they support the bombings or not. And that goes for today in Afghanistan (sorry, but I had to mix the two.)

 


<< Definately. The US understood that Japan could never surrender and still save face unless there was overwhelming destruction. By that show of power and the threats of more targets to follow, the US saved millions of lives on both sides that would have been lost by a ground war in Japan. >>


Very well said. I agree 100%
 


<< ToBeMe, you are a smartass. May Allah bless ya. 😉 >>


Fires are not put out by disbanding the fire department and wars are not prevented by destroying a country's armed forces.........

I don't try to be as you describe, but, in order to make a valid point, there are times when bluntness is the best policy.............

 
Did the US do the right thing? I believe so, yes.


Was it the best imaginable end to the war? No. However, the way to go out was in the hands of the Japanese. They could have surrendered before Hiroshima and they most certainly could have surrendered before Nagasaki.
 
I don't really concurr with either side of the argument. But given the choices at hand, the US did the right thing to minimize life losses. And you guys keep saying civilians and soldiers like there's a difference between them. Some may say, civilians can't defend themeselves, and all that bullsh*t. But to me, whether you are a civilian or a soldier, you are still human. Keep in mind that most soldiers during that time are freshly drafted civilians. I know it's kinda redundant, but a human life is a human life IS A HUMAN LIFE. The perfect solution is, of course, no life loss. But in reality, do you REALLY think that will happen? I am not pro-war or anything.. but if life loss is inevitable. Then, I would prefer the solution that would take the least amount of lives. Which I think is the solution that the US decided to take. Ask yourself this question for those who are against the idea of dropping the bomb. If Japan has such mass destruction weapon, would they have used it? The answer is HECK YEA. In a heartbeat they would've dropped them like there's no tomorrow. Look how they treated the Chinese and Korean. Left out in this equation is, the Japanese have been using the Korean and Chinese as slaves. If I remember correctly, slavery is one of the reason for the American Civil War. So, people get off your high horses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top