Droping the bomb on Hiroshima - was it the right thing to do?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rHrV2QhArA Very interesting history channel clip on what happened when the bomb went off.

If we (the US) woudln't have droped that bomb who knows how much longer and more deadly WWII could have been.

But still, it killed alot of inocent people who had no say in the matter. What do you think?

There's really no room for discussion here...  

Japan wouldn't even surrender after the first bomb, so the death toll required for them to surrender (in a land invasion) would have been enormous.  Far more death and suffering than the bombs have caused...

But... people will always find something about it to oppose...

There's really no room for discussion here...  

Japan wouldn't even surrender after the first bomb, so the death toll required for them to surrender (in a land invasion) would be enormous.  Far more death and suffering than the bombs have caused.

But... people will always find something about it to oppose...

Dark__Link

I firmly believe that harming innocent citizens (including children, elderly, etc.) on a war is wrong. Couldn't the US army drop it in any military base instead?

The 2nd is without saying. Its "overkill" so to speak.

I always answer this question by simply posing another question: would it be justified if the Japanese or Germans had nuked an American city in a time of war? What do you think we'd do to the people who ordered and carried out that attack if we caught them? All the same arguments would apply, after all. The attack would be in the name of a more expedient end to the war, and for the preservation of the troops of the attacking nation.

I would imagine the term 'war crimes' would be applied in that case, along with adjectives like 'inhuman,' 'evil,' and 'heinous.'

I think i was justified. Nukes kill people just the same as conventional weapons kill people. Would it have been better if we fire bombed them? tediously_brief

You dropped the bombs?

I think i was justified. Nukes kill people just the same as conventional weapons kill people. Would it have been better if we fire bombed them? tediously_brief

The murder of thousands of women and children (well, men too)  is never right.  What the united states did was terrorism, plain and simple.

Besides Hiroshima is awesome. I love going there. 

It was a typo, don't patronize me. tediously_brief

Oh, I know.  But unlike most typos, this one was amusing.  :P

I think it was justified. Nukes kill people just the same as conventional weapons kill people. Would it have been better if we fire bombed them? tediously_brief

The problem with comparing them to conventional weapons is that other weapons don't make the area unlivable for a really long time (relatively speaking). Radiation levels are still high there.

[QUOTE="tediously_brief"]I think i was justified. Nukes kill people just the same as conventional weapons kill people. Would it have been better if we fire bombed them? Toriko42

They didn't want help from the Allies.  In fact, it's still believed that one of the reasons the Americans wanted to end the war quickly through the use of nuclear weapons was to prevent Russia from becoming involved with Japan.

"The greatest battle is the one not fought."

-Unknown

I don't think that was the right thing to do.

I voted yes but not because it saved lives. That's BS. The real reason that I think we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima was to flex our muscles and show the world that we were the super power, and to not f around with us. -Sun_Tzu-

That's pretty disturbing.  Sacrificing hundreds of thousands in the name of developing international prestige...

Have you considered a career in politics?

I always answer this question by simply posing another question: would it be justified if the Japanese or Germans had nuked an American city in a time of war? What do you think we'd do to the people who ordered and carried out that attack if we caught them? All the same arguments would apply, after all. The attack would be in the name of a more expedient end to the war, and for the preservation of the troops of the attacking nation.

I would imagine the term 'war crimes' would be applied in that case, along with adjectives like 'inhuman,' 'evil,' and 'heinous.'

pianist

Well naturally we would object to the bombing of our own city. But objectively speaking if the US was at the point where the Axis could conceivably end the war in such a manner, it would be the same situation; trying to end the war to prevent the atrocious task of fighting for such cities block by block in a conventional invasion.

I voted yes but not because it saved lives. That's BS. The real reason that I think we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima was to flex our muscles and show the world that we were the super power, and to not f around with us. -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]I voted yes but not because it saved lives. That's BS. The real reason that I think we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima was to flex our muscles and show the world that we were the super power, and to not f around with us. pianist

That's pretty disturbing. Sacrificing hundreds of thousands in the name of developing international prestige...

Have you considered a career in politics?

How is it disturbing???Every country needs to make a name for it's self....Russia wouldn't be known if it wasn't for the rise of the Soviet Union. Canada wouldn't be known without the War of 1812. Civilians die in war all the time...Bombing Japan isn't that big of a deal.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]I voted yes but not because it saved lives. That's BS. The real reason that I think we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima was to flex our muscles and show the world that we were the super power, and to not f around with us. pianist

That's pretty disturbing. 

So was the Tuskegee Experiment. Humans can be vile creatures.

I voted yes but not because it saved lives. That's BS. The real reason that I think we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima was to flex our muscles and show the world that we were the super power, and to not f around with us. -Sun_Tzu-

The bombing was, in a sense, a big experiment by the United States. The US chose a city that hadn't been touched by the firebombings, in order to have a control to get an accurate account of the bomb's destructive capabilities.

If we went in there with troops, who knows what would have happend? The Japanese do not surrender, but the bomb brought them to thier senses.tediously_brief

I always laugh when people make this argument.  "The Japanese don't surrender... except when they do."  Here's a question to ask... why does it matter what sort of bomb was used?  Whether by fire-bombing or nuclear weapons, Japanese cities were being totally destroyed, and yet it all had no effect whatsoever on the military's desire to surrender.  The people who DID initiate the surrender were already considering it before the nuclear attacks, and the people who weren't considering surrender did not waver in the face of the attacks.  Why should they?  Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just two more cities, and they were incapable of admitting defeat.

I have always believed that the nuclear attacks had little effect on the Japanese decision to surrender.  I think it would have happened one way or another, and contrary to popular opinion, I think it would have happened a lot sooner than people think it would have if the bombs hadn't been used.  The notion that Japan would fight to the last man was clearly mistaken in light of their reaction to the bombings. They had an awful lot of people left... and interestingly enough, they DIDN'T all commit suicide.  Funny l'il world, ain't it?

I don't think it was right now when I look back at it but at the time it was the most efficient way USA could think of to force Japan to surrender.

There was no way Japan would surrender under a invasion, Japan was holding onto honor and in a sort of way the US government was worried about their patriotism. So yeah, the second bombing was uncalled for, the first although horrific and basically both being the largest war crimes ever done, it was their biggest, cheapest and most efficient way to win. Sadly.

[QUOTE="pianist"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]I voted yes but not because it saved lives. That's BS. The real reason that I think we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima was to flex our muscles and show the world that we were the super power, and to not f around with us. Vilot_Hero

That's pretty disturbing. Sacrificing hundreds of thousands in the name of developing international prestige...

Have you considered a career in politics?

How is it disturbing???Every country needs to make a name for it's self....Russia wouldn't be known if it wasn't for the rise of the Soviet Union. Canada wouldn't be known without the War of 1812. Civilians die in war all the time...Bombing Japan isn't that big of a deal.

I voted yes but not because it saved lives. That's BS. The real reason that I think we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima was to flex our muscles and show the world that we were the super power, and to not f around with us. -Sun_Tzu-

Anyways, some estimates show that 200,000 American troops would have died, in addition to 1,000,000 Japenese civillians, and of coase the other Allied forces would have lost many lives as well.

Here is the sorce I got that from, it has arguments for both sides: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_arguments_for_and_against_the_atomic_bombings_of_Japan_being_justified

[QUOTE="pianist"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]I voted yes but not because it saved lives. That's BS. The real reason that I think we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima was to flex our muscles and show the world that we were the super power, and to not f around with us. entropyecho

That's pretty disturbing. 

So was the Tuskegee Experiment. Humans can be vile creatures.

Indeed... especially those with a lust for power.  Lust for power and a lack of compassion seem to go hand in hand.  But most people just call that "strong" or "good leadership ability."

[QUOTE="pianist"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]I voted yes but not because it saved lives. That's BS. The real reason that I think we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima was to flex our muscles and show the world that we were the super power, and to not f around with us. Vilot_Hero

That's pretty disturbing. Sacrificing hundreds of thousands in the name of developing international prestige...

Have you considered a career in politics?

How is it disturbing???Every country needs to make a name for it's self....Russia wouldn't be known if it wasn't for the rise of the Soviet Union. Canada wouldn't be known without the War of 1812. Civilians die in war all the time...Bombing Japan isn't that big of a deal.

It's disturbing that international prestige is valued more than human life.  If that doesn't disturb you... then again, perhaps you should consider a career in politics.

I voted yes but not because it saved lives. That's BS. The real reason that I think we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima was to flex our muscles and show the world that we were the super power, and to not f around with us. -Sun_Tzu-

Dude, the results can be achieved by a massive barrage of conventional weapons. US does that a lot, we use so much heavy ordanace on very few targets. Thats how the US operates, bomb the **** out of em, so our troops are as safe as possible. 

@DJ_Novakain

I'm pretty sure 9/11 was executed by the Government.

[QUOTE="pianist"]

I always answer this question by simply posing another question: would it be justified if the Japanese or Germans had nuked an American city in a time of war? What do you think we'd do to the people who ordered and carried out that attack if we caught them? All the same arguments would apply, after all. The attack would be in the name of a more expedient end to the war, and for the preservation of the troops of the attacking nation.

I would imagine the term 'war crimes' would be applied in that case, along with adjectives like 'inhuman,' 'evil,' and 'heinous.'

fidosim

Well naturally we would object to the bombing of our own city. But objectively speaking if the US was at the point where the Axis could conceivably end the war in such a manner, it would be the same situation; trying to end the war to prevent the atrocious task of fighting for such cities block by block in a conventional invasion.

Indeed... and we would not see it as just if it were used against us.  It sounds silly and childish... but that old "do unto others" motto is an easy way to evaluate whether something is justified or not, even in war.  It's not whether or not you fight which is in question (clearly the Allies had a more justified reason to be at war), but rather the way you do it.  Kicking your foe in the nuts is dirty, no matter who does it, and no matter why the combatants are in the arena.

So if a person feels that nuking New York would have been unjustified, then so too was nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  If, on the other hand, someone feels that nuking New York WOULD be justifiable, then he'd have a legitimate case to argue for the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[QUOTE="tediously_brief"]If we went in there with troops, who knows what would have happend? The Japanese do not surrender, but the bomb brought them to thier senses.pianist

I always laugh when people make this argument.  "The Japanese don't surrender... except when they do."  Here's a question to ask... why does it matter what sort of bomb was used?  Whether by fire-bombing or nuclear weapons, Japanese cities were being totally destroyed, and yet it all had no effect whatsoever on the military's desire to surrender.  The people who DID initiate the surrender were already considering it before the nuclear attacks, and the people who weren't considering surrender did not waver in the face of the attacks.  Why should they?  Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just two more cities, and they were incapable of admitting defeat.

I have always believed that the nuclear attacks had little effect on the Japanese decision to surrender.  I think it would have happened one way or another, and contrary to popular opinion, I think it would have happened a lot sooner than people think it would have if the bombs hadn't been used.  The notion that Japan would fight to the last man was clearly mistaken in light of their reaction to the bombings. They had an awful lot of people left... and interestingly enough, they DIDN'T all commit suicide.  Funny l'il world, ain't it?

I think there actually is a difference depending on the bomb dropped. They were prepared for firebombings and other conventional attacks, and they were prepared for long stand-offs and invasions. But they weren't prepared for two cities being destroyed so quickly without even a chance to defend them. Maybe you're right and they still would have surrendered sooner than we expected, but to say that completely obliterating their cities with weapons that they didn't even understand had no effect is silly. The prospect of a slow beating is much different from that of complete annhilation. 

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"][QUOTE="pianist"]

That's pretty disturbing. Sacrificing hundreds of thousands in the name of developing international prestige...

Have you considered a career in politics?

pianist

How is it disturbing???Every country needs to make a name for it's self....Russia wouldn't be known if it wasn't for the rise of the Soviet Union. Canada wouldn't be known without the War of 1812. Civilians die in war all the time...Bombing Japan isn't that big of a deal.

It's disturbing that international prestige is valued more than human life. If that doesn't disturb you... then again, perhaps you should consider a career in politics.

International prestige get's you further than the value of human life(In todays world). If America didn't do anything to stand out, than I'm sure America wouldn't be taken seriously. Both of us have different views on this so I'll leave it at that.

International prestige get's you further than the value of human life(In todays world). If America didn't do anything to stand out, than I'm sure America wouldn't be taken seriously. Both of us have different views on this so I'll leave it at that.

Vilot_Hero

That's my point.  You feel that collateral damage in the name of international prestige is justified.  I don't.  So I'd make a lousy politician.