Poll: You are President Harry S. Truman, do you drop the atomic bombs on Japan?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for KeitekeTokage
KeitekeTokage

770

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 KeitekeTokage
Member since 2011 • 770 Posts

The poll considers the decision you would make imagining yourself at that current moment in time and your feelings as to whether or not it should have been done in hindsight. For instance, choosing the "No/Yes" option means that had you been in Trumans shoes at the time you wouldn't have done it, however now looking back you feel it was the correct decision.


This makes it a bit more interesting.

If you've never heard of this event, this explains it pretty well.

Avatar image for sinpkr
sinpkr

1255

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 sinpkr
Member since 2010 • 1255 Posts

yes i would . i would save more lives then i would end in the long run . a invasion and occupation of japan would cause many deaths on both sides and cause further damagage to future relations

Avatar image for SPYDER0416
SPYDER0416

16736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 24

User Lists: 0

#3 SPYDER0416
Member since 2008 • 16736 Posts

If not, then you could expect millions of US troops dead attempting to invade Japan. From what I hear, more would have been lost in the battles resulting in not dropping the bomb.

Avatar image for KeitekeTokage
KeitekeTokage

770

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 KeitekeTokage
Member since 2011 • 770 Posts
I can understand the hindsight yes votes, the "at that moment" yes votes are a bit surprising. Not saying I necessarily disagree, but this is no easy decision people.
Avatar image for MgamerBD
MgamerBD

17550

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 MgamerBD
Member since 2006 • 17550 Posts
Hell yeah...Maybe not the second but definitely the first
Avatar image for nitekids2004
nitekids2004

2981

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 nitekids2004
Member since 2005 • 2981 Posts

I'd drop it. But not on top of heavily populated cities.

The lesser thecasualties, the better.

Avatar image for sinpkr
sinpkr

1255

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 sinpkr
Member since 2010 • 1255 Posts

I'd drop it. But not on top of heavily populated cities.

The lesser thecasualties, the better.

nitekids2004

but ur trying to break a peoples will. do you think if they killed everyone in a small village there would be the effect needed to end the war

Avatar image for goth_bacon
goth_bacon

1110

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 goth_bacon
Member since 2007 • 1110 Posts
I would have dropped it on a rural place where it wouldn't have killed so many innocent people. Just a way of saying, "yeah Japan look at what we got. We gon' f*** you up." I hear that Japan would've surrendered after the first bomb if they were just given more time.
Avatar image for nitekids2004
nitekids2004

2981

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 nitekids2004
Member since 2005 • 2981 Posts

[QUOTE="nitekids2004"]

I'd drop it. But not on top of heavily populated cities.

The lesser thecasualties, the better.

sinpkr

but ur trying to break a peoples will. do you think if they killed everyone in a small village there would be the effect needed to end the war

It will definitely break them. It's about showing them what you "could" do if they prolong the war.

Avatar image for luisen123
luisen123

6537

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#10 luisen123
Member since 2006 • 6537 Posts

Yes, I would, for the same reason people have been mentioning, also, remember that after WWII came the Cold War if the world hadn't seen how utterly devastating the Atomic Bombs were, it would've been possible for the Soviet Union or America to attack each other with Atomic Bombs, and that wouldn't have been good.

However, I still think that the bombings of Tokyo, Kobe and Osaka were not necessary. America got too bomb crazy during WWII.

Avatar image for Spellingiscool
Spellingiscool

1450

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 Spellingiscool
Member since 2010 • 1450 Posts
No, the war was already on the brink of ending. That was overkill.
Avatar image for CRS98
CRS98

9036

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#12 CRS98
Member since 2004 • 9036 Posts
I would drop them just to protect history.
Avatar image for nitekids2004
nitekids2004

2981

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 nitekids2004
Member since 2005 • 2981 Posts

Yes, I would, for the same reason people have been mentioning, also, remember that after WWII came the Cold War if the world hadn't seen how utterly devastating the Atomic Bombs were, it would've been possible for the Soviet Union or America to attack each other with Atomic Bombs, and that wouldn't have been good.

However, I still think that the bombings of Tokyo, Kobe and Osaka were not necessary. America got too bomb crazy during WWII.

luisen123

ummm.....

Avatar image for tylergamereview
tylergamereview

2051

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#14 tylergamereview
Member since 2006 • 2051 Posts
Yes then and now. Those who are against the use of atomic bombs in WWII do not have a proper education of the Pacific theater and the state of Japan at that time. The war was not near over, Japan was not about to surrender, and the death toll of what was already the most devastating event in human history would have been far greater had they not been used.
Avatar image for dercoo
dercoo

12555

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 dercoo
Member since 2006 • 12555 Posts

[QUOTE="luisen123"]

Yes, I would, for the same reason people have been mentioning, also, remember that after WWII came the Cold War if the world hadn't seen how utterly devastating the Atomic Bombs were, it would've been possible for the Soviet Union or America to attack each other with Atomic Bombs, and that wouldn't have been good.

However, I still think that the bombings of Tokyo, Kobe and Osaka were not necessary. America got too bomb crazy during WWII.

nitekids2004

ummm.....

I think he means conventional and fire bombing

I do think they were nesisary as lots of military assets were made in those large cities, and cottage industry styIe (needed to destroy the home factories)

Avatar image for nitekids2004
nitekids2004

2981

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 nitekids2004
Member since 2005 • 2981 Posts

[QUOTE="nitekids2004"]

[QUOTE="luisen123"]

Yes, I would, for the same reason people have been mentioning, also, remember that after WWII came the Cold War if the world hadn't seen how utterly devastating the Atomic Bombs were, it would've been possible for the Soviet Union or America to attack each other with Atomic Bombs, and that wouldn't have been good.

However, I still think that the bombings of Tokyo, Kobe and Osaka were not necessary. America got too bomb crazy during WWII.

dercoo

ummm.....

I think he means conventional and fire bombing

I do think they were nesisary as lots of military assets were made in those large cities, and cottage industry styIe (needed to destroy the home factories)

My bad :P

It was a bit necessary though as the warfactories were there.

Avatar image for luisen123
luisen123

6537

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#17 luisen123
Member since 2006 • 6537 Posts

I think he means conventional and fire bombing

I do think they were nesisary as lots of military assets were made in those large cities, and cottage industry styIe (needed to destroy the home factories)

dercoo

You do know that there was a bombing on Osaka on August 14th, 1945, right? How was that necessary? That was as necessary as the Bombing of Dresden. And to be clear, the bombing of Tokyo between February and March had a higher death toll than the immediate deaths of either the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. I'm sure that by March and February, there was already meetings to decide if the should drop the A-Bombs.

Avatar image for needled24-7
needled24-7

15902

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 needled24-7
Member since 2007 • 15902 Posts

i voted yes/yes

if i was the president, i'm sure my cabinet and i would have gone over every option multiple times and decided that this was the best one. seemed to work out pretty well also.

Avatar image for Spellingiscool
Spellingiscool

1450

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 Spellingiscool
Member since 2010 • 1450 Posts
Yes then and now. Those who are against the use of atomic bombs in WWII do not have a proper education of the Pacific theater and the state of Japan at that time. The war was not near over, Japan was not about to surrender, and the death toll of what was already the most devastating event in human history would have been far greater had they not been used.tylergamereview
That's false. Their loss was inevitable and they knew that already. The bombs were just icing on the cake.
Avatar image for Gamingclone
Gamingclone

5224

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#20 Gamingclone
Member since 2009 • 5224 Posts

Yes/ Yes, other people have already explained it.

Avatar image for THGarrett
THGarrett

2574

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 24

User Lists: 0

#21 THGarrett
Member since 2003 • 2574 Posts

Yes and yes. The fact of the matter is that the Japanese people were willing to sacrifice their lives for their Emperor. Had we not dropped the bombs we would have eseentially gone into guerilla warfare with the citizen population and that would cost a hell of a lot more Allied lives, not to mention dragged for who knows how long.

Avatar image for dercoo
dercoo

12555

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 dercoo
Member since 2006 • 12555 Posts

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

I think he means conventional and fire bombing

I do think they were nesisary as lots of military assets were made in those large cities, and cottage industry styIe (needed to destroy the home factories)

luisen123

You do know that there was a bombing on Osaka on August 14th, 1945, right? How was that necessary? That was as necessary as the Bombing of Dresden. And to be clear, the bombing of Tokyo between February and March had a higher death toll than the immediate deaths of either the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. I'm sure that by March and February, there was already meetings to decide if the should drop the A-Bombs.

Wars are fought up till the very end often. Can't often hold back until the end.

Tokyo was the center of Japan war effort, and had huge war factories and "cottage factories".

Meeting to decide on droping a Abomb(not a guarntied end solution) is far from reasons to avoid bombing by far the most valuable target.

Tokyo had to go for the war to end quicky.

Avatar image for Mr_Cumberdale
Mr_Cumberdale

10189

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#23 Mr_Cumberdale
Member since 2004 • 10189 Posts
Well if I was Truman (an American), I would say yes. But in actuality, most of my family is in Japan, so I'd rather not go kill them. :P
Avatar image for Sotonian_Rebel
Sotonian_Rebel

371

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 Sotonian_Rebel
Member since 2006 • 371 Posts

Yes i would, a land invasion of Japan would take many more lives than the two atomic bombs

Avatar image for luisen123
luisen123

6537

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#25 luisen123
Member since 2006 • 6537 Posts

That's false. Their loss was inevitable and they knew that already. The bombs were just icing on the cake.Spellingiscool

Doesn't seem like they were that eager to surrender to me.

Avatar image for Fightingfan
Fightingfan

38011

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 Fightingfan
Member since 2010 • 38011 Posts

Yup, then I would make a public video doing something like this while it flys towards Japan.

Avatar image for M4Ntan
M4Ntan

1438

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#27 M4Ntan
Member since 2009 • 1438 Posts

I would drop one bomb, but on a rural town, and then I would give them 24 hours to respond after giving them a warning saying the next one would be on a much larger population.

Avatar image for MissLibrarian
MissLibrarian

9589

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#28 MissLibrarian
Member since 2008 • 9589 Posts

No/No.

Though I do think there would have been a lot more bombs dropping in the 60s if the world hadn't previously witnessed the horror of it all.

Avatar image for Spellingiscool
Spellingiscool

1450

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 Spellingiscool
Member since 2010 • 1450 Posts

[QUOTE="Spellingiscool"]That's false. Their loss was inevitable and they knew that already. The bombs were just icing on the cake.luisen123

Doesn't seem like they were that eager to surrender to me.

Nice wikipedia article. Read some literature on the matter.
Avatar image for luisen123
luisen123

6537

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#30 luisen123
Member since 2006 • 6537 Posts
Nice wikipedia article. Read some literature on the matter. Spellingiscool
I'm sure a fine citizen that considers Atomic Bombs to be "icing on a cake" such as yourself would be quite versed on this matter then, mind indulging me?
Avatar image for Krelian-co
Krelian-co

13274

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#31 Krelian-co
Member since 2006 • 13274 Posts

the fact that yes/yes is winning makes humanity lose another point in my eyes, wars have been going on for quite a while but the atomic bomb must've been the dumbest idea ever, and there is simply no excuse for it.

Avatar image for topsemag55
topsemag55

19063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#32 topsemag55
Member since 2007 • 19063 Posts
Truman himself wrote later in life that, "I knew what I was doing when I stopped the war ... I have no regrets and, under the same circumstances, I would do it again."
Avatar image for Seraphy-
Seraphy-

1562

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 Seraphy-
Member since 2011 • 1562 Posts
yeah/yeah trying to defeat the japanese the ol' fashioned way would have resulted in massive bloodshed and losses for both sides, since the entire japanese population pretty much would have fought against anything we did until the very bitter end sucks that a large chunk of civilians and innocents had to be killed like that, but I can't really sympathize with the japanese too much during that time
Avatar image for killerfist
killerfist

20155

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#35 killerfist
Member since 2005 • 20155 Posts
I would have made the call probably..but not on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or any large city. I think dropping them on much less populated areas would have send the same message.
Avatar image for Nayef_shroof
Nayef_shroof

709

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36 Nayef_shroof
Member since 2011 • 709 Posts

Wow...Its disgusting that the majority voted yes yes to killing 400000+ civillians. Do you know, in reality, Senator John Mccain appeared in a documentary about WW2, and Japan actually tried to surrender even before they were threatened by a nuclear weapon? John Mccain confirmed that the only reasons the nukes were dropped was both to test out the new weaponry, and to regress Japan as it was an extremely advanced nation at its time (And now). Seriously, how could you people be so ignorant/naive? And, btw, 100000+ soldiers dying is infinitely better than 100000 civillians dying, since Soldiers signed up for their duties in the first place

Avatar image for sinpkr
sinpkr

1255

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37 sinpkr
Member since 2010 • 1255 Posts

Wow...Its disgusting that the majority voted yes yes to killing 400000+ civillians. Do you know, in reality, Senator John Mccain appeared in a documentary about WW2, and Japan actually tried to surrender even before they were threatened by a nuclear weapon? John Mccain confirmed that the only reasons the nukes were dropped was both to test out the new weaponry, and to regress Japan as it was an extremely advanced nation at its time (And now). Seriously, how could you people be so ignorant/naive? And, btw, 100000+ soldiers dying is infinitely better than 100000 civillians dying, since Soldiers signed up for their duties in the first place

Nayef_shroof

i rather more of them die than us . thats like saying oh i would rather 5 of my close faimily members die then 10 random people i hate .

Avatar image for MushroomWig
MushroomWig

11625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 MushroomWig
Member since 2009 • 11625 Posts
Yes but I would of chosen a different target. There was no need to kill so many civilians.
Avatar image for JasonDarksavior
JasonDarksavior

9323

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 38

User Lists: 0

#39 JasonDarksavior
Member since 2008 • 9323 Posts
Yes, a Japanese invasion would have costed much more lives.
Avatar image for deactivated-58df4522915cb
deactivated-58df4522915cb

5527

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#40 deactivated-58df4522915cb
Member since 2007 • 5527 Posts

Yes i would. strategically speaking, alot more people would have died (soldiers and civilians) if we continued the war the conventional way. we needed to end the war in one move, and we did

to quote flash gordon: "its a rational transaction"

40,000+ lives lost, or millions

Avatar image for JasonDarksavior
JasonDarksavior

9323

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 38

User Lists: 0

#41 JasonDarksavior
Member since 2008 • 9323 Posts

Yes i would. strategically speaking, alot more people would have died (soldiers and civilians) if we continued the war the conventional way. we needed to end the war in one move, and we did

to quote flash gordon: "its a rational transaction"

40,000+ lives lost, or millions

Neo-ganon
The bombings had much more than 40,000 casualties.
Avatar image for parkurtommo
parkurtommo

28295

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#42 parkurtommo
Member since 2009 • 28295 Posts

Better American deaths than Japanese ;)

Avatar image for tylergamereview
tylergamereview

2051

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#43 tylergamereview
Member since 2006 • 2051 Posts
[QUOTE="tylergamereview"]Yes then and now. Those who are against the use of atomic bombs in WWII do not have a proper education of the Pacific theater and the state of Japan at that time. The war was not near over, Japan was not about to surrender, and the death toll of what was already the most devastating event in human history would have been far greater had they not been used.Spellingiscool
That's false. Their loss was inevitable and they knew that already. The bombs were just icing on the cake.

Incorrect. There are books written about the final Diet meeting when surrender was decided upon. Most members of the Diet were in support of the war continuing. The war would have continued had the Emperor not stepped in and asked for surrender. The army, the leaders, and the nation itself were determined to die fighting. No really, civilians were being trained to fight as suicide bombers. I'm afraid I can't provide you with a link, but I can steer you towards a few books with this info if you prefer.
Avatar image for BiancaDK
BiancaDK

19092

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 35

User Lists: 0

#44 BiancaDK
Member since 2008 • 19092 Posts

No, wouldnt have done it now, and wouldnt have done it in retrospect.

Im just not too big on annihilating life on a mass scale

Avatar image for firefluff3
firefluff3

2073

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#45 firefluff3
Member since 2010 • 2073 Posts

Idk, killing thousands of civillians seems kind of pointless.

Avatar image for bluetadomonk
bluetadomonk

449

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#46 bluetadomonk
Member since 2011 • 449 Posts
We only had 2 atomic bombs at the time something japan did not know which was the reason why the surrendered. If we dropped it somewhere rural it would have been a waste
Avatar image for BiancaDK
BiancaDK

19092

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 35

User Lists: 0

#47 BiancaDK
Member since 2008 • 19092 Posts

Idk, killing thousands of civillians seems kind of pointless.

firefluff3
al qaeda and the US gov begs to differ!
Avatar image for Joker_268
Joker_268

997

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#48 Joker_268
Member since 2004 • 997 Posts
No, the war was already on the brink of ending. That was overkill.Spellingiscool
Yep your right, Japan knew it lost a long time before the atomic bomb, the B29 bombings did more damage to Japan than the A-bomb.
Avatar image for Vangaurdius
Vangaurdius

671

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#49 Vangaurdius
Member since 2007 • 671 Posts

I'd say: "OK, listen up, scumbags. If we're gonna invade this country, we need a good game plan. Now, I have two options we can use. Number one, we run at their Capital in a single fine line, screaming at the top of our lungs! The enemy will be so flabbergasted, by the time they have a chance to regroup, we'll already be inside. Now, the inherent beauty of the single file line is that they can only kill the person in front. So if we order from least important to most important, with Leclerc de Hauteclocque being in the front and me being in the back, then we just might make it through. I'll have Churchill carry the bomb and place him right in front of me because we need someone in the back who can objectively evaluate how the plan is working. That way, if Churchill dies, I'll know we're in trouble, and immediately abort. Now don't get misty on me Stalin. We'll have already killed you and used your corpse to jam up their weapons. I think we can all agree, given our current situation, it's the perfect plan."

Avatar image for markop2003
markop2003

29917

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#50 markop2003
Member since 2005 • 29917 Posts
Only the first, there wasn't much of a break between them and the country was already at breaking point from the fire bombing. I'd have just threatened a second and perhaps sent a few bombers over them to scare them.