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

Idk, killing thousands of civillians seems kind of pointless.

firefluff3

Nope. I have no idea what would have happened if we didnt do that, and I'm not going to pretend I do like everybody else here.

I simply don't think it was the right thing to do ethicly.

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.tylergamereview

From what i've seen in docs, the emperor wasn't a fan of the war for a long time before the atomic bombs. TBH i wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't a fan of Perl Harbor in the first place, he was just a goverment puppet for the most part.

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

sinpkr

[QUOTE="sinpkr"]

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

DeX2010

No demonstration was NEEDED to begin with.. The US could have had Japan surender with conventional means to begin with.. Japan at the end had no airforce, or no navy.. All they had to do is blockade Japan and they would have soon crumbled.. This wasn't as cut and dry as people liek to claim it is.. Many top military men were against it and thought it completely unnecesary.

[QUOTE="firefluff3"]

Idk, killing thousands of civillians seems kind of pointless.

markop2003

What difference does it make when Japan was toothless, legless, and flailed around int he water.. By the end they had no capabilities of threatening the US navy sitting out in their harbors.

I would have told them to pay attention to some remote island or area and then dropped a bomb there. Then I would have told them to surrender or else.

Yes. I would've targeted Tokyo.. twice.

They deserved every single atom of the explosion due to what they did in Nanking.

I'm fine with Japanese people now; I feel bad for the people currently suffering from aftermath of the Earthquake and I love Japanese food, but they overstepped by a stretch in WW2. Also, they never apologized.

Today I don't think I would ever condone the bombing of a civilain city. Wars just aren't fought like that anymore. That being said in the day and time of World War II, I think it was probably the right decision. Civilian deaths, while sad, just weren't treated like they are today by pretty much any country involved in WWII

The war was won by that point, so many didnt have to suffer because of one rouge general.GulliversTravel

I would have did it only because I wouldn't want to go through a land invasion. The country was already coming off of battles in Europe and Africa, now adding an invasion to the Japanese mainland would have just made it worse and killed more people. There's no telling how much longer the war would have gone if we didn't drop the bombs. Maybe it would have been a few weeks longer, or maybe it would have been a few years longer. It was estimated that over a million US troops and a quarter of a million British troops would have died in a land invasion. That doesn't even count the civilian Japanese casualties especially if the "Total War" concept was embraced.

I understand the anti-war posters saying we shouldn't have dropped them. However, by being anti-war they probably are against ALL military actions regardless of it's an atomic bomb to a city or a bullet to the head of an opposing soldier charging at you with a bayonet. There is nothing wrong with being a pacifist and the world would probably be better if everyone was. Unfortunately, the world isn't full of pacifists and as a result we at least need a way to defend ourselves from the Hitlers and the al Qaedas and the other bad guys. With that, the non-pacifists need to make the tough decisions when it comes to combat.

It's pretty much a given none of us on OT were alive when it happened (my grandmother was two years old when the bombs were dropped on Japan), so all we can do is go by what history told us and hope the right decision was made. In the end, it probably made Japan a better country since they're one of the leading countries in electronics and cars right now. They're also one of our biggest allies to this day and under their old regime who knows what they would be doing right now if the leadership passed their ideas to their children.

the first one only.

I would have told them to pay attention to some remote island or area and then dropped a bomb there. Then I would have told them to surrender or else.

sonicare

This is what I would do too.

to many japanese died that werent even fighting the USA.If they HAD to drop a bomb at least they could have done it on the lilitary at sea or inland japan but not TWO damn major cities :(

I'd piss off the people who want the US to never use the weapon AND the people who wanted to bomb Japan by using them in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

Truman Troll!

I'd drop ONE on whichever city had less population. the whole purpose of dropping the bomb is not to kill people but to show the japanese military that we have the power to destroy you're whole country, so you have to surrender.

[QUOTE="sinpkr"]

[QUOTE="nitekids2004"]

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

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

No, they knew what we could do, they just didn't think we would

I would have dropped them much earlier and stopped the war sooner.

I'd drop ONE on whichever city had less population. the whole purpose of dropping the bomb is not to kill people but to show the japanese military that we have the power to destroy you're whole country, so you have to surrender.

martinX3X

They knew we had them and they knew what would happen

The idea of the bombs were to break the people so they didn't have the will or manpower to keep going.

Am I going to see the explosion?

Yes.

To all these people saying Japan wanted to surrender, no they didn't. They where teaching their civilians how to fight down to the last man woman and child. It would have been a bloody mess if we invaded.

Why on earth do you think we dropped TWO bombs?

Because after the first bomb Japan STILL refused to surrender.

Droping it on a rual area would have done nothing.

No, every time I think of doing something like that I just imagine all the children it killed. Terrible move Truman.Mythomniac

Ugh..I was thinking that too.How many innocent children died? to many IMO..one is to many.

[QUOTE="Mythomniac"]No, every time I think of doing something like that I just imagine all the children it killed. Terrible move Truman.Kcube

Ugh..I was thinking that too.How many innocent children died? to many IMO..one is to many.

That's how you break people

Seriously, this is war not a bake sale

[QUOTE="Kcube"]

[QUOTE="Mythomniac"]No, every time I think of doing something like that I just imagine all the children it killed. Terrible move Truman.Jaysonguy

Ugh..I was thinking that too.How many innocent children died? to many IMO..one is to many.

That's how you break people

Seriously, this is war not a bake sale

So in a war mudering children is ok to break the will of people?

the bombs didnt need to be dropped on the cities it could have been done elsewhere.

Here's the thing, when you deal with assumptions, all it does is give an educated guess. Thats what probably happened when the US government said how many people could die do to a war. And then, who knows if they would even surrender after that. Imo, if they were even going to entertain the idea of a atomic bomb, then they shouldve waited for a war to happen take place, and see how much damage wouldve happened.

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

[QUOTE="Kcube"]

Ugh..I was thinking that too.How many innocent children died? to many IMO..one is to many.

Kcube

That's how you break people

Seriously, this is war not a bake sale

So in a war mudering children is ok to break the will of people?

the bombs didnt need to be dropped on the cities it could have been done elsewhere.

Elsewhere?

Yes, a nice large field with no one in it, that will really crush their will

"Surrender or we will not kill even more of your people!"

People die in wars, that's why we have them.

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

[QUOTE="Kcube"]

Ugh..I was thinking that too.How many innocent children died? to many IMO..one is to many.

Kcube

That's how you break people

Seriously, this is war not a bake sale

So in a war mudering children is ok to break the will of people?

the bombs didnt need to be dropped on the cities it could have been done elsewhere.

War is hell, and people are going to die regardless. It was either a few kids die in the atomic bombings or thousands, if not millions more die in a land invasion since they were coaching every man, woman, and child to fight the invaders if an invasion took place. It's easy to judge behind a computer screen when the lives of millions of troops under your command aren't on the line.

[QUOTE="Kcube"]

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

That's how you break people

Seriously, this is war not a bake sale

ad1x2

So in a war mudering children is ok to break the will of people?

the bombs didnt need to be dropped on the cities it could have been done elsewhere.

War is hell, and people are going to die regardless. It was either a few kids die in the atomic bombings or thousands, if not millions more die in a land invasion since they were coaching every man, woman, and child to fight the invaders if an invasion took place. It's easy to judge behind a computer screen when the lives of millions of troops under your command aren't on the line.

Even though it isnt an easy decision, remember these are tens of thousands of civillains. Which is huge.

The first option... I could never bring myself to do that. But I gues it worked...

What an awful question.BranKetra

[QUOTE="Kcube"]

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

That's how you break people

Seriously, this is war not a bake sale

ad1x2

So in a war mudering children is ok to break the will of people?

the bombs didnt need to be dropped on the cities it could have been done elsewhere.

War is hell, and people are going to die regardless. It was either a few kids die in the atomic bombings or thousands, if not millions more die in a land invasion since they were coaching every man, woman, and child to fight the invaders if an invasion took place. It's easy to judge behind a computer screen when the lives of millions of troops under your command aren't on the line.

basically you are ASSUMING they would have put kids to fight so instead you go and kill them preventevely. that makes it OK!

Under no circunstance is ok to use nuclear weapons in a war, you may use any excuse you like, but hey better them than you no? not to mention the permanent effects on the area, but hey is not your country so its ok no?

btw there were more than a "few" kids, i doubt the 200 000 + deads in the bombings with only 20 k being soldiers were "just a few"

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]

[QUOTE="Kcube"]

So in a war mudering children is ok to break the will of people?

the bombs didnt need to be dropped on the cities it could have been done elsewhere.

Krelian-co

War is hell, and people are going to die regardless. It was either a few kids die in the atomic bombings or thousands, if not millions more die in a land invasion since they were coaching every man, woman, and child to fight the invaders if an invasion took place. It's easy to judge behind a computer screen when the lives of millions of troops under your command aren't on the line.

basically you are ASSUMING they would have put kids to fight so instead you go and kill them preventevely. that makes it OK!

Under no circunstance is ok to use nuclear weapons in a war, you may use any excuse you like, but hey better them than you no? not to mention the permanent effects on the area, but hey is not your country so its ok no?

btw there were more than a "few" kids, i doubt the 200 000 + deads in the bombings with only 20 k being soldiers were "just a few"

Awesome, so you think that the children in Japan would have grown up and taken up the US cause against their own government

That's quite an interesting viewpoint

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]

War is hell, and people are going to die regardless. It was either a few kids die in the atomic bombings or thousands, if not millions more die in a land invasion since they were coaching every man, woman, and child to fight the invaders if an invasion took place. It's easy to judge behind a computer screen when the lives of millions of troops under your command aren't on the line.

Jaysonguy

basically you are ASSUMING they would have put kids to fight so instead you go and kill them preventevely. that makes it OK!

Under no circunstance is ok to use nuclear weapons in a war, you may use any excuse you like, but hey better them than you no? not to mention the permanent effects on the area, but hey is not your country so its ok no?

btw there were more than a "few" kids, i doubt the 200 000 + deads in the bombings with only 20 k being soldiers were "just a few"

Awesome, so you think that the children in Japan would have grown up and taken up the US cause against their own government

That's quite an interesting viewpoint

[QUOTE="Kcube"]

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

That's how you break people

Seriously, this is war not a bake sale

Jaysonguy

So in a war mudering children is ok to break the will of people?

the bombs didnt need to be dropped on the cities it could have been done elsewhere.

Elsewhere?

Yes, a nice large field with no one in it, that will really crush their will

"Surrender or we will not kill even more of your people!"

People die in wars, that's why we have them.

I just remembered something, you're absolutely right.

Wars are good, in the sense that they reduce the world populaton, which at the time would be bad, but now it's good for reducing polution and all the suffering caused by such a useless crowd of animals.

EDIT: I'm not calling the japanese a crowd of animals, I am referring to all of humanity

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

basically you are ASSUMING they would have put kids to fight so instead you go and kill them preventevely. that makes it OK!

Under no circunstance is ok to use nuclear weapons in a war, you may use any excuse you like, but hey better them than you no? not to mention the permanent effects on the area, but hey is not your country so its ok no?

btw there were more than a "few" kids, i doubt the 200 000 + deads in the bombings with only 20 k being soldiers were "just a few"

Nayef_shroof

Awesome, so you think that the children in Japan would have grown up and taken up the US cause against their own government

That's quite an interesting viewpoint

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

basically you are ASSUMING they would have put kids to fight so instead you go and kill them preventevely. that makes it OK!

Under no circunstance is ok to use nuclear weapons in a war, you may use any excuse you like, but hey better them than you no? not to mention the permanent effects on the area, but hey is not your country so its ok no?

btw there were more than a "few" kids, i doubt the 200 000 + deads in the bombings with only 20 k being soldiers were "just a few"

Nayef_shroof

Awesome, so you think that the children in Japan would have grown up and taken up the US cause against their own government

That's quite an interesting viewpoint

I'm not sure you understand war

You know that soldiers are the last thing needed when fighting a war, correct?

Without the people's support any sort of military force will crumble under it's own weight

When we dropped the bombs on Japan it was to break them and make them not want to support their country in the war, it worked. Yes lots of devastation erupted from those bombs but the lives that it saved on both sides are countless. It was the proverbial slap in the face that made much of the world come to it's senses.

There's nothing more cowardly then having the power to solve things and never use it.

The US had the power and they used it, the world as a whole is much better because they did.

Maybe on different targets (a less populated area in favor of a heavy industry area, perhaps), but I would drop it.