Should the U.S. have used nuclear weapons against Japan in World War II ?

[QUOTE="Treflis"][QUOTE="bloodling"]

They were told that they needed to fight or else they would all die. Anyone writing anything about why people shouldn't go to war were executed. Their propaganda was so strong that conscription or not, it's almost the same.

bloodling

"To reform the military, the government instituted nationwide conscription in 1873, mandating that every male between the age of 17 and 40 undertake three years active service, followed by a further two years in the first reserve (active) and another two in the second reserve (standby)"

That was not the proof I was asking for. Also there's nothing there that states that Japan conscripted people and even on that map, Japan is makes with blue which, according to the decription means "no conscript"Treflis

The proof you are looking for is on TV. This quote is obviously talking about Japan, and that map is probably the current status... Can't you just take my word for it? Here is the full article if you want to read it.

[QUOTE="Treflis"]That was not the proof I was asking for. Also there's nothing there that states that Japan conscripted people and even on that map, Japan is makes with blue which, according to the decription means "no conscript"bloodling

The proof you are looking for is on TV. This quote is obviously talking about Japan, and that map is probably the current status... Can't you just take my word for it? Here is the full article if you want to read it.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="Treflis"]That was not the proof I was asking for. Also there's nothing there that states that Japan conscripted people and even on that map, Japan is makes with blue which, according to the decription means "no conscript"Treflis

The proof you are looking for is on TV. This quote is obviously talking about Japan, and that map is probably the current status... Can't you just take my word for it? Here is the full article if you want to read it.

More importantly, there is no mention that they removed the conscription. Why would they? The whole purpose of the nation was to go to war.

[QUOTE="Treflis"][QUOTE="bloodling"]

The proof you are looking for is on TV. This quote is obviously talking about Japan, and that map is probably the current status... Can't you just take my word for it? Here is the full article if you want to read it.

bloodling

More importantly, there is no mention that they removed the conscription. Why would they? The whole purpose of the nation was to go to war.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="Treflis"]Again there is not mention that they conscripted Japanese Civilians to war, infact last time they actually did was back in 1885 When they created the Imperial army to fend off the Satsuma Rebellion, about 60 years before the end of the Second World War.Treflis

More importantly, there is no mention that they removed the conscription. Why would they? The whole purpose of the nation was to go to war.

Again, their whole purpose was to go to war. Just look at the wars they participated in:

First Sino-Japanese War
Russo-Japanese War
World War I
Second Sino-Japanese War
World War II

From 1939, labor shortages as a result of conscription of Japanese males for the military efforts of World War II led to organized official recruitment of Koreans to work in mainland Japan, initially through civilian agents, and later directly, often involving elements of coercion. As the labor shortage increased, by 1942, the Japanese authorities extended the provisions of the National Mobilization Law to include the conscription of Korean workers for factories and mines on the Korean peninsula, Manchukuo, and the involuntary relocation of workers to Japan itself as needed.

Link to the article

[QUOTE="Treflis"][QUOTE="bloodling"]

More importantly, there is no mention that they removed the conscription. Why would they? The whole purpose of the nation was to go to war.

bloodling

Again, their whole purpose was to go to war. Just look at the wars they participated in:

First Sino-Japanese War
Russo-Japanese War
World War I
Second Sino-Japanese War
World War II

Doesn't mean they conscripted civilians after the Satsuma Rebellion, citizens could've enlisted due to higher pay and priviledges, and the only way we actually can get an answer that isn't based on our assumptions is to actually ask a Japanese Historian at this point.

Treflis

Well, I suggest you should take a look at my last post.

[QUOTE="Treflis"]

Doesn't mean they conscripted civilians after the Satsuma Rebellion, citizens could've enlisted due to higher pay and priviledges, and the only way we actually can get an answer that isn't based on our assumptions is to actually ask a Japanese Historian at this point.

bloodling

Well, I suggest you should take a look at my last post.

No they shouldn't of been used. From what I've heard, the Japanese were trying to surrender already. The nukes were dropped so that we could take Japan before the Soviets got there as Stalin promised to help in the Pacific after the war on the European front ended. Eisenhower was against dropping the nukes as well as J. Rober Oppenheimer, the creator of the bombs.

Former_Slacker

Yea, I always find it curious that everyone just flat out ignores and disregards statements from those in the know at the time as to whether the bombs needed and should've been used. Thanks, but I'll trust them instead of pure speculation from those ignorant of all the facts.The whole "saving more lives" excuse people just blindly buy into without even seemingly giving it a second thought.

Yea, I always find it curious that everyone just flat out ignores and disregards statements from those in the know at the time as to whether the bombs needed and should've been used. Thanks, but I'll trust them instead of pure speculation from those ignorant of all the facts.The whole "saving more lives" excuse people just blindly buy into without even seemingly giving it a second thought.

Rekunta

Too bad all those ignorants make so many documentaries on TV with convincing arguments...

They tread on us, we evaporate them.

[QUOTE="Rekunta"]

Yea, I always find it curious that everyone just flat out ignores and disregards statements from those in the know at the time as to whether the bombs needed and should've been used. Thanks, but I'll trust them instead of pure speculation from those ignorant of all the facts.The whole "saving more lives" excuse people just blindly buy into without even seemingly giving it a second thought.

bloodling

Too bad all those ignorants make so many documentaries on TV with convincing arguments...

Yea it is too bad. Recommend me some?

[QUOTE="Desulated"]

[QUOTE="IAMTHEJOKER88"]

Why has everyone jumped on this band wagon of saving a million lives by killing 500,000 civilians...

The japanese would NOT surrender UNCONDITIONALLY. The U.S COULD HAVE and SHOULD HAVE offered a NEGOTIATED SURRENDER. They did not pursue this. At all.

(The Japaneese could not be expected to surrender unconditionally due to the losses already made and their bushido code. The U.S knew they would not surrender in this way.)

They COULD have and SHOULD have instigated a NAVAL BLOCKADE. With a CRIPPLED ECONOMY, Japan was already faltering, plus with added pressure from Russia, they would have waltzed in a NEGOTIATED SURRENDER.

THey could have also used a show of force.

I do not think the use of atomic weapons is intrinsicly morally wrong, i just believe there were other alternatives that could have saved so many lives. The Americans were tired of war and were brash.

'Americans are like mushrooms. Kept in the dark, and fed a strict supply of bull**** .' Please wake up and try not to be sucked in by propaganda.

IAMTHEJOKER88

The Americans gave them a clear warning of total annihilation if they don't surrender. Their opponent didn't.

A naval blockade wouldn't work one bit-haven't you heard of Japan's kamikaze tactics that have claimed a ton of ships and the personnel that work on them?

And do you think the Japanese would be that eager to surrender, especially when they realized Hiroshima was a nuclear wasteland but yet they continued to fight on? Only when Nagasaki was annihilated did they finally decide to wave the white flag.

You are missing the point. Or evading it. NEGOTIATED SURRENDER. NEGOTIATED! Not TOTAL or UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER as you have stressed.

Now re-read my paragraph.

The Japaneese Navy was beat. And not even Kamikaze bombers would have broken a naval blockade the strength the U.S navy was at. And yes, 500,000 civilian lives surpass the lives of considerably fewer American soldiers in war time.

Would the U.S surrender if someone totally annihalated one of their cities and its entire civilian population? No, you'd want to retaliate and beat the enemy to death with a stick. As irrational as it sounds that is what war, and anger, does to people.

You keep bringing up the fact that 500,000 civilians died in the atomic bomb attacks. Do you have proof of said deaths, even by the end of 1945? Care to share it. At most, by the end of the year, there were an estimated 246,000 deaths due to the attack. More deaths may have occured in the years after, but nowhere near the number you claim. As a matter of fact, the actual number of dead due to those 2 bombs will never be known.

"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."Harry Truman

The above quote by Harry Truman made at the Potsdam Conference in his Potsdamn Declaration did warn Japan of impending destruction and even after the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Truman warned other Japanese cities of further atomic bomb attacks and that citizens should leave cities.

It was basically a choice between the deaths of millions of both Americans and Japanese, or the deaths of a smaller number of Japanese. Considering we were at war with Japan, I would have gone with the second choice.

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

No they shouldn't of been used. From what I've heard, the Japanese were trying to surrender already. The nukes were dropped so that we could take Japan before the Soviets got there as Stalin promised to help in the Pacific after the war on the European front ended. Eisenhower was against dropping the nukes as well as J. Rober Oppenheimer, the creator of the bombs.

Rekunta

Yea, I always find it curious that everyone just flat out ignores and disregards statements from those in the know at the time as to whether the bombs needed and should've been used. Thanks, but I'll trust them instead of pure speculation from those ignorant of all the facts.The whole "saving more lives" excuse people just blindly buy into without even seemingly giving it a second thought.

Actually it turns out that both Gen. MacArthur and Eisenhower were against dropping the nukes.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

I'm not so much bothered that the U.S. used nuclear weapons against Japan, but the fact that they specifically targeted civilian populations. I don't care what the justifications were, intentionally killing tens of thousands of civilians is wrong.

redstorm72

But killing soldiers isn't? Soldiers are human beings just like the rest of us.

Yes, but soldiers chose to put their life on the line for their nation, civilians don't. There is a difference between killing a soldier in combat and blowing up a city full of women and children.

Oh so Japan obliverating Pearl Habor, and all those sailors. When the U.S. wasnt even in the war, is A O.K.?

And all the crap they did too all the nations in Asia?

Japan, didn't even care about it civilians. It brainwashed them into killing thems selves, if they were going to be "captured".

A small % of cilvillians lives is nothing compared to millions of amercian lives who didn't want the war. And of course of all the millions of japanese soilders and civilians who would of died if America invaded.

The bomb was the only way.

Japan had already lost before we decided to drop them. They should not have been dropped.

It was the only way to really test out their Manhattan Project.

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

But killing soldiers isn't? Soldiers are human beings just like the rest of us.

morrowindnic

Yes, but soldiers chose to put their life on the line for their nation, civilians don't. There is a difference between killing a soldier in combat and blowing up a city full of women and children.

Oh so Japan obliverating Pearl Habor, and all those sailors. When the U.S. wasnt even in the war, is A O.K.?

And all the crap they did too all the nations in Asia?

Japan, didn't even care about it civilians. It brainwashed them into killing thems selves, if they were going to be "captured".

A small % of cilvillians lives is nothing compared to millions of amercian lives who didn't want the war. And of course of all the millions of japanese soilders and civilians who would of died if America invaded.

The bomb was the only way.

Japan did not have the resources to continue fighting the war. The idea of a war on Japanese soil is a myth They did not have food and they did not have weapons. Moreover, not all of Japan was "brainwashed" about the war. It was young college students who were encouraged to "die for their country."

Japan had already lost before we decided to drop them. They should not have been dropped.

hakanakumono

They would of resisted to the end, it was the only way. I'm glad it was dropped, if it wasn't so many more people would of lost their lives. All because Japan wanted to conquer the world.

It was the only way to really test out their Manhattan Project.

gago-gago

That's basically what the Japanese public believes it was.

[QUOTE="gago-gago"]

It was the only way to really test out their Manhattan Project.

hakanakumono

That's basically what the Japanese public believes it was.

Let me guess, you are from Japan?

I bet they brainwashed you with their school history books.

It had to be done. If Japan never attacked the US in the first place, it wouldn't of happend.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Japan had already lost before we decided to drop them. They should not have been dropped.

morrowindnic

They would of resisted to the end, it was the only way. I'm glad it was dropped, if it wasn't so many more people would of lost their lives. All because Japan wanted to conquer the world.

No they wouldn't have. They were on the brink of surrender.

WWII wasn't about conquering the world for Japan. It was about becoming a superpower in south east asia in order to be recognized by western nations. Also, a runaway military.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="gago-gago"]

It was the only way to really test out their Manhattan Project.

morrowindnic

That's basically what the Japanese public believes it was.

Let me guess, you are from Japan?

I bet they brainwashed you with their school history books.

It had to be done. If Japan never attacked the US in the first place, it wouldn't of happend.

Uh, No I'm not Japanese.

Japan attacked soldiers. We attacked civilians not only with firebombing, but with nuclear weaponry that left not only the horrible results of the bomb, but the lasting effects of radiation. Did the perpetrators of pearl harbor suffer? No, the citizens who didn't want the war in the first place.

We were willing to pardon the war crimes of the Japanese scientists who performed horrible tests on the Chinese in order to attain the data they obtained from their "logs." I don't think dropping the bomb as a test was outside of our capabilities.

[QUOTE="morrowindnic"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Japan had already lost before we decided to drop them. They should not have been dropped.

hakanakumono

They would of resisted to the end, it was the only way. I'm glad it was dropped, if it wasn't so many more people would of lost their lives. All because Japan wanted to conquer the world.

No they wouldn't have. They were on the brink of surrender.

WWII wasn't about conquering the world for Japan. It was about becoming a superpower in south east asia in order to be recognized by western nations. Also, a runaway military.

So conquering the Philippines, China, and Korea, was just so that they would be "recognized"? Hell no, it was not. They wanted to take as much as they could, they were worse then Germany.

They would of not surrendered until way after they were invaded. Germany didn't surrender until Berlin was taken. What makes you think a fanatical country like Japan would of surrendered when even Germany didn't?

[QUOTE="Rekunta"]

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

No they shouldn't of been used. From what I've heard, the Japanese were trying to surrender already. The nukes were dropped so that we could take Japan before the Soviets got there as Stalin promised to help in the Pacific after the war on the European front ended. Eisenhower was against dropping the nukes as well as J. Rober Oppenheimer, the creator of the bombs.

Former_Slacker

Yea, I always find it curious that everyone just flat out ignores and disregards statements from those in the know at the time as to whether the bombs needed and should've been used. Thanks, but I'll trust them instead of pure speculation from those ignorant of all the facts.The whole "saving more lives" excuse people just blindly buy into without even seemingly giving it a second thought.

Actually it turns out that both Gen. MacArthur and Eisenhower were against dropping the nukes.

MacArthur had a way of saying and doing things that went completely against the JCS at the time and even before WWII. He helped write War Plan Orange in yet he denounced it every step of the way. He claimed that the Filipino militias could defend against a Japanese invasion, yet he never trained them and he was the one in charge. Even Eisenhower knew that MacArthur was full of it. DM only had one thing on his mind upon getting tossed out of the Philippines and that was returning. He didn't care about the defeat of Japan. DM was a rear end of a leader who grandstanded and took all of the acclaim though he rarely left the comfort of his HQ, typically many hundreds of miles behind the lines.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="morrowindnic"]

They would of resisted to the end, it was the only way. I'm glad it was dropped, if it wasn't so many more people would of lost their lives. All because Japan wanted to conquer the world.

morrowindnic

No they wouldn't have. They were on the brink of surrender.

WWII wasn't about conquering the world for Japan. It was about becoming a superpower in south east asia in order to be recognized by western nations. Also, a runaway military.

So conquering the Philipines, China, and Korea, was just so that they would be "reconized"? Hell no, it was not. They wanted to take as much as they could, they were worse then Germany.

They would of not surrendered untill way after they were invaded. Germany didn't surrender untill Berlin was taken. What makes you think a fanatical country like Japan would of surrendered when even Germany didn't?

No, that's exactly what it was about. Japan thought that in order to be recognized by western nations, they had to be an imperial power like western nations imperialized Africa, China, etc. It was never about world conquest.

Half of Japan's military leaders wanted to surrender. The vote was split down the middle. Japan definitely had some fanatical leaders within it's country, but considering Japan to be some "fanatical" country that wanted to take over the world is misunderstanding the role that Japan had in world war 2.

[QUOTE="morrowindnic"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

That's basically what the Japanese public believes it was.

hakanakumono

Let me guess, you are from Japan?

I bet they brainwashed you with their school history books.

It had to be done. If Japan never attacked the US in the first place, it wouldn't of happend.

Uh, No I'm not Japanese.

Japan attacked soldiers. We attacked civilians not only with firebombing, but with nuclear weaponry that left not only the horrible results of the bomb, but the lasting effects of radiation. Did the perpetrators of pearl harbor suffer? No, the citizens who didn't want the war in the first place.

Answer me this, if there are everlasting effects of radiation, explain how both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the bustling metropolises they are today? Why are there no new cases of radiation poisoning?

Japanese soldiers did more than attack soldiers, they killed civilians too.

These babies are victims of the Japanese in China.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="morrowindnic"]

Let me guess, you are from Japan?

I bet they brainwashed you with their school history books.

It had to be done. If Japan never attacked the US in the first place, it wouldn't of happend.

WhiteKnight77

Uh, No I'm not Japanese.

Japan attacked soldiers. We attacked civilians not only with firebombing, but with nuclear weaponry that left not only the horrible results of the bomb, but the lasting effects of radiation. Did the perpetrators of pearl harbor suffer? No, the citizens who didn't want the war in the first place.

Answer me this, if there are everlasting effects of radiation, explain how both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the bustling metropolises they are today? Why are there no new cases of radiation poisoning?

Japanese soldiers did more than attack soldiers, they killed civilians too.

These babies are victims of the Japanese in China.

I didn't say everlasting, I meant "lasting" in terms of it's not just a bomb dropped and then it's over. People who came into the contact of the "black rain" after the bomb also became sick, etc.

I was talking about Japan vs. the US and the atomic bombs and fire bombing as some sort of retribution for Pearl Harbor. Japan committed horrible war crimes in World War II.

[QUOTE="morrowindnic"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

No they wouldn't have. They were on the brink of surrender.

WWII wasn't about conquering the world for Japan. It was about becoming a superpower in south east asia in order to be recognized by western nations. Also, a runaway military.

hakanakumono

So conquering the Philipines, China, and Korea, was just so that they would be "reconized"? Hell no, it was not. They wanted to take as much as they could, they were worse then Germany.

They would of not surrendered untill way after they were invaded. Germany didn't surrender untill Berlin was taken. What makes you think a fanatical country like Japan would of surrendered when even Germany didn't?

No, that's exactly what it was about. Japan thought that in order to be recognized by western nations, they had to be an imperial power like western nations imperialized Africa, China, etc. It was never about world conquest.

Half of Japan's military leaders wanted to surrender. The vote was split down the middle. Japan definitely had some fanatical leaders within it's country, but considering Japan to be some "fanatical" country that wanted to take over the world is misunderstanding the role that Japan had in world war 2.

Most Japanese military leaders did not want to surrender and even staged a coup which failed against the emperor.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="morrowindnic"]

So conquering the Philipines, China, and Korea, was just so that they would be "reconized"? Hell no, it was not. They wanted to take as much as they could, they were worse then Germany.

They would of not surrendered untill way after they were invaded. Germany didn't surrender untill Berlin was taken. What makes you think a fanatical country like Japan would of surrendered when even Germany didn't?

WhiteKnight77

No, that's exactly what it was about. Japan thought that in order to be recognized by western nations, they had to be an imperial power like western nations imperialized Africa, China, etc. It was never about world conquest.

Half of Japan's military leaders wanted to surrender. The vote was split down the middle. Japan definitely had some fanatical leaders within it's country, but considering Japan to be some "fanatical" country that wanted to take over the world is misunderstanding the role that Japan had in world war 2.

Most Japanese military leaders did not want to surrender and even staged a coup which failed against the emperor.

I specifically remember a vote.

Anyways, once American soldiers hit Japanese soil, and the tired, hungry people were told they would officially begin to send their women out with spears to fend off the invaders in a country with no food or weaponry against an enemy that wanted their surrender, I can hardly imagine a situation in which either the military leaders didn't surrender, or where the people remained compliant and didn't surrender themselves.

No. I don't care how many more US troops would have been lost if there was an invasion. The Nukes killed many yes, but the real damage is the one that is still affecting japanese citizens today. The people are still being born with mutations as a result of the bombs, and in my view anything was a better alternative to the Nuclear Bombs. And still, the US goes and yells at other countries for having nuclear weapons, even though they are the only ones to ever use them.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Uh, No I'm not Japanese.

Japan attacked soldiers. We attacked civilians not only with firebombing, but with nuclear weaponry that left not only the horrible results of the bomb, but the lasting effects of radiation. Did the perpetrators of pearl harbor suffer? No, the citizens who didn't want the war in the first place.

hakanakumono

Answer me this, if there are everlasting effects of radiation, explain how both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the bustling metropolises they are today? Why are there no new cases of radiation poisoning?

Japanese soldiers did more than attack soldiers, they killed civilians too.

These babies are victims of the Japanese in China.

I didn't say everlasting, I meant "lasting" in terms of it's not just a bomb dropped and then it's over. People who came into the contact of the "black rain" after the bomb also became sick, etc.

I was talking about Japan vs. the US and the atomic bombs and fire bombing as some sort of retribution for Pearl Harbor. Japan committed horrible war crimes in World War II.

Firebombing of Japanese cities were not retribution for Pearl Harbor.

Japan invaded Vietnam, China, Dutch East Indies, Borneo, Malaysia and the other areas for their resources and a place to ship their own countrymen as at that time Japan was very overcrowded due to a population of 70,000,000. They attacked the US for several reasons including the embargo we placed against them for China. They wanted to expand their sphere of influence and wanted to ensure that we would not be able to stop them, hence the attack on Pearl.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Answer me this, if there are everlasting effects of radiation, explain how both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the bustling metropolises they are today? Why are there no new cases of radiation poisoning?

Japanese soldiers did more than attack soldiers, they killed civilians too.

These babies are victims of the Japanese in China.

WhiteKnight77

I didn't say everlasting, I meant "lasting" in terms of it's not just a bomb dropped and then it's over. People who came into the contact of the "black rain" after the bomb also became sick, etc.

I was talking about Japan vs. the US and the atomic bombs and fire bombing as some sort of retribution for Pearl Harbor. Japan committed horrible war crimes in World War II.

Firebombing of Japanese cities were not retribution for Pearl Harbor.

Japan invaded Vietnam, China, Dutch East Indies, Borneo, Malaysia and the other areas for their resources and a place to ship their own countrymen as at that time Japan was very overcrowded due to a population of 70,000,000. They attacked the US for several reasons including the embargo we placed against them for China. They wanted to expand their sphere of influence and wanted to ensure that we would not be able to stop them, hence the attack on Pearl.

Yes, I know.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

No, that's exactly what it was about. Japan thought that in order to be recognized by western nations, they had to be an imperial power like western nations imperialized Africa, China, etc. It was never about world conquest.

Half of Japan's military leaders wanted to surrender. The vote was split down the middle. Japan definitely had some fanatical leaders within it's country, but considering Japan to be some "fanatical" country that wanted to take over the world is misunderstanding the role that Japan had in world war 2.

hakanakumono

Most Japanese military leaders did not want to surrender and even staged a coup which failed against the emperor.

I specifically remember a vote.

Anyways, once American soldiers hit Japanese soil, and the tired, hungry people were told they would officially begin to send their women out with spears to fend off the invaders in a country with no food or weaponry against an enemy that wanted their surrender, I can hardly imagine a situation in which either the military leaders didn't surrender, or where the people remained compliant and didn't surrender themselves.

Those who show no mercy deserve none in return.