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

If we hadnt used the Bombs then we would have had to invade japan. Which would have cost millions of lives and the war would have possibly lasted a year longer..

Yes, they would've continued raping us. th3warr1or

I think the day before the bombing, the boot was on the other foot.

(well, I thought that American victory was pretty much inevitable in 1945, so yeah.)

Yes, Boom...

wow I'm really surprised there are more votes for Yes than No ?

For me, definitely No. That is a bad because the atomic bombs mostly killed civillians.

No. Killing innocent civilians who don't want to fight is not war. It's murder.EMOEVOLUTION

This.

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]No. Killing innocent civilians who don't want to fight is not war. It's murder.Zensword

This.

[QUOTE="Zensword"]

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]No. Killing innocent civilians who don't want to fight is not war. It's murder.wolverine4262

This.

Yes, considering the U.S. and Japanese casualties would of been FAR, FAR, FAAAR greater than what they were if we had to invade, that's including civilians. Also you have to realize that Japan didn't even surrender after the first A-bomb was dropped, it took TWO of them to make them surrender...

The other allied countries, including the Brits, aren't innocent either. The bombings of German cities in WWII by the Brits brought 500,000 german civilian casualties...

[QUOTE="Zensword"]

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]No. Killing innocent civilians who don't want to fight is not war. It's murder.wolverine4262

This.

I'm not sure if the civilians would havetaken uparms or not. But the fact was that US killed thousands of innocent poeple was a crime against humanity.

The bombs should never have been used, but the fact that the Navy needed to drop TWO before Japan surrendered leads me to believe that it was necessary. We've spent the past 70 years making sure they are never used again and trying to stop proliferation. Still, deciding which countries are allowed to have nukes seems a little hypocritical considering we're the only nation to use one in anger. wstfld

Maybe we should still control Germany because the Nazi Regime might rise again, using your logic!:roll: (give me a freakin' break).

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"] How do you know that? Every single citizen would have taken arms and fought to defend their emperor? All you're going on is cultural based assumptions. That is not evidence of anything. You have no idea what percentage of them would or would not fight. And so what you say is worthless. You have to give them the benefit of the doubt before you willingly take their life away. I'm not going to start killing things because my psychology tells me they might hurt me, but heck, I don't really know, do I.wolverine4262

This is merely your assumption.

All I can say is, at least after that, it was never used on civilians ever again. That's as much as I can say about it.

Yes, considering the U.S. and Japanese casualties would of been FAR, FAR, FAAAR greater than what they were if we had to invade, that's including civilians. Also you have to realize that Japan didn't even surrender after the first A-bomb was dropped, it took TWO of them to make them surrender...

The other allied countries, including the Brits, aren't innocent either. The bombings of German cities in WWII by the Brits brought 500,000 german civilian casualties...

SpartanMSU

By Brits AND Americans. Just to fix that up..

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

Nope.. japan was going to surrender anyway and even still they dropped two instead of just one. Basically the US used japan and a real world testing ground for their two different types of experimental atom bombs. Highly irresponsible and even more despicable.

Espada12

How long could they have really stood out though... I mean, after the first one I'm sure they would have surrendered anyway given enough time.. they were cut off from the rest of the world with the majority of the cities and infrastructure destroyed.... two nukes weren't necessary at all.

See: Guerrilla Warfare

See: Afghanistan

[QUOTE="wolverine4262"][QUOTE="Zensword"]

This.

Zensword

I'm not sure if the civilians would havetaken uparms or not. But the fact was that US killed thousands of innocent poeple was a crime against humanity.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Japan was given the option....they were warned in advance and had not surrendered. Fire bombing actually caused more damage than the bombs did......SpartanMSU

How long could they have really stood out though... I mean, after the first one I'm sure they would have surrendered anyway given enough time.. they were cut off from the rest of the world with the majority of the cities and infrastructure destroyed.... two nukes weren't necessary at all.

See: Guerrilla Warfare

See: Afghanistan

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Japan was given the option....they were warned in advance and had not surrendered. Fire bombing actually caused more damage than the bombs did......SpartanMSU

How long could they have really stood out though... I mean, after the first one I'm sure they would have surrendered anyway given enough time.. they were cut off from the rest of the world with the majority of the cities and infrastructure destroyed.... two nukes weren't necessary at all.

See: Guerrilla Warfare

See: Afghanistan

No way it would've turned into Guerrilla Warfare. It would've just been a bloodier ending for the Japanese (considering the fact that the Soviets invaded Manchuria, and then they would've entered Japan).

So yeah, like I said before, at least it was used then and never used again. That's all I can say about it.

I'm always against any action that kills tens of thousands of civilians. You're better off losing a million soldiers invading than killing tens of thousands of civilians, IMO.

I think if the US had made a display with the Atomic Bomb, rather than actually dropping them on cities when they did, it might've been just as effective in ending the war. If they had detonated 1-2 of those things within viewing range of the Japanese leadership, it may have intimidated them to back down. I definitely think there had to be a better way.

hartsickdiscipl

That argument is moot. Why? Because they didn't surrender after the FIRST bomb was dropped...

Personally, I don't think Japan should have bombed Pearl Harbor. Even after they bombed Pearl Harbor, they could have avoided it by surrendering. As horrible as it was, they got what they asked for.psychobrew

Tough call.

If the war had continued, a lot more poeple probably would have died. But then again, there is some evidence that Japanese embassadors in the US were trying to find a peaceful end to the war (as far as I've heard.)

I don't think it was right to frop 2 boms on the country, though. If the US had to drop them, I think they should have done a demonstration to the Japanese to show what they are capable of. THen if the Japanses didn't surrender, they might have only had to drop 1 bom instead of 2.

[QUOTE="wolverine4262"][QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"] How do you know that? Every single citizen would have taken arms and fought to defend their emperor? All you're going on is cultural based assumptions. That is not evidence of anything. You have no idea what percentage of them would or would not fight. And so what you say is worthless. You have to give them the benefit of the doubt before you willingly take their life away. I'm not going to start killing things because my psychology tells me they might hurt me, but heck, I don't really know, do I.meetroid8

It's not a stereotype:lol:

That's how Japan was back then...read up buddy, read up.

Tough call.

If the war had continued, a lot more poeple probably would have died. But then again, there is some evidence that Japanese embassadors in the US were trying to find a peaceful end to the war (as far as I've heard.)

I don't think it was right to frop 2 boms on the country, though. If the US had to drop them, I think they should have done a demonstration to the Japanese to show what they are capable of. THen if the Japanses didn't surrender, they might have only had to drop 1 bom instead of 2.

BuryMe

They didn't surrender after the first bomb was dropped buddy...

[QUOTE="psychobrew"]Personally, I don't think Japan should have bombed Pearl Harbor. Even after they bombed Pearl Harbor, they could have avoided it by surrendering. As horrible as it was, they got what they asked for.EMOEVOLUTION

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

Tough call.

If the war had continued, a lot more poeple probably would have died. But then again, there is some evidence that Japanese embassadors in the US were trying to find a peaceful end to the war (as far as I've heard.)

I don't think it was right to frop 2 boms on the country, though. If the US had to drop them, I think they should have done a demonstration to the Japanese to show what they are capable of. THen if the Japanses didn't surrender, they might have only had to drop 1 bom instead of 2.

SpartanMSU

They didn't surrender after the first bomb was dropped buddy...

Had there been a demostration explosion, the US might have only had to drop 1 bomb, because by that point they wuld have nown that the US could drop another bomb if necessary.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

Yes, considering the U.S. and Japanese casualties would of been FAR, FAR, FAAAR greater than what they were if we had to invade, that's including civilians. Also you have to realize that Japan didn't even surrender after the first A-bomb was dropped, it took TWO of them to make them surrender...

The other allied countries, including the Brits, aren't innocent either. The bombings of German cities in WWII by the Brits brought 500,000 german civilian casualties...

taj7575

By Brits AND Americans. Just to fix that up..

No I think that was caused just by the Brits. I just watched a documentary on it the other day.:) Not sure though.

The use of the atomic bomb was actually the better decision than to invade Japan. The death toll of an invasion of Japan was predicted to have far more deaths on both sides.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

Tough call.

If the war had continued, a lot more poeple probably would have died. But then again, there is some evidence that Japanese embassadors in the US were trying to find a peaceful end to the war (as far as I've heard.)

I don't think it was right to frop 2 boms on the country, though. If the US had to drop them, I think they should have done a demonstration to the Japanese to show what they are capable of. THen if the Japanses didn't surrender, they might have only had to drop 1 bom instead of 2.

BuryMe

They didn't surrender after the first bomb was dropped buddy...

Had there been a demostration explosion, the US might have only had to drop 1 bomb, because by that point they wuld have nown that the US could drop another bomb if necessary.

We didn't have enough bombs (we only had three). Besides, where would you have the demonstration?

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"][QUOTE="psychobrew"]Personally, I don't think Japan should have bombed Pearl Harbor. Even after they bombed Pearl Harbor, they could have avoided it by surrendering. As horrible as it was, they got what they asked for.psychobrew

[QUOTE="psychobrew"][QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"] Right because the Japanese citizens wanted to attack Pearl Harbor. They even gave the go ahead orders. I guess we should nuke Afganastan--it's the only chance we have of killing Bin Laden. Screw who else dies.EMOEVOLUTION

Fine, so the citizens who were forced to fight should have sacrificed their lives?

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"][QUOTE="psychobrew"] And the US citizens drafted in to the military because of Pearl Harbor really wanted to fight? Why should we spare an aggressor's citizens at the expense of our own?psychobrew

Fine, so the citizens who were forced to fight should have sacrificed their lives?

It was either that, or about a year more of a war that would have cost alot more lives than those 2 nukes

It was either that, or about a year more of a war that would have cost alot more lives than those 2 nukes

DoomZaW

No it wasn't. You've simply been led to believe there were only two options. The U,S did not even consider offering a negotiated surrender. The Japaneese were willing, but they would not want to willingly suffer the humiliation of a total uncomprimising surrender due to their culture as a proud people and as proud renowned warriors.

Their economy was failling, they had pretty much already lost the war in the pacific. Russia was on call to invade, and itself was entering peace talks with Japan.

The U.S however, jumped the gun and demonstrated to the world its military might by blowing up the two cities.

They could have done a show of force, nuke a considerably insignificant target in the Japs eyesight. Simply a day before they go ahead, see if Japan surrenders.
They could have entered negotiations on a surrender, no lives lost, and no bombing.
They could have instigated a naval blockade (The states had the full capabilities to do so.)

But the American people and Government were tired and brashly wiped the cities off the map for sake of ending the war quickly with the misconception (or excuse) that the alternative would cost more lives. These alternatives, i believe, would have been better pursued,rather than killing half a million civilians...

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

Yes, considering the U.S. and Japanese casualties would of been FAR, FAR, FAAAR greater than what they were if we had to invade, that's including civilians. Also you have to realize that Japan didn't even surrender after the first A-bomb was dropped, it took TWO of them to make them surrender...

The other allied countries, including the Brits, aren't innocent either. The bombings of German cities in WWII by the Brits brought 500,000 german civilian casualties...

SpartanMSU

By Brits AND Americans. Just to fix that up..

No I think that was caused just by the Brits. I just watched a documentary on it the other day.:) Not sure though.

The major bombing raids took place with both the RAF and the USAF.

But that was just to clear you up. Every country has bad occurrences at war. But it's war..Theres nothing you can do about it.

I don't believe so. I hate when people say things like "well, it was either that or a ground invasion, which would have cost tons of American lives". There were so many other options, I don't understand why people just instanty jump to the conclusion that we would have had to invade them. At the very least we could have set a nuke off the coast of Japan, or even in the Japanese country side. The casulties would have been slim to zero, and the Japanese would be able to clearly see that we could destroy their entire country. Then, if they STILL didn't surrender, I think we should have bombed a military target, and if they still refuse to surrender then maybe we could start thinking about bombing their cities. So I would support nukes being used, but only as a last resort.

I mean seriously, no one deserves this, especially not God damn civillians.

I also remember reading a little girl's story, who's mother was burning after the blast so she jumped into the nearby creek, but the blast made the water so hot she was literally boiled alive in front of her seven year old daughter.

I don't believe so. I hate when people say things like "well, it was either that or a ground invasion, which would have cost tons of American lives". There were so many other options, I don't understand why people just instanty jump to the conclusion that we would have had to invade them. At the very least we could have set a nuke off the coast of Japan, or even in the Japanese country side. The casulties would have been slim to zero, and the Japanese would be able to clearly see that we could destroy their entire country. Then, if they STILL didn't surrender, I think we should have bombed a military target, and if they still refuse to surrender then maybe we could start thinking about bombing their cities. So I would support nukes being used, but only as a last resort.

yabbicoke

Thank you. Exactly my point.

See: Guerrilla Warfare

See: Afghanistan

SpartanMSU

Hmm? I'm not suggesting an land invasion, a naval/aerial blockade would have done the trick.. only so long before the country completely ran out resources.