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

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for psychobrew
psychobrew

8888

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#251 psychobrew
Member since 2008 • 8888 Posts

[QUOTE="DoomZaW"]

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

IAMTHEJOKER88

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...

The US did offer to let them surrender. Japan refused.

Avatar image for Snipes_2
Snipes_2

17126

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#252 Snipes_2
Member since 2009 • 17126 Posts

Yes, It saved many lives.

Avatar image for Espada12
Espada12

23247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#253 Espada12
Member since 2008 • 23247 Posts

The **** they pulled in China and the fact that they still haven't apologized for it (or even recognize that it ever happened in their educational system) makes it difficult to feel any sympathy. Rather, the atomic bombings seem more like karmic vengeance for what the Japanese had been doing to the rest of the region during their time as an imperialist country. Not to mention that it was entirely Japan's fault for starting the war in the first place.gameguy6700

To this day my dad doesn't like the japanese at all because of this... infact I'd say he hates them. His parents fled china in WW2 and they told him all the stories of seeing rivers of blood and bodies coming down the rivers and all that stuff..

Avatar image for Lu-Kang
Lu-Kang

1010

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#254 Lu-Kang
Member since 2007 • 1010 Posts

Yes because we could of lost up to 100,000 american men

Avatar image for IAMTHEJOKER88
IAMTHEJOKER88

934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#255 IAMTHEJOKER88
Member since 2008 • 934 Posts

[QUOTE="IAMTHEJOKER88"]

[QUOTE="DoomZaW"]

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

psychobrew

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...

The US did offer to let them surrender. Japan refused.

AN UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER. The Americans knew this would be refused, the Japs fought ruthlessly to the last man over metres in the pacific. If they had even considered a negotiated surrender, which may not have been IDEAL, but would have saved hundreds of thousands of more lives, then that would have been the better option.

Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#256 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

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

taj7575

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.

WWII was probably one of the worst wars in that regard though. To say that there were "bad occurrences" is an incredible understatement. The holocaust, the rape of nanking, unit 731, and the atomic bombings are probably the greatest atrocities committed in modern times, to say nothing of the rest of WWII.
Avatar image for Symphonycometh
Symphonycometh

9592

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 34

User Lists: 0

#257 Symphonycometh
Member since 2006 • 9592 Posts
Oh boy. Time to lower my respect level for Japan some more. What happened in China? I've seen it mentioned here, but never really discussed. (As of Page 1-4 and this page). Anyone mind telling me the details (or a really good link).
Avatar image for taj7575
taj7575

12084

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#258 taj7575
Member since 2008 • 12084 Posts

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

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

gameguy6700

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.

WWII was probably one of the worst wars in that regard though. To say that there were "bad occurrences" is an incredible understatement. The holocaust, the rape of nanking, unit 731, and the atomic bombings are probably the greatest atrocities committed in modern times, to say nothing of the rest of WWII.

I know, it was a very huge understatement, but there are a ton of atrocities you can talk about when it comes to WWII. I didn't really want to go further than bad occurences to be honest :P. I've seen pics from many of those occurences, and it's not something fun to talk about

Avatar image for psychobrew
psychobrew

8888

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#259 psychobrew
Member since 2008 • 8888 Posts

AN UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER. The Americans knew this would be refused, the Japs fought ruthlessly to the last man over metres in the pacific.IAMTHEJOKER88

Why would we think Japan would do anything different in their home land? If anything, I'd expect them to become even more ruthless.

Besides, Japan wasn't serious about negotiated surrender. The emporer was nearly overthrown when he made his decision to surrender after the second bomb was dropped.

Avatar image for taj7575
taj7575

12084

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#260 taj7575
Member since 2008 • 12084 Posts

Oh boy. Time to lower my respect level for Japan some more. What happened in China? I've seen it mentioned here, but never really discussed. (As of Page 1-4 and this page). Anyone mind telling me the details (or a really good link).Symphonycometh

Rape of nanking?

I'd show you a link, but just make sure there's no food or drink near you, and try not to search it on google images.

Wikipedia

Avatar image for wolverine4262
wolverine4262

20832

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#261 wolverine4262
Member since 2004 • 20832 Posts

AN UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER. The Americans knew this would be refused, the Japs fought ruthlessly to the last man over metres in the pacific. If they had even considered a negotiated surrender, which may not have been IDEAL, but would have saved hundreds of thousands of more lives, then that would have been the better option.

IAMTHEJOKER88

You are exactly right. However, how exactly do you think they would have defended their home island, if they defended insignificant rocks in the Pacific so strongly?

Avatar image for Palantas
Palantas

15329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#262 Palantas
Member since 2002 • 15329 Posts

I don't know. I've been a student of the military sciences for some years now, and I still don't know about this one. I do think a better question would be, "Should the US have deliberately bombed population centers in World War II?", as this type of activity was by no means limited to the two nuclear attacks.

Avatar image for Roushrsh
Roushrsh

3351

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#263 Roushrsh
Member since 2005 • 3351 Posts
Yeah, it was definitely in the countries best interest. Either have your people killed or the oppositions. It's not like the US started the war, so it was definitely the right thing to do. What was stupid, was that Japan had to have another one blow up in their face before giving up >.>...
Avatar image for Symphonycometh
Symphonycometh

9592

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 34

User Lists: 0

#264 Symphonycometh
Member since 2006 • 9592 Posts

[QUOTE="Symphonycometh"]Oh boy. Time to lower my respect level for Japan some more. What happened in China? I've seen it mentioned here, but never really discussed. (As of Page 1-4 and this page). Anyone mind telling me the details (or a really good link).taj7575

Rape of nanking?

I'd show you a link, but just make sure there's no food or drink near you, and try not to search it on google images.

Wikipedia

Okay back. That was a sickening article to read. (And came with pics. D= ) I don't even think I can conjure up any words for this.
Avatar image for Symphonycometh
Symphonycometh

9592

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 34

User Lists: 0

#265 Symphonycometh
Member since 2006 • 9592 Posts
[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]I'm split on my opinion of it. Nuking a city of civilians is never a good thing, and contrary to the point that people always whip out about "it saved millions of lives" Japan probably would have surrendered once they found themselves being invaded by both the USA and USSR. It also wasn't really the nukes that ended the war either. While they were a major factor, it was really Russia's declaration to invade Japan that was the direct cause of Japan's decision to surrender unconditionally. In reality, the atomic bombings were more of a show of power by the US than anything else. We wanted to cement our status as a superpower and intimidate the Russians since we knew we were headed towards a cold war the minute WWII was over. There's a reason why the US picked two cities so unimportant that they were more or less completely unscathed by the bombing runs that had decimated the rest of the country. On the other hand, Japan was hardly an innocent victim. The **** they pulled in China and the fact that they still haven't apologized for it (or even recognize that it ever happened in their educational system) makes it difficult to feel any sympathy. Rather, the atomic bombings seem more like karmic vengeance for what the Japanese had been doing to the rest of the region during their time as an imperialist country. Not to mention that it was entirely Japan's fault for starting the war in the first place.

On August 15, 1995, the fiftieth anniversary of the Surrender of Japan, the Japanese prime minister Tomiichi Murayama gave the first clear and formal apology for Japanese actions during the war. He apologized for Japan's wrongful aggression and the great suffering that it inflicted in Asia. He offered his heartfelt apology to all survivors and to the relatives and friends of the victims. That day, the prime minister and the Japanese Emperor Akihito pronounced statements of mourning at Tokyo's Nippon Budokan. The emperor offered his condolences and expressed the hope that such atrocities would never be repeated. Iris Chang, author of The Rape of Nanking, criticized Murayama for not providing the written apology that had been expected. She said that the people of China "don't believe that an... unequivocal and sincere apology has ever been made by Japan to China" and that a written apology from Japan would send a better message to the international community.[8]Wikipedia
1995 they apparently did apologize. However, that aside, I don't think it's karma when innocent people suffer.
Avatar image for warownslife
warownslife

5289

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#266 warownslife
Member since 2010 • 5289 Posts

Well yes. We offeed peace, they refused, we warned them, they refused, we acted. Were their other options? yes. Would they have been fast?no.

Avatar image for UT_Wrestler
UT_Wrestler

16426

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#267 UT_Wrestler
Member since 2004 • 16426 Posts
It was a necessary evil. There would have been MANY more casualties on both sides were it not used. The U.S. was perfectly happy staying neutral, but Japan brought that mess upon themselves when they decided to bomb pearl harbor and get the U.S. involved in WW2.
Avatar image for kdawg88
kdawg88

2923

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#268 kdawg88
Member since 2009 • 2923 Posts

Everyone here needs to watch Fog of War in order to gain an understanding of this subject. While one could say it was necessary in order to teach mankind a lesson, there is absolutely no justification for such destruction.

Avatar image for kdawg88
kdawg88

2923

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#269 kdawg88
Member since 2009 • 2923 Posts

I don't know. I've been a student of the military sciences for some years now, and I still don't know about this one. I do think a better question would be, "Should the US have deliberately bombed population centers in World War II?", as this type of activity was by no means limited to the two nuclear attacks.

Palantas
I reiterate this. It was complete and utter overkill.
Avatar image for Treflis
Treflis

13757

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#270 Treflis
Member since 2004 • 13757 Posts
Personally I find it to be a direct breach with the Geneva Convention, particulary the part where you aren't allowed to deliberatly attack civilians. One can justify it however you want, "There would be a larger loss of Soldier's lives", "They deserved it" and whatever other reason I've heard or will hear, the fact of the matter is that the US deliberatly bombed two civilian cities. And no amount of reason or finger pointing that "oh but they were worse" will change that. I do not think it was the right thing to do but it is easy to point fingers after something has happened.
Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#271 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

[QUOTE="Symphonycometh"]Oh boy. Time to lower my respect level for Japan some more. What happened in China? I've seen it mentioned here, but never really discussed. (As of Page 1-4 and this page). Anyone mind telling me the details (or a really good link).Symphonycometh

Rape of nanking?

I'd show you a link, but just make sure there's no food or drink near you, and try not to search it on google images.

Wikipedia

Okay back. That was a sickening article to read. (And came with pics. D= ) I don't even think I can conjure up any words for this.

Now that you're done with that you should also read up on Unit 731, the secret Japanese research arm that made Josef Mengele look like a saint.

Avatar image for TheQwertyCow
TheQwertyCow

53

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#272 TheQwertyCow
Member since 2010 • 53 Posts
Even though it ended the war quickly, we didn't need to. I think we were just eagar to test what the Atom Bomb could do and people saw this as a good opportunity to do so. We would've won the war after very shortly, as Japan was pretty much in ruins and they couldn't do much to us anymore.
Avatar image for darthvader1993
darthvader1993

914

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#273 darthvader1993
Member since 2005 • 914 Posts

This is always a sensitive subject, I personally believe the bombs shouldn't have been dropped on the populated cities. We should have chosen a non-populated area where the general population could witness the horror of the contraption, and force a surrender without having to use it on civilians.

Avatar image for SpartanMSU
SpartanMSU

3440

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#276 SpartanMSU
Member since 2009 • 3440 Posts

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

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

taj7575

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 know both did, but the 500,000 civilian casualties was caused by the Brits ALONE, not including the casualties caused by the U.S. (again, I think). I just wanted to make myself more clear.

Avatar image for SpartanMSU
SpartanMSU

3440

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#277 SpartanMSU
Member since 2009 • 3440 Posts

[QUOTE="yabbicoke"]

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.

IAMTHEJOKER88

Thank you. Exactly my point.

Except they didn't surrender after we dropped a bomb on the first city...only after the second one did they surrender...

How many times do I have to say this?

Avatar image for GD-1369211121
GD-1369211121

4087

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#278 GD-1369211121
Member since 2006 • 4087 Posts

Yes, of course.

Avatar image for Treflis
Treflis

13757

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#279 Treflis
Member since 2004 • 13757 Posts

[QUOTE="Treflis"]Personally I find it to be a direct breach with the Geneva Convention, particulary the part where you aren't allowed to deliberatly attack civilians. One can justify it however you want, "There would be a larger loss of Soldier's lives", "They deserved it" and whatever other reason I've heard or will hear, the fact of the matter is that the US deliberatly bombed two civilian cities. And no amount of reason or finger pointing that "oh but they were worse" will change that. I do not think it was the right thing to do but it is easy to point fingers after something has happened.SpartanMSU

Both cities had numerous military targets. FACT.

Also, it wasn't just "Soldier's lives", it was millions of Japanese civilian's lives as well if we were to invade...

It still was deliberate attacks on Civilians, The US knew just how large the blast was from their tests. If they wanted to take out the military targets alone then they could've used the usual bombs which again would be cheaper. It would also be just as easy since the nuke over Hiroshima was dropped from a single plane who wasn't even fired upon by anti-aircraft guns.
Avatar image for SpartanMSU
SpartanMSU

3440

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#280 SpartanMSU
Member since 2009 • 3440 Posts

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

See: Guerrilla Warfare

See: Afghanistan

Espada12

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.

Oh, yep, that has definitely worked so well in Afghanistan...oh wait, we've been their for almost a decade...same goes for Gaza...

A blockade doesn't stop guerrilla warfare.

Avatar image for Palantas
Palantas

15329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#281 Palantas
Member since 2002 • 15329 Posts

[QUOTE="I"]

I don't know. I've been a student of the military sciences for some years now, and I still don't know about this one. I do think a better question would be, "Should the US have deliberately bombed population centers in World War II?", as this type of activity was by no means limited to the two nuclear attacks.

kdawg88

I reiterate this. It was complete and utter overkill.

That's not really the point I was trying to make. :?

Avatar image for SpartanMSU
SpartanMSU

3440

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#282 SpartanMSU
Member since 2009 • 3440 Posts

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="Treflis"]Personally I find it to be a direct breach with the Geneva Convention, particulary the part where you aren't allowed to deliberatly attack civilians. One can justify it however you want, "There would be a larger loss of Soldier's lives", "They deserved it" and whatever other reason I've heard or will hear, the fact of the matter is that the US deliberatly bombed two civilian cities. And no amount of reason or finger pointing that "oh but they were worse" will change that. I do not think it was the right thing to do but it is easy to point fingers after something has happened.Treflis

Both cities had numerous military targets. FACT.

Also, it wasn't just "Soldier's lives", it was millions of Japanese civilian's lives as well if we were to invade...

It still was deliberate attacks on Civilians, The US knew just how large the blast was from their tests. If they wanted to take out the military targets alone then they could've used the usual bombs which again would be cheaper. It would also be just as easy since the nuke over Hiroshima was dropped from a single plane who wasn't even fired upon by anti-aircraft guns.

You think one plane flying at an extremely high altitude is going to hit a small target on the ground? This isn't the modern military era buddy...we don't have smart bombs. The bombing raids in Europe by the RAF and USAF killed MANY more civilians than the two nukes dropped on Japan because they had to drop LOADS of them in order to hit a target. Getting a single bomb to hit a target back then was nearly impossible.

btw, the point was to make Japan surrender...using conventional bombs wouldn't have done this...

And way to avoid the second part of my post...

Avatar image for HavocV3
HavocV3

8068

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#283 HavocV3
Member since 2009 • 8068 Posts

the theory was that millions more would have died on both sides if America tried invading Japan.

so probably yes? it's a tough call to make, a nuclear bomb is a disgusting thing, but it seemed like the only option.

it was also a good bluff as well. if we really had more a-bombs than those two, I wonder how much different things would have been.

Avatar image for Animatronic64
Animatronic64

3971

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#284 Animatronic64
Member since 2010 • 3971 Posts

Should... Should we wage wars?

Avatar image for Treflis
Treflis

13757

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#285 Treflis
Member since 2004 • 13757 Posts

[QUOTE="Treflis"][QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

Both cities had numerous military targets. FACT.

Also, it wasn't just "Soldier's lives", it was millions of Japanese civilian's lives as well if we were to invade...

SpartanMSU

It still was deliberate attacks on Civilians, The US knew just how large the blast was from their tests. If they wanted to take out the military targets alone then they could've used the usual bombs which again would be cheaper. It would also be just as easy since the nuke over Hiroshima was dropped from a single plane who wasn't even fired upon by anti-aircraft guns.

You think one plane flying at an extremely high altitude is going to hit a small target on the ground? This isn't the modern military era buddy...we don't have smart bombs. The bombing raids in Europe by the RAF and USAF killed MANY more civilians than the two nukes dropped on Japan because they had to drop LOADS of them in order to hit a target. Getting a single bomb to hit a target back then was nearly impossible.

btw, the point was to make Japan surrender...using conventional bombs wouldn't have done this...

And way to avoid the second part of my post...

First off, The bombing raids in Europe lasted for years so naturally it did kill more civilians and again that is regetful. Secondly a Airplane can decend in altitude back then, which could have the bombing planes lower then Enola Gay and be able to drop the bombs with better accuracy. Thirdly, While a invasion might've killed more civilians we do not even know if it would come to that. If US ships were just outside the coast of Japan and the Russian forces were closing in, then even the emperor of Japan would've thought twice about surrendering due to most of the Japanese army gone. But again it is easy to point fingers and say that was wrong in retrospective, and we can debate this until we get old but I doubt neither of us are going to convince the other. You think it was the right thing to do, I think it was the wrong thing to do. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Avatar image for NiteLights
NiteLights

1181

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#286 NiteLights
Member since 2010 • 1181 Posts

I'm in between yes and no.

Avatar image for mr_poodles123
mr_poodles123

1661

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#287 mr_poodles123
Member since 2009 • 1661 Posts
In my opinion, 1 American soldiers life is worth more than 1 billion of our enemies civilians lives.
Avatar image for umalex
umalex

95

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#288 umalex
Member since 2003 • 95 Posts

It was needed. The country was not going to surrender unconditionally, and as much as it sounds absolutist, it was the only way. The belief in state shintoism was strong in the country, the emperor was a divine descendant. He was held in a mythic view until his surrender where he "denied" his divinity. (A story for another time, it was the way that he said it that causes some doubt of whether he actually completely denied it). In fact, his mythic proportions were shown when he surrendered over the radio, as a good portion of the japanese civilians couldn't understand some words due to them being used only in the court. While you can argue that original Bushido wasn't that strong, the state version of the 40's definitely was. When you mix religion with war, you get the result of large amounts of populations fighting to the death. A land invasion would have had the full country fighting in the emperor's name. In fact, if it wasn't for a certain official who had a honeymoon in Kyoto, the war would have lasted longer since the emperor would have been wiped out and turned into a martyr. Also, the army tried to delay the message of surrender from the emperor AFTER the TWO bombs were dropped. The nation wasn't going to stop fighting. A simple blockade wouldn't have worked since they could have holed up for months or even years, an invasion would have been deadly and would have messed up the countries future with the Cold War. It would have probably been worse than a East/West Germany.


Another thing for those who believe that Japan fought honorably, it didn't. Rape of Nanking, torturing Soldiers, the crimes against humanity committed against the chinese and koreans, and it even had a nuclear program too. (Ever since it was discovered that a nuclear bomb could be made, everyone was trying to make one. The US just got there first. It should be noted though that Japan's was in it's infancy and was stopped after the war).

To summarize, an unconditional surrender was the only way for the war to end permanently without repercussions affecting the US. With the demilitarization of Japan and the occupation of Japan by the United States, Japan was prevented from becoming like the Germany between WWI and WWII. The a huge percentage of people would have fought once the war hit the homeland. The Japanese mainland would require more than just a simple navy bombardment and blockade. They were warned and nuked industrial centers. (Nagasaki was the one with the weather causing the plane to fly further away.) The bomb was already tested with the Trinity testing and actually isn't as big and deadly as made to believe. It would take more than thousands of nukes to kill off mankind, in fact there have been a few THOUSAND bombs set off from 1945 to 1998. While civilian losses would be have been high for the city, it can not be compared to that of an invasion of the entire country. Besides, the non atomic bombing of Tokyo killed about the same amount if not more due to both sides minimizing the death toll. In keeping with US interests, it would have been unwise, no idiotic, no to have used it. Besides, it was this decision that prevented a split japan between the Soviets, the US, and the Chinese. (The chinese were succeeding in their war effort at this time.).

Basically, we gave them a chance of surrendering unconditionally and they chose not to accept. Unconditional surrender was the only acceptable way to prevent repercussions that would come back to haunt the US.

Avatar image for Grodus5
Grodus5

7934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#289 Grodus5
Member since 2006 • 7934 Posts

Short answer: Yes

Long answer: We may of killed a lot of civilian's lives, but overall, we saved many lives from the combined death toll of American soldiers, Japanese Soldiers, and Japanese Civilians that would of accompanied a full scale invasion. Plus not to mention that the other Allies from Europe may of joined in, adding to the death toll. We ended the war swiftly and decivisly and saved many lives at the cost of many civilians. In war, no one wins, but this was simply the best choice.

Avatar image for Mythomniac
Mythomniac

1695

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#290 Mythomniac
Member since 2009 • 1695 Posts
No, I do not, think of all the innocent women and children died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I highly doubt FDR would have used it.
Avatar image for Animatronic64
Animatronic64

3971

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#291 Animatronic64
Member since 2010 • 3971 Posts
No, I do not, think of all the innocent women and children died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I highly doubt FDR would have used it.Mythomniac
I wonder how many more innocent women and children would have died if the war had not ended so soon?
Avatar image for psychobrew
psychobrew

8888

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#292 psychobrew
Member since 2008 • 8888 Posts

Should... Should we wage wars?

Animatronic64

So mif someone just started beating you, you'd just let them beat you to death withour defending yourself?

Avatar image for Palantas
Palantas

15329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#293 Palantas
Member since 2002 • 15329 Posts

[QUOTE="Animatronic64"]

Should... Should we wage wars?

psychobrew

So mif someone just started beating you, you'd just let them beat you to death withour defending yourself?

No, you call the police and wait patiently. :D

Avatar image for Animatronic64
Animatronic64

3971

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#294 Animatronic64
Member since 2010 • 3971 Posts

[QUOTE="Animatronic64"]

Should... Should we wage wars?

psychobrew

So mif someone just started beating you, you'd just let them beat you to death withour defending yourself?

Before there even was a war...
Avatar image for psychobrew
psychobrew

8888

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#295 psychobrew
Member since 2008 • 8888 Posts

[QUOTE="psychobrew"]

[QUOTE="Animatronic64"]

Should... Should we wage wars?

Animatronic64

So mif someone just started beating you, you'd just let them beat you to death withour defending yourself?

Before there even was a war...

Before there even was a war what? I'm not sure we're speaking the same language.

Avatar image for Animatronic64
Animatronic64

3971

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#296 Animatronic64
Member since 2010 • 3971 Posts

[QUOTE="Animatronic64"][QUOTE="psychobrew"]

So mif someone just started beating you, you'd just let them beat you to death withour defending yourself?

psychobrew

Before there even was a war...

Before there even was a war what? I'm not sure we're speaking the same language.

Yes, apparently we aren't. It's pretty simple. Should we, as human beings, wage wars in the first place? Nowhere in my statement did I make an implication that we should get into a war, and then just let the other guy beat us down till we are dead. :|

Avatar image for Symphonycometh
Symphonycometh

9592

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 34

User Lists: 0

#297 Symphonycometh
Member since 2006 • 9592 Posts

In my opinion, 1 American soldiers life is worth more than 1 billion of our enemies civilians lives.mr_poodles123
Nationalism is a scary thing sometimes. Morality goes right out the window.

Avatar image for Symphonycometh
Symphonycometh

9592

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 34

User Lists: 0

#298 Symphonycometh
Member since 2006 • 9592 Posts

[QUOTE="Symphonycometh"][QUOTE="taj7575"]

Rape of nanking?

I'd show you a link, but just make sure there's no food or drink near you, and try not to search it on google images.

Wikipedia

gameguy6700

Okay back. That was a sickening article to read. (And came with pics. D= ) I don't even think I can conjure up any words for this.

Now that you're done with that you should also read up on Unit 731, the secret Japanese research arm that made Josef Mengele look like a saint.

Gosh, the amount of people who make this world far worse than needed is downright depressing.
Avatar image for N-REAL
N-REAL

2515

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#299 N-REAL
Member since 2003 • 2515 Posts

Interesting, I didn't expect to see this still around, 68% Yes. 32% No. Most polls are quite the same.

Avatar image for Palantas
Palantas

15329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#300 Palantas
Member since 2002 • 15329 Posts

Now that you're done with that you should also read up on Unit 731, the secret Japanese research arm that made Josef Mengele look like a saint.

gameguy6700

I've read about that before. It's very disturbing; like the real-life version of one of those torture-porn horror movies. I read an interview of either one of the guards or doctors; can't remember which. This interview was in the 90s, I think, so he was an old man. The interviewer asked him if he felt remorse for his actions. He said, "No. When you're in a war, you have to win."