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

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

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.

Palantas

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."

It's interesting how Americans think they did right thing while Japanese think the Americans were wrong. My parents (American and Japanese) still aren't on the same side with this war. I personally believe Japanese shouldn't have attacked Pearl Harbor, but there was no need for America to drop 2 nuclear bombs. Mr_Cumberdale

Yes. Places conquered by the Japanese were hell, i'd say get them to surrender asap even if it means obliterating their citizens.

American historytextbooks should totally cover the Japanese warcrimes like the Rape of Nanking and such. I dont live in China but we were one of the Japanese occupied countries, it was brutal. The nukes pretty much prompted the Japanese to gtfo, big thanks to America for this one.

It was wrong to kill innocent civilians, yes, but, and no offense to any Japanese here, but they needed to know who the **** they were dealing with. If they hadn't of been used, the war could have dragged on for much longer and caused even more civilian casualties, and as Spazz said, could have crippled the other nations we wouldn't have gotten to.

I believe that, whilst the US should have attacked, it attacked the wrong target. The majority of those effected were civilians, not military. A strategic attack like that on a military base would have been just as effective but would at least not have killed those that were not directly involved with the war.

Also, whilst one bomb could be excused, there was no reason to launch the second one ...

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

I think it had more to do with the Soviets and how Truman was afraid of Stalin dividing Japan

I don't think they had a choice if they wanted to win, but i also can't vote yes because of the cruelty.
I'll just refuse to vote.

[QUOTE="Animatronic64"]

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

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.

KungfuKitten

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."

Btw aren't they still causing deaths and deformed kids?

Yes. Places conquered by the Japanese were hell, i'd say get them to surrender asap even if it means obliterating their citizens.

American historytextbooks should totally cover the Japanese warcrimes like the Rape of Nanking and such. I dont live in China but we were one of the Japanese occupied countries, it was brutal. The nukes pretty much prompted the Japanese to gtfo, big thanks to America for this one.

Zerocrossings

Btw aren't they still causing deaths and deformed kids?

KungfuKitten

[QUOTE="urdead18"]

Yes.

Casualties were inevitable, nuking them was the quickest/most direct route to ending the war.

Besides, nukes weren't even the greatest cause of damage. They firebombed every major Japanese city which caused huge amounts of damage and casualties, more than the nukes IIRC.

sSubZerOo

Casualities were inevitable.. Please tell me.. Why does every one think if they didn't nuke they would have needed to invade? Japan's air force and navy were in shambles.. The military was bleeding to death, and they were already starting peace talks through Russia.. Eisenhower was completely against it as well, the Empire of Japan was defeated, all they would have had have done was blockade them alittle longer and they would have fallen.

Japan's air force was in shambles if you looked at it in a conventional way. If you looked from the perspective that every aircraft was a guided missile that could do massive damage, then they were still a cause for concern. They still had plenty hoarded away along with the human guidance systems to fly them.

-----

The Japanese mindset then was different from today's. The Japanese population would die for their emperor if they have to down to the last man, woman, and child.

If the Allies invaded Japan, they may have ended up bogged down like the Italian campaign. Japan and italy have similar terrain layout: narrow coastal flats and rugged mountains in the interior. A determined Japanese defense could've held out for a very long time and inflicted massive casualties just like the Germans did in Italy. Add to that a possibly hostile population and I can see the rationale for dropping the bombs.

Quite frankly, I know some people in Asia who wished more than two bombs were dropped after what the Japanese invaders had done to their population.

[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"]

Btw aren't they still causing deaths and deformed kids?

gameguy6700

I dont get war, its like "hey, instead of killing a few country leaders, lets kill thousands of poor innocent people!!"

[QUOTE="Mythomniac"]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.Animatronic64

[QUOTE="Animatronic64"][QUOTE="Mythomniac"]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

Not quick enough. I mean, it tooktwo nukes to convince them to leave.

I can`t believe how many people said yes.If the nuclear bomb was thrown on America you won`t be thinking the same

Its funny, I always hear alot of talk about the atrocities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima but never about Dresden. Personally i view World War 2 as the end of the world.

I'm not gonna vote, because i don't know enough to formulate an valid opinion. I do know one thing though: Those bombs were dropped

[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

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.

For ****'s sakes man. I really wish i didn't see that

[QUOTE="Mythomniac"][QUOTE="Animatronic64"] I wonder how many more innocent women and children would have died if the war had not ended so soon?Zerocrossings

Not quick enough. I mean, it tooktwo nukes to convince them to leave.

[QUOTE="Zerocrossings"]

[QUOTE="Mythomniac"] Japan was a lost cause, I assume less would have died, they would have evacuated and what not, in all reality, Japan could have not defended themselves from every Allied country, the war would have been over quickly.Mythomniac

Not quick enough. I mean, it tooktwo nukes to convince them to leave.

Bold assumptions. 2 months is too long anyway. A week earlier the war endsis worth the nukes.

[QUOTE="Zerocrossings"]

[QUOTE="Mythomniac"] Japan was a lost cause, I assume less would have died, they would have evacuated and what not, in all reality, Japan could have not defended themselves from every Allied country, the war would have been over quickly.Mythomniac

Not quick enough. I mean, it tooktwo nukes to convince them to leave.

Maybe you should brush up on Japanese warrior culture at that time. They didn't have to have navy and an air force to fight the U.S...

YOU need to brush up on your history buddy...

I believe that, whilst the US should have attacked, it attacked the wrong target. The majority of those effected were civilians, not military. A strategic attack like that on a military base would have been just as effective but would at least not have killed those that were not directly involved with the war.

Also, whilst one bomb could be excused, there was no reason to launch the second one ...

daqua_99

They didn't surrender after the first one.

It's amazing how many people don't know this.

[QUOTE="daqua_99"]

Also, whilst one bomb could be excused, there was no reason to launch the second one ...

SpartanMSU

They didn't surrender after the first one. It's amazing how many people don't know this.

I was under the impression that the second bomb was like humiliation time in Team Fortress, where you get free kills after your team wins.

No. Japan already lost the war.

yes

1. it ended the war, and more importantly, the US won

2. it established a precedent for nukes; the two that were dropped on Japan were isolated, and extremely controlled. I shudder to think what would have happened if we didnt drop those bombs, if we didnt realize how horrible they are. The Cold War could have been a lot hotter.

I did my college thesis on this topic.

It's actually amazing how many very prominent generals and military personnel were totally against the idea as it was unnecessarily militarily. General Eisenhower, General MacArthur, General Clarke (the one responsible for intercepting Japanese intelligence), Admiral Leahy (Truman's Chief of Staff) and Admiral Nimitz (Pacific Fleet Commander).

They argued the American public had been fed a false dichotomy of drop bombs or invade and lose thousands or millions of US lives, when in fact the strategic bombing survey conducted by the Secretary of War in 1946, which praised the necessity of bombing in Europe and the larger Pacific campaign, found the atomic bombs as unneccessary.

Basically, Japan was ready to surrender with one burning clause; the Emperor would not be made to abducate. Since the Allies didn't force him to abducate anyway, the bombs don't seem to have improved America's bargaining position.

>2. it established a precedent for nukes; the two that were dropped on Japan were isolated, and extremely controlled. I shudder to think what would have happened if we didnt drop those bombs, if we didnt realize how horrible they are. The Cold War could have been a lot hotter.

mrbojangles25

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]>2. it established a precedent for nukes; the two that were dropped on Japan were isolated, and extremely controlled. I shudder to think what would have happened if we didnt drop those bombs, if we didnt realize how horrible they are. The Cold War could have been a lot hotter.

Danm_999

yea I know it wasnt necessary to demonstrate it, but it happened, and for better or worse it seemed we have learned from our mistake as we have not used one since (in war, to kill people)

And simply out of curiosity, if the Japanese were ready to surrender, then why didn't they?

And simply out of curiosity, if the Japanese were ready to surrender, then why didn't they?

mrbojangles25

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]And simply out of curiosity, if the Japanese were ready to surrender, then why didn't they?

Danm_999

ahhh ok, that does make sense. Very interesting; I was lucky enough to see the emperor when I visited Japan a few years ago (not in person lol) and the degree to which the Japanese revere him is insane. I cannot imagine how it was back in the day

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]And simply out of curiosity, if the Japanese were ready to surrender, then why didn't they?

mrbojangles25

ahhh ok, that does make sense. Very interesting; I was lucky enough to see the emperor when I visited Japan a few years ago (not in person lol) and the degree to which the Japanese revere him is insane. I cannot imagine how it was back in the day

I did my college thesis on this topic.

It's actually amazing how many very prominent generals and military personnel were totally against the idea as it was unnecessarily militarily. General Eisenhower, General MacArthur, General Clarke (the one responsible for intercepting Japanese intelligence), Admiral Leahy (Truman's Chief of Staff) and Admiral Nimitz (Pacific Fleet Commander).

They argued the American public had been fed a false dichotomy of drop bombs or invade and lose thousands or millions of US lives, when in fact the strategic bombing survey conducted by the Secretary of War in 1946, which praised the necessity of bombing in Europe and the larger Pacific campaign, found the atomic bombs as unneccessary.

Basically, Japan was ready to surrender with one burning clause; the Emperor would not be made to abducate. Since the Allies didn't force him to abducate anyway, the bombs don't seem to have improved America's bargaining position.

I did my college thesis on this topic.

It's actually amazing how many very prominent generals and military personnel were totally against the idea as it was unnecessarily militarily. General Eisenhower, General MacArthur, General Clarke (the one responsible for intercepting Japanese intelligence), Admiral Leahy (Truman's Chief of Staff) and Admiral Nimitz (Pacific Fleet Commander).

They argued the American public had been fed a false dichotomy of drop bombs or invade and lose thousands or millions of US lives, when in fact the strategic bombing survey conducted by the Secretary of War in 1946, which praised the necessity of bombing in Europe and the larger Pacific campaign, found the atomic bombs as unneccessary.

Basically, Japan was ready to surrender with one burning clause; the Emperor would not be made to abducate. Since the Allies didn't force him to abducate anyway, the bombs don't seem to have improved America's bargaining position.

Danm_999

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

I did my college thesis on this topic.

It's actually amazing how many very prominent generals and military personnel were totally against the idea as it was unnecessarily militarily. General Eisenhower, General MacArthur, General Clarke (the one responsible for intercepting Japanese intelligence), Admiral Leahy (Truman's Chief of Staff) and Admiral Nimitz (Pacific Fleet Commander).

They argued the American public had been fed a false dichotomy of drop bombs or invade and lose thousands or millions of US lives, when in fact the strategic bombing survey conducted by the Secretary of War in 1946, which praised the necessity of bombing in Europe and the larger Pacific campaign, found the atomic bombs as unneccessary.

Basically, Japan was ready to surrender with one burning clause; the Emperor would not be made to abducate. Since the Allies didn't force him to abducate anyway, the bombs don't seem to have improved America's bargaining position.

KungfuKitten

No wonder why most Americans voted Yes because they think the bombing was necessary.

But even those generals think it's necessasy, I still think the bombing was wrong because killingthe innocent civillians is never justified.

The way i look at the whole dropping of the bombs thing is sure we killed like over 50 thousand with in a instant but if we didn't use them imagine how many more people would have died if we didn't use the bombs?

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." - Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz

"The use of the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." - Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

I did my college thesis on this topic.

It's actually amazing how many very prominent generals and military personnel were totally against the idea as it was unnecessarily militarily. General Eisenhower, General MacArthur, General Clarke (the one responsible for intercepting Japanese intelligence), Admiral Leahy (Truman's Chief of Staff) and Admiral Nimitz (Pacific Fleet Commander).

They argued the American public had been fed a false dichotomy of drop bombs or invade and lose thousands or millions of US lives, when in fact the strategic bombing survey conducted by the Secretary of War in 1946, which praised the necessity of bombing in Europe and the larger Pacific campaign, found the atomic bombs as unneccessary.

Basically, Japan was ready to surrender with one burning clause; the Emperor would not be made to abducate. Since the Allies didn't force him to abducate anyway, the bombs don't seem to have improved America's bargaining position.

gameguy6700

My understanding is that MacArthur saw the bombs as being completely unnecessary (not that he was specifically morally opposed) and was of the view that the war could have been over weeks earlier had the US initially accepted Japan's terms of surrender (which the US ended up doing afterall).

Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." - Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower

OK every Americans need to read this.

The "Oh the bombing wasnecessary to save millions of American lives" argument was complete bull****.

No wonder why most Americans voted Yes because they think the bombing was necessary.

But even those generals think it's necessasy, I still think the bombing was wrong because killingthe innocent civillians is never justified.

Zensword

Some of y'all have your facts wrong and thus, blow your arguments wide open. First, the US Navy did not drop any atomic bombs (page 1 of this thread), it was the US Army Air Forces, more specifically XX Bomber Command.

While Japan was trying to negotiate a peace with the Russians, they did not act upon it as with the Potsdam Conference, the Allies had reiterated an unconditional surrender of Japan. Russia also promised to enter the war with Japan at the conference. Russia did not formally declare war on Japan until Aug 8, 1945, not February of '45.

The Japanese were trying to get a negotiated peace, but were turned down as it was on their terms, not that of the Allies and which has been pointed out, due to the aftermath of the WWI peace agreements.

The Japanese did tend to fight to the last man and is why it is widely believed that any invasion of the mainland of Japan would cause many casualties both civilian and military and in Japans case, civilians would have taken up arms against the invaders. As pointed out, all Japanese were ready to die for their emperor as seen at Siapan and Okinawa as civilians jumped to their death on both islands, especially after the Japanese military wrongly informed them that the US would rape and kill them.

Kyushu is an island of Japan and not a target per se, but at least one city on said island was on the target list, Kokura which had an arsenal.

Hiroshima was a military center and was the home of military camps, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters. Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. Hiroshima and the other cities on the target list were off limits to the general bombing campaign of Japan and had been for quite some time before the atomic bombing so the destruction could be guaged against other types of bombing. Tokyo only had the Imperial Palace as a target as it had pretty much been already burned up due to firebombing.

Firebombing was done by Germany, Japan, England and the US and killed more than the 2 atomic bombs combined. The firebombing of Japan killed more civilians than the 2 bombs did.

Japan did not surrender after the first bomb was dropped. It was only after Russia invaded Manchuria and the US dropped a second bomb on Aug. 9, 1945 did Emporer Hirohito tell his military cabinet that it was time to surrender and even then, as noted, they objected. The Japanese military, though thoroughly defeated refused to accept the fact that they were defeated. Sure, the naval blockade was having an effect on the Japanese, but even then, a blockade would have ensured that the war lasted longer than it did.

Truman did have political concerns about dropping the bomb. He would have been crucified if it became known that he had the ability to stop the war earlier and didn't use them and it cost more in US lives, especially with an invasion of Japan. While an invasion was planned, it wasn't necessarily going to happen. His handling of WWII even got him reelected for a second term amongst other reasons. Truman also dropped the bombs as a message to Russia and Stalin.

Would an invasion of Japan cost more in lives? Maybe, but we will never know. Would a blockade have worked, sure, but not in a short of time as using the bomb would have. I have to say yes, it was the right thing to do.

Japan was very near surrendering without the nuclear bombings so I can't see it as justified. The american administration was well aware of this so it leads me to believe the only reason the bombs were dropped was to intimidate the Russians

[QUOTE="IAMTHEJOKER88"]

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.

wolverine4262

That's exactly my point... but with a negotiated surrender, no fighting/invading would occur... you seem to be completely missing my point.

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.

umalex

Repurcussions? Because of the development and use of the atomic bomb, the cold war nearly brought about annihalation... that is a pretty big repurcussion.

And why does it have to serve American interests? 500,000 civilians > American Political interests, in my opinion. Its a risky game to guess what may have happened any other way. But a negotiated surrender was definitely a path they could have gone down. Japan was crippled and needed it. Badly. Hence the naval blockade, and pressure from the Russians, would have forced them into a negotiated surrender on favourable terms. If the people would readily die in the name of the Emperor, they would surely listen if he called for a negotiated peace and not the humiliating unconditional surrender.

And your answer still does not explain why a show of force wasn't pursued. America just took its big boot and stamped out the japs. There is really no other way of looking at it.

While they did prevent the death of millions of US soldiers and Japanese soldiers and civilians, it also caused the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians. I think the more appropriate usage would have been to drop 5 or 6 nukes onto military bases or military assets. They chose Hiroshima and Nagasaki to test the capabilities on a civilian populations which was barbaric. Skullsoldi3r

There was no need to use the bombs or to invade Japan. Japan was ready to surrender, they had already sued for peace, they simply wanted it on the condition that the Emperor would not be forced to adbicate his throne. Ultimately these are the terms that the US accepted, which makes the use of the bombs even more pointless.