Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

We've been studying WWII in my World History class, and we're coming up on the dropping of the A-bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki... There was quite a bit of dispute over it at the time, and apparently, there still is! How do you feel about it?Why? It's a Poll, so just vote.

While horrible, it essentially took Japan out of the war, which was a very good thing.

Not to mention Pearl Harbor was a cheap shot...

I think that the fact that atomic weapons were used was fine. By showing the impact the weapons have, I think the use of early and lower powered bombs may have helped prevent later useage.

As an extension of the mass bombing of civilians in World War II, it's just as moral or immoral. At the time, the bombing of civilians was seen as a viable weapon of war by all sides, and the technology of the time didn't allow for precision that would prevent it. Given the nature of a war with Japan, it's understandable why Truman would make the call to try and end the war.

The atomic bombings were a reasonable extension of what was seen as a necessary and legitimate way of waging war.

The truly bad idea was Dresen, in my opinion.

You said it much better than I did.

I also dont believe we actually knew the long term damaging effects the radiation would have.

The point made about these weaker bombs somewhat preventing the use of more powerful versions in the future was also an excellent point.

Polonius wrote:I think that the fact that atomic weapons were used was fine. By showing the impact the weapons have, I think the use of early and lower powered bombs may have helped prevent later useage.

As an extension of the mass bombing of civilians in World War II, it's just as moral or immoral. At the time, the bombing of civilians was seen as a viable weapon of war by all sides, and the technology of the time didn't allow for precision that would prevent it. Given the nature of a war with Japan, it's understandable why Truman would make the call to try and end the war.

The atomic bombings were a reasonable extension of what was seen as a necessary and legitimate way of waging war.

The truly bad idea was Dresen, in my opinion.

Very nice post, polonius That's basically how I feel about it too, in more words than I would have had the patience to write.

Firebombing was much worse, as far as environmental damage is concerned, as well as being excruciatingly painful for those caught in it's midst. As far as I know, the A-bomb was painless, instantaneous death from the sky. I guess you could call it the politest form of death

The discussion on the issue really depends on what type of question you're asking. However, my view on whether it was a good idea to bomb Hiroshima is an unequivocal "yes."

Nagasaki gets a tentative "yes," because there is some question about the timing of the issue and whether Japan should have been given additional time to surrender. However, it's likely that Japan wouldn't have agreed to an unconditional surrender without Nagasaki.

The damage dealt (in both deaths and amount of the city destroyed) by the atomic bombs over Japan pales in comparison to the strategic bombing raids conducted elsewhere with conventional weapons. The damage due to lingering radiation has been significantly less than expected, which makes it hard to oppose the use of atomic bombs in light of the late-war firebombing campaign over Japan.

Compare the quick end of the bomb, versus the firebombing campaigns and you will see that the A-bomb was actually pretty merciful. One might say that attacking Japanese civilian populations was wrong. However if you look at the war atrocities the Japanese regularly committed then you will see why a swift end was needed.

I voted yes, but that isn't my entire view.

At the time I think it was the best decision. We hadn't discovered what radiation does to us and so you just thought it was a big bomb. Attacking civilians was a common practice by all sides so I don't think that was wrong.

If a similar situation occured now I would be against using it. Now that we know what A bombs do to the planet we should try not to use them. The radiation just lasts too long. The deaths from the blast and immediate radiation sickness aren't that bad but irradiating a large area for the forseeable future isn't a good idea.

Mass murder of innocents. But its ok 'cos the US is doing it.

Phototoxin wrote:Mass murder of innocents. But its ok because it was during a bloody war

Fixed.

It was unnecessary. The Japanese no longer possessed any way of striking back against the Americans. Does that make it immoral? That's something you have to decide for yourself.

As far as I know, the A-bomb was painless, instantaneous death from the sky.

No. It was painless if it landed on your head. The resulting burns and radiation sickness from those caught on the edge of the blast, or in slightly covered locations were horrific. Seriously. Go and read some accounts of the resulting symptoms. This was only excaberated by the levelling of 2/3's of Japans housing by incendiaries, and lack of supplies. People died in extreme pain writhing in their own excrement as a result of those bombs.

'Politest form of death', it was not.

corpsesarefun wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:Mass murder of innocents. But its ok because it was during a bloody war, in which both sides were doing it

Fixed.

Fixed again.

ShivanAngel wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:Mass murder of innocents. But its ok because it was during a bloody war, in which both sides were doing it

Fixed.

Fixed again.

That was what I meant to imply, but thanks for clarifying shivan

Ketara wrote:It was unnecessary. The Japanese no longer possessed any way of striking back against the Americans. Does that make it immoral? That's something you have to decide for yourself.

As far as I know, the A-bomb was painless, instantaneous death from the sky.

No. It was painless if it landed on your head. The resulting burns and radiation sickness from those caught on the edge of the blast, or in slightly covered locations were horrific. Seriously. Go and read some accounts of the resulting symptoms. This was only excaberated by the levelling of 2/3's of Japans housing by incendiaries, and lack of supplies. People died in extreme pain writhing in their own excrement as a result of those bombs.

'Politest form of death', it was not.

You're right. We had already defeated them catastrophically in the battle of midway, and they were probably ready to throw in the towel anyway... We sunk four carriers in the BOM. FOUR. That's almost half of our current selection of carriers! What can they do after that? Just about nothing :3

I'll take your word for it. I was basing that off opinions I've heard from the people around me, not on fact I think the standard opinion is probably "painless, yeah!"

Ketara wrote:It was unnecessary. The Japanese no longer possessed any way of striking back against the Americans. Does that make it immoral? That's something you have to decide for yourself.

As far as I know, the A-bomb was painless, instantaneous death from the sky.

No. It was painless if it landed on your head. The resulting burns and radiation sickness from those caught on the edge of the blast, or in slightly covered locations were horrific. Seriously. Go and read some accounts of the resulting symptoms. This was only excaberated by the levelling of 2/3's of Japans housing by incendiaries, and lack of supplies. People died in extreme pain writhing in their own excrement as a result of those bombs.

'Politest form of death', it was not.

That preposterous. The Japanese could have surrendered at any time. Further, and here's the fun part, the Japanese could have thought about it before the whole invading China/ Malaysia/Vietnam/Thailand/Cambodia/Laos/Burma/Phillipines/Solomons/attacking the US thing and its millions of dead.

I lost one grandfather to the Japanese. Odds are I would have lost more relatives if Operation Olympic had to be carried out. Estimates on Japanese civilian casualties alone were in the 1MM + range. It ended the war and those people survived.

Phototoxin wrote:Mass murder of innocents. But its ok 'cos the US is doing it.

Do you have any ideas what atrocities Japan committed to the Chinese? Or the fact that it was estimated that we would suffer over 1 million casualties invading JUST the mainland. Nevermind the outlying island bristling with weapons on top of the fact that we lost over 400,000 men already. They believed their Emperor to be a god. And man, woman, or child would have picked up a gun, or even a rock or a stick and fought back. I agree that atomic weapons are nasty and should never be used again, but it WAS merciful compared to the alternative.

Well, their last and greatest battleship had just set off to attack the Americans without enough fuel to make a return journey. Two thirds of the place had been levelled in incendiary bombs. Their army was in ruins, their airforce non-existant, and what was left of their Navy did not possess the fuel for concerted actions anymore. They were outnumbered, outgunned, outmanned, and out of supplies.

However, they hadn't surrendered. And American commanders were estimating large numbers of deaths in assaulting mainland Japan. Whilst they had the possibility of levelling the place even further with regular bombs, and hoping the Japanese surrendered, despite horrific casualties, starvation, and hardship so far, the japanese government and people showed no sign of doing so. At least, to my knowledge of the affair.

The Americans thought to a) test out their new weapon, and b) see if the promised destructive power would push the Japanese over the edge, or allow for rapid annihilation. They couldn't leave until they'd forced a Japanese surrender, yet were terrified of the possible consequences it would take to do by conventional means. Aerial power alone clearly did not suffice, despite the switching from incendiaries to the new Napalm bombs. Japan was already in ruins and starvation, and that alone did not induce surrender.

So they dropped the A-bomb. It was horrific. Everyone was taken aback, the Americans included. The American government, realising what a powerful weapon they had on their hands, decided to drop another, and keep making and dropping them until the Japanese gave in or were obliterated beyond recovery. The Japanese ate another bomb, and Hirohito announced his surrender, recognising that there was no 'honourable death' to be gained by having a lump of explosive uranium dropped on your head.


Like I said, it was unnecessary, the Japanese were no longer a threat. Could surrender have been induced in another way? Perhaps. But the bloodthirstiness of the Americans had been raised by the events of Pearl Harbour, and they would tolerate nothing more than complete surrender, or continuing hostilities. There was no question of their forces withdrawing for a period to negotiate a peace settlement that would allow the Japanese Government to save face, or just maintaining a perpetual blockade.

Samus_aran115 wrote:

Ketara wrote:It was unnecessary. The Japanese no longer possessed any way of striking back against the Americans. Does that make it immoral? That's something you have to decide for yourself.

As far as I know, the A-bomb was painless, instantaneous death from the sky.

No. It was painless if it landed on your head. The resulting burns and radiation sickness from those caught on the edge of the blast, or in slightly covered locations were horrific. Seriously. Go and read some accounts of the resulting symptoms. This was only excaberated by the levelling of 2/3's of Japans housing by incendiaries, and lack of supplies. People died in extreme pain writhing in their own excrement as a result of those bombs.

'Politest form of death', it was not.

You're right. We had already defeated them catastrophically in the battle of midway, and they were probably ready to throw in the towel anyway... We sunk four carriers in the BOM. FOUR. That's almost half of our current selection of carriers! What can they do after that? Just about nothing :3

I'll take your word for it. I was basing that off opinions I've heard from the people around me, not on fact I think the standard opinion is probably "painless, yeah!"

I weep for the future if thats your knowledge base-educate yourself young man!
Midway occurred in 1942. They didn't surrender until late 1945, after three more years and thousands upong thousands of American and Japanes military dead alone.

Protip: people don't realize this happened during an era in which you could smoke anywhere, lard and trans fats were everywhere, and polio was common, also, there were white and colored water fountains and bathrooms. We wanted to strike them down, we didn't know that thered be consequences like this.

Ketara wrote:Well, their last and greatest battleship had just set off to attack the Americans without enough fuel to make a return journey. Two thirds of the place had been levelled in incendiary bombs. Their army was in ruins, their airforce non-existant, and what was left of their Navy did not possess the fuel for concerted actions anymore. They were outnumbered, outgunned, outmanned, and out of supplies.

However, they hadn't surrendered. And American commanders were estimating large numbers of deaths in assaulting mainland Japan. Whilst they had the possibility of levelling the place even further with regular bombs, and hoping the Japanese surrendered, despite horrific casualties, starvation, and hardship so far, the japanese government and people showed no sign of doing so. At least, to my knowledge of the affair.

The Americans thought to a) test out their new weapon, and b) see if the promised destructive power would push the Japanese over the edge, or allow for rapid annihilation. They couldn't leave until they'd forced a Japanese surrender, yet were terrified of the possible consequences it would take to do by conventional means. Aerial power alone clearly did not suffice, despite the switching from incendiaries to the new Napalm bombs. Japan was already in ruins and starvation, and that alone did not induce surrender.

So they dropped the A-bomb. It was horrific. Everyone was taken aback, the Americans included. The American government, realising what a powerful weapon they had on their hands, decided to drop another, and keep making and dropping them until the Japanese gave in or were obliterated beyond recovery. The Japanese ate another bomb, and Hirohito announced his surrender, recognising that there was no 'honourable death' to be gained by having a lump of explosive uranium dropped on your head.


Like I said, it was unnecessary, the Japanese were no longer a threat. Could surrender have been induced in another way? Perhaps. But the bloodthirstiness of the Americans had been raised by the events of Pearl Harbour, and they would tolerate nothing more than complete surrender, or continuing hostilities. There was no question of their forces withdrawing for a period to negotiate a peace settlement that would allow the Japanese Government to save face, or just maintaining a perpetual blockade.

Thats so awesome except your not counting the thousands of planes they saved for kamikazies against the US fleet when it invaded, and the multiople divions they still had everywhere but Manchuria and the islands we had freed. You know-China/Singapore/Vietnam/Thailand etc etc right?

This is PC bs whitewashing.

The Japanese would have lost but they would have done a lot of damage to the US before they did. Considering what america actually knew about atomic weapons it's understandable they chose to use them.

Japan was in no state to fight back but they would have tried anyway. Before hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed they still had high moral and were ready to fight until they were wiped out.

They had such faith in their Emperor it was only going to end with a large number of deaths whether by the US attacking them or by the A bombs. Massive casulties would be the only thing that would make them surrender- the threat of losing wasn't enough.

@ Frazzled

Either that or your generation was taught by one who needed to justify their own actions and global stance to themselves?

Make no mistake, I have no real interest either way, bar an academic one. I'm not interested in penalising America, the Japanese committed atrocities just as bad. I wouldn't put either on the level of say, the Holocaust, just the natural order of war.

The thing remains though, that Japan was out of supplies, half levelled by extensive incendiary and napalm bombing, their navy was no longer an issue, and the Americans and allied forces were capable of moving at will about the place. Those are military facts, regardless of your viewpoint.

To my mind, that would classify it as 'unnecessary', in the sense that the war was as good as over, and the Japanese no longer had any meaningful way of striking back. You are of course, free to examine those military facts I have given there, and draw a separate conclusion.

However, to simply accuse someone with no stake either way, who is indeed an academic in the field of warfare of , 'PC bs whitewashing' is bold indeed. I would appreciate academic citation if I am wrong. If you can prove that Japan was still amply supplied with ammo, soldiers, warships, aircraft, and so on, and still possessed the means and wherewithal to use it, I will accept it and draw another conclusion. So in the interests of defending your stance, discrediting the one you feel is wrong, and spreading education, please do so.

Considering the loss of life that would have occurred had the war continued...I feel the bombings were justified.

ShivanAngel wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:Mass murder of innocents. But its ok because it was during a bloody war, in which both sides were doing it

Fixed.

Fixed again.

So because there's a war on terror it's ok that 9/11 happened? After all both sides are doing it (killing)

Ketara wrote:@ Frazzled

Either that or your generation was taught by one who needed to justify their own actions and global stance to themselves?

Make no mistake, I have no real interest either way, bar an academic one. I'm not interested in penalising America, the Japanese committed atrocities just as bad. I wouldn't put either on the level of say, the Holocaust, just the natural order of war.

The thing remains though, that Japan was out of supplies, half levelled by extensive incendiary and napalm bombing, their navy was no longer an issue, and the Americans and allied forces were capable of moving at will about the place. Those are military facts, regardless of your viewpoint.

To my mind, that would classify it as 'unnecessary', in the sense that the war was as good as over, and the Japanese no longer had any meaningful way of striking back. You are of course, free to examine those military facts I have given there, and draw a separate conclusion.

However, to simply accuse someone with no stake either way, who is indeed an academic in the field of warfare of , 'PC bs whitewashing' is bold indeed. I would appreciate academic citation if I am wrong. If you can prove that Japan was still amply supplied with ammo, soldiers, warships, aircraft, and so on, and still possessed the means and wherewithal to use it, I will accept it and draw another conclusion. So in the interests of defending your stance, discrediting the one you feel is wrong, and spreading education, please do so.

Wow just wow.
I don't have to debate some loser revisionst scholar.

-When did Japanese troops leave China?
-When did Japanese troops leave Vietnam?
-When did Japanese troops leave Cambodia?
-When did Japanese troops leave Laos?
-When did Japanese troops leave Malaysia?
-When did Japanese troops leave Singapore?
-Were the Japanese working on a nuclear program?
-Were the Japanese working on their own jet fighters?
-Did the Japanese surrender Manchuria after the first A bomb? Did they ever surrender Manchuria?
-Did the Japanese surrender after the first A bomb? Did they surrender after the first A bomb and the invasion of Manchuria?
-how many millions of civilians died at the hands of the Japanese? How many were dying daily when they surrenderd?

In the words of the immortal bard: nuts.

Didn't we have this thread a few months ago? Anyway, I vote yes.

I am not too terribly learned on the subject but IIRC the Japanese Government made a few attempts to negotiate a surrender to the U.S., not an unconditional one, but a surrender none the less. By the time the bombs were dropped it was increasingly obvious that the USSR was going to roll through Manchuria and the war was all but lost to the Japanese.

Some would argue Trueman did it to intimidate the Russians, if that is true, his plan did indeed work.

Whether or not the bombs were necessary is a tough question, as determining what would have happened if we had not dropped the bombs is pretty much impossible. Given the prevailing mindset of "unconditional surrender" was the only thing that could prevent a WW! -> Hitler like rise from happening again, it could have been the only option.

In the end, I think there is some interesting research that could be done on this topic. However, as of right now, I have to come down on the side of it being necessary.

Absolutely.

The two bombs avoided a land fall invasion by the U.S. against virtually the entire Japanese population that would have killed so many more people that those dead from the two bombs would pale in comparison.

Frazzled wrote:Wow just wow.
I don't have to debate some loser revisionst scholar.

I'm sorry? Was that a direct insult? I'm also mildly baffled by the way you throw the term 'revisionist' around as if its some sort of offensive term, revisionism is often considerably more accurate than history written at the time, as it encompasses a fuller set of records, and less of a political or a national bias.

Nonetheless, this being your third post on the topic, you clearly DO have the time.

-When did Japanese troops leave China?
-When did Japanese troops leave Vietnam?
-When did Japanese troops leave Cambodia?
-When did Japanese troops leave Laos?
-When did Japanese troops leave Malaysia?
-When did Japanese troops leave Singapore?

You should know as well as I do having troops situated in a place does not testify to their efficacy or fighting capacity. Especially in a largely naval situation, where the topic under discussion is a set of islands. Regardless, I fail to see how asking me these questions in any way answers the polite request for references to an alternate point of view.

-Were the Japanese working on a nuclear program?

Are you seriously postulating the Japs were a threat due to being about to develop their own A bombs? If so, Then you'll need some damn good evidence to convince me of that one.

-Did the Japanese surrender Manchuria after the first A bomb? Did they ever surrender Manchuria?
-Did the Japanese surrender after the first A bomb? Did they surrender after the first A bomb and the invasion of Manchuria?
-how many millions of civilians died at the hands of the Japanese? How many were dying daily when they surrenderd?

Again, more questions that seem to be...well, irrelevant. We're talking about the capacity of the Japanese to fight back against the American napalm bombers and warships, not whether the Japanese committed atrocities or not. I know they did. Why do you keep bringing it up?

The fact that they didn't instantly surrender after Hiroshima, thus forcing the the drop on Nagasaki shows that it was not only warranted but a necessity! After several stunning defeats the Japanese proved indomitable, thus showing that their code of honor required a act of extreme violence to be satisfied.

I think the only real way to look at it is that the bomb, as terrible as it was, saved lives on both sides.

As Polonius also stated it showed us how terrible of a weapon it was at a small yield compared to what exists today. That one act of dropping those bombs has scared the gak out of the world, to the point that no other nuc has ever been used in war. Better that we learned that with the small yield bombs than the monsters we have today.