Current Events > Was the atomic bombing of Japan justified?

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
UnfairRepresent 12/13/18 9:47:05 AM #1:	In your opinion? - Results (16 votes) Yes 68.75% (11 votes) 11 No 31.25% (5 votes) 5 During the final stage of World War II, the United States detonated two nuclear weapons over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945, respectively. The United States dropped the bombs after obtaining the consent of the United Kingdom. The two bombings killed 129,000226,000 people, most of whom were civilians. They remain the only use of nuclear weapons in the history of warfare. Do you approve or looking back do you thing it was wrong? --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair. https://imgtc.com/i/14JHfrt.jpg <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:914051462] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote> In your opinion? - Results (16 votes) Yes 68.75% (11 votes) 11 No 31.25% (5 votes) 5 During the final stage of World War II, the United States detonated two nuclear weapons over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945, respectively. The United States dropped the bombs after obtaining the consent of the United Kingdom. The two bombings killed 129,000226,000 people, most of whom were civilians. They remain the only use of nuclear weapons in the history of warfare. Do you approve or looking back do you thing it was wrong?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lorenzo_2003 12/13/18 9:53:23 AM #2:	From an American perspective? Yeah. --- ... <cite>Lorenzo_2003 posted [p:914051684] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote>From an American perspective? Yeah.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Deadpool_18 12/13/18 9:53:48 AM #3:	I think we could justify using them today in a certain area. --- We're whalers on the moon, we carry a harpoon, but there ain't no whales, so we tell tall tales, and sing our whaling tune. <cite>Deadpool_18 posted [p:914051698] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote>I think we could justify using them today in a certain area.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anarchy_Juiblex 12/13/18 9:57:01 AM #4:	Yes. At the time and with hindsight. And considering there hasn't been a nuclear exchange since then, I'll again say it was the right call. Their unwilling sacrifice may have saved our species from a more devastating use of them. --- It's okay to be white. <cite>Anarchy_Juiblex posted [p:914051820] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote>Yes. At the time and with hindsight. And considering there hasn't been a nuclear exchange since then, I'll again say it was the right call. Their unwilling sacrifice may have saved our species from a more devastating use of them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Forlorn_Ass 12/13/18 9:58:01 AM #5:	This topic again --- Posted with GameRaven 3.5.1 <cite>Forlorn_Ass posted [p:914051849] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote>This topic again</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darkman124 12/13/18 9:58:49 AM #6:	Yes, because at the time we believed the chinese civil war would go far better for the Kuomintang than it did, and we believed they represented a positive future for a much higher number of Chinese civilians than those Japanese civilians that died in the bombings. Korea also hung in the balance. August Storm was far more successful than the US imagined it would be; the soviet invasion essentially took all of Manchuria in a matter of weeks. It was to be handed off to Mao's forces. Primary source documents from the discussions within the Japanese high command indicate August storm had essentially no impact in the Japanese decision to surrender under terms that would be acceptable to the allies (specifically, forced disarmament and trial of war criminals), so the west could either watch all of southeast asia fall to communism, or act. Their available actions were a full-scale invasion--which would've killed far more civilians--or the bombs. The bombs, thankfully, motivated the emperor to issue a very rapid Go-Seidan. And the army still attempted a coup to stop this. --- And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not. <cite>Darkman124 posted [p:914051886] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote>Yes, because at the time we believed the chinese civil war would go far better for the Kuomintang than it did, and we believed they represented a positive future for a much higher number of Chinese civilians than those Japanese civilians that died in the bombings. Korea also hung in the balance. August Storm was far more successful than the US imagined it would be; the soviet invasion essentially took all of Manchuria in a matter of weeks. It was to be handed off to Mao's forces. Primary source documents from the discussions within the Japanese high command indicate August storm had essentially no impact in the Japanese decision to surrender under terms that would be acceptable to the allies (specifically, forced disarmament and trial of war criminals), so the west could either watch all of southeast asia fall to communism, or act. Their available actions were a full-scale invasion--which would've killed far more civilians--or the bombs. The bombs, thankfully, motivated the emperor to issue a very rapid Go-Seidan. And the army still attempted a coup to stop this.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Chicken 12/13/18 9:59:12 AM #7:	Yes because we wouldnt have anime otherwise. --- https://youtu.be/jGbI0P4hh3o <cite>Chicken posted [p:914051901] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote>Yes because we wouldnt have anime otherwise.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anarchy_Juiblex 12/13/18 9:59:30 AM #8:	Forlorn_Ass posted... Atomic bombing debates now. Atomic bombing debates tomorrah. Atomic bombing debates forevah. --- It's okay to be white. <cite>Anarchy_Juiblex posted [p:914051911] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote><cite>Forlorn_Ass posted...</cite> Atomic bombing debates now. Atomic bombing debates tomorrah. Atomic bombing debates forevah.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
0TiamaT0 12/13/18 10:06:11 AM #9:	People seem to forget that the Japanese committed wartime atrocities against civilians and POWs that rivaled - or in some cases were worse than what the nazis did. On top of that, an assault on mainland Japan would have cost tens of thousands of American lives. Dropping those bombs on Japan not only saved those lives, but ended a war that the Japanese started to begin with... --- https://youtu.be/JDHvYdi6Bu4 <cite>0TiamaT0 posted [p:914052158] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote>People seem to forget that the Japanese committed wartime atrocities against civilians and POWs that rivaled - or in some cases were worse than what the nazis did. On top of that, an assault on mainland Japan would have cost tens of thousands of American lives. Dropping those bombs on Japan not only saved those lives, but ended a war that the Japanese started to begin with...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anarchy_Juiblex 12/13/18 10:08:20 AM #10:	0TiamaT0 posted... On top of that, an assault on mainland Japan would have cost tens of thousands of American lives. Dropping those bombs on Japan not only saved those lives, but ended a war that the Japanese started to begin with... They were literally just about to surrender, trust me my great uncle worked for Nintendo back then. --- It's okay to be white. <cite>Anarchy_Juiblex posted [p:914052238] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote><cite>0TiamaT0 posted...</cite> <quote>On top of that, an assault on mainland Japan would have cost tens of thousands of American lives. Dropping those bombs on Japan not only saved those lives, but ended a war that the Japanese started to begin with...</quote> They were literally just about to surrender, trust me my great uncle worked for Nintendo back then.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WheezinEd 12/13/18 10:11:44 AM #11:	No, I don't care much for "greater good" arguments, I believe on principle that civilians should not be attacked in war. <cite>WheezinEd posted [p:914052382] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote>No, I don't care much for "greater good" arguments, I believe on principle that civilians should not be attacked in war.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 12/13/18 10:14:05 AM #12:	As explained by a failed haberdasher and mafia patsy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN_UJJ9ObDs" data-time=" <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:914052476] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote>As explained by a failed haberdasher and mafia patsy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN_UJJ9ObDs" data-time="</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darkman124 12/13/18 10:19:51 AM #13:	WheezinEd posted... No, I don't care much for "greater good" arguments, I believe on principle that civilians should not be attacked in war. Unfortunately, this entire concept went out the window in WWII. "Total War" became a term because of the strategic tactics used by all participants. --- And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not. <cite>Darkman124 posted [p:914052684] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote><cite>WheezinEd posted...</cite> <quote>No, I don't care much for "greater good" arguments, I believe on principle that civilians should not be attacked in war. </quote> Unfortunately, this entire concept went out the window in WWII. "Total War" became a term because of the strategic tactics used by all participants.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheMaskedPooper 12/13/18 10:21:33 AM #14:	WheezinEd posted... No, I don't care much for "greater good" arguments, I believe on principle that civilians should not be attacked in war. The US dropped pamphlets on the cities beforehand telling civilians to GTFO. <cite>TheMaskedPooper posted [p:914052747] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote><cite>WheezinEd posted...</cite> <quote>No, I don't care much for "greater good" arguments, I believe on principle that civilians should not be attacked in war.</quote> The US dropped pamphlets on the cities beforehand telling civilians to GTFO.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WheezinEd 12/13/18 10:23:01 AM #15:	TheMaskedPooper posted... The US dropped pamphlets on the cities beforehand telling civilians to GTFO. Makes no difference to me. <cite>WheezinEd posted [p:914052794] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheMaskedPooper posted...</cite> <quote>The US dropped pamphlets on the cities beforehand telling civilians to GTFO.</quote> Makes no difference to me.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anarchy_Juiblex 12/13/18 10:27:29 AM #16:	TheMaskedPooper posted... WheezinEd posted... No, I don't care much for "greater good" arguments, I believe on principle that civilians should not be attacked in war. The US dropped pamphlets on the cities beforehand telling civilians to GTFO. This is a lie. Nagasaki was only bombed because they had to change targets due to weather conditions. I'm pro-nuke as anyone but you don't need to bullshit to defend your position. --- It's okay to be white. <cite>Anarchy_Juiblex posted [p:914052978] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheMaskedPooper posted...</cite> <quote><cite>WheezinEd posted...</cite> <quote>No, I don't care much for "greater good" arguments, I believe on principle that civilians should not be attacked in war.</quote> The US dropped pamphlets on the cities beforehand telling civilians to GTFO.</quote> This is a lie. Nagasaki was only bombed because they had to change targets due to weather conditions. I'm pro-nuke as anyone but you don't need to bullshit to defend your position.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nazanir 12/13/18 10:28:38 AM #17:	Lorenzo_2003 posted... From an American perspective? Yeah. Imagine thinking killing over 200.000 is justified. --- XboX GT/Steam/Wii-U - Nazanir <cite>Nazanir posted [p:914053042] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote><cite>Lorenzo_2003 posted...</cite> <quote>From an American perspective? Yeah.</quote> Imagine thinking killing over 200.000 is justified.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#18	Post #18 was unavailable or deleted.
CoolBro 12/13/18 10:31:33 AM #19:	yes because japan was like borderline nazi-crazy <cite>CoolBro posted [p:914053190] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote>yes because japan was like borderline nazi-crazy</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darkman124 12/13/18 10:31:42 AM #20:	The discussion is a good analogy to the trolley problem. In ending the war faster, the US was sparing the lives of countless chinese civilians. Less than we thought, as the Kuomintang failed to win the civil war that followed. But a great many yet that were suffering and dying under occupation. --- And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not. <cite>Darkman124 posted [p:914053195] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote>The discussion is a good analogy to the trolley problem. In ending the war faster, the US was sparing the lives of countless chinese civilians. Less than we thought, as the Kuomintang failed to win the civil war that followed. But a great many yet that were suffering and dying under occupation.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BeyondWalls 12/13/18 10:33:38 AM #21:	Its hard to claim the moral high ground when we bombed TWO civilian cities. --- END OF LINE <cite>BeyondWalls posted [p:914053276] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote>Its hard to claim the moral high ground when we bombed TWO civilian cities.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Genocet_10-325 12/13/18 10:39:24 AM #22:	Anyone who says no is a fucking moron who knows nothing about history 1. A ground invasion of Japan would have killed far more civilians 2. It showed the world the destructive power of nukes, there's a reason they haven't been used in war since then --- No one triggers the Trumpanzees quite like you do - Bullet_Wing Conservatism is a plague on society. Formerly known as The_Great_Geno. <cite>Genocet_10-325 posted [p:914053511] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote>Anyone who says no is a fucking moron who knows nothing about history 1. A ground invasion of Japan would have killed far more civilians 2. It showed the world the destructive power of nukes, there's a reason they haven't been used in war since then</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darkman124 12/13/18 10:40:53 AM #23:	BeyondWalls posted... Its hard to claim the moral high ground when we bombed TWO civilian cities. We bombed far more than two. --- And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not. <cite>Darkman124 posted [p:914053572] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote><cite>BeyondWalls posted...</cite> <quote>Its hard to claim the moral high ground when we bombed TWO civilian cities.</quote> We bombed far more than two.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 12/13/18 10:41:50 AM #24:	Darkman124 posted... BeyondWalls posted... Its hard to claim the moral high ground when we bombed TWO civilian cities. We bombed far more than two. Dresden got fucked over hard. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:914053618] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darkman124 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BeyondWalls posted...</cite> <quote>Its hard to claim the moral high ground when we bombed TWO civilian cities.</quote> We bombed far more than two.</quote> Dresden got fucked over hard.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 12/13/18 10:42:37 AM #25:	Considering the alternative, yes, it was justified. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:914053648] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote>Considering the alternative, yes, it was justified.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WheezinEd 12/13/18 10:43:23 AM #26:	RedWhiteBlue posted... You would rather more innocent civilians die than less in a far less violent and much faster way? I believe we should avoid civilian casualties whenever possible, most people seem to agree when it comes to the discussions of WWII, but you have to be a fool to be stubborn and stick to morals that clearly result in more innocents dying. The moment you decide that civilians are legitimate targets of warfare, you legitimize all of the atrocities committed by your enemy. Even the holocaust was done for a misguided sense of a greater good. That logic extends all the way to "If we just kill everyone who isn't us, then we'll end war forever!" <cite>WheezinEd posted [p:914053674] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote><cite>RedWhiteBlue posted...</cite> <quote>You would rather more innocent civilians die than less in a far less violent and much faster way? I believe we should avoid civilian casualties whenever possible, most people seem to agree when it comes to the discussions of WWII, but you have to be a fool to be stubborn and stick to morals that clearly result in more innocents dying.</quote> The moment you decide that civilians are legitimate targets of warfare, you legitimize all of the atrocities committed by your enemy. Even the holocaust was done for a misguided sense of a greater good. That logic extends all the way to "If we just kill everyone who isn't us, then we'll end war forever!"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darkman124 12/13/18 10:44:56 AM #27:	Questionmarktarius posted... Darkman124 posted... BeyondWalls posted... Its hard to claim the moral high ground when we bombed TWO civilian cities. We bombed far more than two. Dresden got fucked over hard. Yeah. One of the darkest parts of the manhattan project was that it specifically outlined cities to not firebomb, so that the destructive power of the weapon could be properly displayed in full. WheezinEd posted... The moment you decide that civilians are legitimate targets of warfare, you legitimize all of the atrocities committed by your enemy. This decision happened almost at the outset of the war, and the war demonstrated a key detail: the victors get to decide what is and is not legitimate. --- And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not. <cite>Darkman124 posted [p:914053733] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Darkman124 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BeyondWalls posted...</cite> <quote>Its hard to claim the moral high ground when we bombed TWO civilian cities.</quote> We bombed far more than two.</quote> Dresden got fucked over hard.</quote> Yeah. One of the darkest parts of the manhattan project was that it specifically outlined cities to not firebomb, so that the destructive power of the weapon could be properly displayed in full. <cite>WheezinEd posted...</cite> <quote>The moment you decide that civilians are legitimate targets of warfare, you legitimize all of the atrocities committed by your enemy. </quote> This decision happened almost at the outset of the war, and the war demonstrated a key detail: the victors get to decide what is and is not legitimate.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
0TiamaT0 12/13/18 10:48:08 AM #28:	I see all of these people crying about Japanese civilians... Why should the US have had to sacrifice tens of thousands of more men, when Japan started the war to begin with? What about all of the civilians that the Japanese tortured and experimented on? Why dont they matter? --- https://youtu.be/JDHvYdi6Bu4 <cite>0TiamaT0 posted [p:914053858] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote>I see all of these people crying about Japanese civilians... Why should the US have had to sacrifice tens of thousands of more men, when Japan started the war to begin with? What about all of the civilians that the Japanese tortured and experimented on? Why dont they matter?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 12/13/18 10:49:28 AM #29:	0TiamaT0 posted... Why should the US have had to sacrifice tens of thousands of more men, when Japan started the war to begin with? Casualty predictions for Operation Downfall was in the millions. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:914053918] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote><cite>0TiamaT0 posted...</cite> <quote>Why should the US have had to sacrifice tens of thousands of more men, when Japan started the war to begin with?</quote> Casualty predictions for Operation Downfall was in the millions.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lorenzo_2003 12/13/18 11:05:25 AM #30:	Nazanir posted... Lorenzo_2003 posted... From an American perspective? Yeah. Imagine thinking killing over 200.000 is justified. Im merely looking at it from the US soldiers and their families point of view. Do you think they would have preferred that it was X number of Japanese dead or X number of Americans dead? --- ... <cite>Lorenzo_2003 posted [p:914054589] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote><cite>Nazanir posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Lorenzo_2003 posted...</cite> <quote>From an American perspective? Yeah.</quote> Imagine thinking killing over 200.000 is justified.</quote> Im merely looking at it from the US soldiers and their families point of view. Do you think they would have preferred that it was X number of Japanese dead or X number of Americans dead?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anarchy_Juiblex 12/13/18 11:07:54 AM #31:	Pacifism is immoral in the face of great injustice. --- It's okay to be white. <cite>Anarchy_Juiblex posted [p:914054718] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote>Pacifism is immoral in the face of great injustice.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#32	Post #32 was unavailable or deleted.
Omnislasher 12/13/18 11:21:31 AM #33:	Genocet_10-325 posted... Anyone who says no is a fucking moron who knows nothing about history 1. A ground invasion of Japan would have killed far more civilians 2. It showed the world the destructive power of nukes, there's a reason they haven't been used in war since then Actually, the answer is no, and that is the more common current understanding among serious historians. Japan was ready to surrender anyway. Top U.S. officials fully knew this. The bombs were a message to the soviets; a political decision, not a military one. Gar Alperovitz is one such historian thats done extensive work on this, including writing a book. Here you can see him briefly outline some of the facts in a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csDKShn0cQI" data-time="&start=75 <cite>Omnislasher posted [p:914055297] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote><cite>Genocet_10-325 posted...</cite> <quote>Anyone who says no is a fucking moron who knows nothing about history 1. A ground invasion of Japan would have killed far more civilians 2. It showed the world the destructive power of nukes, there's a reason they haven't been used in war since then</quote> Actually, the answer is no, and that is the more common current understanding among serious historians. Japan was ready to surrender anyway. Top U.S. officials fully knew this. The bombs were a message to the soviets; a political decision, not a military one. Gar Alperovitz is one such historian thats done extensive work on this, including writing a book. Here you can see him briefly outline some of the facts in a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csDKShn0cQI" data-time="&start=75</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BeyondWalls 12/13/18 11:23:26 AM #34:	Genocet_10-325 posted... 1. A ground invasion of Japan would have killed far more civilians Isnt this argument flawed? It suggest only two options. (1) Bomb a civilian city or (2) Start a ground invasion of the country. We didnt have to pick a civilian city as a target. --- END OF LINE <cite>BeyondWalls posted [p:914055406] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote><cite>Genocet_10-325 posted...</cite> <quote>1. A ground invasion of Japan would have killed far more civilians</quote> Isnt this argument flawed? It suggest only two options. (1) Bomb a civilian city or (2) Start a ground invasion of the country. We didnt have to pick a civilian city as a target.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 12/13/18 11:32:13 AM #35:	BeyondWalls posted... Genocet_10-325 posted... 1. A ground invasion of Japan would have killed far more civilians Isnt this argument flawed? It suggest only two options. (1) Bomb a civilian city or (2) Start a ground invasion of the country. We didnt have to pick a civilian city as a target. In late 1945, the Japanese were prepared to fight to the death, down to the last child capable of carrying a sharp stick. The US was quite willing to let them do so. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:914055846] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote><cite>BeyondWalls posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Genocet_10-325 posted...</cite> <quote>1. A ground invasion of Japan would have killed far more civilians</quote> Isnt this argument flawed? It suggest only two options. (1) Bomb a civilian city or (2) Start a ground invasion of the country. We didnt have to pick a civilian city as a target.</quote> In late 1945, the Japanese were prepared to fight to the death, down to the last child capable of carrying a sharp stick. The US was quite willing to let them do so.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
IHeartRadiation 12/13/18 11:32:13 AM #36:	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2wFsu_O490" data-time=" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkiW-0K5Uww" data-time=" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 If the bombs burned this abhorrent attitude towards human life out of them then I say that's all good and fine. --- I don't get it either. <cite>IHeartRadiation posted [p:914055847] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2wFsu_O490" data-time=" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkiW-0K5Uww" data-time=" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 If the bombs burned this abhorrent attitude towards human life out of them then I say that's all good and fine.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darkman124 12/13/18 11:33:51 AM #37:	Omnislasher posted... Japan was ready to surrender anyway. Top U.S. officials fully knew this. The bombs were a message to the soviets; a political decision, not a military one. Gar Alperovitz is one such historian thats done extensive work on this, including writing a book. Here you can see him briefly outline some of the facts in a video: primary source data disagrees with his work. this is a transcript of the first go-seidan, in which the high council still was unwilling to surrender even after hiroshima, and the emperor had to issue a unilateral decision, essentially breaking the constitution of the nation. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb525-The-Atomic-Bomb-and-the-End-of-World-War-II/documents/075.pdf unless you think a japanese surrender was acceptable without forced disarmament, trial of war criminals, or occupation, the as-present conditions of the war had not compelled japan to a surrender that the allies could accept. i'm familiar with the opposing argument on the subject, and they tend to emphasize the post-hiroshima offer that only included the single term that the imperial house would not be impacted. that one has merit, an an end to the war without the nagasaki bombing may well have been viable, considering that despite requiring unconditional surrender, we didn't alter the imperial house. whether we still could have developed a new constitution in which its power was dramatically scaled back, that is hard to say. history is hard to rewrite accurately. --- And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not. <cite>Darkman124 posted [p:914055935] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote><cite>Omnislasher posted...</cite> <quote>Japan was ready to surrender anyway. Top U.S. officials fully knew this. The bombs were a message to the soviets; a political decision, not a military one. Gar Alperovitz is one such historian thats done extensive work on this, including writing a book. Here you can see him briefly outline some of the facts in a video: </quote> primary source data disagrees with his work. this is a transcript of the first go-seidan, in which the high council still was unwilling to surrender even after hiroshima, and the emperor had to issue a unilateral decision, essentially breaking the constitution of the nation. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb525-The-Atomic-Bomb-and-the-End-of-World-War-II/documents/075.pdf unless you think a japanese surrender was acceptable without forced disarmament, trial of war criminals, or occupation, the as-present conditions of the war had not compelled japan to a surrender that the allies could accept. i'm familiar with the opposing argument on the subject, and they tend to emphasize the post-hiroshima offer that only included the single term that the imperial house would not be impacted. that one has merit, an an end to the war without the nagasaki bombing may well have been viable, considering that despite requiring unconditional surrender, we didn't alter the imperial house. whether we still could have developed a new constitution in which its power was dramatically scaled back, that is hard to say. history is hard to rewrite accurately.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darkman124 12/13/18 11:38:56 AM #38:	that all said, the motivations for the bomb were certainly more political than military. august storm was rapidly reducing the chances of kuomintang victory in the chinese civil war we all knew would resume post-WWII. it posed a threat of a total communist takeover of korea as well. those political motivations were legitimate and relevant. --- And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not. <cite>Darkman124 posted [p:914056174] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote>that all said, the motivations for the bomb were certainly more political than military. august storm was rapidly reducing the chances of kuomintang victory in the chinese civil war we all knew would resume post-WWII. it posed a threat of a total communist takeover of korea as well. those political motivations were legitimate and relevant.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WheezinEd 12/13/18 11:41:10 AM #39:	Darkman124 posted... trial of war criminals These are a sham anyway. Tons of them get pardoned and only ones the Japanese were willing to throw under the bus got tried. <cite>WheezinEd posted [p:914056293] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darkman124 posted...</cite> <quote> trial of war criminals</quote> These are a sham anyway. Tons of them get pardoned and only ones the Japanese were willing to throw under the bus got tried.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Omnislasher 12/13/18 11:42:56 AM #40:	Darkman124 posted... Omnislasher posted... Japan was ready to surrender anyway. Top U.S. officials fully knew this. The bombs were a message to the soviets; a political decision, not a military one. Gar Alperovitz is one such historian thats done extensive work on this, including writing a book. Here you can see him briefly outline some of the facts in a video: primary source data disagrees with his work. this is a transcript of the first go-seidan, in which the high council still was unwilling to surrender even after hiroshima, and the emperor had to issue a unilateral decision, essentially breaking the constitution of the nation. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb525-The-Atomic-Bomb-and-the-End-of-World-War-II/documents/075.pdf unless you think a japanese surrender was acceptable without forced disarmament, trial of war criminals, or occupation, the as-present conditions of the war had not compelled japan to a surrender that the allies could accept. i'm familiar with the opposing argument on the subject, and they tend to emphasize the post-hiroshima offer that only included the single term that the imperial house would not be impacted. that one has merit, an an end to the war without the nagasaki bombing may well have been viable, considering that despite requiring unconditional surrender, we didn't alter the imperial house. whether we still could have developed a new constitution in which its power was dramatically scaled back, that is hard to say. history is hard to rewrite accurately. 1:58-2:23 and 5:00-5:34 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csDKShn0cQI" data-time=" why remove the assurances to the emperor when it was understood that the war could have been quickly and easily ended as long as they remained? <cite>Omnislasher posted [p:914056383] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darkman124 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Omnislasher posted...</cite> <quote>Japan was ready to surrender anyway. Top U.S. officials fully knew this. The bombs were a message to the soviets; a political decision, not a military one. Gar Alperovitz is one such historian thats done extensive work on this, including writing a book. Here you can see him briefly outline some of the facts in a video: </quote> primary source data disagrees with his work. this is a transcript of the first go-seidan, in which the high council still was unwilling to surrender even after hiroshima, and the emperor had to issue a unilateral decision, essentially breaking the constitution of the nation. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb525-The-Atomic-Bomb-and-the-End-of-World-War-II/documents/075.pdf unless you think a japanese surrender was acceptable without forced disarmament, trial of war criminals, or occupation, the as-present conditions of the war had not compelled japan to a surrender that the allies could accept. i'm familiar with the opposing argument on the subject, and they tend to emphasize the post-hiroshima offer that only included the single term that the imperial house would not be impacted. that one has merit, an an end to the war without the nagasaki bombing may well have been viable, considering that despite requiring unconditional surrender, we didn't alter the imperial house. whether we still could have developed a new constitution in which its power was dramatically scaled back, that is hard to say. history is hard to rewrite accurately.</quote> 1:58-2:23 and 5:00-5:34 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csDKShn0cQI" data-time=" why remove the assurances to the emperor when it was understood that the war could have been quickly and easily ended as long as they remained?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Ving_Rhames 12/13/18 11:43:30 AM #41:	Easy for me to say yes, living in 2018 and in America. --- the real Irving Rameses https://imgur.com/A7f6F9h <cite>Ving_Rhames posted [p:914056416] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote>Easy for me to say yes, living in 2018 and in America.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darkman124 12/13/18 11:52:36 AM #42:	WheezinEd posted... Darkman124 posted... trial of war criminals These are a sham anyway. Tons of them get pardoned and only ones the Japanese were willing to throw under the bus got tried. that's a ridiculous generalization. we released far more than we should have, but allowing all of them to escape justice would have been unacceptable to the population of all of the allied nations. and those at the very top did not escape their fate. anami killed himself. umezu and togo died in prison. tojo was executed. these are the names of the men who signed on to the high council's refusal of any surrender terms that did not protect war criminals from prosecution. these people were ON the high council, they were saving their own skins. the realpolitik choices our post-war government made to cement control over the future japanese state do not undermine the significance of refusing a surrender from a high council made up of the very people their surrender terms were designed to protect. and i see you have no argument against the terms for forced disarmament, withdrawal, or occupation. these were quite necessary to prevent further harm to chinese civilians, however much our post-war actions with unit 731 suggested we didn't give a shit. Omnislasher posted... why remove the assurances to the emperor when it was understood that the war could have been quickly and easily ended as long as they remained? most likely because the assurances could not be made until after a full investigation determined whether the imperial house would be tried for class A war crimes or not. i'm not going to watch your video. summarize the sections. i'll trust your summaries are accurate. --- And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not. <cite>Darkman124 posted [p:914056866] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote><cite>WheezinEd posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Darkman124 posted...</cite> <quote> trial of war criminals</quote> These are a sham anyway. Tons of them get pardoned and only ones the Japanese were willing to throw under the bus got tried.</quote> that's a ridiculous generalization. we released far more than we should have, but allowing all of them to escape justice would have been unacceptable to the population of all of the allied nations. and those at the very top did not escape their fate. anami killed himself. umezu and togo died in prison. tojo was executed. these are the names of the men who signed on to the high council's refusal of any surrender terms that did not protect war criminals from prosecution. these people were ON the high council, they were saving their own skins. the realpolitik choices our post-war government made to cement control over the future japanese state do not undermine the significance of refusing a surrender from a high council made up of the very people their surrender terms were designed to protect. and i see you have no argument against the terms for forced disarmament, withdrawal, or occupation. these were quite necessary to prevent further harm to chinese civilians, however much our post-war actions with unit 731 suggested we didn't give a shit. <cite>Omnislasher posted...</cite> <quote>why remove the assurances to the emperor when it was understood that the war could have been quickly and easily ended as long as they remained? </quote> most likely because the assurances could not be made until after a full investigation determined whether the imperial house would be tried for class A war crimes or not. i'm not going to watch your video. summarize the sections. i'll trust your summaries are accurate.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnfairRepresent 12/13/18 11:58:33 AM #43:	Genocet_10-325 posted... Anyone who says no is a fucking moron who knows nothing about history 1. A ground invasion of Japan would have killed far more civilians 2. It showed the world the destructive power of nukes, there's a reason they haven't been used in war since then It's kinda cute that you believe this was the US' logic. They didn't give a fuck about casualities and everyone knew the power of nukes They dropped the bombs because they feared the Soviet's gaining more power. Don't be duped. If they thought dropping Nukes benefited the Soviets then they would have invaded. --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair. https://imgtc.com/i/14JHfrt.jpg <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:914057157] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote><cite>Genocet_10-325 posted...</cite> <quote>Anyone who says no is a fucking moron who knows nothing about history 1. A ground invasion of Japan would have killed far more civilians 2. It showed the world the destructive power of nukes, there's a reason they haven't been used in war since then</quote> It's kinda cute that you believe this was the US' logic. They didn't give a fuck about casualities and everyone knew the power of nukes They dropped the bombs because they feared the Soviet's gaining more power. Don't be duped. If they thought dropping Nukes benefited the Soviets then they would have invaded.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 12/13/18 12:00:28 PM #44:	UnfairRepresent posted... They dropped the bombs because they feared the Soviet's gaining more power. Don't be duped. If they thought dropping Nukes benefited the Soviets then they would have invaded. The flaw in this assertion is that the US only had two functional bombs, and just got really lucky that the Japanese didn't know that. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:914057253] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote><cite>UnfairRepresent posted...</cite> <quote>They dropped the bombs because they feared the Soviet's gaining more power. Don't be duped. If they thought dropping Nukes benefited the Soviets then they would have invaded.</quote> The flaw in this assertion is that the US only had two functional bombs, and just got really lucky that the Japanese didn't know that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnfairRepresent 12/13/18 12:01:29 PM #45:	Questionmarktarius posted... UnfairRepresent posted... They dropped the bombs because they feared the Soviet's gaining more power. Don't be duped. If they thought dropping Nukes benefited the Soviets then they would have invaded. The flaw in this assertion is that the US only had two functional bombs, and just got really lucky that the Japanese didn't know that. ? How is that a flaw in the assertion. If anything it supports it --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair. https://imgtc.com/i/14JHfrt.jpg <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:914057306] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>UnfairRepresent posted...</cite> <quote>They dropped the bombs because they feared the Soviet's gaining more power. Don't be duped. If they thought dropping Nukes benefited the Soviets then they would have invaded.</quote> The flaw in this assertion is that the US only had two functional bombs, and just got really lucky that the Japanese didn't know that.</quote> ? How is that a flaw in the assertion. If anything it supports it</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnfairRepresent 12/13/18 12:01:46 PM #46:	Oh wait you're sigless. Nevermind --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair. https://imgtc.com/i/14JHfrt.jpg <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:914057322] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote>Oh wait you're sigless. Nevermind</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 12/13/18 12:03:39 PM #47:	UnfairRepresent posted... Questionmarktarius posted... UnfairRepresent posted... They dropped the bombs because they feared the Soviet's gaining more power. Don't be duped. If they thought dropping Nukes benefited the Soviets then they would have invaded. The flaw in this assertion is that the US only had two functional bombs, and just got really lucky that the Japanese didn't know that. ? How is that a flaw in the assertion. If anything it supports it Then it was a hell of a gamble. If Japan doesn't fold, the Soviets roll on through anyway. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:914057408] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote><cite>UnfairRepresent posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>UnfairRepresent posted...</cite> <quote>They dropped the bombs because they feared the Soviet's gaining more power. Don't be duped. If they thought dropping Nukes benefited the Soviets then they would have invaded.</quote> The flaw in this assertion is that the US only had two functional bombs, and just got really lucky that the Japanese didn't know that.</quote> ? How is that a flaw in the assertion. If anything it supports it</quote> Then it was a hell of a gamble. If Japan doesn't fold, the Soviets roll on through anyway.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darkman124 12/13/18 12:06:49 PM #48:	Questionmarktarius posted... Then it was a hell of a gamble. If Japan doesn't fold, the Soviets roll on through anyway. I expect if Japan didn't fold from the bombs, downfall would've been enacted. If we could've just waited around for them to surrender while blockading/starving them out, we probably would have, but august storm was turning all of southern asia into a soviet puppet. --- And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not. <cite>Darkman124 posted [p:914057554] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote>Then it was a hell of a gamble. If Japan doesn't fold, the Soviets roll on through anyway. </quote> I expect if Japan didn't fold from the bombs, downfall would've been enacted. If we could've just waited around for them to surrender while blockading/starving them out, we probably would have, but august storm was turning all of southern asia into a soviet puppet.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
skermac 12/13/18 12:07:18 PM #49:	it killed too many people but I think it was more humane than fire bombing which I did agree with at all, I also don't think civilians should ever be targeted in any war by anyone --- To the edge of the universe and back, endure and survive <cite>skermac posted [p:914057583] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote>it killed too many people but I think it was more humane than fire bombing which I did agree with at all, I also don't think civilians should ever be targeted in any war by anyone</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnfairRepresent 12/13/18 12:08:23 PM #50:	Questionmarktarius posted... UnfairRepresent posted... Questionmarktarius posted... UnfairRepresent posted... They dropped the bombs because they feared the Soviet's gaining more power. Don't be duped. If they thought dropping Nukes benefited the Soviets then they would have invaded. The flaw in this assertion is that the US only had two functional bombs, and just got really lucky that the Japanese didn't know that. ? How is that a flaw in the assertion. If anything it supports it Then it was a hell of a gamble. If Japan doesn't fold, the Soviets roll on through anyway. Not really. 1. The US thought Japan was going to surrender. 2. What other options did they have to hasten it? That's not a gamble at all... Gambling is betting where the darts are going to land if you throw them. Not throwing 2 darts because you only have 2 darts. --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair. https://imgtc.com/i/14JHfrt.jpg <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:914057635] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>UnfairRepresent posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>UnfairRepresent posted...</cite> <quote>They dropped the bombs because they feared the Soviet's gaining more power. Don't be duped. If they thought dropping Nukes benefited the Soviets then they would have invaded.</quote> The flaw in this assertion is that the US only had two functional bombs, and just got really lucky that the Japanese didn't know that.</quote> ? How is that a flaw in the assertion. If anything it supports it</quote> Then it was a hell of a gamble. If Japan doesn't fold, the Soviets roll on through anyway.</quote> Not really. 1. The US thought Japan was going to surrender. 2. What other options did they have to hasten it? That's not a gamble at all... Gambling is betting where the darts are going to land if you throw them. Not throwing 2 darts because you only have 2 darts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Current Events > Was the atomic bombing of Japan justified? (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Was the atomic bombing of Japan justified?