Was Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?

[Zylka]

Little known fact: Nelso Mandela isn't all he's made out to be. A "dark past" is all I'll say. Anyone else with the knowledge like to share?

[yavoon]

I'd like to lodge a complaint. to ask "is hiroshima justified" but then switch the wording to necessary in the poll isnt being consistent. worse yet u switch from necessary to should, then to needed? whoa.

[Geronimo]

MTG, I think the chemistry to derive the uranium hexafluoride from uranium oxide would have been one of the least daunting steps in the production of suitable bomb material.

If the facts in the article could all be believed, it seems that Japan would have been totally precluded from building an A-bomb only by it's lack of computational capabilities and by the general disruption of the allied bombings.

[FrustratedPoet]

I don't dismiss the "saved more lives than it took" argument, however I can not possibly accept that the massacre of thousands upon thousands of innocent civilian lives could ever be morally justified. It's just wrong in any context.

[MikeH]

Agreed.

[Harovan]

Using nuclear weapons on civilians is a crime tenfold worse than, say, flying a plane in a building, and its cruelty is topped only by the crimes of the nazis themselves.

[FrustratedPoet]

Well that should warm the debate up rather nicely.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Using nuclear weapons on civilians is a crime tenfold worse than, say, flying a plane in a building, and its cruelty is topped only by the crimes of the nazis themselves.

[Ecthy]

both bombings were absolutely necessary to preserve freedom and peace throughout the entire world

[David Floyd]

MtG,

Niigata was originally one of four priority targets (others being Hiroshima, HQ of Japanese 2nd Army and an industrial target, Kokura, an industrial target, and Kyoto, a major industrial city). Kyoto was replaced by Henry Stimson with Nagasaki, which I'm sure you know.

Now, Niigata may have been considered a priority target, but it was never the primary or secondary target for either mission - the first mission's priority order was Hiroshima, Kokura, and Nagasaki, and the second mission's order was Kokura, then Nagasaki. Again, because of the presence of Kokura on the priority list, Niigata was precluded because of distance.

[David Floyd]

both bombings were absolutely necessary to preserve freedom and peace throughout the entire world

Yeah, sorta like Dresden, huh?

[Ecthy]

same there

[Ecthy]

hold no grudge, David... debates like these are totally nonsensical, I can't but bull**** them

[Proteus_MST]

I don´t think they were necessary.

After all I have read to date,
it seems that even without the Bombings the Japanese Government was more and more ready for Peacetalks.
So I don´t think, that the A-Bombs have significantly shortened the war.
I think it was maybe less than a month. The Number of american and japanese) Soldiers saved never ever justifies the much higher number of Civilians casualties due to the Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And, if you had to test the new Weapon, one Bomb should have been sufficient. Afterwards you already knew how much Damage this Weapons produce (as you,without doubt had Planes flying over Hiroshima afterwards and taking Photographs).
And it was also sufficient to demonstrate the power of american Weapons to the Tenno.
And so I think especially the second Bomb was by no means justified.

[CerberusIV]

The political situation at the time made use of the A bombs inevitable. Germany had surrendered and Japan was beaten. The politicians were thinking about what next. Dropping at least one bomb shortened the war and saved US lives - that was Truman's concern, not Japanese lives. It also sent a powerful signal setting out America's claim to influence the post WW2 world.

Was it justified? At the time, yes. By our current standards, attitudes and knowledge of nuclear weapons, no.

Hindsight is wonderful, particularly for the amount of BS it can generate.