Was Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?

[PLATO]

Dad was a marine in WW II. He was scheduled for the first wave in the invasion of Japan. Estimates for casualties in that first wave have been set as high as 100%. I wouldn't be here if not for the bombings. Guess which way I voted? In any event, he was with the group that landed at Nagasaki shortly after the surrender. He, as most of his unit did, died of cancer some thirty years later.

It was a terrible decision to have to make, but bombing those cities and bringing the war to a close was definately the right decision.

[Ecthy]

well. why the second bomb. your father would have lived on for longer.

[Dr Strangelove]

It should be remembered that the Soviet Union was actually hampering communication between Japanese and American authorities. Supposedly the Japanese government tried to initiate negotiations with the US in July through the Soviet embassy, but the Soviets deliberately quashed the messages. There also was supposedly an attempt to contact the US after Hiroshima. After Nagasaki the Japanese switched to using the Swedish embassy. How might history have been changed if the Japanese hadn't been so naive as to trust the Soviets, or OTOH if they hadn't decided to try the Swedes later?

[Meldor]

Yes, it is always interesting to watch people debate the choices of the past based on the thoughts of today.

At the time the bombs were dropped, atomic power was considered the great technology that was going to turn the planet into a paradise. There were no worries about radiation (we had really done any studies, so most things were guesses). There was no cold war with nuclear brinkmanship to make us fear the weapons.

Everyone keeps mentioning Dresdon, but the same thing was occurring in Japan as well. Prior to the invasion, the Japanese cities would have been "prepped" by constant and relentless bombing. The thread yesterday about using "firebombs" on military targets is nothing. We were dropping them on cities we knew were built in a large part out of wood. The idea was to inflict as much damage and as many casualties as possible. Civilians weren't considered off limits. They contributed to the war efforts and so were legit targets.

The big question about the bombs wasn't to use them or not because they were nuclear,, no one at the time gave a royal rats rear about that (although some thought that the explosion could start a chain reaction). It question was the amount of fissible material on-hand and if this would waste what little we had. The Japanese also had some intel on how much we had as well. Some factions didn't think we had enough for more than the test bomb and one other. The fact that the US dropped two bombs in quickly, indidcated to them that we had a lot more material than they thought.

We can make debates all day long about how many lives were saved or not. The Japanese were not going to surrender unconditionally unless their was a suceessful invasion and the US was not going to give terms. The war had raqed too long and people wanted total victory. They didn't want to leave anything around to come back against them as Europe did in WWI.

The dropping of the bombs shortened the war, of that their can be no question.

Don't try to color the choices made then with your personnal feeling now. You have to look at the picture as they saw it and not as it would be viewed today.

[gunkulator]

Another point to consider was the arming of Japanese civillians as a last line of defense. At what point does a civillian become a soldier?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by 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.

Kyoto was never a heavily industrialized city, and still isn't now. Along with Nara, Nikko, and Kamakura, it was a prohibited target due to it's lack of military assets and connection with Japanese cultural history and the Emperor. The theory wasn't so much enlightened as pragmatic, being that bombing of those targets would infuriate the Japanese and make them far more likely to resist.

I believe you mean Kobe, which is part of the Osaka-Kyoto-Kobe triangle in the Kansai area, and a huge port-rail-industrial city, then and now.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by gunkulator
Another point to consider was the arming of Japanese civillians as a last line of defense. At what point does a civillian become a soldier?

People might take up arms to defend their country from invasion? Heaven forbid!

At any rate, using nukes (or firebombing) civilians is just morally indefensible. It's terrorism is what it is - surrender or be destroyed in the cruel and inhumane ways. How is a legitimate military attacking civilians with WMDs to achieve political goals any better than fanatics doing the same thing? In the end, its still the common everyday people (like us) who bear the pain and loss.

Hiroshima was criminal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary. They did indeed save many, many more lives than an invasion of Japan would have taken.

[MichaeltheGreat]

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.

Yes, much better to take a hands off approach, and let 1-2 million Japanese, mostly children and old people, die of starvation and disease over the winter of 1945-46. Then invade in the spring, and have US casualties exceed total casualties incurred throughout the rest of the war, and Japanese casualties even higher.

Had the Japanese continued resistance, which was likely despite unauthorized initial peace overtures made to the Soviets, the civilian casualties over the winter would have dwarfed what we did from the bombings.

The military government confiscated nearly everything of value (in the last year of the war, something like 80% of Japanese GDP went to the war effort) from the people, it was a bad crop year, there were virtually no imports, the countryside was full of refugees from the city that couldn't be supported, and the country was a humanitarian disaster in the making.

My ex in-laws lived through that era in western Tokyo (at the time still somewhat rural in their area), and during the time I lived in Japan (Nagasaki, Sendai, and some time in Tokyo and Kyoto), I met many people who had lived through the WWII era as either kids or adults, including a few bomb survivors, and descendants of bomb victims (both direct and radiation). A good friend of mine's father was a doctor in Hiroshima, who treated initial victims, and a few weeks later he died of radiation poisoning. I'm fully familiar with the issue and the human impact, related to the bombs, the conventional bombing, and the general condition of the civilian population.

All of war consists of immoral acts, but the most immoral act of all in war is prolonging it's conclusion unnecessarily.

[DinoDoc]

Bah! A more interesting question would be if Doolittle's Raid on Tokyo was justified.

[Ned]

There is no justification for mass murder.

[Ned]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Dad was a marine in WW II. He was scheduled for the first wave in the invasion of Japan. Estimates for casualties in that first wave have been set as high as 100%. I wouldn't be here if not for the bombings. Guess which way I voted? In any event, he was with the group that landed at Nagasaki shortly after the surrender. He, as most of his unit did, died of cancer some thirty years later.

It was a terrible decision to have to make, but bombing those cities and bringing the war to a close was definately the right decision.

My Dad was in the Army in the Philippines at the time. I believe he would have been part of an invasion force. Still, I do not believe the bombing was justified even if it did affect me as it did you by preserving our dads lives.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by Ned
There is no justification for mass murder.

war = mass murder

Originally posted by The Templar
People might take up arms to defend their country from invasion? Heaven forbid!

Nice dodge. Answer the question: When are we allowed to kill civilians preparing for homeland defense? In their homes? During their weapons training? Or is it hands off until we actually meet them in combat, guaranteeing even more death and destruction?

At any rate, using nukes (or firebombing) civilians is just morally indefensible. It's terrorism is what it is - surrender or be destroyed in the cruel and inhumane ways.

As opposed to what? Being destroyed in kind and humane ways?

How is a legitimate military attacking civilians with WMDs to achieve political goals any better than fanatics doing the same thing? In the end, its still the common everyday people (like us) who bear the pain and loss.

Oh please. Soldiers are common everyday people too. Governments that station soldiers in along side with civilians can't complain when civilians are killed. Besides, Okinawa proved that the Japanese citizenry would continue to fight on despite the overwhelming slaughter.

Hiroshima was criminal.

Sacreficing more lives to satisfy your warped sense of fairness is significantly more criminal and is in fact, immoral.

[Q Classic]

i said it last time, and i'll say it again.

it was justified. my reasons are not "politically correct" by any liberal stretch of the imagination.

[Sava]

Yes.