Was Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?

[Frozzy]

[Q Classic]

and what are those photos supposed to do?

we've seen them. most of us have also seen numerous classics and read numerous recountings; a short list:
black rain/kuroi ame
barefoot gen
hiroshima (hershey)
sadako
...

it was still justified. the loss of life was horrific and bitter, but a) there was no other solution--an invasion would have cost more lives and the total destruction of japan, b) karmic, an unintended retort to all the atrocities that the japanese military committed on korean, chinese, and other civilians (this 'atrocity' was committed by the american military on japanese civilians--which is where the 'karma' arises), c) and warning in hindsight against ever using such weapons again.

it's b) that seems to get me in the most trouble, and so i'll explain it further. many koreans also perished in those two blasts; odds are they wouldn't have been there if they weren't dragged by japanese slavers to those cities to work in the factories.
even so, those two cities visited upon japan horrors that japan visited upon cities like nanking, upon entire nations like korea and manchuria...
much as the destruction of germany was a 'karmic' response to some of what it did to the hebrews, this bomb blast was somewhat of a response to what japan did before and during the war.

[Atahualpa]

Why do people point out Nagasaki and Hiroshima as ultimate major atrocities? The Allies firebombed Dresden using conventional means and killed more innocent civilians. In terms of atrocities in WW2, Nagasaki and Hiroshima are low on the list.

Now we just forget about all the after-effects of atomic bombs and cancers that cripples people that are completely innocent apart from being born by the wrong kind of people. JUST FORGET THAT!

I cant really say if it was wrong or not, but dropping bananas WOULD have been definately the better choice!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Zylka
My laziness prompts me to ask (or possibly repeat) - what if the first bomb was dropped in the mountains, say just in view of Tokyo or Osaka? Not my own question, but I'd like to hear what y'all around here think of that scenario

They had a view that we were fundamentally too weak, and didn't have the balls to fight and kill like they did, so that we could never finish them in the home islands. That view was the culmination of about 70 years of anti-western reactionary thought that led to the whole Japanese war posture - Ni Ni Roku, the Greater East Asion Co-prosperity Sphere, etc.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Dissident
out of curiousity, does anyone know when we would have had a new bomb available?

and btw they did test a bomb in the New Mexico desert before Nagasaki and Hiroshima. So they did know what the thing was capable of. I heard someone mention they feared a chain reaction etc with hiroshima. Actually they did fear a chain reaction the first time they detonated one in New Mexico, but the math showed that wasn't really possible.

The next bomb wouldn't have been available until the spring of '46.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Zylka
Yes. He thinks the US should have politely asked the Japanese armed forces to settle into a single industry rich area which they could drop the bomb on, instead.

In fact, the Japanese deliberately dispersed their industry throughout civilian areas, to reduce the effectiveness of high-altitude bombing, which was inaccurate due to the extreme high-altitude winds over Japan. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "dense" targets compared to most of the rest of the country.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
and what are those photos supposed to do?

we've seen them. most of us have also seen numerous classics and read numerous recountings; a short list:
black rain/kuroi ame
barefoot gen
hiroshima (hershey)
sadako
...

it was still justified. the loss of life was horrific and bitter, but a) there was no other solution--an invasion would have cost more lives and the total destruction of japan, b) karmic, an unintended retort to all the atrocities that the japanese military committed on korean, chinese, and other civilians (this 'atrocity' was committed by the american military on japanese civilians--which is where the 'karma' arises), c) and warning in hindsight against ever using such weapons again.

it's b) that seems to get me in the most trouble, and so i'll explain it further. many koreans also perished in those two blasts; odds are they wouldn't have been there if they weren't dragged by japanese slavers to those cities to work in the factories.
even so, those two cities visited upon japan horrors that japan visited upon cities like nanking, upon entire nations like korea and manchuria...
much as the destruction of germany was a 'karmic' response to some of what it did to the hebrews, this bomb blast was somewhat of a response to what japan did before and during the war.

Q Cubed, Revenge? I beleive the attrocities were committed by the Army,not by the people of Japan. This is almost like nuking Baghdad to teach the Iraqi's a lesson, when the evil ones were Saddam and his sons.

As to resistance to surrender, obviously there were two branches of thought on that issue in Japan. One branch were themselves war criminals who knew what was in store for them if they surrendered. The other were actually more concerned about the welfare of Japan.

Now, if there was a successful coup and a Japanese offer to surrender were withdrawn, then perhaps the use of nuclear weapons against non-military targets might have been justified, but only if it were totally clear in advance that this would bring the war to an end.

Dissident, et al., you argue that we impute today's values into the 1940's. I don't think so. I think we, the American people, were quite aware of the immorality of attacking civilians. It is also clear that some (in the military?) were more concerned about winning and could care less about enemy civilians.

But still, the justification for the bomb has to be viewed from a time before it was dropped. They must have known that its use would cause enormous civilian casualties so as to make its use a terror weapon, not just a very effective weapon against military targets. So the question presented is the same question as to whether Dresden was justified.

Did the US leadership really believe that attacking Dresden would cause the Nazi leadership to surrender? This somewhat presumes that the Nazi leadership was more concerned about the fate of Germany than themselves. Since we know the truth, it is quite apparent that Dresden was not justified because nothing would have made Hitler surrender.

Did we know that the use of the A-bomb on civilians would have caused the Japanese to surrender? Given Dresden, I doubt that anyone was sure before the bomb was dropped.

I also believe that we knew of Japanese surrender offers prior to the use of the A-bomb. The surrender offers were conditional. Among the conditions were that the Emperor stay - a condition we eventually accepted.

So, in fact, we used the A-bomb not to get the Japanese to surrender, but to remove some of their conditions. It was not used to avoid an invasion.

Given this, was the use of the A-bomb on cities, intentionally and wantonly killing hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT civilians, justified?

[rah]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[Verto]

I believe we were justified, even if you only look at how many American lives were saved.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
As to resistance to surrender, obviously there were two branches of thought on that issue in Japan. One branch were themselves war criminals who knew what was in store for them if they surrendered. The other were actually more concerned about the welfare of Japan.

That's a very white view. Perhaps you should read Hagakure, and look at Japanese treatment towards those who surrendered, as well as things like the aftermath of Sekigahara, the spring siege of Osaka castle, etc. Or the whole ethos of Chushingura. "They knew they were war criminals" is hysterical to someone who understands the Japanese world view at the time. Hell, there are still memorials to these people at Yasukuni-jinja and other places, and the Japanese by and large have consistently denied they committed war crimes or did anything else wrong, as in their views of the time, they were a "special" race with a living god as emperor, and anything they did to prisoners or others was not even subject to question. Look at the ****ing rape of Nanjing.

Now, if there was a successful coup and a Japanese offer to surrender were withdrawn, then perhaps the use of nuclear weapons against non-military targets might have been justified, but only if it were totally clear in advance that this would bring the war to an end.

There was (a) no offer of surrender; (b) no overture of discussion of surrender by anyone in authority; (c) preconditions to discussion from the gentlemen without authority who made the overtures to neutral ambassadors; (d) no communication from the Soviet government to the US, as the Soviets had their own plans and declared war on August 5, 1945, out of concern that the Japanese would surrender to the US immediately.

Dissident, et al., you argue that we impute today's values into the 1940's. I don't think so. I think we, the American people, were quite aware of the immorality of attacking civilians. It is also clear that some (in the military?) were more concerned about winning and could care less about enemy civilians.

Then why were "we" so hot to relocate "Japs" to internment camps, and why did we take the position that giving them random 7 to 10 days notice to report with one suitcase and whatever they could carry on their back was doing them a favor? There was a regular cottage industry of buzzards going to Issei and Nisei home and business owners, buying what they had for pennies on the dollar, in lieu of it being stolen when the Japanese-Americans had to report to camps. We wanted to stick it to the Japanese, and American newspaper articles, newsreel movies, etc., took a completely different view of the "inscrutible oriental" - this was scarecely 60 years after the original Anti-Chinese leagues, and less than 20 years after the second wave of anti-Asian hostility throughout much of the US.

But still, the justification for the bomb has to be viewed from a time before it was dropped. They must have known that its use would cause enormous civilian casualties so as to make its use a terror weapon, not just a very effective weapon against military targets. So the question presented is the same question as to whether Dresden was justified.

Did the US leadership really believe that attacking Dresden would cause the Nazi leadership to surrender? This somewhat presumes that the Nazi leadership was more concerned about the fate of Germany than themselves. Since we know the truth, it is quite apparent that Dresden was not justified because nothing would have made Hitler surrender.

Did we know that the use of the A-bomb on civilians would have caused the Japanese to surrender? Given Dresden, I doubt that anyone was sure before the bomb was dropped.

Nonsense. Dresden was an open city, with no military assets or production to speak of. Every potential Japanese target had substantial military assets, production facilities, and logistics facilities. They were the best remaining targets outside even more densely populated areas in Tokyo and Osaka.

Using conventional bombing raids, Sendai, Aomori, Kobe, Nagoya, Fukuoka, Shimonoseki, Yokohama, Yokosuka, and large parts of Tokyo and Osaka had already been massively bombed.

I also believe that we knew of Japanese surrender offers prior to the use of the A-bomb. The surrender offers were conditional. Among the conditions were that the Emperor stay - a condition we eventually accepted.

So, in fact, we used the A-bomb not to get the Japanese to surrender, but to remove some of their conditions. It was not used to avoid an invasion.

Given this, was the use of the A-bomb on cities, intentionally and wantonly killing hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT civilians, justified?

Speculation with no evidence plus opinion stated as fact forming the basis for rhetorical question = obvious troll.

[Ned]

MtG, Truman used the bomb KNOWING the Japanese were willing to surrender.

http://www.doug-long.com/guide1.htm

[Harovan]

Nonsense. Dresden was an open city, with no military assets or production to speak of.

Completely false. Dresden had (and still has) a fairly large area with military facilities (the Russians used it later for the staff of an armored army and for an armored regiment), large depots with ammunition and other military materials, an airport and an airplane factory. All valid military targets, and all were located in the north of the city and remained nearly unharmed in the terror bombing. Targets were exclusively residental areas and the historical city core.

[Ned]

I recommend everyone reading that link I gave two posts earlier. It is amazing how history seems to have been rewritten to protect the reputation of Truman. The military leadership at the time were aghast at the use of the bomb - including MacArthur - whose carreer was later trashed by our barbarian president Truman.

If there was anyone who should have been tried for war crimes at the close of the war, it should have been Truman.

[Ned]

Sir Ralph, I don't know if it was mentioned in this thread or not, but US fighter pilots strafed fleeing civilians! Every time I think of this, I can hardly imagine that this was my country doing this.

Fellow Americans, it is time to disown the American leadership responsible for these acts. This includes both FDR and Truman. They are not heroes. They are murderers.

[Sava]

Fellow Americans, it is time to disown the American leadership responsible for these acts. This includes both FDR and Truman. They are not heroes. They are murderers.

I think Ned's alternate reality is whackier than David Floyd's...