If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
The indespensable 'Was the use of the A-bomb in Japan justified' thread
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Japan is marking today the 60th anniversary of the destruction of Hiroshima by an A-bomb. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4748027.stm Between 140,000 and nearly a quarter of a million people were killed by the device and subsequent related illnesses, depending on sources see some facts and figures from the Independent. Nagasaki suffered a similar fate 3 days later of course, and Japan surrendered soon after.
So was the US justified in taking such action? Or did mankind cross a line and reach a new low it should never have?
As I have said before I am a believer of the latter. For starters I view some of the figures about how many millions more would have died through a conventional war with scepticism. It wouldn't be the first time a power greatly exaggerates figures in order to support their dubious actions, that's for sure. And then there is a special repugnancy about dropping such a horrific mass murder weapon on a city- the hideous scale of the killings, and the subsequent suffering, additional deaths, diseases and hideous deformities initial survivors and their offspring have had to endure even decades after the event.
But, I'm sure many will disagree, so off you go...
So was the US justified in taking such action? Or did mankind cross a line and reach a new low it should never have?
As I have said before I am a believer of the latter. For starters I view some of the figures about how many millions more would have died through a conventional war with scepticism. It wouldn't be the first time a power greatly exaggerates figures in order to support their dubious actions, that's for sure. And then there is a special repugnancy about dropping such a horrific mass murder weapon on a city- the hideous scale of the killings, and the subsequent suffering, additional deaths, diseases and hideous deformities initial survivors and their offspring have had to endure even decades after the event.
But, I'm sure many will disagree, so off you go...
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Who gives a shit how many would die if the bomb wasn't dropped. When it was, by the people who did, there was no proof that it would even be marginally effective. They dropped it hoping that it would kill "innocents" so fuck em.
It was done because:
A) The US could try to scare Stalin.
C) A Show of Strength. Ties in with A), but to EVERY nation out there.
They could have won the war without it. Easily. The Japanese were practically on the verge of surrender. The Troops, anyways. It was uneeded. It was an over-reaction, but, then again, Hue in Vietnam was *nearly* nuked, because they feared losing the war.
US and allied Casualty projections for Olympic and Coronet (the codenames for the invasion of Japan) were about 375,000 dead and about 1.6 million casualties altogether. Based on Okinawa, where the majority of Japanese soldiers and civilians had fought to death or committed suicide it was estimated Japanese casualties at 5-10 million.
These figures don't include the probable death tolls in China, Korea or Malaysia where there was also likely to be continued fighting. Nor do they include deaths of prisoners in Japanese hands.
I don't think that an invasion would've resulted in the military casualties the allies predicted considering the fact the USSR and China would've willingly fuelled the fire with a few million extra soldiers. Japan could've been taken in a matter of weeks. But the effect on Japan in terms of innocents killed they would've been far far greater than the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Conventional weapons can be just as bad, need we be reminded of Dresden?
I don't think that it was any more a crime than war itself and that in the grand scheme of things it was the right thing to do. Consider this. If the world hadn't seen the power of the bomb then, would Russia and the US have been so reluctant to use it on each other in the Cold War? I think one survivor I saw on the news summed it up well, "in nuclear war there are no winners".
It does seem though with this that some people are so blighted by their anti-American sentiment mainly directed towards the present Bush administration that they intrinsically condemn American actions such as this without really thinking about it. Of course I wouldn't accuse anyone here of falling into that category.
The firebombing of Tokoyo was worse than the Dresden. It killed about 100,000 civilians compared with Dresden 25-30000.
They would never have done it against a western nation ... pure racism
In fairness I don't think they realised the full extent of what they were doing but i also don't think nations are for nuclear experiments so no not justified in the slightest!
I don't think it really has much to do with the current sentiment towards the US though that does explain some of the hatred for America's past actions, i just think a bomb on that scale, that caused so much damage at the time of the explosion and for generations after the explosion, people who never even lived the war suffering from it, so it's legacy is what makes it totally unjustifiable imo
They would have fought to the last man pretty much, the casualties would have been enormous, civilian and military.
and nucleur warfare is the solution for a situation like that?
Of course it was justified, given the information available at the time. Just because we now know that the war ended fairly swifty (NB It still took a second bomb, the prevention of a coup d'etat and the threat of a Russian invasion) doesn't mean that it was wrong at the time.
It would be harder to justify again though, we know too much of the effects, which icindently is partly why it hasn't happened again.
Without Hiroshima and Nagasaki you have to ask whether nukes would have been used in Korea, Cuba, Vietnam...
so you're saying America used the A-bomb for it's own purposes and not for the Allied purposes?
No. I suspect you are looking at only one nation involved in those other conflicts...
yep...were they just the first one's that came into your head or something?
What the events of August 1945 taught everyone was just what the consequence were. Faced with that imagery, how many people do you think could actually authorise such an attack...?
Japan was in the interests of all the Allies. The lessons learned have been a benefit to the whole world.
what lessons are there to learn in todays political climate that will benefit the world in years to come?
Somethings are worth fighting for, our forebares knew that and they knew that sometimes horrific things have to happen. Sadly we are too caught up in our own comfort zone to recognise the price paid for the very freedoms which are being stripped from us now by our own Government.
If htey were so dedicated as to fight to the last man they would have anyway. Why would an A Bomb stop that sort of dedication? That would just infuriate someone who beleived so strongly even more.
Alot of the Nazi's fought to the death, despite the fact they could obviously not win. So, I don't see how this argument is valid. How does nuking someone stop people who are apparently "So dedicated as to fight to the last man", from fighting?
Also bearing in mind the majority of dead were civilians, I cannot justify that.
Until the Emperor said "stop", no-one would. Apart from the shame for them and their family, there was the fact that Hirohito was considered a God by his people. They would have died in thousands to protect him.
The Nazi comparison is bogus because you are talking about individuals based on a political belief which had been eroded. The Japanese never had that doubt in their leader.
Again, look at the landing on the small islands...
Wow... i'd just be in the mood to take as many of the enemy with me after that happened. :eek2:
You might want to read This, this (which includes this).
Nothing too onerous, but it's gives a basic insight...
What about the POW's that they were going to kill if they were invaded? Hiroshima also had command centre for a whole section of the army. Quite a good place tactically to strike.
there are about 3,000 british army people in the area where i live, about 40,000 civilians, would it be a good idea "TACTICALLY" to bomb my area if you wanted to get rid of the brits, fuck off would ya
Really though must you resort to immaturity of "fuck off would ya" its quite pathetic.
Tactical attacks don't need to consider morality or collateral damage to be tactical. They just have to cause the most damage to somebodys military might with the least amount of cash.
Though I think it is important to remember that the dropping of the A-Bombs has consequences which have been far reaching and are both positive and negative. The image of the power of the bomb and the destruction it caused to both Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been burned on the world's conscious even though America and Russia for 60 years were bitter enemies their was never a full scale conflict because of the fear of the destruction that could be caused by Nuclear weapons.
Also the effects of the bombs in Japan still linger today, and that the health of the survivors and the survivors’ children and grand children has been affected by the radiation.
Hiroshima health effects linger
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4745653.stm
To me the this is the legacy of the bombs…