We Were Right to Bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[Lore]

You were right to bomb Hiroshima, but the reasons you provided have absolutely nothing to do with it.
Not going to write a novel about why you were right, alot comes into play as to why that decision was the right course of action between prolonging a fight with a notoriously 'die before giving up' people and using 'shock' more than anything else really, to end that battle.


But anyway, you were right, not because 'war is hell' because, while that's true, it has little to nothing to do with being right or wrong to bomb Hiroshima because 'war is hell'

I suggest you go back and actually read my comment. You would see that my 'war is Hell' statement had everything to do with what was being discussed. I made it very clear in my comment that I did not agree with people determining the morality in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And if that does not have anything to do with whether it was right or wrong to drop those bombs then what does?


Determining whether or not an action is right or wrong entails the morality of the action in question. When it comes to dropping bombs on cities, how does morality not play in to it? Now unless the creator of the thread was asking if it was tactically right or wrong to drop those bombs then my comment would have nothing to do with the subject but it was not clarified and the topic had turned to the morality of the action well before I joined the thread.


So when you get right down to it, my comments had everything to do with the subject at hand because my comments remained on topic with what was said beforehand.


Edit: I was right to bomb those cities? Your wording is a little confusing. I may feel old sometimes but I'm not quite that old.

 

[FoxxMann]

Lore, you pose good points, I enjoy hearing others opinions, however, you were wrong on one part, war is not hell, in hell only the unjust and the sinful are punished, war is worse than hell, war punishes the innocent, tainting them until the only release they may ever see is hell.

 

[bettsyboy]

Think about it like this.


If those 2 bombs weren't dropped on Japan, then the Japanese Islands would be a battlefield wasteland all the Asian powers would be fighting over today, and the native japanese would have long been exterminated. Anyway, it's not like the Japanese were anywhere near being "Moral" during this time period, just look at the Rapes of Shanghai, the korean and chinese "comfort girls" AKA village girls taken from their home to be sex objects for japanese soldiers.

 

[Lore]

Lore, you pose good points, I enjoy hearing others opinions, however, you were wrong on one part, war is not hell, in hell only the unjust and the sinful are punished, war is worse than hell, war punishes the innocent, tainting them until the only release they may ever see is hell.

A metaphor is a figure of speech that is not meant to be taken literally. It is used to convey comparison between subjects that share similar features but in the end are unrelated to one another. In war, there is pain, violence, and death. In (the popular conception of) Hell, there is pain, violence, and death. My metaphor stands.


I should also point out that you contradicted yourself in your statement. You said that in Hell, only the unjust and sinful are punished and yet you followed that by saying that war punishes the innocent and taints them until the only release they may ever see is Hell. That insinuates that innocent people are going to Hell. You must have read a different book than me. I say this is a contradiction based on a strongly-held belief that punishment should not beget further punishment.


But that is besides the point. I really only wanted to explain my metaphor to you. Everything else is debatable on a basis of refutable beliefs and should be left for a more appropriate thread.

 

[Arcanaut]

I don't suppose you've heard of The Rape of Nanking or Unit 731 have you?

 

[Kaine]

I don't suppose you've heard of The Rape of Nanking or Unit 731 have you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre


This happened in 1937 not sure how it pertains to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but anyways.


200,000 to 300,000 people were estimated as being massacred. sources vary. But the end result was the leaders of that massacre being found guilty of war crimes and executed. Justice served. Would a simple execution ever be enough for the families who lost everything? No. Funny that you dont list other events about all the massacres china has done on Japan throughout the years.


If you also read up on history, you would also know events such as these happen because racial tension between China, Japan, and Korean have always been at a breaking point. There have been events of massacre between all three countries for hundreds of years. Back in the day, when you wanted something, you conquered it. When you wanted revenge, you went for it. Pretty barbaric, but since when has war not been barbaric?


World War two was truly a turning point for the modern world. Sure we have skirmishes and battles all the time. Most of them don’t make sense because they are fueled politically, Take Vietnam, Operation Desert Storm, Congo, and Rwanda to name a few, even more recently with stuff in the Ukraine. Wars are fought, lost or won on a whim, for different reasons, for different lengths and all for what people believe is right or just. Sometimes they’re waged by the people, sometimes they are waged by the government and sometimes they are simply waged because people follow blind orders. In someone’s eyes it will always be for the right reasons, and for another, it will always be for the wrong reasons.


Hitler thought he was truly helping humanity by purging the Jews and proclaiming the Aryans were the supreme race. In his eyes, and his commanding staffs eyes, they were doing it for the right reasons.


To give you some perspective, do most people not vaccinate and get vaccinations themselves to rid of a disease? What if a specific race carried this infectious disease? would you not try to shield yourself and your family from contact? Would you not take precautions, even extreme ones to keep the people you love safe?


Even if they were sick in the mind. In Hitler’s eyes, the Jews were a disease. From a standard point of view, yes its genocide and utterly inhumane, but what if the situation were true? What if there was a disease and the only way to stop it was to kill and eradicate a specific race of people. What if the world depended upon that decision? Would that make it just? Would that make it wrong? No, its simply choosing the lesser of two evils. Exterminate a few thousand to safe a few billion. Maybe you wouldn’t or couldn’t make the call. But somewhere, someone would. Again does that make you right, and them wrong? In their eyes they would be right, and you would be wrong.


Think im being far fetched? Ignorance has always fueled action. During the 70‘s when AIDs/HIV was first starting to emerge, it was considered that only Homosexuals could contract it and that by simply being close to them you might get AIDs and die. so they were kept at arms length by the public and shunned.


Sickle Cell Anemia is predominently in people of African Heritage. And even know Society fears what it doesn’t understand. Back in the day you stoned or burned anyone thought to be a witch, When bird flu was going around, People feared anyone Chinese, and even today, You see a rough black dude, many assume they might be a gang member, and that any Arab you see might be a terrorist. Ignorance has always fueled conflict. WW2 was no different. Even as a few other posts said. The Japanese said we would rape and kill their women and children. Was it true? mostly not, did they believe it? Obviously if they commit suicide rather than be captured.


How is this any different than Spartan’s seeking perfection in every child killing and removing the weak from their society? Many call this crude and inhuman, yet Spartans were the most brutal and fearsome warriors of their era and up until its collapse reports say Their society was much like our own. Coincidence? People were just doing what they believed to be true and just and for the sake of a great nation. Does this mean they were wrong? Does it mean they were right?


The simple fact is as Lore and the creator of this post has stated many times. War is war. If war was as easy as a chess game. Everyone would do it and the world would be a better place. But even then, someone will always have the better strategy, more pieces and even the brain could be considered an advantage as not everyone thinks the same, or would choose the same course of action. Even in chess there are moves the require sacrifices to win the game and if your not willing to take a leap, then it may cost you the game.


There is no morality in war. I’m not a soldier, but my brother is, and you see first hand how events change people. But there is only one statement in my mind that in a time on war, a soldier, and even the generals remind themselves of; “Kill or be killed.”


If a cougar attacked you wanting to feed its cubs, would you let yourself die? It is only trying to survive. Probably not. You would kill it so you could continue to live another day. For a person, whether you are defending your home from a robber, or defending your country on a battlefield, its either kill or be killed. This doesn’t make it right, nor does this make it wrong. This is simply how it is. I feel a lot of people overthink that aspect.


Back to the topic of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Between 10 and 11 May 1945, Oppenheimer led a committee which came up with a list of cities most potentially suitable as targets of atomic attacks. The committee eventually arrived at the recommendation of four targets: Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and Kokura.


Hiroshima was chosen as the first target due to its military and industrial values. As a military target, Hiroshima was a major army base that housed the headquarters of the Japanese 5th Division and the 2nd Army Headquarters. It was also an important port in southern Japan and a communications center. The mountains surrounding Hiroshima also contributed to Hiroshima being among one of the top choices among the short list of potential targets, for that the mountains might contain the destructive forces of an atomic blast in the target area, increasing the level of destruction.


US Secretary of War Henry Stimson voiced successfully against the selection of Kyoto as a target, arguing that the city held cultural importance to the world; he also had a personal attachment to the city as he and his wife traveled to Kyoto on their honeymoon many years prior.


Prior to the bombing, the United States Army conducted many missions over Japanese cities that were composed of very few B-29 bombers. The purpose of such flights were to wear down the alertness of Japanese anti-aircraft defense crew, whether gunners or fighter pilots, so that when the atomic bomb attacks arrived, perhaps some of the Japanese would let their guards down.

Does this sound like a decision of one person? Or the decision of a group of people to use a catastrophic weapon just because they could? They were weapons of mass destruction. That was a heavy weight and while we would never know, i could almost bet money, they even up until the day they died, that decision weighed heavy on everyones heart.


The problem with war is, and i see this in almost everyones posts, you assume had the bombs not been dropped, America, and the allies would of still won against Japan. America had the numbers, and equipment over Japan. But even so. Who’s to say we would of succeeded in taking Japan by force? Does anyone remember D-Day? It would of been it all over again. Over 10,000 casualties worth 4,000+ confirmed dead. In a single day; what about the ensuring battles after that. Considering how devastating battles were at Iwa jima, can you imagine how much more insane they would of been had we invaded their homeland?


There was no guarantee that the Allies would have won. However, with two bombs, the Allies secured a decisive victory, and the ensuing Surrender, which lead to the conclusion of WW2


It was never a moral choice, or what was right or wrong, Just or unjust. As it always about gambling on the lesser of two evils. Kill a few in a show of power, hoping it ends the war? Or continue the war path knowing ten fold will die, not truly knowing if either will lead to victory. Either way, Japan didn’t have to surrender. They did so because of America’s resounding show of force, because America did what it thought was appropriate for that time, to get certain victory.


As for the Geneva Convention. Its a joke for higher powers. I don’t personally agree with it, but i understand it. Its a show, as a stronger power to a weaker power, that while you may not care, our countries will always be the bigger man. We will strive for lower casualties, for less deaths, less sacrifice and that while you may be cruel to us, we will not be cruel to you.


It comes back to the basic rule most parents teach their children,


“Treat unto another, as you wish to be treated.”


But these ramblings are mostly my opinion so. Also before anyone accuses me of it, i actually went through and read every single post. So don't assume my post is based on skimming or simply upon the first post in the thread.

 

[Serano]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
This happened in 1937 not sure how it pertains to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but anyways.


200,000 to 300,000 people were estimated as being massacred. sources vary. But the end result was the leaders of that massacre being found guilty of war crimes and executed. Justice served. Would a simple execution ever be enough for the families who lost everything? No. Funny that you dont list other events about all the massacres china has done on Japan throughout the years.


If you also read up on history, you would also know events such as these happen because racial tension between China, Japan, and Korean have always been at a breaking point. There have been events of massacre between all three countries for hundreds of years. Back in the day, when you wanted something, you conquered it. When you wanted revenge, you went for it. Pretty barbaric, but since when has war not been barbaric?


World War two was truly a turning point for the modern world. Sure we have skirmishes and battles all the time. Most of them don’t make sense because they are fueled politically, Take Vietnam, Operation Desert Storm, Congo, and Rwanda to name a few, even more recently with stuff in the Ukraine. Wars are fought, lost or won on a whim, for different reasons, for different lengths and all for what people believe is right or just. Sometimes they’re waged by the people, sometimes they are waged by the government and sometimes they are simply waged because people follow blind orders. In someone’s eyes it will always be for the right reasons, and for another, it will always be for the wrong reasons.


Hitler thought he was truly helping humanity by purging the Jews and proclaiming the Aryans were the supreme race. In his eyes, and his commanding staffs eyes, they were doing it for the right reasons.


To give you some perspective, do most people not vaccinate and get vaccinations themselves to rid of a disease? What if a specific race carried this infectious disease? would you not try to shield yourself and your family from contact? Would you not take precautions, even extreme ones to keep the people you love safe?


Even if they were sick in the mind. In Hitler’s eyes, the Jews were a disease. From a standard point of view, yes its genocide and utterly inhumane, but what if the situation were true? What if there was a disease and the only way to stop it was to kill and eradicate a specific race of people. What if the world depended upon that decision? Would that make it just? Would that make it wrong? No, its simply choosing the lesser of two evils. Exterminate a few thousand to safe a few billion. Maybe you wouldn’t or couldn’t make the call. But somewhere, someone would. Again does that make you right, and them wrong? In their eyes they would be right, and you would be wrong.


Think im being far fetched? Ignorance has always fueled action. During the 70‘s when AIDs/HIV was first starting to emerge, it was considered that only Homosexuals could contract it and that by simply being close to them you might get AIDs and die. so they were kept at arms length by the public and shunned.


Sickle Cell Anemia is predominently in people of African Heritage. And even know Society fears what it doesn’t understand. Back in the day you stoned or burned anyone thought to be a witch, When bird flu was going around, People feared anyone Chinese, and even today, You see a rough black dude, many assume they might be a gang member, and that any Arab you see might be a terrorist. Ignorance has always fueled conflict. WW2 was no different. Even as a few other posts said. The Japanese said we would rape and kill their women and children. Was it true? mostly not, did they believe it? Obviously if they commit suicide rather than be captured.


How is this any different than Spartan’s seeking perfection in every child killing and removing the weak from their society? Many call this crude and inhuman, yet Spartans were the most brutal and fearsome warriors of their era and up until its collapse reports say Their society was much like our own. Coincidence? People were just doing what they believed to be true and just and for the sake of a great nation. Does this mean they were wrong? Does it mean they were right?


The simple fact is as Lore and the creator of this post has stated many times. War is war. If war was as easy as a chess game. Everyone would do it and the world would be a better place. But even then, someone will always have the better strategy, more pieces and even the brain could be considered an advantage as not everyone thinks the same, or would choose the same course of action. Even in chess there are moves the require sacrifices to win the game and if your not willing to take a leap, then it may cost you the game.


There is no morality in war. I’m not a soldier, but my brother is, and you see first hand how events change people. But there is only one statement in my mind that in a time on war, a soldier, and even the generals remind themselves of; “Kill or be killed.”


If a cougar attacked you wanting to feed its cubs, would you let yourself die? It is only trying to survive. Probably not. You would kill it so you could continue to live another day. For a person, whether you are defending your home from a robber, or defending your country on a battlefield, its either kill or be killed. This doesn't make it right, nor does this make it wrong. This is simply how it is. I feel a lot of people over-think that aspect.

I agreed with the vast majority of your post, but there is one problem I do have with it and that's the idea of moral equivalency (or the idea that there is not right and wrong). While I do agree that to a common soldier on the ground, the politics that dragged them onto the field of battle may not matter as much as the simple act of staying alive. But that doesn't mean that history looks on conflict in the same way.


For example, throughout much of the Cold War, the US allies were the good guys while old Soviet Union were the bad guys. I say this not out of some patriotic fervor, but because of how each country acted during the standoff. In the Korea for example, the Soviets backed the aggressor and urged them to invade the south. In response, we came in, sacrificed American men to defend their right to self-determination. In Vietnam you have the same scenario; the north invading the south and again we went in to defend the democracy.


More importantly though, look at how each country treated it's allies after the war. In the west, the US poured in billions of dollars to rebuild these countries, but asked nothing in exchange. We didn't setup some proxy states in the aftermath of WW2. The Soviet Union on the other hand, decided they didn't wanted to give up the land they took during the war. Instead, the Soviet Union put in puppet governments in these countries and when the people inevitably rose up, they were put down brutally by Soviet tanks and planes.


You know the real danger when you start to confuse the good guys with the bad guys? It's that you begin to think that their not so bad, and that its okay to be friends with them. Europe took this attitude over the last decade with Russia, and now their foolishness has come back to bite them. They signed deals with Russia that has now made Europe reliant on the natural gas and oil that Russia provides. Russia can now invade a sovereign country with impunity, and if Europe so much as sneezes, Russia will turn off the power. All of this is because we thought that the Russian were just like us. Moral equivalency at it's finest.

 

[Epoce]

Old thread, sorry, also don't feel like reading 4 pages worth of things.


In reality, the dropping of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were our only option. In reality, (as mentioned on page 1) we kinda had two choices. Well 3, if you count invasion. 1) Blow them up. End the war in days, and be done with it. Sure death is a bad thing, blah blah, and all that, but we still use the death penalty for people who have killed only 1 person. Japan had killed thousands. 2) Have a long and costly war. Now the problem I have with people arguing this one, is that they only say "omgggg it will kill people". Yes.. it would've killed people. But not only that, it would have drained us financially AND we were starting to involve ourselves in conflict in Europe so we wouldn't have had the amount of soldiers needed for that conflict.


HOWEVER, this all depends on ethnicity. While I don't think it was right, it was necessary.

 

[Komeko]

I know this is an old thread, and I've read it all. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed 150,000 people. A planned Japanese Invasion would've killed 10 million.


In soldiers alone.


Not including the fact that the Japanese were about to be invaded from the North by the legendary Zhukov. That was a recipe for disaster, and finally, the nail in the coffin, was that Japan was about to be invaded by China, yes, the same China that was split up into seven hundred different groups and had finally organized. At this point, it was no surprise that so many would die in an invasion, and the fact that the Soviets would beat the Chinese and take over all of North Japan, setting up a Communist state, China with it's weak hold would rape and murder everything in sight (if the Japanese had not already killed themselves) and the U.S would be struggling to attempt to get Japan to relative safety. Japan was going to be an important ally, and having it split up into three countries was going to be a mess. Plus if 10 million died in soldiers alone, and a third had commited suicide, how many would have ended their lives in Japan? After the two nuclear bombs Japan gave up it's soveirgnty for the time being and had let itself become occupied by the U.S. Everyone at the head of Japan knew this was the best choice. China was suicide, the USSR was a mixed bag at best, but the U.S. was a production powerhouse, and could rebuild the Japanese economy, which they did. The Japanese economy went from shambles to decent to powerful. End of the day, I'd say the U.S saved a lot of lives by nuking Japan, and many more from bad economics had the Soviets taken half of Japan.