charlesviper(72) 9 points I think there are a number of arguments "for" the bombing of the two Japanese cities during World War II, so I'll take the unpopular role and play Devil's advocate. First off, if you look at the title of this argument, it is "Was the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki justifiable or not?". Not just "Hiroshima", but Hiroshima [August 6th] AND Nagasaki [August 9th]. Even after the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the Japanese war machine would not surrender. This really shows how hard the citizens of Japan and the politicians of Japan were fighting in this total war. Secondly, the usage of Nuclear Weapons for the first time by the United States was relatively fortunate. If it were a country at war with America who'd dropped the first bomb, you could easily argue that due to the tension of this time period the US would've deployed more of them in retaliation. During the Cold War, for example, arms races between the US and Russia led to both sides having hundreds / thousands of nuclear missiles. Since the US was the first to drop the bomb, it set a historical precedent and was used as a deterrant. Despite the low yield of the "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" bombs [modern stockpiles have warheads thousands of times more powerful], the sheer destruction caused gave Nuclear Weapons an area of seriousness and the reality of their destruction that has prevented their usage under the doctrine of "Mutually Assured Destruction". If Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fought under Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan by American forces using conventional warfare tactics [think: Omaha Beach, Operation Market Garden, etc], would the more powerful Nuclear weapons have been used during later wars? How would the Cold War have progressed differently? If Fat Man or Little Boy were dropped during testing in the Bikini Atoll, would more powerful, modern nuclear bombs have been used in any of the wars since the Second World War? The Korean War, The Cold War, Vietnam War, Persian Gulf Wars, Iraq, even Iran in the future. What would the American Military's stance on the usage of Nuclear bombing be if it didn't have the negative press from the bombing of Japan? It would certainly lack it's biggest deterrent. Perhaps this could be seen as a constructive or progressive "lesser of two evils". America would not have backed down from Japan, as Japan was starting to lose the battle. Regardless of whether the fight was waged using conventional tactics or nuclear bombs, a similar Japanese death toll would have occurred. These days, the largest argument people see these days against the usage of Nuclear weapons is the debate of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Perhaps the two bombings actually prevented further loss of life from Nuclear weapons. There hasn't been a nuclear bombing since on this magnitude [with the exception of the common usage of Tactical Nuclear devices on much smaller magnitudes]. Did the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki save lives, by having the bombing during "favorable conditions"? 1) Low-yield nuclear bombs, by conventional standards. 2) The circumstances were that America was the only one with Nukes. 3) No fear of retaliation, no world-wide destruction followed. 4) Japan clearly had no plan to back down. How many more lives were lost versus a full-on invasion? 5) No American or "Allied" lives were lost. 6) Field-test of a nuclear device, set the precedent for the level of necessity required to drop "The Bomb". 12 years ago Side: Justified in "Total War" Support Dispute Clarify ↑ Hide Replies Bradf0rd(1428) Disputed 6 points Ok. While you hold that Japan was not going to give up, I found that more than 60 of Japan's cities had been destroyed by conventional bombing, the home islands were being blockaded by the American Navy, and the Soviet Union entered the war by attacking Japanese troops in Manchuria. Now, when you say that they would not give up, America refused to modify its "unconditional surrender" demand to allow the Japanese to keep their emperor which needlessly prolonged Japan's resistance. This is something I've thought on my own, but haven't heard elsewhere: "...the U.S. did not give enough time for word to filter out of Hiroshima's devastation before bombing Nagasaki". Mind you, this was three days after, the first bombing was August 6th '45, the second was August 9th '45. We are talking 1945 in the Empire of Japan... They were in a war under a dictator who proclaimed "Total war", do you think everyone went home at night to the radio's that they couldn't afford to hear someone high say "Oh, well the American's just exploded an entire city in like, maybe 30 seconds.... BUT WHO GIVES A FUCK, KEEP FIGHTING!!! BECAUSE WE ARE BLOOD THIRSTY!!!!"? No, it probably didn't happen anything like that. I mean, it's a whole city, gone. Do you think you would know if a whole city went missing? You would hear that someone who claims to be a survivor, saw Hiroshima explode and it doesn't exist anymore... and then you send some people out to check it out, and then they think "Ah, shit... what are we going to tell everyone? America just handed us our ass...", then Day three comes along and we drop our ~20 Kiloton nuke. Furthermore: "The two cities were of limited military value. Civilians outnumbered troops in Hiroshima five or six to one". Something else I've heard before. Why wouldn't we use these devices strictly on military installations? I mean, if Japan is in the Pacific and is doing it's whole "island hopping" thing, why not just hit one island after another with these bomb until we had no other choice but to attack their cities? Some people seem to think that a demonstration explosion over Tokyo harbor would have convinced Japan's leaders to quit without killing many people. ______ Yes, these were "Low yield" bombs compared to what we have now, but they were the highest yield at the time. They were the only nuclear bombs on the planet at the time, but we were planning on more, and since the bombing, we have been producing more, and more, and more. The soviets in the cold war weren't afraid of what happened in world war 2, they all tested their weapons and had a fair idea of what it would do to a city... something that the rest of the world wouldn't forgive them for. The cold war was nothing more than a cold war. We were also racing to the moon during the cold war, so what? Operation Market Garden and Operation Overlord were conducted (basically) in the epicenter of World War II. This is when every nation in Europe was involved with the war and this wasn't just a huge island, it was a content that they had to fight their way onto. I am skeptical of the American casualty estimations at the time because if they would have released some actual true estimations, we wouldn't have been able to test these weapons that cost the US nearly 2 million dollars to develop, but I do think that it would have turned into a pre-vietnam, vietnam-like situation. It would have been a very, very long war unless we got down to the point. If we were just to invade japan and hold it captive, of coarse it would be difficult... but in that situation, whoever died would have been fighting. In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the people in the cities weren't asked to surrender "or else your whole city will explode". You know what I mean? If you were to hear that you would probably surrender. But no, it was a silent bomb that fell from the sky... the only warning was noticing a single B17 bomber without an escort... that was it. Is that fair? How seriously can you justify taking 199,000 (ONE HUNDRED AND NINTY NINE THOUSAND) lives without asking them directly to surrender? I know that if China were to ask me now if I would like to be nuked with my city or work in a sweat shot I would much rather work in a sweat shop for the rest of my life... You know what I mean? I am an American, but I would not want to be a number on a chart represented by a digit to be an american. Maybe I'm insane, but that would be horrible. If calling myself an american means that my whole life is just for a 1 on a sheet of paper entitled "Casualties and Fatalities"... no thanks. Lesser of two evils? That's a joke. What do you consider evil? If you're talking about America's reputation over America's casualties? What does it matter? 199,000 people still died, and that doesn't include fallout and radiation poisoning that is still to blame for many many miscarriages. Also, you cannot say that a similar death toll was racked up, because we were bombing their cities... on their land. Just because they happened to land on japanese soil when they were born doesn't mean that the empirical ideology was born into each child. Think about it, out of the 199,000 people, how many of them were too young to give a shit? They weren't all just 20 year old angry japanese people ready to kamikaze. There were babies, children, wives, women, and, amongst all of that, in those two cities, there were 13 Allied POW's (2 of which were British, 7 Dutch and 2 died post-bombing from fallout). How can you justify bombing two complete cities??? 12 years ago Side: Crime against Humanity Support Dispute Clarify ↑ Hide Replies joecavalry(38571) Disputed 4 points In response to your second part. Are you saying that if you got into a bar fight with someone who just attacked you for no reason, and that person is strong enough to cause some damage, and you had the means to stop the fight quickly but it would be considered "unfair," that you would not take the opportunity to end it quickly and just take the beating? At what point does self preservation kicks in at the expense of all else? At what point do you accept collateral damage in order to preserve your family and home? If we had not used the bomb and Japan somehow managed to win the war, what would this world be like today under imperialist Japan? Is it ever prudent to sacrifice civilians? If someone was going around using a baby as a human shield and killing people, how many lives do you allow him to take (while you attempt to stop him without killing the baby) before you say, "Screw it, take the baby out, kill him and stop this madness." Is the baby's life more important than all the other people dying? 12 years ago Side: Justified in "Total War" Support Dispute Clarify ↓ Show Replies Bradf0rd(1428) Disputed 2 points To your first question: Actually, that's quite inaccurate. -On June 9th, 1945, the Emperor's confidant, Marquis Koichi Kido, wrote a "Draft Plan for Controlling the Crisis Situation", warning that by the end of the year, Japan's ability to wage modern war would be extinguished and the government would be unable to contain civil unrest. "...we cannot be sure we will not share the fate of Germany and be reduced to adverse circumstances under which we will not attain even our supreme object of safeguarding the Imperial Household and preserving the national polity". -On June 22, the Emperor summoned the Big Six to a meeting. Unusually, he spoke first. "I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts made to implement them." It was agreed to solicit Soviet aid in ending the war. Other neutral nations, like Switzerland, Sweden, and the Vatican City were known to be willing to play a role in making peace, but they were so small they could not have done more than deliver the Allies' terms of surrender and Japan's acceptance or rejection. The Japanese hoped that the Soviet Union could be persuaded to act as an agent for Japan in negotiations with the Western Allies. There was no agreement on what peace terms Japan might accept, or when to approach the Allies. The leaders of the Army were confident of their ability to deal the Americans a crippling blow when they attempted to invade Kyushu in late 1945. Then, Kido proposed that the Emperor himself take action, offering to end the war. Kido proposed that Japan give up occupied European colonies, provided they were granted independence, and that the nation disarm and for a time be "content with minimum defense". With the Emperor's authorization, Kido approached several members of the Supreme Council, the "Big Six". Togo was very supportive. Suzuki and Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai, the Navy minister, were both cautiously supportive; both wondered what the other thought. General Korechika Anami, the Army minister, was ambivalent, insisting that diplomacy must wait until "after the United States has sustained heavy losses in Ketsu-Go". The Emperor lost confidence in the chances of achieving a military victory. The battle of Okinawa was lost, and he learned of the weakness of the Japanese army in China, of the navy, and of the army defending the Home Islands. ... according to Prince Higashikuni's report it was not just the coast defense; the divisions reserved to engage in the decisive battle also did not have sufficient numbers of weapons. I was told that the iron from bomb fragments dropped by the enemy was being used to make shovels. This confirmed my opinion that we were no longer in a position to continue the war. -On July 26th, 1945, Britain, the U.S., and China released the Postdam Declaration, which was not unlike the Treaty of Verailles. -On July 27, the Japanese government considered how to respond to the Declaration. The four military members of the Big Six wanted to reject it, but Togo persuaded the cabinet not to do so until he could get a reaction from the Soviets. -On July 30, Ambassador Sato wrote that Stalin was probably talking to the Western Allies about his dealings with Japan. "There is no alternative but immediate unconditional surrender if we are to prevent Russia's participation in the war. ... Your way of looking at things and the actual condition in the Soviet Union may be seen as being completely contradictory." -Soon thereafter, Russia joined the allies by renewing it's 41-46 Neutrality Pact. -On August 2, Togo wrote to Sato, " ... However, it should not be difficult for you to realize that ... our time to proceed with arrangements of ending the war before the enemy lands on the Japanese mainland is limited, on the other hand it is difficult to decide on concrete peace conditions here at home all at once." -On the morning of August 6th, 1945, confused reports reached Tokyo that the city of Hiroshima in southwest Honshu had been the target of an air raid, which had leveled the city with a "blinding flash and violent blast". Later, U.S. President Harry S. Truman's broadcast was received, announcing the first use of an atomic bomb, and promising "We are now prepared to obliterate rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have ... It was to spare the Japanese from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on earth." At first, some refused to believe the Americans could have managed to build an atomic bomb. The Japanese knew enough about the potential process to know how very difficult it was (and the fact that both their Army and Navy had independent atomic-bomb programs had further complicated their own efforts). Admiral Soemu Toyoda, the Chief of the Naval General Staff, argued that even if the Americans had made one, they could not have many more. More detailed reports of the unprecedented scale of the destruction at Hiroshima were received, but two days passed before the government met to consider the changed situation. -August 9th, Russia reentered the war by attacking Japan in Manchuria, and Nagasaki was the victim of a second nuclear strike. --------------------------------------- ----- Now, think about this, if we hadn't used the nukes, after reading all of that, isn't it obvious that we were certainly winning the war? We were suffocating them with blockades, running constant air raids, and Russia of all people came back into the war, and not on their side. If we would have dropped both of those bombs off of the shore of Tokyo as a display, it would have saved hundred of thousands of lives, and scared the shit out of Japan... especially at this point. News wouldn't have to travel to Tokyo, it would have happened in Tokyo at the same time as they were looking into a peace agreement and Russia stepped back into the war. Hundreds of Thousands of lives, which might not seem like much to you Joe, but I'm sure once you're put into a situation where you're life is at risk, you will realize it's worth. _______________________________________ _______________________ Now, about your "Bar fight". I think that if someone were to fight me in a bar, that they are probably drunk, and would not choose to murder one hundred ninety-nine thousand of his family members to get him to surrender his fight. 12 years ago Side: Crime against Humanity Support Dispute Clarify ↓ Show Replies joecavalry(38571) Disputed 1 point So it was about a month from the time the Japanese thought about surrendering until they actually surrendered and during that time they were contemplating killing more Americans and were totally OK with their civilian casualties due to conventional weapons. And our leaders should have known (through ESP?) that the Japanese were going to surrender any day now (regardless of their stall tactics) and that victory was assured. And even though the Japanese appeared to be totally delusional about their ability to continue the war, dropping the bomb on some insignificant island was sure to get them to see reason (in spite of what we had learned about them up to that point). So what if we wasted one of the few bombs we did have and God knows how long it would have taken to make more (in case we didn't quite convince them), we should have gambled that the Japanese were a reasonable people that can be dealt with. Well, if a bullfrog had wings, it wouldn't bust his ass every time he hopped. But guess what; a bullfrog doesn't have wings so it's pointless to consider what if scenarios. The U.S. made a decision based on the information they had at the time and at that time (given the information they had) it was the best decision. The fact that after the decision had been made new information pointed to other alternatives means nothing. It's done. Move forward. Learn from your mistakes and try not to commit them again. That's all one can do. 12 years ago Side: Justified in "Total War" Support Dispute Clarify ↓ Show Replies Bradf0rd(1428) Disputed 1 point No, it wasn't about a month since they started thinking about it, it was about a month since someone spoke about it. I would imagine it would have taken some time to think about it before bringing it up to a war hungry emperor. Point is, Russia joined us, if we knew that before the bombing, which we did, why couldn't we have waited, and with Russia's help. The Soviets kicked Japan's ass in Operation August Storm in Manchuria, Sakhalin, and the Kuril Islands, and they were planning to invade Hokkaido, the larger island north of Japan, before Operation Downfall... If this were true, if Russia was planning to come from the north, and in Operation Downfall were to come from the south (west?), do you really think they would have kept fighting until they killed 400,000 of our troops. I don't know, but I do know that looking at this objectively, we can learn more from it than just accepting it as a possible mistake and just putting it off. Was it right? That's what we're talking about. In this case, we are required to look at things from their view points because, after all, it was war and I'm sure things would have been very cloudy. Still, if Hiroshima were to happen anyway, should we have dropped the second on another city three days later without further diplomacy (other than a radio transmission that basically said "Stop or we'll blow up your whole island")??? What I mean is, even if the first bombing is just, what about the second? I doubt it. 12 years ago Side: Crime against Humanity Support Dispute Clarify ↓ Show Replies joecavalry(38571) Disputed 1 point I don't know. It feels like arm chair quarterbacking. We weren't there and they didn't have the time nor the information we now have. Whether it was just or not is not for me to decide. I leave that to an even higher authority. I just don't believe that they had an "evil" intent. It's hard to call someone unjust if they don't have an evil intent. 12 years ago Side: Justified in "Total War" Support Dispute Clarify ↓ Show Replies Bradf0rd(1428) Disputed 1 point Oh Joe, you're right! In a true democracy, we lowly citizens shouldn't be the ones to think about things, that should be left to the "higher-ups". American citizens lose ONE (1) Freedom Point™. American tyrant acquires ONE (1) Dictator Point™. 12 years ago Side: Crime against Humanity Support Dispute Clarify ↓ Show Replies joecavalry(38571) Disputed 1 point I was referring to God (with a capital "G")!!! ;P 12 years ago Side: Justified in "Total War" Support Dispute Clarify joecavalry(38571) Disputed 1 point In response to the first part. Assuming we did give the Japanese citizens a chance to verify for themselves what happened to Hiroshima, what then? Their army would have kept on fighting because the civilian population does not control the military and it doesn't necessarily follow that the military would have gotten the word if the government did not sanction such a message. You have to impress the leaders. And if the devastation of Hiroshima did not impress their leaders enough to act within the alloted time, what does that tell you about the situation? 12 years ago Side: Justified in "Total War" Support Dispute Clarify Houston(187) Disputed 1 point FYI Kamikaze is the name for the Japanese Air Force, not a person who's goal is to crash their plane into enemy ships. Note: They did do this when America really started whooping their asses, but only when the bombers had run out of bombs. 10 years ago Side: Justified in Support Dispute Clarify ↓ Show Replies EnigmaticMan(1844) Disputed 1 point Actually, kamikaze (divine wind) was the name for suicide pilots. It originated as the name for major typhoons in 1274 and 1281, and was adopted informally by U.S navy personnel and Japanese civilians, It was only after the war that it became widely used. 10 years ago Side: Crime against Humanity Support Dispute Clarify ↓ Show Replies Houston(187) Disputed 1 point Cool translation. My teacher told me that the Kamikazes were the name for the Japanese Air Force so I just posted it here. 10 years ago Side: Justified in Support Dispute Clarify gabrmeji(2) 2 points As William Tecumseh Sherman said, "War is hell". It is not glamorous. The United States applied the principles of second strike capability, which was non-existent with respect to nuclear weapons for Japan, and ending the war at all costs, with total disregard for civilian casualties. "War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out."- William Tecumseh Sherman 12 years ago Side: Justified in "Total War" Support Dispute Clarify ↑ Hide Replies Bradf0rd(1428) Disputed 2 points I could probably quote Hitler, doesn't make me or him right. 12 years ago Side: Crime against Humanity Support Dispute Clarify sirius(367) 1 point More people probably would have died if we invaded Japan. 10 years ago Side: Justified in Support Dispute Clarify angryamerica(6) 1 point If we hadn't nuked the Japanese and went on with the invasion not only would a comparable number of Japanese lives be lost but thousands upon thousands of Americans as well. The Japanese military mindset was that of win or die trying much like the ancient samurais. This was considered honorable. They would not have surrendered after the first bombing and more lives in the end would have been lost. 10 years ago Side: Justified in Support Dispute Clarify angryamerica(6) 1 point Killing children is terrible true. But is it any better to deprive a child of their father as the Japanese did when they started war with us. No if you're going to cry murder ill cry it right back. 10 years ago Side: Justified in Support Dispute Clarify Houston(187) 1 point It actually saved lives. Someone estimated the total costs of American troops it would cost to take Japan by invasion, it was a hell of a lot more people than where killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So stop whining about it being inhuman. 10 years ago Side: Justified in Support Dispute Clarify joecavalry(38571) -1 points Think kamikaze. Japan was not going to surrender. Their soldiers where told that we would torture them if we captured them and that it was thus preferable to die fighting. The bomb ended the war earlier than it would have otherwise and saved a lot of American lives. 12 years ago Side: Justified in "Total War" Support Dispute Clarify Add New Argument