65th Anniversary of the Bombing of Hiroshima

[hjfrick]

65 years ago today, Little Boy was dropped from the Enola Gay high above the Japanese city of Hiroshima, toward a T-shaped bridge, and the next chapter of World History. As great as it is that there has not been another nuclear attack since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the threat of nuclear holocaust seems to loom greater all the time, with talk of the armament of more and more countries. Today is a day to hope that there will soon come a day when worldwide nuclear disarmament is a reality.

Here (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/opinion/06oe.html?pagewanted=1&partner=rss&emc=rss)are Kenzaburo Oe's thoughts.
Here (http://gizmodo.com/5606053/this-it-how-it-feels-to-be-under-a-nuclear-attack)is a collection of interviews with survivors.

And here are a few pictures I took on my trip to Hiroshima 2 years ago:
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v316/115/32/1110665/n1110665_32342736_6896.jpg

A watch from inside the Peace Museum, still stuck at 8:15
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v316/115/32/1110665/n1110665_32342737_7190.jpg

Tons and tons of peace cranes in honor of Sadako, an A-Bomb survivor who ended up dying of leukemia. Her attempt to fold 1,000 paper cranes while in the hospital is the basis for a children's book.
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v316/115/32/1110665/n1110665_32342743_9118.jpg

The A-Bomb dome, the only building in the city that has been left as it was 65 years ago
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v316/115/32/1110665/n1110665_32342753_2605.jpg

The T-bridge that was the target for the bombers
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v316/115/32/1110665/n1110665_32342788_5361.jpg

[homeless]

Great post, man.

Crazy to think how much more powerful the nukes are today.

[eh000]

Great post, man.

Crazy to think how much more powerful the nukes are today.

Thankfully, though, less powerful than they were at the height of the Cold War. Although that doesn't really matter if everyone has hundreds of them (or thousands, if you're the US or Russia).

[Eva N]

Nuclear weapons are horrible things.

However, as a descendent of two potential casualties of the invasion of Japan that was prevented by the Hiroshima attack... I can't state with any real conviction that said attack was the wrong thing to do at the time.

In any case, hope it never happens again.

[southkakrun]

But they have prevented full out conventional wars between global superpowers since their created (thanks MAD). 65 years without world powers going at it, when was the last time that happened? Dropping the bomb was the only step that could be taken (unless you listen to Howard Zinn), and saved lives on both sides.

[orthostice]

However, as a descendent of two potential casualties of the invasion of Japan that was prevented by the Hiroshima attack... I can't state with any real conviction that said attack was the wrong thing to do at the time.


Dropping the bomb was the only step that could be taken (unless you listen to Howard Zinn), and saved lives on both sides.

Richard Rhodes, perhaps the preeminent historian of the development and proliferation of nuclear weapons, has stated that Japan was seeking peace terms in the summer of 1945 but the US chose to go ahead with the bombings anyway in order to send a message to the Soviets.
So, perhaps it wasn't the only option.

[southkakrun]

Richard Rhodes, perhaps the preeminent historian of the development and proliferation of nuclear weapons, has stated that Japan was seeking peace terms in the summer of 1945 but the US chose to go ahead with the bombings anyway in order to send a message to the Soviets.
So, perhaps it wasn't the only option.
Seeking peace terms which allowed Japan to continue to occupy Korea and Taiwan/Formosa as well as leaving demobilization completely up to the Japanese high command. So essentially they wanted to revert the clock to 1935 rather than surrender and admit defeat.

[homeless]

On a related note: I found out today that because of staffing changes, after teaching US I for the last 9 years, and never having taught world history, I will now be teaching world history this year. So such discussions have become even more significant to me, because some of world history seems quite foreign to me. I'm good, but not like in US I.

[southkakrun]

On a related note: I found out today that because of staffing changes, after teaching US I for the last 9 years, and never having taught world history, I will now be teaching world history this year. So such discussions have become even more significant to me, because some of world history seems quite foreign to me. I'm good, but not like in US I.
Did you ever use A People's History in your class? Just curious ;)

[lou ghilk]

... I can't state with any real conviction that said attack was the wrong thing to do at the time.

I can. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was beyond a shadow of a doubt the wrong thing to do. It was militarily uncessary and since it cost the lives of at least 200,000 people (which is probably a conservative estimate on my part, it's probably more like 220,000) it was also fundamentally immoral.

Seeking peace terms which allowed Japan to continue to occupy Korea and Taiwan/Formosa as well as leaving demobilization completely up to the Japanese high command. So essentially they wanted to revert the clock to 1935 rather than surrender and admit defeat.

Please. The Japanese were clearly defeated by the summer of 1945. The Japanese Imperial Navy and its air force had been obliterated. Strategic conventional bombing had destroyed at least 50% of 30 major cities in Japan (including much higher percentages in many of those cities). In fact, targeting Hiroshima was actually especially cruel considering that it, along, with Kyoto had been comparatively spared up until that point.

The Soviet Union was officially due to declare war on Japan that very week and there was no tentative plans to immediately invade the mainland. The United States really couldn't have waited for the Soviet Union? Was it really the moral thing to do to drop the bombs, rather than postpone the bombing of those cities and immediate/indirect killing of 220,000 people. The Japanese would have unconditionally surrendered when the USSR arrived or their civilian population would have rebelled.

For the record; General Dwight Eisenhower, Secretary of War Henry Stimson, General Douglas MacArthur, Admiral William Leahy, and Admiral Chester Nimitz - four of the greatest military officials in U.S. and World History disagreed with the decision to drop the bomb. General Carl Spaatz, General Curtis LeMay, and Brigadier General Carter Clarke - all incredibly adept leaders in their own right, also disapproved.

The U.S. finally sent a delegate to the memorial at Hiroshima this year and FOXNEWS all but had a conniption fit over it, insisting it was the U.S. all but apologizing for dropping the bombs. They interviewed a couple military officials, the Enola pilot's son, and claimed us sending an ambassador was an attempt by the Obama administration to rewrite history. It's almost as if they feel regretting the death of 220,000 people makes one unpatriotic.

I've heard semi-reasonable arguments that the bombings saved the lives of American soldiers/Japanese civilians/people in other countries and freed POWs. I think that an intelligent strategy involving the entry of the Soviet Union into the Pacific theatre of the war could have done that, too. Still, while I feel that atomic bombing Hiroshima was completely unethical, a small part of me, in the back of my mind says maybe, if I consumed enough ethanol, I might agree that it could have possibly been a right last resort decision (but that's a big maybe).

That still leaves the completely indefensible second bomb being dropped on Nagasaki, though.

On a related note, last year or early this year, I forget which, the only officially recognized survivor of both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, died. When he died, either SNL's Weekend Update or The Daily Show, (again, I forget which) had a segment noting his death, attributing him to be the inventor of the phrase "You've got to be f*cking kidding me." or something along those lines.

[southkakrun]

I can. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was beyond a shadow of a doubt the wrong thing to do. It was militarily uncessary and since it cost the lives of at least 200,000 people (which is probably a conservative estimate on my part, it's probably more like 220,000) it was also fundamentally immoral.
Please. Conservative estimates for Operation Downfall were equal if not well above that. Stimson's casualty estimate was 400,000-800,000 American dead and millions of Japanese dead. 500,000 Purple Hearts were manufactured in anticipation of the invasion.


Please. The Japanese were clearly defeated by the summer of 1945. The Japanese Imperial Navy and its air force had been obliterated. Strategic conventional bombing had destroyed at least 50% of 30 major cities in Japan (including much higher percentages in many of those cities). In fact, targeting Hiroshima was actually especially cruel considering that it, along, with Kyoto had been comparatively spared up until that point.

Correct, but the Japanese Imperial Headquarters came to this conclusion

We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight.


The Soviet Union was officially due to declare war on Japan that very week and there was no tentative plans to immediately invade the mainland. The United States really couldn't have waited for the Soviet Union? Was it really the moral thing to do to drop the bombs, rather than postpone the bombing of those cities and immediate/indirect killing of 220,000 people. The Japanese would have unconditionally surrendered when the USSR arrived or their civilian population would have rebelled.


And what makes you think they would have surrendered when the Soviets arrived? I'll refer you to a document created by the council of 6, essentially the Japanese High Command which was entitled The Fundamental Policy to Be Followed Henceforth in the Conduct of the War which decreed all Japanese to fight to the death and resist all occupation.

[lou ghilk]

Please. Conservative estimates for Operation Downfall were equal if not well above that. Stimson's casualty estimate was 400,000-800,000 American dead and millions of Japanese dead. 500,000 Purple Hearts were manufactured in anticipation of the invasion.

I agree with your assertion that the casualty estimates of American soldiers/Japanese for Operation Downfall exceeded those caused by the atomic bombs. It should be noted, however, that Stimson's casualty estimates, actually put together by William Shockley, concerning Operation Downfall, assumed massive participation on the part of the Japanese populace in resisting an invasion. Highly effective conventional bombing of the Japanese mainland and a steadily diminishing food supply were having its effects on civilian morale in Japan. Despite the renown Yamato spirit of the Japanese and the build-up of Japanese forces allegedly prepared to defend the island, many U.S. officials, both leading up to early August of 1945 and those who conducted post-war surveys, believed the Japanese would have surrendered unconditionally by the time Operation Downfall was tentatively planned to have begun in November of 1945.

And what makes you think they would have surrendered when the Soviets arrived? I'll refer you to a document created by the council of 6, essentially the Japanese High Command which was entitled The Fundamental Policy to Be Followed Henceforth in the Conduct of the War which decreed all Japanese to fight to the death and resist all occupation.

I'm of the opinion that even though the Japanese were fiercely dedicated to Emperor Hirohito, a tactical bombing of Japanese military locations and manufacturing plants as well as precise infrastructural targets would have put the Japanese in so serious a bind, it would have had no choice but to surrender. This, I think, would have been particularly devastating with the ongoing blockade being implemented and strengthened by Allied Navy command. I think such bombing could have been done with a minimal loss of civilian life over the course of a couple weeks or months at most.

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, published in July 1946, stated in so many words that the Japanese would have almost certainly surrendered by November 1st and at the very latest probably by January 1946. This plan did not include Operation Downfall or take into account Soviet cooperation against Japanese forces. So, it could be argued, one would not be illogical in believing that were such a time scale to be indicative of actual conditions in Japan, assistance from the Soviets would have increased pressure on Japan and therefore perhaps hastened a surrender. This is all hypothetical, I admit, but by no means do I - nor WW2 era high ranking U.S. military officials apparently, feel this is a stretch.

I think that had the Allied forces (including the Soviets) tactically bombed military/infrastructure targets, the Japanese would have been pressured into a surrender. I understand the Bushido code and that Hirohito and his officials had ordered the public to fight to the death or commit suicide rather than surrender. I am familiar with the mass suicides in Saipan, too. I don't believe a large percentage of the Japanese public would have done likewise, however. I think the Darwinian instinct to survive would have ultimately trumped loyalty to the emperor, particularly on the heels of the dwindling food supply, perpetual bombing of its cities, and the plummeting morale/confidence the people had in its leaders.

Typhoons that fall probably would have harmed U.S. forces like they did at Okanawa, but it would have probably killed more thousands than it actually did in Japan as well, if the war indeed lasted that long.

If the United States really wanted to use the bomb - something that, again, I could be sympathetic to on the grounds that it would have prevented American loss of life and genocide induced by the Japanese on the mainland - a more ethical target could have been chosen than Hiroshima. There had been discussion among high ranking officials to drop the bomb in an uninhabited area of Japan but within visual distance of a major city. The impending threat of the use of the bomb on Tokyo or Kyoto could concievably induced the eventual surrender without vaporizing and poisoning a hitherto intact city for generations, much less two.

At the very least, if the U.S. had continued its tactical use of conventional bombing with help from the U.S.S.R, the onus for the loss of life would have been solely on the Japanese Imperial government for not surrendering. A demonstration of the power of the atomic bomb before the Japanese would have gone even further to allow us to say we exhausted every other option. The U.S., by a great majority, had moral high ground throughout the war. Yes, there were instances of select American outfits unpardonably comitting war crimes, but by and large the U.S. had firm moral high ground in the Pacific Theatre. Literally blowing up two cities, in my mind, gave up a bit of that regardless of what Japan was doing to its own and other peoples.

[hjfrick]

And what makes you think they would have surrendered when the Soviets arrived? I'll refer you to a document created by the council of 6, essentially the Japanese High Command which was entitled The Fundamental Policy to Be Followed Henceforth in the Conduct of the War which decreed all Japanese to fight to the death and resist all occupation.

There is no way that the majority of the Japanese civilian populace would have fought "to the death." While the may have been the ideology of the propaganda machine, this was hardly the feelings of the island as a whole. Japanese soldiers, in many cases, found themselves bound by Bushido, but that is the code of the warrior, not of the civilian.

While I am of the mind there were absolute alternatives to bound an invasion of the mainland and the atomic bomb, how can you defend the dropping of the Nagasaki bomb? It seems to me that Hiroshima did enough to get the point across.

Regarding targeting, there were 4 possible targets for the bombs, Hiroshima, Kyoto, and two others that I am forgetting at the moment. It wasn't known until the Enola Gay was in the air where it would actually be heading. Can you imagine if the bomb had been dropped on Kyoto? It would be the equivalent of destroying Rome or Athens, it is one of the most culturally important cities in the world. That certainly does not excuse the targeting of Hiroshima, which did have SOME factories that were part of the war effort (although the bomb went off nowhere near these). In the end, it hardly seems to me that the ethics of where to drop the bomb mattered after the order itself was given.

[lou ghilk]

Firstly - very eloquent post all around, Hjfrick.

Regarding targeting, there were 4 possible targets for the bombs, Hiroshima, Kyoto, and two others that I am forgetting at the moment. It wasn't known until the Enola Gay was in the air where it would actually be heading. Can you imagine if the bomb had been dropped on Kyoto? It would be the equivalent of destroying Rome or Athens, it is one of the most culturally important cities in the world. That certainly does not excuse the targeting of Hiroshima, which did have SOME factories that were part of the war effort (although the bomb went off nowhere near these). In the end, it hardly seems to me that the ethics of where to drop the bomb mattered after the order itself was given

The other two cities were Yokohama and Kokura. Kyoto also had about three times the people, roughly, that Hiroshima did. I read it was spared because Stimson admired the area so much talked command out of considering it as a good target.

[southkakrun]

I think that had the Allied forces (including the Soviets) tactically bombed military/infrastructure targets, the Japanese would have been pressured into a surrender. I understand the Bushido code and that Hirohito and his officials had ordered the public to fight to the death or commit suicide rather than surrender. I am familiar with the mass suicides in Saipan, too. I don't believe a large percentage of the Japanese public would have done likewise, however. I think the Darwinian instinct to survive would have ultimately trumped loyalty to the emperor, particularly on the heels of the dwindling food supply, perpetual bombing of its cities, and the plummeting morale/confidence the people had in its leaders.

A large percentage of the Japanese public is not required to kill a lot of Americans. And when some civilians start targeting soldiers, you know that inevitably there will be more massacres of civilians. By 1945 the Japanese still had 900,000 soldiers and 10,000 airplanes on the mainland. It would have been a bloodbath.


If the United States really wanted to use the bomb - something that, again, I could be sympathetic to on the grounds that it would have prevented American loss of life and genocide induced by the Japanese on the mainland - a more ethical target could have been chosen than Hiroshima. There had been discussion among high ranking officials to drop the bomb in an uninhabited area of Japan but within visual distance of a major city. The impending threat of the use of the bomb on Tokyo or Kyoto could concievably induced the eventual surrender without vaporizing and poisoning a hitherto intact city for generations, much less two.

But we didn't want to do that in case the bomb didn't detonate.


At the very least, if the U.S. had continued its tactical use of conventional bombing with help from the U.S.S.R, the onus for the loss of life would have been solely on the Japanese Imperial government for not surrendering. A demonstration of the power of the atomic bomb before the Japanese would have gone even further to allow us to say we exhausted every other option. The U.S., by a great majority, had moral high ground throughout the war. Yes, there were instances of select American outfits unpardonably comitting war crimes, but by and large the U.S. had firm moral high ground in the Pacific Theatre. Literally blowing up two cities, in my mind, gave up a bit of that regardless of what Japan was doing to its own and other peoples.
The loss of life IS solely on the Imperial government. The Potsdam Ultimatum stated Japan faced "prompt and utter destruction" if they did not surrender. To the council of 6, Hirohito and Tojo it could not have been more clear that they faced "prompt and utter destruction" if they did not surrender. Between the conventional bombings which and crippled all of Japan and Operation Starvation which essentially cut off all shipping from the mainland, the only logical thing to do was surrender. But the Japanese high command was willing to fight to the death and to order their populace and soldiers to do the same. Would all of them done so? No. But based off of what American forces had seen on Saipan and Iwo Jima, we had to send a message to the Japanese that we could annihilate them if they did not surrender. I know some people think that the terms of unconditional surrender were too harsh, the so called historian Howard Zinn for one, said that we should not have demanded the emperor to tell the populace he was not god. Guess its okay for any not-American ruler to lie to the populace but ****, if a president lies?

[orthostice]

The U.S., by a great majority, had moral high ground throughout the war. Yes, there were instances of select American outfits unpardonably comitting war crimes, but by and large the U.S. had firm moral high ground in the Pacific Theatre.

Hilarious.

What 'select outfit' would you say was responsible for the firebombing of Tokyo?

[lou ghilk]

A large percentage of the Japanese public is not required to kill a lot of Americans. And when some civilians start targeting soldiers, you know that inevitably there will be more massacres of civilians. By 1945 the Japanese still had 900,000 soldiers and 10,000 airplanes on the mainland. It would have been a bloodbath.

Understood, but STILL I highly doubt a land invasion of the four main Japanese Islands would have been necessary. The Japanese were essentially starving thanks to the bombing and blockade. By the time we decided to drop Little Boy on Hiroshima, the Japanese were effectively consuming between 1600 and 1700 calories per individual per day - amounts that were markedly decreasing. This decrease would have only continued, esp. if the Soviets had helped us secure shipping lanes and bombed infrastructure targets.


But we didn't want to do that in case the bomb didn't detonate.

I figured you might bring up that possibility. What's the implication you're making though? What're the drawbacks of it not detonating in a rural area versus an urban area? The Japanese army could have gotten it? It'd would seem to me that dropping the bomb in a rural area would have made that more difficult. It would have been a waste of money? I don't see how where the bomb not detonating would figure into cost all that greatly. It would have been harder and therefore more dangerous to retrieve and secure? Not really. The general area where the bomb was dropped could have been conventionally bombed to set off atomic "dud" from a safe height, esp. with the bomb being on the ground rather than 2000 feet in the air where it actually detonated over Hiroshima. If we dropped it into Hiroshima and it didn't detonate, one could argue that we would have been giving the Japanese important technological information in war time and we would have been making it much easier for them to get to than had we dropped it in some unpopulated area. The real reason I believe we dropped it on Hiroshima was because Hiroshima had pretty much been spared from conventional bombing and we wanted to see what it would do a city and just as important, Truman wanted the Soviets to see what it would do to a city and didn't want communists carving up Asia post war (which happened anyway).

The loss of life IS solely on the Imperial government. The Potsdam Ultimatum stated Japan faced "prompt and utter destruction" if they did not surrender. To the council of 6, Hirohito and Tojo it could not have been more clear that they faced "prompt and utter destruction" if they did not surrender. Between the conventional bombings which and crippled all of Japan and Operation Starvation which essentially cut off all shipping from the mainland, the only logical thing to do was surrender. But the Japanese high command was willing to fight to the death and to order their populace and soldiers to do the same. Would all of them done so? No. But based off of what American forces had seen on Saipan and Iwo Jima, we had to send a message to the Japanese that we could annihilate them if they did not surrender.

Yes, the Japanese Imperial government is responsible mostly for the conventional bombing that the Japanese were forced to endure. I'm happy to admit the Japanese Imperial government was also responsible for us atomic bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki to a great extent. The latter of the two types of bombing, though, isn't solely on the Japanese Imperial government (and please keep in mind I definitely don't mean to defend Hirohito, Tojo, etc. when I say this). In any bombing there are likely to be civilian casualties - that's war and we can't control with 100% accuracy/precision (not now, and certainly not at that time) exactly where every bomb falls. Even more to the point the enemy can make it so that we cannot avoid civilian casualties in such types of bombing. That's unfortunate, but that's war.

However an atomic bomb doesn't work that way. An atomic bomb guarantees civilian casualties when its dropped into a city and by doing so one forfeits the ability to claim an attempt to avoid killing innocent people. It is a guaranteed massacre. By any remotely moral standard, dropping the atomic bomb on an unsuspecting city is a war crime. What feasable alternative could we have had, might you ask? Perhaps dropping flyers en masse over Japanese cities telling them we have the weapon and that we don't want to have to use it, but will unless surrender occurs. Perhaps encouraging the Japanese people to sue its own government for peace and remind them of their food shortage and reassure them we would assist them post-war? These things may not have worked but had we tried such alternatives - in addition to other options like continuing the blockade, persistant tactical conventional bombing, and using the fear of Soviet entrance into the war (plus a demonstration of the atomic bomb outside a major civilian area) - we would at least have been able to say, then as well as today, that we truly exhausted every option before using it on a city.

I know some people think that the terms of unconditional surrender were too harsh, the so called historian Howard Zinn for one, said that we should not have demanded the emperor to tell the populace he was not god. Guess its okay for any not-American ruler to lie to the populace but ****, if a president lies?

Are you honestly weighing us letting Hirohito continue to decieve his people against us killing 220,000 people? Are you legitimately weighing a lie versus blowing up an entire city? I'm just curious because to me that's an easy choice. Let Hirohito save face (if that's how he viewed it). Since you brought up Zinn, I'm tempted to quote him. He said the following about the war in Iraq (a conflict on which I disagree with him on, for the record), but his statement is relevant to our discussion, I think.

"There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people for a purpose which is unattainable." - Howard Zinn

Now, if we bombed Hiroshima because we wouldn't accept Japan's unconditional surrender on the grounds that Hirohito wouldn't acquiesce to giving up his throne and then accepted Japanese surrender after Hiroshima and Nagasaki and still allowed Hirohito to stay in power...something's seriously wrong. Why did all those people have to die in Nagasaki and Hiroshima then?

[lou ghilk]

Hilarious.What 'select outfit' would you say was responsible for the firebombing of Tokyo?

OK. One can say that Operation Meetinghouse was wrong because of the extent to which Tokyo was populated. That's a perfectly legitimate argument. Fair point. However, the fire bombing of Tokyo wasn't completely indiscriminant and it had been attacked at least two times previously, including once the week prior. There were a great deal military and industrial targets being aimed for and the U.S. did drop leaflets warning of conventional bombing. I'm not saying bombing is ever moral or that I could myself could have given such an order/participated in the bombing. Still, I wouldn't equate conventionally bombing the capital city of a country at war after giving it ample notice (militarily or otherwise) with using futuristic weaponry to snuff out an entire city that had up until then not really been attacked or been given an indication it was about to be wiped off the map.

[southkakrun]

Hilarious.

What 'select outfit' would you say was responsible for the firebombing of Tokyo?
No one can hold moral high ground in war, its about what happens before and after the war

[southkakrun]

Understood, but STILL I highly doubt a land invasion of the four main Japanese Islands would have been necessary. The Japanese were essentially starving thanks to the bombing and blockade. By the time we decided to drop Little Boy on Hiroshima, the Japanese were effectively consuming between 1600 and 1700 calories per individual per day - amounts that were markedly decreasing. This decrease would have only continued, esp. if the Soviets had helped us secure shipping lanes and bombed infrastructure targets.

I'd say it was 50/50. Again, at this point high command was going off of what they had seen at Saipan and Iwo Jima (after the Japs rejected surrender), mass fanatic resistance and suicide. What are they to conclude would happen in an invasion?




I figured you might bring up that possibility. What's the implication you're making though? What're the drawbacks of it not detonating in a rural area versus an urban area? The Japanese army could have gotten it? It'd would seem to me that dropping the bomb in a rural area would have made that more difficult. It would have been a waste of money? I don't see how where the bomb not detonating would figure into cost all that greatly. It would have been harder and therefore more dangerous to retrieve and secure? Not really. The general area where the bomb was dropped could have been conventionally bombed to set off atomic "dud" from a safe height, esp. with the bomb being on the ground rather than 2000 feet in the air where it actually detonated over Hiroshima. If we dropped it into Hiroshima and it didn't detonate, one could argue that we would have been giving the Japanese important technological information in war time and we would have been making it much easier for them to get to than had we dropped it in some unpopulated area. The real reason I believe we dropped it on Hiroshima was because Hiroshima had pretty much been spared from conventional bombing and we wanted to see what it would do a city and just as important, Truman wanted the Soviets to see what it would do to a city and didn't want communists carving up Asia post war (which happened anyway).

Because if they didn't surrender we would have only had one bomb at that point? And presumably that would have been the plutonium bomb that we had never previously tested.


Yes, the Japanese Imperial government is responsible mostly for the conventional bombing that the Japanese were forced to endure. I'm happy to admit the Japanese Imperial government was also responsible for us atomic bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki to a great extent. The latter of the two types of bombing, though, isn't solely on the Japanese Imperial government (and please keep in mind I definitely don't mean to defend Hirohito, Tojo, etc. when I say this). In any bombing there are likely to be civilian casualties - that's war and we can't control with 100% accuracy/precision (not now, and certainly not at that time) exactly where every bomb falls. Even more to the point the enemy can make it so that we cannot avoid civilian casualties in such types of bombing. That's unfortunate, but that's war.

They knew they were beaten, knew that more civilians would die if they didnt surrender. Its not our job to surrender for them, its our job to force them to surrender.


Are you honestly weighing us letting Hirohito continue to decieve his people against us killing 220,000 people? Are you legitimately weighing a lie versus blowing up an entire city? I'm just curious because to me that's an easy choice. Let Hirohito save face (if that's how he viewed it). Since you brought up Zinn, I'm tempted to quote him. He said the following about the war in Iraq (a conflict on which I disagree with him on, for the record), but his statement is relevant to our discussion, I think.

No I just found it interesting that he would allow a government to lie to its people.


"There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people for a purpose which is unattainable." - Howard Zinn

"You can't be neutral on a moving train"


Now, if we bombed Hiroshima because we wouldn't accept Japan's unconditional surrender on the grounds that Hirohito wouldn't acquiesce to giving up his throne and then accepted Japanese surrender after Hiroshima and Nagasaki and still allowed Hirohito to stay in power...something's seriously wrong. Why did all those people have to die in Nagasaki and Hiroshima then?
It wasn't about him staying in power, it was about his divinity.

[lou ghilk]

I'd say it was 50/50. Again, at this point high command was going off of what they had seen at Saipan and Iwo Jima (after the Japs rejected surrender), mass fanatic resistance and suicide. What are they to conclude would happen in an invasion?

I'm not saying it was unreasonable to anticipate a resistance from the civilian populace at that point given what had been seen in previous engagements. Yet, I think we could have and should have done more to get Japan to surrender before dropping the atomic bomb.

Because if they didn't surrender we would have only had one bomb at that point? And presumably that would have been the plutonium bomb that we had never previously tested.

I don't quite buy that. I mean it might be true, but it's still not a good reason for not detonating a bomb in an unpopulated area before using it on civilians. Even after Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki there were officials in Washington who still weren't sure Tokyo was about to surrender and we would have had another bomb ready in the following week and documents have shown we were willing to drop two or three more into September and October of 1945. In fact, in the Spaatz Papers, there is a documented discussion of where to drop the next bomb. U.S. Army Air Force officials wanted to drop it on Tokyo (the half still standing) but General Henry "Hap" Arnold reported the next target had already been chosen as Sapporo on Hokkaido. Based on testimony from officials involved in the transport, assembly, and use of the bomb, material for the next atomic bomb, I think, was either already en route or already on Tinian by the time the Japanese surrendered. There might not have been a third bomb ready but within two weeks a third one could feasably have been dropped.

[southkakrun]

I'm not saying it was unreasonable to anticipate a resistance from the civilian populace at that point given what had been seen in previous engagements. Yet, I think we could have and should have done more to get Japan to surrender before dropping the atomic bomb.

Or we could save American lives and get them to surrender by dropping the atomic bomb?

[lou ghilk]

Or we could save American lives and get them to surrender by dropping the atomic bomb?

The hypothetical saving of American lives by preventing an invasion that may not have even been necessary certainly doesn't justify the taking of innocent Japanese lives by introducing new apocalyptic weaponry.

Before using the atomic bombs it was the moral and ethical obligation of the United States to make sure it had exhausted every other conceivable option. I'm pretty sure we failed in that regard.

[southkakrun]

The hypothetical saving of American lives by preventing an invasion that may not have even been necessary certainly doesn't justify the taking of innocent Japanese lives by introducing new apocalyptic weaponry.

Before using the atomic bombs it was the moral and ethical obligation of the United States to make sure it had exhausted every other conceivable option. I'm pretty sure we failed in that regard.
Total war. World War 2 wasn't just Hitler v Roosevelt or American army v Japanese army. It was society verse society, it was a struggle for a way of life. I think to some extent this justifies killing civilians to save your own, yes.

[flyingscotsman10]

The hypothetical saving of American lives by preventing an invasion that may not have even been necessary certainly doesn't justify the taking of innocent Japanese lives by introducing new apocalyptic weaponry.

Before using the atomic bombs it was the moral and ethical obligation of the United States to make sure it had exhausted every other conceivable option. I'm pretty sure we failed in that regard.

First off, you can't expect war to be ethical all of the time. We didn't choose to get in this one, we helped our chances a little bit with our foreign policy, but we didn't fire the first literal shot. We might have killed people with the atom bombs, but by some estimates 2.7 civilians died when the Japanese invaded China, with 20 million casualties. I know that both are huge numbers, but the nature of the killings were different. We might have had the apocolyptic weaponry, but the Japanese were worse.

Also, with regards to exhausting every conceivable action, you have to remember who the US was dealing with: the rising Soviet Union. Stalin killed well over 20 million of his own people during his lifetime, I doubt that he would have shown sympathy with a land invasion of Japan. It could be strongly argued that the Soviets would have killed many more people than us.

[lou ghilk]

Total war. World War 2 wasn't just Hitler v Roosevelt or American army v Japanese army. It was society verse society, it was a struggle for a way of life. I think to some extent this justifies killing civilians to save your own, yes.

You know who else thought that way? Many many members of the Japanese Imperial military and terrorists.

Edit: I also want to note we got almost 25 posts without mentioning Hitler in a thread about WWII. It's admirable we held off Godwin's Law that long given the subject matter.

[Cocakula]

Pearl Harbor

that is all

[orthostice]

It was society verse society, it was a struggle for a way of life. I think to some extent this justifies killing civilians to save your own, yes.

I can think of at least nineteen guys who definitely agree with you here. However, they're unfortunately unavailable for discussion as they turned out to be rubbish pilots and managed to crash their planes into various buildings about, oh, nine years back now.

First off, you can't expect war to be ethical all of the time.
...
We might have had the apocolyptic weaponry, but the Japanese were worse.


1. Then why put people on trial for 'war crimes'?
2. USA! USA!! USA!!!

[southkakrun]

You know who else thought that way? Many many members of the Japanese Imperial military and terrorists.
They were expanding we were defending. They were the aggressor.

[southkakrun]

I can think of at least nineteen guys who definitely agree with you here. However, they're unfortunately unavailable for discussion as they turned out to be rubbish pilots and managed to crash their planes into various buildings about, oh, nine years back now.



1. Then why put people on trial for 'war crimes'?
2. USA! USA!! USA!!!
....And thats why we fight back? Our way of life, our society is an open and free society. We fight to secure liberty, our way of life. Thats our moral high ground. War is absolute hell. The death of 250,000 people should be avoidable if possible, but I think at the time given the information they had, our leaders made the correct decision. Hindsight is 20/20, but its better to be safe (250,000 Japanese dead) than sorry (millions of Japanese dead and hundreds of thousands of Americans dead).

1. I don't agree with war crime charges at all in the case of unconditional surrender.
2. :confused:

[lou ghilk]

Pearl Harbor...that is all

I'm sorry. I can't let this go. How many of the several dozen thousand men, women and children...how many of the elderly and the newborns of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that were instantaneously vaporized and melted and burned...how many exactly bombed Pearl Harbor? Refresh my memory. And those poor bastards who were killed immediately...they were the lucky ones. Hey, how many of the people were systematically eaten away by radiation sickness and cancer and infections in the days, weeks, months, years, and decades that followed...how many of them? Or how many of their kids and grandchildren, not even born yet, who went on to be born with congenital defects resulting damage the from the atomic bombs did their predecessors...how many American sailors and marines did they kill at Pearl Harbor? Help me out here.

Pearl Harbor was horrible and my heart goes out to the servicemen and women and civilians who died or were killed then even almost 70 years later. My heart goes out to their friends and family, too. It still doesn't justify Hiroshima and it sure as hell doesn't justify Nagasaki. Oh and on a side note, your five-word post in passing comes off as incredibly insensitive, juvenile, and snide on a thread that had otherwise conducted itself pretty responsibly about what can be a touchy subject. So your pathetic attempt to be cute makes you THAT GUY. Congratulations. Moving on...

First off, you can't expect war to be ethical all of the time. We didn't choose to get in this one, we helped our chances a little bit with our foreign policy, but we didn't fire the first literal shot. We might have killed people with the atom bombs, but by some estimates 2.7 civilians died when the Japanese invaded China, with 20 million casualties. I know that both are huge numbers, but the nature of the killings were different. We might have had the apocolyptic weaponry, but the Japanese were worse.

You're right about it being unrealistic to expect war to be completely ethical all the time. Civilian casualties are to be expected...that's war. I understand that and, I believe I said this in an earlier post, in regards to the firebombing of Tokyo and other cities. It was an effective strategy but there is a moral discussion that could be had over it and is worth having over whether that was the right thing to do. I don't find the attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki anywhere near as morally ambiguous as Tokyo, however. Again, civilian casualties are to be expected however and more to the point, they should be avoided if possible. With Hiroshima and Nagasaki, civilian casualties was the intent.

Also, with regards to exhausting every conceivable action, you have to remember who the US was dealing with: the rising Soviet Union. Stalin killed well over 20 million of his own people during his lifetime, I doubt that he would have shown sympathy with a land invasion of Japan. It could be strongly argued that the Soviets would have killed many more people than us.

Again, not to be patronizing or anything, but that's another fair point. Stalin was definitely a murderous, maniacal dictator. To be honest, I don't even know how well the Soviet Union could have mounted an amphibious assault on Japan. I mean, taking all things into consideration and this is an area I'm not really well read in, but I don't think the Soviets had the capability to mount an amphibious offensive on the Japanese mainland. I know that between the atomic bombings and the Japanese finally surrendering, the Soviets actually take Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands but not without some difficulty. Tactically because of the Japanese defenses and the rocky topography of the shoreline - there were very few large open stretches of beach - an attempt at an Allied landing on Japan reminiscent of D Day would have been a nightmare.

An amphibious assault on Japan would have been extremely difficult with or without Soviet help. My point in mentioning the Soviets was to say we could have used their forces in Manchuria. Actually, again, between the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and the Japanese surrender, the Soviets marched on the Japanese and took Manchuria, killing at least 20,000 and up to 80,000 Japanese soldiers and taking about a half-million prisoner. Hirohito, I think, took this into heavy consideration when deciding whether to surrender. Had Hiroshima or Nagasaki never been bombed and the Soviets gone on to do this anyway, we very well could have secured a Japanese surrender. It might have required an atomic demonstration but it would have been the better choice.

[hjfrick]

Some interesting opinion pieces on Hiroshima from The Japan Times, an English-language newspaper in Tokyo: Pro-bomb (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/rc20100812a3.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+japantimes+(The+Japan+Times:+All+Stories)) and anti-bomb (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/rc20100812a5.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+japantimes+(The+Japan+Times:+All+Stories)).

[HappyJack]

Poor Japan, they got A-Bombed.:( The U.S.A. is bad for having done so.:(
I think the 90,000 Chinese soldiers who surrendered in Nanking in 1937 who were then systematically executed, and the 300,000 civilans of (The Rape Of) Nanking who were also murdered in cold blood, plus the 80,000 women who were raped may feel differently. Ask the citizens of Manila who lost 110,000 neighbors, friends and relatives in The Masacare of 1945 to the cold hearted and brutal Nipponese soliders how awful it was to nuke Japan. I should also mention the 11,000 American and Fillpino soliders who died during The Bataan Death March in 1942. If anyone deserved to get nuked it was the Jap's. They had it coming to them big time. I'll never have any sympathy for them when it comes to how we proscuted the war. If a country doesn't like the way the war ends then they shouldn't start one in the first place.

[Cocakula]

I'm sorry. I can't let this go. How many of the several dozen thousand men, women and children...how many of the elderly and the newborns of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that were instantaneously vaporized and melted and burned...how many exactly bombed Pearl Harbor? Refresh my memory. And those poor bastards who were killed immediately...they were the lucky ones. Hey, how many of the people were systematically eaten away by radiation sickness and cancer and infections in the days, weeks, months, years, and decades that followed...how many of them? Or how many of their kids and grandchildren, not even born yet, who went on to be born with congenital defects resulting damage the from the atomic bombs did their predecessors...how many American sailors and marines did they kill at Pearl Harbor? Help me out here.

Pearl Harbor was horrible and my heart goes out to the servicemen and women and civilians who died or were killed then even almost 70 years later. My heart goes out to their friends and family, too. It still doesn't justify Hiroshima and it sure as hell doesn't justify Nagasaki. Oh and on a side note, your five-word post in passing comes off as incredibly insensitive, juvenile, and snide on a thread that had otherwise conducted itself pretty responsibly about what can be a touchy subject. So your pathetic attempt to be cute makes you THAT GUY. Congratulations. Moving on...


Whoa, calm down there bud. Don't take the internets seriously. It's bad for your health.

1. So would my statement have meant more if I wrote a paragraph? Saying what I said with more words rather then cutting it down to a sentence (knowing that you closet Jap nationalists would ride all over me, guess I was right, no? :D ) would give me more credibly? :confused:

2. War is war, there is nothing good about it. Both sides suffer losses. The US was not the aggressor in this war, the Japanese was. Fact is fact.

3. Don't go sneak attack bombing a country if you don't want the same done back to you. (Isn't this like the first thing taught in kindergarden?)

4. The interests of the US Government should always be first and foremost protecting AMERICAN lives. A land invasion would have been more costly, for both parties. If some japanese have to die to end the war, well, as was said in Slaughterhouse 5, so it goes.

[Cocakula]

Poor Japan, they got A-Bombed.:( The U.S.A. is bad for having done so.:(
I think the 90,000 Chinese soldiers who surrendered in Nanking in 1937 who were then systematically executed, and the 300,000 civilans of (The Rape Of) Nanking who were also murdered in cold blood, plus the 80,000 women who were raped may feel differently. Ask the citizens of Manila who lost 110,000 neighbors, friends and relatives in The Masacare of 1945 to the cold hearted and brutal Nipponese soliders how awful it was to nuke Japan. I should also mention the 11,000 American and Fillpino soliders who died during The Bataan Death March in 1942. If anyone deserved to get nuked it was the Jap's. They had it coming to them big time. I'll never have any sympathy for them when it comes to how we proscuted the war. If a country doesn't like the way the war ends then they shouldn't start one in the first place.

This guy knows what's up

[southkakrun]

This guy knows what's up
Bataan death march is a little over hyped, although I heavily agree with the last statement. Don't start what you cant finish

[hjfrick]

Poor Japan, they got A-Bombed.:( The U.S.A. is bad for having done so.:(
I think the 90,000 Chinese soldiers who surrendered in Nanking in 1937 who were then systematically executed, and the 300,000 civilans of (The Rape Of) Nanking who were also murdered in cold blood, plus the 80,000 women who were raped may feel differently. Ask the citizens of Manila who lost 110,000 neighbors, friends and relatives in The Masacare of 1945 to the cold hearted and brutal Nipponese soliders how awful it was to nuke Japan. I should also mention the 11,000 American and Fillpino soliders who died during The Bataan Death March in 1942. If anyone deserved to get nuked it was the Jap's. They had it coming to them big time. I'll never have any sympathy for them when it comes to how we proscuted the war. If a country doesn't like the way the war ends then they shouldn't start one in the first place.

So because the Japanese army did some horrible sh!t, Japanese civilians deserved to have an atomic bomb dropped on them? Well maybe we should have systematically slaughtered all Germans then, right? Since they tried to do that to the Jews and all...

There is absolutely no doubt that the Japanese army committed war crimes during WWII, and there is equally no doubt that they were the original aggressors. However, neither legitimates the dropping of a nuclear bomb on the country. If you want to make the land invasion argument, I can at least understand that. Personally, I am not sure either way on the subject. I understand that the bomb likely saved thousands of lives, but I also have a hard time believing there was no other option. However, to claim that Japan had it coming because of their actions earlier on in the war is ridiculous.

[MA Coach]

Dresden, Hamburg and Pforzheim were all terrible bombings of Germany. Hamburg was burned to the ground (50,000) whereas Dresden (25,000) and Pforzheim (17,000) were both pretty bad. Not to the extent of the A-bombs, but those cities had no real military value.

[HappyJack]

If we had the bomb before the nazi's surrendered I would have been happy to have seen them blown back to the stone age. If anyone was most deserving of a good nuking it was them. I don't understand the hand-wringing about bombing Japan. If they could have invaded the U.S. they'd have committed the same atrocities here as they did in Asia. There was another option. We could have blockaded them and starved them into submission. Estimated time for this to succeed was approx. 6 months. Meanwhile 100,000 people were dying each month in the Pacific Theatre of Operations. So if deaths needed to occur better it be the agressors and their families rather than the people in occupied the countries.

[hjfrick]

If we had the bomb before the nazi's surrendered I would have been happy to have seen them blown back to the stone age. If anyone was most deserving of a good nuking it was them. I don't understand the hand-ringing about bombing Japan. If they could have invaded the U.S. they'd have committed the same atrocities here as they did in Asia. There was another option. We could have blockaded them and starved them into submission. Estimated time for this to succeed was approx. 6 months. Meanwhile 100,000 people were dying each month in the Pacific Theatre of Operations. So if deaths needed to occur better it be the agressors and their families rather than the people in occupied the countries.

The bolded sentences explain the one after. Apparently you have no qualms about the use of atomic weaponry, so it stands to reason why you do not understand the "hand-ringing" (it should be wringing by the way). As I stated before, I am unsure whether or not I agree with the use of the bomb as opposed to invasion, but if there were any other viable option, I would absolutely take that first. The blockade would have likely had equal or worse civilian casualties, so I'm not talking about that either.

[TeamOrange]

The bolded sentences explain the one after. Apparently you have no qualms about the use of atomic weaponry, so it stands to reason why you do not understand the "hand-ringing" (it should be wringing by the way). As I stated before, I am unsure whether or not I agree with the use of the bomb as opposed to invasion, but if there were any other viable option, I would absolutely take that first. The blockade would have likely had equal or worse civilian casualties, so I'm not talking about that either.

Agree. Dropping the bomb or not dropping the bomb was a lose lose situation. Though politically it made most sense to drop the bomb. Save American lives, end the war immediately. I do like the idea of dropping the bomb in a non populated area.

[HappyJack]

The knights in shining armor days are long gone. "War is hell." General Sherman "It is well that war is so terrible- lest we should grow too fond of it." General Lee We the U.S. had 70,000 barrels of mustard gas stockpiled for the invasion of Japan. Estimated casualties 3,000,000-5,000,000. If someone pulls a knife on me and I have a choice of a knife or a flamethrower, well, somebody's going to be turned into a crispy-critter quick. You do what you have to do and don't look back with revisionist sympathies. You can't use 20/20 hindsight or monday morning quarterback wars. That's a good way to lose the next one. I'd like it very much if there was never another war, but if there is you have to fight meaner than your enemies.

[hjfrick]

Revisionist sympathies, eh? So damn those who dare to question the mighty US, which had its back against the wall and no other choice but to destroy two cities, with most casualties being civilians? I'm not buying it. Of course "War is hell," no one is disputing that. That doesn't mean that the ethical implications of acts therein cannot be discussed.

Also, you are mixing up your reasoning again. If the reason we dropped the atomic bomb on Japan was to save American lives, that is one thing. However, your knife-flamethrower metaphor is saying quite another, that we dropped the atomic bomb on Japan because we could and they deserved it. Pick one.

[HappyJack]

Revisionist sympathies, eh? So damn those who dare to question the mighty US, which had its back against the wall and no other choice but to destroy two cities, with most casualties being civilians? I'm not buying it. Of course "War is hell," no one is disputing that. That doesn't mean that the ethical implications of acts therein cannot be discussed.

Also, you are mixing up your reasoning again. If the reason we dropped the atomic bomb on Japan was to save American lives, that is one thing. However, your knife-flamethrower metaphor is saying quite another, that we dropped the atomic bomb on Japan because we could and they deserved it. Pick one.

Because we could, they deserved it, it saved lives and send a message to Stalin. It's one thing to blow up the desert in New Mexico. Bright light, strong wind and mushroom cloud, quite another to demonstrate on cities. The war department was ordered to spare a few cities from conventional bombing in order to see how much power these new weapons had. Imagine had we not used the bombs on Japan. In the next war when there would have been a hundred or so instead of a half a dozen and no one realizing how powerful they were, they would have been used. Then we probably wouldn't be here now debating the issue. It's easy to think they were dropped in order to save lives in 1945, but no doubt there were geo-political reasons for using them also.

[hjfrick]

Because we could, they deserved it, it saved lives and send a message to Stalin. It's one thing to blow up the desert in New Mexico. Bright light, strong wind and mushroom cloud, quite another to demonstrate on cities. The war department was ordered to spare a few cities from conventional bombing in order to see how much power these new weapons had. Imagine had we not used the bombs on Japan. In the next war when there would have been a hundred or so instead of a half a dozen and no one realizing how powerful they were, they would have been used. Then we probably wouldn't be here now debating the issue. It's easy to think they were dropped in order to save lives in 1945, but no doubt there were geo-political reasons for using them also.

Up until now, I thought this was an interesting debate. However, I stopped thinking that after the bolded words. It wouldn't matter if the target had been a military base on an island thousand of miles of shore with no possibility for civilian casualties, "they deserved it" is no reason to have dropped a nuclear bomb.

As for your conclusion that the world's post-World War II was dependent on the dropping of the bomb, it was the fear of retaliation that allowed the Cold War to pass without the use of nuclear weapons, not because the leaders of the USSR and the US looked back on Japan and said "Wow, we shouldn't do that again." And to the point of "seeing how much power" the bombs held, I believe those in power had a pretty good idea of that based upon the testing done prior to the attack. You could make the argument that while US officials knew Russian ones did not, but I find it hard to believe that Russian was unaware of the testing we were doing and the awesome power the bomb held.

[lou ghilk]

Whoa, calm down there bud. Don't take the internets seriously. It's bad for your health.

1. So would my statement have meant more if I wrote a paragraph? Saying what I said with more words rather then cutting it down to a sentence (knowing that you closet Jap nationalists would ride all over me, guess I was right, no? :D ) would give me more credibly? :confused:

I'm very calm - all things considered. I'm discouraged, saddened, and actually concerned for both you and those around you though. The fact that you can appear to be so flippant about such a serious issue is somewhat frightening...at least to me.

In regards to your post length, yes and no. While I don't think I would have agreed with the premise of your argument, had you written a little more and crafted your words a little more eloquently, it would have gone a long way in making you look less careless.

Are you purposely being thick? Are you trying to get a rise out of people or can you seriously in your mind not separate the difference between the Japanese military and the Japanese civilians. The Japanese military terrorized their own people in addition to the Chinese, Indochinese, Burmese, etc.

By the way; me sympathizing with innocent Japanese citizens doesn't make me a Japanese nationalist. It doesn't mean I support the atrocities the Japanese committed. It just means I don't advocate blowing up innocent people and making them and their descendants suffer for what the very people who victimized them did.

2. War is war, there is nothing good about it. Both sides suffer losses. The US was not the aggressor in this war, the Japanese was. Fact is fact.

Please, do me a favor and don't enter the military or education or law or law enforcement or medicine or any other occupation that requires a conscience and the capacity for others' well being.

You're right, the U.S. wasn't the agressor in the war and neither were the innocent people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Guess what? The people who were killed/wounded in Hiroshima/Nagasaki were just as responsible for the war as the people who were killed/wounded at Pearl Harbor and by that I of course mean they were in no way responsible for the way.

You can't separate a country from its citizens. That's blatantly apparent.

Poor Japan, they got A-Bombed.:( The U.S.A. is bad for having done so.:(
I think the 90,000 Chinese soldiers who surrendered in Nanking in 1937 who were then systematically executed, and the 300,000 civilans of (The Rape Of) Nanking who were also murdered in cold blood, plus the 80,000 women who were raped may feel differently. Ask the citizens of Manila who lost 110,000 neighbors, friends and relatives in The Masacare of 1945 to the cold hearted and brutal Nipponese soliders how awful it was to nuke Japan. I should also mention the 11,000 American and Fillpino soliders who died during The Bataan Death March in 1942. If anyone deserved to get nuked it was the Jap's. They had it coming to them big time. I'll never have any sympathy for them when it comes to how we proscuted the war. If a country doesn't like the way the war ends then they shouldn't start one in the first place.

I repeat the question I asked earlier and simply substitute the atrocities for Pearl Harbor. How many of the several dozen thousand men, women and children...how many of the elderly and the newborns of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that were instantaneously vaporized and melted and burned...how many exactly of them were responsible for Nanking and the Bataan? Refresh my memory.... Hey, how many of the people were systematically eaten away by radiation sickness and cancer and infections in the days, weeks, months, years, and decades that followed...how many of them? Or how many of their kids and grandchildren, not even born yet, who went on to be born with congenital defects resulting damage the from the atomic bombs did their predecessors...how many American POWs and East Asian did they torture and kill? Help me out here.

I'm discouraged by the inability of many of you to separate the atrocities of the Japanese army from the innocent Japanese. What you're effectively doing is stereotyping every Japanese individual as a Japanese soldier responsible for the atrocities the Japanese Imperial Army committed. It's dissapointing. So let me ask you this; a select bunch of American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq were responsible for raping some Iraqi or Afghani women? Is that in any way justified by the fact that the Taliban and Baathists were evil? No, it isn't. In fact, I'm almost positive those people were also victims of those regimes as many Japanese obviously were during the 30s and 40s. So essentially at Hiroshima and Nagasaki we were bombing victims for the actions of their victimizers. By that logic, it's OK to burn down the house of a murderer when his innocent wife and children - all of whom he beat - are sleeping inside.

[HappyJack]

I'm very calm - all things considered. I'm discouraged, saddened, and actually concerned for both you and those around you though. The fact that you can appear to be so flippant about such a serious issue is somewhat frightening...at least to me.

In regards to your post length, yes and no. While I don't think I would have agreed with the premise of your argument, had you written a little more and crafted your words a little more eloquently, it would have gone a long way in making you look less careless.

Are you purposely being thick? Are you trying to get a rise out of people or can you seriously in your mind not separate the difference between the Japanese military and the Japanese civilians. The Japanese military terrorized their own people in addition to the Chinese, Indochinese, Burmese, etc.

By the way; me sympathizing with innocent Japanese citizens doesn't make me a Japanese nationalist. It doesn't mean I support the atrocities the Japanese committed. It just means I don't advocate blowing up innocent people and making them and their descendants suffer for what the very people who victimized them did.



Please, do me a favor and don't enter the military...or law enforcement...or law while you're at.

You're right, the U.S. wasn't the agressor in the war and neither were the innocent people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Guess what? The people who were killed/wounded in Hiroshima/Nagasaki were just as responsible for the war as the people who were killed/wounded at Pearl Harbor and by that I of course mean they were in no way responsible for the way.

You can't separate a country from its citizens. That's blatantly apparent.



I repeat the question I asked earlier and simply substitute the atrocities for Pearl Harbor. How many of the several dozen thousand men, women and children...how many of the elderly and the newborns of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that were instantaneously vaporized and melted and burned...how many exactly of them were responsible for Nanking and the Bataan? Refresh my memory.... Hey, how many of the people were systematically eaten away by radiation sickness and cancer and infections in the days, weeks, months, years, and decades that followed...how many of them? Or how many of their kids and grandchildren, not even born yet, who went on to be born with congenital defects resulting damage the from the atomic bombs did their predecessors...how many American POWs and East Asian did they torture and kill? Help me out here.

I'm discouraged by the inability of many of you to separate the atrocities of the Japanese army from the innocent Japanese. What you're effectively doing is stereotyping every Japanese individual as a Japanese soldier responsible for the atrocities the Japanese Imperial Army committed. It's dissapointing. So let me ask you this; a select bunch of American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq were responsible for raping some Iraqi or Afghani women? Is that in any way justified by the fact that the Taliban and Baathists were evil? No, it isn't. In fact, I'm almost positive those people were also victims of those regimes as many Japanese obviously were during the 30s and 40s. So essentially at Hiroshima and Nagasaki we were bombing victims for the actions of their victimizers. By that logic, it's OK to burn down the house of a murderer when his innocent wife and children - all of whom he beat - are sleeping inside.
I don't feel that I'm stereotyping anyone. The idea in waging and winning wars is to make the cost so great for the other side that they lose the will to carry on. Yes it's too bad about the civilians who died during and after the bombing. Little was known about the long term affects of fallout back then. But if the Jap's or nazi's had the chance to irradiate us they would have done so in a heart beat. They wanted to win at any and all cost. Individual crimes happen in all conflicts. Our soldiers are no exception when it comes to this. The leaders of Germany and Japan on the other hand were the policy makers for all crimes committed by their soldiers. Big difference there.

[lou ghilk]

Yes it's too bad about the civilians who died during and after the bombing. Little was known about the long term affects of fallout back then.

...and you don't see anything wrong with a country using an apocalyptic weapon it didn't completely understand on an entire town? This seems like a moral/ethical thing to do in your opinion? It doesn't in mine.

But if the Jap's or nazi's had the chance to irradiate us they would have done so in a heart beat. They wanted to win at any and all cost.

If our moral/ethical standard is to be determined based upon what our enemies are willing to do, then we have a serious problem. Color me crazy but I feel that the United States shouldn't be determing what it's willing to do based on what its enemies would have done...especially the Nazis and the IJA. We were fighting those groups because of the morals of their leaders, not so we could take our moral cues from them.

Individual crimes happen in all conflicts. Our soldiers are no exception when it comes to this. The leaders of Germany and Japan on the other hand were the policy makers for all crimes committed by their soldiers. Big difference there.

An individual crime is a single soldier killing a civilian. When the U.S. President gives the OK to drop an atomic bomb, something that had only been tested once before, on an entire civilian population...that's policy, Jack, hate to break it to you. One thing that's not though is - that's not war. War is when civilians accidentally get caught in the crossfire or because of where a bomb inadvertently falls. To a great extent thats unavoidable. When an entire city of innocent and unsuspecting civilians is targeted for destruction...that's not war...it's more like terrorism or genocide and it's completely avoidable.

[HappyJack]

...and you don't see anything wrong with a country using an apocalyptic weapon it didn't completely understand on an entire town? This seems like a moral/ethical thing to do in your opinion? It doesn't in mine.



If our moral/ethical standard is to be determined based upon what our enemies are willing to do, then we have a serious problem. Color me crazy but I feel that the United States shouldn't be determing what it's willing to do based on what its enemies would have done...especially the Nazis and the IJA. We were fighting those groups because of the morals of their leaders, not so we could take our moral cues from them.



An individual crime is a single soldier killing a civilian. When the U.S. President gives the OK to drop an atomic bomb, something that had only been tested once before, on an entire civilian population...that's policy, Jack, hate to break it to you. One thing that's not though is - that's not war. War is when civilians accidentally get caught in the crossfire or because of where a bomb inadvertently falls. To a great extent thats unavoidable. When an entire city of innocent and unsuspecting civilians is targeted for destruction...that's not war...it's more like terrorism or genocide and it's completely avoidable.
Well the one thing I can say we agree on with absolute certainty is that we both disagree. Since no one opposing my views has put forth a more humane way with less loss of life to end that conflict it would be an exercise in futility for either one of us to continue to try to get the other to see it their way. :) Have A Nice Day! H.J.

[lou ghilk]

Well the one thing I can say we agree on with absolute certainty is that we both disagree. Since no one opposing my views has put forth a more humane way with less loss of life to end that conflict it would be an exercise in futility for either one of us to continue to try to get the other to see it their way. :) Have A Nice Day! H.J.

It would have been more humane to have waited for the USSR to move on Manchuria and then gauge the response of the Japanese. It would have been more humane to have accepted the conditions of Japan's surrender before bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It would have been more humane to have continued the blockade and strategically bombed infrastructure sites and military targets. It would have been more humane to use the bomb on an uninhabited area to demonstrate the capabilities we had. It would have been more humane if the U.S. government had been aware of the effects of radiation and had ran more tests before using the bomb. Finally, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE HUMANE NOT TO HAVE ATOMIC BOMBED HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI.

[southkakrun]

It would have been more humane to have waited for the USSR to move on Manchuria and then gauge the response of the Japanese. It would have been more humane to have accepted the conditions of Japan's surrender before bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It would have been more humane to have continued the blockade and strategically bombed infrastructure sites and military targets. It would have been more humane to use the bomb on an uninhabited area to demonstrate the capabilities we had. It would have been more humane if the U.S. government had been aware of the effects of radiation and had ran more tests before using the bomb. Finally, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE HUMANE NOT TO HAVE ATOMIC BOMBED HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI.
Would have been more humane if we had not gone to war. Also the full extent of damage radiation can do was not known at that time.

[orthostice]

If some japanese have to die to end the war, well, as was said in Slaughterhouse 5, so it goes.

Poster justifies targeting civilians with powerful bombs by quoting not just Vonnegut, but Slaughterhouse-Five ...

This is the peak of irony.