Should we have dropped Atomic bombs on Japan

[starshiptrooper]

Yes, dropping the Atomic Boms was the right choice.

Other options were impractical

A naval blockade would have made POWS in Japanese hands suffer and exposed our sailors to unnecessary danger from kamikaze attacks in the air and the water.

We had tried conventional bombing for years and the Japanese had not given up, no reason to think it would work now.

An invasion would have cost far more American lives and the POWS would have been executed by the Japanese.

Negotiated surrerrender was tried at the end of WWI, and we all know how well that worked. Furthermore, the Japanese would have used our POWS as bargaining chips.

Other posters on this thread have objected to the bombs being dropped on civilian targets. To call them civilians is a bit of stretch as the American POWS saw Japanese women and children training to fight the US Marines.

Many if not all Japanese homes were manufactuing things vital to the war effort, and factories are legitimate targets.

Hiroshima was the HQ of the army group in charge of the defense of Southern Japan.

Nagasaki had one the largest sea ports in Japan, it was also a city where a large amount of vital war material was being manufactured. In addition to this, both cities did not have any zoning plan, so houses were built next to factories, and any attempt to hit these legitimate targets would have resulted in inveitable civilian casualties.

 

[1AugustSon7]

I argue no.

Here is my reasoning:

At this point, the japanese economy was in shambles. Their navy was ruined. Their soldiers starving. They were at the breaking point. There were cracks in the glass.

But instead of shooting the glass, we dropped 2 atomic bombs.

Some people may argue that dropping the bombs saved more human life (if the war would have continued, more soldiers would have likely died than the number of citizens)…

But, my point is that the soldier knows what he is up against. THe citizen is completely innocent.

**It just seems morally wrong to drop 2 atomic bombs in large citizen populated areas on a country that is at the breaking point. **

Thoughts?

I agree: no.

Especially considering that it was a disproportionate number of Japanese Catholics who fell victim to those bombs.

Further,

It is never morally legitimate to nuke a baby.

 

[snowguru]

With atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki while my view always has and will be that President Harry S. Truman should have dropped the atom bombs elsewhere in Japan with fewer civilian deaths such as several thousand killed and wounded instead of 180,000+, it did end the war as a worse choice would’ve been a ground war where many more Americans and Japanese would’ve been killed especially as the Japanese would’ve used women and children soldiers in combat-they were doing kamikaze missions using teenage boys. War is bad and with Hiroshima and Nagasaki those were bad choices but all the choices were bad & again a ground war would’ve been a worse choice.

If Germany and Japan both had the atom bombs, they’d have used them against us as had happened in China with Shiro Ishii’s flea bombs and Unit 731 experiments on POW in Manchuria. War is bad. Yes, those killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki especially the kids were innocent war victims-war always has been something bad because innocents who don’t want to be involved in the war often end up being the 1s killed. Most Japanese are fine people and most survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have said that they don’t personally blame the U.S. for dropping the atom bombs as they understand intent was to end war & that it wasn’t against them personally though most think it should either have not been used or dropped elsewhere in Japan with fewer civilians killed.

 

[Ghosty]

Starshiptrooper: Being capable of combat doesn’t make one a combatant or a legitimate military target. Once someone engages in combat they are a combatant, not before. Had the invasion begun, and women and children fought, those women and children would have been morally acceptable targets. As it was it was simply the killing of innocents who might have proven a minor threat at a later date, hardly sound moral ground.

That said, civilian centers were not targeted because of the potential threat of civilian mobilization, they were targeted in order to demonstrate the capability of U.S. power and will to use it on any target in order to terrorize the Japanese government into surrender. The targeting documents show that the civilians were not considered military targets, despite their minor combat training.

Peace and God bless!

 

[ishii]

The loss of life would’ve been far greater if we didn’t drop the bombs and opted for an all out invasion of Japan.

I don’t say whether they were right or wrong. I do contend that they saved lives by ending the war early. Invasion, blockade, would both have cost far more Japanese lives than the two bombs in four days.

I don’t say they were justified, only that they saved lives. One can argue for alternate options at this late date. But they would have cost more lives.

We don’t know that we would have had to invade - as others have noted, Japan was in shambles. However, the fact remains, according to Catholic Just War theory - it is morally wrong to target civilians or bomb civilians indiscriminately. The bombing of Tokyo and Dresden were morally wrong as well. The evil of the Japanese militarist government - the rape of Nanking, Pearl Harbor invasion, etc. are not part of the moral equation here.

Ishii

 

[edwest2]

What historic basis do you have for this POV? I’m not aware of Japan surrendering prior WWII. Plus, they’ve been living on an island for thousands of years. It’s not like they’re suddenly going to decide they can’t handle it anymore.

One thing you’ll notice about all these opinions is that come from people that weren’t there and experienced none of what they are talking about. Why not speak to people that have actually fought the Japanese, or people that have suffered under the Japanese in China (FWIW, the mainland Chinese I’ve met and spoken too are still really mad at the Japanese over those events). They’re opinions will be far different from the sterilized views you see on here.

You don’t understand. When Japanese soldiers were left in jungles to fend for themselves and were on the verge of starving to death, they did two things: surrendered or allowed themselves to be seen in the open so they could be machine-gunned to death by Allied fighters.

The Japanese Emperor could sit back and watch his people starve to death. Once again, what was the rush? The Japanese could contact us at any time or just die. No opinions here, just the facts. It would have been their choice.

Peace,
Ed

 

[JimG]

We don’t know that we would have had to invade - as others have noted, Japan was in shambles. However, the fact remains, according to Catholic Just War theory - it is morally wrong to target civilians or bomb civilians indiscriminately. The bombing of Tokyo and Dresden were morally wrong as well. The evil of the Japanese militarist government - the rape of Nanking, Pearl Harbor invasion, etc. are not part of the moral equation here.

Ishii

Fine. I believe you. I’m just saying that any other option to end the war would have resulted in millions more dead. Even doing nothing would have resulted in more Japanese deaths, as the ruling factions decided what option to take while people starved. And they might well have decided to fight to the last man, woman, and child.

It might also be noted, that while invasion was the most seriously considered of the alternatives, another possibility was invasion coupled with the use of the nuclear bombs.

 

[ishii]

The loss of life would’ve been far greater if we didn’t drop the bombs and opted for an all out invasion of Japan.

But was it necessarily those two choices - either drop the bomb or invade? Keep in mind, at this stage the Cold War had begun and a land invasion would likely have included the Soviet Union, which would have demanded a part of Japan - perhaps Hokkaido. The decision to drop the bomb was made with that in mind.

Ishii

 

[CDB1718]

Has anyone read the link I gave in post #20? It asks a Catholic chaplain who was there if we should have dropped the bombs. I think his opinion is worth considering.

 

[ishii]

Fine. I believe you. I’m just saying that any other option to end the war would have resulted in millions more dead. Even doing nothing would have resulted in more Japanese deaths, as the ruling factions decided what option to take while people starved. And they might well have decided to fight to the last man, woman, and child.

It might also be noted, that while invasion was the most seriously considered of the alternatives, another possibility was invasion coupled with the use of the nuclear bombs.

I understand - it was a terrible proposition all around. No choice seems like it would have been bloodless. And an invasion would have cost more lives on both sides. Civilians, incidentally were being armed and trained to fight and defend in the event of a land invasion. It would have been a bloodbath.

Ishii

 

[meltzerboy]

The loss of life would’ve been far greater if we didn’t drop the bombs and opted for an all out invasion of Japan.

That may be true and it’s so easy for people who were not there at the time, such as me, to second guess what was happening and perhaps deemed necessary. Still, is what you are basically stating–saving more lives by sacrificing fewer–really in accord with Christian belief in general, Catholic doctrine in particular, or Jewish thought? One may, of course, have one’s personal perspective; but how does one reconcile this with one’s faith?

 

[ValPal]

It would have been a bloodbath.

I was a bloodbath anyway. I actually know a vet (family member) that vowed to God that he would convert if he lived through through the war (action in Iwo Jima). He was injured, but lived, and keep his promise. Unfortunately, many of his friends didn’t make it; he saw many of them blown to pieces.

 

[JimG]

Has anyone read the link I gave in post #20? It asks a Catholic chaplain who was there if we should have dropped the bombs. I think his opinion is worth considering.

Yes, I did. Fr. Zabelka believes in retrospect that not only the atomic bombings but the firebombings were wrong:

“The facts are that seventy-five thousand people were burned to death in one evening of fire bombing over Tokyo. Hundreds of thousands were destroyed in Dresden, Hamburg, and Coventry by aerial bombing. The fact that forty-five thousand human beings were killed by one bomb over Nagasaki was new only to the extent that it was one bomb that did it.”

Of course he along with most people on Tinian Island had no idea of just “what” the nuclear bombs were. But he accuses both himself and the Church of silence in the face of massive bombing of civilians.

As I read through the rest of the interview, it seems that he would advocate the total renunciation of war, and an embrace of non-violence. But that is another thread entirely.

 

[ishii]

Has anyone read the link I gave in post #20? It asks a Catholic chaplain who was there if we should have dropped the bombs. I think his opinion is worth considering.

I took a look at your link. It was a powerful indictment of war - especially, “total war” of the type that began in WW2 and was reflected in the bombing of Dresden and Tokyo (as well as Hiroshima and Nagasaki). I do note also that later in the interview the Chaplain being interviewed refers to the Just War Theory as “the bloody moral blunder.” One can understand his sentiment in light of what he saw and heard during WW2.

Paul Johnson in Modern Times describes the “corruptive process of moral relativism at work” in the bombing of Dresden. It was the conclusion on the part of Churchill that offensive bombing of civilian targets was the only way to deal with Hitler and the departure from “the rule of destroying war-waging capacity as the only legitimate manner of conducting combat.”

amazon.com/Modern-Times-Revised-Twenties-Perennial/dp/0060935502

Ishii

 

[ishii]

I was a bloodbath anyway. I actually know a vet (family member) that vowed to God that he would convert if he lived through through the war (action in Iwo Jima). He was injured, but lived, and keep his promise. Unfortunately, many of his friends didn’t make it; he saw many of them blown to pieces.

I guess I meant a worse bloodbath.

Ishii

 

[mercytruth]

gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

Document #34 by the scientists who worked on the atom bomb is most compelling.

 

[edwest2]

Again, what was the rush? As the Japanese military and civilian population ran out of food, while we blockaded all shipping, there was no need for a bloodbath. We had air superiority which meant military targets and industry could be bombed at will. Little to no food and the gradual loss of military equipment would have meant the end. Emaciated women and children, and soldiers, armed with sharp sticks would not have been effective combatants.

Take the recent war between Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Captured Bosnians were photographed behind fences in POW camps. It was straight out of World War II. Skeletal starving prisoners don’t have the strength to build escape tunnels and are less likely to assault guards.

And the Emperor could do whatever he wanted.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Mar044]

anyone who said that oh it ended the war…is wrong, why because even the top brass agree japan was ready to surrender and the drop was nothing more then to test there new toy.

also this is the affects of the bomb fogonazos.es/2007/02/hiroshima-pictures-they-didnt-want-us_05.html

would you want that done to you, the only nation on earth to drop two bombs ever, no matter how evil a nation has been, USSR, etc, you live with the history of dropping a bomb.

the only justification i hear is…its in the past…or who it was needed. you defeated germany…without the bomb, you chose the easy way…at the cost of human lives, half the people who say oh oh it was needed, have never seen a single picture of the cause of death or slow death it caused people.

and then on top of that, it was almost dropped in Korea, b-29s-over-korea.com/NorthKorea-A-Bomb/US-Planned-To-A-Bomb-N-Korea-In-1950-War_01.html

so its more about whatever you can say compared to actually actions.

if you seen an documentaries on the cold war, during the Cuban missile crisis americans were going to invade because of ICBMS in cuba, yet america had ICBMS that close in europe and russia wanted to level the game. if they had invaded cuba, they would have been destroyed as historians and the government found out later, that the russians and cubans had battlefield nukes set up (small nukes that could destroy landing fleets) and would have ended us all.

i talk about this because now there is tough talk on china, but china has the same stance on america, you try to mess with us, we drop nukes. he can have a huge feet off china, but china has plenty of nukes to stop you, then what…you use nukes on them and they hit western america…garbage…the only thing that ever stopped the u.s from using nukes after japan was the fact the other guy had them.

google.ca/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=Di3&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&q=pictures%20of%20the%20victims%20of%20nagasaki&biw=1920&bih=942&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=Cq2iUIreMYGO2AXbpID4BA

you tell me how a person can justify the link…

 

[bilop]

Again, what was the rush? As the Japanese military and civilian population ran out of food, while we blockaded all shipping, there was no need for a bloodbath. We had air superiority which meant military targets and industry could be bombed at will. Little to no food and the gradual loss of military equipment would have meant the end. Emaciated women and children, and soldiers, armed with sharp sticks would not have been effective combatants.

Take the recent war between Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Captured Bosnians were photographed behind fences in POW camps. It was straight out of World War II. Skeletal starving prisoners don’t have the strength to build escape tunnels and are less likely to assault guards.

And the Emperor could do whatever he wanted.

Peace,
Ed

The rush was that thousands of civilians and Allied POWs were dying in China, Southeast Asia, Burma, Korea, etc.

There was no way to end the war without massive loss of life.

A starvation blockade or invasion that kills millions can’t be more moral than two bombings that kill 125,000.

Sometimes the only choice you have is the lesser of 2 (or more) evils.

God Bless

 

[Mar044]

The rush was that thousands of civilians and Allied POWs were dying in China, Southeast Asia, Burma, Korea, etc.

There was no way to end the war without massive loss of life.

A starvation blockade or invasion that kills millions can’t be more moral than two bombings that kill 125,000.

Sometimes the only choice you have is the lesser of 2 (or more) evils.

God Bless

I say this again, they were going to surrender, the top brass even said it, the war would have been OVER, no need for blockade or anything. this argument is redundant. there is no less evil just as there is no lesser sin…sin is sin. The sad part is…the pilot don’t care, they just see Americans in there eyes…just like a quote i heard from iraq from a u.s. general…“i dont care about these people, if there are babies or mothers, if i have to I will level the town and kill them all, war is hell.” guess who said that…