|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 836 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Was the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan Justified? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4145 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
quote: Didn't they make an offer in January? I don't know of anything formal they presented, I could be wrong.
the atomic bombs didn't fix Japan's logistical problems. No, but it stopped things from getting worse and allowed us to begin to help them rebuild.
I'm not entirely confident in the capacity for anyone to have the right level of information to justify it. I agree, I would like to read H.S.T. book to see what he says his various advisers told him regarding using the bombs. I also belive we didnt know the full, lasting effects of the bombs either, based on what we knew at the time it probably seemed like a better option then it would today. AbE...source Edited by fearandloathing, : added source link "No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten." Hunter S. Thompson Ad astra per aspera Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Didn't they make an offer in January? I don't know of anything formal they presented, I could be wrong.
Wikipedia suggests something was presented.
quote: Though I concede the Emperor may not have immediately accepted even if the US said it considered the terms acceptable.
quote: Foreign minister Tōgō, July. Also in July
quote: Of course, there were other voices less so inclined. If the terms at Potsdam had given details over the fate of the Emperor, the peacemakers might have succeeded in their case. But I digress, could you provide the justification for dropping both nuclear bombs on densely populated areas within a few days. Was a month too long to wait? Two weeks? It all seems a little over the top, to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 836 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined:
|
Modulous writes: But I digress, could you provide the justification for dropping both nuclear bombs on densely populated areas within a few days. Was a month too long to wait? Two weeks? It all seems a little over the top, to me. There is another factor in the decision making process that I don't recall having been brought into this discussion. According to the Radiation Effects Research Foundation, the estimated total number of deaths due to the atomic bombs within two to four months after they were dropped is as follows: Hiroshima 90,000-166,000Nagasaki 60,000-80,000 Therefore the lowest combined estimate is 150,000, the highest 246,000. The mean estimate is 196,000.
source In August 1945, Japan still occupied large parts of China, Southeast Asia and many Pacific Islands. For people in these areas, the war was very much still going on, producing casualties. Here is a map showing the areas still held by the Japanese Empire at the time of their surrender in black (click to enlarge).
Average number of deaths per week in 1945: Allied Civilians 101,871Japanese Civilians 18,154 (excluding the atomic bombs) Allied Military 11,182 Japanese Military 36,392 Total per week 167,599
source Therefore the amount of deaths due to the atomic bombs would have been exceeded by the average number of deaths caused by continuing the war in: Low estimate - 6.26 daysMean estimate - 8.19 days High estimate - 10.27 days Perhaps this is one reason why "Was a month too long to wait? Two weeks?" may have been answered in the affirmative for Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, and Indonesian civilians, among others. Edited by anglagard, : Replace casualties with the more accurate term deaths used by the source. Edited by anglagard, : Extend reason 1 to subsequent sentences. Edited by anglagard, : caption map Edited by anglagard, : Change median to mean (my statistics profs would have been horrified). Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Wow, even after I repeatedly pointed out that you're using creationist tactic, you went on to use another creationist tactic. You're asking me to prove beyond doubt that nothing else would have gotten the japanese to surrender. I am reminded of the age old creationist argument to prove to them beyond doubt that a dog kind can "evolve" into some other kind.
No, no one can prove to you that nothing else would have worked. But let's see. (1) Invasion of Japanese islands resulted in 95% casualties among Japanese military and 1/3 casualties among Japanese civilians. No surrender. (2) Blockading the Japanese homeland preventing them from carrying out the war effectively. No surrender. (3) Anihalating the entire Japanese fleet. No surrender. (4) Fire bombing entire Japanese cities killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. No surrender. (5) Dropping leaflets telling the Japanese the Americans have a weapon that could destroy entire Japanese cities. No surrender. (6) Japanese government began to train school girls and school boys how to fight American soldiers to prepare for an invasion. No surrender there. (7) Atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima instantly killing 100,000 people. No surrender. Japanese soldiers were then equipped with white sheets to cover against the blast. Again, someone else on your side suggested blanket bombing the entire country of Japan. This would have destroyed their entire infrastructure resulting in millions starving. At least that person has the guts to suggest something other than the atom bomb. You're just sitting there criticizing the atom bombs without telling us what you would have done.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Wow, even after I repeatedly pointed out that you're using creationist tactic, you went on to use another creationist tactic. You're asking me to prove beyond doubt that nothing else would have gotten the japanese to surrender. No. I'm merely suggesting that we be sure before strategic nuking takes place. I don't feel like essentially being called intellectually dishonest every other time I post, so I'm afraid you'll have to excuse me from further discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
It's already pointed out to you many times that most people at the time still did not know what they had in their hands. There were generals who suggested the atom bombs be used to blind the enemy defenders right before an invasion landing.
All the leaders knew was that what they got in their hands was a single bomb that could do the work of a shitload of bombs. We know better than that now, but the fact that you're using today's knowledge to judge people at the time is itself intellectually dishonest. Again, the hope was that instead of sending a bombing raid that would level a city and kill 100,000 the same way that dresden was burned to the ground, they wanted to prove to the Japanese that they could do just as much damage with a single bomb and shock them into surrendering. Based on what they knew then, it sure beats blanket bombing the whole goddamn country of Japan with conventional bombers where hundreds of American pilots would inevitably be shot down. You are intellectually dishonest by willfully not seeing the point of view that people had at the time. So, let me ask you again. Forget radiation and other secondary causes of death, if you had the option between sending bombing raids consisting of thousands of planes and potentially lose hundreds of pilots due to anti-air weapons or sending a single bomber and drop a single bomb that would yield the same effect, based on what you would have known back then what would you decide? Don't forget to factor in the fact that you are faced with cold hard facts that previous campaigns against Japanese held places resulted in 95+% Japanese military casualties and up to 1/3 civilian casualties, many of which resulted from suicides, how does an invasion of the Japanese mainlands with a population of 50+ million Japanese all ready to die for their Emperor. You are intellectually dishonest every time you dismiss these facts when you say there's not enough evidence that an invasion would have been worse than dropping 2 atomic bombs to shock the Japanese into surrender. Debating about history isn't just about what you know. It's also about trying to see the view point that people in history had and what information were available to them. Otherwise, I could spend all day telling you how stupid Hypocrites was for the things that he believed based on what we know of modern medicine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined:
|
But I digress, could you provide the justification for dropping both nuclear bombs on densely populated areas within a few days. Was a month too long to wait? Two weeks? It all seems a little over the top, to me.
*Blink* You did not just say that did you? It was war. Japan still held vast areas in the south pacific, east asia, and south east asia. What did you think all those soldiers were doing all that time? Sit on their asses and count sheeps in their heads? People were dying each day as the war went on. The Japanese were still slaughtering the Chinese by the thousands. The Koreans, Vietnamese, and other southeast asians were still fighting their conquerors. Is this like the twilight zone where those people didn't matter? Are you seriously not aware that the war was still going on in other parts of the world or are you just hoping the rest of us wouldn't notice to benefit your bleeding heart liberal ideology?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
I predict that a year from now the same people who opposed using the atomic bombs and would rather have an invasion of mainland Japan will come back and argue the same thing as if none of what's said in this thread has been said. Nevermind that people were still dying by the tens of thousands everyday the war was dragged on. Nevermind all the examples of other Japanese islands that the American forces invaded (95% military casualties and 1/3 civilian casualties).
Sound familiar? This will be the last time I'm bringing this up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined:
|
Hello,
Just saw the movie "Oppenheimer" last week. I found it interesting except for one thing [SPOILER ALERT follows]. . . In the beginning of the war, Robert Oppenheimer was supposedly somewhat pro-atom bomb because his Jewish kin were being murdered by Hitler in the ongoing war, and reasoned he and his scientists would be greatly more ethical than Hitler if Oppenheimer should invent the bomb first. But as the German war concluded, and then the Japan war was nearly concluded, he supposedly felt anti-atom bomb. The ending showed Oppenheimer with great shame because he thought the bomb was needlessly used. My irritation of the movie . . . Written and directed by Christopher Nolan, Nolan didn't show ANY Japanese footage of the destruction because he wanted the audience to ONLY see Oppenheimer's POV. I thought this was a cop-out. Oppenheimer was a smart guy (duh) he surely could listen to the radio, see the news-film's destruction, read about the casualties. Surely his POV would be of full realization. So why did Nolan go out of the way to FULLY hide it. A movie about the atom bomb, and not show one mili-second of its intended destruction? What? I think it was because showing Japanese destruction would have hurt the movie sales to have the audience "feel bad" about the USA killing innocent Japanese civilians. US citizens get angry when being "woke," as shown in this thread. Comments?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
There were two alternatives available to the U.S. as the war neared its end:
Independent of how Oppenheimer felt about his role in creating the atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan, that approach undoubtedly saved uncountable lives, possibly well over a million. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
Independent of how Oppenheimer felt about his role in creating the atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan, that approach undoubtedly saved uncountable lives, possibly well over a million. Many years ago, I had a very interesting conversation with some of my former work colleagues who were from the Philippines and China. We happened to be discussing World War II and how it impacted our families. My family were impacted in the European theatre by the Nazis while their families were of course impacted by the Japanese. What was interesting is when we got on the topic of the usage of the atom bombs that were used to end the war and force the Japanese surrender, my Asian colleagues both independently said the same thing: the whole 'debate' of whether the usage of the bombs was justified is something only discussed by Western nations. That is never a debate topic for the people in China or the Philippines as they don't even consider it a debate whatsoever. They wholeheartedly agree with the usage of the bombs. And their rational made me realize how I had a myopic view of things when it comes to viewing World War II in the sense that I look at it from a Western perspective. We see images of the horrors of the what the bombs produced when they detonated over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But we gloss over the horrible atrocities that the Japanese army inflicted upon the other people of Asia. And they were horrible beyond belief. And that is the facet that is often overlooked when it comes to the discussions around the usage of the bombs. We look at the human toll that it would have taken to invade the Japanese islands. But we don't often consider that it the war progressed longer, the people in areas of China that were still under Japanese occupation, even towards the end of the war would have died in the thousands as well. So ending the war as quickly as possible didn't just save American lives, but the lives of other individuals who were on the front lines in the Asian theatre. As Percy alluded to, the cultural aspect of the Japanese desire to never surrender can best be summarized by the Japanese soldier Hiroo Onoda. For those not aware of his story, after the war ended in 1945, he lived in the jungles of the Philippines and continued to fight for a whopping 29 years! It was only when he received a decree from the Japanese Emperor Hirohito delivered by a former commander that he finally gave up the fight.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined: |
Hi Diomedes,
Thanks for the reply. I'm not gonna rehash my lengthy argument Message 47. You will note throughout the thread that Mod thought my evidence I presented was worthy. Mod has always been my gold standard in the forum, so I'm good. However, IF you want to discuss/debate my last post . . . I recently wrote:
A movie about the atom bomb, and not show one mili-second of its intended destruction? I think it was because showing Japanese destruction would have hurt the movie sales to have the audience "feel bad" about the USA killing innocent Japanese civilians. So, regarding your reply . . . 1. IF, the use of the bomb was FULLY justified, THEN why not show the horrific suffering of innocent Japanese civilians, including woman and children, in the movie. Afterall, as you wrote, since Japan made horrible attrocities first, then why isn't america JUSTIFIED to make horrible atrocities too. Whoever said two wrongs don't make a right was apparently, . . . wrong. Errr, am I right? 2. And IF, if even just ONE soldier somewhere in the world wanted to continue fighting, doesn't that especially JUSTIFY that america should kill ALL innocent Japanese civilians, including woman and children. And no one anywhere would say this JUSTIFIED action was based on racism. That would be just crazy, as there's no racism in america. Sooo, why not be proud of america's JUSTIFIED actions, show it on the big screen. USA! USA! USA!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
1. IF, the use of the bomb was FULLY justified, THEN why not show the horrific suffering of innocent Japanese civilians, including woman and children, in the movie. Afterall, as you wrote, since Japan made horrible attrocities first, then why isn't america JUSTIFIED to make horrible atrocities too. Whoever said two wrongs don't make a right was apparently, . . . wrong. Errr, am I right? I can't speak to Christopher Nolan's decisions as to why or why not he didn't show the aftermath of the bombs. You will have to ask him. But my suspicion is it had more to do with the fact that the movie was a character study into Oppenheimer himself and the technical work of the Manhattan project.Also, if you are going to stipulate that the usage of the atomic bomb was an 'atrocity', then that would imply that the bombing raids using conventional weapons against both the Japanese and German civilians were also atrocities. In that civilians were also killed in those attacks. My personal opinion is that the difference between the actions of the Allies versus those of the Axis powers were that civilian deaths and the actions therein performed by the Axis powers were deliberate. The German Nazis and the Japanese considered themselves superior so the civilians of other nations were irrelevant to them. They were just vermin in their eyes. Look at the Holocaust or the massacres in the Philippines to get some insight into that. 2. And IF, if even just ONE soldier somewhere in the world wanted to continue fighting, doesn't that especially JUSTIFY that america should kill ALL innocent Japanese civilians, including woman and children. And no one anywhere would say this JUSTIFIED action was based on racism. That would be just crazy, as there's no racism in america. Uh, no. The operative word that you yourself used was 'soldier'. The civilians did not exhibit the same tenacity that the core soldiers exhibited. The soldiers of the Japanese military were the ones that were excessively dogmatic. That is evidenced further when after the second bomb was dropped and Emperor Hirohito opted to surrender, several members of the Japanese military orchestrated a coup and tried to overthrow him as a means to continue the war. Ultimately, the senior Japanese military leadership and many of the soldiers were not dissimilar from the Nazi SS or Gestapo. These are zealots who believed in their superiority over all others. As a sidebar, if you want to discuss 'racism', that is going down a different rabbit hole. But you may want to look into how present day Japan considers outsiders in their nation. They have a declining population and are on the precipice of a massive economic downturn, yet they still adhere to their 'only Japanese' philosophy. Look up the word 'Gaijin' for further details.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined: |
Dio writes: I can't speak to Christopher Nolan's decisions as to why or why not he didn't show the aftermath of the bombs. You will have to ask him. As I previously wrote,
Drone writes: “Nolan didn't show ANY Japanese footage of the destruction because he wanted the audience to ONLY see Oppenheimer's POV. I thought this was a cop-out.” Dio writes: The German Nazis and the Japanese considered themselves superior so the civilians of other nations were irrelevant to them. They were just vermin in their eyes. Hmm. You are sure that no american viewed or propagandized or forced internment of Japanese citizens as vermin stereotypes. You are equally confident that no one who asserts the bombs were justified are actually racists then or now?
Dio writes: Uh, no. The operative word that you yourself used was 'soldier'. The civilians did not exhibit the same tenacity that the core soldiers exhibited. Hmm, it seems I misunderstood your previous reply, you are actually saying that IF only soldiers wanted to continue fighting, then Americans should NOT punish the civilians by dropping an atomic bomb which indiscriminately and disproportionately killed civilians. That would NOT be justified. Okay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
dronestar writes: 1. IF, the use of the bomb was FULLY justified, THEN why not show the horrific suffering of innocent Japanese civilians, including woman and children, in the movie. Afterall, as you wrote, since Japan made horrible attrocities first, then why isn't america JUSTIFIED to make horrible atrocities too. Whoever said two wrongs don't make a right was apparently, . . . wrong. Errr, am I right? I don't think a movie is very relevant to the topic unless it introduces new facts or arguments.
2. And IF, if even just ONE soldier somewhere in the world wanted to continue fighting, doesn't that especially JUSTIFY that america should kill ALL innocent Japanese civilians, including woman and children. I see no logic in this, and it just sounds horrific.
And no one anywhere would say this JUSTIFIED action was based on racism. That would be just crazy, as there's no racism in america. I've never seen any evidence that war decisions were *based* on racism. The degree of autonomy allowed Japan after the war and the generousness of the terms would seem to argue against racism playing any significant role.
Sooo, why not be proud of america's JUSTIFIED actions, show it on the big screen. Any pride would be that fewer lives were lost and the war shortened. There's no pride in killing. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024