Was the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan Justified?

I'm sorry, but your view on the situation is very immature. Let's look at each number and I'll explain why you have an immature view of the war.

quote:

---

1. america intercepted messages from Japan to Russia indicating JAPAN WANTED to SURRENDER.
2. Japan had already considered surrendering if america would just allow Japan's Emperor to keep his seat on the throne. america said no, but AFTER bombing Negasaki and Hiroshima, america gave into Japan's request.

---

You keep referring to Japan this and Japan that as if it was one entity. The fact of the matter is there were many factions involved. There were certain elements of the Japanese government that wanted to surrender. There were certain elements that wanted to fight to the last man. The majority decided to make it extremely costly for the Americans to win so that America would be forced into accepting peace terms where most of the remaining Japanese Empire would remain intact.By late 1944 and early 1945 most of the Japanese government had already given up hope of winning the war against the US. Yamamoto foresaw the industrial superpower that was the US in wartime. That's why he promised the emperor he could only win the war for 6 months. The hope was that heavy losses would make the American populace to force the US government to seek out peace terms.By 1944, the predominant goal in the Japanese government was to keep the war going as long as possible. After all, no democracy could survive a war longer than 7 years, or so the saying goes, because the people wouldn't have it. And that's what most of the Japanese government was hoping for.

quote:

---

3. america knew japan would surrender unconditionally when Japan found out that Russia would join the fight. So, america hastened the two bombings BEFORE Japan COULD surrender for an american show of power toward Russia.

---

By the time Russia was ready to go to war with Japan, the military faction that wanted to fight to the last man had prevailed. Remember that island hoping didn't affect the Japanese forces in other parts of the empire. The Japanese still had a large number of forces on Mainland China. And this was what the Japanese wanted to save.Russia's attack on Manchuria was nothing more than Stalin's show of power. There was absolutely no long term planning on Russia's part to carry out the war to the end.

quote:

---

3. america knew japan would surrender unconditionally when Japan found out that Russia would join the fight. So, america hastened the two bombings BEFORE Japan COULD surrender for an american show of power toward Russia.

---

No. Nobody expected Russia to do much beyond the attack on Manchuria.The reasons why Truman wanted to drop the bombs were:(1) Casualties of the invasion of Japan was projected to go as high as 1 million.(2) American intelligence knew about the Japanese military training Japanese civilians to defend the homeland. Japanese boys were trained to appear innocent and then go for American crotches.(3) The last thing anybody wanted was the soviet union to get a foothold of Japan.(4) The war was already going on too long and there was no sign at all that the Japanese was even considering the possibility of surrender.

quote:

---

4. if ANY regards towards human life was any factor at all, america could have detonated the first bomb over water as a deterent/warning.
5. The second, even more unnecessary, bomb was completely and utterly criminal. All communication was broken in Japan and america gave no time for the Japanese to assess the first bomb's damage before detonating the second.

---

After the first bomb was dropped, the Japanese military was convinced that America only had 1 bomb.America, in fact, only had 2 bombs. And it would have taken months for more bombs to be manufactured and transported to the front. The US government wanted to give off the impression that America had more than that. That's why they dropped 2 bombs.Again, think about it this way. Would you rather lose 200,000 people and win the war today or would you rather lose 1,000,000 over the course of 6 months? Invasion of Japan was a statistical nightmare.Furthermore, even after the 2 bombs were dropped, the Japanese military was still convinced they could save the rest of the Empire by fighting to the last man. There was even an attempted coup to stop the surrender. I know what you mean. I've played the scenario over in my head hundreds of times over the years. And each time I can't make myself make the decision to drop the 2 bombs. But everything else points to dropping the 2 bombs as necessary.Don't forget that Europe was still fresh in everybody's mind. How did the allied win the war in Europe? By walking over it. Without dropping the 2 bombs, winning the war in eastern asia would have meant swimming and walking over it, too.Yes, it was wrong but necessary to drop the 2 bombs. But it was criminal for the Japanese leaders to make the moves that lead to that inevitable result in the first place.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Look, the point of dropping the 2 a-bombs wasn't to kill people or to destroy equipments. The point was to shock the Japanese into surrender.Again, the question on everyone's minds was this. Should they kill 100,000 people now and end the war or should they slowly kill 1,000,000 in the course of 3 months?You weren't there. You didn't have to make the decisions. This is bullshit and naive. After 2 bombs, much of the Japanese government would still not surrender. Even after the Emperor ordered to surrender, certain elements of the military still tried uncuccessfully to stop the announcement of surrender.WW2 was a real war, not some game you've been playing. The more the anti-Abomb crowd talk, the more naive you guys sound.Added by edit.Much of Germany was in rubbles and the Nazis would still not surrender. How do you explain that? Even as the Russians were walking over Germany, the SS were still roaming around killing their own civilians for giving up. You'd think that they'd surrender to avoid annihalation, right?The Japanese were even worse. They were training their own women and children to how to fight American soldiers. They were readying everyone in their population to fight to the end. Surrender was never an option until the Emperor finally made it an option.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

And you know this because you're looking back at history. Remember that none of the leaders knew exactly how an atomic weapon worked. Nobody knew anything about radiation or the after effects. One general even suggested using the bomb on the beach to "blind" the enemy right before a landing on the Japanese homeland.If you're at it, why not suggest that people were dumbasses for not inventing the computer much much sooner? After all, it's a relatively simple concept. Again, it wasn't a game. Yes, given the opportunity, the Japanese would have held out much much longer. Their goal was to grind the American advance to a halt until they gave up. The Japanese wanted to keep what's left of their empire. Are you seriously suggesting carpet bombing the whole country over the months and then ending it with a spectacular invasion was better than dropping 2 bombs to get an immediate surrender? Didn't you read everything we've said? The Japanese had demonstrated up till that point that men, women, and children would rather die than surrender. Yes, they knew they were going to lose, but they'd fight to the last man. If it was a slow and arduous campaign, they would have fought to the death.That's why Truman decided to go for a shock tactic. And it worked.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Uh, no. This is such a ridiculous statement to anyone who's ever studied history that it doesn't even warrant a response. I guess you really have to be as passionate about history as I am to see the ridiculousness of this suggestion.Good day to you, sir.

I think it helps for people like Frako to think of it this way. Suppose you see a woman on top of a building panicking and totally out of it. If you leave her alone, there's a chance she's going to fall to her death. So, you try to end the fiasco by slapping her once. She doesn't change. So, you slap her again and after the second time it worked. She comes to her senses.How would you feel if afterwards everybody gets hung up on the fact that you slapped the woman?That's what your argument essentially is. You're ignoring the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Japanese that would have died had there been an invasion.War is horrible. We all agree about that. What's important is how do we end it with as little loss as possible. According to you, the Americans should have blanket bomb the whole country. Think about it. Sure, each bombing wouldn't have killed as many people as a single A-bomb. But over the long run, it would have decimated the population through secondary effects like mass starvation due to the collapse of infrastructure. To me, it sounds like you're the one that's advocating for the ultimate crime against humanity, Frako.Added by edit.I am reminded of my study in police training right before I became a cop. We had to study hundreds of cases to get a feel for police work. There were some that were just ridiculous. For example, there was a case where a cop showed up to a man suffering from a severe allergic reaction. The guy was undergoing an anaphylactic shock. The guy was already unconscious and was dying. The cop searched him and found an epipen. Thinking it was the only thing he could do, the cop injected the guy with the epipen and saved his life.Well, that guy later sued the cop, the department, and won. Why? Cops are not licensed to administer medication.The point of these stories were that we were taught to let people die because usually those people get hung up on the insignificant details and will sue the cops for money.Thank goodness, I never had to come across such a situation. I don't know if I would have been able to just stand by and watch someone die just for technicalities.Frako, think about it for a moment. We know for a fact that the Japanese would not have surrendered. In fact, they were preparing their entire population to defend their homeland. Blanket bombing would not have made them surrender. It would have destroyed their infrastructure and induce mass starvation.The 2 bombs were used as a shock tactic to get them to surrender. And as mentioned above by another person, the A-bombs were also meant to tell the Japanese that they could have been decimated without the loss of American lives.I think dropping the bombs were absolutely horrible. But I am absolutely convinced it was the best way to prevent further loss of lives. Sure beats your suggestion of blanket bombing the whole country.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Are you actually disputing with the fact that japanese were training their population to fight an american invasion force? Are you actually disputing with the fact that japanese children were being trained to fight the bigger size men that wrre the american soldier?

Help me understand your position. Do you just ignore what happened on all the other islands where the civilians were either fighting to the death or jumping to their deaths? Why are you ignoring what the Americans encountered on all the Japanese islands during the island hoping campaign? Is this like one of those willfull amnesia thing that creationists often use to ignore evidence?

Modulus, have you become a creationist? Why do you continue to ignore the american experiences with the japanese population on other islands? Whole families jumped to their deaths. Continue to ignore this part of our argument if you want.

I did read it. All I saw was you ignoring all the american experiences with the japanese population during the island hoping campaign. This is exactly how creationists argue. They just ignore all the cummulative evidence hoping everyone else ignores them as well.Are you or are you not aware of entire japanese families fighting to the death or jumping to their deaths during the various american campaigns? Are you or are you not aware that every man, woman, and child was being trained to fight off an american invasion of japan?Apparently, creationism is contagious.Added by edit.Based on the previous experiences of the Americans on the various islands before reaching Japan, the Americans saw very clearly how even Japanese civilians would fight the Americans to the death or would jump to their deaths. Entire families (men, women, and children) committed suicide rather than being captured.We also know that the Japanese government was training every able bodied man, woman, and child to defend the homeland.An invasion would have meant fighting for every inch of Japan. Not only that, for every inch of Japan gained, there's one more Japanese civilian committing suicide.Your entire argument of not being convinced by our argument rests on the fact that you ignore all the experiences that the Americans had with the local Japanese populations during the war. Sure, your argument makes perfect sense if we ignore everything that happened before the bombs were dropped. Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Yes, you have. In fact, you're ignoring it in your latest post just now by continuing to claim that all the American experiences with the Japanese populations during the island hopping campaign weren't evidence enough that a much larger casualty on both sides would result from an invasion. Whole islands were depopulated due to either fight to the death or suicide. Do you deny this fact?Ok, then what would you have done? Someone else from your side suggested blanket bombing Japan into submission, nevermind that this would have induced mass starvation due to the collapse of their infrastructure. Is this what you want? At least give us an alternative.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

There you go again acting like what happened on other islands didn't happen. Arguing as if there was no okinawa or any other battle where casualties were as high as 95%.

Because you keep saying there's no evidence that a nuke would yield less casualties. Someone else like you even suggested blanket bombing the whole country. Is this what you want?

Have you ever tried to talk to a non-native english speaker? After you tell them something and they don't understand, did you try to say it louder or did you try a different method at trying to communicate?I've personally seen native english speakers speaking louder and louder and louder to non-native english speakers AS IF SPEAKING LOUDER WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE.If on other islands Japanese military casualties were as high as 95% and Japanese civilian casualties were as high as a third and the Emperor didn't surrender, what on Earth would make you think it would be any different on the main islands?Again, the advantage of the atomic weapons were to shock the Japanese into surrendering, because nothing else worked. Fire bombing killing hundreds of thousands didn't work. Invasion on other islands didn't work. Why on earth would you think the same tactics who had failed to get the Japanese to surrender would work? Again, you're using creationist tactic of confusing the issue. Let me repeat again. On other islands, civilian casualties were as high as a third and military casualties were as high as 95%. The atom bombs killed 200,000. Are you really going to tell me an invasion would only kill 200,000 out of a population of 50 million Japanese?Would you like to give us evidence that an invasion would kill at most the number who died from the atom bombs?

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.

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.