|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,415 Year: 3,672/9,624 Month: 543/974 Week: 156/276 Day: 30/23 Hour: 0/3 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Was the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan Justified? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
anglagard Member (Idle past 857 days)  Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
In the thread - War and Morality. Al Queda vs. USA there was a disagreement between Dronestar and I concerning the use of atomic bombs by the USA against Japan, ostensibly in order to hasten the end of the war and to reduce allied casualties.
In Message 162 Dronestar presented five assertions which I believe are worthy of further discussion.
quote: I feel it is inappropriate to respond to these questions in the Al Queda Thread, as it is off-topic. However, I do not feel the issues raised by Dronestar are as clear-cut as his posts would indicate. I take particular issue with his statement from Message 128 quote: First, I believe that I am not totally without morals or intelligence when I disagree with what I view as an over simplistic interpretation of the events that led to the surrender of Japan. Second, I disagree that the decision to use atomic bombs, was, or even considering some modern scholarship, somehow "un-contestible" given the time and circumstance. I also reiterate "I wish it didn't happen." However, given the times, I can understand why the decision was made and would like to argue how the decision was not only likely, but also damn near inevitable, despite the horrid consequences to the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians of all ages and genders who lost their lives. In this debate, I intend to use both primary and secondary sources to explain why I feel Dronestar's five points are either an oversimplification or based upon limited and/or biased information. I am open to either a regular OP open to all or a great debate, Dronestar's choice. {ABE} Perhaps all involved, including myself, can learn something new  {/ABE} Edited by anglagard, : No reason given. Edited by anglagard, : replace the term questions with the more accurate assertions, first sentence after first quote. Edited by anglagard, : No reason given. 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
anglagard Member (Idle past 857 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined:
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
anglagard Member (Idle past 857 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
anglagard Member (Idle past 857 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
(1)
