Were the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Justified?

[KimberlyAA]

Taking lives of millions of people cannot be taken as justifiable...I think that America should be punished for that. True, Japan had committed atrocious warcrimes and were known to fight to the last man. However, by 1945 the Japanese were ready to surrender. Their singular issue with the set of terms the Allies had sent them was that they were being forced to remove their emperor.

 

[Metal Minister]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/japan_no_surrender_01.shtml


http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/hiroshima_hoax_japans_wllingne.html

 

[Uphill Battle]

BBC - History - World Wars: Japan: No Surrender in World War Two

Translating codes of combat and honour of the Japanese, in to fact of no surrender (of which there was) does nothing to forward the conversation.

 

[AmericanSamurai]

Yes, I am. Now weigh this in your mind: the live of thousands or the lives of millions. War is a horrible thing, and should always be a last resort. Now what makes more sense, end a war and save millions of lives, or continue a land war in Japan where the women and children were already either fighting our forces, or committing suicide? Keep in mind these are the only two options as dictated by the Japanese government. They'd denied all calls for talks or surrender.

But maybe if they all just surrounded a campfire and sang coombaya, the Japanese would've layed down there arms.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Translating codes of combat and honour of the Japanese, in to fact of no surrender (of which there was) does nothing to forward the conversation.

What about extrapolating that warrior ethos to the troops in the Home Islands?

a 1% surrender rate at Iwo Jima. Or look at Okinawa. The Japanese Army killed civilians and civilians committed suicide.

Some Japanese soldiers were so fanatical that they didn't surrender for decades

Irrelevant, because you are shifting the goalposts so far that they aren't even in the stadium any more. Unless you are forwarding the point that "well, the Japanese military did some horrible things, so those Japanese civilians had it coming to them."

Would the war criminals have been punished if Japan had not unconditionally surrendered? That was my line of thinking.

What would have been the fate of the occupied Chinese territory?

A military blockade would have served the same purpose while "terms" were hashed out.

And would have resulted in how many deaths from starvation and disease?

Japan was defeated in all but paper diplomacy. No invasion of the mainland would have been neccessary either. it's "justification" for the bombs, and very poor justification at that, given the facts.

It was closer than you might think the Japanese military launched a coup attempt prior to the surrender and after a couple of atomic bombings.

The Japanese were making bamboo spears to resist the allied invasion.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Taking lives of millions of people cannot be taken as justifiable...I think that America should be punished for that. True, Japan had committed atrocious warcrimes and were known to fight to the last man. However, by 1945 the Japanese were ready to surrender. Their singular issue with the set of terms the Allies had sent them was that they were being forced to remove their emperor.

Actually, the maximum is around 500,000.

As a comparison, the Japanese army literally butchered 200-300,000 people in Nanking.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Actually, the maximum is around 500,000.

As a comparison, the Japanese army literally butchered 200-300,000 people in Nanking.

Depends on whether or not you include the firebombing of civilian populace as well.

 

[MachZer0]

Depends on whether or not you include the firebombing of civilian populace as well.

The topic is about the two atomic bombs, not the firebombings

 

[Uphill Battle]

The topic is about the two atomic bombs, not the firebombings

avoid that if you wish. It doesn't make it any less relevant, that the Nukes were murderous terror attacks.

 

[CabVet]

Actually, the maximum is around 500,000.

As a comparison, the Japanese army literally butchered 200-300,000 people in Nanking.

Oh yeah, because their army butchered 200-300,000 people it is somehow ok for us to kill 500,000 of their civilians, got it. So much for "moral high ground".

 

[Metal Minister]

Oh yeah, because their army butchered 200-300,000 people it is somehow ok for us to kill 500,000 of their civilians, got it. So much for "moral high ground".

Or we could've been responsible for 8 times that many casualties...hmm I think your "moral high ground" is underwater...

 

[Uphill Battle]

Or we could've been responsible for 8 times that many casualties...hmm I think your "moral high ground" is underwater...

except the part where evidence has refuted that nonsense rhetoric.

 

[CabVet]

Or we could've been responsible for 8 times that many casualties...hmm I think your "moral high ground" is underwater...

Woulda, coulda, shoulda, didn't know you had the powers to predict alternate outcomes... What if we had blown the bombs in unpopulated areas of Japan, ever thought of that? What if (insert another 1 million different and equally effective scenarios here). Killing 100,000+ civilians is never justified.

 

[Metal Minister]

Woulda, coulda, shoulda, didn't know you had the powers to predict alternate outcomes... What if we had blown the bombs in unpopulated areas of Japan, ever thought of that? What if (insert another 1 million different and equally effective scenarios here). Killing 100,000+ civilians is never justified.

Where is there an unpopulated area of Japan? It's one of the most densely populated land masses on the planet. So you'd have been ok with 4 million deaths over those that died from the bombings? Those were the conservative estimates at the time. (Please refer back to the links I've posted throughout this thread).

 

[keith99]

Or we could've been responsible for 8 times that many casualties...hmm I think your "moral high ground" is underwater...

8? That seems very conservative. The estimates were over 1,000,000 American dead and several times that for Japaneese.

It seems the vast majority of thsoe who find the bombing unacceptable have absolutely zero respect for the courage, resolve and ability of the Japaneese soldiers.

And let us the civilians if there actually was a land invasion. There is every reason to believe at least a large percentage of civilians believed official propaganda which painted us eager torturers. There would have been plenty seeking a clean quick death over surrender to what they thought we were.

 

[Uphill Battle]

8? That seems very conservative. The estimates were over 1,000,000 American dead and several times that for Japaneese.

It seems the vast majority of thsoe who find the bombing unacceptable have absolutely zero respect for the courage, resolve and ability of the Japaneese soldiers.

And let us the civilians if there actually was a land invasion. There is every reason to believe at least a large percentage of civilians believed official propaganda which painted us eager torturers. There would have been plenty seeking a clean quick death over surrender to what they thought we were.

are we now going to say that getting vaporized by an atomic bomb is a "clean" death?

 

[CabVet]

Where is there an unpopulated area of Japan? It's one of the most densely populated land masses on the planet.

Google much? Here, I will help you, how about any of the blue areas (less than 50 people/square km) in the map below:

Hint: Hiroshima and Nagasaki are red (1,000+ people/square km).

So you'd have been ok with 4 million deaths over those that died from the bombings? Those were the conservative estimates at the time. (Please refer back to the links I've posted throughout this thread).

I don't believe the evidence (if you can call that evidence) in your links, simple as that.

But how surreal is this, here I am, arguing about a justification to kill 100,000+ civilians with a pro-life Christian.

 

[Metal Minister]

8? That seems very conservative. The estimates were over 1,000,000 American dead and several times that for Japaneese.

It seems the vast majority of thsoe who find the bombing unacceptable have absolutely zero respect for the courage, resolve and ability of the Japaneese soldiers.

And let us the civilians if there actually was a land invasion. There is every reason to believe at least a large percentage of civilians believed official propaganda which painted us eager torturers. There would have been plenty seeking a clean quick death over surrender to what they thought we were.

I posted a link earlier that talks about the mass suicides by women and children in areas where the Japanese soldiers were defeated...now imagine that on a country wide scale...

 

[Metal Minister]

Google much? Here, I will help you, how about any of the blue areas (less than 50 people/square km) in the map below:

Hint: Hiroshima and Nagasaki are red (1,000+ people/square km).

I don't believe the evidence (if you can call that evidence) in your links, simple as that.

But how surreal is this, here I am, arguing about a justification to kill 100,000+ civilians with a pro-life Christian.

And I'm discussing the deaths of a few thousand with a pro-abortion agnostic. Meanwhile there have been over 14 millions deaths in terms of that, but its off topic and you still refuse to answer the question. You can not believe the BBC, or the soldiers and generals of the time, bit answer the question. Which would you have preferred: A) the deaths of thousands, or B) the deaths of millions? Those are your only two options. There is no "opt out" for this one.

I'm not sure of your background as far as military service, but one thing I learned during mine was very simple. Break the enemies will to fight, and you stop the fighting sooner.

 

[CabVet]

And I'm discussing the deaths of a few thousand with a pro-abortion agnostic.

"A few thousand", seriously? That is just sad. 9/11 was a few thousand, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were lots of thousands. Oh, so now not only you know the outcomes of imaginary alternative scenarios, you also know my position on abortion? FYI, I am pro-life, the difference between you and me is that I am pro all life, not just that of unborn babies.

Meanwhile there have been over 14 millions deaths in terms of that, but its off topic and you still refuse to answer the question. You can not believe the BBC, or the soldiers and generals of the time, bit answer the question. Which would you have preferred: A) the deaths of thousands, or B) the deaths of millions? Those are your only two options. There is no "opt out" for this one.

I'm not sure of your background as far as military service, but one thing I learned during mine was very simple. Break the enemies will to fight, and you stop the fighting sooner.

I did serve on the military. We could have had the same outcome if the bombs were blown in areas with low population density. Heck, the Japanese would probably surrender after just Hiroshima, but we had to have Nagasaki three days later.

And oh how soon we forget our past in those divisive days:

In 1946, a report by the Federal Council of Churches entitled Atomic Warfare and the Christian Faith, includes the following passage:

"As American Christians, we are deeply penitent for the irresponsible use already made of the atomic bomb. We are agreed that, whatever be one's judgment of the war in principle, the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible."