This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Justification of the Atomic Bombs
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Again, I'm not justifying it, but I'm giving reason to it.
You give reasons for something
before
you do it. Nobody cares about the reasons now...the act is done. People care about whether the act was justifiable or not.
Post by
blademeld
I'm giving reason to justifying it.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm giving reason to justifying it.
So you
are
justifying it, or attempting to, as the case might be.
Post by
blademeld
I knew there was a reason why I stopped coming to randomness.
CURSE YOU FAYNE
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
A couple quotes:
Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"
The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
The use of at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated
...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing.
...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.
...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the bombs.
...while Allied leaders were immediately inclined to support all innovations however bold and novel in the strictly military sphere, they frowned upon similar innovations in the sphere of diplomatic and psychological warfare.
It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world...
In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn't have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb.
The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them. When you have to deal with
a beast
you have to treat him like
a beast
. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true.
Post by
148723
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
From what I know about the Japanese culture back then, they would've rather stabbed themselves with a rusty blade than surrender. I find it hard to believe that Japan was going to surrender before we posed any real threat to the life of their emperor. And even if we had, even if they saw something that made them afraid, they would've died for their emperor over surrendering.
I love how you know better than the people who were actually conducting the War.
-_-
Post by
148723
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Kristopher
I love how you know better than the people who were actually conducting the War.
-_-
He does. Its not like he started any wars lately.
Post by
Septimus
I have not read anything on the thread but I would just like to say the following.
Has anyone else been to the Hiroshima Museum. The stuff they have there... it's just plain creepy. The shadow of a child opening his lunch box 'imprinted' into the wall. Peoples melted skins are displayed. What the atomic bombs did is just awful. I will never forget what I saw at that museum.
Post by
374287
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
343569
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
304510
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
War is hell. Also, the world is not fair.
How are you supposed to treat targets that will take up arms against you if you move in to occupy their nation? Are they not also combatants in the war? The fact that Japan did not surrender when its civilian population was threatened says to me that they have some fault in this. When I cross the street when its a yellow light, I have no right to complain when a car hits me.
Additionally,
the civilian population has contributed to the war effort
, so in a way attacking that population and demoralizing the rest weakens the enemy overall. If they don't want to be a target, they should overthrow their own government or leave.
The whole situation is messy, yes it seems nice to simplify things, but I'm not 100% sure you can take the statement "Killing innocent people is wrong", and then use that in this context.
Post by
304510
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
abulurd
A couple quotes:
Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"
The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
The use of at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated
...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing.
...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.
...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the bombs.
...while Allied leaders were immediately inclined to support all innovations however bold and novel in the strictly military sphere, they frowned upon similar innovations in the sphere of diplomatic and psychological warfare.
It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world...
In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn't have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb.
The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them. When you have to deal with
a beast
you have to treat him like
a beast
. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true.
You do realize that these "ready to surrender people" fought on for another month in china, AFTER the emperor had surrendered on the mainland right?
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Avallen
I took a class last year called AP National Security that talked about this exact topic, among others.. basically, trying to answer the question, "When is it right for the government to lie to the people for their own good?" Talked about Area 51, Kennedy, the assassination of Lincoln, and Pearl Harbor.
After the Allied forces managed to secure an unconditional surrender from Germany, it set a massive precedent. Truman knew that the Japanese would fight to their deaths, in every sense of that phrase, before they agreed to an unconditional surrender. The leadership of Japan at the time was determined through bloodlines - an unconditional surrender would result in the replacement of the leader of Japan, something the Japanese refused to let happen.
It would be an enormous effort for the Allied forces (comprised mostly of Americans in the theoretical endeavour against Japan) to attempt to force a surrender through armed conflict - in fact, it's likely that even if a traditional assault on the country of Japan did occur, the Japanese government would not have issued an unconditional surrender even if it meant allowing massive destruction and death to sweep the islands of Japan.
The United States also feared a traditional military assault because the communist Red Army would likely supplement the American forces. This would result in the spread of communist power through greater Asia, which could present a threat to national security in the future.
The US govt had spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing the atomic bomb. The people of the US were war-tired, exhausted, and grieving over the countless American deaths overseas. Toppling the Japanese would require massive resources and willpower, and Truman was not sure that the American people could give any more than they already had. So Truman gave the Japanese a very vague warning, something along the lines of "if you don't surrender unconditionally, something disastrous will happen". The Japanese declined, and so Truman ordered the dropping of the atomic bomb while on a ship bound for America in the middle of the Atlantic.
I don't think Truman made the right or wrong decision, because there is no correct answer. He had to make a difficult decision, and either way he would come out as the bad guy.
Post by
341129
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
They were threatening china tho.
They...
As in
the military
. So attack the military. The 'they' in my quote was referring to the civilians we slaughtered.
You do realize that these "ready to surrender people" fought on for another month in china, AFTER the emperor had surrendered on the mainland right?
In other words, you agree with me. The A-bomb
didn't
change anything.
I don't think Truman made the right or wrong decision, because there is no correct answer. He had to make a difficult decision, and either way he would come out as the bad guy.
I'd refer you to my quote from Truman. He made himself into the bad guy the second he made the Japanese into less-than-humans.
Also, Hyperspacerebel, take a chill pill.
What?
If some came onto this board supporting a mass-murderer like Hitler, everyone would be up in arms against him. I don't like mass murders.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.