Was the first atomic bomb justified?

[Valaran]

Which only shows that people would have still died, potentially even more, albeit via the conventional route and over a slightly longer period of time. Not to mention, the USA had no way of knowing any of that.

Hence why I thought it decently nuanced
Its not a flawless link, and its not nearly as objective as it pretends to be. But it does attempt to throw some light on the complexity of the issue.

My opinion on the atomic bombings is that they are justified, but its not nearly as simplistic as it is often characterised, and I'm too lazy to elaborate my own views at length.

[Napkiraly]

It's a comparison. Just leaving Japan alone wouldn't have gotten the right message across. (It's the equivalent of giving a murderer a slap on the wrist) The atomic bomb told them that if they ever do something like that again then we'll be there to finish them off. And the second one told them we won't hesitate to do so.

Because firebombings, destruction of their fleets, collapse of their empire, destruction of their infrastructure and industry and essentially the loss of all overseas territory was just a 'slap on the wrist' right?

I am sure they got the damn message and as proven with the evidence cited, they DID get the message.

The bombs were unnecessary.

The message would have been continued to have been sent for a few more months, leading to the same amount or even more casualties. And this is assuming hardliners wouldn't have taken over, which was bad enough with the bombs having been dropped compared to if they weren't.

[Napkiraly]

Which only shows that people would have still died, potentially even more, albeit via the conventional route and over a slightly longer period of time. Not to mention, the USA had no way of knowing any of that.

Hence why I thought it decently nuanced
Its not a flawless link, and its not nearly as objective as it pretends to be. But it does attempt to throw some light on the complexity of the issue.

My opinion on the atomic bombings is that they are justified, but its not nearly as simplistic as it is often characterised, and I'm too lazy to elaborate my own views at length.

Fair enough.

[Nickel Empire]

Yes.

[Atealia]

Now, as I've reiterated time and time again, no.
But hey, don't take it from me.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html#jstetw

Whether they would've surrendered or not, they deserved all of it. After all, they killed plenty more than that in Nanjing.

So the answer to the murder of civilians is to murder the civilians of the opposing side? The war was over, the war was won, the Japanese were going to surrender, and yet the bombs were dropped anyway, on civilians. Did those civilians deserve to die to make up for the fact that the Japanese army killed so many Chinese civilians? should we Start killing civilians living in Isis occupied territory as revenge for Paris and Brussels? If you want to justify this you should atleast be consistent, or accept that the bombings were a mistake.

[Valaran]

Fair enough.

I'm fairly certain we have similar opinions on this

[Oceara]

The answer to this question lies, with another question.

Are we to value a solid number of lives saved, or are we to weigh the value of lives depending on the ratio to soldiers lost compared to civilians lost in a campaign?

[Blitz Epidemic]

I've only commented on 2 topics in my very short time here, but already i've come to the conclusion there are way, way too many sjw libertards here. It's practically useless to debate them, their brains are purposely turned off.

[The Texan Union]

Please, sir/madame, show us the evidence.


Yeah, Dresden and Nanjing are so similar. Because mass rape and looting is the equivalent of a simple firebombing.

In Dresden we literally created a tornado of fire that sucked up almost the entire damn town.

The nukes were justified, but the accidental bombing of Dresden was pretty fucked up.

I'm in no way defending what happened to Dresden.

Please, sir/madame, show us the evidence.

Gladly:

From the official report (UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY SUMMARY REPORT (Pacific War) WASHINGTON, D.C. 1 JULY 1946) I've already linked to this by the way:

The conviction and strength of the peace party was increased by the continuing Japanese military defeats, and by Japan's helplessness in defending itself against the ever-growing weight of air attack on the home islands. On 7 April 1945, less than a week after United States landings on Okinawa, Koiso was removed and Marquis Kido installed Admiral Suzuki as premier. Kido testified to the Survey that, in his opinion, Suzuki alone had the deep conviction and personal courage to stand up to the military and bring the war to an end.

Early in May 1945, the Supreme War Direction Council began active discussion of ways and means to end the war, and talks were initiated with Soviet Russia seeking her intercession as mediator.

The talks by the Japanese ambassador in Moscow and with the Soviet ambassador in Tokyo did not make progress. On 20 June the Emperor, on his own initiative, called the six members of the Supreme War Direction Council to a conference and said it was necessary to have a plan to close the war at once, as well as a plan to defend the home islands. The timing of the Potsdam Conference interfered with a plan to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special emissary with instructions from the cabinet to negotiate for peace on terms less than unconditional surrender, but with private instructions from the Emperor to secure peace at any price. Although the Supreme War Direction Council, in its deliberations on the Potsdam Declaration, was agreed on the advisability of ending the war, three of its members, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and the Navy Minister, were prepared to accept unconditional surrender, while the other three, the Army Minister, and the Chiefs of Staff of both services, favored continued resistance unless certain mitigating conditions were obtained.

[/quote][/quote]
Thanks.

[Napkiraly]

Fair enough.

I'm fairly certain we have similar opinions on this

I agree. I'm also perhaps a bit biased, since my paternal grandfather was transferred to a combat unit that would have seen action should the Japanese have not ended up surrendering. Anything to mitigate the chances of his death or maiming is rather welcome.

[Arlathan and the Dales]

I've only commented on 2 topics in my very short time here, but already i've come to the conclusion there are way, way too many sjw libertards here. It's practically useless to debate them, their brains are purposely turned off.

When confronted with a large amount of opposition to your views, the only logical route is to stoop to playground level insults, buzzwords, political nicknaming, and personal attacks. It is known.

[The Rebel Alliances]

I've only commented on 2 topics in my very short time here, but already i've come to the conclusion there are way, way too many sjw libertards here. It's practically useless to debate them, their brains are purposely turned off.

Feel the summer.

[Esgonia]

Yes

[Caracasus]

I've only commented on 2 topics in my very short time here, but already i've come to the conclusion there are way, way too many sjw libertards here. It's practically useless to debate them, their brains are purposely turned off.

Really? Where exactly have you even attempted to debate anything? Your contributions appear to be as follows:

Yes, of course, and the bomb should of been dropped on Mecca & Medina on 9/11 as well.

How ignorant.

Bleeding heart liberals are the worst of sorts, commonly referred to as 'useful idiots' to the Stalins and Maos of this world.

Yes, but would they have unconditionally surrendered?

Technically the Japanese didn't unconditionally surrender, they held out until the U.S. guaranteed their Emperor would stay in power.

[The Great Devourer of All]

No. The Japanese Empire was no more than a year from collapse with the countless firebombs of its cities. Toyko had been reduced to a dusty grid of broken roads crisscrossing patches of rubble, with the occasional building left to remind people that it had once been a full a city. Many other cities had met the same fate.

The bombings were nothing but excuses for Truman to show off his big, bad nukes to the Soviets.

[Arlathan and the Dales]

I certainly see the grounds of the argument where it is speculated that it prevented further bloodshed (towards both combat personnel and civilians) through the planned invasion of the Home Isles, but the argument "they deserved it" is absolutely terrifying and appalling. Regardless of your views, it is a bit more complicated than the latter.

[The Texan Union]

Whether they would've surrendered or not, they deserved all of it. After all, they killed plenty more than that in Nanjing.

So the answer to the murder of civilians is to murder the civilians of the opposing side? The war was over, the war was won, the Japanese were going to surrender, and yet the bombs were dropped anyway, on civilians. Did those civilians deserve to die to make up for the fact that the Japanese army killed so many Chinese civilians? should we Start killing civilians living in Isis occupied territory as revenge for Paris and Brussels? If you want to justify this you should atleast be consistent, or accept that the bombings were a mistake.

No, the answer to the deliberate murder of civilians is the demonstration that if the enemy military is to continue, not only will their armed forces suffer tremendous defeat, but their families will die in the process. Despite the fact that Hiroshima housed civilians, it was still a military base. We hit their military as hard as we could, the civilians were not the target.

[Caracasus]

I certainly see the grounds of the argument where it is speculated that it prevented further bloodshed (towards both combat personnel and civilians) through the planned invasion of the Home Isles, but the argument "they deserved it" is absolutely terrifying and appalling. Regardless of your views, it is a bit more complicated than the latter.

The thing that really makes me believe that the "preventing further bloodshed" wasn't the primary motivation was the second bomb. In many ways the fact that there's a second atomic bomb removes a lot of the justification for the first.

[The Great Devourer of All]

I certainly see the grounds of the argument where it is speculated that it prevented further bloodshed (towards both combat personnel and civilians) through the planned invasion of the Home Isles, but the argument "they deserved it" is absolutely terrifying and appalling. Regardless of your views, it is a bit more complicated than the latter.

I don't like Putin, so we should go ahead and kill 200,000 Russian civilians.

[Napkiraly]

I certainly see the grounds of the argument where it is speculated that it prevented further bloodshed (towards both combat personnel and civilians) through the planned invasion of the Home Isles, but the argument "they deserved it" is absolutely terrifying and appalling. Regardless of your views, it is a bit more complicated than the latter.

Indeed. Also for American posters, they unintentionally justify acts such as 9/11 as well.

I certainly see the grounds of the argument where it is speculated that it prevented further bloodshed (towards both combat personnel and civilians) through the planned invasion of the Home Isles, but the argument "they deserved it" is absolutely terrifying and appalling. Regardless of your views, it is a bit more complicated than the latter.

The thing that really makes me believe that the "preventing further bloodshed" wasn't the primary motivation was the second bomb. In many ways the fact that there's a second atomic bomb removes a lot of the justification for the first.

I don't see how.

[The Great Devourer of All]

I certainly see the grounds of the argument where it is speculated that it prevented further bloodshed (towards both combat personnel and civilians) through the planned invasion of the Home Isles, but the argument "they deserved it" is absolutely terrifying and appalling. Regardless of your views, it is a bit more complicated than the latter.

The thing that really makes me believe that the "preventing further bloodshed" wasn't the primary motivation was the second bomb. In many ways the fact that there's a second atomic bomb removes a lot of the justification for the first.

It's pretty obvious in my opinion that both bombings were just ways of letting Stalin know that we had the atom bomb and were willing to use it.

[Arlathan and the Dales]

I certainly see the grounds of the argument where it is speculated that it prevented further bloodshed (towards both combat personnel and civilians) through the planned invasion of the Home Isles, but the argument "they deserved it" is absolutely terrifying and appalling. Regardless of your views, it is a bit more complicated than the latter.

The thing that really makes me believe that the "preventing further bloodshed" wasn't the primary motivation was the second bomb. In many ways the fact that there's a second atomic bomb removes a lot of the justification for the first.

An interesting thought. With the second, it makes it seem like it was clearly about sending a message, but perhaps not necessarily towards just Japan. It seems the US used Nagasaki as it's showcase to the world what it was now capable of, at the expense of more than 80,000 Japanese civilians.

[Valaran]

In many ways the fact that there's a second atomic bomb removes a lot of the justification for the first.

tbh, the greater moral controversy normally arrives with Nagasaki than Hiroshima.

Called it

I'm fairly certain we have similar opinions on this

I agree. I'm also perhaps a bit biased, since my paternal grandfather was transferred to a combat unit that would have seen action should the Japanese have not ended up surrendering. Anything to mitigate the chances of his death or maiming is rather welcome.

I think its hard to be unbiased with WWII. But I'm also very glad that this invasion never happened.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

Well, considering how the alternative would have been the invasion of the Home Islands, many more months or even years of warfare against a fanatically-hostile population, at least a million more Allied casualties and the effective extermination of Japanese people, I think that obliterating a city or two was an acceptable sacrifice, and one that benefitted the Japanese as well as Americans in the long run at that.

Besides, Hiroshima constituted a legit military target owing to the sizable troop concentrations in the city - especially considering how urban areas were generally considered fair game for indiscriminate saturation bombardment at the time.

[The Corparation]

While I don't think the Atomic bombs were strictly necessary to end the war(The US could have probably forced an unconditional surrender without them), I do feel that they were justified. Both cities contained important military targets (2ndArmy Headquarters in Hiroshima and important Shipyards in Nagasaki) and the psychological effect of dropping of the bombs did help accelerate the Japanese surrender. They wouldn't of held out much longer, but in the meantime the conventional bombing would have continued. Also I'm of the opinion that the power of the bombs needed to be demonstrated against actual targets in order to prevent their continued usage down the line.

Please, sir/madame, show us the evidence.


Yeah, Dresden and Nanjing are so similar. Because mass rape and looting is the equivalent of a simple firebombing.

In Dresden we literally created a tornado of fire that sucked up almost the entire damn town.

The nukes were justified, but the accidental bombing of Dresden was pretty fucked up.

Dresden wasn't an accident. It was completely intentional, the city had some important light industry and transportation infrastructure the Allies wanted to get rid of. Also the British supposedly wanted payback for Coventry.

If you want to talk about firestorms caused by bombings in a debate about the Atomic bombs, don't bring up Dresden. Dresden's bombing doesn't really have much to compare to the Atomic Bombings. Instead you should bring up the B-29 raids on Tokyo. Dresden got hit hard once. Tokyo was repeatedly bombed by literally hundreds of B-29s. In one night (Operation Meetinghouse), B-29s managed to burn down a quarter of Tokyo killing at least 100,000 (, and injuring over a million (More than the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined).

*(It probably killed more than either atomic bomb did but both sides likely downplayed their casualty estimates, in addition this estimate is probably low when you consider that 1.5 million people lived in the affected area.)