Was the first atomic bomb justified?

[Atealia]

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.

They weren't willing to continue, there is ample evidence to show that Japan was going to surrender. The cities were the targets, the Japanese empire had absolutely no way of fighting back against the allies, military bases are nothing more than justification,Japan couldn't have in any way taken advantage of these installations, it's like kicking a Mn with every bone in his body broken, it's unnecessary, they probably won't be affected by it and it's pretty damn cruel.

[Miarie]

Yes and no, there was no way of knowing that the bomb would have any serious long term effects such as cancer and radiation poisoning, and the war could have gone on longer if it wasn't used; the bomb took mostly civilian lives, but a ground invasion could have costed more lives, although they would have been the lives of soldiers who where trained to go fight and possibly die.

[The Great Devourer of All]

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.

My paternal grandfather would have been a combatant in the invasion of the home islands if the Empire had not surrendered, but I still think that neither bombing was justified.

[Allet Klar Chefs]

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.

I'd feel more like they didn't have it coming when the Emperor goes to Nanking or if the Japanese state had made even a token effort to compensate its victims. That they waited until there were less than four dozen comfort women alive before they paid anything out is pretty fucking telling as to the level of guilt the Japanese state has felt for its actions in the occupation of Asia and then in WW2, which were by any token at least as bad as the Germans.

[Napkiraly]

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.

My paternal grandfather would have been a combatant in the invasion of the home islands if the Empire had not surrendered, but I still think that neither bombing was justified.

And that's your choice.

[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.

I'd feel more like they didn't have it coming when the Emperor goes to Nanking or if the Japanese state had made even a token effort to compensate its victims. That they waited until there were less than four dozen comfort women alive before they paid anything out is pretty fucking telling as to the level of guilt the Japanese state has felt for its actions in the occupation of Asia and then in WW2, which were by any token at least as bad as the Germans.

As I have said, I fail to see how the atrocities committed by the IJA in any way justify America's own atrocities. You can argue whether it was justified on real merits, but not that they deserved to have thousands upon thousands suffer just because of petty retribution.

[The Great Devourer of All]

My paternal grandfather would have been a combatant in the invasion of the home islands if the Empire had not surrendered, but I still think that neither bombing was justified.

And that's your choice.

I wasn't trying to passive-aggressive, I was just stating that my opinion is unchanged by what the bombings meant for my grandfather.

[The Corparation]

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.

They weren't willing to continue, there is ample evidence to show that Japan was going to surrender. The cities were the targets, the Japanese empire had absolutely no way of fighting back against the allies, military bases are nothing more than justification,Japan couldn't have in any way taken advantage of these installations, it's like kicking a Mn with every bone in his body broken, it's unnecessary, they probably won't be affected by it and it's pretty damn cruel.

In WWII if you wanted to bomb a target in a city, the easiest way to do so was to bomb the whole city. Precision bombing from the altitudes the B-29 flew at wasn't practical yet, even the "accurate" norden bombsight had a CEP of over a 1,000 feet. (CEP or circular error probable is a measure of bombing accuracy which is measured by a the circle that surrounds where 50% of your bombs will land).

[The Great Devourer of All]

I'd feel more like they didn't have it coming when the Emperor goes to Nanking or if the Japanese state had made even a token effort to compensate its victims. That they waited until there were less than four dozen comfort women alive before they paid anything out is pretty fucking telling as to the level of guilt the Japanese state has felt for its actions in the occupation of Asia and then in WW2, which were by any token at least as bad as the Germans.

As I have said, I fail to see how the atrocities committed by the IJA in any way justify America's own atrocities. You can argue whether it was justified on real merits, but not that they deserved to have thousands upon thousands suffer just because of petty retribution.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."

-Mohandas Gandhi

[Alvecia]

As I have said, I fail to see how the atrocities committed by the IJA in any way justify America's own atrocities. You can argue whether it was justified on real merits, but not that they deserved to have thousands upon thousands suffer just because of petty retribution.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."

-Mohandas Gandhi

Well, the last guy would still have one eye if he hid.

[Allet Klar Chefs]

I'd feel more like they didn't have it coming when the Emperor goes to Nanking or if the Japanese state had made even a token effort to compensate its victims. That they waited until there were less than four dozen comfort women alive before they paid anything out is pretty fucking telling as to the level of guilt the Japanese state has felt for its actions in the occupation of Asia and then in WW2, which were by any token at least as bad as the Germans.

As I have said, I fail to see how the atrocities committed by the IJA in any way justify America's own atrocities. You can argue whether it was justified on real merits, but not that they deserved to have thousands upon thousands suffer just because of petty retribution.

These people were directly supplying the Japanese military machine, which was wilfully exterminating the Chinese population.

[The Great Devourer of All]

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."

-Mohandas Gandhi

Well, the last guy would still have one eye if he hid.

That's not the point of the quote, and you can't exactly 'hide' a city from a B-29 and an A-bomb.

[Herskerstad]

As I have said, I fail to see how the atrocities committed by the IJA in any way justify America's own atrocities. You can argue whether it was justified on real merits, but not that they deserved to have thousands upon thousands suffer just because of petty retribution.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."

-Mohandas Gandhi

Had we adopted non-violence as the weapon of the strong, because we realised that it was more effective than any other weapon, in fact the mightiest force in the world, we would have made use of its full potency and not have discarded it as soon as the fight against the British was over or we were in a position to wield conventional weapons. But as I have already said, we adopted it out of our helplessness. If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against the British.

-Mohandas Gandhi

[Caracasus]

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."

-Mohandas Gandhi

Well, the last guy would still have one eye if he hid.

That's a bit of a sad story actually. He was running away to hide, but sadly the lack of depth perception (he's already lost one eye, remember) meant that he tripped over and jabbed his remaining eye out on a fence post.

[Atealia]

They weren't willing to continue, there is ample evidence to show that Japan was going to surrender. The cities were the targets, the Japanese empire had absolutely no way of fighting back against the allies, military bases are nothing more than justification,Japan couldn't have in any way taken advantage of these installations, it's like kicking a Mn with every bone in his body broken, it's unnecessary, they probably won't be affected by it and it's pretty damn cruel.

In WWII if you wanted to bomb a target in a city, the easiest way to do so was to bomb the whole city. Precision bombing from the altitudes the B-29 flew at wasn't practical yet, even the "accurate" norden bombsight had a CEP of over a 1,000 feet. (CEP or circular error probable is a measure of bombing accuracy which is measured by a the circle that surrounds where 50% of your bombs will land).

I'm well aware of that. It doesn't change the fact that the blast radius was far more than would be needed for an attempt at destroying a military installation, if they were simply trying to destroy the installation they had many other forms of bombs that would have been less destructive to the city. It's a justification, if the US military felt that destroying this installation would in anyway affect the Japanese military then they were terrible strategists, it was already far too late for Japan to fight back, what meaningful affect would destroying it have from that standpoint?

[Arlathan and the Dales]

As I have said, I fail to see how the atrocities committed by the IJA in any way justify America's own atrocities. You can argue whether it was justified on real merits, but not that they deserved to have thousands upon thousands suffer just because of petty retribution.

These people were directly supplying the Japanese military machine, which was wilfully exterminating the Chinese population.

The people of New York were directly supplying the American military machine, which was willfully engaged against Muslims in Somalia.

Your reasoning for justification, applied to a different scenario.

[Alvecia]

Well, the last guy would still have one eye if he hid.

That's not the point of the quote.

I'm aware.

[The Texan Union]

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.

They weren't willing to continue, there is ample evidence to show that Japan was going to surrender. The cities were the targets, the Japanese empire had absolutely no way of fighting back against the allies, military bases are nothing more than justification,Japan couldn't have in any way taken advantage of these installations, it's like kicking a Mn with every bone in his body broken, it's unnecessary, they probably won't be affected by it and it's pretty damn cruel.

The fact is that they hadn't surrendered! The war wasn't over! It's not like you can trust what they say in negotiations anyway, seeing as they were war criminals! We're talking about people who raped women, held a f*cking KILLING CONTEST, and mercilessly slaughtered innocent civilians. I'm honestly surprised you can call them human. Anyone willing to order or allow something like that to happen is nothing less than an animal. And animals don't negotiate.

[Allet Klar Chefs]

These people were directly supplying the Japanese military machine, which was wilfully exterminating the Chinese population.

The people of New York were directly supplying the American military machine, which was willfully engaged against Muslims in Somalia.

Your reasoning for justification, applied to a different scenario.

Can't disagree with that.

[Olerand]

Yes, Japan was willing to continue the war, costing millions of more lives on both sides. I am unsure if Japan was willing to sue for peace before the second bomb, but if not, then that was justified too.

[The Great Devourer of All]

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."

-Mohandas Gandhi

Had we adopted non-violence as the weapon of the strong, because we realised that it was more effective than any other weapon, in fact the mightiest force in the world, we would have made use of its full potency and not have discarded it as soon as the fight against the British was over or we were in a position to wield conventional weapons. But as I have already said, we adopted it out of our helplessness. If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against the British.

-Mohandas Gandhi

But since the British had not used an atom bomb on the Indians, such a scenario would not be 'an eye for an eye', but rather 'an eye for two centuries of being annoyed by an asshole'.

[Alvecia]

Well, the last guy would still have one eye if he hid.

That's a bit of a sad story actually. He was running away to hide, but sadly the lack of depth perception (he's already lost one eye, remember) meant that he tripped over and jabbed his remaining eye out on a fence post.

The part of the story that Ghandi never told.

[Olthar]

The first one wast morally justified but not morally right. The second was neither. Whether or not they were necessary, I am unsure; I don't have the knowledge or experience to make judgement calls about military strategy.

[Caracasus]

They weren't willing to continue, there is ample evidence to show that Japan was going to surrender. The cities were the targets, the Japanese empire had absolutely no way of fighting back against the allies, military bases are nothing more than justification,Japan couldn't have in any way taken advantage of these installations, it's like kicking a Mn with every bone in his body broken, it's unnecessary, they probably won't be affected by it and it's pretty damn cruel.

The fact is that they hadn't surrendered! The war wasn't over! It's not like you can trust what they say in negotiations anyway, seeing as they were war criminals! We're talking about people who raped women, held a f*cking KILLING CONTEST, and mercilessly slaughtered innocent civilians. I'm honestly surprised you can call them human. Anyone willing to order or allow something like that to happen is nothing less than an animal. And animals don't negotiate.

Literally all those things are depressingly human traits, as history has proven time and time again. They didn't need to trust what they said in the negotiations - there was visibly no way Japan could hold out much longer against conventional tactics, not even including an invasion of the home islands.

[Alvecia]

Had we adopted non-violence as the weapon of the strong, because we realised that it was more effective than any other weapon, in fact the mightiest force in the world, we would have made use of its full potency and not have discarded it as soon as the fight against the British was over or we were in a position to wield conventional weapons. But as I have already said, we adopted it out of our helplessness. If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against the British.

-Mohandas Gandhi

But since the British had not used an atom bomb on the Indians, such a scenario would not be 'an eye for an eye', but rather 'an eye for two centuries of being annoyed by an asshole'.

So an eye for an eye is acceptable provided enough eyes have been poked?