Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Crimes or Reasonable Use of Force?

[Mavorpen]

So according to you, first=second, and Hiroshima=Nagasaki?

No, and I am done here.

Then you weren't saying the same thing as me.

I said specifically that the Russian invasion and the FIRST (Hiroshima) bomb could have ended the war and caused the surrender. According to you, you were saying the same thing despite stating that the SECOND bomb in Nagasaki ended it.

[Bone Fort]

So according to you, first=second, and Hiroshima=Nagasaki?

"Mokusatsu"= Nagasaki, or will you ignore that as well?

[Kestral Blue]

I am always torn by the deaths of so many innocent people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I cannot believe it to be 'reasonable' to kill so many people, yet I cannot bring my self to judge it as a crime. Why? Because there is no black and white in war and in this case the context really does matter.

By 1945 roughly 3% of the human beings in alive 1939 had died due to the war. (this figure varies depending on how you account for civillains).

The Germans had been defeated, largely by the Red Army on the eastern front. They had fought to the bitter end and the butcher's bill was vast. 26 million men, women and children had died in the USSR (1 in 10 of the 1939 population). Around 5.5 to 6.9 million Germans had perished to Allied bombing, to Allied shells and to Allied guns.

Can you even conceive of those figures? The faces and the lives behind those numbers? We have all seen the stock footage of Berlin in 1945 or Stalingrad in 1943 or countless other cities, towns and villages across the globe, but have you ever stopped to consider what that really entails? How many lives have been destroyed in that burnt out house or this one?

The invasion of Japan was going to be just as bloody. The Japanese had already faced a year of bombing and starvation that had failed to get the Japanese Government to surrender. Invasion seemed to be the only alternative, but the experience of the US in the island campaign of WW2 had been harrowing.

At the Battle of Okinawa, 1 in 4 American combatants were casualties (killed or wounded). Of the Japanese only 1 in 5 soldiers survived to see the end of the battle, 95,000 men died for the emperor on that island. Yet combatants were not the only casualties. There are no accurate figures that I can find on the civilian deaths however, it has been suggested that a third to a tenth of the islands population died (estimates are between 42,000 and 150,000). Some died when conscripted to fight, others were caught in the cross fire, still others jumped off cliffs to the horror of the helpless GI's. Convinced they faced rape, torture and death at the hands of the Americans.

Okinawa was a Island with a population of less than a million people. Taking it cost nearly a quarter of a million lives on all sides.

The Japanese home islands had an estimated population 71,998,104 million in 1945.

Do I judge the American commanders and most importantly the American president who balked at that amount of bloodshed? I am sure they were only thinking of the US lives but can I judge them as criminals?I have read some of the accounts of survivors and the reports from the first members of the Japanese army to arrive. They only contain a echo of the horror of the aftermath of those two bombs. They did not deserve to die, their deaths were no more deserved than any other lives lost in the human tragedy that was WW2.

Was it reasonable to kill so many innocent people? No. Can I call ending the war that killed so many, and could of killed so many more a crime? No.

Sorry this is a long post to be neither for or against.

[Dazchan]

So according to you, first=second, and Hiroshima=Nagasaki?

"Mokusatsu"= Nagasaki, or will you ignore that as well?

He's ignoring you because you're wrong. Mokusatsu was the Japanese Prime Minister's response to The Potsdam Declaration. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Nagasaki.

[Bone Fort]

He's ignoring you because you're wrong. Mokusatsu was the Japanese Prime Minister's response to The Potsdam Declaration. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Nagasaki.

... Whoops. My mistake, you're right.

Still doesn't explain why Mavorpen didn't say that. If he knew I was wrong, he definitely would've said something.

[Hallistar]

I don't understand the argument of "Well they were both on the air raid list, so they were going to get hit with the same force anyways!", seeing as that the purpose of the atomic bomb wasn't so much to get the highest death toll as much as it was to create an instant shock and awe effect of destruction. As for using a testing ground, we only had 3 atomic bombs at the time, and supplies were limited to the Alamagordo range (Not to mention how long it took to scrape up enough plutonium for Fat Man, and the amount of u-235 seperation that it took to create an effective fissionable bomb).

[Yue-Laou]

Yes, both pretty horrible war crimes.

[Labyrnna]

It was stated earlier, but I believe that the first bomb was considered to be justified.

The second one, though, I don't know. But, honestly, I think that the bombings were a better alternative than the invasion of the Japanese Home Islands. The amount of casualties and fatalities that would have garnered from both sides, I believe, could have been much, much worse than the people who died in the bombings.

[Arkinesia]

The first bomb may have been justifiable.
The second was not.

The first bomb was unquestionably justified. A conventional campaign on Japanese soil would have been horrific for both sides.

Agreed on the second bomb, though.

[Vitius]

While I don't wish to just jump in to debate, I would suggest that the option 'no, because it saved Japanese lives' be added to the poll.

Of course, it's purely hypothetical, but more Japanese civilians and soldiers could've been killed if there was an invasion of JApan.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

The first bomb may have been justifiable.
The second was not.

The first bomb was unquestionably justified. A conventional campaign on Japanese soil would have been horrific for both sides.

Agreed on the second bomb, though.

There were nearly two dozen bombs either ready or in various states of manufacture.
Fifteen, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were earmarked for strategic-style city bombing, and a further seven were intended for supporting landing US forces.

If they hadn't surrendered after Nagasaki, there would have been a lot more dropped.

[BushSucks-istan]

It was pure terrorism. Civilian targets.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

It was pure terrorism. Civilian targets.

Hiroshima was a logistics headquarters, Nagasaki was a port city.
Infrastructural denial.

In total war scenarios, the distinction between civilian and combatant breaks down.

[Mkuki]

It was pure terrorism. Civilian targets.

Do you understand the nature of total war? Or any war, to be precise?

[New Densaner]

Reasonable use of force. The Manhattan Project was started with Germany in mind. Einstein sent the famous letter to FDR warning about a German attempt to build an A bomb in 1939. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. We can say today that the USSR getting involved in the war might have ended it sooner or using the Bomb on a non populated target might have worked as well as on Hiroshima. Also American knowledge about the effects of fallout and radiation sickness was limited to say the least.

It should be noted that Hirohito specifically cited the Bomb as a reason for Japan's surrender in 1945. If using the bomb hastened the end of the war it was worth it.

[Person012345]

To everyone who votes "it was ok because it saved lives", would you also agree that if a nuclear attack on a major US city would have made the US pull out of iraq/afghanistan, that a nuclear attack on a US city by al queda would also have been justified?

[Wisconsin9]

To everyone who votes "it was ok because it saved lives", would you also agree that if a nuclear attack on a major US city would have made the US pull out of iraq/afghanistan, that a nuclear attack on a US city by al queda would also have been justified?

The upper estimate on casualties of the Iraq War is just over a million. Any nuclear attack on a large U.S. city—say, New York—would kill at least the same number of people and wound millions more.

[New Densaner]

To everyone who votes "it was ok because it saved lives", would you also agree that if a nuclear attack on a major US city would have made the US pull out of iraq/afghanistan, that a nuclear attack on a US city by al queda would also have been justified?

I seriously doubt a nuclear attack by a bunch of terrorists would have ended America's involvement in Afghanistan or Iraq. The more likely outcome would be an extreme response from the US perhaps using an H bomb. It would have solved nothing.

[Wisconsin9]

To everyone who votes "it was ok because it saved lives", would you also agree that if a nuclear attack on a major US city would have made the US pull out of iraq/afghanistan, that a nuclear attack on a US city by al queda would also have been justified?

I seriously doubt a nuclear attack by a bunch of terrorists would have ended America's involvement in Afghanistan or Iraq. The more likely outcome would be an extreme response from the US perhaps using an H bomb. It would have solved nothing.

I doubt it would lead to nuclear escalation, but it certainly would cause a massive escalation to the "War on Terror".

[New Densaner]

I seriously doubt a nuclear attack by a bunch of terrorists would have ended America's involvement in Afghanistan or Iraq. The more likely outcome would be an extreme response from the US perhaps using an H bomb. It would have solved nothing.

I doubt it would lead to nuclear escalation, but it certainly would cause a massive escalation to the "War on Terror".

We might find out one day. Islamists have sought the bomb as an option to be used against the US.

[Person012345]

To everyone who votes "it was ok because it saved lives", would you also agree that if a nuclear attack on a major US city would have made the US pull out of iraq/afghanistan, that a nuclear attack on a US city by al queda would also have been justified?

The upper estimate on casualties of the Iraq War is just over a million. Any nuclear attack on a large U.S. city—say, New York—would kill at least the same number of people and wound millions more.

Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima

Not millions. I'm not talking about some sophisticated multi-megaton ICBM, talking about some makeshift nuclear bomb, probably similar in yield to little boy.

[Wisconsin9]

I doubt it would lead to nuclear escalation, but it certainly would cause a massive escalation to the "War on Terror".

We might find out one day. Islamists have sought the bomb as an option to be used against the US.

Any country that used a nuke on the U.S. would more likely than not soon find themselves on the receiving end of a handful of Trident IIs, and they know it, which is exactly why Russia didn't fuck with us too much during the Cold War.

[Person012345]

To everyone who votes "it was ok because it saved lives", would you also agree that if a nuclear attack on a major US city would have made the US pull out of iraq/afghanistan, that a nuclear attack on a US city by al queda would also have been justified?

I seriously doubt a nuclear attack by a bunch of terrorists would have ended America's involvement in Afghanistan or Iraq. The more likely outcome would be an extreme response from the US perhaps using an H bomb. It would have solved nothing.

It's a hypothetical, if it did.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I doubt it would lead to nuclear escalation, but it certainly would cause a massive escalation to the "War on Terror".

We might find out one day. Islamists have sought the bomb as an option to be used against the US.

Any kind of warhead that terrorist groups would be capable of fielding against the west would certainly not be capable of sustaining more than a few thousand casualties. If even that.

[Wisconsin9]

The upper estimate on casualties of the Iraq War is just over a million. Any nuclear attack on a large U.S. city—say, New York—would kill at least the same number of people and wound millions more.

Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima

Not millions. I'm not talking about some sophisticated multi-megaton ICBM, talking about some makeshift nuclear bomb, probably similar in yield to little boy.

Except that American cities that might be targeted would not only have larger populations than Hiroshima but larger population densities as well. Manhattan, for example, has a population density of 69,771 people per mile squared. Little Boy caused severe damage in a one mile radius. I may have done the math wrong, but that comes out to roughly 140-50,000 dead and wounded, which according to some estimates is still more than the Iraq War.