Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Crimes or Reasonable Use of Force?

[Alban Isles]

Infact, America still maintains a millitary and airforce base there currently.

[The Mighty Warrior Horse]

Infact, America still maintains a millitary and airforce base there currently.

Ok, they do that, but were currently discussing if the bombs were a crime, not the fact that we have troops in Japan.

[Raltirian Denethier]

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.

That's actually not true. We only had enough fissible material for three bombs, uranium for two and plutonium for one as a byproduct of enriching the uranium. All three, Trinity, Little Boy and Fat Man, were used in some way either for testing or bombing. I think we all know which was used for which.

[Great Nepal]

Not using nuclear weapon would have resulted an invasion, costing 1.7 millions casualties on US side alone. On Japanese side five million fatalities. Basic maths gives 6.7 million casualties and that is the lowest of the estimates.
6.7 million < 246,000
It was necessary and good for everyone.

[Saiwania]

Infact, America still maintains a millitary and airforce base there currently.

I am sure if the government of Japan wants the US military to leave, the US will be happy to oblige. The USMC is planning on relocating from Okinawa to Guam if they haven't already done so. The US government is okay with Japan amending Article 9 of their constitution to allow for an offensive military again but their legislature hasn't chosen to do so, in part because of strong pacifist sentiment among the Japanese people.

[Mkuki]

Not using nuclear weapon would have resulted an invasion, costing 1.7 millions casualties on US side alone. On Japanese side five million fatalities. Basic maths gives 6.7 million casualties and that is the lowest of the estimates.
6.7 million < 246,000
It was necessary and good for everyone.

Those numbers, all three, seem exaggerated. Do you have a source for those estimates?

[Patheon Global Security]

Reasonable use of force, it was either that, or millions of casualties (also including civilian ones) in an invasion of Japan.

[Great Nepal]

Not using nuclear weapon would have resulted an invasion, costing 1.7 millions casualties on US side alone. On Japanese side five million fatalities. Basic maths gives 6.7 million casualties and that is the lowest of the estimates.
6.7 million < 246,000
It was necessary and good for everyone.

Those numbers, all three, seem exaggerated. Do you have a source for those estimates?

Atom bomb casualties
Operation Downfall casualties

[Mkuki]

Those numbers, all three, seem exaggerated. Do you have a source for those estimates?

Atom bomb casualties
Operation Downfall casualties

Although estimates did vary it would seem that your numbers would have been a fairly conservative estimate. For Downfall anyway. Thanks for the sources, though.

[Person012345]

The entire argument misses the point that you don't HAVE to invade people to make peace with them. It's not, take the whole place over or we'll be at war forever. The Japanese were already looking for some sort of peace (since the soviets were also breathing down their neck), they just didn't really like our terms. Painting it as a picture of "atom bomb or eighty bajillion casualties" is silly. Just gonna throw that out there.

[Afalia]

I hate that the only justification for it being acceptable was that it potentially saved American lives. What makes an American life more important than a Japanese one?

If you're going to argue that way at least put the point across that Japanese lives may have been saved as well.

Personally I find it really hard to give a judgement on this question. It's one of the big questions of history. I'm inclined to say that whilst Hiroshima's bomb may have been allowed, the second bomb was by far not acceptable. Even if Japan hadn't surrendered then, I'm pretty sure it would have done so soon after. There was no need for all those deaths of innocent civilians.

[Patheon Global Security]

The entire argument misses the point that you don't HAVE to invade people to make peace with them. It's not, take the whole place over or we'll be at war forever. The Japanese were already looking for some sort of peace (since the soviets were also breathing down their neck), they just didn't really like our terms. Painting it as a picture of "atom bomb or eighty bajillion casualties" is silly. Just gonna throw that out there.

Source they were searching for peace.

[Afalia]

The entire argument misses the point that you don't HAVE to invade people to make peace with them. It's not, take the whole place over or we'll be at war forever. The Japanese were already looking for some sort of peace (since the soviets were also breathing down their neck), they just didn't really like our terms. Painting it as a picture of "atom bomb or eighty bajillion casualties" is silly. Just gonna throw that out there.

That's a good point. Japan was looking for peace, but didn't like the terms of the original American deal, because correct me if I'm wrong it involved the abolition of the Emperor system?

[Patheon Global Security]

I hate that the only justification for it being acceptable was that it potentially saved American lives. What makes an American life more important than a Japanese one?

If you're going to argue that way at least put the point across that Japanese lives may have been saved as well.

Personally I find it really hard to give a judgement on this question. It's one of the big questions of history. I'm inclined to say that whilst Hiroshima's bomb may have been allowed, the second bomb was by far not acceptable. Even if Japan hadn't surrendered then, I'm pretty sure it would have done so soon after. There was no need for all those deaths of innocent civilians.

What is the difference between 30.000 kids dying by 2 A-Bombs or 500.000 by other means of war? Right, with the 2 A-bombs are less.

Dead kids are nasty yes, that I agree with.

[Great Nepal]

The entire argument misses the point that you don't HAVE to invade people to make peace with them. It's not, take the whole place over or we'll be at war forever. The Japanese were already looking for some sort of peace (since the soviets were also breathing down their neck), they just didn't really like our terms. Painting it as a picture of "atom bomb or eighty bajillion casualties" is silly. Just gonna throw that out there.

Only acceptable terms was unconditional surrender. It was not acceptable for Japanese.
You cant compromise between two absolutes and in this situation, compromising would have been unacceptable. Not to mention, if US didn't invade: Soviet would have.

Atom bomb casualties
Operation Downfall casualties

Although estimates did vary it would seem that your numbers would have been a fairly conservative estimate. For Downfall anyway. Thanks for the sources, though.

Np.

I hate that the only justification for it being acceptable was that it potentially saved American lives. What makes an American life more important than a Japanese one?

If you're going to argue that way at least put the point across that Japanese lives may have been saved as well.

Personally I find it really hard to give a judgement on this question. It's one of the big questions of history. I'm inclined to say that whilst Hiroshima's bomb may have been allowed, the second bomb was by far not acceptable. Even if Japan hadn't surrendered then, I'm pretty sure it would have done so soon after. There was no need for all those deaths of innocent civilians.

Allright, lest ignore 1.7 millions American because their life is less valuable than 246,000 Japanese. Even then, five million fatalities on Japanese side.
5,000,000 > 246,000.

[Esternial]

5,000,000 < > 246,000.

*cough*

[Sdaeriji]

Name those people.

You're reading the thread yes?

Name those people.

[Esternial]

You're reading the thread yes?

Name those people.

Like actual names?

Are you high or something?

[Great Nepal]

5,000,000 < > 246,000.

*cough*

Thanks. Fixed.
Seems like too much revising for maths has made me forget difference between two. Note to self: never rush a reply

[Person012345]

The entire argument misses the point that you don't HAVE to invade people to make peace with them. It's not, take the whole place over or we'll be at war forever. The Japanese were already looking for some sort of peace (since the soviets were also breathing down their neck), they just didn't really like our terms. Painting it as a picture of "atom bomb or eighty bajillion casualties" is silly. Just gonna throw that out there.

Source they were searching for peace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_japan

[Mavorpen]

I hate that the only justification for it being acceptable was that it potentially saved American lives. What makes an American life more important than a Japanese one?

If you're going to argue that way at least put the point across that Japanese lives may have been saved as well.

Personally I find it really hard to give a judgement on this question. It's one of the big questions of history. I'm inclined to say that whilst Hiroshima's bomb may have been allowed, the second bomb was by far not acceptable. Even if Japan hadn't surrendered then, I'm pretty sure it would have done so soon after. There was no need for all those deaths of innocent civilians.

What is the difference between 30.000 kids dying by 2 A-Bombs or 500.000 by other means of war? Right, with the 2 A-bombs are less.

Dead kids are nasty yes, that I agree with.

Except the Japanese were already going to give up when the Soviets broke their Neutrality Pact and due to our successful dismantling of their Navy force. The Japanese COULDN'T fight the war any longer.

[Sdaeriji]

Name those people.

Like actual names?

Are you high or something?

Yes. I want him to specifically name the people who have argued that nuking Japan to end WWII was morally acceptable but the reverse is not morally acceptable.

[Esternial]

*cough*

Thanks. Fixed.
Seems like too much revising for maths has made me forget difference between two. Note to self: never rush a reply

I know dat feel.

[Person012345]

The entire argument misses the point that you don't HAVE to invade people to make peace with them. It's not, take the whole place over or we'll be at war forever. The Japanese were already looking for some sort of peace (since the soviets were also breathing down their neck), they just didn't really like our terms. Painting it as a picture of "atom bomb or eighty bajillion casualties" is silly. Just gonna throw that out there.

Only acceptable terms was unconditional surrender. It was not acceptable for Japanese.

That is precisely the false dichotomy I was pointing out. The only other option is NOT unconditional surrender.

[Afalia]

Allright, lest ignore 1.7 millions American because their life is less valuable than 246,000 Japanese. Even then, five million fatalities on Japanese side.
5,000,000 > 246,000.

I never said that Japanese lives were more valuable than American lives. You've mis-interpreted what I said.