The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed about 250.000 people and became

I am no expert on this period of history but I find it interesting that in 1946 the

United States Strategic Bombing Survey determined it had been unnecessary to the winning of the war. After interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, it reported:

"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."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
they killed 100k civilians every month, in much worse conditions. Best to end it as quickly as possible really.
 
WoW, those are some amazing images, thanks for linking them to us.

For my part i think while its was a horrifc event in the worlds history, it did teach us all a lesson, that nuclear weapons must be avoided at all costs and that their use is never justified.
 
People seem primarily against the dropping of the bomb on Japan due to the massive civilian casualties. But in the context of the WW2 who is innocent?

Armies of the day were composed of conscripts, just like you and me. Before the war these people would have had peaceful normal lives. Yet it seems that the moment they put on a military uniform, even if it is not through choice, their lives immediately become worth less than a civilian sitting at home. In contrast are civilians always innocent? The military production capacity of a nation is fueled by their labour. Furthermore, the civilian population at home benefited from Japans expansionist strategy. Through a combination of action and inaction, the Japanese people sat back let their armed forces rape China and much of Asia.

I am not trying to justify the deliberate targeting of civilians, but the situation is far from clear cut as to who is “innocent”.

In my opinion Japan was beaten way before the dropping of the bomb. But, she refused to surrender, in the knowledge that Allied casualties in any likely invasion would be massive. Her leaders hoped they could use the blood of their own people to sap the will of the Allies to fight. This shows a disgusting level of contempt for the Japanese people, which goes far beyond that displayed by the Allies. You expect you enemies to try an Kill you, but when the result is inevitable, a Nations leadership should do what is necessary to save it’s people. Why should Allied soldiers die to minimize civilian Japanese causalities?


From the Allied perspective, the first bomb were dropped for several reasons:

1) We wanted the war over quickly
2) We wanted to minimize any further casualties.

The second bomb is a little more tricky, I believe Japan would have surrendered if given more time, but would have tried to hold out for better terms. The second attack made it 100% clear that the Allies would destroy every Japanese city is she did not surrender unconditionally. It also sent a very clear message to the Russians, we had the ability to deploy an easy and quick to build atomic bomb. Any attempt to steamroller across Europe would most likely result in it’s deployment.
 
Last edited:
@ The above. As far as im concerned the circamstances are irrelevent. When you actually think about what happened, and look at the pcitures of the cities before and after, you come to realise it wasnt people that died or buildings that got destroyed, its was an entire city. Imagine waking up tomorrow and hearing London was gone. Gone, just not there anymore. Our minds cant even comrehend that sort of concept, so many people dying at once, and your lying if you think you can.
 
Makunouchi said:
@ The above. As far as im concerned the circamstances are irrelevent. When you actually think about what happened, and look at the pcitures of the cities before and after, you come to realise it wasnt people that died or buildings that got destroyed, its was an entire city. Imagine waking up tomorrow and hearing London was gone. Gone, just not there anymore. Our minds cant even comrehend that sort of concept, so many people dying at once, and your lying if you think you can.
Click to expand...

So why are you not complaining about the firebombing of Japanese cities, in which many more people died, yes their deaths took place over hours rather than in split second, but what difference does that make. By your reasoning it is fine to kill everyone in a city providing you do it at a leasurely pace. The intensity of an attack makes no difference to the dead, they are still dead.
 
Makunouchi said:
Our minds cant even comrehend that sort of concept, so many people dying at once, and your lying if you think you can.
Click to expand...

Thats kind of the point of droping the bomb. A nation can get used to the slow trickly of it's population dying, but it comes as rather a shock when a city disappears in an instant, even if less people die than if conventional weapons had been used over a period of months. It was the shock that caused the will to fight of the Japanese Government to collapse.
 
Hmm, seems only a few of the later replies actually have done any studying on this subject.

Historically the US have admitted there was no real need to drop the bombs as Japan's surrender was imminent. I believe not so imminent as they wanted to save a bit of face and not surrender unconditionally. However the US KNEW this.

The bombs were still dropped.

So no land invasion was going to happen with high numbers of US and allied casualties.

The bombs were dropped to prove a point. Not to end the war.

Only positive i can see out off the tragedy and IMHO opinion war crime, was to make the world know never to use a nuclear device again.
 
Nitefly said:
A sad day. A tragedy we can not even fathom.
Click to expand...
+1

I'm a bit split between this really. I think its a good thing the world is now aware of atomic bombs, but all this other buisiness about whether it was relevant to saving later lives is still a bit foggy.
 
Wolfchild said:
Hmm, seems only a few of the later replies actually have done any studying on this subject.

Historically the US have admitted there was no real need to drop the bombs as Japan's surrender was imminent. I believe not so imminent as they wanted to save a bit of face and not surrender unconditionally. However the US KNEW this.

The bombs were still dropped.

From the reading I've done the situation was far from as clear cut as you make it. When I'm home I'll dig out the references I have and post them up.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
From the reading I've done the situation was far from as clear cut as you make it. When I'm home I'll dig out the references I have and post them up.
Click to expand...

Please do, its been years since i read up on it but was a convincing book i read at the time.

Like most things in life though hindsight is 20/20. A huge tradegy none the less.
 
Either way, that kind of destruction is horrific. For those that were effected and for those that had to make the decision.

I just hope things never get to that stage again, as if it did, i can imagine it being so many times worse considering the power of the present day arsenal.

:(
 
2 very tragic days.
However it was needed and the 2nd bombing was also needed. The Japanese didn't know what it was despite us telling them and they didn't think we could build a 2nd one.

They did offer a partial surrender but we needed a fall one.
 
peter_hutson said:
People seem primarily against the dropping of the bomb on Japan due to the massive civilian casualties. But in the context of the WW2 who is innocent?

....... Furthermore, the civilian population at home benefited from Japans expansionist strategy. Through a combination of action and inaction, the Japanese people sat back let their armed forces rape China and much of Asia.

I am not trying to justify the deliberate targeting of civilians, but the situation is far from clear cut as to who is “innocent”.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying, but its remarkably similar to the thinking of Islamic Fundemantalists and how they justify 9/11, 7/7 etc to put it into a modern day scenario.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom