Was the deployment of the two nukes justified?

[VHaist]

When I mentioned the atrocities commited in China, Korea, Philippines, etc, and the way this subject is treated at Japan today, I was talking about morality and not justifying the nuclear attacks. As I said before, the Japanese lost more than 130.000 soldiers and 100.000 civilians only in the battle of Okinawa (15.000 Americans also perished). I ask again: How many Japanese civilians would die in a land invasion? Also, could Japan surrender without a land invasion or using atomic bombs?

[MVSNConsolegenerale]

Japan would not have surrendered unless they were absolutely sure that they were defeated. How could the Emperor, who had asked he soldiers to kill themselves rather than surrender do just that? He would have had his citizens fight to the last moment. the atomic bombs impressed upon him how the states could flatten the entire island without loosing a single soldier.

If it wasn't for the atomic bomb, Japan wouldn't be here today...it would be a wasteland...a military invasion would have left the entire country bare and without any infrastructure...they would also have still been occupied now. All the ends they achieved today are only a result of the united states forcing them into an early surrender.

They wouldn't have been able to pretend they were the most efficient system in the world for decades and then collapse enron style, as they did .

P.S. It is a shame they (the allies) force germany to admit all these wrong doings and not japan. Out of all the major axis parties, italy was the only one to really fight a 'fair' war and even they were far from clean. I've seen the pictures of the Japanese atrocities and I personally find them more disgusting than pictures from a death camp. (There was this one picture of a Japanese soldier and these little girl baby heads that even had me close to vomitting...which is very hard!)

[Pumpkin]

I'm not very knowledgeble about moral philosophy, but I don't think that "choosing the way which we think will cause the fewest number of kills, weighting our boys more, in order to reach our objectives", is generally accepted as good morale, although it might make good politics. (And it still takes a bit convincing before I see how, without warning, nuking two cities was the only way the nuclear weapon could be deterringly demonstrated).

Wouldn't it be more correct to say that in fact, US military strategy was based on a (partly racist) hatred against the Jap's, and that not many Americans would've objected to the mission of killing as many as possible before the war ended.

[MVSNConsolegenerale]

In this discussion i've decided that a slight SLIGHT change of opinion on my part is in order. The united states should have bombed a legitimate military target first. I doubt however that would have had much of an effect, cause the emperor only considered surrender when japan's civilian morale went down because of the nuking of the cities (he knew that with a few more bombs and refusal to surrender, the civilian population and military would crucify him).

I however do not change my opinion that civilian targets can be legitimate in war.

Perhaps i am lacking in some sort of morals (according to you), but it is my honest opinion and will not change it. However, you can and have convinced me that proper alternatives were not taken first...which in my opinion wouldn't have made much difference...but I can't say that for sure.

[Pumpkin]

I don't think that the destructive powers of the a-bomb (the few available in 1945) did add anything significant to the conventional bombs, appart from one detail:

While 1000 bomber airplanes are detected far ahead, and their bomb drops take a while, civilians can be warned and take cover. The only "advantage" of the a-bomb in 1945 was that killed everyone unsuspectedly, completely without ability to protect themselves. Thus it is a terrifying propaganda bomb! Knowing that one single bomber, maybe out of sight far above at night, can destroy you without warning, might've severely demoralized the japanese, and installing in their minds a wish to leave the cities. But, like the doomsday machine in dr Strangelove, it is completely useless if you don't tell the world! before you use it.

[Mito]

Japan was bankrupt, its economy collapsing and it had no more resources.
Famine was looming.

The bombs were criminal.

Mito

[Chief Whip]

I find it a DISGRACE to humanity itself that some people openly sweet-talk the usage of weapons of mass destruction against civilians. They just openly defend it, saying what a 'justified' thing it was to do. It makes my stomach turn over. Sickening little sods who find it 'justified'. Amazing - and this after 60 years. And, it is all alowed of course.

What if I tried to justify the Jewish extermination? Oh my.

[Andy H]

Chief Whip

Your in command of the Allied forces ready to invade Japan. You have a choice send you men into action, knowing the casualties will be horrific on both sides and that the war may drag on for months, or you have an untried weapon which you hope will bring your enemy to it's knees with minimal casualties on your side.
What do you choose, there is no third way, and remember the people at the time don't have the (advantage) of hindsight.

The former option IMO and most peoples was the better of two evils.

Andy from the Shire

[Chief Whip]

Come on now Chesire, you cannot be serious about that? With that excuse, because that is what it really is, 'to end the war', everything can be excused. The Germans too, were seeking the end the war during massive anti-partisan sweeps in which most likely more civlians are believed to have been killed than partisans.

I recall that you loathed the III. Reich for what it did to civlians, and that is only true - but what about when these same crimes are to be found in the Allied camp, why do you wish to be blind for that? I assume you were in Hiroshima that day.

[Davey Boy]

Mr. Whip, my old friend, what country are you from?

I must say, you do show a passion for these things. What drives you?

[Chief Whip]

'I must say, you do show a passion for these thinngs. What drives you?'

Imagine - a few dozen million people killed and no one really cares, except for the Jewish victims. Take the example of Poland, HETMAN, how many people care to know how many Poles suffered during the German occupation? The fate of Poland was miserable, half of it was absorbed into III. Reich, Russia got a part and the remaining part, in which all the Poles were now located, got called 'The General Government of Poland', which supplied cheap labourers to Germany. How many died? Is that number known?

My point is that people jump when a French town is torched, a partisan-sweep is held or Rotterdam bombed. But atomic weapons and 150.000 casulties? Pff, who cares? It was to end the war! Several dozen thousand civilian casulaties on Iwo Jima? Pff, so what. Anne Frank died; and a whole circus of rememberance and foundations got raised. Why all the bloody fuss? Was she the only child that died during the war? Several thousand German girls were, of her age, were raped to death. Where are their dozens of memorials?

That kind of inconsequent behaviour irritates me. Just ask yourself how many documentaries or movies you saw recently about the Allied warcrimes. And people are even surprised when Japan does not wish to admit their warcrimes - as if the Allies do!

[Ovidius]

Why all the bloody fuss? Was she the only child that died during the war? Several thousand German girls were, of her age, were raped to death. Where are their dozens of memorials?

That kind of inconsequent behaviour irritates me. Just ask yourself how many documentaries or movies you saw recently about the Allied warcrimes. And people are even surprised when Japan does not wish to admit their warcrimes - as if the Allies do!

A very instructive quote from HETMAN former General Anders former DPWES:

"This is what you get for voting the Nazis into power."

I can't say anything reasonable in front of this.

~Ovidius

[Davey Boy]

Why all the bloody fuss? Was she the only child that died during the war? Several thousand German girls were, of her age, were raped to death. Where are their dozens of memorials?

That kind of inconsequent behaviour irritates me. Just ask yourself how many documentaries or movies you saw recently about the Allied warcrimes. And people are even surprised when Japan does not wish to admit their warcrimes - as if the Allies do!

A very instructive quote from HETMAN former General Anders former DPWES:

"This is what you get for voting the Nazis into power."


I can't say anything reasonable in front of this.

~Ovidius

So what's new? You never seem to be able to say anything reasonable.

But anway, in that instance, I was being provocative on purpose.

[Ovidius]

So what's new? You never seem to be able to say anything reasonable.

Unlike you, who seem to be a masterful example of Polish wisdom and reason.

Indeed, I'm also provocative on purpose.

~Ovidius

[Andy H]

C.Whip (Labour, Conservative or Liberal Whip I wonder?)

How can you compare anti partisan sweeps/warfare against the A-Bomb, you cant. The Germans were seeking to end the war through Anti-Partisan sweeps-come on, that was a means to a particular end and I not surprised if more civilians were killed than partisans.

I'm not excusing any crime even thoose committed by the allies but since I don't view the A-Bombs as a crime then I havn't given you an excuse, but a reason, and I have in why they choose that option.

Please tell which option you would have choosen if you you can, which I seriously doubt because niether is palletable and I'm sure the allied commanders when they made the choice wern't dancing in the streets either at the thought, but it was the best option.

There is no nice way to die in war, dead is dead is dead, wheather it be 100,000 in the blink of an eye or over several months the end result is the same.

As to your remark-was I in Hiroshima that day, well I'll let you figure that out.

Andy from the Shire