Was the deployment of the two nukes justified?

Discussions on WW2 in the Pacific and the Sino-Japanese War.
IAR80
Member
Posts: 184
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 21:05
Location: Satu Mare, Romania

Was the deployment of the two nukes justified?

Post by IAR80 » 13 Apr 2002 14:01

I would like to open a new discussion topic regarding the a-bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Were the nukings absolutely necessary? Would the japs fight to the bitter end? With what, taking in consideration that they had no more colonies => no raw materials? Did the US fear a USSR occupation of Japan? Were the japanese civilians guinea pigs for the testing of nukes and a hidden warning to Stalin should he try to start WWIII? If yes, then what is the justification for the second nuke, since the japs were already willing to sign peace? Was this "eye-for-an-eye" tactic in response to the horrible way POWs were treated. Was this because the US simply could do that without anyone doing anything about it?A warning, an arms test, payback, peace guarantee and maybe genocide all in one(or two?)?
P.S. : Please respect the mutual respect guidelines and refrain from any offensive posts as possible, I realise this can degenerate very badly and all I want to hear is everyone's opinions, not rantings.

Scratch
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 11 Apr 2002 18:30

Post by Scratch » 13 Apr 2002 16:11

Intentional targetting of civilians is never justified. No exceptions.

The main reason the bomb was dropped on Japan was to intimidate the USSR. In a way, the Russians are to blame for the Japanese who died as a result of the abomb.

User avatar
Scanderbeg
Member
Posts: 375
Joined: 07 Apr 2002 05:43
Location: USA

Post by Scanderbeg » 13 Apr 2002 16:51

Scratch wrote:The main reason the bomb was dropped on Japan was to intimidate the USSR. In a way, the Russians are to blame for the Japanese who died as a result of the abomb.


Well how can you blame the Russians? USA bombed Japan just to show Russia how powerfull they were and now it's the Russians' fault? This is the same as "lets kill some europeans just to tell Russia not to even think of attackin Europe" and of course blame it on the Russians. I guess for you it doesnt matter that those Japanese people died, as long as you can blame it on the Russians.

Regards, Besian

Scratch
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 11 Apr 2002 18:30

Post by Scratch » 13 Apr 2002 18:57

There is one thing you cannot deny: If USSR did not exist, USA would not have nuked Japan.

Ovidius
Member
Posts: 1414
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 19:04
Location: Romania

Denial

Post by Ovidius » 13 Apr 2002 21:04

There is one thing you cannot deny: If USSR did not exist, USA would not have nuked Japan.


Well, I can deny this, and I deny it. Repeat: I deny that USA was not going to bomb Japan without USSR.

As for my reasons, take a look here:

http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... =218.topic

~Regards,

Ovidius

User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 13755
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:07
Location: Denmark

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 14 Apr 2002 16:59

Well, it did save lives, both US army, US POWs and Japanese army and civilians:

The Japanese were ready to fight until the end - this would have caused massive losses among both armies.
The Japanese were also ready to execue all US prisoners in Japan
The US bombings of Japan would have continued, killing many more civilians.

I think that even the civilian casualties would have amounted to more than were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki together - then comes military casualties.
Furthermore, the US were not so vengefull to the Japanese as if they had fought much more, so this helped Japan rebounce after the war.

So yes, I think it was justified - meybe not Nagasaki, but certainly Hiroshima...

Christian Ankerstjerne

kelty90
Member
Posts: 171
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 14:04
Location: Hampshire, England

Post by kelty90 » 15 Apr 2002 12:59

Can we, please, have a working definition of "civilian".
A definition of a civilian simply as not being in the Armed Forces just will not do. I would argue that the people constructing weapons are as sculpable as those using them. The women building Spitfires in the UK probably contributed more to the war effort than many uniformed soldiers.
In an age of Total War the boundaries between non-combatants and soldiers blurs a lot.
I would also argue that while the civilians of a country at war are mostly fair game, the civilians of a conquered country should be protected as long as they do not offer resistance to the occupier.

jaeger
Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 27 Mar 2002 12:48
Location: Finland

Post by jaeger » 15 Apr 2002 13:43

In my opinion, the bombing was too severe punishment against Japan.
I don't think the Japanese would have fought very long anyhow. It was just a perfect playfield to test this new super-weapon and kill innocent people considered as lower as the Americans. Besides, it has been studied that Japan still today is suffering from the bombing; cancer, mutations, etc.
As far as I'm concerned, nuclear weapons are the biggest threat against society, especially when they are possessed by reckless people.

User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 13755
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:07
Location: Denmark

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 15 Apr 2002 14:24

Interesting thoufght Kelty - I think that civilians would mean anyone who is not implicated in the war, or who is located in a military ficility, or is otherwise located at a target of military importance (although I don't think that is the official designation)...

Christian

User avatar
prejo
Member
Posts: 160
Joined: 04 Apr 2002 10:27
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Post by prejo » 15 Apr 2002 15:04

I think that bombing (or a-bombing) Hiroshima was, for military reasons, justifed. Hiroshima saved a lot of american soldiers. And, let's be realistic, any nation will agree (when at war) to the destruction of a city, which can end the war sooner and save at least the same number of its troops. And as the experience shows us at least one nation agreed with the destruction of more than one city. Hiroshima was also a good testing target? Yes, I think it was. That's what I don't agree with. To kill one hundred thousand people instantly is one thing and to kill another twenty thousand people in excruciating pain and suffering is another thing.
Well Christian I think you're right. To bomb another city three days after the first one was not justified. What the heck, the japs don't even recovered from the shock and the americans show them the "super-power's" "super-capability"...

Oskar
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 22:40
Location: Bolivia

Bomb

Post by Oskar » 15 Apr 2002 18:33

"There is one thing you cannot deny: If USSR did not exist, USA would not have nuked Japan."

I respectfully disagree. If Russia did not exist, the US would have used it non-the-less, if for no other reason than to intimidate Germany.

As for the deployment of the nukes themselves. I have stated my opinion on the pervious board and will refrain from repeating all of my arguments here. I will only say I consider it a war crime, and if it is not one, then it gets pretty darn close to it.

Best,

Oskar

SSALB
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 11 Apr 2002 04:22
Location: Gjirokastër, Albania

Post by SSALB » 16 Apr 2002 02:59

Although i find it morally wrong I think it was inevitable. Sooner or latter the bomb was going to be used somewhere. I think the use of it in WWII showed the world its potential for destruction and prevented its use in the later years. Had the bomb not have been used, I would have hated to have seen its power in the comming years at the peak of the cold war. I am sure we would have prooved right the saying " In the 4th world war we will fight each other with stones".

It was a neccessary experiment, shame the Japs were part of it.

User avatar
Victor´s Justice?
Member
Posts: 149
Joined: 18 Apr 2002 04:02
Location: Brasil

Never Again

Post by Victor´s Justice? » 18 Apr 2002 04:19

It is really sad to hear any kind of justifications for a nuclear bombing. The whole military capacity of Axis countries was almost decimated, all Japanese conquests were being handed over to the Allies, and there were certainly only civilians where the nukes fell...

The victor´s justice will always be applied, as only the Gods of War can atest what winning countries did to the defeated.

Civilian bombing is unjustifiable, as is any kind of Total War, destined to crush urban and rural infrastructures, without any strategic military purpose.

Russia had nothing to do with that, it was just another north-american strength show, with consequences gone as far as our present times.

As Tibbets once said, "What have we done??"

Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:30
Location: Illinois, USA

Post by Logan Hartke » 18 Apr 2002 04:28

You guys might find this interesting...
http://vikingphoenix.com/news/stn/1998/stn98045.htm

Logan Hartke

User avatar
TheContemplator
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: 14 Mar 2002 06:06
Location: USA

Post by TheContemplator » 18 Apr 2002 04:43

It is interesting to hear all of your opinions and reasons. But, I thought it ultimately all came down to the topic of whether to lose more American soldiers or not. The United States bombed Japan because we did not want to lose any more American lives, simply. All other reasons were supporting the decision.

Was it justified? I must say yes. Many times the question was targeted to me: "Nuking civilians? Women and children?" Well, how can you control the huge size of the explosion? Collateral damage with this kind of bomb is inevitable.

And the second bomb? Well, didn't the Japanese refuse to surrender after the first bomb? Therefore, the second one was justified.

Return to “WW2 in the Pacific & Asia”