Was the deployment of the two nukes justified?

Discussions on WW2 in the Pacific and the Sino-Japanese War.
User avatar
Cezarprimo
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 10:28

The bombs

Post by Cezarprimo » 18 Apr 2002 09:01

The A-bombing of Japan was completly unjustified for WWII, however, in post WWII history, its justification resides in the way it showed us how much damage this kind of weapons do and why a war waged with such means would have ment the annihilation of both warring parties. Thus it may have spared very many lives.

Leaving the US propaganda stories abut saving american lives (if they were so interested in saving american lives they could have as well stayed in Okinawa and let the russians finnish the japanes off), the real reasons were to prove american military and political supremacy and to halt the russians from conquering Japan which would have ment losing almost entire Asia to russian (communist) influence and losing the control over the North Pacific.

The reasons, than, for the A-bombing, were geopolitical and not military.

Regards
Last edited by Cezarprimo on 18 Apr 2002 14:19, edited 1 time in total.

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 18 Apr 2002 09:24

And the second bomb? Well, didn't the Japanese refuse to surrender after the first bomb? Therefore, the second one was justified.
Yes they refused to surrender. Even after their own expert on Nuclear Physics went to Hiroshima and reported it was most definitely a atomic weapon. I forget his name but can look it up if anyone wants it, he was working on Japan's atomic research. The second explosion made them speed up the surrender process according to most histories on Japan, including, Day of the Bomb Hiroshima in America, which was actually a book wrote to denounce the use of the weapon.

The use of these weapons was far better then the alternative, which would have been blockade, starvation, and continuation of conventional bombing. Not to mention the US Naval battleships reaching Bombardment range of Japanese cities, which was only a matter of time. In truth the weapons did not do much more damage then conventional bombing of Japan, the reason most people try to denounce it is because it was Atomic.

It was justified for many reason's, but it gets tiring going over all of them again..... Ask any Chinese that lived in the era if it was justified or not.

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

Post by Scanderbeg » 19 Apr 2002 01:58

TheContemplator wrote: 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.
You made a big mistake there. The A-bomb was not trying to hit military targets, and "because the bomb was too big,collateral damage was inevitable. The one and only target of both of the bombs were civilians, and civilians.
And the second bomb? Well, didn't the Japanese refuse to surrender after the first bomb? Therefore, the second one was justified.
Once again, you have just showed the american way of thinking. You wanted to show Japan how powerful you were, they didn't surrender, well, you showed it again. And I am sure that if they hadn't surrendered even after the second bomb you would've still continued. But maybe the "collateral damage" would've been smaller... lol

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 19 Apr 2002 07:37

The one and only target of both of the bombs were civilians, and civilians.
Acutally you are incorrect, there were numerous military targets at both cities. Including a division in Hiroshima.

Once again, you have just showed the american way of thinking. You wanted to show Japan how powerful you were, they didn't surrender, well, you showed it again. And I am sure that if they hadn't surrendered even after the second bomb you would've still continued. But maybe the "collateral damage" would've been smaller... lol
That is a pretty simplistic explanation of its use, and what is the American way of thinking? Since most people around here consider us a different species or something.

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

Post by Victor´s Justice? » 20 Apr 2002 05:04

"Tibbets says he has quoted Fuchida on this several times, adding that Fuchida concluded by saying; "Every man woman and child would have resisted that invasion with sticks and stones if necessary."

General Tibbets is in Las Vegas, Nevada this week, where he will be signing copies of his book at the Sands Expo Center, while attending the annual Soldier of Fortune Convention, Exposition and Trade Show. Tibbets is a featured speaker at Soldier of Fortune's Saturday banquet. Spokesmen for the magazine have hinted that General Tibbets will receive an award for his humanitarian achievements. The atomic bombs delivered from Enola Gay and Bock's Car forced the abrupt cancellation of Japan's plans to annihilate all prisoners of war and civilian internees.
"

Oh, boy, this is so sad...just another example of an american-biased view about a world conflict...just another justification of the horrible things done by the most powerful nation on the planet. More than 100,000 people dead at once, and someone is still able to publish such stupidity.

It is simply absurd to justify the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on "military targets" located there...in logistic terms, Japan was completely defeated, and all "collateral damage" (a Bush-y term, of course...) provoked by the nukes was a disaster for the japanese people...you guys should be simply more humble than you normally are, admitting the humanitarian chaos created by such actions. The one and only concrete threat for the security of the US was a phosphor bomb thrown by one mad jap pilot on the west coast...so get real, boys, be no hypocrites.

Unfortunately, one´s conscience is always twisted by one´s desire to justify its actions and thoughts on moral or legal principles. To admit the bombing in Japan is to admit the incursions on Palestinian territory and stay there, just to inflict the biggest infrastructural damage possible, until "Big Papa" comes and says something in a rougher fashion. But that´s OK, we´ve already done our dirty deeds...

That´s why the US are so hated, not because they are a democracy, not because they are rich, but because they are so hypocrite on their foreign policies and supports. Mr. Bush should step down and let someone brighter assume its place, because, for sure, all Gods of War are loving America again...

User avatar
Paul Timms
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 23:18
Location: Warwickshire

Morally Justified

Post by Paul Timms » 20 Apr 2002 08:10

My Uncle was called up in September '45 he was glad. I know two others who would have been called up in '45. They and the two WWII veterans i knew were glad the bombs were dropped. In war it's you or me and the people then had little qualms.
It is easy for us who are not going to haul our asses up a beach in Japan through a hail of fire to say it is wrong. I think we also know if the boot was on the other foot the Japanese would have had no hesitation to nuke us. Their high command was not exactly legendary in its concern for civilians.

Pumpkin
Member
Posts: 216
Joined: 19 Apr 2002 14:38
Location: Stockholm

Post by Pumpkin » 21 Apr 2002 00:02

Well how convinient for your uncle and your two friends! I'm sure the 100000+ who burned to death in Hiroshima an Nagasaki, and their brothers' sons, appriciate that they could be of so much help. :x

The attitude of most americans, that it's justified to murder as many civilians as they can, makes any discussion of German carrying a greater burden for the holocaust or the policy in occupied Soviet, nonsense. USA itself waged a Vernichtungskrieg without mercy.

Desert Fox
Member
Posts: 3
Joined: 22 Mar 2002 06:52
Location: Wales, Uk.

Post by Desert Fox » 23 Apr 2002 01:44

Funny isn't it...
Everyone bitches Germany about the Holocaust (6 Million Jews dead) but nobody seems to remember the Allied attrocities (See Hiroshima, Nagasaki, The DamBusters (Yeah... blowing up dams) the 14,000,000 Germans (Men, Women, Children) killed by the Allied bombings... War is a horrible thing, and you can point fingers untill the cows come home (60 years later... the cows are still grazin')
But we (The Children/Grandchildren) of those who fought and died - on both sides - seem to be fogetting the lessons they lost so much to learn...

User avatar
MVSNConsolegenerale
Member
Posts: 274
Joined: 23 Apr 2002 06:34
Location: Ontario, Canada

RE: Justifable War.

Post by MVSNConsolegenerale » 23 Apr 2002 07:38

The whole point of a war is to win as quickly and painlessly as possible (for YOU!). The Americans didn't start the war (I can't believe you guys are making me defend Americans), so they were completely justified in doing everything possible to end that war as soon as possible. There is a little something called responsibility; I don't care if Mr. Vik-Lu Chio and Ms. Haidel Ribbentrop didn't mean to start a war with the Allies, their side did and they have to bear responsibility for that fact.

This whole noble war thing makes me sick...there is no such thing and their never has...stop reading fairy tales!

And the whole finger waving thing...don't blame us germans or japanese...there is a difference from taking on a purpuseful campaign of terror inorder to annihlate inferior races through gas chambers or starvation and slave labour attrition from collateral damage aimed at ending a war.

I'm coming across as really gung hoe American and I am not, I am also made sick about how SS men were shot due to blind ignorance after the war ended (i.e. they didn't know the differences between the Waffen-SS and Death's Head). But there is a difference between shooting people who you think are going to rebel against you with whatever force they can muster and lining up a Russian Jews infront of anti-tank ditches.

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 23 Apr 2002 07:44

Everyone bitches Germany about the Holocaust (6 Million Jews dead) but nobody seems to remember the Allied attrocities (See Hiroshima, Nagasaki, The DamBusters (Yeah... blowing up dams) the 14,000,000 Germans (Men, Women, Children) killed by the Allied bombings...
14 million! Where did you come up with such a number??!

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Post by Andy H » 23 Apr 2002 20:20

Desert Fox,

If your inc Allied bombing as a whole as a atrocity then off course your also inc German bombing of civilians in every country they invaded or attacked. Plus the Japanese chemical warfare experiments, German unrestricted UBoat warfare!!!!

I agree 1 live at it's most basic level lost in war is a tragedy but not all are an atrocity.

:D From the Shire

User avatar
MVSNConsolegenerale
Member
Posts: 274
Joined: 23 Apr 2002 06:34
Location: Ontario, Canada

In all fairness...

Post by MVSNConsolegenerale » 23 Apr 2002 20:51

The Americans were definately not acting as a neutral company...the Germans had every right to do what they did with their uboats.

In fact, the first combat between the Americans and Germans was when american destroyers in peacetime decided to protect an english convey and depth-charge a uboat (it survived however). The uboats were told right up to the moment they declared war on the united states, not to attack american shipping. Seems to me they followed all the rules on at least that front.

Interesting....this was all at the urgin of Hitler, his navy advisers wanted to attack the states shipping in the beginning due to the states aggressive behaviour towards them.

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

Re: Justifiable War.

Post by Victor´s Justice? » 23 Apr 2002 23:01

MVSNConsolegenerale wrote:And the whole finger waving thing...don't blame us germans or japanese...there is a difference from taking on a purposeful campaign of terror inorder to annihilate inferior races through gas chambers or starvation and slave labour attrition from collateral damage aimed at ending a war.
Nope, canadian, that´s the same thing, or even worse, burning 100.000+ civilians to death, who had nothing to do with that damned war...indeed there are War Principles which must be obeyed...if not, you are just another unpunished war criminal, like many germans, japaneses, chineses, russians, americans, brits, jews or muslims ...and please, stop using that horrible "collateral damage" expression...there nothing more Bush-y than such cold nonsense. Americans BOMBED HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI, NOT TO INFLICT DAMAGE ON MILITARY TROOPS (THERE WASN´T ANY CONSIDERABLE FORCE THERE), NOT TO DESTROY STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT ONLY TO SHOW THEIR IRRATIONAL STRENGTH IN A WAR THAT WAS ALMOST OVER, AND TO IMPOSE THEIR POLICIES IN YET ANOTHER COUNTRY!

AND 100.000+ FUCKING INNOCENTS DIED! IS THAT COLLATERAL DAMAGE?? HOW CAN YA SAY THAT??!

Of course it´s much easier for someone inside a B-29 to pull a lever and drop a explosive barrel of metal far below...of course the media tells all airheads what is right and what is wrong...

BUT FOR HEAVEN´S SAKE, HISTORY BUFFS...THE SO-CALLED ALLIES HAVE DONE A LOT TO OTHER PEOPLES´ MISERIES, AS AXIS FORCES DID, FAR BEYOND ANY DUE PUNISHMENT...DO NOT DENY OR TRY TO JUSTIFY THAT.

User avatar
MVSNConsolegenerale
Member
Posts: 274
Joined: 23 Apr 2002 06:34
Location: Ontario, Canada

Relax and Listen...

Post by MVSNConsolegenerale » 23 Apr 2002 23:32

Firstly, Canadians were just like the Americans. I agree. Only differences is we felt that we owed it to England to join the war in 39 and we did...we would have stood with England with or without the States, and would have carried on the war even if England fell...that was pretty plain during the dark years of 39-41 when we thought exactly that would happen.

Secondly, I'm going to rephrase what I said - what I really mean to say in all this that a WAR is a WAR is a WAR! There is only one point to a war...to beat the enemy as soon as possible with as little losses on your side as can be manage. Despite your pseudo-democratic ramblings about war criminals and such and obeying rules...that is how all countries fight wars...Germany included...by your standeds...everyone from Caesar to Napolean to Patton to Churchill to George Bush Ist and IInd would be hauled before a court (I.E. Anyone fighting a war!).

There is a distinction between bombing a civilian population inorder to end the war sooner than a full-scale military invasion would take, than killing civilians for no other reason than a racial doctrine. Nothing you can say changes this point. Yes people die in both categories, but guess what...people die in wars.

finally, as for the whole civillian population...they were supporting a regime (intentionally or not) that went to war on the Allies...you can't win a war without eventually doing something about that civilian population, from which the military gets its personel and munitions, etc. Yes, maybe a military invasion would have been *nicer*, but why should the Allies have to pay in blood for a war not started by them.

As far as I am concerned...war crimes are crimes inwhich some organization targets a population that has no overall effect on the war. Everything else is hot air.

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

Re: Relax and Listen...

Post by Victor´s Justice? » 24 Apr 2002 04:51

MVSNConsolegenerale wrote: There is a distinction between bombing a civilian population inorder to end the war sooner than a full-scale military invasion would take, than killing civilians for no other reason than a racial doctrine. Nothing you can say changes this point. Yes people die in both categories, but guess what...people die in wars.

finally, as for the whole civillian population...they were supporting a regime (intentionally or not) that went to war on the Allies...you can't win a war without eventually doing something about that civilian population, from which the military gets its personel and munitions, etc. Yes, maybe a military invasion would have been *nicer*, but why should the Allies have to pay in blood for a war not started by them.

As far as I am concerned...war crimes are crimes inwhich some organization targets a population that has no overall effect on the war. Everything else is hot air.
Yes, thanks for your enlightened reply.

1- such relativism just makes me wonder how any racial doctrine can be judged so badly, because it´s just another way of doing "war", in your point of view (going way beyond Clausewitz here, of course...)

2- how can one unintentionally support any kind of war? Could ya explain that? Am I physically responsible for what my irresponsible politicians do? Do I have to pay with my own life, in order to make others fell comfortable at home, listening to their radios or watching TV?

3- the US knew about the Pearl Harbor invasion in advance, and what did they do? Just put all info under the carpet, so that poor old Roosevelt would jump into the fire along with other Gods of War...americans died there, what about that?

4- responsibility for starting a war is a pretty nebulous field, as several factors arise for such action; please don´t be shallow-minded. It goes way away from Pangermanism or Dictatorships.

5- did the Hiroshima and Nagasaki families have the potential to provoke any "overall effect" on war? Explain it to me, per favore.

6- From such point of view, Jenin Palestinians are collateral damage as well, and Israelis just scared saints? How is the CNN audience doing in Canada?

7- Once again, please send my compliments to all Japanese families killed in "action": cooking their meal, washing their clothes, or taking care of their children. WAR DOES INVOLVE ETHICS, AND THAT´S WHY WAR LAWS HAVE BEEN CREATED, TO PREVENT SUCH ATROCITIES, INCLUDING THE HOLOCAUST DOGMA, IN ANY DAMN COUNTRY. IF YOU WANNA CONQUER JAPAN, INVADE IT AND MAKE ALL NATIVES LOVE YOU, IF YOU ARE COWARD YOU CAN´T JOIN THE ARMY, SORRY.

Return to “WW2 in the Pacific & Asia”