General

Even if you doubt me, you understand that Hitler was willing to drive his entire reich down if he couldn't win the war, right? Hitler wasn't willing to go political to nudge his way out when the war went south, and he didn't leave his base at Berlin. He then killed himself when things got too bad. People under his command commit suicide when forced to surrender. That in itself is demonstration that idiosyncratic and irrational tyrants don't always decide to surrender. This is even more true considering all the nationalism going on, but especially true due to the Bushido mentality of the Japanese. Kamikaze pilots trained by Buddhists set out to sacrifice their lives. That's how powerful this code was. Dictators can be insane.

@Darkwizzie: i highly doubt that, i'd look for sources on your claim but i'm too lazy

[quote=SaneleeBoring]Probably b/c the us dropped the a bomb before Japan had the chance to surrender. Although other sources say this was a myth, I don't think the emperor of japan was stupid enough to prolong such a one sided war.[/quote]

The emperor of Japan though he was a god and thought the principles of Buddhism leads to world domination. Not the most rational person ever. If you're insane enough to kill everybody and draw the world into a world war, not surrendering isn't that large of a leap.

[quote=Vicariously]but it bewilders me as to why people tend to portray the US as the bad guy and Japan as an innocent victim.[/quote]

Probably b/c the us dropped the a bomb before Japan had the chance to surrender. Although other sources say this was a myth, I don't think the emperor of japan was stupid enough to prolong such a one sided war.

[quote=SaneleeBoring]But correct me if I'm wrong but you're basically saying "all those other guys are doing it, so why shouldn't I?" which is quite frankly, a stupid argument.[/quote]
Not my argument at all. You're reading too much into it. I think that war is bad, and bombing is bad, and revenge is counterproductive. I never said I supported bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima. However, I think that Japan have done things during WW2 that are far worse, E.G. human experimentation. That does not justify dropping bombs on Japanese cities, but it bewilders me as to why people tend to portray the US as the bad guy and Japan as an innocent victim.

[quote=SaneleeBoring]I have a few more reasons why the a bomb was unjustifiable but yes, every country in war is guilty of that, not just the USA.[/quote]
That was my only point, honestly. We actually agree on something!

[quote=jjgpirate]All is justified in war...besides its not like there was some agreement not to use WMD back then.[/quote]
[url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg/300px-Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg]facepalm.[/url]

[quote=NuggetsOnCrack]I don't really know what you mean by that o.o[/quote]

What if the Japanese military decide to place all of their civilians in military areas to deter us from bombing that area? Do we still bomb it?

@Vicariously: The attack on Pearl Harbor was actually necessary to get rid of the pacific fleet so the japs can take over malaya and the Dutch indies for resources without much threat of a us intervention.
I have a few more reasons why the a bomb was unjustifiable but yes, every country in war is guilty of that, not just the USA.
But correct me if I'm wrong but you're basically saying "all those other guys are doing it, so why shouldn't I?" which is quite frankly, a stupid argument.

Yeah, it was to scare the Soviets.

They could have used conventional bombing to the same effect, but then it wouldn't have the same powerful message.

[quote=Darkwizzie]We'd all be conquered by the Japanese if they had their way. So I'll take my chances with siding the victor on this one.[/quote]

I wouldn't mind being conquered today, back in the early 1900's though? Hell naw.

[quote=iDrinkOJ]History rewrites itself in favor of the victor. If Japan had won we'd all be speaking Japanese and watching anime without subtitles. We'd be 49% less obese.[/quote]

We'd all be conquered by the Japanese if they had their way. So I'll take my chances with siding the victor on this one.

[quote=iDrinkOJ]History rewrites itself in favor of the victor. If Japan had won we'd all be speaking Japanese and watching anime without subtitles. We'd be 49% less obese.[/quote]

False, Germany saw the Japanese as allies but never were they considered equals. Germany wanted to take over the western world, Hitler gave his word to the Japanese that they would have control of the eastern world.

We'd be speaking German, and probably live in a fascist world.

History rewrites itself in favor of the victor. If Japan had won we'd all be speaking Japanese and watching anime without subtitles. We'd be 49% less obese.

Well considering morals back then were hardly as even as they are today, were they justified?

So/So. As much as I cringed hearing that the first (and only) atom bombs ever used on humans were used on Japan you have to understand that Japan were a relentless force back then. Kind of like the Germans were, considering they had lost a world war and yet decided to fight in another one.

If ground troops were sent, there would have been a bigger casualty count. I doubt the USA or any western countries wanted to send more troops against the Japanese army. But at the same time, you must remember the Japanese were not considered equal to western countries back then. Theories are always touted as to why the nukes were launched on Japan, I tend to believe it was the views of Western countries as superior to eastern countries like Japan while the USA in particular wanted to send Russia a message by demonstrating their weaponry.

[quote=SaneleeBoring]@DrHye: oh god the bias, it hurts
lol no matter how you look at it, it was a one sided war in favour of the us. they had planes that could fly much higher than any jap fighters which meant that they could just keep on bombing high valued areas without much casualties. the atomic bomb was just an unnecessary show of force to show every other nation whos boss[/quote]
You seem a little bias yourself. Sure, President Truman could've chosen not to drop the bombs, but Japan could've chosen not to attack Pearl Harbor or chosen not to kill over 3 million civilians in China.
I'm not saying Japan is the bad guy, but if "unnecessary show of force" is your only problem with the US, then may I remind you that WW2 is a war. Every country who participates in warfare is guilty of that.

This topic is as touchy as abortion.

It's very subjective and arguable...

Personal opinion? I honestly don't know what would have had happen if they didn't drop the bomb, so in this sense, I agree they were justified. I don't however like the idea of what actually happened to those people, it was absolutely terrible.

If there was a better out come, I'm sure it would have been pursued, but honestly the whole world at the time wasn't exactly in the greatest of places.

I believe its use is justified.

The U.S. sent warnings, which Japan just ignored and the Warhead saved more lives then it took.

^How is it over if they didn't surrender? The whole was to get them to surrender early.

You could also justify any of the terrorist attacks on civilians. After all, it's [i]a different name but the same game[/i].

In my honest opinion, I think that it was unnecessary to deploy more than one atomic bomb as at that point, it was already over. The long lasting consequences are what trouble me most and the effect of everyday people.

@NuggetsOnCrack: oh ok let's carpet bomb the whole city instead of picking out key points. That will save more lives

[quote=NuggetsOnCrack]It wasn't just a leaflet...it was millions of leaflets. The US Army Air Force dropped millions of 'em over a bunch of cities in Japan. If they didn't budge from their homeland and go somewhere safer, that's just a personal problem.[/quote]

So now the question then... Is it justified to bomb the place is civilians decide to blanket the area? They are people sucked in by their religious BS dogma, and that makes them a real problem. Of course, if we did nothing they can just round up civilians to any base to prevent bombing. We can't allow that. Once the first bomb was dropped it's inexcusable to stay at Nagasaki.

unit 731 is horrible.
jeez, japanese, you guys are pure evil.

But that is a leaflet simply given out to soldiers on America's side? it's very vulnerable to sweet-talking, as I've seen in military training videos during WW2 era. Now frankly my history is a bit too rusty. Did USA demonstrate the power of the bomb to the Japanese before the first bomb dropping? And why didn't citizens run the heck away because Nagasaki was round 2, they knew what was coming?

@NuggetsOnCrack: a surgical strike would have been enough as in target key points like factories and industrial buildings

There was no need to wipe out the whole city

^ "estimated 263,000 were in Nagasaki, including 240,000 Japanese residents, 10,000 Korean residents, 2,500 conscripted Korean workers, 9,000 Japanese soldiers, 600 conscripted Chinese workers, and 400 prisoners of war" (Wikipedia)

This was detonation of a civilian area.

[quote=Phong128992]Is the death of thousands or millions of people ever justifiable? Who's right and who's wrong?[/quote]

Absolutely. The death of thousands is easily justifiable if the other alternative is death of more than thousands. The only question in this debate is whether more would have died or suffered had the bomb not been dropped. I start this discussion by saying I'm inclined to say yes. The mentality of the Japanese at the time was to never, ever surrender. An inland invasion would cost a lot of resources and death to both sides before Japan loses all its soldiers.

@SaneleeBoring:
I highly doubt they would have done that in the day. In that time, hate towards the Japanese came naturally.

@Ecliptic: less civilian casualties if they focused on military bases instead of the whole frkin city

[quote=SaneleeBoring]@DrHye: oh god the bias, it hurts

lol no matter how you look at it, it was a one sided war in favour of the us. they had planes that could fly much higher than any jap fighters which meant that they could just keep on bombing high valued areas without much casualties. the atomic bomb was just an unnecessary show of force to show every other nation whos boss[/quote]
The bombings could have had the same effect, like they did in Dresden.

Fact is, not dropping the bomb would just be a waste of tax dollars.

@DrHye: oh god the bias, it hurts

lol no matter how you look at it, it was a one sided war in favour of the us. they had planes that could fly much higher than any jap fighters which meant that they could just keep on bombing high valued areas without much casualties. the atomic bomb was just an unnecessary show of force to show every other nation whos boss

[quote=SaneleeBoring]That's complete bs, the japs were planning to surrender in a few days but 'murica decided to drop the bass anyways for the lulz. Contrary to the popular belief of the japs and their supposedly "never give up" attitude, they weren't stupid and they knew they were losing that war badly.[/quote]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/hiroshima_hoax_japans_wllingne.html

If you have to make your argument by using "dropping the base for lulz," you probably can't even cite your source for what you're really trying to say, so I'm not even going to ask where you learned that

[quote=Nashi]I heard that SUPPOSEDLY they only dropped the last bombs (if it were those) to not have to carry that weight back home or something

either way I think nothing of war.[/quote]

wha? They dropped the bombs because japan wouldnt surrender and it would lead to way more casualties on both sides. Japan was being stubborn and had been warned they would suffer badly. Besides, they knew america was powerful.. they made their decision.
@Pashmimi Japan isn't still suffering from the radiation. The cities are safe enough to live in today..

How do you stop a nation who don't have a fear of death?

Yes and no
Dropping the bomb ended the war early, but it was a very poor choice of a weapon.

[quote=DaiMeteor]Wait so the america is justified for using the atomic bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki, but when some body made a 9-11 jokes is racist or heartless? Anyways this is why I'm not fans of war, no matter who's right or wrong, some people would get kill.......[/quote]
Um, who's joking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
There's a difference between having a mature discussion about a historical event,
and making an immature joke about a tragedy.

We could have won, however more american casualties would have came from it, i dont agree with it due to how many innocent civilians were killed, on top of all that the true reason we dropped it was because at this time, tensions were already rising with Russia which would shortly lead in to the cold war, so we showed our power to the soviets early on, but our justification to the public was more lives would be lost cause they wouldnt accept other reasons, and the reason Japan actually surrendered wasnt because we dropped the bombs, we bluffed and said we would drop a third on Tokyo.

[quote=DrHye]OT: The US gave Japan a warning/ultimatum, either surrender or get bombed. Japan shouldn't have "called their bluff." Had they just believed that the US would've actually gone through with their threats, the whole thing would've actually been avoided.[/quote]

That's complete bs, the japs were planning to surrender in a few days but 'murica decided to drop the bass anyways for the lulz. Contrary to the popular belief of the japs and their supposedly "never give up" attitude, they weren't stupid and they knew they were losing that war badly.

All is justified in war...besides its not like there was some agreement not to use WMD back then.

Well... if they didn't, the Japanese would keep fighting due to the embedded effects of the traditional Bushido Code. Even though the Bushido Code wasn't officially intact, it was still practiced during that time, just like some of the Japanese actions that were held in the Battle of Iwo Jima. All in all, the Japanese never wanted to surrender... until the atom bomb that is.

[quote=DaiMeteor]Wait so the america is justified for using the atomic bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki, but when some body made a 9-11 jokes is racist or heartless? Anyways this is why I'm not fans of war, no matter who's right or wrong, some people would get kill.......[/quote]
I don't see why you're comparing the two. If people made jokes about Japan getting bombed, that would be viewed negatively as well.

"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds"

[quote=KrazyLoopyx]What about 4th of July? [/quote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMrb9DDZQM

@DrHye:
What about 4th of July?

@klu180: That's alright! It's still a major city, and one of the ports, which is why it was the chosen target.

@Pashmimi: Sorry, it was the capital of one of Japan's prefectures. Got my information wrong. Was under the delusion that Hiroshima was Japan's former capital. Sorry.

[quote=klu180]Controlling a country's capital would be sufficient enough to win a war, so I believe that only the bombing on Hiroshima was necessary. Nagasaki was overkill[/quote]
Wait, what. Tokyo's the capital, not Hiroshima...

Well, they DID constantly bomb and firebomb Tokyo, but you can't really call that controlling... That would be like saying Germany controlled London because they constantly bombed it...

Killing thousands of innocents isn't justified no matter how you dress it up.

[quote=mrcolorado]Japan's fault. Its justified for 3 reasons:
1) Japan was very inhumane around Asia terrorizing, murdering, rhaping, and torturing neighboring countries like pigs.
2) They didn't listen to America's ultimatum
3) Why send millions of our boys into Japan for a meaningless cause that can be resolved easily with our new toy?

If anything no one should evoke pitty on the Japanese, they had this coming to them in the first place.[/quote]
I'm Japanese, and I think the Japanese leaders were being really stupid.

I don't think it was the BEST way to end the war, seeing as the radiation from the atomic bombs is still affecting people today, and most of the people killed were ones who were not fighting in the war... and... I also can't see how killing people in general is justified... but... If you asked Paul von Oberstein, he would say something like "The atomic bombs shortened the war by a fair bit. If America hadn't dropped them, the war would have dragged on for a longer time, leading to more casualties." If you only go by numbers of dead people and the effects they have on war history, then dropping the bombs would be justified... But then you wonder whether that's morally right... So I can't decide.

See, this is what happens when you watch too much Legend of the Galactic Heroes, you start to connect reality with stuff Yang Wen-li and Oberstein say...

[quote=klu180]Controlling a country's capital would be sufficient enough to win a war, so I believe that only the bombing on Hiroshima was necessary. Nagasaki was overkill[/quote]
yeah, but after hiroshima japan still didnt surrender, so america had to drop another bomb on nagasaki.

Controlling a country's capital would be sufficient enough to win a war, so I believe that only the bombing on Hiroshima was necessary. Nagasaki was overkill