Was Hiroshima Necessary?

[RolandtheHeadless]

"I'm not into this insult thingy of you both, but I just reposted his post for you because it is relevant to the thread, and thus I don't give a damn whole thing of what is between you both, and I won't give a damn as well on wasting my time for a senseless debate.. With all due respect sir.."

There's nothing between us anymore, and if I wanted to see his words, I'd do it myself. Thank you very much. Sir.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

It's easy to use 20-20 hindsight. We can't reconstruct how things appeared to US leaders at the time.

But does it really matter if 100,000 civilians were killed by one bomb or 100 bombs?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

It's easy to use 20-20 hindsight. We can't reconstruct how things appeared to US leaders at the time.

You gotta be kidding me. Its the ONLY way we can reconstruct, because so many lies have been uncovered, and so many secret documents finally released. Our "leaders" lied and covered their tracks so much, only NOW can we see what they were thinking and doing.

But does it really matter if 100,000 civilians were killed by one bomb or 100 bombs?

Not in such numbers, no. If one dropped only a hundred bombs and killed so many it would be obvious that zero regard for civilian life was present.

And its 100 times more obvious that zero regard for civilian life was present with these two big bombs, isn't it?

Yet, somehow, people cannot see this or how its a war crime! It is astounding to me the depths people can reach in their denial. Seriously. Denial like that, properly applied, could allow a man to smile and believe his is in paradise while his arms and legs are being ripped off! Its an incredible mental feat. Just too bad it is being so poorly applied.

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

You gotta be kidding me. Its the ONLY way we can reconstruct, because so many lies have been uncovered, and so many secret documents finally released. Our "leaders" lied and covered their tracks so much, only NOW can we see what they were thinking and doing.

.

The difference between hindsight and seeing things at the time is that with hindsight you get the full picture, from all angles.
At the time you don't.

you're the 'commander in chief' and everyday several people come up to you and start another ominous sentence with "sir, we have credible intelligence that....."

the Germans nearly had nukes, the Americans had just gotten them, who's to say that the Japanese weren't about to get them?
An operative told an operative who told an operative who told a handler, what happened with the human bio warfare test facilities the Japanese were running in China. Next thing you know some analyst is telling you that there is a chance that they may have developed next gen bio warfare capabilities,
Another more paranoid analyst points out that if they have, and made them airborne with a 48 hour incubation time that the entire north american continent could see as much as a 60% loss in population within 3 weeks of day 0.

A more senior and sensible analyst says that the chances of the Japanese having developed something that advanced are slim, and even if they have, there are counter measures that could reduce the mortality rate, or at the very least spread of the pathogen.

Yet that worst case scenario still sits somewhere in the back of your mind.

These were the realities that they were faced with. Because if during the war the Japanese would have had those capabilities, they would have used them. Those were the stakes being played for.

I would not want to be in that situation - do you use nukes to force the war to end, or do you run the 1% risk that in 3 weeks time millions of the people you're responsible for will be dead, all because you hesitated and held back?

 

[nahadef]

I would not want to be in that situation - do you use nukes to force the war to end, or do you run the 1% risk that in 3 weeks time millions of the people you're responsible for will be dead, all because you hesitated and held back?

And hey, do you drop the nukes onto a civilian population, or do you drop them into a more remote area showing the potential for destruction, without murdering the populace?

Your insistence that it had to be, and that responsible leaders had no other possible choices except worse scenarios is hard to understand.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

These were the realities that they were faced with.

No, I am afraid its your wild scenarios that are not facing reality. The reality is that no matter what Japan developed they were not going anywhere with it. America had total air and sea superiority.

And we had cracked their secret communications codes and the Japanese did not even know. Our leaders knew just about everything there was to know. That is not 20/20 hindsight.

Your argumentation suggest you have about as much at stake in this as Truman's grandson. You make much the same floppy feel-good arguments as he does.

 

[pauro12]

1st, Japanese are now still worshiping their war crimes at Yasukuni shrine every year, which means Japanese never care if their invasion was wrong or not. Even now, many Japanese still believe war victims deseve it and Japanese nazy are heroes. Every year, when Jews and German mourn victims in Europe. Some Japanese would wear nazy clothes to mourn Japanese nazy in Japan, acting like some serious illed psycho.
So everyone can imagine what Japanese nazy would be at WWII time. They were just histeric. At the year 1945, they had 5 million army together(although more than 3 million soldiers were children), and 1 million soldiers in China, 200 thousand in Korea and southeast Asia, the rest inJapan proper. Do you really think they could surrender?
2nd, although most Chinese hate nazy very much after WWII, but many orphans abandoned by Japanese was raised up by Chinese family. When some of them returned to Japan, they were even biased by their own ppl. I donot want to prove Chinese not hate Japanese. I just want to say because there are many races in China, Chinese can accept others more easily. So every time when a Japanese say"they have to own weapons because of Chinese's threat", this just slaps Japanese's own face. And make Japanese look like some terrorists to Chinese.
3rd, I felt sorry about your lose in nuke leakage accident. But I was wondering why Japan had built so many nuke facilities in such a narrow place? My gosh, 55 nuke station? Crazy nation. For 2000 yrs, you have never changed. Donot tell me Japanese are peace lovers. One day, the whole world will regret for bearing it. So here, I want to say American's nuke bomb did give Japanese a lesson. But Japanese could only learn this far. So I donot think some one have right to blame American, the teacher. The problem is why Japanese cannot get a good lesson from this.

So you say, ALL OF THE JAPANESE INCLUDING INNOCENT CIVILIANS should learn their lessons? I guess here is the catch... Why of all the places that they should drop the bomb, why on a place where there were no soldiers or if there are any, only few? Why on a place with innocent people are living? If this point of view of yours are true (Which maybe wrong of course), then why not drop the bomb exactly within the radius of these so called 5 million soldiers of yours? Japan, without this so called 5 million of yours is as good as a surrender.. Then why on those innocent people?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Why of all the places that they should drop the bomb, why on a place where there were no soldiers or if there are any, only few? Why on a place with innocent people are living?

Oh, people do make that argument. They often point to the port in the city used military vessels and all the navy crewmen on them. But its just more wildly twisted logic and denial.

The target of the bomb was the city center, NOT the port. Not a factory. Not a base. The city center. The point was to blow up the city, obviously.

Even if the bomb exploded over the port, it still does not justify its use. The target does not legitimately expand to suit the size of your bomb. That would be akin to saying that since some space alien race was at war with France, they could just blow up the entire Earth in the interest of getting to France and still have a clear conscience. Its pure crazy talk.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I wonder if the bomb legitimizers have any more cans of worms to open in order to try and obfuscate the complete lack of necessity or legality of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Seems to be the usual course in any debate like this. The pro side just opens can of worms after can of worms, making excuse after excuse. They often appear to "win" the debate because the anti side just gets sick of digging up facts and logically retorting while the pro side just effortlessly throws random darts at it.

Of course my all time favorite is when they say the bombs were necessary because the Japanese were prepared to fight to the last man, woman and child....so had to kill a bunch of men, women and children to change their mind...which makes no sense.

 

[Blackthorne]

Was the destruction of Carthage by Rome necessary? Why did the Romans rebuild Carthage then?

Civilians have little understanding of the military mindset- the role of the military is to wage war with whatever means it has at its disposal and to win a war. If you have a gun. Use it. If you have a a bazooka use it. If you have a tank use it. If you have an atomic warhead use it. And no atomic warhead has been used since the year 1945. America has had the largest atomic arsenal in the world and has never used it- because of the lesson it learned in Japan. Stop moaning.

Yes it is unsavory to kill 1 life or 100,000 lives but war is something no civilian can comprehend.

 

[nahadef]

Civilians have little understanding of the military mindset- the role of the military is to wage war with whatever means it has at its disposal and to win a war. If you have a gun. Use it. If you have a a bazooka use it. If you have a tank use it. If you have an atomic warhead use it. And no atomic warhead has been used since the year 1945. America has had the largest atomic arsenal in the world and has never used it- because of the lesson it learned in Japan. Stop moaning.

Yes it is unsavory to kill 1 life or 100,000 lives but war is something no civilian can comprehend.

Who cares if a civilian doesn't understand the military mindset, i.e. one that often has a lot in common with a mass murderer... Civilians don't have to, we have more political power now (and there are numerous cases of populations in the 20th century opting out of unnecessary bloodshed with their votes). Maybe if you have a bazooka, you use it, but I prefer to set up an alliance of governments to prevent nut jobs with bazookas from using them.

The world is divided on the need to have used atomic weapons, and in the future, we'll see what way history leans in that judgment.

In the meantime, you stop moaning. Nobody is obliged to accept your point of view as fact.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Stop moaning.

Wow dude. I can just imagine you getting badly knifed up by a mugger and you drag yourself to the cop shop only to hear from a cop "You don't understand the mugger's mindset and situation. Stop moaning."

Perhaps you don't understand this civilian's mindset, but I would be happy if all soldiers just dropped dead immediately. I don't need to understand the military mindset to know that they are dead wrong to intentionally butcher people who are non-combatants. I could find myself confronted by those knuckle dragging, trained mass murderers one day, me, who intends to be a non-combatant forever, not wanting any part the military mindset...a mindset humanity could do without.

 

[pauro12]

Was the destruction of Carthage by Rome necessary? Why did the Romans rebuild Carthage then?

Civilians have little understanding of the military mindset- the role of the military is to wage war with whatever means it has at its disposal and to win a war. If you have a gun. Use it. If you have a a bazooka use it. If you have a tank use it. If you have an atomic warhead use it. And no atomic warhead has been used since the year 1945. America has had the largest atomic arsenal in the world and has never used it- because of the lesson it learned in Japan. Stop moaning.

Yes it is unsavory to kill 1 life or 100,000 lives but war is something no civilian can comprehend.

Just so you know, the Americans were already winning and it's a sure defeat for the Japanese before they've dropped the bomb.. So your point is, it is a war, and you will do what it takes to win it, and use any weapon necessary? Well, they are already winning but why did they dropped the bomb if they only want to win the war?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

pauro12, I am sure the answer will be that days, hours and minutes counted, in order to save the lives of American soldiers. Not that I subscribe to that.

It is disgusting that anyone would knowingly kill babies to save soldiers.

I am willing to entertain the notion that the bombs may have pushed up the timing for surrender while not being the primary reason or even a necessary one for surrender itself. But I have been through this and I do not see nearly enough speeding up of the process even just from the perspective of soldier's lives saved vs. innocent civilians killed even if we were going to play the numbers game.

But its obvious that to some here innocent Japanese were expendable, whether old man, housewife, child, toddler or unborn baby, in order to prevent the deaths of men who willingly chose to pick up arms. Go figure.

I know I keep repeating myself, but here is another attempt to explain a simple concept: If you kill my wife, my child and my brother, I am not going to kill your wife, your child or your brother in revenge....I am going to kill YOU, or maybe even torture you so badly you will beg for death. The reasons for this really should be self evident.

 

[dsvlee]

So you say, ALL OF THE JAPANESE INCLUDING INNOCENT CIVILIANS should learn their lessons? I guess here is the catch... Why of all the places that they should drop the bomb, why on a place where there were no soldiers or if there are any, only few? Why on a place with innocent people are living? If this point of view of yours are true (Which maybe wrong of course), then why not drop the bomb exactly within the radius of these so called 5 million soldiers of yours? Japan, without this so called 5 million of yours is as good as a surrender.. Then why on those innocent people?

You know what, somehow I agree with you. Chinese government never do anything to hurt innocent Japanese. Chinese leader refused to ask war compensation from Japanese, because Mao zedong said it will hurt Japanese people, because they lose alot in the war either. It is not like Japanese making 30 million ppl Chinese being dead in WWII. Remember most of them were innocent ppl.
But I totally understand USA's behavior.
1st, they just wanted to use nuclear bombs, because it was newly invented. It was a toy never used by human beings.
2nd, Revenge.
3rd, they should destroy Japanese's confidence before Russian came in. It needed hurry up. And the nuclear weapon was a good choice to end up things quickly.
4th, you have sympathy for Japanese, that would be ok. But they donot deserve it at that time. That's why countries around just pay them back in extremly ways, like Russia, USA and Korea. But China? Naive, they even asked Japanese soldiers to help rebulid society and raise Japanese orphan.
5th, American wanted to give a deadly brow to Japanese political heart. Tokyo would be a good choice. Maybe they should tell Japanese firstplace that innocent should move out of central parts, then Yankees could bomb their capital. As your suggestion.

 

[alecgraham]

The atomic bombs are like the pyramids at Giza. Too big to ignore, so we will still be discussing them and analyzing their use 1,000 years from now. And of course, we don't need to spend time asking ourselves if it was necessary for the Germans to start the war or for the Japanese to side with them, as we know the answer is no.
It's important to debate this kind of thing and I've seen strong arguments on both sides, both in published history books and in online forums. Since there will never be a consensus, though, I think this topic becomes wearisome. It has been thoroughly explored.
Most of the time, objectivity gives way to emotion influenced by geographical and/or chronological proximity to the events.
If I were born in Poland I'd be focusing more on the German tanks that rolled over my land.
If I were born in China I would wonder why, outside of Asia, the Japanese don't experience the same degree of notoriety that the Nazis do.
If I were born in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, I would argue why the bombs were completely unnecessary.

A more interesting topic, I think is that the so-called War to End All Wars has given way to endless conflicts. The threat of *future* nuclear bombs has not eradicated conventional warfare or regional conflicts the way many people thought it would. We've got Vietnam, we've got Saddam gassing the Kurds, Korea, Darfur, and now "asymmetric warfare."
Even debating whether or not weaponized drones are necessary seems like an exercise in futility, because every nation and organization that can have them is going to have them. Not to sound too defeatist, but that's the reality that's coming.
So why ask one more time about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? We may as well just check the boxes on the long-established points with which we agree and leave the remainder unchecked.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Even debating whether or not weaponized drones are necessary seems like an exercise in futility, because every nation and organization that can have them is going to have them.

America has the largest stockpile of chemical weapons it is said. But diligence has meant that the U.S. has not used them. As far as I am concerned, weaponized drones are in the same dastardly category of cowardice as chemical and nuclear weapons, and you cannot claim a moral high ground as your basis for participation in war if you use any of them cause you just put yourself on the level of pretty much any enemy. Only making things like that clear will curtail their use.

 

[alecgraham]

I agree, you can't claim a moral high ground w/ drones. Of course, both sides will use them and then morality will be waived on all sides.

Back on topic, I- well, your first post in this thread has

I expect this thread to get flooded with excuse after excuse because American denial on this subject is stronger than the Hulk.

and

Now, let the obfuscations begin.

So, I feel compelled to stop here. ;-)

 

[abdalrasyid]

peoples think the attack from Al Qaeda that destroy US military building pentagon as horrific and barbaric act, but in other hand they still ask innocently

"mmm is it necessary for us to drop atom bomb to Hiroshima and Nagasaki population? (hoping it do necessary)"

The bomb which killed millions of Japanese population, count it also with continuous post bombing causalities.

I don't know who the one is crazy is it me or this kind of question and double standard view. Even Churchil which I consider as sadistic racist curse the act of Atom Bomb.

If I born in America I gonna hate my country, and cry when watching the "grave of the fireflies", get angry when reading Winnetou, and live among the natives American and hope US will be govern by natives and change it name from united state of America to Sioux Republic or Native United, Allahu Alam.

 

[alecgraham]

peoples think the attack from Al Qaeda that destroy US military building pentagon as horrific and barbaric act, but in other hand they still ask innocently

Well don't let context or details get in your way.

And as for Churchill, he "sanctioned the use of tear gas on Kurdish tribesmen in Iraq."
Winston Churchill - Wikipedia
So, while I love Churchill, maybe he's not the end-all be-all for moral standards.

 

[abdalrasyid]

Well don't let context or details get in your way.

And as for Churchill, he "sanctioned the use of tear gas on Kurdish tribesmen in Iraq."
Winston Churchill - Wikipedia
So, while I love Churchill, maybe he's not the end-all be-all for moral standards.

I'm not extent the context for the sake of argument but that is how the things look like

1. Exploding US military building Pentagon -> tragedy, barbaric act.
2. Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki population killing millions of peoples, plant and animal -> necessary act

Peoples can dance with words and argument but this tragic fact and double standard still stand.

For Churchil, I don't insult peoples, if I say something I might say it as the way I look at them. I told you that Churchil is racist if you know his slogan that state "Keep England White" or England only for the white peoples, and how he try to limited the color immigrant especially from India to enter Britain than you might know what I'm talking about.

Also a few of racist quote from Mr. Churchil the man that you say you admire on his point of view regarding race:

''The qualities of mongrels are rarely admirable, and the mixture of the Arab and negro types has produced a debased and cruel breed, more shocking because they are more intelligent than the primitive savages. The stronger race soon began to prey upon the simple aboriginals; some of the Arab tribes were camel-breeders; some were goat-herds; some were Baggaras or cow-herds. But all, without exception, were hunters of men. To the great slave-market at Jedda a continual stream of negro captives has flowed for hundreds of years. The invention of gunpowder and the adoption by the Arabs of firearms facilitated the traffic by placing the ignorant negroes at a further disadvantage. Thus the situation in the Soudan for several centuries may be summed up as follows: The dominant race of Arab invaders was unceasingly spreading its blood, religion, customs, and language among the black aboriginal population, and at the same time it harried and enslaved them..''
~ Winston Churchill, The River War


about the sadistic did you forget about how Churchil treat the French?

 

[abdalrasyid]

btw I never knew David Gilmour love Churchil and advocating nuke on Japanese civilian, if he know that he will crash his head with the brick in the wall

 

[alecgraham]

Well, I didn't know that red explosion thingy could post at all, or could identify David Gilmour, so we're even.

 

[abdalrasyid]

Well, I didn't know that red explosion thingy could post at all, or could identify David Gilmour, so we're even.

hahaha red explosion thingy I like that name, alright then we're even!

 

[Haruspex]

What does necessary even mean? Does it mean 'inexorable?' Or does it mean 'right and just?' It's all a bit nebulous.