Discussion on the necessity of the Atomic Bombs(And general Strategic Bombing) on Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[DeWoken]

I normally wouldn't comment on a thread like this, but trying to morally justify atrocities gets my blood boiling, my grandfather and his brothers fought in the war too, however, I'm not going to justify what they ended up fighting for.

Don't worry, pretty much everyone had relatives deeply involved - sometimes on opposing sides - even if they weren't toting a rifle.

Here's a 2004 documentary in color.

Japan's War in Colour | 2004 Documentary with never seen before films

(c) Japan's War in Colour (2004), narrated by Brian Cox. Japan's role in World War II gets a whole new perspective in this consisting entirely of full color footage, including color films from Japan that were recently discovered. As the visuals of the world war take on a new vivid...

yewtu.be

As they state in the introduction, Japan had a desire to kick out European imperial powers from Asia and unite the region under its own rule. Is it not a right-wing idea that "Europe is for Europeans..." and as a continuation of that "Asia is for Asians"?

Imperialism and The Opium Wars were not kind to China. If I'm not mistaken hostilities were opened by the British East India Company without the consent of Queen Victoria. It's another example of corporations ($$$) running amok.

Opium Wars - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In Princes of the Yen he explains how the Japanese economy before the war was more open and healthy, based on free market competition, while after the war it was ruled by banks and cartels - ripe for popping at the whim of The Puppet Masters (107'). Women got the vote when? In 1946 of course! :soyglad:

I don't have sources for you, but anecdotally I know that many Koreans and Taiwanese look back at the Japanese colonial period in a very positive light. The Japanese didn't rise to the rank of world power merely due to streak of brutality but because they were intelligent and hard-working.

Going to war with America might not have been necessary at all, but as with most nations there were squabbling factions. Isoroku Yamamoto, the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack, was against war.

Isoroku Yamamoto - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I was recommended many times Japan's War (the Great Pacific Conflict) by Edwin P Hoyt. Maybe it's time I read that last 1/4 of the book to find out what he says about The Bomb.

 

[eradicator]

The case for the saying the second bomb(Nagasaki) was a bad idea is a lot stronger than the first bomb was a bad idea.

Japanese people believed that their emperor was the son of god and committed to fighting his enemies forever . If we had sent in more and more troops to try to end the war it would have been a meat grinder and far more people would have died

Could we, or should we have waited longer to see if the Japanese would surrender after the first nuke before dropping a second?

That is a question worth asking and an argument worth having. It almost needs a second thread

 

[C-Note]

Trying to justify the " bombings " of those two wonderful cities is just demonic and you boomer lot using "pewl habooor" as an excuse are just pathetic.

Bombing and Kamikazying some derelict boat harbour is not comparable to evaporating 226.000 innocent (civilian) men, women and children no matter what war was fought. It's a stain on humanity, like the boomers are who excuse it, bathe in the perceived glory of the event while having their children run mortgages at 250% inflation rates. And then tell us how they smacked their hand on the counter to get that job!

Piss off already.

The atomic bombings saved more Japanese lives than it did American lives. If the US had had to invade Japan, the entire Japanese nation would have suicided themselves against the American invaders. By using atomic weapons, the US showed Japan that suicidal banzai charges by waves of civilians would not work, because we could obliterate them before they even had a chance to get ready. That's why the Japanese emperor said that Japan had to surrender to save the word from the new weapon. If you don't think that the Japanese would have sent waves of children and teenagers armed with bamboo spears against the Americans during an invasion of their islands, then you don't know Japanese culture.

And no, a demonstration of the bombs would not have worked. Until one or two Japanese cities were leveled, the Japanese government would not have believed that the US was ready to use the bombs against the country.

Are you aware of the biblical verse, "Spare the rod and spoil the child?" It applies to a great number of situations, including getting a recalcitrant tribe to give up their struggle against what is the correct behavior for the situation.

Are you also aware of how the Japanese reacted to the Emperor's message about how they needed to accept the inevitable? I don't know of any other country in history which has ever done this. The entire nation of Japan, upon hearing the Emperor's surrender speech, retreated into their homes for several hours and quietly contemplated his message, without discussing it amongst themselves. When they emerged, they had accepted the new order of things and set to it, beginning their process of remaking Japan into a citadel of democracy, free enterprise, and freedom. Do you know of any other country that has managed their utter defeat as well as the Japanese did? The atomic bombings made it happen, because it told them that there was no other course of action, and the Japanese were collectively intelligent and mature enough to recognize and act on it.

 

[ItalianStallion9]

The older I've gotten the less I've approved of it.

While I wonder why we targeted civilians, my viewpoint is that it seemed to be more of a statement; the allied powers wanted to see a white flag waived.
If our goal is to make sure all enemies surrender, why are we foolin' around with North Korea. Why not just nuke them?
We had the power to nuke Japan at the time, with little consequences (ie: china/russia lashback), and we wanted to make a statement of power victory.

It appears evident that Germany and Italy were out of the war...so Japan was some little island by themselves. Was it really necessary to drop nukes on them at this point? It's simliar to modern day North Korea at this point.

That being said, I've heard and agree with some of the points for nuking. Many wanted the war to be officially over, it *may* have saved more lives if we really wanted to have them formally declare defeat, and we were salty over Pearl Harbor.

To end on a light note:

 

[eradicator]

Hir

The older I've gotten the less I've approved of it.

While I wonder why we targeted civilians, my viewpoint is that it seemed to be more of a statement; the allied powers wanted to see a white flag waived.
If our goal is to make sure all enemies surrender, why are we foolin' around with North Korea. Why not just nuke them?
We had the power to nuke Japan at the time, with little consequences (ie: china/russia lashback), and we wanted to make a statement of power victory.

It appears evident that Germany and Italy were out of the war...so Japan was some little island by themselves. Was it really necessary to drop nukes on them at this point? It's simliar to modern day North Korea at this point.

That being said, I've heard and agree with some of the points for nuking. Many wanted the war to be officially over, it *may* have saved more lives if we really wanted to have them formally declare defeat, and we were salty over Pearl Harbor.

To end on a light note:

Hiroshima was not a civilian target, it was a military target with military factories. More importantly it was a valley that would trap the radiation and increase the death toll from fallout and be seen as more horrible to increase the odds of ending the war with one shot.

Which all makes total sense, if we did indeed give Japan more time to surrender.

 

[Mr.S]

Japan only started it's colonialism after America violated the sovereignty of it's borders by forcing their way in through gunship diplomacy, so all your examples are moot. Forcing your way in, you brought into attention what dangers lie outside, and made them realize that only power matters, and if the world is working like that, then Japan better be as strong as it can be, in order to do that, it has to expand because Japan isn't a resource rich country. The technology and thought was brought in from outside. Show where Japan previous to 1850 acted as a colonial power domineering it's neighbouring countries for resources.



If power is the only thing that matters, who cares what words on a page say? If you have enough power you can define what those words mean, as you see the entire warping of reality today, where the 1st Amendment is used to justify the propagation of pornography instead of guaranteeing the right to criticize the government without fear of reprisal. The US doesn't even take it's own words seriously, otherwise the South would have seceded and the American Civil war wouldn't have happened.

So why should Japan take it's treaty with the US seriously when the US doesn't even treat it's own seriously?



Wars involve killing yes; not the issue. The indiscriminate slaughter of noncombatants/civilians while moral posturing yourself as the good, justified, civilized people, is what I am, and will always be opposed to. I don't care who does it.

As for pretending America didn't provoke Japan, go ahead and read the article I posted in my first post. Why should I rehash it?

No you can’t cop out and say “gunship diplomacy” does not invalidate all my points. Address my points one by one otherwise they stand correct. The way people behaved was congruent with the era. The Japanese should be glad they were allowed to receive superior Western technology through trade.

Show where Japan was colonial pre 1850? That’s either a trick question or you don’t understand the situation. Japan was not unified as an empire, so they were busy fighting themselves. You can’t colonize until you stabilize your own country. Colonialism is good because it allows civilized nations to share the aspects of their culture which makes them civilized- like Christianity and technological innovations.

Your remark about the 1A shows that you’re misconstruing modern America with 1930s America. 1930s America was ultra-isolationist, anti-war, and was a moral country of Christians who stood by their words. Regarding your civil war remark - no, a state can’t secede from the Union, as they were no longer governed under the articles of Confederation by that time. Don’t start an argument about the American Civil War until you’ve at least watched all your Ken Burns. You have no ground to make any accusations against 1930s America. If you want to call modern America degenerate you could make a very long list of very good points, but you’d be a hypocrite if you did that because Canada is no better, and in some aspects far worse.

So why should Japan take the treaty seriously? Well you claimed the US didn’t take it seriously. Are you willing to back that up with evidence that the US was ignoring the Naval Treaty and building excessive warships? Can you give me the number of ships made outside the treaty? What was that figure compared to Japan?

It’s just typical cucked anti-American arrogance to act like the US was immoral for dropping the bombs. They weren’t all innocent- the people in those cities built war materiel. If we wanted to kill civilians just for the sake of murder, we would have chosen different cities to nuke. But if you want to take out industrial targets you’re going to end up killing some women and kids, that’s reality. We saved lives in the long term by doing it, that’s a fact, and you can’t argue against it. What are you going to demand apologies for colonization next? Will you apologize for how the British civilized nations all over the globe? Should we pay reparations to Japan for finishing the war they started in a way that makes you feel sad?

If you’re going to bother answering in good faith, just one point I make, answer this one: do you think a land invasion of Japan would have had a higher or lower death toll than the bombs?

 

[Mr.S]

The targeting of the Nagasaki bomb was definitely satanic.

The first Catholic missionary in Japan, St. Francis Xavier, arrived in Nagasaki on August 15th 1549. The first Catholic converts were persecuted mercilessly almost immediately and for centuries afterwards they were constantly converted and then martyred. Despite the repression, Catholicism took root in Nagasaki and grew such that by 1895 Japanese Catholics were able to build the first and largest Catholic Cathedral in Asia.

The Nagasaki bomb was dropped exactly over the Cathedral during a Mass, right in the middle of the Catholic district of Nagasaki. The date was August 9th, 1945 - almost on the anniversary of the arrival of St. Francis. 75% of Nagasaki's 12,000 Catholics were vaporized.

The original cathedral was built over the site where for hundreds of years Japanese Catholics were interrogated and martyred. In 1945 they were martyred there again. The Japanese government wanted to keep the ruined cathedral as a secular monument to western barbarity - but the Catholic survivors insisted that their Cathedral be built again over the site of their martyred saints.

The Catholic Holocaust of Nagasaki—“Why, Lord?” - Homiletic & Pastoral Review

On August 9, 1945, God’s inscrutable providence allowed an atomic bomb named “Fat Man” to be dropped from a B-29 into the heavily populated city of

www.hprweb.com

The developers of the atomic bomb were mostly jews: Leo Szilard, Otto Frisch, Rudolf Peierls and Robert Oppenheimer.

Nagasaki was chosen as a secondary target because it was one of the largest seaports in Japan, produced weapons and munitions, military shipbuilding, and other military equipment. It had been spared bombing for most of the war due to geography. 90% of the city’s population worked directly for the Japanese war effort.

Keep in mind when that plane took off it was heading for Kokura Japan. The only reason they dropped the bomb on Nagasaki was because the weather conditions and the locals in Kokura burning tar to obscure the city.

The location where the bomb went off was 2 miles off target at Nagasaki, as they dropped it from quite a high altitude.

 

[infowarrior1]

Nagasaki was chosen as a secondary target because it was one of the largest seaports in Japan, produced weapons and munitions, military shipbuilding, and other military equipment. It had been spared bombing for most of the war due to geography. 90% of the city’s population worked directly for the Japanese war effort.

Keep in mind when that plane took off it was heading for Kokura Japan. The only reason they dropped the bomb on Nagasaki was because the weather conditions and the locals in Kokura burning tar to obscure the city.

The location where the bomb went off was 2 miles off target at Nagasaki, as they dropped it from quite a high altitude.

Precision targeting would have made things better in terms of directing the destruction of the culprit more precisely and with less collateral damage+shock and awe.

A better deal imo. Although I wonder if lessons can be learnt from Edward Thatch:


Blackheard was actually pretty bloodless in his piracy. But he does love to put on a show to terrify. So before the Divine Court of God he is pretty innocent.

Blackbeard didn't do nuthin

 

[Viktor Zeegelaar]

''

English football fans clap their team kneeling to BLM whilst wearing the rainbow flag globohomo imperialism arm bands but they sing songs about the RAF and USAF firebombing German civilians.

''Father forgive them for they don't know what they're doing.''

 

[Viktor Zeegelaar]

Interesting topic and one I have had evolving thoughts on in life. The fire-bombing of largely civilian targets in both theaters (the two A bombs in Japan and notably Dresden in Germany) are tough moral questions.

In old days, I believed the "justified bombings" line. Now, I believe they were as much demonstrations of strength/resolve as anything else. That's a generous way to say it. Sometimes I think it was just blood-lust.

We were imposing our will on them. "Look here Axis powers - we can and will destroy heritage locations with (at best) secondary military significance. Just to prove we can."

Allied forces fire-bombed Dresden, a beautiful cultural center of the region with nearly no military significance or industry. Accounts I have read describe asphalt streets so hot that they softened and people became trapped in the hot oil. I believe the bombing continued nightly for about a week. The city was loaded with German civilians from more war-torn areas, seeking refuge in the relative peace. It was a pretty unnecessary loss of life, even by WWII standards.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are similar dynamic, different weapon.

Things that make me curious: Nagasaki being the Christian capital of Japan. Special friend of FDRs special friends (who were big pushers to get us into the war) being given access to all of the Manhattan Project. Apparently, 90%+ of Americans were AGAINST entering the war as late as a week before Pearl Harbor. But there were so many hawks around FDR (he was pretty hawkish himself), I would believe these guys would set up Pearl Harbor the way it worked out.

Good point. Do we care about numbers or cruelty of death. Notwithstanding that in Japan people were born with handicaps afterwards, it is an easy argument to make that the unnecessary firebombing of German cities caused way more suffering.

 

[ScannerLIV]

Atomic bombs were not justified whatsoever since Japan was ready to surrender beforehand. That's my understanding from some reading years ago.

 

[911]

I'm a bit busy this afternoon, but I will come back to support my assertions below with solid evidence.

-The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unnecessary, the Japs were already about to surrender unconditionally, and this according to US military and government high officials (will provide sources).

-FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance, let it happen in order to push the US into WW2. This was also well established by independent research with good sources.

-Japan's imperial ambitions and behavior in east Asia was far from benign. In a sense the 1940s clash with the US was inevitable, as the Monroe Doctrine initially established over the western hemishpere was quickly expanded to cover the Far East, with US colonial dominance over the Philippines and complete ownership of the second island chain (Guam etc) and modern colonial dominance over the Philippines, with junior partners like the Dutch in Indonesia or the Brits in HK, Malaysia etc. The Far East and western Pacific Rim wasn't big enough to accomodoate both the Japanese and American imperial ambitions.

Japan was a brutal empire that regarded all other ethnicities as inferior, except for a healthy respect for the better European nations such as Germany or England.

-The nuclear/radiation fallout from Hiroshima and Nagasaki is less important than that from the US dropping thousands of tons of "depleted" uranium shells and bombs with a half life of 50,000 years in Iraq.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332935608_Depleted_Uranium_Contamination_in_Iraq_For_28_years

Children Born With Birth Defects Near U.S. Base in Iraq

“The war has spread so much radiation here that, unless it is cleaned up, generations of Iraqis will continue to be affected.”

theintercept.com

Up to the massive mRNA covid vaccine scam, the invasion of Iraq and Syria have been the greatest human genetic engineering project, a literal genocide by means of attack on a population's genetic health through massive dropping of highly toxic radioactive materials in population centers, damage which dwarfs that from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[Johnnyvee]

As much as I dislike the weapon in and of itself, let`s be honest here. There would have been continuous major war between the allies/US and the Soviet union had it not been for the bomb. We didn`t just sit down and talk and figure everything out all of a sudden. Human nature didn`t change post WWII. We had to find a solution, because now full scale war was unthinkable. We after all had a war between the US (West) and the Soviet Union in Vietnam and Korea+plus the events of the cold war as well. As controversial at it sounds, it`s my understanding that the atomic bomb is probably the invention that has saved most lives throughout human history. But of course, it would have been much better if they never actually used it.

 

[infowarrior1]

As much as I dislike the weapon in and of itself, let`s be honest here. There would have been continuous major war between the allies/US and the Soviet union had it not been for the bomb. We didn`t just sit down and talk and figure everything out all of a sudden. Human nature didn`t change post WWII. We had to find a solution, because now full scale war was unthinkable. We after all had a war between the US (West) and the Soviet Union in Vietnam and Korea+plus the events of the cold war as well. As controversial at it sounds, it`s my understanding that the atomic bomb is probably the invention that has saved most lives throughout human history. But of course, it would have been much better if they never actually used it.

The intimidation factor vs the Soviet Union was probably the tipping point that really convinced the US to use the Bomb.

 

[Philosopher]

https://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/ highly recommend Dan Carlin's "Supernova in the East" series on the subject, in the last episode he goes into detail on the atom bomb. You can sum up his position that dropping the Bomb was "Logical Insanity"

 

[bk19xsa]

I have a question to those who are more knowledgeable on this topic.

Do you think the probability of some city or country getting nuked in the last 70 years would have been considerably higher if Hiroshima & Nagasaki did not happen? Those two are the only examples of cities with population getting nuked.

 

[infowarrior1]

https://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/ highly recommend Dan Carlin's "Supernova in the East" series on the subject, in the last episode he goes into detail on the atom bomb. You can sum up his position that dropping the Bomb was "Logical Insanity"

Could be. But if the precision bombing and things like it was tried first in order to obtain victory. Which apparently the USA actually contemplated by US Veterans of WWI. Which Dan Carlin's guest goes into detail about:


Then it would be less of a problem if firebombing is just something that had to be done as a result. Inferior more horrific alternatives being considered and implemented.

In this regard I regard superior Strategem as less morally hazardous than using Arms given how it can and does turn out.

One of the general principles of Sun Tzu. That is the economy of resource and manpower expenditure to achieve maximum results.

Although Dan Carlin does make the observation that as time went on. There probably was a tendency towards more callousness.

 

[infowarrior1]

I have a question to those who are more knowledgeable on this topic.

Do you think the probability of some city or country getting nuked in the last 70 years would have been considerably higher if Hiroshima & Nagasaki did not happen? Those two are the only examples of cities with population getting nuked.

If Germany wasn't defeated on time. There is a high possibility of Atomics being used on Germany as well. In this regard its a mercy that Nazi's were defeated by 1945.

And there was even a possibility of Nukes being used on China during the Korean War.

 

[ScannerLIV]

With Soviets well on the way to Berlin?

 

[infowarrior1]

With Soviets well on the way to Berlin?

Yes. If the Soviets weren't performing as well as they did.