Was the atomic bombing of Japan justified?

[Bobbyk]

Yes it totally ended the WW2, but was it worth it? Yes it cost a lot of lives of innocent people. Japan wouldn't have given up without it. What do you think?

[Birds]

Escrito originalmente por Lora Grim:

I think the bombs were to scare the Russians into standing down and not to destroy Japan.
If America didn't drop it, Russia would've.... or Japan... or somebody else.
The threat of nuclear weapons HAD to be demonstrated to the world.
How do you get people to fear a weapon? You fire it.

The Germans...?

Why would Germans be afraid of a bomb exploding in Japan?

Escrito originalmente por RRW359:

The Russian enterance into the Pacific likely would have caused them to surrender not long after they did but we didn't know how well it was going to go beforehand so it did make sence to try and end the war as quickly as possible asside from that.

there are easier ways to call Russia's navy a joke than this.

Escrito originalmente por harry.gamer:

Escrito originalmente por Birds:

They'd done plenty of tests already,

They had two different designed bombs, One the USA designed and one captured from Germany's program.

are we making stuff up now? is this your thing?

Escrito originalmente por MarketBag177:

Yes, millions more would have died, including civilians.

The US could have offered terms instead of mounting an invasion. Which do you think it would have done, realistically, had the bomb not been an option?


alright 20 people clamoring for posts at once after 20 minutes of silence, w/e.

[Hairy Hands Harry]

Escrito originalmente por Birds:

Escrito originalmente por harry.gamer:

They had two different designed bombs, One the USA designed and one captured from Germany's program.

are we making stuff up now? is this your thing?

Look it up. Do a quick Google before you look so foolish.

[Birds]

Escrito originalmente por harry.gamer:

Escrito originalmente por Birds:

are we making stuff up now? is this your thing?

Look it up. Do a quick Google before you look so foolish.

okay "secret nazi nuke" nope nothing. just some diagrams of crap that doesn't exist.

why didn't they just nuke Stalingrad?

oh, I see, that's the point: US nazis had to show they had a bomb, unlike german nazis who didn't show they didn't have bombs they didn't have, and to differentiate the two the us had to drop the bomb.

that makes perfect sense, thus why you argued it the right way around instead of in reverse.

[Pocahawtness]

Escrito originalmente por harry.gamer:

Escrito originalmente por Birds:

They'd done plenty of tests already,

They had two different designed bombs, One the USA designed and one captured from Germany's program.

That is not true.

Germany did not have a bomb. They didn't have a working reactor, or a design for a bomb.
There are pieces of Uranium for their test reactor but that was ordinary Uranium, not usable in a bomb.

Development of the bomb was extremely expensive and required massive resources. The kind of resources no country in a Europe at war had, which is why the US developed one first.

The US did develop two different types of bomb. A Uranium bomb and a Plutonium bomb. The Uranium bomb, the Little Boy, was so certain to work it wasn't tested before it was dropped on Hiroshima.

However, it so prohibitively difficult to make, subsequent bombs have been Plutonium. The first of which was test exploded in the US, the second of which, the Fat Man, was dropped on Nagasaki.

There was a third one prepared for use, but Japan surrendered, so its core, the Demon Core, was later melted down after it killed two American scientists.

[permanent name]

Japan's vampire coup wouldn't stop killing the emperor and it was hurting the bots' bottom line.

So they nuked both the vampire capital of the country, as well as the emperor to prove it wasn't about the emperor so much as the principle of the thing.

Everything else is just surface-level logic.

[apathy]

Wow...

Hey, maybe America isn't a force for good in this world?

Perhaps the world isn't good and is full of a-holes who think they're good... and America is the biggest a-hole of them all?


Oh well, back to our video games.

[permanent name]

Escrito originalmente por apathy:

Wow...

Hey, maybe America isn't a force for good in this world?

Perhaps the world isn't good and is full of a-holes who think they're good... and America is the biggest a-hole of them all?


Oh well, back to our video games.

Why's it a competition? Is it good to be an ahole or something?

[Raoul]

Escrito originalmente por Ronny:

Yes it totally ended the WW2, but was it worth it? Yes it cost a lot of lives of innocent people. Japan wouldn't have given up without it. What do you think?

WW2 had ended 3 months before as the Germans had already been defeated and surrendered... Whatever remnants of the Fascist ideology that remained in the Japanese Military could have easily been defeated in many different and efficient ways instead of using the most deadly bomb in existence on a city of hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting innocent civilians that had nothing to do with the war.. there is no justification for this kind of thing.
Maybe some US folks might feel it was deserved vengeance for Pearl harbor or a necessary flex to the Soviets or generally the world to show superiority as a system and of control going forward after the war but none of these would be justified either.

[RRW359]

Escrito originalmente por Raoul:

Escrito originalmente por Ronny:

Yes it totally ended the WW2, but was it worth it? Yes it cost a lot of lives of innocent people. Japan wouldn't have given up without it. What do you think?

Whatever remnants of the Fascist ideology that remained in the Japanese Military could have easily been defeated in many different and efficient ways

Care to enlighten us on a way to defeat them that wouldn't have resulted in more Chinese civilian deaths, a blockade that would have starved Japanese civilians, or the carnage on both sides plus the civilian deaths that would have resulted from Ketsugo?

[TRethehedgehog]

War crime before the Geneva Convention invented war crimes

[HypersleepyNaputunia]

choosing to bomb a city was wrong, making a demonstration explosion on fujisan would have harmed less and made japan really reconsider

[The nameless Gamer]

Escrito originalmente por The Commendatore:

Escrito originalmente por The nameless Commander:

I am not denying what Japan's army did. But you are not in a position to condemn them for acts you are repeating. (Not you personally, of course)

Funny. So why do you think you can condemn the other side?

War crimes should be universally condemned. Whoever ordered the atom bombs to be dropped should have been prosecuted for a massacre of civilians just as anyone who was prosecuted in the Nürnberg processes.

[L1qu1dator]

Imagine still buying the propaganda it was justified after over 70 years...

[The nameless Gamer]

Escrito originalmente por tomk1:

Escrito originalmente por The nameless Commander:

A quick google search.. Basically, the US wasn't happy with Japan's invasion of the Chinese mainland.

Maybe fear that French Indochina would fall, or British Hong Kong ?
could try using encyclopedia.com / britannica.com / Reference.com rather than g00gle

I was on a back and forth schedule, didn't have time for committed research.

[De Hollandse Ezel]

as with many things.. it is complicated.

first did dropping the bombs save lives..
-had japan fought till the end, than obviously millions more lives would have been lost than with those 2 nukes.
-but would they?
many think Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union entered the war with japan and mot cause 2 nukes, after all most cities in japan were already bombed to smithereens and that did not make them surrender either.


but the targets were clearly a warcrime.
-the usa on purpose wanted to drop them on cities that they had not bombed before.
targetting civillians is a warcrime.. they could easely have taken out industrial or militairy targets, but they on purpose wanted a city.. an mostly unharmed city.
-this cause they wanted to see "what will it do" essentially doing harmfull experiments on civillians, totally unetical.
-
the usa even feared the war would be over before they could do this "test" and hated the original city targeted was actually bombed a week before by convential bombs.

the dropping of the second bomb was even worse..
-japan was willing to surrender after the first one.. but the usa demanded the disolution of the emperor.. and that was the one thing japan would rather see everyone die for than accept.
-usa delayed returning their reply on this, so the second bomb could be dropped.. only delivering their solution so that the emperor could stay as a symbolic figurehead.
after that japan agreed..
**
this delay was done on purpose.. to get the second bomb tested and dropped.. it added NOTHING to the outcome of the war.

---
and than the post ww2 period.. usa showing off these nukes.. and the advances made by these "tests" may have kept the ussr in check a few years
but it likely also advanced the ussr willingness to obtain them by spionage.. without japan they may not have done that as early and we could perhaps have taken out the ussr much earlier without nuclear war and save much suffering.
->
my bet is even without nukes the willingness to depose the ussr would not have been there. though perhaps some might have been used in korea instead...as perhaps by than the ussr would not yet have nukes.. changing that outcome. likely by the 60s the ussr would have gotten them even without the usa ever using them.