Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[kudayta]

I'll just drop this here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bo ... d_Nagasaki

So upwards of 10,000,000 kills by the Japanese in WWII versus an estimated total of 246,000 by the atomic bombs dropped by the U.S. Obviously, there were other conflicts that attribute to the death toll for the U.S. (Iwo Jima, tokyo bombing, etc...) so we'll tack on another 1,000,000 just to be sure.

So death toll, and reasons for the atomic bomb drops put the US at 1,246,000 versus 10,000,000 by the Japanese. I'll add your 250,000 for radiation to the death toll from the bombs.

That puts us at roughly a final total of 1,496,000 versus 10,000,000. I'll take dropping the atomic bombs in that situation any day.

And while all of that is roughly accurate Endless, the real issue at hand here is whether the use of the bombs at the time could be considered justified. I'm not convinced that it was a justified act, considering that the high command of the Imperial Japanese had been sending peace overtures all summer long (albeit in their special condescending way). And factor in that the target sites were picked, at least in part, to maximize the effects of the bomb, and the highly civilian nature of the targets...well, it looks more like a political act aimed at Stalin than it does a military venture aimed at crushing Japanese resistance.

All of that said, the other issue at hand here is the rabidly anti-American sentiment we see in the opponents of the Bomb. So rabid they would devour one of their allies due to a perceived lack of purity. Leave that bullshit to the Republicans xander, they're better at it anyway.

[Endless]

I like to think of this argument, not just to this thread, but as a whole was based on the lives of americans that would be lost if we had invaded japan. Now, I also like the conspiracy arguments as well (showing strength to those commie bastards in russia). But the american in me, see's no wrong, and statistically, i find the dropping of the bombs just.

[Ärstotzka]

I like to think of this argument, not just to this thread, but as a whole was based on the lives of americans that would be lost if we had invaded japan. Now, I also like the conspiracy arguments as well (showing strength to those commie bastards in russia). But the american in me, see's no wrong, and statistically, i find the dropping of the bombs just.

I think the argument is whether to have dropped them on highly populated civilian targets vs. military targets. Either way we could've proved the strength of our liberation.exe and how fucked they were, so I think there is something to be said for not killing civilians ( or at least right off the bat ).

Then again, there were a lot of predicted casualties... (no telling if they were going to be correct or not)

Operation Downfall Projected Causalities

"...estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and those were believed to be conservative estimates..."

Btw, is posting about a negative thing that we might not like worth a complete ban..?

[trickser]

I think the atomic bombs on japan were a moral disaster for the usa in ww2. The usa saved us (most of the world) from the horrible nightmare visions (and especialy actions) germans and japanese were forcing us to believe in.

To me the bombs are result of corruption by power, an over the top by the means, questioning the purpose. I wish there would be an collective sorry about it, then I could feel sympathy for making a mistake in a meaningful fight.

But as the things are, I must assume the corruption has continued until today.

[kudayta]

I think the atomic bombs on japan were a moral disaster for the usa in ww2..

How so?

The usa saved us (most of the world) from the horrible nightmare visions (and especialy actions) germans and japanese were forcing us to believe in..

How do you reconcile this statement with your preceding statement?

To me the bombs are result of corruption by power, an over the top by the means, questioning the purpose. .

Why do you say that? And it's not as if the US was the only country pursuing an atomic weapon. The Japanese (they had two programs going on simultaneously!), Germans, British (with an assist from Canada) and Soviets were all seeking The Bomb. The US just got theirs first. If they hadn't, someone else would've. Would you have preferred the Soviets getting an atomic weapon first and using it against Berlin? Perhaps the British? How about the Japanese against Los Angeles and San Diego? The Germans against anyone non-Aryan?

I wish there would be an collective sorry about it, then I could feel sympathy for making a mistake in a meaningful fight..

You want the American government to apologize for dropping atomic weapons on Japan? You want the American people to feel the shame of victory? It was a horrible act, as I stated earlier, but by no means were the atomic bombings any more reprehensible than the conventional genocides committed by all sides.

But as the things are, I must assume the corruption has continued until today.

Of course corruption is present today, in all cultures.

[trickser]

Hm, sorry, I wanted to display my mind set of the topic. But if I start to answer your questions it seems like I would repeat arguments I read somewhere before and talk about details I don't actually care.

I pick one question.

I wish there would be an collective sorry about it, then I could feel sympathy for making a mistake in a meaningful fight..

You want the American government to apologize for dropping atomic weapons on Japan? You want the American people to feel the shame of victory? It was a horrible act, as I stated earlier, but by no means were the atomic bombings any more reprehensible than the conventional genocides committed by all sides.

I am not sure how viable the threat-nations-like-persons analogia is, but it makes it a lot easier to speak about complex processes within a society, also I am not aware of any actual events within that context.

There should be/have been a discussion in the us society driven by interllectuals who deeply think about necessity, moral and quality of ideals. They would have develop at least doubts about the rightfulness of thoses bombs, as it is unaviodable in the process of thinking. Thoses doubts would then have manifested in the many opinions of the us people.
As I can see very little footprint of thoses doubts, I assume the discussion did not happen at a large enough scale or was lacking quality.

[Laika]

If moral = less war casualties on either side, I'd bet dropping the bomb was not a moral thing to do.

[Endless]

<Deleted>

Just lick your wounds while you can. I don't think this is a tree you want to bark up.

[UNITEDAIR]

We do what we must because we can.

[Zorotama]

Roosvelt would not have used them

[Laika]

He would had used proper punctuation.

[dusty506]

Reviving because I'm interested.


I believe that although a difficult and a dark decision. It was ultimately necessary.
Without this the Japanese would literally have kept fighting until we invaded and conventionally bombed those cities along with Tokyo and other population centers to rubble. The total cost of a war ending without the use of the Atomic bombs is war worse for both sides than it was with us using the Atomic bombs.
On the morale standpoints. The Japanese had committed some of the grossest and most unforgivable human rights acts in history, equal or worse to that of the germans and Stalin. So yes I believe it was a necessary action and If I had been in the position, would have made the same decision as President Truman even knowing what I know now.

[Laika]

Without this the Japanese would literally have kept fighting until we invaded and conventionally bombed those cities along with Tokyo and other population centers to rubble.

Are you sure enough of that to defend a decision to drop a nuke on city, ignoring other ways to force a capitulation ?

Wanting revenge is understandable, but I can't see how it upholds any moral standpoint. Other than that, people killed or hurt by japanese gained nothing from a pulverized city.

Stalin was pretty bad, but where does that "just as bad as Hitler" bs come from ? To my knowledge he came nowhere close to launching multiple genocides, nor sanctioning vivisection of living humans.

[dusty506]

Without this the Japanese would literally have kept fighting until we invaded and conventionally bombed those cities along with Tokyo and other population centers to rubble.

Are you sure enough of that to defend a decision to drop a nuke on city, ignoring other ways to force a capitulation ?

Wanting revenge is understandable, but I can't see how it upholds any moral standpoint. Other than that, people killed or hurt by japanese gained nothing from a pulverized city.

Stalin was pretty bad, but where does that "just as bad as Hitler" bs come from ? To my knowledge he came nowhere close to launching multiple genocides, nor sanctioning vivisection of living humans.

Yes I do believe that, and many Japanese soldiers would have died fighting on their homeland rather than surrender and disgrace their families and their emperor.

I claim they were worse than Hitler, and Stalin's forces because not only did they Rape, and burn countless Chinese and Korean villages during the Sino Japanese Wars, and WW2. The Kempeitai, basically their equivalent of the Gestapo, would torture and/or kill anyone who they felt wasnt loyal enough to the emperor.

The death rate of Japanese POWs was significantly higher than any other nation during WW2 as well.

[Ärstotzka]

Dusty, this is the classic tu quoque. First of all saying that the bombs being dropped was justified because the Japanese were so bad and they had it coming doesn't make sense because that puts on their level, right? . Also the civilians, the majority of the casualties, make it all the more unacceptable because there isn't really ever a justification for killing innocent people. Thats our whole spiel right?

If you let me play devils advocate here; We're the September eleventh attacks justified because of numerous casualties in say the first gulf war(which in the U.S.'s estimates range from 10,000-12,000)?

When the U.S. commits an atrocity its not a fair response to say 'the other side did it too!' because that doesn't make the action more admissible.

Ars: "FreeZer's a murderer!"
FreeZer: "But you're a murderer too, Toz!"