The Atomic Bomb Attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very good strategic moves, not the horrific tragedy that Revisionist Historians claim today
RTBA2A said 03/28, 12:53 AM
It has been said that the bombings of the two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, on August 6, 1945, were two of the most horrific moments in American history. America has been questioned about this action ever since; it still pops up here and there in the comments to debates and such even today, almost 63 years later.
However, these two bombings were not just the horrible decisions that the public has made them out to be. In fact, these bombings are precisely what caused the Japanese to surrender to the Allies, and were two of the biggest contributing factors to the end of the Second World War. It was an excellent strategic move, quickly establishing the USA as the top dog in military advancements, and demonstrating the power of the fabled "A-Bomb" that the world was so curious about.
In arguing about the ethics of the event, I am not here to say that it is a good thing that so many people died as a result of those bombings, or that they deserved to die, or that the Japanese were any evil empire or anything like that. It was sad, yes, and many, many civilians were killed. However, it was war, the biggest war in recorded history. And unfortunately, in war, people die.
Skipper04 said 03/28, 01:53 PM
sorry for the delay, but my computer is really acting strangely. Almost every historian will agree that it became evident that Japan was going to lose the war at least by Mid-1944. They were preciously low on resources. Had no oil or gas whatsoever. One study conducted by the US shortly after the surrender determined that Japan could have held on for another two weeks at most. The US was bound to become the top dog along with the Soviet Union as far as military advancement and might came anyway so there was no need to drop the bombs to prove our power. Just about every other power was devastated and going to have to rebuild anyway. We chose two civilian populations to drop the bombs on, not military strategic ones. And, why might I ask, was there a need for the second bombing? We had already shown the power of the A-bomb? and what was it a matter of months before the Soviets created their own? Japan was already devastated by the time the bombs were dropped, the bombings were unnecessary. and don't discount the role race played in the decision and in the war in general. The Japanese were apes to us and killing all those Japanese meant nothing at all to us.
RTBA2A said 03/31, 11:36 AM
It is great to sit here after the fact and do these studies to find out how many resources Japan had left, but how much did the military know at the time? The US was working off of what information they had, which was more than likely incomplete. In war, you need to strike when the enemy is weak. The fact that Japan was on its way out would have made them desperate. They may have sent out a final strike force of kamikaze fighters. They may even have somehow received help from an ally and returned to strength. There were too many unknowns, and in strategic terms, it is always best to destroy an enemy, to eliminate the chance of a second run. As to the reasons for those cities, the Target Committee that decided which cities to hit called Hiroshima "an important army depot and port of embarkation." Of course, the other big reasons were to break the Japanese spirit, again to prevent a re-emergence, and, yes in order to demonstrate the power of the Bomb in an urban setting. The bomb, not the country, was being promoted. And as to the second city, there were many possible issues with detonation. Two bombs raises the chance of at least one going off.
Skipper04 said 03/31, 01:07 PM
What ally are you talking about? That's complete fantasy. The Germans were defeated and Japan had no Asian ally by the time. They had set up puppet government in some of their territory but they had already depleted these territories of their resources by 45 and had lost much of their territory anyway. and i do think it's ok to use what we know now, if we are going to debate if the bombings were actually as you call them "a very good strategic move." We aren't debating in 1946 we are debating in 2008, so it only natural that we can begin to see things in a different light and there is nothing wrong with that. If you are going to continue a war, you need the resources to fight with, and Japan didn't have them. Also,we had three days to call of the second bombing. we had already known that one went off. As far as the Kamikaze's go it's difficult to fly your plane into an enemy ship without gas.
RTBA2A said 04/02, 12:23 PM
My point in this argument from the beginning has been that the two atom bombs dropped on Japan were, *at the time,* very good strategic moves, and that the revisionist display of the event that shows the US to be monstrous for killing all of the thousands of Japanese civilians is a fallacy.
As I said, yes, war is a horrific, god-awful thing, but it is sometimes necessary, and people die in wars. The bombs were actually far less costly, in terms of casualties, than the alternatives. The Radiation Effects Research Foundation, a Japanese-American cooperative research foundation, has estimated 150-220,000 deaths resulting directly from the bombs, far less than most of the major battles.
To speak of the "brutality" of attacking civilian populations: we can by no means conclude that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki deaths were completely civilian, since Hiroshima was described, as I said, as "an important army depot and port of embarkation," and no depot goes without military personnel at all times, let alone an embarkation point. And anyway, if we did invade on foot, as Colorado_Flyer pointed out, every civilian would fight tooth and nail to protect their homeland and their emperor.
Skipper04 said 04/03, 04:12 AM
You say that it's necessary, but my point since the begining has been that it wasn't. The war was won, the Japanese all but defeated. You say that every civilian would have fought tooth and nail, with what? pitchforks? The Japanese were seriously low on ammunition as well. A lot of that is the propoganda that we were spreading at the time that the Japanese were mindless fools obedient to a fault. Another one of our attempts to see our enemies as anything but human.
In no way does the fact that there were "some" military personnel killed by the bombs, delude the fact that thousand more innocent civilians were killed. They were the ones that really paid the price. One of the reasons we chose Hiroshima was because it was surrounded by hills so the radioactive damage would have more effect. 220,000 innocent civilians, no more guilty of anything than the American citizens over here, killed. Half from the bomb, half from exposure to the radiation. I do not think that their death and suffering signifies a great American strategic move. It is NOTHING but tragic that so many people had to suffer so greatly. The fall of an already beaten foe is not so great that it overshadows that.
Comments
Add Your Comment
I agree with RTBA2A, the bombing of Japan was an unfortunate thing to do but also very neccessary in establishing America as "Big Daddy" in WWII. Just imagine where we would be if we had have gone and pouted in the corner when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. It would have opened the door for every jerk-water country to come and invade our bit of Earth.
JWise | 03/28/08
Report Offensive Comment
I find it interesting that so many refer to it as a horrible mistake that we should apologize for. This was done at a time when carpet bombing a city was a basic tactic; wars were fought by attrition. In addition to stopping the war, I think it has had a profound effect on the world. For the first time, the world saw what a nuclear weapon would do. I wonder if the Cold War would have remained "cold" if we had no idea of the destructive capabilities of the weapons we had pointed at each other.
Ariyel | 03/28/08
Report Offensive Comment
Another thing people do not seem to be considering here: The almost fanatical loyalty to the Emperor shown by the Japanese people. While by today's standards it seems rather mundane, but to the world in 1944 the thought of purposely committing suicide on order (Kamikaze) was beyond the stretch of rational thought. I have seen papers which predict a total casualty count exceeding 2 MILLION (friend and foe alike) should we have undertaken an invasion of the home islands. Japan was training her women and children to fight with sticks if necessary. Also, you need to consider the American mindset at the time--if you were to ask the average person on the street in America (or Canada, or Britain) their opinion, they would have said it was worth it to kill hundreds of Japanese if even one allied life was spared. Revisionist histories are almost always flawed, as they are not viewed through the social and societal lens of the events they are seeking to revise. One would hope that, decades from now, Islamists will look with horror on the role of suicide bombings happening today...but that, too, would be through a different lens than those who perform such deeds today wear.
Colorado_Flyer | 03/28/08
Report Offensive Comment
Part of the whole Kamikaze thing, colorado, was that it shows just how desperate the Japanese were and how close we were to the end. part of the reason the japanese were suggesting it to their soldiers was because they didn't have the gas for a return fight. The Japanese mindset is a very interesting topic though. One of their famous authors once referred to them as "rubber dolls" because they used to seem to be so afraid of showing any sort of individualism. As far as the average American citizen's opinion at the time, i can understand it but we are debating whether or not the dropping of the bombs were a good decision, given what we know now, not how we would have felt in the 1940s.
Skipper04 | 03/30/08
Report Offensive Comment
the only piece of truly japanese soil we took, by force, cost the us marine corps 1/3 of it's total casualty count for the entire war (okinawa). those figures would be astronomically higher if we invaded the main islands, and we couldn't wait to simply starve the japanese out of the mood to fight (given the japanese view that surrender is lower than death, it's likely more japanese people would've died from starvation than we killed using the bomb). post war rivalry was already heating up and the japanese still controlled large tracts of land to fight over, this would take time and blood, and who knew when the russians would call off this whole alliance of necessity and focus on us (Gen George S Patton wanted to start the cold war hot and in germany, just use the old german war machine to help).
MorgMcA | 03/31/08
Report Offensive Comment
The desperate attacks of the Kamikaze were potentially devastating to our forces, and the closer they were to their own ends, the more intense their attacks would become. In order to preempt any of these damaging attacks, the bombs were launched to force Japanese surrender.
RTBA2A | 03/31/08
Report Offensive Comment
It is crazy to say that we shouldn't have dropped the bomb. In doing so the United States ended a bloody war that may have dragged on for a very long time. Secretary of War Henry Stimson said that "this deliberately premeditated destruction was our least abhorrent choice. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki put an end to the Japanese war. It stopped the fire raids and the strangling blockade; it ended the ghastly specter of a clash of great land armies." The bombs established us as the world's "top dog" where we still sit today. Without ending the war, we would have long more American soldiers and we never would have gained the power and prosperity we enjoy today.
ReaganFreak | 04/01/08
Report Offensive Comment
Can't it be a 'good' strategic move AND a horrific tragedy?
IamFry | 04/01/08
Report Offensive Comment
and like I said we were already bound to become the world's top dog by the time the bombs were dropped anyway, and it only took the Soviet Union a couple of months to have their own so we weren't alone at the top for very long.
Skipper04 | 04/01/08
Report Offensive Comment
Skip, I'd focus on your opponent's claim that the bombings weren't a tragedy; the fact is, hundreds of thousands of civilians died. It's at least tragic that it came to that...
IamFry | 04/01/08
Report Offensive Comment
Perhaps my title should have been stated, "The A-Bombs on Japan Were Not Just a Tragedy; They Were No More of a Tragedy than Anything Else Done in WWII, and America Should Stop Getting Bashed For It, Because It Was Also An Excellent Strategic Move," but space was limited, and I couldn't get out the specifics.
RTBA2A | 04/02/08
Report Offensive Comment
Some Sources: http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa1.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#endnote_Japan http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html
RTBA2A | 04/02/08
Report Offensive Comment
Killing innocent civilians, as well as many American POWs is never a "good" move.
ColoradoJ | 04/02/08
Report Offensive Comment
Anyone ever hear of Doug MacArthur's original plan for the Korean war. He wanted to keep the Chinese out by dropping Atomic bombs all along the northern banks of the Yellow River (I think that's the name of it) so as to create a radioactive wasteland so that China couldn't get through. After taking care of the North Koreans he then wanted to drop an H-bomb on Beijing. and pretty much just nuke China to oblivion. Nevermind, the fact that the Soviets would have had to respond to that and we pretty much would have had WWIII and how many more millions of deaths on our hands. Thank God Truman kicked him out when he did. I don't have a source for that, my teacher just talked about it in class today. I hope he got something wrong. How crazy is that? Has nothing to do with the debate, just wanted to share it.
Skipper04 | 04/03/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
Photos: The Hajj Goes High-Tech
Advances in infrastructure and security improve the experience of Islam's holiest pilgrimage
( )
Athens in Flames
A massive student protest against proposed government reforms of state universities developed into major rioting in the streets of the Greek capital following the shooting of a teenage boy by riot police.
(Louisa Gouliamaki / AFP / Getty)
Well, Skipper, whatya got?
Open Up | 03/28/08
Report Offensive Comment