• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did the US do the right thing in dropping the atomic bombs on Japan to end WWII?

Did the US do the right thing in dropping the atomic bombs on Japan?

  • yes

    Votes: 72 69.9%

  • no

    Votes: 20 19.4%

  • not sure

    Votes: 11 10.7%
  • Total voters
    103
BillRM said:
You can keep repeating the above over and over but the plans for an invasion was all written and the troops that would take part in that invasion was being move into position.

They was showing no indication that they would surrender on any terms we would find acceptable and in fact after the bombs being drop part of their military even then try to pull a coup to stop the Japanese government annoucement of the surrender.
Click to expand...

That's not true. Japan was begging for peace with one condition...the exact condition we have them

On July 12, Hirohito summoned Fumimaro Konoye, who had served as prime minister in 1940-41. Explaining that "it will be necessary to terminate the war without delay," the Emperor said that he wished Konoye to secure peace with the Americans and British through the Soviets. As Prince Konoye later recalled, the Emperor instructed him "to secure peace at any price, notwithstanding its severity
 
vegas giants said:
You don't have to accept the assessment from the greatest military minds this country has even known....but I will. LOL
Click to expand...

Irrelevant, as they were not in charge of Japan. The Japanese disagreed, and they are the ones who had to surrender.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Irrelevant, as they were not in charge of Japan. The Japanese disagreed, and they are the ones who had to surrender.
Click to expand...

Did you catch that quote from the Emperor? LOL
 
Fledermaus said:
Your OPINION is noted.

How many civilians died in the liberation of Okinawa? Was that a war crime?

Saipan. War crime?

Philippines. War crime?
Click to expand...

Did we intentionally select our munitions and targets in those places to maximize civilian casualties?

chuckiechan said:
Do you feel guilty that the US won the war by nuking Japan?
Click to expand...

No, it is however a dark cloud of shame hanging over our country. America is not the kind of nation that should be intentionally targeting civilians with the explicit intention of killing as many as possible. If that's the kind of people you'd like I hear ISIS territory is nice.

Tigerace117 said:
Gee, are there any cities not full of civilians? Does that change the fact that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets? No, it does not.

Blatantly false, considering that there was more than 1 Japanese soldier left. A more honest version of your little story would be bombing a compound nearby a school full of 200 children to destroy the Taliban forever and turn Afghanistan into a peaceful, productive country which has remained fairly stable for decades.

But we didn't select our munitions to kill any many civilians as possible. We selected our munitions to destroy specific military targets and end the war.
Click to expand...

We intentionally set out with the goal to kill as many civilians as possible. That is a war crime. When it's a 1000:1 ratio of civilians to military killed, it wasn't a military target, it was a civilian target with military in it.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Did you miss the fact that the emperor was not supported by any Japanese generals or admirals?
Click to expand...

Then let me give you some more

Navy Secretary James Forrestal termed the intercepted messages "real evidence of a Japanese desire to get out of the war." "With the interception of these messages," notes historian Alperovitz (p. 177), "there could no longer be any real doubt as to the Japanese intentions; the maneuvers were overt and explicit and, most of all, official acts. Koichi Kido, Japan's Lord Privy Seal and a close advisor to the Emperor, later affirmed: "Our decision to seek a way out of this war, was made in early June before any atomic bomb had been dropped and Russia had not entered the war. It was already our decision."
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Did we intentionally select our munitions and targets in those places to maximize civilian casualties?



No, it is however a dark cloud of shame hanging over our country. America is not the kind of nation that should be intentionally targeting civilians with the explicit intention of killing as many as possible. If that's the kind of people you'd like I hear ISIS territory is nice.



We intentionally set out with the goal to kill as many civilians as possible. That is a war crime. When it's a 1000:1 ratio of civilians to military killed, it wasn't a military target, it was a civilian target with military in it.
Click to expand...

False. We set out to destroy the infastructure of Nagasaki, Hiroshima's military headquarters installations, and hoped to end the war. We did not intend to kill any many civilians as possible for the sake of killing civilians.

And we targeted the military target. Under your "logic" any half rate dicatatorship or petty regime could protect its military assets indefinitely by shielding them with civilians.
 
Tigerace117 said:
False. We set out to destroy the infastructure of Nagasaki, Hiroshima's military headquarters installations, and hoped to end the war. We did not intend to kill any many civilians as possible for the sake of killing civilians.

And we targeted the military target. Under your "logic" any half rate dicatatorship or petty regime could protect its military assets indefinitely by shielding them with civilians.
Click to expand...

The war was over
 
Tigerace117 said:
False. We set out to destroy the infastructure of Nagasaki, Hiroshima's military headquarters installations, and hoped to end the war. We did not intend to kill any many civilians as possible for the sake of killing civilians.

And we targeted the military target. Under your "logic" any half rate dicatatorship or petty regime could protect its military assets indefinitely by shielding them with civilians.
Click to expand...

Using a nuke to destroy an entire city, schools, hospitals, men, women and children, is specifically setting out to kill as many as possible. Cowards kill civilians to achieve political goals. I hear there's some exciting new openings in ISIS you might like if that's the kind of morality you have.
 
vegas giants said:
Then let me give you some more

Navy Secretary James Forrestal termed the intercepted messages "real evidence of a Japanese desire to get out of the war." "With the interception of these messages," notes historian Alperovitz (p. 177), "there could no longer be any real doubt as to the Japanese intentions; the maneuvers were overt and explicit and, most of all, official acts. Koichi Kido, Japan's Lord Privy Seal and a close advisor to the Emperor, later affirmed: "Our decision to seek a way out of this war, was made in early June before any atomic bomb had been dropped and Russia had not entered the war. It was already our decision."
Click to expand...

Forrestal was suffering from extreme fatigue and depression already; it's what would lead to his death a few years later. Also irrelevant as Forrestal does not run Japan.

That's rather easy for someone to say years after the fact; none of the facts at time support this claim.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Forrestal was suffering from extreme fatigue and depression already; it's what would lead to his death a few years later. Also irrelevant as Forrestal does not run Japan.

That's rather easy for someone to say years after the fact; none of the facts at time support this claim.
Click to expand...

He was? Please show his medical record with a complete diagnosis on this condition. I think you made it up. LOL
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Using a nuke to destroy an entire city, schools, hospitals, men, women and children, is specifically setting out to kill as many as possible. Cowards kill civilians to achieve political goals. I hear there's some exciting new openings in ISIS you might like if that's the kind of morality you have.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean to destroy the key industrial and military targets in those cities. Because, despite your fantasy, those were the actual targets.

Yes, there are civilians in a city. This has been thoroughly established. It doesn't change anything.

Cowards destroy military targets, sparing millions of American and Japanese civilians and soldiers? Huh. You sure seem disappointed there wasn't a knockdown, drag out brawl in Japan itself.

You love your hysterics don't you. Glad to see you think America is just as bad as ISIS:roll:
 
Tigerace117 said:
Oh, you mean to destroy the key industrial and military targets in those cities. Because, despite your fantasy, those were the actual targets.

Yes, there are civilians in a city. This has been thoroughly established. It doesn't change anything.

Cowards destroy military targets, sparing millions of American and Japanese civilians and soldiers? Huh. You sure seem disappointed there wasn't a knockdown, drag out brawl in Japan itself.

You love your hysterics don't you. Glad to see you think America is just as bad as ISIS:roll:
Click to expand...

LOTS of women and children. LOTS
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Did we intentionally select our munitions and targets in those places to maximize civilian casualties?

No, it is however a dark cloud of shame hanging over our country. America is not the kind of nation that should be intentionally targeting civilians with the explicit intention of killing as many as possible. If that's the kind of people you'd like I hear ISIS territory is nice.

We intentionally set out with the goal to kill as many civilians as possible. That is a war crime. When it's a 1000:1 ratio of civilians to military killed, it wasn't a military target, it was a civilian target with military in it.
Click to expand...

No, we intentionally set out to win the war.

HUGE difference.

Would you rather we starve them into submission?
 
Fledermaus said:
According to a relative HANDFULL that made statements later.
Click to expand...

The greatest military minds this country has ever known. Even you can't deny it. You may have served on ships that had their names on them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom