• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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
Geoist said:
They refuted it because it demanded unconditional surrender. The Japanese wanted assurance on the position of the emperor.
Click to expand...

That was one of the reasons yes, but it was not the only one. Contrary to popular belief the issue over the Emperor was not the sole reason Japan refuted the Potsdam declaration.
 
Geoist said:
Invading Japan would have given the radicals what they wanted. They knew if they could draw the US into a costly invasion/occupation then they could negotiate better terms. The main concern was over the emperor. Negotiating and assuring the fate of the emperor would have brought both parties much closer to a deal and have spared the lives of not only those who would have died in an invasion, but those who died in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki strikes.
Click to expand...

The Potsdam Declaration was rejected outright by the Big Six and only part of the reason was the Emperor.

Which is stupid. The Emperor was just as guilty and should've been tried as a war criminal.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Because communism's central tenets as outlined in it's doctrinal literature makes it clear that the transition to a communist society is expected to be largely gradual and a natural evolution.
Click to expand...

Lol.

Nazism, on the other hand, extols the inherent supremacy of single group of people, the Aryan Master Race, and asserts they have the right to subjugate and exterminate those deemed inferior for no other reason than to make space for the Aryan people. It is an ideology fundamentally based on the idea that conflict between races and nationalities is not only inevitable, but should be ascertained by any means necessary.

I don't like either of them, but it's not hard to see which one I find the more repulsive.
Click to expand...

Given that Communism actually carried out what Nazis only dreamed of, it's clear where your repulsion should lie.
 
phattonez said:
Lol.



Given that Communism actually carried out what Nazis only dreamed of, it's clear where your repulsion should lie.
Click to expand...

Because the Nazis were, thankfully, defeated. Had they won their death count would've dwarfed Communism. We've been over this before.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Because the Nazis were, thankfully, defeated. Had they won their death count would've dwarfed Communism. We've been over this before.
Click to expand...

Yes, you had lots of "would'ves" to excuse what Communists actually carried out.
 
phattonez said:
Yes, you had lots of "would'ves" to excuse what Communists actually carried out.
Click to expand...

I never excused communism or it's crimes. There's a fundamental difference between explaining and justifying.

Why you have such a hard time believing Nazism to be capable of more evil is beyond me.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
I never excused communism or it's crimes. There's a fundamental difference between explaining and justifying.

Why you have such a hard time believing Nazism to be capable of more evil is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Because Communism actually carried out more evil in reality.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Because it won. The world would be far worse off had the Nazis won.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how in any way you can characterize Soviet dominance of Eastern Europe for decades far better.
 
phattonez said:
I'm not sure how in any way you can characterize Soviet dominance of Eastern Europe for decades far better.
Click to expand...

I'd prefer Soviet domination followed by it's inevitable collapse over the population of Eastern Europe being slaughtered en masse by the Wehrmacht and SS. Lesser of two evils and all that.
 
haymarket said:
You are being intentionally obtuse.
Click to expand...
No I'm not.

I made a very sound argument as to why there were no lessons to be learned here. (#1379)

Your response was to merely assert that I was unable to perceive these alleged lessons.

I asked you to give an example of such a lesson.

You have not even attempted to provide an example, but have merely carried on about my supposed lack of perception.

My perception is not lacking in any way. The reason you are not providing any examples is because there are no such examples to be had. I was correct when I stated that there were no lessons here for future leaders to learn from.


haymarket said:
The idea that any rational sane person would have to publicly ask what lessons we learn from major events in history is beyond ludicrous.
Click to expand...
Some events may well have lessons to teach. What you were asked was what lessons are to be had from this event.

When you counter a sound argument that something doesn't exist with an unsupported assertion that it does, it is perfectly reasonable to request that you back up your assertion.


haymarket said:
If you cannot see that todays leaders can learn from the past you yourself are hopelessly lost as the historian George Santayana famously said ' those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.
Click to expand...

The question is not whether leaders can ever learn from the past. The question is whether there are lessons to be learned from this particular event.

You've been given a sound argument as to why there are no such lessons. If you wish to try to challenge that argument, you are free to do so. If you wish to give an example of a lesson to be had from this event, you are free to do so.

If you make no attempt to back up your assertions, that is a strong indication that your assertions are incorrect.


haymarket said:
Learning from experience is fundamental and basic and for you or anyone to pretend to ask "BUT WHY" is worse than a three year old asking WHY to everything they are told.
Click to expand...
Are you unused to debate? When you counter a sound argument with an unsupported assertion to the contrary, you should expect a request to back up that unsupported assertion.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
The sanctions for their nuclear program were lifted when they made their nuclear agreement. The sanctions would have gotten much harsher had they continued to pursue nukes.
Click to expand...

Perhaps but obviously they were willing to deal with sanctions to pursue their goals otherwise they would have stopped long ago.
Now is there any way to guarantee they wont continue in secret or even overtly in the future?
Not really they would just face the threat of sanctions again, something they have accepted before. Will they do so? I dont know and neither do you, time will tell
 
Toggle Almendro said:
No I'm not.

I made a very sound argument as to why there were no lessons to be learned here. (#1379)

Your response was to merely assert that I was unable to perceive these alleged lessons.

I asked you to give an example of such a lesson.

You have not even attempted to provide an example, but have merely carried on about my supposed lack of perception.

My perception is not lacking in any way. The reason you are not providing any examples is because there are no such examples to be had. I was correct when I stated that there were no lessons here for future leaders to learn from.



Some events may well have lessons to teach. What you were asked was what lessons are to be had from this event.

When you counter a sound argument that something doesn't exist with an unsupported assertion that it does, it is perfectly reasonable to request that you back up your assertion.



The question is not whether leaders can ever learn from the past. The question is whether there are lessons to be learned from this particular event.

You've been given a sound argument as to why there are no such lessons. If you wish to try to challenge that argument, you are free to do so. If you wish to give an example of a lesson to be had from this event, you are free to do so.

If you make no attempt to back up your assertions, that is a strong indication that your assertions are incorrect.



Are you unused to debate? When you counter a sound argument with an unsupported assertion to the contrary, you should expect a request to back up that unsupported assertion.
Click to expand...

Every major event in history is a teaching experience and a learning experience. The dropping of an atomic bomb killing vast numbers of people - mostly civilians at a time when the enemy was already on the ropes is no exception. Your refusal to see that speaks volumes.

This entire thread contains the basis for the lessons to be learned starting with the very question of should we have dropped the bomb ranging to could we have achieved victory some other way?

That should have been obvious to anyone participating in this. Your refusal to see that can only be viewed as self inflifted blindness.
 
Last edited:
Jredbaron96 said:
Because the Nazis were, thankfully, defeated. Had they won their death count would've dwarfed Communism. We've been over this before.
Click to expand...
And as I stated before, after we dispatched with Japan, we should have dropped another fat boy on Moscow and Stalingrad.
 
Bassman said:
And as I stated before, after we dispatched with Japan, we should have dropped another fat boy on Moscow and Stalingrad.
Click to expand...

Yeah because that would've worked out swell.
 
Bassman said:
Yes, it would have. It would have stopped the Communist infestation of East Asia and North America.
Click to expand...

Yeah, ignoring that at the time we didn't have a bomber capable of reaching that far over thousands of miles of hostile airspace, and given the penetration of Soviet intelligence into the US, it would not have gone over that easily.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Both Moscow and Stalingrad are at the edges of both aircraft's max range.

Besides, most Soviet industry was at this point located beyond the Urals, outside the range of both aircraft.
Click to expand...

I said they could get there I didnt say they could get back ;)
Mind you if they used bases in Germany/Denmark they would have a chance (assuming they didnt get shot down)
 
Last edited:
Quag said:
I said they could get there I didnt say they could get back ;)
Mind you if they used bases in Germany/Denmark they would have a chance (assuming they didnt get shot down)
Click to expand...

Frankly, given the rate at which Soviet intelligence had penetrated the West, I don't believe we could've planned a bombing of either city without the Soviets knowing in advance.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Frankly, given the rate at which Soviet intelligence had penetrated the West, I don't believe we could've planned a bombing of either city without the Soviets knowing in advance.
Click to expand...

Plus despite what many people think the Russian air force was also very formidable in quailty as well as quantity
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Frankly, given the rate at which Soviet intelligence had penetrated the West, I don't believe we could've planned a bombing of either city without the Soviets knowing in advance.
Click to expand...

I think the point was to A-bomb them into submission, not which city to actually hit.

We could have gotten Leningrad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom