• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Do you think it was the right decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan to end WW2?

Do you think it was the right decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan to end WW2?

  • Yes

    Votes: 86 74.8%
  • No

    Votes: 29 25.2%

  • Total voters
    115

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I don't really know. I've read some fairly damaging essays, but I don't see a motive for killing a quarter of a million people unless he really did believe it would save lives. I think it's disgusting that over 95% of the casualties in Hiroshima were civilians, and I really don't see how it was "worth it" in any case. I don't see an ulterior motive or gain for him to drop the bomb other than he believed it would save more lives... I've heard some cite revenge, and I like to think that a US president would be above that but who knows?

Do you think if FDR had had a few more years he would have dropped "little boy" and "fat man?"

Do you think the second bomb was really necessary?
 

ncallaway

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
108
Reaction score
0
Location
Pacific Northwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Do you think it was the right decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan to end W

This is a tough ethical question for me.

Yes, it saved many American soldier's lives, but it came at the cost of many civillians.

Perhaps it could have been executed differently? Maybe dropping the first bomb on a remote military base, with the threat of a second bomb to come on a city? Or maybe we only needed to drop one bomb? I don't know.

I suppose I am all for saving American lives, at whatever the cost. I'm on the fence though. I hate seeing that many civillian casualities...

Rgh. I don't know. I just don't know...
 

Busta

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Do you think it was the right decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan to end W

ncallaway said:
This is a tough ethical question for me.

Yes, it saved many American soldier's lives, but it came at the cost of many civillians.

Perhaps it could have been executed differently? Maybe dropping the first bomb on a remote military base, with the threat of a second bomb to come on a city? Or maybe we only needed to drop one bomb? I don't know.

I suppose I am all for saving American lives, at whatever the cost. I'm on the fence though. I hate seeing that many civillian casualities...

Rgh. I don't know. I just don't know...
We "leafed" them for @ a month before hand, telling them what we were going to drop. They didn't believe us. There were no remote locations of any kind. We dropped the first Nuke, and asked for their surrender, but the Emperor would not kneel. We dropped the second Nuke and begged them to surrender, the Emperor still would not kneel. When we had the third Nuke on the way, the mission in rout, word came that the Emperor said "The war will now stop".
Faced with cretin defeat, the Emperor saved his honor and his people.

That's the stuf of legonds.
 

Surenderer

Active member
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
469
Reaction score
0
Wow I thought that it was always wrong to attack civilians...... soldiers choose to fight.....old people and little girls and babies that died in Hiroshima and Nagaski didnt......just goes to show that in some eyes terrorism is something that only happens to us




terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear





peace
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Surenderer said:
Wow I thought that it was always wrong to attack civilians...... soldiers choose to fight.....old people and little girls and babies that died in Hiroshima and Nagaski didnt......just goes to show that in some eyes terrorism is something that only happens to us
You're not looking at it from a 1945 mindset....Civilians were never a consideration until after WWII....

But no, seriously....continue with your backhanded cheap shots...go on.....
 

superskippy

Active member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
377
Reaction score
2
Location
Tel'Aviv (when not on duty.)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I thought it was a good thing to save millions from being killed in a conflict that could and was avoided by the use of the Atomic Bombs.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not open cities, they could be bombed at will just like New York City could have been during World War 2 without it being a war crime. Think of Dresden, Kiev, Hamburg, Manila, Courtlen, Berlin, Brest, Leningrad, London, Halifax, Nuremburg, and Tokyo among many others. Some of these bombings were far more destructive than the Atom Bomb's, would you have wished the Americans had firebombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima killing ten's of thousands more and then still have the war continue because firebombings were not has as frightening as the display of power of the Atom Bombs?
 

Busta

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
One VERY important detail that is constantly overlooked is that the people them selves were willing to fight to the death for their Emperor. The Japanese people, to this day, have not bowed to America. If the Emperor said fight, the people (Men, Women and children) would have gleefully laid down their lives by the millions in faithful obedience.
So if you want to apply the Geneva conventions, fine, lets aply the Geneva conventions: That means that the ENTIRE population of Japan were either Soldiers or unlawful combatants; BOTH of which are fair Military targets.

This fact is why there was an attempted Military cue to find and destroy the 2 records, that held the Emperor's voice, telling the people that "The war will now stop" and "do not fight the Americans". Most of the Japanese Generals wanted the war to continue. These Generals wanted their people to be Nuked agene and agene.

Only the Compassion of the Emperor of Japan and the wit of his assistant who successfully hid the 2 records from the Military liberals can be credited for the war ending so soon. These Generals who executed the cue either committed Seppuku, ate a pistol or "died under mysterious circumstances" in prison.

Another thing that must be remembered: There weren't Precision Guided Munitions in WW2. Hell, there weren't even more than a handful of Precision Guided Munitions in the first Gulf War. Nukes were fresh off of Einstein's drawing board. Truman (that's right, Harry S. Truman...A DEMOCRAT!!!) didn't even realize what he was unleashing on the people of Japan.
It is because of the horrors of W.M.D.'s that America strives to advance Precision Guided and Unmanned Weapons.

Truman....remember that name before you accuse Bush of terrorism.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Busta said:
One VERY important detail that is constantly overlooked is that the people them selves were willing to fight to the death for their Emperor. The Japanese people, to this day, have not bowed to America. If the Emperor said fight, the people (Men, Women and children) would have gleefully laid down their lives by the millions in faithful obedience.
So if you want to apply the Geneva conventions, fine, lets aply the Geneva conventions: That means that the ENTIRE population of Japan were either Soldiers or unlawful combatants; BOTH of which are fair Military targets.
Your logic is the same as Bin Laden's for say civilians are not innocent, making them viable targets...you are making the case for him.
 

debate_junkie

Worst Nightmare
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
19
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Surenderer said:
Wow I thought that it was always wrong to attack civilians...... soldiers choose to fight.....old people and little girls and babies that died in Hiroshima and Nagaski didnt......just goes to show that in some eyes terrorism is something that only happens to us

Would WWII have ended when it did? We'll never know. The bombs, though incredibly catastrophic within today's thinking and reasoning, were cutting edge, and not without flaw.

Having said that... were they precision or heat seeking bombs that were programmed to seek out ONLY the enemy, would we even be having this conversation? Would you deny the US the right to finish a war that had led to the deaths of our soldiers and civilians, not only in P.H. but also on shores all over the world?

You wanna quote terrorism.... but how quickly you forget that the US remained predominantly NEUTRAL in WWII until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. So how is the US defending an active declaration of war, levied by the Japanese, terrorism? Is it because we got them on their shores? I don't understand your logic of thinking.
 

Uhgreen

New member
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I forgot who said it, but it's true, "War is the murder of women and children" or something to that degree.

It's hard to justify that many civilian deaths, but I think it was in our national interest to end the Eastern front of WWII as soon as possible.
 

teacher

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
30
Location
Nomad.Got a couch,beer,meat,cute daughters,Batman
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Of course it was. The result was the Japenese surrender with far less deaths than if we had invaded mainland Japan as scheduled. Less Japanese died than an invasion. And none of us died. It was war people. And we won. What, would it be better if we lost? Gah!
 

teacher

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
30
Location
Nomad.Got a couch,beer,meat,cute daughters,Batman
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Surenderer said:
Wow I thought that it was always wrong to attack civilians...... soldiers choose to fight.....old people and little girls and babies that died in Hiroshima and Nagaski didnt......just goes to show that in some eyes terrorism is something that only happens to us




terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear





peace

That's just fuc*king weak. How many Japanese cililians would have died in a mainland invasion of Japan? I think you need to read history, or better yet, had had a good talk with your Grandfathers. This question is stupid. An attempt to bring yet more American guilt for winning? Some times the way you people try to put todays view on historical events illustrates you're bed wetting propencities. Shut up.
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Do you think it was the right decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan to end W

No Coherent answer, just some random thoughts:

I wonder about the possibility we could have gotten a coniditional surrender. Of course, I support finishing the war - my grandfather was on a boat headed to fight in Japan at the time of the A-Bombs after after he fought in Europe.

I wonder if Japan would be an ally today if we did not force total surrender.

We were already at the point then where civilians were being killed daily by our air-raids and such.

I wonder what the cold war would have been like had we not dropped the bomb. Somehow, I feel that the use of Atomic weapons in WWII turned into a statement against atomic weopons in the cold war. Did this paradoxically save us from a nuclear war?
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: Do you think it was the right decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan to end W

Oy. It's hard to decide which is the best way to kill tens of thousands of people.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Re: Do you think it was the right decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan to end W

It has been estimated that if we had tried to invade the Japanese mainland that we would have lost close to a half a million men........The Japanese were dug in and had a 2 million man army ready to fight........

Think about it, if we lost a half a million men then they would not have gotten married and had children and just maybe some of the people that post to this forum would not be here now...........
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
If I'm not mistaken the Japanese were training their women and children to fight with everything from broom sticks to rifles. Though I think very few had rifles. The Japanese plan, least as I understand it, was to defend the island nation with very man, woman and child able to carry a stick. I think their actions turned a whole bunch of citizens into citizen soldiers. I also believe the estimated potentiel loss of American lives, as well as Japanese, was extreme. It put us in an extreme situation. Extreme situations require extreme measures. In the end our actions may have saved more lives then it cost.
 

Busta

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
cnredd said:
Your logic is the same as Bin Laden's for say civilians are not innocent, making them viable targets...you are making the case for him.

My logic? You are mistaken.
Try sarcasm.
I illustrated absurdity by being absurd.
The Geneva Conventions were not even adopted until August 12, 1949. Even then they were not in force until October 21, 1950.
The "Bomb" was dropped in 1945.
If Surenderer gets to be absurd by calling WW2 Terrorism instead of Open war then I get to be absurd by inaccurately applying law that won't exist for another 5 f***ing years after the fact.
Maybe Surenderer would like to think twice before s/he calls my Grandfather a terrorist?

Of course civilians are never targets. That's a given.
 
Last edited:

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Do you think it was the right decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan to end W

Navy Pride said:
if we lost a half a million men then they would not have gotten married and had children and just maybe some of the people that post to this forum would not be here now...........
Yep. And I'm almost certain that I'd be one of them.
 

Surenderer

Active member
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
469
Reaction score
0
cnredd said:
You're not looking at it from a 1945 mindset....Civilians were never a consideration until after WWII....

But no, seriously....continue with your backhanded cheap shots...go on.....



Nothing backhanded meant by my comments bro relax.......but dont tell me that in 1945 it was not known to be immoral to attack civilians....thats ridiculous...Truman in his personal diary seemed to think that he was dropping these bombs on military targets and that women and children wouldnt be hurt....thats a better argument for you


peace


http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-jl25.html
 

Surenderer

Active member
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
469
Reaction score
0
debate_junkie said:
Would WWII have ended when it did? We'll never know. The bombs, though incredibly catastrophic within today's thinking and reasoning, were cutting edge, and not without flaw.

Having said that... were they precision or heat seeking bombs that were programmed to seek out ONLY the enemy, would we even be having this conversation? Would you deny the US the right to finish a war that had led to the deaths of our soldiers and civilians, not only in P.H. but also on shores all over the world?

You wanna quote terrorism.... but how quickly you forget that the US remained predominantly NEUTRAL in WWII until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. So how is the US defending an active declaration of war, levied by the Japanese, terrorism? Is it because we got them on their shores? I don't understand your logic of thinking.



Terrorism is simply targetting civilians to achieve political or Military purposes.....dont hate me.....hate Webster he wrote it...at least Pearl Harbor can be deemed a Military target...You sound like Bin Laden defending 9-11



peace
 

Surenderer

Active member
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
469
Reaction score
0
teacher said:
That's just fuc*king weak. How many Japanese cililians would have died in a mainland invasion of Japan? I think you need to read history, or better yet, had had a good talk with your Grandfathers. This question is stupid. An attempt to bring yet more American guilt for winning? Some times the way you people try to put todays view on historical events illustrates you're bed wetting propencities. Shut up.


STOP CUSSING AT ME!!!!! just kidding..... anyways I dont know how many would have died and neither do you.... so dont speculate.....but let me ask you this....are you saying that it is ok to target civilians to achieve political or military objectives(I seem to remember you spamming me posts to denounce that sort of thing)If it would have been me (as President) I would have thought that a mere demonstration of the bomb, followed by an ultimatum, have turned the trick....How many lives would that have saved? But I know it wasnt an easy decision



Peace


Oh yea and you shut up too;)












peace
 

Plain old me

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2005
Messages
228
Reaction score
1
Location
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Do you think it was the right decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan to end W

I think its easy to say it was wrong or right now, but imagine having fought in that war. Some nations *cough* had been fighting for nigh on 6 years, people had been bombed bombed and bombed some more on the way to Berlin / Japan. By the time that Japan was the only nation left I think everyone from American to British to French to Russian, from civilian to soldier had had enough of this bloody war. By the end, Truman couldn't allow for this already horrible war to stretch out any longer. Time to end it quickly, so they could begin reparing the world.
 

Bestial_Pagan

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2005
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
Location
Scandinavia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Re: Do you think it was the right decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan to end W

I think it was right decision. Japs wouldn´t had surrender without atomic bomb, they were so fanatic. By dropping a bomb they saved lives. If USA would have invased landing, about 2 million japs and several thousand US soldiers could have been killed.
 
Top Bottom