• 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!

Nuke Japan?

Do you drop the bomb on Japan?

  • Yes, drop the bomb

    Votes: 54 83.1%
  • No, don't drop it

    Votes: 11 16.9%

  • Total voters
    65
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
A demonstration was in fact considered but ruled out as unworkable

The problem is no one was sure it would work and we would look stupid if it was a dud
 
Sort of, but I think of it more like game theory. Assuming the inevitability of the development of nuclear weapons, and assuming no bombs had been dropped on civilian populations in Japan, what prevents the use of much more destructive and more numerous nuclear weapons later? What evokes the emotional horror at their use?

So you’d assume without our first use there’d be no concerted effort halt proliferation and so any nuclear use is likely to be between similarly situation nuclear powers and must inevitably lead to a nuclear world war?

It’s an interesting take that I’d never heard before but I’m honestly not sure I agree.
 
So you’d assume without our first use there’d be no concerted effort halt proliferation and so any nuclear use is likely to be between similarly situation nuclear powers and must inevitably lead to a nuclear world war?

It’s an interesting take that I’d never heard before but I’m honestly not sure I agree.

The horror of nuclear war exists because of the actual outcome of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not because of the theoretical outcome.

It's largely why I really hope we're an interstellar society before somebody invents a weapon that can blow up a sun. As a species, we're not especially good at impulse control unless we already have a real world example of why we shouldn't do something.

For the purpose of this discussion, the man in this video is "The scientist who just invented a weapon that can blow up the sun." The fireworks are "The weapon." By the way, this is probably NSFW.



There are people who will not wrap themselves in fireworks and set them off because they saw this video.
 
Truman's farewell speech was almost certainly inspired by his revulsion at the use of atomic weapons.

On May 7th, Germany surrendered. The announcement was made on May 8th, my 61st birthday.

Mr. Churchill called me shortly after that and wanted a meeting with me and Prime Minister Stalin of Russia. Later on, a meeting was agreed upon, and Churchill, Stalin, and I met at Potsdam in Germany.

Meanwhile, the first atomic explosion took place out in the New Mexico desert.

The war against Japan was still going on. I made the decision that the atomic bomb had to be used to end it. I made that decision in the conviction it would save hundreds of thousands of lives--Japanese as well as American. Japan surrendered, and we were faced with the huge problems of bringing the troops home and reconverting the economy from war to peace.

All these things happened within just a little over 4 months--from April to August 1945. I tell you this to illustrate the tremendous scope of the work your President has to do.

-- Truman's Farewell Address



"I made the decision that the atomic bomb had to be used to end it. I made that decision in the conviction it would save hundreds of thousands of lives--Japanese as well as American. -- Truman"


Like he said, such decisions aren't easy.
 
On May 7th, Germany surrendered. The announcement was made on May 8th, my 61st birthday.

Mr. Churchill called me shortly after that and wanted a meeting with me and Prime Minister Stalin of Russia. Later on, a meeting was agreed upon, and Churchill, Stalin, and I met at Potsdam in Germany.

Meanwhile, the first atomic explosion took place out in the New Mexico desert.

The war against Japan was still going on. I made the decision that the atomic bomb had to be used to end it. I made that decision in the conviction it would save hundreds of thousands of lives--Japanese as well as American. Japan surrendered, and we were faced with the huge problems of bringing the troops home and reconverting the economy from war to peace.

All these things happened within just a little over 4 months--from April to August 1945. I tell you this to illustrate the tremendous scope of the work your President has to do.

-- Truman's Farewell Address



"I made the decision that the atomic bomb had to be used to end it. I made that decision in the conviction it would save hundreds of thousands of lives--Japanese as well as American. -- Truman"


Like he said, such decisions aren't easy.

He made the wrong one. It was his call....and he screwed the pooch
 
On May 7th, Germany surrendered. The announcement was made on May 8th, my 61st birthday.

Mr. Churchill called me shortly after that and wanted a meeting with me and Prime Minister Stalin of Russia. Later on, a meeting was agreed upon, and Churchill, Stalin, and I met at Potsdam in Germany.

Meanwhile, the first atomic explosion took place out in the New Mexico desert.

The war against Japan was still going on. I made the decision that the atomic bomb had to be used to end it. I made that decision in the conviction it would save hundreds of thousands of lives--Japanese as well as American. Japan surrendered, and we were faced with the huge problems of bringing the troops home and reconverting the economy from war to peace.

All these things happened within just a little over 4 months--from April to August 1945. I tell you this to illustrate the tremendous scope of the work your President has to do.

-- Truman's Farewell Address



"I made the decision that the atomic bomb had to be used to end it. I made that decision in the conviction it would save hundreds of thousands of lives--Japanese as well as American. -- Truman"


Like he said, such decisions aren't easy.

Was your post intended to add to my position or refute it? I'm not clear on what it's intended to be.
 
Was your post intended to add to my position or refute it? I'm not clear on what it's intended to be.


I agree with Truman. He made a decision based on how he saw it.

He had some of the best advisors in the world at that time too, who told him what was going on.
 
Reason not to


The greatest military minds this country has ever known say you dont need to

That's false. Of the "greatest minds" you cite - your favorite wanted to drop atom bombs on China, N. Korea and Cuba - and his practice in WW2 in both Germany and Japan was to refuse to bomb military targets for his love of firebombing civilian centers instead - your hero. The others wanted the war to go on and on and on.

It needs to be understood your opposition is because without it millions more Japanese, Chinese and Americans would die. There are people who love war - as long as they're not in it themselves.
 
I agree with Truman. He made a decision based on how he saw it.

He had some of the best advisors in the world at that time too, who told him what was going on.

Ah. I agree with that. I also maintain, in light of his farewell speech, that he was simultaneously horrified by what was unleashed. I also believe he thought this would be Dresden with fewer bombs and planes. All three things can be true at the same time.
 
That's false. Of the "greatest minds" you cite - your favorite wanted to drop atom bombs on China, N. Korea and Cuba - and his practice in WW2 in both Germany and Japan was to refuse to bomb military targets for his love of firebombing civilian centers instead - your hero. The others wanted the war to go on and on and on.

It needs to be understood your opposition is because without it millions more Japanese, Chinese and Americans would die. There are people who love war - as long as they're not in it themselves.

Well you have an opinion. The US army who studied this has an opinion too. But of course your opinion is better than theirs too. Lol


The 1946 United States*Strategic Bombing Survey*in Japan, whose members included*Paul Nitze,[citation needed]*concluded the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to win the war. They said:

There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

Bаsеd on а dеtаilеd invеstigаtion of аll thе fаcts, аnd supportеd by thе tеstimony of thе surviving Jаpаnеsе lеаdеrs involvеd, it is thе Survеy's opinion thаt cеrtаinly prior to 31 Dеcеmbеr 1945, аnd in аll probаbility prior to 1 Novеmbеr 1945, Jаpаn would hаvе surrеndеrеd еvеn if thе аtomic bombs hаd not bееn droppеd, еvеn if Russiа hаd not еntеrеd thе wаr, аnd еvеn if no invаsion hаd bееn plаnnеd or contеmplаtеd.[88][89]
 
I agree with Truman. He made a decision based on how he saw it.

He had some of the best advisors in the world at that time too, who told him what was going on.

He ignored and did not even ask his greatest advisors.


He did not want advice.


He had an agenda
 
Well you have an opinion. The US army who studied this has an opinion too. But of course your opinion is better than theirs too. Lol


The 1946 United States*Strategic Bombing Survey*in Japan, whose members included*Paul Nitze,[citation needed]*concluded the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to win the war. They said:

There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

Bаsеd on а dеtаilеd invеstigаtion of аll thе fаcts, аnd supportеd by thе tеstimony of thе surviving Jаpаnеsе lеаdеrs involvеd, it is thе Survеy's opinion thаt cеrtаinly prior to 31 Dеcеmbеr 1945, аnd in аll probаbility prior to 1 Novеmbеr 1945, Jаpаn would hаvе surrеndеrеd еvеn if thе аtomic bombs hаd not bееn droppеd, еvеn if Russiа hаd not еntеrеd thе wаr, аnd еvеn if no invаsion hаd bееn plаnnеd or contеmplаtеd.[88][89]

Yeah, those people kept saying Germany was going to surrender any day too. If the Emperor of Japan was going to surrender there was absolutely nothing stopping him from doing so.

It is absurd for anyone to argue Japan would have done what - IN FACT - it did NOT do until the A-bombs. Without a doubt, Japan was engaging in disinformation - the way they did before Pearl Harbor - promising peace even as their attack force steamed towards Hawaii. Japan was doing ANYTHING to buy time to more prepare to slaughter Americans with their massive reserves including 12,000 combat aircraft hidden in the mountains and to get the first of dozens of Japan's new jet fighters into operation - aircraft that would have slaughtered our aircraft and given Japan control of the air.
 
He ignored and did not even ask his greatest advisors.


He did not want advice.


He had an agenda

Yes, he had an agenda. That agenda was ending the war. There is no reason for any general or admiral to want any war to end - the same as no CEOs want their company to go out of business.
 
The fact is that there was no historical record over the past 2,600 years of Japan ever surrendering, nor any examples of a Japanese unit surrendering during the war. This was where the great American fear lay.
Richard B Frank is a military historian whose books include Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire (Random House, 1999).

Neither the Japanese military nor Emperor were going to surrender. The military had overwhelming rejected to suggestion - and the Emperor only quickly surrendered after the two A-bombs by unannounced radio broadcast so the military couldn't stop him. The military had no intentions of surrendering and instead was going to kidnap or assassinate the Emperor - and had already tried once. When that happened no surrender - ever - would have been possible. The window of opportunity for the Emperor to surrender was going to end any day - eliminating ANY possibility of surrender. The Japanese military commanders NEVER surrendered in battle - EVER - in Japanese history.
 
Last edited:
There's are parallel realities in which America did not drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In nearly all these parallel realities, human civilization is wiped out by global nuclear war. How do I arrive at this extraordinary conclusion? Simple.

In the first and only example of nuclear war, two minuscule atomic bombs are used on civilian populations. The outcome is so perfectly horrifying and revolting that in spite of amassing thousands of nuclear weapons... not once (knock on wood) are they used again, not even on military targets.

I think it's extremely likely that without the first relatively small examples, full-on thermonuclear weapons would have been used, and in far greater numbers.

It's a pretty ****ing dark analysis, but I believe the sacrifice Japanese civilians paid in 1945 ultimately saved the world afterwards.

From Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia

"Hiroshima during World War II

"At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of industrial and military significance. A number of military units were located nearby, the most important of which was the headquarters of Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's Second General Army, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan,[112] and was located in Hiroshima Castle. Hata's command consisted of some 400,000 men, most of whom were on Kyushu where an Allied invasion was correctly anticipated.[113] Also present in Hiroshima were the headquarters of the 59th Army, the 5th Division and the 224th Division, a recently formed mobile unit.[114] The city was defended by five batteries of 70 mm and 80 mm (2.8 and 3.1 inch) anti-aircraft guns of the 3rd Anti-Aircraft Division, including units from the 121st and 122nd Anti-Aircraft Regiments and the 22nd and 45th Separate Anti-Aircraft Battalions. In total, an estimated 40,000 Japanese military personnel were stationed in the city.[115]

"Hiroshima was a supply and logistics base for the Japanese military.[116] The city was a communications center, a key port for shipping, and an assembly area for troops.[78] It was a beehive of war industry, manufacturing parts for planes and boats, for bombs, rifles, and handguns.[117] The center of the city contained several reinforced concrete buildings and lighter structures. Outside the center, the area was congested by a dense collection of small timber workshops set among Japanese houses. A few larger industrial plants lay near the outskirts of the city. The houses were constructed of timber with tile roofs, and many of the industrial buildings were also built around timber frames. The city as a whole was highly susceptible to fire damage.[118] It was the second largest city in Japan after Kyoto that was still undamaged by air raids,[119] primarily because it lacked the aircraft manufacturing industry that was the XXI Bomber Command's priority target. On July 3, the Joint Chiefs of Staff placed it off limits to bombers, along with Kokura, Niigata and Kyoto.[120]

"The population of Hiroshima had reached a peak of over 381,000 earlier in the war but prior to the atomic bombing, the population had steadily decreased because of a systematic evacuation ordered by the Japanese government. At the time of the attack, the population was approximately 340,000–350,000.[121]"

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

So there were legitimate military targets in Hiroshima. & given the nature of cities in Japan then (& still now), all flat land is on the coasts, & all uses - military, civilian, energy, crops, transportation, comms, housing, factories, etc. are all bunched up & intermingled.

sacrifice Japanese civilians paid - Certainly IJ's civilians (& military) paid the price. However, the civilians didn't count for much in the IJ government's decisions, & especially not once the IJ military seized control of the government. That's who threw the civilian citizens of Hiroshima & Nagasaki into the scales; that's who was willing to burn down the entire IJ population, in order to pry a better negotiating position out of the Allies.
 
Yes, he had an agenda. That agenda was ending the war. There is no reason for any general or admiral to want any war to end - the same as no CEOs want their company to go out of business.

Well no. The war was over as soon as Russia decided to go against japan. If you are not going to follow the advice of military leaders who are all in a united position....well then you have another agenda
 
The fact is that there was no historical record over the past 2,600 years of Japan ever surrendering, nor any examples of a Japanese unit surrendering during the war. This was where the great American fear lay.
Richard B Frank is a military historian whose books include Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire (Random House, 1999).

Yet they did. They were done as soon as they could no longer appeal to Russia
 
Yeah, those people kept saying Germany was going to surrender any day too. If the Emperor of Japan was going to surrender there was absolutely nothing stopping him from doing so.

It is absurd for anyone to argue Japan would have done what - IN FACT - it did NOT do until the A-bombs. Without a doubt, Japan was engaging in disinformation - the way they did before Pearl Harbor - promising peace even as their attack force steamed towards Hawaii. Japan was doing ANYTHING to buy time to more prepare to slaughter Americans with their massive reserves including 12,000 combat aircraft hidden in the mountains and to get the first of dozens of Japan's new jet fighters into operation - aircraft that would have slaughtered our aircraft and given Japan control of the air.

They could not get a plane in the air. They did not control a single runway by then. That is laughable
 
From Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia

"Hiroshima during World War II

"At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of industrial and military significance. A number of military units were located nearby, the most important of which was the headquarters of Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's Second General Army, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan,[112] and was located in Hiroshima Castle. Hata's command consisted of some 400,000 men, most of whom were on Kyushu where an Allied invasion was correctly anticipated.[113] Also present in Hiroshima were the headquarters of the 59th Army, the 5th Division and the 224th Division, a recently formed mobile unit.[114] The city was defended by five batteries of 70 mm and 80 mm (2.8 and 3.1 inch) anti-aircraft guns of the 3rd Anti-Aircraft Division, including units from the 121st and 122nd Anti-Aircraft Regiments and the 22nd and 45th Separate Anti-Aircraft Battalions. In total, an estimated 40,000 Japanese military personnel were stationed in the city.[115]

"Hiroshima was a supply and logistics base for the Japanese military.[116] The city was a communications center, a key port for shipping, and an assembly area for troops.[78] It was a beehive of war industry, manufacturing parts for planes and boats, for bombs, rifles, and handguns.[117] The center of the city contained several reinforced concrete buildings and lighter structures. Outside the center, the area was congested by a dense collection of small timber workshops set among Japanese houses. A few larger industrial plants lay near the outskirts of the city. The houses were constructed of timber with tile roofs, and many of the industrial buildings were also built around timber frames. The city as a whole was highly susceptible to fire damage.[118] It was the second largest city in Japan after Kyoto that was still undamaged by air raids,[119] primarily because it lacked the aircraft manufacturing industry that was the XXI Bomber Command's priority target. On July 3, the Joint Chiefs of Staff placed it off limits to bombers, along with Kokura, Niigata and Kyoto.[120]

"The population of Hiroshima had reached a peak of over 381,000 earlier in the war but prior to the atomic bombing, the population had steadily decreased because of a systematic evacuation ordered by the Japanese government. At the time of the attack, the population was approximately 340,000–350,000.[121]"

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

So there were legitimate military targets in Hiroshima. & given the nature of cities in Japan then (& still now), all flat land is on the coasts, & all uses - military, civilian, energy, crops, transportation, comms, housing, factories, etc. are all bunched up & intermingled.

sacrifice Japanese civilians paid - Certainly IJ's civilians (& military) paid the price. However, the civilians didn't count for much in the IJ government's decisions, & especially not once the IJ military seized control of the government. That's who threw the civilian citizens of Hiroshima & Nagasaki into the scales; that's who was willing to burn down the entire IJ population, in order to pry a better negotiating position out of the Allies.

The currency of civilian lives were crap all around in WWII. A chunk of wartime law came out of the Dresden-ing done by both sides, often for the function of demoralization than anything else. I was already aware of the military significance of Hiroshima, but obviously civilian casualties weren't any more sweated over than they were in Hamburg, Dresden, Chongqing and London.

It's because of the lessons of WWII that we make at least a passing effort in avoiding the deliberate targeting of civilian populations today (with obviously mixed success). And of course WWII is why nuclear weapons haven't been used since.
 
How about telling Japanese: 'Hey, we got the bomb - we'll drop it over here in the ocean tomorrow for you to see. If you don't surrender within 24 hours after, next one goes on you.'
I know a bit about Japanese culture.
They would have told you to kiss their ass.
And you would have wasted the ‘ocean’ bomb for nothing.
 
Karma, neh?

Is your argument....the japanese were really bad so let's nuke a bunch of women and children?

Wow....just wow

1. We're talking about the end of WWII in the PTO. The IJ military war party - who saw all IJ problems as military problems to be attacked - certainly merited death. They allowed themselves to feel justified by their treatment by the other imperial powers of the day, mostly European. Once the IJ war party shot its way into power, they moved to kill everything that moved, until they got their way - foreign or domestic.

2. Hiroshima was a legitimate military target. & we (the Allies) had warned the population to evacuate. The IJ government forbade civilians to read the fliers we dropped, & even picking them up was severely punished.

3. TMK, we were interested in ending the war, & getting IJ to surrender. We didn't deliberately attack women & children, just as in the ETO we preferred daylight bombing, to be better able to strike legitimate military targets.
 
Re: Karma, neh?

1. We're talking about the end of WWII in the PTO. The IJ military war party - who saw all IJ problems as military problems to be attacked - certainly merited death. They allowed themselves to feel justified by their treatment by the other imperial powers of the day, mostly European. Once the IJ war party shot its way into power, they moved to kill everything that moved, until they got their way - foreign or domestic.

2. Hiroshima was a legitimate military target. & we (the Allies) had warned the population to evacuate. The IJ government forbade civilians to read the fliers we dropped, & even picking them up was severely punished.

3. TMK, we were interested in ending the war, & getting IJ to surrender. We didn't deliberately attack women & children, just as in the ETO we preferred daylight bombing, to be better able to strike legitimate military targets.

No atomic bombs were needed to end the war.


The evidence has been posted
 
A demonstration was in fact considered but ruled out as unworkable

They dropped one on Hiroshima and said "surrender or we'll drop another one". They didn't surrender. Do you really think dropping a bomb in the ocean would have made a difference?

Thanks. Did not know that. Looks like USSR also attacked Japan at the same time and was making its way through it.
 
Say back in 1944 President Roosevelt picked you as his vice president. You're 40 years old.

Roosevelt dies, making you president.

WWII is raging. Germany surrenders. The Russians had to sack Berlin to get them to surrender.

The war with Japan is still on. Over a million American troops are about to invade.

They tell you there will be 50,000 to 100,000 casualties during the first few days. Up to 5 million Japanese will die during the conquest. A lot of them will die due to famine.

Your advisors tell you that they have been working on a new weapon, the atomic bomb. It was so secret that they didn't even tell you, the vice president.

Do you authorize the military to drop the bomb?

Reasons to do so:

1. Save the lives of American troops

2. Get the Japanese to surrender immediately

3. Save Japanese lives

4. Scare the Russians

5. Test the atomic bomb

Reasons not to:

1. Killing that many people, in an instant is a horrible thing.

Impossible for us to make an objective decision given our hindsight bias. But if I had to guess, I would think that given what Truman knew at the time, most of us would have, too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom