Atomic Bomb Poll.

[Birdman002]

Hey everyone im doing a poll for my research project on the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan in World War Two and i would like to hear some feedback from you guys.

The Question is

Was it the right thing to do for the United States to drop the Atomic bomb on Japan.
Yes. No. or No opinion.


Thanks alot.


Birdman.

[NSXType-R]

Wow, I wrote an essay about a year ago. Believe me, it's far easier to argue that it was right to drop it than to not drop it.

[nota]

Topical reading

How I survived Hiroshima; and then Nagasaki

[LeonOfTheDead]

my two cents, without much arguing my opinion, is that it wasn't the right thing.
it wasn't the worst to do, neither the worst that happened during those days, but it wasn't their right to use such a blind and mass killing weapon on civilians too.
to my knowledge, the US hadn't been attacked in their own territory, let alone the US people hadn't been hurt directly by the war, so definitely I would have much preferred something more "proportioned".
it was like using an iron bat to open a nut.

then I'm aware the situation was much more complicated and that if they didn't use the bomb, then the Nazi probably would have, so it can't be simple to say yes or no.

[Kitdy]

There's an interesting theory that the bomb was dropped to scare the USSR as much as it was to defeat Japan.

Why not just drop the bomb off of Tokyo bay and next time say you're gonna nuke the Emperor? I hear that is why they surrendered after all - fear the Emperor would be killed. Or just threaten to nuke Tokyo.

[Kitdy]

to my knowledge, the US hadn't been attacked in their own territory, let alone the US people hadn't been hurt directly by the war, so definitely I would have much preferred something more "proportioned".

Well, US territories were directly attacked by Japan including the Phillipines, several small islands in the pacific, Midway, Pearl Harbour in Hawaii etc.

Wiki lists 1,700 US civilian casualties in World War II compared to 580,000 for the Empire of Japan.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Well, US territories were directly attacked by Japan including the Phillipines, several small islands in the pacific, Midway, Pearl Harbour in Hawaii etc.

Wiki lists 1,700 US civilian casualties in World War II compared to 580,000 for the Empire of Japan.

that was my point, only military areas were attacked, afaik. Even if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two cities where weapons and ammos were built, they were employing civilians and the city were mainly populated by civilians.
obviously when being involved in a war, and of course such a big war, you can't avoid civilians' deaths, but with the two bombs they were not the main target, but the main part of the causalities.
Attacking directly the Emperor or his palace and killing even the same number of politicians and army chiefs, would have been still a strong fact, but in a way those would have been more "sensed" deaths.
of course it would have resulted in a enormous diplomatic issue.

[scottie300z]

my two cents, without much arguing my opinion, is that it wasn't the right thing.
it wasn't the worst to do, neither the worst that happened during those days, but it wasn't their right to use such a blind and mass killing weapon on civilians too.
to my knowledge, the US hadn't been attacked in their own territory, let alone the US people hadn't been hurt directly by the war, so definitely I would have much preferred something more "proportioned".
it was like using an iron bat to open a nut.

then I'm aware the situation was much more complicated and that if they didn't use the bomb, then the Nazi probably would have, so it can't be simple to say yes or no.

Actually, you are a bit off on a few points. By the time the bomb was dropped the Nazis had been defeated so they weren't involved in the decision to drop at all. Only the decision to start research on how to make one.

The United States mainland was actually attacked, however, it was sparsely. The Japanese rigged balloons with bombs and sent them over the pacific. Of course, they did not have any type of accuracy and most did no damage. They were not widely used and weren't effected so they aren't commonly known about. Of course the effect is nothing to compare to atom bombs, just some interesting facts. The mainland wasn't left alone due to lack of trying. I got this info from a show on the history channel recently. And that also makes me wonder what the Japanese would have done next if they would have actually destroyed the whole Pacific fleet.

The main influence to use the bomb had to deal with amount of lives that would be lost through an invasion b/c it is commonly believed, then and now, that the Japanese would only surrender after an invasion or a force the size of an atom bomb. Of course we know it took two atomic bombs to get them to surrender, which shows one wasn't enough and then you would have to wonder if a bomb in a less civilian populated area would have been enough. Most likely it wouldn't have.

Through an invasion many Japanese civilian lives would be lost as well and then add on that the lives of soldiers. And you could argue that the soldiers lives don't matter as much, but come on. And there was a draft I believe, so these weren't career soldiers.

I voted no opinion by the way.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Actually, you are a bit off on a few points. By the time the bomb was dropped the Nazis had been defeated so they weren't involved in the decision to drop at all. Only the decision to start research on how to make one.

The United States mainland was actually attacked, however, it was sparsely. The Japanese rigged balloons with bombs and sent them over the pacific. Of course, they did not have any type of accuracy and most did no damage. They were not widely used and weren't effected so they aren't commonly known about. Of course the effect is nothing to compare to atom bombs, just some interesting facts. The mainland wasn't left alone due to lack of trying. I got this info from a show on the history channel recently.

The main influence to use the bomb had to deal with amount of lives that would be lost through an invasion b/c it is commonly believed, then and now, that the Japanese would only surrender after an invasion or a force the size of an atom bomb. Of course we know it took two atomic bombs to get them to surrender, which shows one wasn't enough and then you would have to wonder if a bomb in a less civilian populated area would have been enough. Most likely it wouldn't have.

Through an invasion many Japanese civilian lives would be lost as well and then add on that the lives of soldiers. And you could argue that the soldiers lives don't matter as much, but come on. And there was a draft I believe, so these weren't career soldiers.

I voted no opinion by the way.

I didn't say a soldier's life has a lower value. but a politician, or even a soldier (apart for those forced obviously), has a direct interest or belief in what he is doing, while a civilian is a passive entity, even when supporting a certain party.
also, it is your opinion, or of some other important and informed people, that a single bomb, or an invasion wouldn't have lead to their surrender, but I could say that after the first bomb and an heavy diplomatic action they actually would have, but we can't say that for sure.
I personally think that killing 100.000 people with a bomb isn't the same than killing 100.000 in some months of war door to door. In such a situation you are playing on the same level, even when one party is winning and the other loosing. With the bomb there wasn't a two parties situation, just the bomb.

you are in charge of your opinion, but, even if I didn't take any offense, I didn't like the "superior" tone in your post. Or at least that what I felt, and if not, my apologies, no harm, no foul.

[roosterjuicer]

The United States mainland was actually attacked, however, it was sparsely. The Japanese rigged balloons with bombs and sent them over the pacific. Of course, they did not have any type of accuracy and most did no damage. They were not widely used and weren't effected so they aren't commonly known about. Of course the effect is nothing to compare to atom bombs, just some interesting facts. The mainland wasn't left alone due to lack of trying. I got this info from a show on the history channel recently. And that also makes me wonder what the Japanese would have done next if they would have actually destroyed the whole Pacific fleet.

dont forget about the submarine attacks off the coast of southern california. a sub surfaced and fired on the shore with its deck gun inflicting some minor craters into the pristine california shoreline (totality of damage haha)

[blackcat77]

Yes. The object of war is to win as soon as possible with as few casualties as possible. An invasion of the Japanese homeland would have been a bloodbath for both sides.

[digitalcraft]

Actually the town I grew up in was a few miles away from where Japan did send a fighter to firebomb. The guy, many years later of course (I think maybe around 1989) made a visit to our town and gave a sword that had been in his family for a long time to the library there as an apology for bombing our hill.

[roosterjuicer]

if my memory serves me correctly (which is rare) werent the firebombings of Tokyo more devastating as far as civilian casualties goes than the atomic bombings?

[scottie300z]

I didn't say a soldier's life has a lower value. but a politician, or even a soldier (apart for those forced obviously), has a direct interest or belief in what he is doing, while a civilian is a passive entity, even when supporting a certain party.
also, it is your opinion, or of some other important and informed people, that a single bomb, or an invasion wouldn't have lead to their surrender, but I could say that after the first bomb and an heavy diplomatic action they actually would have, but we can't say that for sure.
I personally think that killing 100.000 people with a bomb isn't the same than killing 100.000 in some months of war door to door. In such a situation you are playing on the same level, even when one party is winning and the other loosing. With the bomb there wasn't a two parties situation, just the bomb.

you are in charge of your opinion, but, even if I didn't take any offense, I didn't like the "superior" tone in your post. Or at least that what I felt, and if not, my apologies, no harm, no foul.

I'm sorry if there was a superior tone to my voice. The whole soldiers life bit wasn't pointed directly at anyone just at the general idea some people have it seems. The "could argue" bit didn't tip my hand enough to that degree. And I also wanted to point out my vote to show I understand the depth of the ethical question.

I do find your comment about an even playing field being an important difference between the same number of lives taken very interesting. I do disagree, however, I also see the ideals at hand that may have lead to that point of view. My opinion differs because it is not your responsibility to give the other guys a chance to kill as many of your people just for fairness sakes and I would think, ideally, a government has a certain amount of debt to its own people and their lives over its enemy. If I were a soldier I would wonder why my country chose to win the war in a way that may kill me instead of a way that is more likely to keep me alive.

I doubt the U.S. jumped to the second bomb without trying to get the Japanese to surrender, so I still believe it did take the two bombs to do it. And like you noted, that is of course my opinion as I am no expert in the field and was of course not present either.

Another thought that comes to me, Was it really a secret that the U.S. had the bomb until Hiroshima? They conducted tests before hand, some in the pacific, and while back then countries did not have spy satellites and other means to get information like we have now, I wonder if it wasn't still known whether or not the U.S. at least had some new bomb.

[Matra et Alpine]

"without trying to get them to surrender"
It's important to view the big picture on these things and not the "written by the victors" view !

There were huge egos at play in the Pacific forces each wanting things THEIR way.
Sadly this affected decisions mad day-by-day.