Hiroshima debate?

it's unfortunate but yes the atomic bomb had to be dropped, more horrific casualties (for both sides) would have resulted from the invasion of the japanese homland, and it would've taken ALOT longer for them to get back on their feet.

reading the experiences of survivors of hiroshima/nagasaki certianly brings it home that nukes will hopefully never be used again
 
Pearl Harbor was surely a factor in dropping the bomb, but I believe the projected 1 million US casualties and up to 30 million Japanese casualties if we had invaded Japan had much more to do with it. That and sending a message to the Russians. Dropping the bomb saved a vast amount of American and Japanese lives and prevented Japan from seeing the division that Germany and Korea did.
 
Flaming/Off-topic posts removed.

Whispering Death, check your PMs!
 
I think this is closest to the truth.

"How could a president, or the others charged with responsibility for the decision, answer to the American people if... after the bloodbath of an invasion of Japan, it became known that a weapon sufficient to end the war had been available by midsummer and was not used?"

I think that the resistance that Japan had shown in the Pacific island hopping campaign demonstrated the futility hope for a Japanese surrender.
 
Missileer said:
I think this is closest to the truth.

"How could a president, or the others charged with responsibility for the decision, answer to the American people if... after the bloodbath of an invasion of Japan, it became known that a weapon sufficient to end the war had been available by midsummer and was not used?"

I think that the resistance that Japan had shown in the Pacific island hopping campaign demonstrated the futility hope for a Japanese surrender.

i agree, no conspiracy, no evil intent, the decision to drop those bombs was a hard one, but i believe the right one.

it's certianly a lot more straight foward than say, the firebombing of dresden
 
chewie_nz said:
Missileer said:
I think this is closest to the truth.

"How could a president, or the others charged with responsibility for the decision, answer to the American people if... after the bloodbath of an invasion of Japan, it became known that a weapon sufficient to end the war had been available by midsummer and was not used?"

I think that the resistance that Japan had shown in the Pacific island hopping campaign demonstrated the futility hope for a Japanese surrender.

i agree, no conspiracy, no evil intent, the decision to drop those bombs was a hard one, but i believe the right one.

it's certianly a lot more straight foward than say, the firebombing of dresden

Ya, the bomb was a gift and a curse. McAruther was against it himself until he saw what the death rate could have been.
 
The Japanese had every chance to surrender after the first bomb was dropped, so why did they not surrender, well it was because they still thought that they could fight on. Now by dropping those bombs it brought WW2 to a much quicker end with far less bloodshed that would have happened if an invasion had taken place. Had the invasion taken place then the Allies could have been fighting every man woman and child in Japan. The Japanese army already had plans in place for this to be put into effect, also another thing to consider ids that the Japanese had plans to kill every POW that they could lay there hands on. I worked with a chap who was just out side Nagasaki when the bomb was dropped and he was being march to a death camp, and he was always thankful to the bomb and the Americans that dropped it.
 
I have to disagree, Japan was on the defensive. It's ports were mined and it's ofensive abilities shattered, sure an invasion would have caused alot of allied casualties so why not just sit back and do nothing. It isn't like the allies were short on time.
 
Craftsman said:
I have to disagree, Japan was on the defensive. It's ports were mined and it's ofensive abilities shattered, sure an invasion would have caused alot of allied casualties so why not just sit back and do nothing. It isn't like the allies were short on time.

To what ends?
Sure Japan was going to lose, but how long would it have taken for them to figure out had the allies sat back and waited for Japan to surrender countless Japanese would have more than likely starved to death.
Had the allies invaded phenomonal numbers of troops would have died in the process.

Dropping the bomb while opening a can of worms long term was the right thing to do at the time and strangely doing it probably saved more Japanese lives than they took.
 
At that time a decision had to be made without the benefit of hindsight and I belive the right decision was made under very trying times.
 
Craftsman.....Just how many POW do you think would have been left alive if your advice had been followed. My the poor Japanese how they suffered in your eyes, and it was not their fault either, just blame it all on America.
 
Craftsman said:
I have to disagree, Japan was on the defensive. It's ports were mined and it's ofensive abilities shattered, sure an invasion would have caused alot of allied casualties so why not just sit back and do nothing. It isn't like the allies were short on time.

Actually the US was short on time. Per the Yalta agreement, Russia had come into the war against Japan. As I stated above the bomb was dropped as much to keep the Russians out of Japan as anything else. I'm sure you'll agree that Japan was much better off with a US occupation that left relatively soon vs. a Russian occupation that wouldn't have ended until the 1990's and the fall of the Soviet Union.
 
I think the bomb was not only the correct decision at the time, but it also ensured our defense capabilities to other countries. The fact that we had it and did use it showed the world that we are willing to back ourselves up. Unfortunately people had to die, but the massacre at Pearl Harbor was tragic in itself. :cry:
 
Let's discuss the fact that they brought the decision, partly, on themsleves. The way they treated American, British and Australian POW's is unforgivable. If they would have won the war, how would they have treated civilians? Ponder that for awhile, and I belive they got was coming to them, it's unforunate, but nobody made them abuse POW's.
 
Nothing is as terrible as the awareness that dropping those two bombs was necessary while also avoiding a ground invasion of the 4 main islands and made it possible that the US gained a strategic preminence vis-à-vis the USSR.
I didn't use a French word, did I? :shock:
 
MichiganMarineInfantry said:
Let's discuss the fact that they brought the decision, partly, on themsleves. The way they treated American, British and Australian POW's is unforgivable. If they would have won the war, how would they have treated civilians? Ponder that for awhile, and I belive they got was coming to them, it's unforunate, but nobody made them abuse POW's.


and the many asian countries the conquered too...those people we gloss over way too much
 
Charge 7 said:
Pearl Harbor was surely a factor in dropping the bomb, but I believe the projected 1 million US casualties and up to 30 million Japanese casualties if we had invaded Japan had much more to do with it. That and sending a message to the Russians. Dropping the bomb saved a vast amount of American and Japanese lives and prevented Japan from seeing the division that Germany and Korea did.

I agree with Charge but I don't think Japanese casualties was really a consideration by the US.

Racial hatred of the Japanese during the war was immense (more than towards the Germans). Read a book called "Hell in the Pacific".

POW's were very glad that the bombs were dropped.
 
Back
Top