Phoenix Network Forums

Tim wrote:Humans are a selfish race, we don't much care for others as long as we survive, if this is how our race is going to develop and how we are going to make sure we survive then so be it.

Thanks tim that was my point.

I am disgusted by what I have just read on this topic.

The vapourisation of more than 100,000 innocent human beings can never be justified.

Otherwise Al Quieda, the Israelis and all the other terrorists can equally justify their actions using the same logic that the end justifies the means no matter how horrific and how many innoccent people die and suffer.

The USA had the capability to end the war without resorting the the atomic bombing of civilian targets, not once but twice.

For example they could have chosen military targets.

The fact is that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a continuation of the USA's experiments in the development of "Weapons of Mass Destruction."

Just as they have continued their experiments in countries such as Iraq and Afganistan and by proxy in Palestine, South America, Africa and Asia.

I think these days the question does not centre on whether it was justified or not - it is largely subjective (in case you're wondering I do not think atomic bombs/nuclear bombs can ever be justified no matter who is using them - if the ends justify the means then any terrorist group can justify using them).

These days the real question is have we learnt any lessons from Hiroshoma/Nagasaki/the 2 world wars?

Deep in my heart I know the answer is no.

Which means our Japanese innocent brothers and sisters (remember they didn't choose to go to war just like the allied civilians didn't) have died in vain.

WAS HIROSHIMA NECESSARY TO END THE WAR?

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were almost defeated and ready to surrender...in being the first to use it, we...adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."
---Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy,
Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War II


There is a widespread belief among Americans, particularly soldiers who were serving in the Pacific Theatre in the summer of 1945, that an invasion of Japan would cost as many as a million American lives, and the use of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought the war to an end, with enormous saving of lives, both Japanese and American.

The reality is that in the months just prior to the August bombings, most of Japanese shipping, rail transport, and industrial production had been wiped out by an extraordinary series of air attacks. (More people died in one night in the fire bombing of Tokyo than died in the bombing of Hiroshima.) Millions were homeless. By July of 1945 both the Japanese and American military knew the war was lost.

Yet the myth persists that the use of nuclear weapons was necessary-- Ted Koppel repeated it in a Nightline broadcast--that "What happened over Japan...was a human tragedy...But what was planned to take place in the war between Japan and the United States would almost certainly have been an even greater tragedy."

The question of whether use of the bomb was necessary haunts us because if the bombs were not necessary they were war crimes, something painful for Americans to consider. It is true that by the end of World War II the lines between waging war and simply killing people in large numbers had been largely erased. The earlier strategy of air attacks had been to pinpoint strategic targets, but in Europe, by early 1945 the air attacks had assumed a different character--as if whatever sense of moral restraint had existed when the war began had vanished. The bombing of Dresden was not a military target. The fire bombing of that city created a fire storm resulting in a terrible loss of civilian life.

What was the real situation regarding Japan? The Japanese were concerned about whether the Emperor would be able to remain on his throne if they surrendered. As a result of the air attacks, and their steady isolation by U.S. sea power, the Japanese military were aware the war could not be won. In 1946 the official U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey concluded:

Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
Not known to the general public until after the war, Japan had begun to put out feelers about surrender by May of 1945. On May 12, 1945, William Donovan, Director of the Office of Strategic Services (which later became the CIA) reported to President Truman that Shinichi Kase, Japan’s minister to Switzerland, wished "to help arrange for a cessation of hostilities." He believed one of the few provisions the Japanese would "insist upon would be the retention of the Emperor." A similar report reached Truman from Masutaro Inoue, a Japanese official in Portugal. In mid-June Admiral William D. Leahy concluded that "a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provision for America’s defense against future trans-Pacific aggression."

Meanwhile, the U.S. learned through intercepted diplomatic cables (the U.S. had broken Japanese codes early in the war) that the emperor of Japan wished to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as his personal representative to "ask the Soviet Government to take part in mediation to end the present war and to transmit the complete Japanese case in this respect." In President Truman’s handwritten journal, only released in 1979, he noted in July of 1945 that Stalin had reported "a telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace."

Why then proceed with using the atomic bomb?

The most generous explanation would be that Truman did not fully understand what the atomic bomb would do, that he saw it as simply "another weapon". However, his military advisers knew it was in a different category. Even those favouring its use urged that it be used against a clearly military target with advance warning to civilians to leave the area. It is also possible that, being a politician, Truman wanted to justify the huge expense of the special crash program to develop the bomb--using it would prove to taxpayers that their funds had been well spent.

Historians now tend to believe that there was another explanation, which was that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the opening shots fired in the Cold War. The Soviet Union did not fully convey to Truman the Japanese interest in surrender--because the Soviets wanted to enter the war and secure a place at the bargaining table. (Keep in mind that technically the Soviet Union remained an ally of Japan throughout World War II, and no state of war existed between them. The Soviets actually declared war on Japan August 8th, two days after the first atomic bomb was exploded.)

The United States, acting on the advice of conservative political advisers--not on the advice of its military leaders--dropped the first atomic bomb without responding to any of the Japanese peace feelers. Then, three days later, and after the Soviet entry in the war had made immediate Japanese surrender inevitable, the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. The first bomb was dropped after Japan had already begun the process of seeking the terms of surrender. The second bomb was dropped when it was clear no U.S. invasion of the Japanese home islands was needed. Are crimes of war only those actions committed by the nation which committed aggression? Was it not a crime to use the nuclear bomb without exploring the Japanese peace feelers? Fifty years will have passed this August 6, 1995, and the question remains why anyone still believes the use of the nuclear bomb was necessary. Opposing evidence is overwhelming. It is as if, to shield ourselves from knowledge of what we did, we refuse to examine the history of that period.

In closing it must be noted that neither the U.S. Congress nor the general public was even aware that a nuclear weapon was being developed, let alone that it would be used. As happens in war, morality vanished, secrecy prevailed, and great crimes were committed without consultation.

dont think of this as spam...

Wow TacOps... im not sure if an essay was really needed, but nice! i bet you got an A in your english classes

You cannot justify hundreds of thousands of deaths but theres nothing we can do about that now, its in the past and we need to move on from those events.

Perhaps the bombing of Japan was necissary, perhaps it wasn't, clearly it seemed like an appropriate idea for the American defence force at the time as they did go through with it. There may be many reasons why this happened none of which are particuarly relevant.
Japan may have contemplated surrender earlier in the war but clearly it didn't go anywhere as the war continued on until the nukes were dropped, it is my understanding that a Japanese surrender was not something to take lightly after what the allied forces endured in the battles. (When Japanese units "surrenered" during battle they often blew themselves up when the alllies came close enough.)

It is also my understanding that the atomic bomb targetting Hiroshima was directed towards a military base however it took alot more with it than the military base. Even if it wasn't, perhaps the American's reasoned that the Japanese weren't about to agree to their terms of surrender and that the war had gone on long enough so it was time to finish it once and for all, the destruction of a major city would usually be enough to convince the governing body (in this case, the military leaders of Japan) to pull their heads out of the asses and finish it before they lost everything.

Otherwise Al Quieda, the Israelis and all the other terrorists can equally justify their actions using the same logic that the end justifies the means no matter how horrific and how many innoccent people die and suffer.

I don't understand how terrorist groups would be able to justify their actions in this way, how did blowing up the World Trade Centers in New York help them to survive, how did it contribute to any sort of war effort? Same goes with the London Bombings, the Bali Bombings, and the countless other attacks of this nature.
The atomic bombs were dropped as to end the war once and for all, to stop more pointless killing*, they were dropped so that the allies would win and their people would survive.
The WW2 bombings were done to preserve life*, terrorism is done to destroy it.

These days the real question is have we learnt any lessons from Hiroshoma/Nagasaki/the 2 world wars?

Of course we have, nothing with a scale of destruction like that has occured since (as far as I know anyway), billions of dollars have been put into researching the effects, counter-measures, control and use of radiation and uranium. What happened in Japan has taught us alot, it hasn't stopped war but nothing ever will, war will always be there it will just be there in different ways. Do you really want a society where everything is "perfect"? I doubt it, it would be amazing boring, nothing out of the ordinary happening, no opinions, etc.

In 1946 the official U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey concluded:

Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

Thats easy to say now that everything is over and done but had the US not taken the action it did there was still a distinct possiblity that Japan would rebuild itself, perhaps ally with some great power (by power I mean financial power, man power, weapon power) like Chine or Korea or some other country which could have aided them. Then what? Would they have invaded the US? Britain? Russia?
What if they had completely changed what was happening in the war and at the end they had come across usable nuclear weapons and whiped out key US cities first?
How would our lives be different then? Would we be sitting here discussing whether or not Japan should have bombed America or Britain?

I'm going to leave it there for now because I've grown rather tired of thinking about this subject for the time being.

Actually, one more thing.

In closing it must be noted that neither the U.S. Congress nor the general public was even aware that a nuclear weapon was being developed, let alone that it would be used. As happens in war, morality vanished, secrecy prevailed, and great crimes were committed without consultation.

How many technologies are currently being developed in the US that congress and the public don't know about? Millions probably. The same goes for other countries.

* I am aware the actions did cause mass deaths however, had the war gone on for another 5 years how many more people would have died?

djpac wrote:Wow TacOps... im not sure if an essay was really needed, but nice! i bet you got an A in your english classes

I'm sure he did ... an "A" in plagiarism! (Next time, just cite your sources)

TacOps wrote:The USA had the capability to end the war without resorting the the atomic bombing of civilian targets, not once but twice.

For example they could have chosen military targets.

Let's backtrack to how Japan initiated war with America in the first place: a surpise attack on an America naval base. Yes, a surprise attack. In this attack, ~3600 Americans were injured or killed. Can you justify that somehow?

Now go ahead. After a lot of fighting, the US gets Japan in the position where it will eventually lose. In the same sort of "extreme attack" that Japan used on the US, America bombs Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were actually important militarytargets. (Hint: click the links)

At this point (preceding the bombings), the Japanese government was still adamant about not surrendering**, and the only other feasible plan considered was a massive invasion, which would cost many more lives. In a way, the United States did the same thing to Japan that they did at Pearl Harbor, only our weaponry was far superior.

**[An an aside: the "feelers" mentioned were members of the "civilian leadership," and had no power to influence the emperor to surrender, at least until the two nuclear weapons were used.]

So what were the options when it was broken down? Either risk losing a myriad of troops (it's impossible to tell how many), or use a weapon that will destroy the morale of the enemy, and convince them that it truly was impossible to win? If you go with the invasion, you have to take more bombings, naval blockades, etc into account. All this creates a considerable shortage of supplies for Japan, namely food. How many Japanese civilians would have died from starvation because all the available food was being routed to the army? How many more would have died in firebombings (as stated, more destructive than nuclear bombings)? Would that be more "justifiable" than dropping nukes?

TacOps wrote:Otherwise Al Quieda, the Israelis and all the other terrorists can equally justify their actions using the same logic that the end justifies the means no matter how horrific and how many innoccent people die and suffer.

Do you realize what you're saying here? According to this website, al Qaeda's primary motive is:

The principal stated aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East. Bin Laden has also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs.

According to bin Laden's 1998 fatwa (religious decree), it is the duty of Muslims around the world to wage holy war on the U.S., American citizens, and Jews. Muslims who do not heed this call are declared apostates (people who have forsaken their faith).

Please explain how this is the same as ending conflict with another nation that is trying to destroy you? I believe a more truthful way to "justify" terrorist actions would be called "genocide".

TacOps wrote:Which means our Japanese innocent brothers and sisters (remember they didn't choose to go to war just like the allied civilians didn't) have died in vain.

I'm curious, but why do you refer to them as "brothers"? Japan was at war with the United States, that's hardly a "brotherly" thing to do! And what is this about "dying in vain" ? As stated before, the Japanese government didn't seriously consider surrender until nuclear weapons were used, perhaps sparing millions of people (civilians and military personnel, on both sides) from death (via starvation or being mowed down by bullets)-- is that "dying in vain" ?

Against.

I think that if a country wants to have a war against another, they should do it with guns instead of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons have A LOT effect to the neighbour countrys and in a bad luck they get hit too. But in an normal gun-type-fight they have less effect on the neighbour countrys.

I'm sure nuclear weapons will be the death of us.

I think that nuclear weapons are stupid, I mean, don't they have enough bombs to blow a place to smitheriens already, without resorting to even MORE damaging practices. And really, most nuclear weapons are just "bargaining chips", the ability to say, "I've got more big-boom-boom bombs then you, gimme your Oil Resources"

-Reth

Some countries are creating nukes, like North Korea. This cause fear on the near countries, and they start their nuke projects too, like Japan. But it causes other countries to start bombing plans, and in a while half the world has nukes... And why this?
Killing lots of civilians in a "normal" war isn't enough? Destroying innocent people, trees, animals, everything, isn't a huge price to pay?
No, I can't see nukes are good for anything... they must be banished...

Nukes are going to be the death of all of us, I think. Sooner or later, some country is going to get pissed at another country, shoot their crap on over, and 5 minutes later, everyone's just going to go ballistic...no pun intended. And chances are, we'll be the ones starting it (us Americans, naturally). Go figure. At least we won't have to worry about ozone depletion, there won't be enough of us left to get sunburned.

djpac wrote:Nukes are wsome, we ended WW2 with it and im sure we could win the current war we are in with it as well. Just that Bush is a wuss and has money riding on those countries with the oil. I just say nuke everyone that is against this country and my beliefs.

I can understand al_tyranny, his posts actually make sense, but I hope you are joking. Because if you're not, you're just an ignorant fucking retard. NHF

Ribl wrote:I'm REALLY against these weapons... Every country who has nuclear weapons should be hit by them - so they see how much dmg they do...

You mean killing the creators of the weapons plus innocent people?

I reckon countries like the US and maybe like the UK, Russia should have nukes; but countries like Israel, Iran shouldn't.

Think about what it would take for the US government to nuke someone again. The government of the day could not hide from the electorate's wrath. An administration would have to be out of their minds to launch a nuke without massive public support, since an unpopular nuke attack would result in not only the President being politically exiled, but the party (probably Republican; the Democrats aren't likely to do something as crazy as launch nukes) would have its reputation nuked.

I mentioned above that Israel and the like should not have nukes. India and Pakistan too. Their governments are not stable or democratic enough to trust them with the capability to pwn the world with fire.

-pcweirdo.

I'm for getting nuclear weapons, only because, we need them before anyone else, so that wwhoever else gets them cannot use them to blackmail or twist our arms so to speak, Iw atched a movie called the Bomb Movie, I believe, it was on the Military channel, and I was horrified at the power of the bombs, but if we didn''t have them first, who will? and who will use them against us? I think we should put a lot of money into nullifiing the effects of them as well.

pcweirdo wrote:Think about what it would take for the US government to nuke someone again. The government of the day could not hide from the electorate's wrath. An administration would have to be out of their minds to launch a nuke without massive public support, since an unpopular nuke attack would result in not only the President being politically exiled, but the party (probably Republican; the Democrats aren't likely to do something as crazy as launch nukes) would have its reputation nuked.

I strongly disagree with that, public support should have absolutely no influence in the militaries decision to launch a nuclear warhead.
Nukes are not a day to day weapon, they are only used when the circumstances require it and the public should not be involved in any way, if it is necissary to launch the attack and the government isn't reelected then so be it, they made the decision which is best for the country and that is exactly the reason they were put into office in the first place. It is exactly like the iraqi war, Bush declared war on iraq based on suspicions that Suddam Hussein was a global threat (and he had proved that he was with his actions in the past) and due to that decision the world as a whole (no, not just America) is probably better off due to it; sure alot of people were against it but to be honest they can go fuck themselves, opposing actions which are clearly better for the vast majority of people just shows how screwed up they are.

(It is also my understanding that during the Hussein rule a great deal of the Iraqi people were killed each week however we did not hear about it because the western countries weren't involved.)

I strongly disagree with that, public support should have absolutely no influence in the militaries decision to launch a nuclear warhead.
Nukes are not a day to day weapon, they are only used when the circumstances require it and the public should not be involved in any way, if it is necissary to launch the attack and the government isn't reelected then so be it, they made the decision which is best for the country and that is exactly the reason they were put into office in the first place. It is exactly like the iraqi war, Bush declared war on iraq based on suspicions that Suddam Hussein was a global threat (and he had proved that he was with his actions in the past) and due to that decision the world as a whole (no, not just America) is probably better off due to it; sure alot of people were against it but to be honest they can go f*** themselves, opposing actions which are clearly better for the vast majority of people just shows how screwed up they are.

(It is also my understanding that during the Hussein rule a great deal of the Iraqi people were killed each week however we did not hear about it because the western countries weren't involved.)

I agree.