Should America have dumped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Lantern Jack · Nov 29, 2005

I had a brawl with my mother today about whether Truman was justified in raining nuclear fire on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I say, No!

Mom says, Yes!

She thinks it's fair payback for Pearl Harbor.

But only 2,403 people died in the Pearl Harbor attack, and only 63 of those casualties were civilians. A total of 180,000 were slain by the atomic bombs dropped on H+N, and those were mostly civilians, women and children. Furthermore, everyone knows Truman corralled a good third of the U.S. Navy in Hawaii after American intelligence picked up reports of the impending invasion to provoke the country into a war frenzy. Robert McNamara said, in The Fog of War, that he and Colonel Curtis LeMay (they were chiefly responsible for the firebombing of Tokyo: In that single night, we burned to death one hundred thousand Japanese civilians in Tokyo. Men, women and children) would have been tried as war criminals had America lost the war.

I know death is death, but no matter how you spin it, there are worlds of difference between dropping Japanse half-tonners on Naval targets (this was old-school war: victory by any means possible) and unleashing a two-megaton nuclear winter, resulting in near 100 percent, needless collateral damage.

This is Old Testament mentality here, I argued, hecatombs justified by dubious moral codes.

Mom's response:

You're starting to sound like your father, with his demented theories about the Soviets causing all the hurricanes in America!

Optimus · Nov 29, 2005

Well, you're incorrectly minimalizing the decision to bomb Japan down to a "Pearl Harbor Payback" argument.

There were many factors involved that concerned the rise of the Axis juggernaught in Europe and the possible (probable) shift in momentum from the Allies to the Axis in the war.

Pearl Harbor was, no doubt, a contributing factor to the bombing, but by no stretch of the imagination was it the main motivation.

I can't say whether or not it was the right decision. I wasn't around back then. I wasn't directly involved. I wasn't the leader of a nation who was watching thousands of his own soldiers die on the battlefield while millions of innocent Jews in were being slaughtered.

History will judge the morality of the decision. We can only bicker and squabble about details as outsiders.

No one can say for sure what they would or would not have done in that situation, because it is an unknowable hypothetical.

Good question, though.

Lantern Jack · Nov 29, 2005

Optimus said:
Well, you're incorrectly minimalizing the decision to bomb Japan down to a "Pearl Harbor Payback" argument.

There were many factors involved that concerned the rise of the Axis juggernaught in Europe and the possible (probable) shift in momentum from the Allies to the Axis in the war.

Pearl Harbor was, no doubt, a contributing factor to the bombing, but by no stretch of the imagination was it the main motivation.

I can't say whether or not it was the right decision. I wasn't around back then. I wasn't directly involved. I wasn't the leader of a nation who was watching thousands of his own soldiers die on the battlefield while millions of innocent Jews in were being slaughtered.

History will judge the morality of the decision. We can only bicker and squabble about details as outsiders.

No one can say for sure what they would or would not have done in that situation, because it is an unknowable hypothetical.

Good question, though.

I just finished reading John Sachs's "In the Bunker" for the third time and, as this journalist takes great care to point out, the U.S. didn't gave a damn about the Holocaust and that was by no means an influencing factor on our entry into the war. And thousands of American and Canadians dying is nothing compared to the 125 million Russians killed, the 50 million Chinese and, once again, you're talking about soldiers dying and I'm talking about civilians wiped out by atomic warfare, their skin literally melting off their bones, just when Japan was on the verge of surrender, all so America could establish itself as the first nuclear power in the world.

My-Immortal · Nov 29, 2005

It sounds like you've made up your mind about your own question.

Lantern Jack · Nov 29, 2005

My-Immortal said:
It sounds like you've made up your mind about your own question.

Of course I have. The reason I asked it was to see if I'm in the main or the minority in my opinion.

mkcbunny · Nov 30, 2005

I saw an exhibit when I was in college, at the visiting-artist gallery at the school, that was a series of drawings by people who had experienced the bombings and drawn what they saw. Next to each drawing was a paragraph or two about the experience, what was shown in the drawing, etc. After seeing that show, I was in tears. It was incredibly horrible, but it was also a documentation of the artists' individual survival.

A few years later, I got into a huge arguement with my mother-in-law's boyfriend [at the time], who worked on the Manhattan Project. Had a similar discussion with a friend who insisted that the bombings were necessary. I'm not going down that road again; I just don't have the energy to do it over and over. I just wanted to say that for folks who do think it was necessary, if you ever get an opportunity to track down those drawings, do so and see if you still feel the same way. I can intellectually understand rhetorical discussions about military decision-making, but that show brought me closer than I would ever be otherwise to what happened in the aftermath. And I can't in any way think that it was the right thing to do.

Optimus · Nov 30, 2005

War is hell, there's no doubt about it.

However, you forget that in a time (early-mid 1940s) before the Geneva Conventions (1949) and their 2 protocols in 1977, that we were embroiled in an "us versus them" mentality regarding the Axis, in particular Germany, cultivated by this world war. Hitler was developing atomic weapons and would have likely used them on the US, Great Britain, and most of Europe.

At that time, when it was "us versus them," Truman chose us.

His decision had horrible civilian repercussions and I hate the awful loss and unimaginable horror of such a tragedy, but I can't say that I disagree with his motivations. The methods (as in, the strike points), yes.

The motivations? Not at all.

And, Lantern, I'm more inclined to listen to the opinions of educated historians, than explosion-chasing journalists. That's just me, though.

Hindsight in situations like these always seems to be greater than 20/20. However, every one of us lacks the proper facts and the proper perspective to judge such a decision.

I doubt that we needed to drop those bombs on civilian targets. I think that was a very poor and inhumane choice.

But, make no mistake, the bombs needed to be dropped. But on military targets.

However, even if they had been dropped on military targets, great civilian casualties would've been incurred, as many military outposts were imbeded within civilian populations. It was a popular defensive tactic among the Germans and Japanese back then.

Lantern Jack · Nov 30, 2005

Optimus said:
War is hell, there's no doubt about it.

However, you forget that in a time (early-mid 1940s) before the Geneva Conventions (1949) and their 2 protocols in 1977, that we were embroiled in an "us versus them" mentality regarding the Axis, in particular Germany, cultivated by this world war. Hitler was developing atomic weapons and would have likely used them on the US, Great Britain, and most of Europe.

At that time, when it was "us versus them," Truman chose us.

His decision had horrible civilian repercussions and I hate the awful loss and unimaginable horror of such a tragedy, but I can't say that I disagree with his motivations. The methods (as in, the strike points), yes.

The motivations? Not at all.

And, Lantern, I'm more inclined to listen to the opinions of educated historians, than explosion-chasing journalists. That's just me, though.

Hindsight in situations like these always seems to be greater than 20/20. However, every one of us lacks the proper facts and the proper perspective to judge such a decision.

I doubt that we needed to drop those bombs on civilian targets. I think that was a very poor and inhumane choice.

But, make no mistake, the bombs needed to be dropped. But on military targets.

However, even if they had been dropped on military targets, great civilian casualties would've been incurred, as many military outposts were imbeded within civilian populations. It was a popular defensive tactic among the Germans and Japanese back then.

First, my opinions stem from the Japanese history professor who grew up in Hiroshima and used to visit their WW2 museum every weekend, and until I get a job, I'm an explosion-chasing couch potato, Mister Man

Now, as for those bombs being dropped. Well, nuclear fallout has a half life of 45,000 years and it only takes one irradiated atom to cause cancer. And, thanks to that imbecile Truman, who thoughtlessly used a weapon whose ramifications he (nor anyone on the Manhattan Project) couldn't possibly grasp, and is now responsible for thousands of random cancer episodes. So, I think it's pretty obvious that dropping those bombs was one of the stupidest ideas of the 20th century, seeing how, in the past 60 years, more Americans have died from "random cancers" (that is, cancer whose source cannot be traced and, thus, is attributed to radioactive debris) than would have died in a ground assault on Japan.

brokenfingers · Nov 30, 2005

Well, there was a choice.

The Americans had just fought their way tooth and nail through a Pacific Ocean full of islands that Japan had forcibly conquered, enslaved and destroyed - at considerable loss of life to both Americans and Japanese. The Japanese lived by the Code of Bushido - The Warrior's Way and would rather die to a man than surrender.

The question remained - how to take the island of Japan, full of millions of people with that mentality with the least amount of American casualities and resolve the war in the quickest way. Since America and the FREE WORLD were getting pretty weary of war and FASCIST and TOTALITARIAN governments like Japan (and Germany) thinking they could dominate weaker countries and bully them into submission, subjugate their people and enslave their women and make them whores for their soldiers, the decision was made to try to end the war in the only way they would be able to - by convincing the Japanese government that it would be the worst decision they could make to continue fighting and risking every man, women and child of that island to American wrath.

You are entitled to your opinion of course, but I would suggest that you read books (plural) written about the subject and not wholly depend on one point of view before forming yours.

Lantern Jack · Nov 30, 2005

brokenfingers said:
Well, there was a choice.

The Americans had just fought their way tooth and nail through a Pacific Ocean full of islands that Japan had forcibly conquered, enslaved and destroyed - at considerable loss of life to both Americans and Japanese. The Japanese lived by the Code of Bushido - The Warrior's Way and would rather die to a man than surrender.

The question remained - how to take the island of Japan, full of millions of people with that mentality with the least amount of American casualities and resolve the war in the quickest way. Since America and the FREE WORLD were getting pretty weary of war and FASCIST and TOTALITARIAN governments like Japan (and Germany) thinking they could dominate weaker countries and bully them into submission, subjugate their people and enslave their women and make them whores for their soldiers, the decision was made to try to end the war in the only way they would be able to - by convincing the Japanese government that it would be the worst decision they could make to continue fighting and risking every man, women and child of that island to American wrath.

You are entitled to your opinion of course, but I would suggest that you read books (plural) written about the subject and not wholly depend on one point of view before forming yours.

I've written over 45 college history reports on this subject. You can probably tell by all the quotes and figures in my posts...drawn from multiple sources. Of course, you don't need Bobby McNamara telling you it's an act of a war criminal to know it's an evil act to drop fire on 180,000 unarmed women and children. And you don't need to read your Stephen Ambrose (like me) to know that America's casualties are laughable compared to, oh, say France's, Poland's, Japan's, China's, Russia's and the Jewish nation's. And you don't need to read your John Hirshey (although it help) to know that the entire Japanese nation was starving (ask Trumancoyote, who spends his summers in Japan) and, Bushido code or no (one of those most famously debunked myths and excuses for atrocity in WW2), the Japanese were desperate and ready to surrender. And you don't need to have had a Japanese history professor, or a friend who grew up outside of Auschwitz, to know that precious America has to make itself the histrionic center of attention in all things, and our black eye is not worth more than the endless columns of wheel barrows carrying the white, flayed corpses of innocent people to mass unmarked graves.

Then again, that's just my opinion.

Lantern Jack · Nov 30, 2005

There it is, black and white. This is the reason why we let the Russians march into Berlin first, acknowledgment of their suffering. Which, you'll doubtless note, is 26 times that of ours. 56 million deaths. Our own casualties only total half a million and we missed over half the war and our own people didn't suffer anything like any of these countries. In fact, WW2 revived our economy.

P.S. Death totals are the third numbers.

USSR13,600,0007,700,00021,300,000China1,324,00010,000,00011,324,000Germany3,250,0003,810,0007,060,000Poland850,0006,000,0006,850,000Japan--2,000,000Yugoslavia300,0001,400,0001,706,000Rumania520,000465,000985,000France340,000470,000810,000Hungary--750,000Austria380,000145,000525,000Greece--520,000United States500,000-500,000Italy330,00080,000410,000Czechoslovakia--400,000Great Britain326,00062,000388,000Netherlands198,00012,000210,000Belgium76,00012,00088,000Finland--84,000Canada39,000-39,000India36,000-36,000Australia29,000-29,000Albania--28,000Spain12,00010,00022,000Bulgaria19,0002,00021,000New Zealand12,000-12,000Norway--10,262South Africa9,000-9,000Luxembourg--5,000Denmark4,000-4,000Total--56,125,262

brokenfingers · Nov 30, 2005

My-Immortal said:
It sounds like you've made up your mind about your own question.

.

Optimus · Nov 30, 2005

So much for this being a fair, balanced, open-minded debate. Guess I should've known from the start.

I echo Brokenfinger's echo of My-Immortal.

Lantern Jack · Nov 30, 2005

brokenfingers said:
.

I've already answered this question. I'm not interested in debating the question. I'm only interested in whether I sit in the majority or the minority. Whether everyone agrees with my mother or me. That's all. And, by the way, do you notice I only bristle when someone impunes my journalistic integrity. Journalists are required to use a minimum of three sources, I've used five: two On-line statistical sites, John Sachs, Bobby McNamara and an historical site. I'd also like to point that I'm the only one who's using sources.

No, I didn't start this thread because I wasn't sure if I was right. I know I'm right. I just wanted to see if everyone else subscribes to the same jingoism as my mother.

That question's been solved. Honestly, it's like scraping moral bedrock with sociopaths. There are worlds of difference with some soldiers dying and many, many, many civilians dying. This should not be a debate. This is obviousness. This is a glaring particular.

It's like I'm in the freakin' Twilight Zone here.

DaveKuzminski · Nov 30, 2005

What you've tried to do is justify it entirely with numbers like an accountant. However, war is based on more than accounting. You have to take into consideration other factors which you might not even have full access to even this far removed from the event because of security concerns. Still, many of the facts are now available and when you take the whole sum of what's known, it's difficult, and possibly not right, for us to Monday morning quarterback those who had to deal with the decision based on only the facts that were available to them at that juncture.

What you can do at this point is urge and support policies that support your decision, but I think it would be better not to condemn those who made the difficult decision back then.

Now if you're interested in how I feel about dropping those bombs, I believe it was necessary. While the bombs alone were not enough to convince Japan to surrender, neither was the threat of a Soviet invasion because the Soviets didn't declare war on Japan, if I recall correctly, until the bombs were dropped. In other words, even they knew it would be a costly and extended war trying to invade Japan in a manner similar to that of Normandy. It required both those factors to actually convince the Japanese that surrender was necessary.

Nicholas S.H.J.M Woodhouse · Nov 30, 2005

i agree with your mother

Maryn · Nov 30, 2005

I agree with my mother.

MarkButler · Nov 30, 2005

I agree with your mother.... The bombs were necessary and the second one even more so because even losing one city didn't convince them. I think your in the minority, most people I talk to feel that the use of nuclear weapons was regrettable but necessary.

aadams73 · Nov 30, 2005

Add me to those who agree with your mother. The bombing was a tragedy, but it was necessary otherwise a lot more lives would have been lost in the long run.

Nicholas S.H.J.M Woodhouse · Nov 30, 2005

mark, did your face just twitch?

biotales · Nov 30, 2005

http://home.pacbell.net/fbaldie/Battling_Bastards_of_Bataan.html
http://harrisonheritage.com/adbc/murphy.htm
http://vikingphoenix.com/public/rongstad/military/pow/pwcmps-2.htm

There are other sites that I can point all of you to.
The question I have is not the bombs we dropped but when Japan begin teaching WW2 history...

ChunkyC · Nov 30, 2005

The whole idea of dropping nukes horrifies me. Then again, so does war. Can we say with certainty the Allies would have lost WWII if the US had not dropped the bomb? No more than we can say with certainty which side would have lost had the US not dropped the bomb and continued with conventional warfare instead.

The Allies in Europe routed the Nazi's without resorting to nukes, but it was so close to going the other way that Hitler was within a hair's width of taking England before the tide began to turn in the Battle of Britain.

Perhaps Truman had that in mind as well as the thousand other things he had to consider when he made his decision to send the Enola Gay. I for one don't feel qualified to second-guess him.

DaveKuzminski · Nov 30, 2005

ChunkyC said:
The Allies in Europe routed the Nazi's without resorting to nukes, but it was so close to going the other way that Hitler was within a hair's width of taking England before the tide began to turn in the Battle of Britain.

I'm not certain that the US nukes were ready in time to be used in the European theatre. Most US resources were funneled there, so there's a good chance that had Germany not surrendered when it did, it might have been the first to be hit with a nuclear bomb.

It's clearly known, however, from historical documents that Germany and Japan each had nuclear programs meant to create a nuclear bomb. Based on their other programs and policies, there's little doubt that they would have held back from using such a weapon had they obtained it. With that in mind, it would make sense for the Allies to use such a weapon first in order to prevent the enemy from gaining the same weapons and either winning or further extending the war in terms of waste and brutality.

Lantern Jack · Nov 30, 2005

Maryn said:
I agree with my mother.

Oh, now y'all are just pokin' the bear in the bum with a fork. Honestly, why do y'all always pay attention to the thread I'm only half interested in. The one I wanted you guys to go to was this one:

http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22809

DaveKuzminski · Nov 30, 2005

Lantern Jack said:
Oh, now y'all are just pokin' the bear in the bum with a fork. Honestly, why do y'all always pay attention to the thread I'm only half interested in.

Because we're trying to remain on topic with the contents of this thread. Got it? Good. If this isn't something you wanted to know about, then you shouldn't have brought it up.

Should America have dumped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

My kitten knows kung-fu!

My kitten knows kung-fu!

Mr. Invisible

My kitten knows kung-fu!

Bufflehead

My kitten knows kung-fu!

Walkin' That Road

My kitten knows kung-fu!

My kitten knows kung-fu!

Walkin' That Road

My kitten knows kung-fu!

Preditors & Editors

swooping after you

At Sea

Part Time Fool

A Work in Progress

swooping after you

It's hard being green

Preditors & Editors

My kitten knows kung-fu!

Preditors & Editors