Hiroshima - Really necessary?

[Shu Tup]

Was Hiroshima a true military move to end the war - or a mere attempt by America to exact revenge for Pearl Harbour and strike fear into the hearts of the Soviets? Was it a good way to end the war with as few deaths as possible - or an attempt to kill as many Japanese as possible whilst losing no Americans?

Please discuss this in a mature manner - no racism towards America OR Japan.

 

[Lucid]

Yeah.

 

[StarBob]

Pretty simple. Island warfare in the Pacific during WW2 was bloody. Japanese didn't surrender. Iwo Jima as a prime example - Japanese were dug in and fought to the last man. Had this continued onto mainland Japan and other big islands the death toll would have been many times that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also, it probably prevented a future more devistating nuclear attack as the effects were demonstrated first hand.

I thought this was common historical knowledge?

 

[Vermintide]

It may have been necessary, yes.

An altogether much more relevant and important question, in my eyes, is whether it was worth it. After all, this was the event that saw the beginning of the Cold War, that came to dominate the latter half of the 20th century, and had an immeasurable impact on the kind of lives we lead today.

Could there have been another way?

 

[Shakermaker]

Seems to me more like a thread for the Politics section but I will throw in my two cents.

To kill a lot of people you don't necessarily need atomic bombs. The fire bombing of Tokyo in March 1945 claimed approximately 100.000 lives, 10.000 more than Hiroshima and 25.000 more than Nagasaki (those are immediate casualties; deaths due to radiation-related illnesses would later on raise the death toll but these effects weren't properly known at the time). So strictly speaking the Americans wouldn't have needed nukes to bomb the Nipponese into submission.

As you mention yourself the emerging rivalry between the US and USSR probably played a roll. Uncle Sam showing his muscles to Uncle Joe. And it had the desired effect, because Stalin himself referred to Hiroshima as "A-bomb blackmail". I don't think though that the Americans simply used their nukes to "strike fear in the hearts of the Soviets" (you are quite dramatic btw). Japan did surrender after Nagasaki, so in that sense dropping the nuclear bombs had the desired effect. You might speculate that the Russians would have joined the fight if the Americans would have continued conventional bombing and would have had to invade Japan proper. I don't think that was a motivation for president Truman though. He was more concerned about the thousands of American lives an invasion of the Japanese homeland would cause.

As for your theory it might be revenge for Pearl Harbor ... nah, I don't think so. If there was an act of payback it was the Doolittle Raid in April 1942. That served no real military purpose, only a psychological one.

 

[Ennui]

It may have been necessary, yes.

An altogether much more relevant and important question, in my eyes, is whether it was worth it. After all, this was the event that saw the beginning of the Cold War, that came to dominate the latter half of the 20th century, and had an immeasurable impact on the kind of lives we lead today.

Could there have been another way?

Uh, dropping the atomic bombs on Japan didn't start the Cold War at all. Yes, the Cold War had a lot to do with mutual assured destruction and nuclear capability but there was a complex web of factors that had to do with it beginning after the war and frankly the bombing of Japan didn't have much to do with it. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

I think it was necessary to drop the bomb. It was the only way to illustrate to the Japanese that we really meant business - if we had not demonstrated that we had the capability to simply wipe the entire country off the face of the planet, they would have forced us to invade them, which inevitably (as anyone who knows a thing about the Pacific front in WWII can attest) would have caused many, many more lives to be lost, on both sides and including both civilians and combatants.

 

[Krynn72]

Was it necessary to win the war? No. Was it necessary to win the war with the least amount of casualties? No. Was it necessary to win the war with the least amount of American casualties? Yup.

 

[Vermintide]

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

From the looks of things, more than you do Would you deny that this display of nuclear power, and more importantly willingness to use such force, by the USA was a contributing factor?

But I'm not here to argue. I just like posing controversial opinions.

 

[Ennui]

Was it necessary to win the war? No. Was it necessary to win the war with the least amount of casualties? No. Was it necessary to win the war with the least amount of American casualties? Yup.

Justify your second statement. The two atomic bombs together killed 150,000 - 250,000 in their immediate effect and the several months following. It's hard to say how many more died later as a result (a lot, though).

However, think about it. An invasion of mainland Japan would have involved total war through the entire country. Japan's population was over 75 million in the mid-1940s. 75 million people who had been brainwashed to think that being captured or overrun by American soldiers would result in fates worse than death for them, their women, and their children - slavery, rape, murder, torture, etc. They would have resisted every inch of the way, and not just soldiers but civilians too. Casualties in a conventional invasion would have been in the millions on the Japanese side. This is a veritable certainty.

Edit: Vermintide, that qualifies as trolling which is an infractionable offense here Obviously as Shaker said the nuking of Japan was a metaphorical muscle flex in face of the Soviets, but the Cold War was going to happen whether or not we definitively demonstrated our nuclear capability and willingness to use it. By August 1945 the wheels were already well in motion towards the events of the following decades, and obviously the USA's show of force didn't dissuade the Russians from antagonizing the West given the events in postwar Germany (Berlin airlift and the whole struggle between East and West that expressed itself in microcosm form in Germany etc).

 

[Vermintide]

Edit: Vermintide, that qualifies as trolling which is an infractionable offense here

Eh, I thought you might interpret it as such, however I do not do it to purposefully antagonise people. Merely to stir up debate.

Obviously as Shaker said the nuking of Japan was a metaphorical muscle flex in face of the Soviets, but the Cold War was going to happen whether or not we definitively demonstrated our nuclear capability and willingness to use it. By August 1945 the wheels were already well in motion towards the events of the following decades, and obviously the USA's show of force didn't dissuade the Russians from antagonizing the West given the events in postwar Germany (Berlin airlift and the whole struggle between East and West that expressed itself in microcosm form in Germany etc).

That's true. However my point stands; as you say, it did not dissuade Russian aggression in post-war Germany. I would posit that it infact accelerated Russian hostility toward the west as a whole.

 

[Shakermaker]

That's true. However my point stands; as you say, it did not dissuade Russian aggression in post-war Germany. I would posit that it infact accelerated Russian hostility toward the west as a whole.

Dropping the bombs didn't start the Cold War and not dropping them wouldn't have stopped the emerging tensions between east and west either. Stalin already knew America had the bomb because he had spies all over the Manhattan project and Truman told him in July 1945. If anything, Hiroshima and Nagasaki meant that the Russian nuclear program received a carte blanche. A nice vignette about that from Sebag Montefiore's 'Stalin, The Court of the Red Tsar':

Professor Kurchatov told Stalin that he lacked electrical power and had not enough tractors. Stalin immediately ordered power to be switched off in several populated areas and gave him two tank divisions to act as tractors.

The Russians and the western allies were never buddies. The Cold War was going to happen, nuclear bombs or not.

 

[Ennui]

Interesting point, I'm not sure how I feel about it. It certainly antagonized the East to a large degree but that was happening anyway and based on Russia's attitude in those sorts of situations throughout history and especially in the 20th century I don't really think it would have gone any other way had we not bombed Japan. I suppose you're right in that it did raise the stakes and force the Russians to be even MORE serious about the whole thing (if that is even possible). (EDIT: that was to Vermintide and Shaker managed to say what I wanted to say in a much more concise, attractive and effective way)

Hi StarBob, sounds like you've been through the typical American apologist history course! It's pretty dubious that the events on one small island could accurately be extrapolated to mainland Japan, especially considering the civilian population of Iwo Jima had been evacuated prior to the battle. Beyond that, the bombs didn't even have much to do with Japan; firebombing at the time was causing a huge death toll already, and the US knew that they were about to surrender. Instead, the nukes were basically to show off to Russia how big our manly military muscles were to get them to **** off for a bit before the Cold War. And I'm seriously unconvinced that completely destroying two cities and exposing entire populations to radiation poisoning can be considered justifiable in preventing a more devastating attack. THAT'S WHAT CONTROLLED RESEARCH IS FOR

edit: oh wow seriously you guys? I thought that most people realized dropping the bomb on hiroshima was a really bad and unnecessary thing. wow.
also stop posting when I'm typing my response it's really really rude and I don't appreciate it

This is all super debatable. I certainly don't think that considerations with Russia were any kind of primary motivation towards bombing Japan - I think it was first and foremost to demonstrate to the Japanese that the Potsdam ultimatum was serious and that not only did we have the ability to utterly annihilate them but that we would if we had to. That's not to say that showing off in front of the Russians wasn't a secondary reason to do it, but like Shaker said they already were well aware that we had the bomb. Whether or not it's justified the world will never know, but I find it extremely hard to believe that there would be a smaller loss of life for either side if we had been forced to invade the mainland of Japan. I certainly don't think it's a good thing we killed all those people but I am inclined to believe it was probably better than the alternative.

 

[Shem]

It was a pretty necessary decision, albeit a devastating one. And yes, this probably does need to be put in the Politics section, it might be a controversial topic to discuss.

StarBob basically sums up my point. Japan was a relentless enemy that refused to surrender during the events of World War II. They were courageous, yet brutal fighters who would defend the places they controlled with efficiency and animosity towards their attackers. The bigger islands they had, like Okinawa, had thousands of soldiers placed on them, all willing to die for their country. Those kamikaze tactics they employed were not because they were insane, it was because they knew they would be helping their country. This mindset made them fierce fighters to the Allied Forces, I think, so tough battles ensued, like the Battle of Iwo Jima, among others.

But don't get me wrong. I resent the idea of using nuclear weaponry to decimate populated cities full of innocents, but what other message could we have sent to Japan to get them to surrender? And also, what about the events that unfolded on December 7, 1941? That was a blatant and provocative attack by Japan, and they were asking for it. I know someone's going to say to me, "Two wrongs don't make a right," but you could argue we did the best thing we could do. Curse my stubborn nature...

But, at least Japan is one of the United States' best allies right now, and that's what really counts.

 

[Laivasse]

I'm with toaster on this one. The A-bomb represented a show of military and technological superiority towards the USSR, which the US govt. considered necessary due to its fear of the spread of communism. This fear massively influenced the way they treated Japan post-war also. They refused to indict the emperor for war crimes because they believed it would demoralise the Japanese and cause social unrest, whereas it was desirable to maintain Japan as a strong anti-communist outpost in that part of the world. They granted immunity to war criminals from Unit 731 in Harbin, because they wanted the bio-warfare data for their own purposes, and certainly didn't want the soviets to learn about it. All stuff like this. With policies like these considered, it's easy for me to believe that the a-bombs were dropped with Russia very much in mind also.

Also, I'm hazy on the details, but I recall reading that Japan was trying to approach the USA to talk about terms of surrender towards the end of the war (EDIT: Here's a link I found in a brief search which covers some of the evidence of that). I'm certainly very dubious that the mainland invasion of Japan would have been half as bloody as Allied history has made out. The Japanese army was falling to bits by the end and the civilian populace had bugger all food.

Finally, the OP has 3 posts and is banned, possibly for trolling. I feel like nuking 'Mel Gibson's racist rant' in a show of strength to prevent the spread of this thread.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Hiroshima directly led to tentacle rape porn.

 

[Raziaar]

One has to wonder... what would the world be like if the atomic bombs weren't dropped?

I mean sure, there were nuclear tests to show the devastation in a controlled manner, but not with real people.

I wonder if the actual hard evidence of destruction at Hiroshima and Nagasaki had any impact at all with both superpowers being terrified about the destruction that would be wrought upon them.

Probably not.

 

[Ridge]

Was it necessary to win the war? No. Was it necessary to win the war with the least amount of casualties? No. Was it necessary to win the war with the least amount of American casualties? Yup.

The Japanese would have been slaughtered, too, had the allies commenced a land assault on the home islands.

Nuking was definately the lesser of two evils.

 

[Shem]

Despite Japan being in a dilapidated state at the end of the war, they seemingly refused to comply with the Potsdam Declaration, which clearly stated they would face annihilation if they did not surrender. Perhaps one could note that the United States was trying to show its militaristic might and overwhelming capabilities to other countries, most notably the U.S.S.R., by dropping two consecutive bombs on Japan. Yet, even if this is true, which I respectfully doubt, the fact still stands that Japan was cautioned an innumerable amount of times, through physical force and through negotiations, to surrender, but they did not. It is admittedly tragic what happened to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the descendants of those same people, who have had to cope with the after effects of the atomic bombs, but they brought it upon themselves, and let's hope such an event like this never happens again.

 

[The Monkey]

I think it's a rare case of where vast destruction actually does good. If they hadn't nuked Japan, they would've had to invade, which would've cost many million more lives than the bombs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

 

[Ridge]

Contractors were minting tens of thousands of Purple Hearts for an eventual invasion of Japan...those medals were used through Vietnam, and I think even in the first Gulf War...

 

[Mogi67]

Nothing was worth dropping those bombs. There weren't even any viable targets. What the **** is wrong with you people? The Japanese military was defeated, they had no airpower, no naval force.

 

[Tollbooth Willie]

One has to wonder... what would the world be like if the atomic bombs weren't dropped?

Vegeta would be normal.

 

[Ridge]

Nothing was worth dropping those bombs. There weren't even any viable targets. What the **** is wrong with you people? The Japanese military was defeated, they had no airpower, no naval force.

Ever hear of an insurgency? Imagine 75 million captive insurgents who would rather die than surrender, and you're on their turf, surrounded by water.

 

[Ridge]

Internment camps were NOT, I repeat, NOT the same thing as concentration camps. Was it wrong. Absolutely. But to compare it to camps where the prisoners were barely fed, and only kept alive long enough to construct the means of their deaths is disgusting. I hope you were mistaken in your comparison.

 

[Raziaar]

Vegeta would be normal.

Oh god I lol'd.

 

[Apocalypse89]

Nothing was worth dropping those bombs. There weren't even any viable targets. What the **** is wrong with you people? The Japanese military was defeated, they had no airpower, no naval force.

They still had several dozen million willing soft bodies armed with everything from rifles to sharpened bamboo sticks.

 

[Matorbogl]

Gratuitous displays of mental masturbation.

 

[flamingdts]

Oh god I hate discussions about WWII so much. Sorry, the Allies weren't infallible just because the other side was objectively evil; they did plenty of absolutely atrocious things as well. We're talking about a government which saw no problem in putting thousands of American citizens in concentration camps with no justification other than their race. To approach without skepticism the idea that we actually nuked Japan for their own good is as willfully ignorant as believing we invaded Iraq for ~*WMDs*~ (and also their own good, free the shit out of you etc).

Don't forget the Americans pardoned war criminals in Japan in exchange for the research they conducted on human beings.

There are no goods and evils in war, only actions that benefit oneself or one's own country.

 

[Krynn72]

I have some doubts as to whether or not casualties would have been higher in an invasion. As other have pointed out, the Japanese army was a complete mess by that point. If the US went about it the right way, they could have gotten past the brainwashing without having to kill civilians. I really doubt all the 75 million starving, overworked civilians would have jabed Allied soldiers with bamboo sticks if we were all like "nah bro, chill out. Have some pizza and Coca Cola."

Most of the casualties would be military, which frankly, I'd rather see 200,000+ military casualties than 200,000+ civilian casualties.

 

[JUL3]

Bro everybody knows Hiroshima/Nagasaki were executed by a whale & a dolphin.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

Don't forget the Americans pardoned war criminals in Japan in exchange for the research they conducted on human beings.

Or indeed Operation Paperclip, or the firebombing of Dresden and Hamburg.

 

[15357]

An eye for an eye, I suppose. I would have done the same thing, except a few dozen more times.

 

[flamingdts]

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Personal vendetta against known transgressors is a different story. At least that is punishing those who deserve it. On the other hand, punishing and killing thousands of civilians, including children, is not an acceptable form of vengeance.

This is the same as racism and prejudice towards a particular nationality for the actions and decisions made by the government of that nationality.

 

[Tollbooth Willie]

Oh god I lol'd.

Still waiting for Veg to jump in and defend his grorious nipponese nation.

 

[Jintor]

I'm more disturbed by the allegations I've heard that the Japanese are attempting to whitewash their history during WWII. Of course, the Allied nations do it to - Texas Board of Education, anybody?

 

[Apocalypse89]

It's also worth noting that the whole social stigma associated with nuclear weapons as horrific doomsday devices didn't exist yet...the full effects of nuclear bombing on humans hadn't been observed, and the constant fear of an apocalyptic nuclear exchange was still several years off. To the people who knew about it, the A-bomb was fundamentally no different from the countless conventional explosives they had already dropped on German and Japanese cities, just bigger.

I'm not saying that makes it better or more justifiable, but it's something to consider when discussing the thoughts of the people in charge who decided to drop the bomb.

 

[Bad^Hat]

I'm not saying that makes it better or more justifiable, but it's something to consider when discussing the thoughts of the people in charge who decided to drop the bomb.

"What's this button do?"

 

[CptStern]

Hiroshima - Really necessary?

yes, yes it was. and they should have nukified that other city too ..kawaskai (or sumthin')

 

[Laivasse]

I'm more disturbed by the allegations I've heard that the Japanese are attempting to whitewash their history during WWII. Of course, the Allied nations do it to - Texas Board of Education, anybody?

That sort of WW2 revisionism has been ebbing and waning in Japan for decades, depending on how right wing the government has been at any given time. Stuff pops in and out of school text books. I knew a guy with a Japanese girlfriend who didn't acknowledge that the Rape of Nanking had happened, or at least tried to maintain that it was exaggerated.

It's a side effect of the Allied-fostered version of Japan's WW2 history, which claims that the emperor and the country were duped and led to war by a militaristic cabal within the government. As such, in the Japanese national consciousness there's not the kind of self-scrutiny over WW2 that, say, Germany had (although the Allies actually twisted things a little at Nuremberg also, to suit their purposes).

 

[Tony]

Maybe I missed it in the block of text that is this thread, but what happened with the nuclear fallout in these cities? Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving communities again but Chernobyl and the surrounding areas will be uninhabited for years to come.

Also, I was under the impression that the Cold War was started over a difference of ideologies. Both the U.S.A and the Soviets wanted to rebuild the fallen, occupied nations in their own way.