Hiroshima revisited: Dropping WMD on populated cities dishonorable way to win a war?

[John F Kennedy III]

So, you are agreeing with me?

Yes I'm agreeing with you.

[oyarde]

Also, the US had been fighting a proxy war with Japan since 1937...

Correct. Evil Japanese murderers had one serious death toll going on in China , that would make todays arm chair quartebacks lose breakfast .

[oyarde]

Luzon ,Wake , Marianas , Pelelui , Manila , Gaudalcanal , Saipan , Corregidor , Burma , Borneo , Tarawa , Aleutian Islands , Alaska , Adak etc etc

If someone would like more to look at , I could probably give it tomorrow , that was just off of the top of my head , I am old and have forgotten much....

[robert68]

US war propaganda = Truth. It’s was evil of the highest order for the Japanese to defend their country against US aggression, and their so doing only justified further acts of barbarism on the part of the US.

[Noble Savage]

honor keeps a war from happening in the first place once war starts it should be fought with as much death and destruction as possible.

[TheLibertarianNationalist]

[BamaAla]

US war propaganda = truth. It’s was evil of the highest order for the Japanese to defend their country against US aggression, and their doing only justified further acts of barbarism on the part of the US.

I'm sure you're willing to educate us on exactly what the hell you're talking about? U.S. aggression?

[eduardo89]

Japan wanted to surrender too.

So did the Germans. They offered to surrender to the Americans in order to save most of central Europe from the Soviets. The Americans could have taken Berlin and much of Poland, Czechoslovakia, even Hungary but TPTB said no. This would have prevented close to a million deaths and hundreds of thousands of rapes by the despicable communist sons of bitches.

[nobody's_hero]

Once a war is underway, you do what you can to end it as quickly as possible.

Hopefully, we can get to a point where we don't enter into war so lackadasically, and we can limit the need for these sorts of debates.

For example:

As misguided as this war on terror is, I wish it had been just one year of hell (or less) and over with; instead, our leaders have managed to drag it out over the course of 11 years (and that's only counting since 9/11), with no end in sight.

The Israelis went to all-out war in the 1967 and ended it so quickly, they named it "The 6-Day war".

[John F Kennedy III]

Once a war is underway, you do what you can to end it as quickly as possible.

Hopefully, we can get to a point where we don't enter into war so lackadasically, and we can limit the need for these sorts of debates.

For example:

As misguided as this war on terror is, I wish it had been just one year of hell (or less) and over with; instead, our leaders have managed to drag it out over the course of 11 years (and that's only counting since 9/11), with no end in sight.

The Israelis went to all-out war in the 1967 and ended it so quickly, they named it "The 6-Day war".

Our leaders are merely puppets on a string.

[A Son of Liberty]

Whatever. What's done is done.

But the next time the U.S. government gets the idea to VAPORIZE a few hundred thousand men, women and CHILDREN for reasons that include political expediency and post-war posturing, I hope they have the courtesy to allow those of us with consciences to be excused from being a party to it.

But of course they won't, because force and violence is the life-blood of government.

[robert68]

US war propaganda = Truth. It’s was evil of the highest order for the Japanese to defend their country against US aggression, and their so doing only justified further acts of barbarism on the part of the US.

I'm sure you're willing to educate us on exactly what the hell you're talking about? U.S. aggression?

Your post suggests you may not educable. In any case, tiny resource less Japan, posed no threat to the US. The US, far mightier than Japan, already with military bases in their backyard in the Philippines (since the turn of the century), and with a record of aggression against Japan in the 1850’s, didn’t want Japan to be independent (particularly oil independent) of the US Empire; and it made this clear to Japan. When the ruling regime of Japan foolishly ordered an attack on one of the US Empire’s outposts (Pearl Harbor), in an attempt to help achieve independence of the US, the US invaded and bombed Japan; eventually decimating every city of any size.

[Hospitaller]

Neither agree nor disagree. It's unfair to apply standards to that decision with the advantage of hindsight. Leadership reasonably believed that an invasion of Japan would be necessary and that such an invasion would be a nasty, nasty affair for both sides. They also believed that the bomb would end the war with fewer casualties; they did what they did and ended the war.

Its amazing how you can repeat the statist excuses with such precision.

The Japanese wanted to surrender, this was known by the US government. The bombs were dropped simply as a display of power.
The Japanese also had no navy or air force an invasion would never be nessecary if the offensive capabilities of a nation are destroy, a long or possible short blockade would cost almost no lives and result in an inevitable surrender.

[ProIndividual]

Use of nuclear weapons to attack civilians in anything but direct self defense from all out undeniable annihilation is a war crime and cowardly. It's also an act of terrorism (even when in self defense). If someone did it to us, we'd say that for sure. Attacking civilians is never right (but if facing annihilation, can be necessary).

We weren't facing annihilation when we did it to Japan. Risk vs reward ratios cannot justify it.

[TroySmith]

I think some study of history answers this question fairly easily.
It's clear that are entry into the war was nefarious, however, the Japanese still were the one's who attacked first. They were the clear aggressor. Also, they were living in a completely savage society. What they did to civilians, pow's, etc, was incredibly brutal and inhumane. The Japanese also had never been truly defeated as a nation before, and many were so brainwashed they felt they could never lose. There is little doubt they would have fought ferociously over a mainland invasion.
Given that, the Americans were justified in what they did. When your fighting an enemy who has attacked you, and is that evil, you have a moral obligation to stamp that evil out.

[azxd]

Sometimes I feel like I'm reading crap at DailyKOS ... Those who are in the blame America camp are free to leave this country, and not look back.

[AuH20]

Its amazing how you can repeat the statist excuses with such precision.

The Japanese wanted to surrender, this was known by the US government. The bombs were dropped simply as a display of power.
The Japanese also had no navy or air force an invasion would never be nessecary if the offensive capabilities of a nation are destroy, a long or possible short blockade would cost almost no lives and result in an inevitable surrender.

Surrender? The Kyūjō Incident blows any such assumption out of the water and this occurred after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki!! The germans wanted to surrender, which was documented by numeorus communiques. The Japanese, thanks to the stubborn legacy tied to the code of Bushido, were prepared to fight down to every last woman and child. To die with honor was far more palatable than to be disgraced by the dishonor of surrender. Plus, many Japanese were obsessed with the myth that divine providence had protected their homeland over the centuries.

[AuH20]

IMHO Dresden was far worse than the Japanese bombings. The Japanese bombings were based on sound strategy, designed to disourage a suicidal foe. Dresden was nothing more than a terror attack.

[Rothbardian Girl]

I am very, very conflicted about this. First of all, I am of the opinion that initial US aggression was not justified (this definitively dated back to 1857, when America basically forced Japan into signing the Treaty of Kanagawa). My history is also a bit muddled on this point, too, but the oil embargo that we placed on Japan prior to Pearl Harbor kind of forced their hand and probably had a blowback effect. I definitely don't think this so-called "fight-until-the-death" culture of Japan (first of all, I think it is an overgeneralization to make such an assertion and I don't think the average citizen would have adhered to this honor code) justified the bombing of innocent civilians. Also, of course Japan dealt with the effect of the fallout for many years after the bombing; people who hadn't even taken part in WWII were sickened by these things, and I see that as unjust.

Now, that being said, I am not defending the Japanese army here or trying to claim that they had peaceful motives. Their atrocious treatment of the Chinese and Koreans should repulse any person here who is also sickened by the Holocaust or the Dresden firebombings. I just don't think it justified something that inherently would kill civilians and kill truly innocent people as a result of all the fallout.

Essentially, I feel bad for the civilians and the future generations of Japanese people who lost their lives over an ultimately pointless and stupid war caused by pointless and stupid Realpolitik. I do think the Japanese had intentions of surrendering (the actions of a certain faction of the Japanese army don't really change this fact, IMO, and should not be seen as a reflection of the will of the majority of Japanese).

[MaxPower]

Recently watched movie Fat Man & Little Boy that is based on US military's Manhattan project. Apparently at the time, some scientists and generals dissented and saw dropping of a WMD on a populated city without warning a dishonrable way to win a war. Do you agree or disagree with such a view?

Little Boy was dropped on the city of Hiroshima on 6 August 1945, followed by the Fat Man over Nagasaki on 9 August. These WMDs dropped on two populated cities by US military killed over 200,000 civilians of Japanese race.

Unspeakably dishonorable.

[FrankRep]

IMHO Dresden was far worse than the Japanese bombings. The Japanese bombings were based on sound strategy, designed to disourage a suicidal foe. Dresden was nothing more than a terror attack.

Agreed. The Dresden, Germany firebombing was nothing more than an act of hate and viciousness against innocent Germans.

[DerailingDaTrain]

By our pussy PC standards of today's sick and degenerate world, yes. The truth of the matter is that Imperial Japan's Empire was literally built on rape, child slavery, sex slavery, murder, genocide, racism, and torture. Make no mistake about it, Japanese culture and their politics were absolutely vile and needed to be stopped.

I see you've bought into the racist propaganda our government spewed.

[DerailingDaTrain]

Pretty rich coming from the country that started dropping bombs on us before we knew we were at even at war. Oh wait - there's no such thing as honor in war. Having said that, we won. I don't care how we did it, and I am happy about that.

Yeah...because Japan bombed us for no reason.

[FrankRep]

Yeah...because Japan bombed us for no reason.

We froze Japanese assets in the U.S. and put santions against them.

That's an act of war.

[DerailingDaTrain]

To clarify my position: Dropping a nuclear bomb is never acceptable and especially when civilian lives are at risk.

[FrankRep]

By our pussy PC standards of today's sick and degenerate world, yes. The truth of the matter is that Imperial Japan's Empire was literally built on rape, child slavery, sex slavery, murder, genocide, racism, and torture. Make no mistake about it, Japanese culture and their politics were absolutely vile and needed to be stopped.

That is absolute nonsense. We attacked Japan because of Pearl Harbor and not because they "needed to be stopped."

[BamaAla]

Its amazing how you can repeat the statist excuses with such precision.

The Japanese wanted to surrender, this was known by the US government. The bombs were dropped simply as a display of power.
The Japanese also had no navy or air force an invasion would never be nessecary if the offensive capabilities of a nation are destroy, a long or possible short blockade would cost almost no lives and result in an inevitable surrender.

I don't repeat "statist excuses;" I'm giving you the historically accurate record. Sure, some things could have been handled better, but I, and most historians, maintain that the atomic attacks were necessary to end the war promptly and with as few allied casualties as possible.

You're right, in a sense, the bombs were a show of power, but that show of power was to get a surrender; a show of power is the only thing the Japanese respected. I referenced the Potsdam Conference earlier; one of the other things to come out of Potsdam was the conditions of Japanese surrender: anything less that total surrender was not going to fly, Japan was not going to keep conquered territories, and they were going to be disarmed.

I know conspiracy theorist and people that have developed a hate for all things American want to believe that the Japanese were a poor little lot being tortured by the big bad Americans, but that isn't supported by history. Imperial Japan was as aggressive, brutal military juggernaut...not to mention that they, in fact, started the war.

[DerailingDaTrain]

I don't repeat "statist excuses;" I'm giving you the historically accurate record. Sure, some things could have been handled better, but I, and most historians, maintain that the atomic attacks were necessary to end the war promptly and with as few allied casualties as possible.

You're right, in a sense, the bombs were a show of power, but that show of power was to get a surrender; a show of power is the only thing the Japanese respected. I referenced the Potsdam Conference earlier; one of the other things to come out of Potsdam was the conditions of Japanese surrender: anything less that total surrender was not going to fly, Japan was not going to keep conquered territories, and they were going to be disarmed.

I know conspiracy theorist and people that have developed a hate for all things American want to believe that the Japanese were a poor little lot being tortured by the big bad Americans, but that isn't supported by history. Imperial Japan was as aggressive, brutal military juggernaut...not to mention that they, in fact, started the war.

Why couldn't we have dropped the bomb on an island or in the ocean near them? Some place without so many civilians. Japan would've been scared $#@!less knowing we had that kind of power.

[Sam I am]

Recently watched movie Fat Man & Little Boy that is based on US military's Manhattan project. Apparently at the time, some scientists and generals dissented and saw dropping of a WMD on a populated city without warning a dishonrable way to win a war. Do you agree or disagree with such a view?

Little Boy was dropped on the city of Hiroshima on 6 August 1945, followed by the Fat Man over Nagasaki on 9 August. These WMDs dropped on two populated cities by US military killed over 200,000 civilians of Japanese race.

Didn't the nuclear bombs kill less people than were killed in the battle of stalingrad?

[FrankRep]

Why couldn't we have dropped the bomb on an island or in the ocean near them? Some place without so many civilians. Japan would've been scared $#@!less knowing we had that kind of power.

Killing 100,000 people gives a stronger message to surrender.