Use of the atomic bomb against Japan

I'm sure that many people have been asked the question by teachers, etc. "Were we right to use atomic bombs on Japan?" and that the use of atomic warfare against Japan was unjustified, and that we should be ashamed of it.

However, they also disregard the numerous war crimes committed by the Imperial Japanese Army before and during World War II. Chinese people in Hong Kong and Nanjing and Japanese POWs suffered cruel and inhuman treatment at the hands of the IJA. In all honesty, if I were given a choice between having the city I live in being destroyed by an atomic bomb or having it destroyed the way the Japanese destroyed Nanking, I would definitely choose the atomic bomb.

The Chinese government estimates, I believe, a death toll which exceeds that of both atomic bombs dropped in Japan combined. As I mentioned above, the way the IJA treated Allied POWs was also abhorrent:

Sources:

Code:

^ Prisoners of the Japanese : POWs of World War II in the Pacific - by Gavin Dawes, ISBN 0-688-14370-9
^ "Japanese Atrocities in the Philippines".
^ Yuki Tanaka, Hidden Horrors, 1996, p.2,3.
^ Tanaka, ibid., Herbert Bix, Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, 2001, p.360

I think history textbooks should not be one-sided like the one my sister in Grade 7 was given last school year. In my opinion, Imperial Japan deserved what she got, and then some. Thoughts?

 

We had a chapter on World War 2 last year. My history teacher agreed it was justified as do I. My textbook didn't have any opinions on anything it just gave me the facts. I don't think public school should have the right to teach kids based on their bias.

 

atomic bomb goes boooom!

The atomic bomb was a war ender hell yea.

 

We did good by fucking over japan and same should be done to iraq. Time to stop wasting troops and just fuck the whole thing in one blow. -_-

 

Iraq? The Iraq campaign was nothing but Bush's thirst for oil. Give me a break...

 

I agree with the use of the atomic bombs. Consider it if we didn't use them then. We shocked the world with the power of these weapons and prevented further destruction by them.

Say, for example, we never dropped them. No one would know the power of these. We have nuclear weapons much more powerful than those bombs. What if we would have launched one of these instead? There would have been much more destruction.

I also take into consideration the amount of American lives saved. All if fair in love and war, after all.

I would much rather be killed instantly than suffer from a gunshot wound. We even told them of the impending doom. They had the opportunity to leave the city. They chose to stay.

 

i agree,with Bush out,hopefully Obama will rise to the task of setting the whole Iraq thing straight,as well as our economy itself.

 

We cant do it again.
We'd have no goldfarmers

 

LMFAOOOOOOO that made my day! Anyway, I do not condone the use of the atomic bomb's they killed thousands when we get made when one person is murdered.

 

LOL! hahhahahahaha that really did it.^^

Anyways; I'm not an American, nor do I know why this happend, etc.
I just think it should have been done anyways.

What if the Americans had stronger weapons than the Atomic Bomb, without knowing it? What if they released that one?
The damage dealt would have been way higher.

 

The Chinese people are our gold farmers.

..And?

I agree that we had to use the atomic bombs.

a) Japanese abuse of POWs.
b) The emperor didn't stop after the second bomb.
c) Rape/Massacre of Nanking

 

^
And it could have destroyed places which didn't have to do anything with it.

 

Meh, big deal.

Debated this several times already
- Firebombs killed more civilians than the nuclear bomb did.
- The war was pretty much already over, but it kept the USSR from Japan.
- Better them, than us.
- We already invested billions in the program and we needed a "real" test.
- Civilians were not "off-the-limints" in WW2

Whether those are good "moral" reasons or not is debatable, but they are certainly good capitalist ones. Personally I think a better debate would be around killing civilians in general, rather than the atomic bomb.

 

assholes deserved it they mess with a bull they get the horns...<<that was ay , but w.e should of never messed with the u.s

 

I'm not sure how you can call the massacre of a civilian population "deserving what she got". Believe me, I have no sympathy for their state, but I won't condone the slaughter of an entire city.

 

Really, your state teacher agreed that the state was justified. No trace of bias there.

We have to use nukes to stop nuke use!

Oh ok, that makes it ok then.

What exactly do those have to do with a system of voluntary interactions?

 

Prove to me what "ok" is and I will tell you if it is. I consider staying there idiotic. Example: Hurricane Katrina. The people knew it was going to hit, but they stayed. It is their own fault for staying.

 

You make it sound like the US telling some people that they are going to bomb their city makes it their fault for dying, and not the United States.

 

It is. They were warned and could have done something for themselves. Once the train starts rolling, all you can do is warn people, because there is no stopping it.

I see how that makes sense. Good argument. Intelligent. Well-thought-out. Flawless. (You may use your own link for this one as well)

 

The use of the atomic bomb was justified. The fact that cannot be ignored is without the bomb, the Allied Forces would have had to resort to a land invasion of Japan.

After discussing the matter with a few sources, I've learned the predicted casualty rate would have been 80% of the ground forces.

Tyro, I'm afraid you're misinformed there. If the Japanese Government fell, the Allies would view an occupation as necessary. The Imperial Army(official or not) would have been very content to fight to the last man. Causalities numbers(both military and civilian) would have go through the roof with the potential guerrilla-style fighting.