Atomic bombings of Japan Necessary?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Viking Socrates, Nov 10, 2011.

  1. Viking Socrates I am Mad Scientist

    Member Since:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Message Count:
    9,153
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Trophy Points:
    248
    Location:
    In a cave,watching shadows (Plato reference)
    I have heard alot of good arguments for or against the atomic bombings of Japan, some being that had we not then 1,000,000 troops would have died in the invasion and some counter arguments that state that all most all the developers and people who ordered the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki agreed that it was no necessary and Japan would have surrendered thus the attack was unjustified.

    So im asking this to all of you, was it Necessary? Now go fourth and state your arguments and reasoning behind them.
  2. Karakoran Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Message Count:
    7,903
    Likes Received:
    640
    Trophy Points:
    193
    Location:
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    This is the millionth thread on this topic. The general consensus is that it was justified and it is quite common that those it say it wasn't do not have all their facts in order.
  3. Viking Socrates I am Mad Scientist

    Member Since:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Message Count:
    9,153
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Trophy Points:
    248
    Location:
    In a cave,watching shadows (Plato reference)
    Yeah i was going to ask if there was allready a thread on this, but hey there a trillion what if ones here and Marijuana ones so i said fuck it and made it.
  4. Imperial1917 City-States God of War

    Member Since:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,032
    Likes Received:
    621
    Trophy Points:
    183
    It was justified. Terrible, but justified. There is little doubt in my mind that the Japanese would have continued the fight if it did not happen.
    And to as one million American troops would have died in the invasion sounds like a gross exaggeration to me. The U.S. would have been forced by the homefront to withdraw LONG before the death toll rose that high. As it was, even the 'Heros of Iwo Jima' would not have been enough to sustain an enthusiasm for the war long enough to achieve victory.
  5. Viking Socrates I am Mad Scientist

    Member Since:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Message Count:
    9,153
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Trophy Points:
    248
    Location:
    In a cave,watching shadows (Plato reference)
    When the troops landed we planed to drop 9 atomic bombs with our troops, apparently radioation was not that known back then. Also what is up with everyone saying it was really the soviets declaring war on japan that made them give up????
  6. Imperial1917 City-States God of War

    Member Since:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,032
    Likes Received:
    621
    Trophy Points:
    183
    To the troop+atomic bomb thing:
    Lol. Would have killed the troops in the blast anyways.

    To the Soviet thing:
    No... never even heard of that one before now... have you been listening to SovietEmpireUSSR?
    Viking Socrates likes this.
  7. Viking Socrates I am Mad Scientist

    Member Since:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Message Count:
    9,153
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Trophy Points:
    248
    Location:
    In a cave,watching shadows (Plato reference)
    Uhh yes i have is that a bad thing.
  8. The Shaw Rawnald Gregory Erickson the Second

    Member Since:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,426
    Likes Received:
    1,033
    Trophy Points:
    243
    Location:
    New York
    Not at all.
  9. Imperial1917 City-States God of War

    Member Since:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,032
    Likes Received:
    621
    Trophy Points:
    183
    To which? The 'heard of it' or the 'heard of it from SovietEmpireUSSR'?

    There may be many different angles on the issue, but personally, I am inclined to believe that the atomic bombs had alot more to do with the Japanese's surrender than the arrival of the Soviets, who, as far as I know, only managed to grab easy land while they were there.
  10. Viking Socrates I am Mad Scientist

    Member Since:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Message Count:
    9,153
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Trophy Points:
    248
    Location:
    In a cave,watching shadows (Plato reference)
    That was one reason why we dropped them, the Soviets would have taken oppertnuity to get alot of land before Japan surrendered, hmm wonder if there would have been a Tokyo wall.
  11. Imperial1917 City-States God of War

    Member Since:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,032
    Likes Received:
    621
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Circles within circles.

    And no, there probably wouldn't. By this time walls were only good for temporary barriers to infantry advances.
  12. Kalalification Guest

    Member Since:
    Message Count:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Soviets would have been utterly incapable of invading Japan on their own. They lacked the naval and air power to make it even marginally feasible. However, Imperial, you neglect the fact that the US at the time was not at all like the one of Vietnam or today. Total war was a constant reality and the administration would not have tolerated dissent on the level that a withdrawal before victory could happen. As well, I don't think our allies would much appreciate it if America abandoned the effort because the cost in lives was so high, given that we suffered the least out of all of the Allied nations.

    I don't doubt that Japan would have offered ridiculous and universal resistance to the US had we managed to actually get a beachhead.
  13. Viking Socrates I am Mad Scientist

    Member Since:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Message Count:
    9,153
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Trophy Points:
    248
    Location:
    In a cave,watching shadows (Plato reference)
    We would have eventually got a beachhead but the loss of lives would have been so high, and then you had to take Japan. I think the Soviets would have tried something but they most likely would have focused on getting more Korea, Mongolia, or China territory.
  14. Imperial1917 City-States God of War

    Member Since:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,032
    Likes Received:
    621
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Maybe so, maybe not. From what I heard, the U.S. population was none too happy with the war. Maybe they would have demanded a stop to it, maybe not. We can postulate and say that on a small scale people would have grumbled but continued the war, but on a larger scale, things are less predictable, especially since we are removed from what the feeling was at the time. People may have thought that nobody could successfully demand a stop to the Vietnam War, yet there was and the war stopped and the U.S. pulled out.
    "Hindsight is always 20/20..."

    @ VikingSocretes
    They DID get Chinese land. Some of the land above China holds a massive lake that belonged to China before the war. Even Western European maps [from the imperialism era]agree on this. But the Russians lay claim to it and took it from China. And Mongolia only became independent of China when the Russians convinced them to seperate from China during the dust settling of World War Two. And North Korea exists largely due to Soviet involvement in the Korean Penninsula.
  15. Kalalification Guest

    Member Since:
    Message Count:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The USFG was at the height of its power and enjoyed popular support, as did the war. Also, it doesn't actually mean anything or clarify anything to say "maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right" in every post you make. Acknowledge your correctness or incorrectness, don't dance around the issue.
  16. Imperial1917 City-States God of War

    Member Since:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,032
    Likes Received:
    621
    Trophy Points:
    183
    I am aknowledging the reletivity of the situation. If it was a matter of fact... say, tank production or funds allocations, then if I was wrong, I would admit to it. But in this case, I have heard conflicting reports on the topic. Some historians say [as you do] that the U.S. population would have done nothing to stop the war. Others [noted in Ken Burns' "The War"[can't think of any others right now, or even verify this one right now]] say that the U.S. population's support for the war in the Pacific theather was tanking so rapidly that the U.S. population would have demanded a cession to the war, or at least a postponement. Public opinion has always been a matter of interpretation. Or maybe I am wrong and if you can prove it, I will admit to it. But until then, I'll stick to the opinion that the U.S. population would not have sustained a much longer war than the Pacific theather was.
  17. Viking Socrates I am Mad Scientist

    Member Since:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Message Count:
    9,153
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Trophy Points:
    248
    Location:
    In a cave,watching shadows (Plato reference)
    Well eventually the war was going to lose support it was starting to a little by the end of 1945, combined with a large lose of life the invasion of Japan would have caused.
  18. Kalalification Guest

    Member Since:
    Message Count:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Treat your opinions as fact. They are your assertions, and you should treat them as true until proven otherwise. Remaining 'neutral' doesn't help your credibility, it undermines it. That's argument 101 right there.

    The USFG in the wartime era was capable of actively silencing political opposition via legislation that was later ruled unconstitutional. That there was a plan which involved such huge casualties actually proposed (and indeed given the go-ahead if the atomic bombings didn't force a surrender) in the first place makes it pretty clear that those in power were confident in their ability to succeed in the war.
  19. Imperial1917 City-States God of War

    Member Since:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,032
    Likes Received:
    621
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Applying your opinion as fact is a delicate thing. Such a use of ethos is more valuable when you have an actual, ligitimate degree in the feild or have since entering said feild, established yourself as a reliable professional in it. I have no such degree and would not [for a number of reasons] claim to be a professional in said topic. Or any topic for that matter.
    Still, your advice has merit and in the future I may apply it more. I doubt that though, as I was already aware of it, but did not use it. Bluntly stating falsehoods is more deadly than seeming slightly mobile on facts until one can verify them. Being able to adapt and change the way in which your past words are seen by keeping them open [slightly] to interpretations is a valuble ability. It is true that neutrality has its weaknesses, but it also has its advantages, as do any kind of debating tactic. Balencing them out is important feat to manage and is never really perfected, especially on the internet where the audiance is undeterminable sometimes.



    Unconstitutional... if the war dragged on too long and the public started to rebel against the continuation of the war and these legislations were put to the test, it would not take long for the time between examination of said legislations and the ruling of them as unconstituational to eclipse. And as far as I am aware, the U.S. public was not aware of either the bomb, nor entirely sure that the U.S. intended to actually invade mainland Japan. Had they been informed [especially of the costs of the bombs and their effects as well as the possible losses for invading the mainland], they may have condemned the continuation of the war.
  20. slydessertfox Total War Branch Head

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    11,853
    Likes Received:
    1,425
    Trophy Points:
    373
    Location:
    Mars
    The dropping of the atomic bombs was completely justified. What people forget is the Japanese were handing out sharpened bamboo stakes to civilians. If anybody saw what the Japanese civilians did on (Saipan?), then you would know how hard they would fight on the mainland. The Japanese civilians (at least a strong majority of them) were willing to fight the American invaders. There was expected to be next to a million casualties in the invasion of Shikoku alone. That was only the first step to the invasion of the mainland. Not to mention the civilian casualties. Also, ever heard of the rape of Nanking? Nobody ever talks about how immoral and bad that was. Yet more prisoners and civilians died from a Japanese sword than from actual fighting.

Share This Page

Facebook: