hey, i'm brand spanking new to U-P, so give me a break if i don't have flashy graphics or whatever.

anyways, I want to debate with someone over whether America should've used nuclear weapons against Japan during WWII, and whether or not they were justified in dropping both bombs. I want to argue pro on everything, if there's someone to go against me, that is.

I'm not going to argue against you. I want to clear something up, though.

A lot of times the nuke-japan argument goes a couple ways:
1. It was the right decision to make when it was made.
2. It was the right decision today.

Which one are you arguing for?

Alright, i'm pretty certain he's gone, so I am willing to argue aye.

Anyone up for nay?

Mr Clean: Both.

Could you make it more clearer what you're "Aye"ing for?

I think he's saying...

1. The US was right in dropping the bomb in respect to the intelligence the US had up to that point.
AND
2. Looking back on the decision, it was the best decision the US could have made.

Aye, that be my aye.

Subliminal Vrs. SB

Raider: Not quite. Subliminal wanted to argue pro, but I think he's not coming back, considering he's only racked up two total posts and its been a while, so I said if anyone still wanted to, I am willing to argue pro everything in his stead.

NoR: Both.

I'm willing to argue against it... if I don't find something better to do....

Okeedokee! Here's my basic thesis:

Everything incriminating the Japanese, pointing out how horrid they were to everyone else in the Pacific, is just pure gravy. Why the war came about and who was the good guy and the bad guy (you can argue all you want about US imperialism but you'll have to ignore history altogether if you think Japan was a victim in WW2). The heart of the matter lies at "Was it necessary?" and "Was it the best way?"

As for the first, a cursory glance at the displays of Japanese resolve even under intense allied pressure clearly show that the Japanese were not in the least afraid of death. A culture that fears dishonor more than death is a very dangerous one to back into a corner, as evidenced by the increasingly suicidal natures of the Japanese soldiers and civilians the closer the Americans (and the British, this late in the war) came to the Mainland. If the Japanese held so tenaciously to Iwo Jima and Okinawa (Now THAT was one creepy-ass defense) imagine how much more so they would hold to the mainland. Clearly the Japanese were in for the long haul.

So, SOMETHING was necessary, but was this the right way?

I see three other possible solutions:

1) Seek a diplomatic solution.
2) Continue to conventionally bomb the japanese while demanding a surrender.
3) Invade Japan.


1) A country does not abandon dreams of empire easily, and if the US had wanted to negotiate a surrender (which would, by the way, violate their decision at Yalta) they would have had, as is the nature of negotiations, to concede something. One definite required tenet of Japanese surrender would be Honor. This would be tricky, since surrender without fighting to the last inherently violated their warrior code, which had been adopted at least in spirit by the population as a whole. Some suggest that we might have been able to negotiate some sort of surrender leaving he Japanese emperor in place. These people are what an historical analyst would call "as retarded as Musk Oxen". Japan was every bit as brutal and oppressive a regime as nazi germany, yet no one suggested letting hitler go on commanding rather than taking Berlin.

2) This solution would almost certainly result in more loss of life than the first. If 100,000 people died in one night of firebombing Tokyo (check me on that, I'm not sure of the number) imagine what months of similar raids would destroy. The atom bombs completely leveled a city and killed hundreds of thousands, which doesnt leave room for "Lets hold out a little longer" it leaves room for "should we surrender now, or five minutes from now. The Japanese had to be shown that there was NO hope, that a divine wind would not come and sweep away the americans as it had done the Chinese, that their dreams for the Greater East Asia whatever were not going to happen. Game over, Japan, in a message that doesnt take weeks of deliberation and uncertainty. I fully believe that Conventional bombing would have taken so long to force a surrender that perhaps over a million more Japanese would have died.

3) Invading Japan is the most often discussed alternative. My Grandfather was in the 6th Marine at Iwo Jima, and he has the scars to prove how fierce the japanese defended that desolate rock. Take that times 100 and you have the mainland. Suicide Bombers, child-snipers, urban warfare to make the veterans of Stalingrad envious, and thats AFTER you force a beachhead and march inland in what is frankly not exactly the Great Plains, if you catch my drift. Screw Kamikazes, now you've got kamiCHILDREN. No wonder my Grandpa remembered his unit cheering when the Japanese surrender was announced, they didnt have to march into hell after all!

That said, invasion=worse,a nd not just for us. Worst of all, an invasion would have to be accompanied by carpet bombing and firebombing, making all the deaths of option 2 added in.

It's a known fact that the victors make history. If Hitler had won the war, there wouldn't be anymore Jews alive(and the genocide would've been erased from history books, just like the Armenian genocide); also, he would've demonized the NAmericans for being inhuman, having a history of slavery and having internment camps for Japanese citizens. The point I'm making, is that conventional wisdom about the Japanese(or even Nazis) is mostly wrong; just like our belief that the Allies were noble and fighting bravely and honourably for our rights... Both sides had great propaganda, and the winner is simply able to legitimize and spread it's own, after the war. This is a good lesson in history but isn't relevant to whether or not the US was entitled to use nuclear weapons. The main questions are indeed: "Was it necessary?" and "Was it the best way?"

There are mixed opinions and speculations as to whether dropping the bomb was actualy necessary. One version of the events(that I have no proof for, but seems to be popular in some circles) is that the Japanese emperor, realizing defeat was imminent and seeing the travesty known as the Nuremberg trial, sent a letter to the Allies; this letter is said to have asked for clemency for the Japanese emperor, in return for Japanese surrender. Because of the extreme, lasting damage done by nuclear weapons, I hope it's understood that they are only a weapon of last resort. Indeed the Japanese were very honourable, prefering death to dishonour. I will agree that a military solution to the problem would've been extremely costly to both sides. I will also agree that something must have been done, to end the war, with as few casualties as possible.

What were the US'(read Allies') options for ending the Japanese war?
You named 3 right off the bat, the fourth one was using a nuclear weapon. The military options(continued bombing/invasion) would've likely resulted in large casualties, so they can be ignored outright.

There are now 2 options left.
1. Diplomatic
2. Nuclear

1. Even if the afore-mentioned letter was non-existant, negotiations were still possible. The negotiation process would be equivalent to negotiating with someone, while you hold a gun to their head. It would definetly be one-sided and any concessions made to Japan would be largely just for show. There is also no doubt that the Japanese were ready and wiling to die rather then be dishonoured, but their dedication and devotion to the emperor was just as great. There is no doubt that the emperor would be able to order his troops to stand down, if an agreement was reached. The only reason why it would be morally aceptable to use nukes, is if you assume that the Japanese are unreasonable people who wouldn't ever surrender unless threatened with annihilation.

Clearly that's not the case, so negotiations are the best choice, producing immediate, full results, with no death or destruction for either side. Considering this, there is also an additional question to be answered:
"What were ALL of the US' reasons for dropping the Atomic bomb?"
Historians general agree that the US wanted to show the USSR it's 'ace in the hole' so to speak.

Because negotiations wouldn't have achieved everything that the nuke did, nukes suddenly became the best choice (to answer the second important question).

2. Now, there were 2 options again. Either use nukes on heavily populated areas (Hiroshima AND Nagasaki) or use them on barren parts(like perhaps the ocean near Japan, or some other deserted area). I would have no problem with allowing nukes to be used on un-populated areas, as I'm sure any civilized person would agree. Yet the US government decided to use 2(TWO) nuclear bombs to kill hundreds of thousands of people and cripple hundreds of thousand more, for generations to come.

So, to conclude, the perfect option would've been to use nukes (thus intimidating the USSR, AND convincing Japan to accept an unconditional surrender) on unpopulated areas(thus preventing any loss of human life).

Can you dispute that?

P.S. On another topic:

You also made another point about it not being acceptable to leave the Japanese emperor in place. The US(or any other country) has no divine right to judge what's right/wrong/moral and make that choice for another nation. That's what sovereignty is. A country is allowed to do whatever it pleases within it's borders. If you wish something to change, you can place embargoes/negotiate/help citizens leave the country but you have NO right to change it's executive or any other part of it's ruling body(or worse, to ATTACK it, so that you LIBERATE it)

You overexaggerate the effect the victors have on history. Modern history favors not the victors but the victims, usually seen as whoever loses, no matter the cause. I do not offer you propaganda or speculation to demonize the japanese, but simple facts. In nanking, the japanese killed over 200,00 chinese civillians AFTER the chinese surrendered. No matter if victors write history or not, this fact is conceded by every player involved in the war, though the japanese still ignore it.

Thats all irrelevant, though, I just thought it worthy to point out that the victors dont always get to dictate to the history books.

"1. Even if the afore-mentioned letter was non-existant, negotiations were still possible. The negotiation process would be equivalent to negotiating with someone, while you hold a gun to their head. It would definetly be one-sided and any concessions made to Japan would be largely just for show. There is also no doubt that the Japanese were ready and wiling to die rather then be dishonoured, but their dedication and devotion to the emperor was just as great. There is no doubt that the emperor would be able to order his troops to stand down, if an agreement was reached. The only reason why it would be morally aceptable to use nukes, is if you assume that the Japanese are unreasonable people who wouldn't ever surrender unless threatened with annihilation."

This is also unfounded, but I heard that the emperor was the one FOR continuing and many of his military leaders were not. Also, you have to remember that negotiating a surrender with the japanese would not only violate the allied agreement at Yalta but also do a great injustice to the many peoples oppressed by the Japanese during their brief bid for empire, and there were a lot of those. AND all this is assuming that a Japanese surrender could be reached. You have to realize that the Japanese people didnt just view their leader as great, they viewed him as a god, and therefore their people as superior. You'll note this behavior throughout their Pacific Campaign, where the subjugate people were more like cattle than subjects. The Japanese had been in dire straights before, and there was not a man, woman or child who didnt know the story of the "divine wind" (Which I think was a hurricane) that had swept a massive chinese fleet away hundreds of years before. What does kamikaze stand for again? Thats right. now you see my point. They still had a hope, that their brave warriors could drive off the unjust imperialist americans, and (by that point) their allies.


"So, to conclude, the perfect option would've been to use nukes (thus intimidating the USSR, AND convincing Japan to accept an unconditional surrender) on unpopulated areas(thus preventing any loss of human life).

Can you dispute that?"

Handily. You make a point of the US using 2(TWO) nukes. Why is that? Why were two nukes necessary? Remember that it was two days from Hiroshima to Nagasaki, ample time for the Japanese to get a simple message, "Hiroshima no longer exists."

But they didnt, did they? Not until another nuke was dropped and even then not until several days passed did they surrender. How much longer, then, would the deliberations be if we nuked the sea? (On a totally unrelated and indeed irrelevant note, what would be the ecological ramifications?) You must also remember that the two nukes were not of the same type, and we werent sure of the capabilities or even the functionality of them both. And that was all. One to test in the Mohave (that IS where, right?), one for Hiroshima, one for Nagasaki. This was our best weapon, we werent sure they would both work, we werent sure one could guarantee enemy surrender. After all, what if we had dropped them on isolated areas and they'd called our bluff and seen if we'd had more?

"P.S. On another topic:

You also made another point about it not being acceptable to leave the Japanese emperor in place. The US(or any other country) has no divine right to judge what's right/wrong/moral and make that choice for another nation. That's what sovereignty is. A country is allowed to do whatever it pleases within it's borders. If you wish something to change, you can place embargoes/negotiate/help citizens leave the country but you have NO right to change it's executive or any other part of it's ruling body(or worse, to ATTACK it, so that you LIBERATE it)"

Um, this all changes when you're at war. Then anything within the enemies borders is fair game. Its especially hard for them to complain when they brought the war upon themselves. Dont try to make the case that, had hitler not commited suicide and been able to defend the fatherland from the russians, we would have been horrible imperialist pigdogs in demanding him removed from power at their eventual surrender. Normally I abhor Nazi Germany comparisons for their hackneyed nature, but sometimes they fit the bill perfectly. Especially in this case, when you compare their treatment of subjugate people. You are correct that the US has no divine right, but in this case it had an entirely human right. The right to demand unconditional surrender (as in no more mister emperor) from an enemy that truly did not deserve to exist. Go ahead and read "The Rape of Nanking" and you'll see that comparisons to Nazi Germany are entirely well-founded.

"You overexaggerate the effect the victors have on history. Modern history favors not the victors but the victims, usually seen as whoever loses, no matter the cause."
I disagree, but since it IS irrelevant i'll just mention -in passing- the Armenian genocide(of the early 1900s). You're prolly thinking: 'the what now?'. Do you know what Hitler told his generals to asuade their fears abt the international reaction of what was goin on at the internment camps? He told them something along the lines of "Why are you worried? Who remembers the armenian genocide?". Do you honestly think you would've heard about nanking, if the Japanese would've won?.

"Also, you have to remember that negotiating a surrender with the japanese would not only violate the allied agreement at Yalta"
I guess at this point, you have to decide what's more important. Ending the war peacefully, or not...

"but also do a great injustice to the many peoples oppressed by the Japanese during their brief bid for empire, and there were a lot of those."Ok, you have to realize that it would be the Japanese making the concessions, not the Allies. Generaly, the victor(s) demands that the loser withdraw to its pre-war borders(or less)

"You have to realize that the Japanese people didnt just view their leader as great, they viewed him as a god, and therefore their people as superior."
A consequence of this is that they would immediately obey him, if he chose to surrender.

"You make a point of the US using 2(TWO) nukes. Why is that?"
One city being annihilated was bad enough; 2 is beyond what is called a war crime...

"AND all this is assuming that a Japanese surrender could be reached. Remember that it was two days from Hiroshima to Nagasaki, ample time for the Japanese to get a simple message, 'Hiroshima no longer exists.'But they didnt, did they? Not until another nuke was dropped and even then not until several days passed did they surrender. How much longer, then, would the deliberations be if we nuked the sea?... This was our best weapon, we werent sure they would both work, we werent sure one could guarantee enemy surrender. After all, what if we had dropped them on isolated areas and they'd called our bluff and seen if we'd had more?"

Ok, lets look back on what happened. The US nukes Hiroshima; wait for 2 days (just keep in mind what the communication capabilities were like -in WW2, in Japan, during wartime- and the fact that something as important as complete surrender, isn't usualy decided on in 48hrs); The US then proceeds to dropping another bomb. The Japanese surrender.

Why do they surrender? Was their military incapacitated by the nukes? Hardly. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mainly civilian cities. The nukes weren't dropped on military complexes or heavy troop concentrations. Was their economy crippled? Nope. Were they demoralized? Well, they just had many of their defenseless civilians salughtered... so I think they'd be more determined and take more pride in fighting and dying, trying to avenge their families. The Japanses could've called the US' bluff, after 2 nukes just as much as they could've called it after one...

I am willing to conceed that using 2 nukes within days, on Japanese civilians, sped up the process of surrender; but I see the process as having been inevitable and simply would've taken perhaps -speculation 2 weeks- if one nuke was dropped on a barren area.

---------------
(On a totally unrelated and indeed irrelevant note, what would be the ecological ramifications?)
As far as I know, many A-bomb tests were done over water, and I'm sure you'll agree that the effect on the ecology of the ocean is less damaging overall then nuking a heavily populated city.
There's also the possibility of nuking deserted areas, as opposed to heavily populated, mainly civilian cities.

"Um, this all changes when you're at war."
Agreed, but when you're at war, you don't fight to liberate people, you fight to defeat the enemy. The entire "liberating the people" is propaganda you use on your own people and troops, to make yourself look like the good guy.

"in demanding him removed from power at their eventual surrender... The right to demand unconditional surrender (as in no more mister emperor) from an enemy that truly did not deserve to exist. "
Not at all; the allies would have been justified in asking for Hitler's removal and Germany' surrender. The could then proceed to (doing what was done to Napoleon) simply exile Hitler or something. The reason for his removal wouldn't be a humanitarian one. It would be a safety one... so that he can't rile up his troops and mount another attack in the forseable future. In Japan, though, the system is different. You can't expect the people to hand over their God for imprisonmen/execution. That's why, in Japan, in would make sense to let the emperor keep his freedom, if not his position.
----------

I think I might've missed something, if so, remind me...

"Do you honestly think you would've heard about nanking, if the Japanese would've won?"

Damn straight I do. i know this because the US heard of the atrocities on the Chinese front before the war began, and no Japanese victory in asia would have erased that. Surprisingly, what DID erase it was the US's willingness to overlook the atrocities in order to use Japan as an ally against the soviet union (W. Germany too).


>>"Also, you have to remember that negotiating a surrender with the japanese would not only violate the allied agreement at Yalta"
I guess at this point, you have to decide what's more important. Ending the war peacefully, or not...<<

I suppose you're right on this count, but this was just a side issue anyway. The real issue is whether diplomacy was a plausible means.

>>"but also do a great injustice to the many peoples oppressed by the Japanese during their brief bid for empire, and there were a lot of those."Ok, you have to realize that it would be the Japanese making the concessions, not the Allies. Generaly, the victor(s) demands that the loser withdraw to its pre-war borders(or less)<<

any amount of concessions short of unequivocal surrender is still a concession to the enemy from the allied perspective. Japan had lost, they just didnt realize it.

"Ok, lets look back on what happened. The US nukes Hiroshima; wait for 2 days (just keep in mind what the communication capabilities were like -in WW2, in Japan, during wartime- and the fact that something as important as complete surrender, isn't usualy decided on in 48hrs); The US then proceeds to dropping another bomb. The Japanese surrender."

So, directly after stating that the emperor had the ability to end the war all by himself, presumably quite quickly, you then in the next sentence say that surrender couldnt be decided on in 48 hours.

One man, who you claim is willing to negotiate a surrender, is faced with the most horrific weapon ever known to man and he CANT DECIDE IN TWO DAYS??

Furthermore, we do not need especially sophisticated communications to relay the message "Hiroshima is gone". You hear it over hte radio thirty times, send a couple of people to check it out (Japan aint all that big) notice that the city no longer exists,a nd you have confirmation. Still witha good thirty-eight hours to realize that you are screwed and there is no other option any more.

"Why do they surrender? Was their military incapacitated by the nukes? Hardly. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mainly civilian cities. The nukes weren't dropped on military complexes or heavy troop concentrations. Was their economy crippled? Nope. Were they demoralized? Well, they just had many of their defenseless civilians salughtered... so I think they'd be more determined and take more pride in fighting and dying, trying to avenge their families. The Japanses could've called the US' bluff, after 2 nukes just as much as they could've called it after one..."

No, they couldnt have called the bluff just as easily. Two nukes of different capabilities were dropped on different cities, and the US had shown the willingness to use them on civillian targets. You dont call a bluff at that point, you call a bluff when they get tossed on the ocean and hope is still alive.

"Well, they just had many of their defenseless civilians salughtered... so I think they'd be more determined and take more pride in fighting and dying,"

No, No, No! dont you get it? They dont GET to fight back anymore! Now its not meeting the marines on the beaches to show Japans true spirit, now its just sitting there waiting for the nukes to rain down. What we did was not take away the WILL to fight, but the OPTION.

I expressed this very thoroughly. You dont fight against nukes, you die against nukes. The japanese were willing to fight through near annihilation, but no country is willing to get slaughtered without the option of defending themselves.

>>"Um, this all changes when you're at war."
Agreed, but when you're at war, you don't fight to liberate people, you fight to defeat the enemy. The entire "liberating the people" is propaganda you use on your own people and troops, to make yourself look like the good guy.<<

What are you talking about? I never claimed we were liberating the japanese people.

>>That's why, in Japan, in would make sense to let the emperor keep his freedom, if not his position.<<

I agree, i thought you were arguing for him to be allowed to keep his position, as evidenced by your indignance that the US would dare to interfere in the Japanese gov't.

>>"You make a point of the US using 2(TWO) nukes. Why is that?"
One city being annihilated was bad enough; 2 is beyond what is called a war crime...<<

So because the Japanese cared so little for their people they couldnt decide that it was important enough to surrender the US is the war criminal? I repeat, two days is more than enough time to relay the message "Hiroshima no longer exists, oh godlike one" and for the emperor to decide to surrender.

"Damn straight I do. i know this because the US heard of the atrocities on the Chinese front before the war began, and no Japanese victory in asia would have erased that. Surprisingly, what DID erase it was the US's willingness to overlook the atrocities in order to use Japan as an ally against the soviet union (W. Germany too)."

I may've worded the question wrong. If Japan, Germany and Italy would've won over the allies, do you still think you would've heard about Nanking? The widespread of information would've undoubtedly been spinned or ignored.

"any amount of concessions short of unequivocal surrender is still a concession to the enemy from the allied perspective. Japan had lost, they just didnt realize it."
Going on the assumption that the Japanse emperor and advisors weren't stupid or completly unreasonable, I would say that that negociations were doable. Now, when one country is defeated, it does surrender and withdraw to its pre-war borders(or in some cases, less then that)

"So, directly after stating that the emperor had the ability to end the war all by himself, presumably quite quickly, you then in the next sentence say that surrender couldnt be decided on in 48 hours."
Do you honestly think that it's doable? It took me months to decide on a university and then a major... You think that unequivocal surender of an entire nation with aspirations to world domination can be done settled on in 2 days? (less then that, because obviously in war time, the emperor is usualy in a bunker somewhere, harder to be reached; so by the time he hears the news, by the time he sends people close to him to confirm it and by the time they see it and come back, MAYBE he'll have 24hrs to decide...

"One man, who you claim is willing to negotiate a surrender, is faced with the most horrific weapon ever known to man and he CANT DECIDE IN TWO DAYS?? "
Ok, a thought experiment if you will; The US is a super power correct? Just like Japan was in WW2. Imagine that all the US nukes were sabotaged and that it's allies decided to adopt a policy of non-involvement. Now imagine that N. Korea declares war, asks for the US to surrender and uses a nuclear weapon on California. Do you think that the US will surrender in 2 days?

"No, they couldnt have called the bluff just as easily. Two nukes of different capabilities were dropped on different cities, and the US had shown the willingness to use them on civillian targets. You dont call a bluff at that point, you call a bluff when they get tossed on the ocean and hope is still alive."
Are you familiar with the rule of giving a warning shot before you actualy start firing? It happens when you're trying to convince a person to give up peacefully, b/c you have a far better weapon and they don't have a chance against you. This is what many police officers are required to do.

"What are you talking about? I never claimed we were liberating the japanese people."
No you claimed they were liberating the people they conquered which is just as irrelevant, if -by convention- the Japanese withdraw to pre-war borders...

"So because the Japanese cared so little for their people they couldnt decide that it was important enough to surrender the US is the war criminal? "
I can ask the same about 9/11. Why didn't the US surrender to the terrorist demands and save their civilians? Because the US cares so little for their people that they can't decided that they're important enough to surrender, bin Laden is the war criminal?! You see how this works?

"I repeat, two days is more than enough time to relay the message "Hiroshima no longer exists, oh godlike one" and for the emperor to decide to surrender. "
And I repeat, NO. A superpower doesn't give up that quickly... I honestly don't think that waiting a week and sparing hundreds of thousands of people's lives is too much to ask...

"I may've worded the question wrong. If Japan, Germany and Italy would've won over the allies, do you still think you would've heard about Nanking? The widespread of information would've undoubtedly been spinned or ignored."

It certainly would be less known, but hardly unheard of.

"Going on the assumption that the Japanse emperor and advisors weren't stupid or completly unreasonable, I would say that that negociations were doable. Now, when one country is defeated, it does surrender and withdraw to its pre-war borders(or in some cases, less then that)"

From our perspective, they WERE completely unreasonable.

"Do you honestly think that it's doable? It took me months to decide on a university and then a major... You think that unequivocal surender of an entire nation with aspirations to world domination can be done settled on in 2 days? (less then that, because obviously in war time, the emperor is usualy in a bunker somewhere, harder to be reached; so by the time he hears the news, by the time he sends people close to him to confirm it and by the time they see it and come back, MAYBE he'll have 24hrs to decide..."

Of course its doable. When you chose a major, did you have the knowledge that any choice but one would result in hundreds of thousands of deaths? To call the two comparable is ridiculous.

"Ok, a thought experiment if you will; The US is a super power correct? Just like Japan was in WW2. Imagine that all the US nukes were sabotaged and that it's allies decided to adopt a policy of non-involvement. Now imagine that N. Korea declares war, asks for the US to surrender and uses a nuclear weapon on California. Do you think that the US will surrender in 2 days?"

If thats the situation the japanese were in I'll eat my hat. More like if all the rest of the world conquered both coasts and Canada came sweeping down from the north upon brilliant stallions and wearing mountie hats, and Mexico conquered the southwest, and all that was left was ohio and nebraska and everything in between and the US is almost entirely defenseless and there are nightly bombing runs and the people are gearing up to suicide-bomb the invaders and THEN N. Korea drops a nuke. I think that if the US DOESNT surrender in two days they have no one to blame for the resulting deaths than themselves. Well, actually, since in that situation they werent the aggresors it would be different, but assuming its like WWII and we are the aggressors like Japan then it is quite clear who is to blame.

"And I repeat, NO. A superpower doesn't give up that quickly... I honestly don't think that waiting a week and sparing hundreds of thousands of people's lives is too much to ask..."

Japan wasnt a superpower anymore, they just refused to admit it. We coulda sat around for two months and conventionally bombed the poo outta them or we could have shocked them into the realization that they lost. I believe that latter was more effective as well as less bloody.


I dont care if the Emperor is in a bunker, he's still going to be in the know. Even 24 hours is more than enough time to wire off a cable to Truman. Its obvious that the problem was not communications, because he spent five days deciding after the SECOND bomb. These are some crazy-ass people we are talking about.

"It certainly would be less known, but hardly unheard of. "
I'm sure the victims would know about it, but it wouldn't be generly acknowledged... Again, I referr you to the Armenian genocide.

"From our perspective, they WERE completely unreasonable."
People aren't generaly smarter or dumber, based on where they live. The emperor may've been stubborn, but certainly he and his advisors weren't all stupid....

"Of course its doable. When you chose a major, did you have the knowledge that any choice but one would result in hundreds of thousands of deaths? To call the two comparable is ridiculous."

Precisely. The fate of one man's life, country, aspirations for power etc, depends on his decision. I can change my major at anytime, and lose relatively little.


"If thats the situation the japanese were in I'll eat my hat. More like if all the rest of the world conquered both coasts and Canada came sweeping down from the north upon brilliant stallions and wearing mountie hats, and Mexico conquered the southwest, and all that was left was ohio and nebraska and everything in between and the US is almost entirely defenseless and there are nightly bombing runs and the people are gearing up to suicide-bomb the invaders and THEN N. Korea drops a nuke. "

If that was the situation in Japan, I'LL eat your hat... The Japanese army wasn't defeated. They cut through China, they decimated the US navy and they were indeed preparing for a long hard war against the rest of the world(which was certainly gonna be close... mobilizing the entire Rusian army wasn't gonna be easy... Japan was up against basicaly the decimated armies of the West, the primitive armies of Rusia and the armies of the US. They may not have won, but they certainly would've put up a long fight.


"I think that if the US DOESNT surrender in two days they have no one to blame for the resulting deaths than themselves. Well, actually, since in that situation they werent the aggresors it would be different, but assuming its like WWII and we are the aggressors like Japan then it is quite clear who is to blame."

Not at all, in all war there are rules-regardless of who initiated it. Japan paid for their aggressions in court. The US didn't. And targetting civilians specificaly certainly qualifies as a war crime. It's been deemed unacceptable(a terrorist action, a genocide etc)

"I dont care if the Emperor is in a bunker, he's still going to be in the know. Even 24 hours is more than enough time to wire off a cable to Truman. Its obvious that the problem was not communications, because he spent five days deciding after the SECOND bomb. These are some crazy-ass people we are talking about. "

You're just not being realistic. I can't argue with you if you refuse to face the facts... Japan needed 5 days(i believe) after the second bomb to surrender. That means that obviously, even after the equivalent of 100 September 11s, they STILL needed a week to surrender... You seem to think that

"People aren't generaly smarter or dumber, based on where they live. The emperor may've been stubborn, but certainly he and his advisors weren't all stupid...."

i didnt say stupid, I said unreasonable. And I didnt say that stemmed from stupidity. It stemmed from a vast cultural gulf which very few men of the time (Yamamoto came close) were able to comprehend.

"Precisely. The fate of one man's life, country, aspirations for power etc, depends on his decision. I can change my major at anytime, and lose relatively little."

Read my quote again. I didnt say that thousands of lives hung in the balance, I said that ANY CHOICE BUT ONE was damning his country to hundreds of thousands more deaths.

"If that was the situation in Japan, I'LL eat your hat... The Japanese army wasn't defeated. They cut through China, they decimated the US navy and they were indeed preparing for a long hard war against the rest of the world(which was certainly gonna be close... mobilizing the entire Rusian army wasn't gonna be easy... Japan was up against basicaly the decimated armies of the West, the primitive armies of Rusia and the armies of the US. They may not have won, but they certainly would've put up a long fight."

Get out your fork and spoon, pal, because Japan was beating a steady retreat since Pearl Harbor. You just listed all of the early accomplishments of the Japanese. Cutting through China wasnt going to save the mainland.

And yeesh, decimated the American Navy? Hardly! What was it, 20 Essex class Carriers had just entered the war in time for the island campaigns? If it wasnt that it was close, but the upshot is that, just as Yamamoto predicted, the Japanese had been defeated by american industrialism as much as American firepower. This, combined with the steady loss of all vital positions between the Japanese and American homelands, and the failed campaign into India, and the Phillipines, and on and on. Anyone who believes Japan was the one DOING the decimating is a sad byproduct of revisionist history. Even all of this is neglecting my basic point, that japan's dreams of coming out on top or forcing a stalemate, however ridiculous, were cut short by the Atom Bomb.

"Not at all, in all war there are rules-regardless of who initiated it. Japan paid for their aggressions in court. The US didn't. And targetting civilians specificaly certainly qualifies as a war crime. It's been deemed unacceptable(a terrorist action, a genocide etc)"

1: The japanese civillians, in the event of an invasion, would have been about as uninvolved as those of Stalingrad.

2: Every Allied power (and every axis, for that matter) in the war targetted civillians. It was the first accepted total war of the modern era

3: Well, that just about sums it up.

"You're just not being realistic. I can't argue with you if you refuse to face the facts... Japan needed 5 days(i believe) after the second bomb to surrender. That means that obviously, even after the equivalent of 100 September 11s, they STILL needed a week to surrender... You seem to think that"

I understand they took five days, but it was not clerical or communications difficulties, it was the stubborn pride of the powers that be (were). Nor does that stretch of time exclude the possibility of a second bomb being necessary. Its impossible to tell for sure whether the first woulds done it.

Ok, it looks like spades is gone. Any comments by anyone else?

more people would have died if the war dragged on than if the bombs were dropped, it was a humanitarian choice

Humanitarian choice?


Perhaps, coming from a beef-witted apple john.

Is taht your argument? I'm sold.

Come back spades. I love you.

Whatever we needed to end the war. It's our goverment's job to protect us. It's their goverment's job to protect them. Their government failed to surrender and protect its people. I'm sorry they had to die... no not really. Not anymore than the SS. Rape of Nanking, anyone?

I want to finish this.

so why do i see a guest reading this thread a lot?

I don't think the civillian citizens we massacred at hiroshima or nagasaki were all soldiers involved in nanking.

And this "life-boat" morality of either a. we kill off 100,000ish citizens or b. we lose even more is a bifuraction, and obnoxious. When you derive your morality from such foolish constructs, morality is inherently tied to intelligence (ie, the ability to see third options). And i don't retards and savages are paragons of morality.

Slaughtering innocent civillians is wrong. End of story.

I believe the argument was not merely our own servicemen but the additional japanese civillian casualties.

i.e. Tokyo firebombing. Better to unveil a spectacular advantage and force a faster surrender.

No, i am saying those were not our two options. Either a. blow them all up one way, or b. blow them up another way, which i am going to speculate would have higher casualities.

Germany was already out of the war, and japan was a hugely import based nation. If we used our navy to blockade the shit out of them, they would collaspe.

Hell, i don't think they had natural sources of coal, or metals.

Right, because our current policy was to allow all merchant shipping free access.