Was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?

[Jazzy]

In your opinion, was it justified or not?

 

[seasidemike]

I have to split the two responses because: Hiroshima: yes, Nagasaki: No



Hiroshima: the war was going on and on and there were so many losses on the US side and the Japanese were not one to surrender, there was no end in sight even though the war in Europe was now over.



Nagasaki: it was not necessary, the bomb in Hiroshima finished the Japanese and they were surrendering. It was overkill.

 

[Sinon]

No they were not. It was terrorism. But then, the US is above such petty things as that. If an Afghan plane were to drop a nuke on New York right now it'd be considered terrorism, even though you're still at war.



Similarly, Japan technically weren't the instigators of the battle. In the 1800s the USA threatened Japan with all-out war if it did not change its policy of not allowing foreigners to step foot on their country. Ten years after that threat... the USA attacked Japan anyway, despite the fact that Emperor Meiji had already signed the treaty of Kanagawa. So even in the 19th century, America was playing at World Police. I consider Pearl Harbor to be a delayed revenge assault.

 

[Evil Eye]

In hindsight, no. At the time... I wasn't there.

It was terrorism.

Yes, but it wasn't aimed at the Japanese. It was a test and show of power for all future enemies of the US.

It definitely terrorized the Soviets into accelerating the development of their own.

 

[DrLeftover]

Of course Imperial Japan was as pure and innocent as the driven snow and had nothing but love and respect for everybody.



Nanking deserved what happened in 1937.



The Korean women WANTED to work the comfort stations for the noble Japanese soldiers.



That little misunderstanding against the Chinese in Singapore wasn't all that bad.



And they showed nothing but mercy to the locals in Malaya and Vietnam.



Right?



Of course right.



-- --



now tell me, has anybody here read the Japanese plan to defend the home islands against invasion?



You could begin with:



http://www.wwiihistorymagazine.com/current-issue/Jun09/kyushu.html

 

[Fatal Dawn]

Anything can happen in war and no one is innocent, so I don't really have any ethical concerns. And I can kind of understand the strategical importance of the bombings.

 

[seasidemike]

No they were not. It was terrorism. But then, the US is above such petty things as that. If an Afghan plane were to drop a nuke on New York right now it'd be considered terrorism, even though you're still at war.



Similarly, Japan technically weren't the instigators of the battle. In the 1800s the USA threatened Japan with all-out war if it did not change its policy of not allowing foreigners to step foot on their country. Ten years after that threat... the USA attacked Japan anyway, despite the fact that Emperor Meiji had already signed the treaty of Kanagawa. So even in the 19th century, America was playing at World Police. I consider Pearl Harbor to be a delayed revenge assault.

So based on this argument, then constant bombing of London by the Germans was also terrorism..?



I think that technically.. the bombing of Pearl Harbor, would be widely recognized as the first instigation of the Pacific War, hard to link that one back to the 1800's



(one other point.. I and Afghan plane dropped a Nuke on New York it would not be considered terrorism, it would be considered as an act of war)

 

[DrLeftover]

I think that technically.. the bombing of Pearl Harbor, would be widely recognized as the first instigation of the Pacific War, hard to link that one back to the 1800's

Not if you were educated in US State Schools.

 

[seasidemike]

Not if you were educated in US State Schools.

sorry.. what do you mean? Is that not what is taught there?

 

[DrLeftover]

You would be astonished at how little history is taught in history class over here.



When Mr. Kerry said Americans have the right to be stupid, he should have added that many don't have a choice in the matter.

 

[Evil Eye]

Of course Imperial Japan was as pure and innocent as the driven snow and had nothing but love and respect for everybody.

Heh.

So based on this argument, then constant bombing of London by the Germans was also terrorism..?

In part, yes. As was the constant bombing of Berlin by the British.

(one other point.. I and Afghan plane dropped a Nuke on New York it would not be considered terrorism, it would be considered as an act of war)

So? The two are not mutually exclusive.

Killing civilians has become quite the rage and I can see why. It can demoralize your foes*, it hurts production by taking out factories and labourers and it might even destroy vital infrastructure.



*Causing a lot of devastation continuously in a large area serves to demoralize as you make yourself seem unstoppable. Bombing a few things here and there just pisses people off.

 

[DrLeftover]

I was waiting for somebody to point out that the massive B-29 bombing raid on Tokyo killed as many or even more people and did more damage to the city and its surroundings than either nuclear detonation by itself.



The March 1945 raid killed an estimated 140,000 people, most of whom were civilians, counting those who either died immediately or those who passed shortly thereafter from wounds from the bombing, and damaged or leveled over 80% of the city of Tokyo which was targeted because the Empire had decentralized war production into residential areas to protect it from bombing.





Why wasn't that part of the discussion as to whether it was justified?





By comparison, the Feburary 1945 bombing of Dresden only killed about 25,000 whereas the Blitz of London killed about 125,000 over the course of nine months or so.



But those weren't brought up either.

 

[seasidemike]

War is Hell

 

[DrLeftover]

Perhaps the full quote from General William T Sherman (1820 - 1891) as relayed in a newspaper some time later:

I’ve been where you are now and I know just how you feel. It’s entirely natural that there should beat in the breast of every one of you a hope and desire that some day you can use the skill you have acquired here.

Suppress it! You don’t know the horrible aspects of war. I’ve been through two wars and I know. I’ve seen cities and homes in ashes. I’ve seen thousands of men lying on the ground, their dead faces looking up at the skies. I tell you, war is Hell!

And if you have never read his ENTIRE letter to the Mayor of Atlanta... Go do that now (link below the quote)

... ....

[size=+1]You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty,....[/size]



You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride.



We don't want your Negroes, or your horses, or your lands, or any thing you have, but we do want and will have a just obedience to the laws of the United States. That we will have, and if it involved the destruction of your improvements, we cannot help it.



...

http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/sherman/sherman-to-burn-atlanta.html