Atomic Bombing of Japan

[Lighthawk]

Looking to pick some brains. I have an individual on another forum I frequent stating that the bombing of Japan at the end of the war was (to summarize) "An unnecessary cruelty, as Japan's forces were largely defeated, it had no remaining allies, and that the bombings were conducted as an experiment and as (disproportionate) revenge for pearl harbor."

Thoughts?

[Graham Kennedy]

I'd simply ask the following.

Had the war ended?

Had Japan surrendered?

Had Japanese military forces stopped killing American military forces?

No, no, and no.

If the Japanese were ready to surrender, they would have surrendered. They didn't. So screw 'em.

[Nickswitz]

I agree and add to that, had we not bombed them would the war in Europe have ended as quickly as it did?

One speculation that I've often heard and quite honestly agree with is that the bombs showed how much power America had and made the Axis forces fear us more so than they did previous.

Could it have been 'revenge' for Pearl Harbor, I'm sure it made making the call a lot easier, but I don't think that it was simply revenge.

[Teaos]

From someone who had numerous family members in the pacific theater I think it was perfectly justified.

Dont wanna be bombed, stop shooting.

[Mikey]

Pretty much... ditto. Not only were Japanese forces actively still fighting - even more desperately than before due to the fear of the inroads America had made into the Japanese ring - they were as steadfast as ever in their refusal to surrender. Further, the alternative was the planned invasion of the islands of Japan itself, which would have been accompanied by more of the incendiary bombing that had already struck Tokyo... except on a much greater scale. The loss of life, including civilian lives, could easily have been greater than the losses at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It could further be argued that Truman et. al. really couldn't conceive of the true magnitude of the atomic bomb - with nothing of that destructive power ever in play, just being told about it couldn't really do justice to the actual effects.

[Deepcrush]

Looking to pick some brains. I have an individual on another forum I frequent stating that the bombing of Japan at the end of the war was (to summarize) "An unnecessary cruelty, as Japan's forces were largely defeated, it had no remaining allies, and that the bombings were conducted as an experiment and as (disproportionate) revenge for pearl harbor."

Thoughts?

This is largely laughable. Their navy was defeated, their army wasn't. Their defenses grew by the day and their population would have allowed itself to be butchered if their leaders didn't agree to submit. The death toll would have been in the millions for the Japanese.

The truth is that the A-bombs saved Japanese lives. To declare otherwise is to simply be out of touch from reality.

[Tsukiyumi]

My grandpa told me that we were anticipating casualties on our side upwards of a million troops to invade the home islands. After Iwo Jima and Okinawa, he was damn happy when they dropped those bombs, and so am I.

I might not even exist without them.

[Reliant121]

Lesser of two evils. The dropping of the atomic bombs was in itself a horror of war but it was a far lesser horror of war than how it would have been actually invading a Japan. A population crazed with loyalty to their demigod emperor, a military that had spent so long digging into an already inhospitable and challenging coastline, a world power that had already shown how batsh*t hellbent it was on keeping Japan a sovereign territory; death tolls in the millions for both the American's who invaded and the ordinary Japanese people that resisted.

The atomic bombs were horrific; but worst estimates put arund 250,000 dead from what I can see. That's a hell of a lot better than potentially several million.

[Griffin]

I agree with the general consensus in this thread. However;

I agree and add to that, had we not bombed them would the war in Europe have ended as quickly as it did?

I don't see how this could possibly be the case, Italy surrendered in 1943 and Germany surrendered on the 7th of May 1945 while Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed on the 6th and 9th of August respectively.

[Tyyr]

Looking to pick some brains. I have an individual on another forum I frequent stating that the bombing of Japan at the end of the war was (to summarize) "An unnecessary cruelty, as Japan's forces were largely defeated, it had no remaining allies, and that the bombings were conducted as an experiment and as (disproportionate) revenge for pearl harbor."

Thoughts?

He's a moron.

We're still handing out purple hearts that were minted in expectation of the casualties to be incurred in the invasion of Japan. The US was expecting more than a million AMERICAN casualties. Expected Japanese casualties were pretty much everyone given our experiences with the Japanese in places like Iwo and Okinawa. The argument could be made that the nuclear bombs saved Japan from itself. It was a gigantic wake up call that if they were determined to die for their Emperor we were more than happy to help, but they wouldn't get to die trying to kill Americans. They'd be exterminated from the air with no chance of resistance.

[Lighthawk]

So by and large, pretty much everything we've already said back to the person. And yet they remain unswayed. Oh well, only so much you can do.

What about the whole "experiment" thing. This is, according to our nay sayer, "a widely held belief". I've never even heard of it, anyone here have?

And thanks guys

[Tyyr]

The bomb had been tested. You could argue that since the gun type bomb had never been tested it was an "experiment," or that the implosion style was an experiment as we detonated the second one over a target but that's pushing the boundaries a bit. We knew the implosion type bomb worked, we'd already successfully detonated one at Trinity. We were confident enough in the gun type to drop it without even testing it first beyond the theoretical. They were hardly experiments.

As for "widely held," well since he believes it obviously all rational educated people believe it as well right? No, his views on the bomb are a minority, a loud, obnoxious minority but a minority none the less. Frankly I think it's a belief mostly held by people who have no real clue about the war in the Pacific or the Manhattan Project.

[colmquinn]

I had heard the 'experiment' idea before but not very often. Version I heard was it wasn't to test the bomb design rather the effects of the radiation etc released by the blast on a large population and effects therafter.

You guys should really try visit some of the 'conspiracy theory' sites out there, apart from making you angry i find some of the theories so mad that i can't help but smile at em and wonder who the hell writes these things

[Sonic Glitch]

While I agree with all the reasons stated here for dropping the bomb, there is another I've heard as well: Dropping the bomb wasn't just an attack on Japan but meant to be a demonstration to the USSR. "Look what we have..."

[Tyyr]

There were many reasons for dropping the bomb and I seriously doubt that showing off to the Russians wasn't considered at least a side benefit. In the end though looking at the estimates of a million+ casualties to invade the home islands and the prospect of having to annihilate the Japanese as a people was the important consideration.