Was the US Just in Dropping Atomic Bombs in Japan

[MVS]

This will surely go to FC.

I say, we sure were.

It resulted in less deaths than an invasion surely would have (for the allies of course).

It really wasn't that much worse than the Firebombing raids B-29's were already doing, save for the radiation poisoning.

We did the same thing to Germany and the German Civilians by carpet bombing entire cities.

[haohmaru]

Dresden

That was far more inhumane than the Atomic Bomb. The city was beseiged for months and months despite having little strategical value. When all was said and done the place looked like it had 10 atomic bombs dropped on it. Can you imagine living through that hell?

It ended the war and continuing it would've resulted in even more deaths on both sides. Japan was notorious for never surrendering and they "technically" never did.

My vote: Just.

[g0zen]

After the Rape of Nanking and horrors committed by Unit 731 in Manchuria, it's clear the Japanese saw non-nippon lives as worthless and without a doubt if they'd had the bomb they'd have dropped it on San Francisco in a heartbeat.

Plus, the Japanese citizenry were brainwashed to revile the Americans to an almost insane degree. They were trained and organized to fight to the very last man in defense of Japan. If the US had landed it would have been forced genocide on the Japanese, and an unreal amount of American casualties.

The A-Bomb saved as many Japanese lives as it did American. I won't call it 'just', but I will call it necessary.

[Drewbacca]

Wasnt the war already over at the time that they dropped the bomb? Germany had already surrendered? Meh, I know too little about it to cast a vote. I'm sure there's heavy arguements on both sides.

[mollipen]

First, I don't have a clue what the title is supposed to be saying.

Second, I'm a bit hazy on how the Japanese thought went. I just saw a show on this recently, and I do know that the Emporer was convinced to admit defeat, but some of the higher ups in the army refused the idea and actually try to take over the government to avoid ending the war. I just can't remember if the first bomb was convincing enough to the Emporer, or if the first got the idea started and then the second sealed it.

And yeah, as horrible as the outcome from the bombs were, I really think that things would have ended far worse had they not been used.

[Diff-chan]

I read a book called "Flyboys" by James Bradley (excellent book by the way) which went into detail on the Japanese mode of thought. They were ready to send every man, woman, child, dog, cat, and raccoon to death for the Emperor. There was NO WAY that Japan was gonna surrender unconditionally if we invaded the mainland. If we invaded the mainland it probably would have been an Iwo Jima-like slaughterhouse for months, if not years.

Remember, we firebombed Tokyo and various other cities and that did not make the Japanese budge one bit. So what makes anyone think that an invasion would've made them drop their weapons?

The Japanese army trained all of their soldiers to basically yearn for death, yearn for the glory of dying for the emperor. After major battles the casaulty rates were enormous - Im too lazy to go through the book (I will if someone wants me too), but many were above 90%+ because they refused to surrender. Does anyone honestly think that would have changed if we landed Marines on Honshu? Hell no. It would've been AWFUL.

The atomic bomb was the right thing to do at the time.

[Rich]

Wasnt the war already over at the time that they dropped the bomb? Germany had already surrendered? Meh, I know too little about it to cast a vote. I'm sure there's heavy arguements on both sides.

The European campaign was, yes, but obviously not the Pacific campaign.

[Mzo]

Plus, the Japanese citizenry were brainwashed to revile the Americans to an almost insane degree.

Now, it just the American kids who think they're Japanese that do this.

Yeah, I think we were justified. It avoided more bloodshed in a war that had already lasted too long. I guess the ends sometime justify the means. I could never make a decision like that.

[MarkRyan]

First, I don't have a clue what the title is supposed to be saying.

"Was the US Just (in Dropping Atomic Bombs in Japan)?"
just = morally reasonable

Anyway, I wonder how many of the ideas being said here (concering Japanese resolve) were considered when deciding to drop the bombs.

[Frogacuda]

I don't think they were just, but in the end, it's probably for the best we all got the shit scared out of us by nuclear bombs when the technology was in its infancy rather than 15 years later. Of course it wouldn't be just then either, so that's not a real defense.

I guess it's bessed viewed as a tradgedy that humanity learned from.