Current Events > Should the United States have used nuclear weapons on Japan?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Should the United States have used nuclear weapons on Japan?
---

Should the Japanese have accepted the terms of the Potsdam declaration and surrendered rather than responding with silence?

The answer to both questions is yes.
---

The first one, absolutely. It saved a great deal of American lives, a great deal of Japanese soldier lives, and even Japanese civilians had a lower death toll than they would have had with a full invasion.
---

There's a whole Dan Carlin hardcore history podcast episode about this subject. Should they have done it, ethical questions, harsh realities of war, more prolonged suffering would've happened if they didn't, counter-arguments to that, etc. It's an interesting listen if you're into the subject.

Without a doubt
---

Yes

A lot of people say that the US would have had to invade mainland Japan if we didn't nuke them, but I heard historian Victor Davis Hanson say that it probably wouldn't have happened, but instead we would have just kept up the firebombing. We had just setup a new airfield on Okinawa I think and we would have been able to do a hell of a lot more firebombing if we had kept that up, which might have killed even more people than the nukes. So his argument was basically that the nukes might have saved lives that way. Usually the argument given about the nukes saving lives is given in the context of the invasion of mainland Japan, but he says that wouldn't have happened either way.
---

This going to be to good.

But the general consensus is yes, it was necessary, it saved a lot more lives then launching a full scale land invasion.

it was a terrible thing to do but a necessary evil I think, given how the war was progressing.
---

Probably not, but hopefully it will continue to keep us from doing it again.
---

It was a useful, absolutely terrible event. Useful in that it showed the world the awful power of nukes, a powerful lesson that's probably biggest reason they haven't been used since.

If they war had ended but no one had seen what a nuke can really do, I don't think the Cold War would have been a cold war. So I guess, so far, it's better that it happened. The first bomb anyway.
---

monkeysample posted...

There's a whole Dan Carlin hardcore history podcast episode about this subject. Should they have done it, ethical questions, harsh realities of war, more prolonged suffering would've happened if they didn't, counter-arguments to that, etc. It's an interesting listen if you're into the subject.

Dan Carlin isn't a real historian nor an academic; he's an entertainer so anything he says should be ignored.
---

Vita_Aeterna posted...

monkeysample posted...

There's a whole Dan Carlin hardcore history podcast episode about this subject. Should they have done it, ethical questions, harsh realities of war, more prolonged suffering would've happened if they didn't, counter-arguments to that, etc. It's an interesting listen if you're into the subject.

Dan Carlin isn't a real historian nor an academic; he's an entertainer so anything he says should be ignored.

Taken with a grain of salt or ignored?
---

Absolutely not. Nukes are a scourge upon this planet and we would be infinitely safer if they had never been invented. Using them is the most evil thing our country has ever done and I spit on the grave of the general who oked it.
---

It was 100% unnecessary. Consult Gar Alperovitz's excellent work on the subject.

http://www.garalperovitz.com/2015/08/%EF%BB%BFthe-war-won-hiroshima-generals-dropped-bomb-knew/

The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japans Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin.

Historians still do not have a definitive answer to why the bomb was used. Given that US intelligence advised the war would likely end if Japan were given assurances regarding the Emperorand given that the US military knew it would have to keep the Emperor to help control occupied Japan in any eventsomething else clearly seems to have been important. We do know that some of President Trumans closest advisers viewed the bomb as a diplomatic and not simply a military weapon. Secretary of State James Byrnes, for instance, believed that the use of atomic weapons would help the United States more strongly dominate the postwar era. According to Manhattan Project scientist Leo Szilard, who met with him on May 28, 1945, [Byrnes] was concerned about Russias postwar behavior[and thought] that Russia might be more manageable if impressed by American military might, and that a demonstration of the bomb might impress Russia.

It was the most effective option and it worked.

gamer167 posted...

It was the most effective option and it worked.

except the war was already won

Duncanwii posted...

Absolutely not. Nukes are a scourge upon this planet and we would be infinitely safer if they had never been invented. Using them is the most evil thing our country has ever done and I spit on the grave of the general who oked it.

So youd prefer tens of thousands of American deaths from having to invade mainland Japan?

They wouldnt even surrender after the first nuke. It wasnt until the second one until they finally gave up.

Japan brought that on themselves due to their sneak-attack on Pearl Harbor, and the atrocities they committed on civilians and captured soldiers.
---

0TiamaT0 posted...

Duncanwii posted...

Absolutely not. Nukes are a scourge upon this planet and we would be infinitely safer if they had never been invented. Using them is the most evil thing our country has ever done and I spit on the grave of the general who oked it.

So youd prefer tens of thousands of American deaths from having to invade mainland Japan?

They wouldnt even surrender after the first nuke. It wasnt until the second one until they finally gave up.

Japan brought that on themselves due to their sneak-attack on Pearl Harbor, and the atrocities they committed on civilians and captured soldiers.

So the recourse was to create an even bigger atrocity? The citizens we killed had no part in the war? How would you feel if Germany had a nuke and destroyed London? Would that be just a situation of England bringing it on themselves. Get real.
---

0TiamaT0 posted...

So youd prefer tens of thousands of American deaths from having to invade mainland Japan?

that wouldn't have happened.

Duncanwii posted...

0TiamaT0 posted...

Duncanwii posted...

Absolutely not. Nukes are a scourge upon this planet and we would be infinitely safer if they had never been invented. Using them is the most evil thing our country has ever done and I spit on the grave of the general who oked it.

So youd prefer tens of thousands of American deaths from having to invade mainland Japan?

They wouldnt even surrender after the first nuke. It wasnt until the second one until they finally gave up.

Japan brought that on themselves due to their sneak-attack on Pearl Harbor, and the atrocities they committed on civilians and captured soldiers.

So the recourse was to create an even bigger atrocity? The citizens we killed had no part in the war? How would you feel if Germany had a nuke and destroyed London? Would that be just a situation of England bringing it on themselves. Get real.

If the Germans airdropped warning fliers trying to get civilians to flee, but the British government made it illegal to even possess one of the fliers; I'd be pretty upset with the British government if a bunch of civilians died in bombings, yeah.
---

Duncanwii posted...

0TiamaT0 posted...

Duncanwii posted...

Absolutely not. Nukes are a scourge upon this planet and we would be infinitely safer if they had never been invented. Using them is the most evil thing our country has ever done and I spit on the grave of the general who oked it.

So youd prefer tens of thousands of American deaths from having to invade mainland Japan?

They wouldnt even surrender after the first nuke. It wasnt until the second one until they finally gave up.

Japan brought that on themselves due to their sneak-attack on Pearl Harbor, and the atrocities they committed on civilians and captured soldiers.

So the recourse was to create an even bigger atrocity? The citizens we killed had no part in the war? How would you feel if Germany had a nuke and destroyed London? Would that be just a situation of England bringing it on themselves. Get real.

Thats on the Japanese. Why should we risk American lives to stop their wrongdoing?

And I see you dont hold the Japanese accountable for the second nuke - which was only dropped because they refused to surrender after the first.

Get real.
---

In highschool I thou it was wrong. But I have matured on the subject . They didn't have many other options. Japan just refused to quit. And if we invaded Japan it was projected that more people on BOTH sides would die. It would have been the bloodiest battle in history

KingCrabCake posted...

Without a doubt

Was saving lives worth the nuclear fallout and irradiation of those cities?
---

0TiamaT0 posted...

Duncanwii posted...

0TiamaT0 posted...

Duncanwii posted...

Absolutely not. Nukes are a scourge upon this planet and we would be infinitely safer if they had never been invented. Using them is the most evil thing our country has ever done and I spit on the grave of the general who oked it.

So youd prefer tens of thousands of American deaths from having to invade mainland Japan?

They wouldnt even surrender after the first nuke. It wasnt until the second one until they finally gave up.

Japan brought that on themselves due to their sneak-attack on Pearl Harbor, and the atrocities they committed on civilians and captured soldiers.

So the recourse was to create an even bigger atrocity? The citizens we killed had no part in the war? How would you feel if Germany had a nuke and destroyed London? Would that be just a situation of England bringing it on themselves. Get real.

Thats on the Japanese. Why should we risk American lives to stop their wrongdoing?

And I see you dont hold the Japanese accountable for the second nuke - which was only dropped because they refused to surrender after the first.

Get real.

We should never have dropped the first one. Mainland Japan is still suffering increased cancer and birth defects caused by residual radiation. Not to mention our testing them killed John Wayne.
---

Lets start with the basic question: was it necessary to drop the bomb on Hiroshima in order to compel Japanese surrender and thereby save American lives?

Absolutely not. At least, every bit of evidence we have strongly indicates not only that it was unnecessary, but that it was known at the time to be unnecessary. That was the opinion of top intelligence officials and top military leaders. There was intelligence, beginning in April of 1945 and reaffirmed month after month right up to the Hiroshima bombing, that the war would end when the Russians entered [and that] the Japanese would surrender so long as the emperor was retained, at least in an honorary role. The U.S. military had already decided [it wanted] to keep the emperor because they wanted to use him after the war to control Japan.

Virtually all the major military figures are now on record publicly, most of them almost immediately after the war, which is kind of amazing when you think about it, saying the bombing was totally unnecessary. Eisenhower said it on a number of occasions. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs said itthat was Admiral Leahy, who was also chief of staff to the president. Curtis LeMay, who was in charge of the conventional bombing of Japan, [also said it]. Theyre all public statements. Its remarkable that the top military leaders would go public, challenging the presidents decision within weeks after the war, some within months. Really, when you even think about it, can you imagine it today? Its almost impossible to think of it.

https://harpers.org/blog/2016/05/unjust-cause/

Omnislasher posted...

gamer167 posted...

It was the most effective option and it worked.

except the war was already won

But Japan hadnt surrendered yet

They were going to and it was known that they would.

LordRazziel posted...

Vita_Aeterna posted...

monkeysample posted...

There's a whole Dan Carlin hardcore history podcast episode about this subject. Should they have done it, ethical questions, harsh realities of war, more prolonged suffering would've happened if they didn't, counter-arguments to that, etc. It's an interesting listen if you're into the subject.

Dan Carlin isn't a real historian nor an academic; he's an entertainer so anything he says should be ignored.

Taken with a grain of salt or ignored?

The former, since he does at least do his research, but historians are interpreters of the past, and his interpretations don't hold much weight because he's an amateur historian, and neither an academic.

It's pop history.
---

Duncanwii posted...

0TiamaT0 posted...

Duncanwii posted...

0TiamaT0 posted...

Duncanwii posted...

Absolutely not. Nukes are a scourge upon this planet and we would be infinitely safer if they had never been invented. Using them is the most evil thing our country has ever done and I spit on the grave of the general who oked it.

So youd prefer tens of thousands of American deaths from having to invade mainland Japan?

They wouldnt even surrender after the first nuke. It wasnt until the second one until they finally gave up.

Japan brought that on themselves due to their sneak-attack on Pearl Harbor, and the atrocities they committed on civilians and captured soldiers.

So the recourse was to create an even bigger atrocity? The citizens we killed had no part in the war? How would you feel if Germany had a nuke and destroyed London? Would that be just a situation of England bringing it on themselves. Get real.

Thats on the Japanese. Why should we risk American lives to stop their wrongdoing?

And I see you dont hold the Japanese accountable for the second nuke - which was only dropped because they refused to surrender after the first.

Get real.

We should never have dropped the first one. Mainland Japan is still suffering increased cancer and birth defects caused by residual radiation. Not to mention our testing them killed John Wayne.

Tell me exactly why we should have sent American troops into a meat grinder to stop a war the Japanese helped start.

Tell me why the Japanese hold no blame in your eyes, for the second nuke that they knew would come if they didnt surrender.
---

Omnislasher posted...

They were going to and it was known that they would.

But they hadnt yet.

Overkill? For sure. But the nukes where guarantees.

ThePrinceFish posted...

Should the Japanese have accepted the terms of the Potsdam declaration and surrendered rather than responding with silence?

The answer to both questions is yes.

---

Imagine still parroting revisionist history in the year of no lord 2018.
---

Vita_Aeterna posted...

LordRazziel posted...

Vita_Aeterna posted...

monkeysample posted...

There's a whole Dan Carlin hardcore history podcast episode about this subject. Should they have done it, ethical questions, harsh realities of war, more prolonged suffering would've happened if they didn't, counter-arguments to that, etc. It's an interesting listen if you're into the subject.

Dan Carlin isn't a real historian nor an academic; he's an entertainer so anything he says should be ignored.

Taken with a grain of salt or ignored?

The latter.

Then, by all rights, I should ignore you.
Why even post?
---

Mr. Truman famously claimed 100% responsibility and hes dead now so...

LordRazziel posted...

Vita_Aeterna posted...

LordRazziel posted...

Vita_Aeterna posted...

monkeysample posted...

There's a whole Dan Carlin hardcore history podcast episode about this subject. Should they have done it, ethical questions, harsh realities of war, more prolonged suffering would've happened if they didn't, counter-arguments to that, etc. It's an interesting listen if you're into the subject.

Dan Carlin isn't a real historian nor an academic; he's an entertainer so anything he says should be ignored.

Taken with a grain of salt or ignored?

The latter.

Then, by all rights, I should ignore you.
Why even post?

@LordRazziel
I edited that part, mate
---

gamer167 posted...

Overkill? For sure. But the nukes where guarantees.

no, they were a diplomatic signal to Russia to set the tone for the postwar period.

have you read any survivor's accounts of the bombings? you can write off hundreds of thousands of gruesome deaths and decades of continued suffering as 'meh so maybe a little overkill'?

that's inhuman.

imagine thinking you know better than Dwight D. Eisenhower:

"The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing". 1963

Omnislasher posted...

gamer167 posted...

Overkill? For sure. But the nukes where guarantees.

no, they were a diplomatic signal to Russia to set the tone for the postwar period.

have you read any survivor's accounts of the bombings? you can write off hundreds of thousands of gruesome deaths and decades of continued suffering as 'meh so maybe a little overkill'?

that's inhuman.

As opposed the atrocities the Japanese has done?
---

gnomefromnome posted...

As opposed the atrocities the Japanese has done?

relevance?

Vita_Aeterna posted...

LordRazziel posted...

Vita_Aeterna posted...

LordRazziel posted...

Vita_Aeterna posted...

monkeysample posted...

There's a whole Dan Carlin hardcore history podcast episode about this subject. Should they have done it, ethical questions, harsh realities of war, more prolonged suffering would've happened if they didn't, counter-arguments to that, etc. It's an interesting listen if you're into the subject.

Dan Carlin isn't a real historian nor an academic; he's an entertainer so anything he says should be ignored.

Taken with a grain of salt or ignored?

The latter.

Then, by all rights, I should ignore you.
Why even post?

@LordRazziel
I edited that part, mate

Agree with your edit.
---

Omnislasher posted...

imagine thinking you know better than Dwight D. Eisenhower:

"The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing". 1963

Did he have authority? Luckily it was President Truman.
---

0TiamaT0 posted...

Duncanwii posted...

0TiamaT0 posted...

Duncanwii posted...

0TiamaT0 posted...

Duncanwii posted...

Absolutely not. Nukes are a scourge upon this planet and we would be infinitely safer if they had never been invented. Using them is the most evil thing our country has ever done and I spit on the grave of the general who oked it.

So youd prefer tens of thousands of American deaths from having to invade mainland Japan?

They wouldnt even surrender after the first nuke. It wasnt until the second one until they finally gave up.

Japan brought that on themselves due to their sneak-attack on Pearl Harbor, and the atrocities they committed on civilians and captured soldiers.

So the recourse was to create an even bigger atrocity? The citizens we killed had no part in the war? How would you feel if Germany had a nuke and destroyed London? Would that be just a situation of England bringing it on themselves. Get real.

Thats on the Japanese. Why should we risk American lives to stop their wrongdoing?

And I see you dont hold the Japanese accountable for the second nuke - which was only dropped because they refused to surrender after the first.

Get real.

We should never have dropped the first one. Mainland Japan is still suffering increased cancer and birth defects caused by residual radiation. Not to mention our testing them killed John Wayne.

Tell me exactly why we should have sent American troops into a meat grinder to stop a war the Japanese helped start.

Tell me why the Japanese hold no blame in your eyes, for the second nuke that they knew would come if they didnt surrender.

The Japanese civilians were blameless we murdered them. There are few things in war I will not condone but destroying entire cities along with their civilians like we did is on a level of evil only rivaled by the Holocaust.
---

I spoiled the true villain guys.

Duncanwii posted...

0TiamaT0 posted...

Duncanwii posted...

0TiamaT0 posted...

Duncanwii posted...

0TiamaT0 posted...

Duncanwii posted...

Absolutely not. Nukes are a scourge upon this planet and we would be infinitely safer if they had never been invented. Using them is the most evil thing our country has ever done and I spit on the grave of the general who oked it.

So youd prefer tens of thousands of American deaths from having to invade mainland Japan?

They wouldnt even surrender after the first nuke. It wasnt until the second one until they finally gave up.

Japan brought that on themselves due to their sneak-attack on Pearl Harbor, and the atrocities they committed on civilians and captured soldiers.

So the recourse was to create an even bigger atrocity? The citizens we killed had no part in the war? How would you feel if Germany had a nuke and destroyed London? Would that be just a situation of England bringing it on themselves. Get real.

Thats on the Japanese. Why should we risk American lives to stop their wrongdoing?

And I see you dont hold the Japanese accountable for the second nuke - which was only dropped because they refused to surrender after the first.

Get real.

We should never have dropped the first one. Mainland Japan is still suffering increased cancer and birth defects caused by residual radiation. Not to mention our testing them killed John Wayne.

Tell me exactly why we should have sent American troops into a meat grinder to stop a war the Japanese helped start.

Tell me why the Japanese hold no blame in your eyes, for the second nuke that they knew would come if they didnt surrender.

The Japanese civilians were blameless we murdered those civilians. There are few things in war I will not condone but destroying entire cities along with their civilians like we did is on a level of evil only rivaled by the Holocaust.

Im done with you.

I hope for your sake, that youre simply a troll. Otherwise, youre going to have a really tough time in life...
---

Omnislasher posted...

gamer167 posted...

Overkill? For sure. But the nukes where guarantees.

no, they were a diplomatic signal to Russia to set the tone for the postwar period.

have you read any survivor's accounts of the bombings? you can write off hundreds of thousands of gruesome deaths and decades of continued suffering as 'meh so maybe a little overkill'?

that's inhuman.

I dont disagree the bombs where a show of power to the rest of the world.

But they also expedited and guaranteed Japans surrender.

Our countrys where at war. No part of war fighting is humane.