Current Events > I got into a HEATED ARGUMENT at work today - Was the Atom Bomb in 1945 moral?

(+) Yeah! (+)

She says that the atom bombs were war crimes, and the US was TERRIBLE to use it.

I said that EVERY JAPANESE MAN, WOMAN, AND CHILD would have been armed and would have fought to the death and the amount of suffering would have been in the TENS OF MILLIONS of US Soldiers and Japanese citizenry. I told her the US was RIGHT to use the atom bomb and reminded her it SAVED MILLIONS OF LIVES.

She just did not want to get past the "war crime" part! IT SAVED TENS OF MILLIONS.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/7/5/AACE4xAACrxX.jpg

Morality has really no place in a discussion about World War 2. Enough policymakers at the time thought it was the shortest way to ending that godawful war, as well as having the ancillary benefit of maybe (and successfully) scaring off the Soviets from further encroachment in Europe and Korea, that it was done. A land invasion, additional bombing campaign, or even outright blockade wouldve killed more.

whos alt

Thats bait. Low effort high school gotcha bait

I don't think it matters. If we were alive in 1945, we most probably have been either recruits or at home. We couldn't have possibly known or affected their decision in any way whatsoever. It was bound to happen.

If one soldier refused to follow through, he would get imprisoned and another be next in line to drop a bomb on their ass.

it's immoral, but necessary.

2nd bomb is unnecessary tho.

Ricemills posted...

it's immoral, but necessary.

2nd bomb is unnecessary tho.

Did Japan surrender after the first?

Very little was moral about WW2, on both sides.

The atom bombs, Dresden etc were all terrible things, no matter how "necessary" they might have been or done to "save lives". They still slaughtered countless innocent civilians.

More people died in the firebombing of Tokyo in March 1945 than those killed by the second bomb dropping on Nagasaki.

Japan would have surrendered if US didn't keep pushing that unconditional surrender bs.

TheBrainstorm posted...

Did Japan surrender after the first?

it was in process. they were negotiating the terms for surrender, but US refused them. one of the terms was Japan keeping it's sovereignty.
and the 2nd bomb was only 3 days after the first one. not much time given for negotiation, at this point it's clear that US looking for an unconditional surrender.

No.
But it ended the war.

No, it wasn't.

I'm biased because Japan did fucked up shit to my relatives, so I would say yes

The invasion of Japan would have been a horrific bloodbath that eclipsed even the terror of the bombs. They were the correct choice. Does that make it moral? Doesn't really matter.

I believe most people who say it was immoral do not have the knowledge and context of what the Pacific War was really like to make an informed decision.

Japan was a death cult. Not figuratively speaking. Not in general terms. The Japanese probably killed more of their own civilians up until probably when the U.S. air strategic command switched to firebombing in late... 1944 I believe? I'm not talking suicide attacks either. I'm talking about just killing themselves rarher than surrendering. The Japanese had essentially never surrendered during the three years of campaigning the Allies had done up until the Bombs were dropped. Typically the only PoWs that were ever captured were Japanese soldiers that were too wounded go kill themslves. Out of an island garrison of 3,000 defenders, the typical captured PoW amount would be something like... 4. These desperate actions by the Japanese only escalated the closer America got to the home island, with the entrenched defenders of Okinawa essentially being unshakeable in their cause and willingness to die--These defenders including 12-year snipers and high school nursing students.

The Japanese launched massive suicide bombing campaigns, and you would think it would only be the most fanatical worshippers of Hirohito who would do so. That's not true. They were often university students who were well-read with liberal values and little faith in winning the war. In their last writings, they would lament that they had to die for an impossible cause, but that they would do it to protect Japan and their loved ones even if they disagreed with the fight.

This is not even to touch on what the Japanese did to their enemies. Needless to say, the complete and utter brutality that the Chinese, the occupied of the East Indies, and the Allies soldiers faced at the hands of the Japanese was, at least, second only to the suffering of the from the Holocaust--I only say "second" because many of the Japanese's victim were executed with some haste. The many that weren't executed immediately were tortured in ways that defies of very humanity. I wish I was exaggerating. I wish I could exaggerate it.

The Pacific was hell. It was hell for everybody. After three years of hell the United States was no longer willing to take chances or give Japan time to contemplate surrender. There was no time, nor did many think there would be a surrender. The Soviets were baring down from the North, and if you think the death of a couple hundred thousand Japanese from the Bombs was atrocious, you would shudder to think what a Soviet occupation would look like.

A typical work day:

Nobody: "........."
Me: "The Atom Bomb of 1945 was moral!"

The morality of the use of atomic bombs is something scholars and experts still debate today

HylianFox posted...

No.
But it ended the war.

This is sadly a common belief due to US propaganda

Sounds like a high school debate.

No it wasn't moral. And before you but but but, it wasn't moral to firebomb Tokyo either which actually killed more people than the atomic bomb.

I don't know why there's a debate.

"But they would have kept fighting"

No. If we just left them alone they would have stopped fighting. We are the ones that prolonged the war, not the Japanese.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


^ Mad that my topics generate discussion and posts.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

It's hasn't been classified for decades. I can say that few of us could judge the actions of the U.S., however, as none of us have ever lived through and experienced anything like the Pacific War in our lives, and very few have learned enough about the day-to-day experience of those fighting the war on either side to make an informed judgement. It's nice to read a wikipedia article and feel like we can judge the decision in retrospect, but it is a fallacy of the mind. The people who made the decision had to live through the consequences of every day of this war since December 1941, with the weight of the atrocities of the 2nd Sino-Japanese War resting in the back of their mind.

People nowadays experience a year of pandemic quarantine and become jaded. They either take actions that risk the lives of others or shrug at the rate of non-vaccinated deaths and say, "Can't be helped, I guess!"... Or worse. Then they lift their nose at the Bombs being dropped on Japan, as if three years of mind-breaking, inconceivable horror should not have left the Generals so calloused as to drop bombs on a seemingly unceasing enemy.

Shaun has a pretty thorough YouTube video essay breaking down why it wasnt necessary, and why US leadership went forward with it despite knowing that it wasnt necessary:

https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go

Its a very long watch but thats because its quite detailed.

Tyranthraxus posted...

No it wasn't moral. And before you but but but, it wasn't moral to firebomb Tokyo either which actually killed more people than the atomic bomb.

I don't know why there's a debate.

"But they would have kept fighting"

No. If we just left them alone they would have stopped fighting. We are the ones that prolonged the war, not the Japanese.

This is... Completely false. I would even venture to say it is a bald-faced lie. Japan was still in the middle of the 2nd Sino-Japanese War and had just concluded the biggest offensive in Imperial Japanese history, Operation Ichi-go. Just a reminder that more Chinese civilians died from the actions of the Japanese than any other nation during WW2--If America had "just left" it would have continued, probably for years.

Fun fact, the Japanese Army generally continued fighting the war for several days after they were ordered to stand down and surrender. They didn't doubt the authenticity of the surrender order. They just refused to surrender on their honor alone.

Tyranthraxus posted...

No it wasn't moral. And before you but but but, it wasn't moral to firebomb Tokyo either which actually killed more people than the atomic bomb.

I don't know why there's a debate.

"But they would have kept fighting"

No. If we just left them alone they would have stopped fighting. We are the ones that prolonged the war, not the Japanese.

They...they attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Just left them alone?

Wow, wtf?

Pogo_Marimo posted...

This is... Completely false. I would even venture to say it is a bald-faced lie. Japan was still in the middle of the 2nd Sino-Japanese War and had just concluded the biggest offensive in Imperial Japanese history, Operation Ichi-go. Just a reminder that more Chinese civilians died from the actions of the Japanese than any other nation during WW2--If America had "just left" it would have continued, probably for years.

Fun fact, the Japanese Army generally continued fighting the war for several days after they were ordered to stand down and surrender. They didn't doubt the authenticity of the surrender order. They just refused to surrender on their honor alone.

Yeah I'd say it's justified

Actually I don't think it's necessarily justified, I don't know for sure, but justification is what is in question not morality. War is always immoral. <_<

Tyranthraxus posted...

No. If we just left them alone they would have stopped fighting. We are the ones that prolonged the war, not the Japanese.

Lmao members of the Japanese war cabinet almost revolted when it started looking like the Emperor would choose to surrender.

Depends who you ask but each country has their own method of defending their citizens. A land invasion would have resulted in a horrific casualty rate on the allied force. The Soviet Union would send wave after wave to crush to Germans who literally ran out of ammunition. These days most countries align themselves with nuclear states to assure their own safety wether its from Russia, China or the U.S.

It was immoral and, arguably, unnecessary.

ThePrinceFish posted...

Lmao members of the Japanese war cabinet almost revolted when it started looking like the Emperor would choose to surrender.

Some did try a coup, and they failed, but it happened after the bombs had fallen. Would the government have been so swift in opposing the coup had the bombs not been dropped? Probably, but no one knows for certain, significant among them being the U.S. Military in 1945.

I dont think they were going to surrender, they wanted a peace deal. If they got the deal they wanted they could have kept their military forces and remember that they were committing atrocities in the countries they invaded. Ultimately taking away their military power was for the best imo. Its all horrible no matter what.

Yes

Seaman_Prime posted...

I dont think they were going to surrender, they wanted a peace deal. If they got the deal they wanted they could have kept their military forces and remember that they were committing atrocities in the countries they invaded. Ultimately taking away their military power was for the best imo. Its all horrible no matter what.

They would have surrendered unconditionally eventually, certainly within a few months if the U.S. maintained their air supremacy, bombing, and blockades. The issue, as stated by the first major and conclusive study of the facts (UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY SUMMARY REPORT 1 JULY 1946) was that the United States had lacked the economic and political intelligence to identify it. The Atomic Bombs were not needed for the unconditional surrender, but that was a fact that was only known with certainty after the bombs were dropped.

An issue you'll see with people who argue the opposite is the use of statements from Generals and Admirals years after the war when the intelligence made the circumstances of the bombings abundantly clear. These were all men pursuing their own political ends after the war with no need to "defend" the usage of the bombs as the ultimate decision was laid at the feet of Truman--As well, given the extremely secretive nature of the program, few had put to writing what their stance on their use was prior to them being dropped on Japan. If Churchill has taught us anything in his life, it is to never take with confidence the statements someone makes in their memoirs after the facts. No one admits to supporting a deadly civilian bombing campaign that served no purpose if they can avoid it.

It should be noted as well the actual actions prior to the bombings of these commanders who spoke out against the use of the bombs after the fact--They were either preparing for what would be the most deadly naval invasion in history, or ramping up the deadly strategic bombing campaigns against Japanese cities. Actions speak a lot louder than words.

ThePrinceFish posted...

Lmao members of the Japanese war cabinet almost revolted when it started looking like the Emperor would choose to surrender.

They weren't going to "surrender" they wanted to negotiate peace.

As explained above this would result in Japan continuing to keep their military and the emperor would remain in power. It's also heavily dependent on Stalin agreeing to back off but just because Stalin was doing immoral shit doesn't make the atomic bomb moral.

JimRob posted...

Yes

I pretty much agree, in short, with this.

a brutal ending to humanity's brutalist bloodletting that was the supervised massacre that was the 2nd world War, never has a human conflict had such a fitting ending to i, a cruel empire met a cruel demise.

Was it moral? No.

Was it necessary? I don't know.

Verdekal posted...

Was it moral? No.

Was it necessary? I don't know.

What do you mean?

I have mixed feelings. Supposedly even more people would have died if there was a land invasion of Japan. But I still hate the idea of attacking civilians. I hope nobody ever nukes a city ever again

Moral? No, not really. That was a LOT of innocent life to take without giving them any chance to save themselves first.

Necessary? I think we could have won the war long-term even without the nukes, but we won a lot faster and a lot more decisively by deploying them.

I think from a tactical standpoint it was definitely the right call, but from almost every other standpoint it was pretty bad.

On the bright side, we learned how devastating and horrific nuclear weapons are before they became advanced enough for global annihilation. Now we all know how fucked up nuclear war would be, so nobody actually wants to trigger it.