Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, a blockade was another choice to starve them out but the war would have gone on longer.
The civilian casualties from that would have dwarfed the civilian casualties of the atomic bombings. It would have, in the strange calculus of war, proved to be less humane than the atomic bomb.
My Filipino father-in-law hated the Japs until his dying day. What the Japanese did to the civilians of the lands they occupied was beyond atrocious. What goes around comes around.
The end of the war is something to be celebrated. But CELEBRATING the dropping of the atomic bomb --- or any PARTICULAR act of war? That's sick and morally depraved.
I would like to think there was another option than dropping a nuclear bomb on innocent people.
I also wanted to address the "morality" issue. People look back at the act now through the lens of today's morality and what we know about the longterm effects of nuclear weapons. At the time these decisions were being made, there was no real knowledge about those effects. The US from the civilian government to the military and scientists who built it, ultimately considered it nothing more then a really big bomb. In that sense what was the difference between dropping thousands of regular smaller bombs and destroying a city versus dropping one big bomb?
The effects of radiation post bombing were so unknown that when the military asked the science team about their use in an offensive military capacity, the scientists told them it was safe for US troops to enter an area that had been bombed in as little as 24 hours with no risk.
We also have the case of the US's stance on chemical weapons as evidence about their different view of atomic bombs. The US had pledged not to use chemical weapons except in retaliation for someone using them on us. Whenever the topic of using them came up in the Pacific the President vetoed the thoughts on those grounds. Those weapons were recognized as having longterm effects and were weapons solely designed to kill people in horrible ways. The same thought processes did not exist about the atomic bombs because no one knew about the longterm effects.
I also wanted to address the "morality" issue. People look back at the act now through the lens of today's morality and what we know about the longterm effects of nuclear weapons. At the time these decisions were being made, there was no real knowledge about those effects. The US from the civilian government to the military and scientists who built it, ultimately considered it nothing more then a really big bomb. In that sense what was the difference between dropping thousands of regular smaller bombs and destroying a city versus dropping one big bomb?
The effects of radiation post bombing were so unknown that when the military asked the science team about their use in an offensive military capacity, the scientists told them it was safe for US troops to enter an area that had been bombed in as little as 24 hours with no risk.
We also have the case of the US's stance on chemical weapons as evidence about their different view of atomic bombs. The US had pledged not to use chemical weapons except in retaliation for someone using them on us. Whenever the topic of using them came up in the Pacific the President vetoed the thoughts on those grounds. Those weapons were recognized as having longterm effects and were weapons solely designed to kill people in horrible ways. The same thought processes did not exist about the atomic bombs because no one knew about the longterm effects.
True. It is anachronistic to apply our understanding of things to events in the past, second guessing the morality of a country's actions.
The Bombing of Hiroshima: A Day of Shame and Repentance
Today marks the 67th anniversary of an act that ushered in a new age of barbarism: the deliberate targeting of unarmed civilians - chiefly women, children, and old men - in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. As right as America was about the war in general, the bombing of Hiroshima appalled and disgusted the best of America's fighting men:
"My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." - Admiral William Leahy
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..." - Dwight Eisenhower
"...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign." - William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964
Today marks the 67th anniversary of an act that ushered in a new age of barbarism: the deliberate targeting of unarmed civilians - chiefly women, children, and old men - in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. As right as America was about the war in general, the bombing of Hiroshima appalled and disgusted the best of America's fighting men:
"My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." - Admiral William Leahy
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..." - Dwight Eisenhower
"...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign." - William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964
Nice way to cherry pick your quotes.
My father was in the Army and slated to be in the invasion of the Japanese home islands. Based on the Japanese army archives and a host of other sources, there was simply no credible evidence that the Japanese were going to surrender. The Japanese were continuing to fight in China. The Japanese were continuing to fight in Burma. The Japanese were preparing for an all-out defense of their homeland, training civilians to take the life of invaders. There is absolutely no doubt that the toll among soldiers and civilians alike would have been staggering. And that doesn't even include the aftermath of disease, starvation and the general chaos. Even without an invasion, the war would have dragged on for untold months, ratcheting up the butcher's bill far beyond the casualties inflicted on Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
And, by the way, how is atomic bombing any worse than carpet bombing, firebombing, or saturation bombing? The effect is the same.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Bombing of Hiroshima: A Day of Shame and Repentance
