Love this question, nice thread J.V,

There's reasons for or against the Atomic bomb... The Japanese thought we weren't gonna fight back against them, so we had ALOT to prove against them and Germany who should've already known what we could do after WW1, the point though and the question that J.V asked was "Was it worth it?" You'd have to look at the entire picture to see if it was worth it, and the answer is YES: look, don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly a Weeaboo but I love Japanese culture, and Japanese people are cool as fuck, I mean, I even know partially fluent Japanese... But we could NOT afford them just thinking they could walk all over us. They did something big, so we did something bigger back to them, they should have thought about the "casualties" before they fucked with us.

Against. There's a reason atomic bombs haven't been used since.

Against. The reasoning for us using them wasn't bad, but it's no excuse to take the lives of the innocent.

this is how i feel about this subject

I actually had a saved draft for this, so:


During Pearl Harbor, innocent lives were completely lost. Not only sailors and ships were lost, but the morale of the United States was lost. We felt vulnerable. I completely understand that. There had to be retaliation, a conduct of revenge to get back at the Japanese. However, was using an atomic bomb the biggest ingredient to end this all at once? Innocent of lives were being held at stake here. The long-term health of Japan grew enormously for months, leading up to years. Babies, leading up to the elderly were all being targeted in Hiroshima and Japan. The United States knew that the casualties that would result from Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be fifty times more than the casualties that they suffered at Pearl Harbor, but they went on ahead in order to not only attack Japan with everything that they had, but to make the Soviet Union halt from whatever advancements they were having. Those bombings can completely be considered as war crime, just like the bombing of Pearl Harbor, but the Japan bombings were terrifying in magnitude. To even extend it a bit further, it can be described as a crime against humanity, because who knows if the United States were going to plan out another attack on another country. Whether it was Germany, or Russia, the world was at wide alert, because with the introduction of the atomic bombs, the unpredictability was soaring high.  Even with Russia, sending a threat to the US claiming that they were going to invade Japan, they should have at least just waited in case the Japanese were going to surrender during Russia’s raid, but they abruptly took on the mission. Since then, the United States has been deputized to being an “antagonist” country, because what they did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was left as a stained image placed on top. I mean, the innocent lives that were lost, the people that were not involved in anything whatsoever, it wasn’t necessary at all. All across Japan, the must have been several military bases or camps that was spread all over the country.

Japan’s air force was no longer operating within that time. Japan had its entire military squished down into the island of Kyushu. The United States could have capitalized on most of the Japanese’s military. They could have at least targeted a less, populated area in order to send a message to Japan. There could have been an attempt for peace negotiations to arise between the United States and Japan. We didn’t need to go barbaric and viciously attack Japan. To stir this even more, the Japanese aimed at a military target. The United States aimed at a civilian target. Those are two, HUGE differences right there in the mix right here. It was just too immoral.
           

Once again, the events of Pearl Harbor flicked the senses of the United States, but it was all too quick and rash on their part to conduct these bombings. All this was an act of politics. Whether it was to intimidate Soviet Russia, the answer can still not be explained today. The most people that supported the usage of the atomic bombs are obviously the American people, but that is based on their personal philosophy. There is still no direct reasoning for these bombings. At the end, the United States was considered to be the greatest hero, and at the same time, the greatest villain during World War II. There were other means to retaliate back with force. They could have sent troops in to Japan to at least make this a legitimate “war”, but using atomic bombs was just inhumane. There may never be an answer to this ongoing debate, but at the end of the day, the United States knows if they are the innocent angels, or the monstrous villains of this.

Against, but I think you are forgetting a very crucial part of the bombs being dropped.

The Japanese just weren't giving up. They were beaten to the ground, they were surrounded, they were starving, but they weren't giving up. And not only that, in some places, even women and teenagers were picking up arms preparing for the United States to march through Japan, and I believe Japanese soldiers were still murdering the Chinese by the thousands while this was all happening. So to stop all of this quickly, they nuked Hiroshima. The Japanese still wouldn't give up, so they nuked Nagasaki a few days later, before they finally gave up.

In my mind, though, the nuking of Japan wasn't about revenge, because after all- That could wait until reparations were to be repaid. Nah. It was just to show everyone what the US's fancy new toys can do. Japan is an island nation, they did some bad things, they wouldn't give up, so down they went. That's why Japan was nuked. Not only to save the lives of allied soldiers, but as a show of strength.

I'm actually against the atomic bombs, but if the Allied Forces didn't drop the nuclear bomb to Japan, my country will never reach the independence. But I still against it, though.....

i have my own atomic bomb. it's part of my second amendment rights.

I would say that yes it was absolutely worth it. People always talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a great tragedy that killed thousands of people. That's true and nothing wrong with that, but people should also remember that it saved potentially millions of lives. Most historians agree that the Japanese Empire would have lost the war still anyway, but before the bombings they were prepared to sacrifice their own people (as they had been doing) in the name of their Emperor.

It's one of those situations where it's tragic that it came down to killing innocents in order to save your own people. In today's world I would never advocate this kind of action because the US military is voluntary. Meaning when you sign up you are doing so with the understanding you may very well die for your country. Back then, people were drafted and forced to fight for their country even if they did not want to. This is an important distinction because it means the thousands of Americans that would no doubt have died in a land assault on Japan are exactly the same as the innocent people who were killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Sadly most of those who were killed in the bombings would have been drafted into the Japanese military and killed when they came of age anyway. I read somewhere that a land assault on Japan would have resulted in more deaths than had been lost on any of the European fronts which were already the largest in human history.

Also consider the benefits that it had on making the US a serious player in world politics. What would the Cold War have been like if the US had sacrificed so many of its people and refused to use the bomb? The Soviet Union would have seen us as weak and I have no doubt that Stalin would have taken a more aggressive stance against the US in the years after. I could even consider a possibility where Japan was annexed as part of the Soviet Union with how weak it would have been and the relations at the time.

TLA wrote:

I would say that yes it was absolutely worth it. People always talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a great tragedy that killed thousands of people. That's true and nothing wrong with that, but people should also remember that it saved potentially millions of lives. Most historians agree that the Japanese Empire would have lost the war still anyway, but before the bombings they were prepared to sacrifice their own people (as they had been doing) in the name of their Emperor.

It's one of those situations where it's tragic that it came down to killing innocents in order to save your own people. In today's world I would never advocate this kind of action because the US military is voluntary. Meaning when you sign up you are doing so with the understanding you may very well die for your country. Back then, people were drafted and forced to fight for their country even if they did not want to. This is an important distinction because it means the thousands of Americans that would no doubt have died in a land assault on Japan are exactly the same as the innocent people who were killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Sadly most of those who were killed in the bombings would have been drafted into the Japanese military and killed when they came of age anyway. I read somewhere that a land assault on Japan would have resulted in more deaths than had been lost on any of the European fronts which were already the largest in human history.

Also consider the benefits that it had on making the US a serious player in world politics. What would the Cold War have been like if the US had sacrificed so many of its people and refused to use the bomb? The Soviet Union would have seen us as weak and I have no doubt that Stalin would have taken a more aggressive stance against the US in the years after. I could even consider a possibility where Japan was annexed as part of the Soviet Union with how weak it would have been and the relations at the time.

But you do realize that Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, a military target, whilst the US attacked civilian targets?

Caster of Dreams. wrote:

TLA wrote:

I would say that yes it was absolutely worth it. People always talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a great tragedy that killed thousands of people. That's true and nothing wrong with that, but people should also remember that it saved potentially millions of lives. Most historians agree that the Japanese Empire would have lost the war still anyway, but before the bombings they were prepared to sacrifice their own people (as they had been doing) in the name of their Emperor.

It's one of those situations where it's tragic that it came down to killing innocents in order to save your own people. In today's world I would never advocate this kind of action because the US military is voluntary. Meaning when you sign up you are doing so with the understanding you may very well die for your country. Back then, people were drafted and forced to fight for their country even if they did not want to. This is an important distinction because it means the thousands of Americans that would no doubt have died in a land assault on Japan are exactly the same as the innocent people who were killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Sadly most of those who were killed in the bombings would have been drafted into the Japanese military and killed when they came of age anyway. I read somewhere that a land assault on Japan would have resulted in more deaths than had been lost on any of the European fronts which were already the largest in human history.

Also consider the benefits that it had on making the US a serious player in world politics. What would the Cold War have been like if the US had sacrificed so many of its people and refused to use the bomb? The Soviet Union would have seen us as weak and I have no doubt that Stalin would have taken a more aggressive stance against the US in the years after. I could even consider a possibility where Japan was annexed as part of the Soviet Union with how weak it would have been and the relations at the time.

But you do realize that Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, a military target, whilst the US attacked civilian targets?

you do realize innocent people died at pearl harbor too right

Caster of Dreams. wrote:

TLA wrote:

I would say that yes it was absolutely worth it. People always talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a great tragedy that killed thousands of people. That's true and nothing wrong with that, but people should also remember that it saved potentially millions of lives. Most historians agree that the Japanese Empire would have lost the war still anyway, but before the bombings they were prepared to sacrifice their own people (as they had been doing) in the name of their Emperor.

It's one of those situations where it's tragic that it came down to killing innocents in order to save your own people. In today's world I would never advocate this kind of action because the US military is voluntary. Meaning when you sign up you are doing so with the understanding you may very well die for your country. Back then, people were drafted and forced to fight for their country even if they did not want to. This is an important distinction because it means the thousands of Americans that would no doubt have died in a land assault on Japan are exactly the same as the innocent people who were killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Sadly most of those who were killed in the bombings would have been drafted into the Japanese military and killed when they came of age anyway. I read somewhere that a land assault on Japan would have resulted in more deaths than had been lost on any of the European fronts which were already the largest in human history.

Also consider the benefits that it had on making the US a serious player in world politics. What would the Cold War have been like if the US had sacrificed so many of its people and refused to use the bomb? The Soviet Union would have seen us as weak and I have no doubt that Stalin would have taken a more aggressive stance against the US in the years after. I could even consider a possibility where Japan was annexed as part of the Soviet Union with how weak it would have been and the relations at the time.

But you do realize that Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, a military target, whilst the US attacked civilian targets?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also heavily militarised areas during the time, where many civilians had been moved away from.

I'm against atomic bombs but like GI was saying, I believe it was the right decision. Saved more lives/time/money, especially US lives. My whole class argued this with an ethics teacher once, and he said because not every single person killed was a fighting soldier than we shouldn't have done it.

StarrStan wrote:

I'm against atomic bombs but like GI was saying, I believe it was the right decision. Saved more lives/time/money, especially US lives. My whole class argued this with an ethics teacher once, and he said because not every single person killed was a fighting soldier than we shouldn't have done it.

Just to further clarify my position, I think it was the wrong decision just because of what it did to the region of decades afterwards, but it is a defensible position.

Dr. Eddie Hawke wrote:

Caster of Dreams. wrote:

TLA wrote:

I would say that yes it was absolutely worth it. People always talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a great tragedy that killed thousands of people. That's true and nothing wrong with that, but people should also remember that it saved potentially millions of lives. Most historians agree that the Japanese Empire would have lost the war still anyway, but before the bombings they were prepared to sacrifice their own people (as they had been doing) in the name of their Emperor.

It's one of those situations where it's tragic that it came down to killing innocents in order to save your own people. In today's world I would never advocate this kind of action because the US military is voluntary. Meaning when you sign up you are doing so with the understanding you may very well die for your country. Back then, people were drafted and forced to fight for their country even if they did not want to. This is an important distinction because it means the thousands of Americans that would no doubt have died in a land assault on Japan are exactly the same as the innocent people who were killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Sadly most of those who were killed in the bombings would have been drafted into the Japanese military and killed when they came of age anyway. I read somewhere that a land assault on Japan would have resulted in more deaths than had been lost on any of the European fronts which were already the largest in human history.

Also consider the benefits that it had on making the US a serious player in world politics. What would the Cold War have been like if the US had sacrificed so many of its people and refused to use the bomb? The Soviet Union would have seen us as weak and I have no doubt that Stalin would have taken a more aggressive stance against the US in the years after. I could even consider a possibility where Japan was annexed as part of the Soviet Union with how weak it would have been and the relations at the time.

But you do realize that Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, a military target, whilst the US attacked civilian targets?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also heavily militarised areas during the time, where many civilians had been moved away from.

But why couldn't they just attack Kyushu, which had the greatest military power in Japan? They had all the ammunition, weapons, everything..

xkimbo wrote:

i have my own atomic bomb. it's part of my second amendment rights.

Kimbo Slice strikes again! 

No pun intended.

Stark (Phantom) wrote:

Caster of Dreams. wrote:

TLA wrote:

I would say that yes it was absolutely worth it. People always talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a great tragedy that killed thousands of people. That's true and nothing wrong with that, but people should also remember that it saved potentially millions of lives. Most historians agree that the Japanese Empire would have lost the war still anyway, but before the bombings they were prepared to sacrifice their own people (as they had been doing) in the name of their Emperor.

It's one of those situations where it's tragic that it came down to killing innocents in order to save your own people. In today's world I would never advocate this kind of action because the US military is voluntary. Meaning when you sign up you are doing so with the understanding you may very well die for your country. Back then, people were drafted and forced to fight for their country even if they did not want to. This is an important distinction because it means the thousands of Americans that would no doubt have died in a land assault on Japan are exactly the same as the innocent people who were killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Sadly most of those who were killed in the bombings would have been drafted into the Japanese military and killed when they came of age anyway. I read somewhere that a land assault on Japan would have resulted in more deaths than had been lost on any of the European fronts which were already the largest in human history.

Also consider the benefits that it had on making the US a serious player in world politics. What would the Cold War have been like if the US had sacrificed so many of its people and refused to use the bomb? The Soviet Union would have seen us as weak and I have no doubt that Stalin would have taken a more aggressive stance against the US in the years after. I could even consider a possibility where Japan was annexed as part of the Soviet Union with how weak it would have been and the relations at the time.

But you do realize that Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, a military target, whilst the US attacked civilian targets?

you do realize innocent people died at pearl harbor too right

In wars, people inevitably die, whether it was innocent or the cruel ones, but the Japanese attacked a military zone, which was Pearl Harbor. That was their main objective, in order to diminish the U.S. military's size. The US went on to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were just tiny cottage factories. They could have gone to Kyushu, where the military was actually centered at in Japan.

RESPECT. wrote:

Stark (Phantom) wrote:

Caster of Dreams. wrote:

TLA wrote:

I would say that yes it was absolutely worth it. People always talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a great tragedy that killed thousands of people. That's true and nothing wrong with that, but people should also remember that it saved potentially millions of lives. Most historians agree that the Japanese Empire would have lost the war still anyway, but before the bombings they were prepared to sacrifice their own people (as they had been doing) in the name of their Emperor.

It's one of those situations where it's tragic that it came down to killing innocents in order to save your own people. In today's world I would never advocate this kind of action because the US military is voluntary. Meaning when you sign up you are doing so with the understanding you may very well die for your country. Back then, people were drafted and forced to fight for their country even if they did not want to. This is an important distinction because it means the thousands of Americans that would no doubt have died in a land assault on Japan are exactly the same as the innocent people who were killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Sadly most of those who were killed in the bombings would have been drafted into the Japanese military and killed when they came of age anyway. I read somewhere that a land assault on Japan would have resulted in more deaths than had been lost on any of the European fronts which were already the largest in human history.

Also consider the benefits that it had on making the US a serious player in world politics. What would the Cold War have been like if the US had sacrificed so many of its people and refused to use the bomb? The Soviet Union would have seen us as weak and I have no doubt that Stalin would have taken a more aggressive stance against the US in the years after. I could even consider a possibility where Japan was annexed as part of the Soviet Union with how weak it would have been and the relations at the time.

But you do realize that Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, a military target, whilst the US attacked civilian targets?

you do realize innocent people died at pearl harbor too right

In wars, people inevitably die, whether it was innocent or the cruel ones, but the Japanese attacked a military zone, which was Pearl Harbor. That was their main objective, in order to diminish the U.S. military's size. The US went on to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were just tiny cottage factories. They could have gone to Kyushu, where the military was actually centered at in Japan.

We can only guess but the fact that the military was centered there probably had something to do with it. It would've been a lot more difficult to bomb. Also the land assault that would've occurred if Japan had not surrendered would have attacked Kyushu so the US probably wanted to keep that option open. Hiroshima was a major military base and Nagasaki was a major industrial center for the war effort so they were important targets and Nagasaki had been bombed already during the war. Psychology was a major focus on the war with Japan so aside from military strategy, the locations chosen were specifically designed to dishearten the Japanese into a surrender which is what happened.

Against but I am not going to discuss the technicality since i do not know much on the subject.

Against, I'm trynna live pleighboi.

Against. More long term consequences than benefits.

Against

Against.