Liberals should stop claiming dropping Atomic weapons on Nagasaki &Hiroshima were immoral &unnecessary here's why!


Nagasaki and Hiroshima had been left untouched on purpose to demonstrate to the Japanese the power of the Atom bomb and to convince them to surrender.
Without them more Japanese would have died in the invasion. So it saved Japanese and American lives.Tokyo had already been flattened by B29s and firebombing, with 120,000+ civilian deaths and 1,000,000 displaced which is comparable to each atomic bomb as the two atomic bombs combined killed 210,000.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima had been left untouched on purpose to demonstrate to the Japanese the power of the Atom bomb and to convince them to surrender.
The Japanese were willing to lose tens of thousands for tiny worthless islands in the Pacific, allied bombing of Japan alone had cost them 900,000 before Hiroshima&Nagasaki. The Japanese sacrificed 100,000 military personel in Okinawa and as much as 150,000 civilians out 300,000. 19 000 dead Japanese soldiers out 20,000 on iwa jima, 19,000 soldiers on Guadalcanal out of 35,000, 130,000 out of 350,000 in New Guinea campaign, 21,000 soldiers Gilbert and Marshall Islands campaign, 69,000 out 71,000 for the Mariana and Palau Islands campaign, Battle of Saipan out of 32,000 soldiers they lost 24,000 KIA and 5,000 suicides, Battle of Guam 18,000 out of 18,500 soldiers were kia, Battle of Peleliu out 10,900 10,675 were kia, Battle of Leyte out of 65,000 they lost 49,000. In the Burma Campaign they lost 200,000 out 350,000, they lost 85,000 against the Soviets.

The japanese personal were relentlessly willing to die for their emperor even if it meant certain death. Japanese civilians often killed themselves.
The Japanese killed 35 million Chinese and forced 200,000 chinese and korean women to be prostitutes for Japanese soldiers, thst doesn't include all the rapes of the people's they occupied.

bombings caused the Japanese surrender, thereby preventing casualties that an invasion of Japan would have involved. It saved millions of casualties in exchange of 120,000 lives. A naval blockade might have starved the Japanese into submission without an invasion, but this would also have resulted in many more millions Japanese deaths.

Liberals should stop claiming dropping Atomic weapons on Nagasaki &Hiroshima were immoral &unnecessary here's why!

For those liberals who say Japan tried to surrender to the United States before the Atomic bombs were dropped yes this may be true but the United States was part of the allies who had already agreed by all the allies in the 1942 Declaration by United Nations that only unconditional surrender would be accepted by all Axis countries.

Liberals should stop claiming dropping Atomic weapons on Nagasaki &Hiroshima were immoral &unnecessary here's why!
Add Opinion
15Girl Opinion
53Guy Opinion

Most Helpful Guys

  • cth96190

    I will speak from the perspective of a former army officer, who knows a bit more about such things than a university indocrinated Marxist fuckwit who is looking for another way to vilify white people.
    Plan B was an invasion, which would have had an unacceptable casualty figure.
    Plan C was to maintain the naval blockade; continue bombing everything that resembled a building; use biological weapons to destroy all crops; spread the plague, anthrax, typhus, rabies and smallpox.
    Maintain the form of attack until there was no evidence of human life, then wait long enough for the biological agents to run their course, then land the invasion force.
    As a student of history, who knows rather a lot about the nature of Japanese war crimes, I would have picked Plan C rather than two atomic bombs.
    LikeDisagree 11 People
    Is this still revelant?
    • zagor

      If you knew more about biological weapons you would know that they have the potential for vastly unintended consequences.

    • cth96190

      Known diseases contained on an island are fairly predictable.
      Certainly the fleet that was blockading Japan would not have been at risk and that would have been all that mattered.

    • Plan C could not have been maintained indefinitely.

  • markscott
    I'm a liberal, and have always believe that dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was moral, as it saved many times the number of lives that it cost. Had the war continued into 1946, there would have been terrific bloodshed, as the Japanese were very fanatical. Great numbers of military personnel on both sides would have died, but worse, massive numbers of Japanese civilians would also have died. Many times more than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's just some liberals who believe the atom bombs were immoral. if you want to look at is from a completely moral sense, the whole war was immoral, but it was the Japanese who started the conquests in the Far East around 1931.
    LikeDisagree 2 People
    Is this still revelant?

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

  • ladsin
    I wrote something quite similar not long ago but couldn’t find it. Essentially I can understand both arguments but find myself in greater agreement with the utilitarian argument that it was justifiable.
    Like 1 Person
  • madhatters4
    " but the United States was part of the allies who had already agreed by all the allies in the 1942 Declaration by United Nations that only unconditional surrender would be accepted by all Axis countries."

    so if this is true. then why did the japanese still get away with a conditional surrender? why were the conditions of surrender after the A-Bombs the EXACT same terms of surrender the japanese sent with the USSR to the potsdam meetings?
    • Britantic

      The Japan surrendered unconditionally, they were hoping to keep their military and Manchuria as well as not be occupied. Unconditional surrender was mentioned at Potsdam meeting.
      The Potsdam conference was held on the On July 26, 1945, the first atom bomb was dropped on August 6, the Soviets didn't declare war on Japan and invade Manchuria breaking their pact with the Japanese until 9 August, later on the 9th of August the 2nd atom bomb was dropped, August 15 the emperor agrees to surrender unconditionally, 28th of August the occupation of Japan begins. So fanatical were the japanes that many of their military fought on in the Pacific for days, months, years and decades after the Japanese surrender.

    • keeping their military and their emperial leader is not an unconditional surrender.
      the allies (america and britain) called for an unconditional surrender at potsdam but the ultimate surrender was not unconditional. it's not an unconditional surrender if there are conditions allowed

    • Britantic

      An unconditional surrender is a surrender in which no guarantees are given to the surrendering party.
      Japan was completely at the mercy of the US occupation army and the entire country was under control of the supreme commander MacArthur. The US had the power to depose the emperor as well as try and execute him as a war criminal but chose not to. The Japanese had no guarantees the US wouldn't do that and no guarantees of anything.

    • Show All
  • CoffeeWC
    Bad things happen during war. However, war remains a necessary option to resolve conflicts between countries.
    LikeDisagree 4 People
  • SpiderManFan2002
    I disagree. I think this was immoral.

    Dropping the atomic bomb on those cities not only killed many innocent people, but it is still affecting people today. Innocent babies are being born with deformities all because one person decided to press that button.
    LikeDisagree 6 People
    • Britantic

      So would wiping out millions by invading Japan have been more moral?

    • No! Nothing would have been moral it was war, so how could have anything been moral?

      Go tell a mother or father in Japan, who have children with deformities that attack was a moral thing to do!

    • Britantic

      Would it have been more moral to allow the Japanese to continue killing million of chinese people? Should the Nazis have been allowed to wipe out all of Europe's Jews & Slavs?
      I would happily go tell a mother or father in Japan, who have children with deformities that it was brought on my their ancestors actions.

    • Show All
  • NineBreaker
    I think that dropping the nukes was ordinarily too send a brave because Japan's military philosophy was at sharp odds with that odd the Western factions (e. g. Germany, USA, Britain... etc.). To the best of my understanding, capturing POW's and keeping them alive was not unheard of. In part, it's in the hopes that if their POW's are treated well, they'll treat ours likewise.

    This leads me to a question about the surrender's dilemma in the European front:
    Option 1: Fight to the death -> almost no chance of survival.
    Option 2: Surrender, and possibly survive.

    Captured POW's have also been an excellent source of intel on an adversary.

    However, in the Pacific front, Japanese soldiers were far less likely to surrender or take captives. I think the nukes were merely a deterrent: Surrender collectively, or get nuked many times over.

    Even if you argue for the morality of doing the first nuke, the 2nd was dropped almost immediately afterwards. Did it catalyze surrender? Sure.

    While many have died, is it possible that far many more would have died, and that by killing many, you prevented the killing if far many more.

    This leads to the moral dilemma similar to "If you could travel back in time and kill cute little baby Hitler?"
    Or the unstoppable train dilemma:
    "Should you flip the switch to save many, knowing that it will firmly m definitely kill one person?"

    The easier answer is that of utilitarianism: The decision that benefits the most in spite of harming the few is the most ethical.

    I agree it's a good choice most if the time, but sometimes I agree that utility isn't always the right answer, due to unintended consequences.

    For example:
    1. What if by killing baby Hitler, a far, far worse monster rises to occupy that vacancy?
    2. What if the one person the train ran over was to discover a very potent and inexpensive cure for AIDS, an is instead obliterated by the train?

    In any case, it's not much of an issue of liberals being stupid for questioning the morality of doing the nukes, or the implied morality of conservatives for presumptively considering it to be ethical.

    My broken is with people who only see things as up/down black/white without considering that some things are far more complicated to give a completely satisfactory position.

    My main issue with the use of nukes is the lasting effects of the lasting effects of radiation on living organisms, especially the people affected for countless generations to come. They are innocent, and we shouldn't be OK with that.

    If the US government knew about the health effects of ionizing radiation and still did nothing, it would be due to one of two reasons, or combination thereof:
    1. They didn't care. They knew and didn't care.
    2. Desperation: they don't want to lose the war due to the ruthlessness exhibited by Japanese troops in areas like China.

    Anyway... these are these are my thoughts.
    LikeDisagree 2 People
  • HungLikeAHorsefly
    Okay, so what Liberals say this? Like, who?

    Anybody with even an ounce of knowledge of 20th Century history knows what options Truman had and why he made the choice that he did. That doesn't make it moral. In fact, that's the whole problem: all of his options were immoral. That's the price of being a leader (in political philosophy, this is called the Dirty Hands Paradox). Saying that dropping the bomb is moral because the other options were worse is just stupid.
    Like 1 Person
  • hahahmm
    I think the real reason two bombs were dropped was to test them on live people. The research data on treating the victims & monitoring them for decades was worth a lot if you wanted to plan future nuclear wars. Of course that does not sound very moral so a cover story was needed.

    In the context of a war where all sides bombed civilians on purpose it doesn’t really matter tho
    Like 1 Person
  • EpicDweeb
    I tend to agree. The nature of the Japanese would have been to fight to the last man... Woman and child. If not for those bombs millions more Americans and Japanese would have died in that war. As terrible as it was it saved far more lives than it took.
    LikeDisagree 2 People
  • GuidoThePizzaMaker
    The fire bombings of Tokyo, show that woth or without the nuke the USA was adamant about making Japan surrender and ending the war.

    Not to mention, people forget that in Manchurria the full assault of the Soviets was taking place.

    Japan had no choice to surrender. The Atomic bomb just made them surrender sooner.

    In war times commanders need to make tough decisions. That was one of them. Its not good or bad. It is what it is

    LikeDisagree 2 People
  • BCA6010
    You don't need to preach this one - anybody who actually believes we were wrong for doing that probably isn't concerned with facts or acknowledging that the mindset of the time was radically different from today.
    LikeDisagree 2 People
    I don't know. The project started in 1941 and probably originally intended for the Nazis. Berlin looked like it was going to fall by the time it was completed. What's done is done. The allies killed almost a million Japanese civilians prior to that point (Japanese total casualties in ww2 is 3.2m, with 1m civilians). The bombs killed what? 150k combine? It feels more like a demonstration to the Soviets after the iron Curtin split Europe. Meh, it's already done lol.
    Like 1 Person
  • laurieluvsit
    Great informative myTake Ms Britantic!

    Most GAGer's don't know how much work is put into myTakes like this - thank you for all your hard work!Liberals should stop claiming dropping Atomic weapons on Nagasaki &Hiroshima were immoral &unnecessary here's why!
    LikeDisagree 4 People
  • Guanfei
    In fact, it's wrong. Half wrong I should say. Of course, Japan did nasty shit. Of course the US wanted a quick victory as the americans were getting tired of the war.
    But above all, the bomb was a display of power, to the world, and mostly to the russians. The US wanted to show they had the bomb, they wouldn't hesitate to use it, and that USSR should calm its ass as it was now the US who had the upper hand.
    That's all there is to it. The US showing their shiny toy to impress the russians.
    Like 3 People
  • Massageman
    You're right, of course. War sucks: we know that! A longer war sucks more, by extrapolation. The two A-bombs used on Japan were (relatively) low-power by today's standards. Looking at the big picture, the result was a quick resolution to the war and a net saving of thousands- if not millions more lives- that would have been lost had the war droned on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on any longer than it had.
    LikeDisagree 2 People
  • SnoodlePoodle
    They claim it was immoral and unnecessary? Do they know what the Japanese DID during the war?
    LikeDisagree 5 People
    • Britantic

      Most don't seem to know anything about ww2. The Japanese were prepared to fight to the death.

    • Yeah, it was terrible. And wow, I can't imagine being that ignorant. I mean, it sucks to know the truth, but I'd rather know it than not.

  • Nadim171
    Honestly, both sides had their immoralitlies. It has nothing to do with liberalism. Those who were killed by the Americans were innocents who had nothing to do with the empire. Soliders were sent to fight a rich man's war just like 90% of modern wars
    Like 1 Person
    • Britantic

      ... and if the US had invaded how many Japanese civilians would have died.
      Also those civilians were the ones building the bombs, bullets and bayonets.

    • Nadim171

      Were forced to build the bombs, the bullets and the bayonets*
      Whether Axis or allied soliders wanted or didn't want to fight they were forced to do so. If they refuse they would have been killed

    • Britantic

      Forced? They were employed.
      Most US soldiers were volunteers. Japanese soldiers were happy to die for their emperor. Some soldiers fought to the last bullet, Japanese soldiers didn't even wait for that, they launched human wave banzai charges, or suicide vests, or crawled under tanks to blow them up, or kamikaze attacks with planes, manned missles, manned torpedoes or boats. The Japanese were still fighting to the death on papa New guinea and other islands after the surrender. Some for days others for months, some for years and quite a few for decades.

    • Show All
  • cunnilinguist
    When you go to war, you know what you're going into. If the people do not agree, they overthrow the government. Without people to fire the guns, drive the tanks and fly the planes there's no war anyway.
    LikeDisagree 2 People
  • Poormanscomedian
    I think Truman made the right decision , even though he died feeling guilty. It was a tough decision that had to be made.
    LikeDisagree 2 People
  • Nina2123
    When will we stop fighting and have peace as a nation.
    It's easier for other countries to invade us if we keep fighting about the little stuff and not focusing on the freedom that we have to think an act as we please. And working together to keep it.
    This country was founded on the principle of freedom and if we keep fighting it won't be that way for very long, because a house divided against itself cannot stand, same goes for a nation.
    Like 1 Person
  • ZeussLightningBolt
    Also, the A bomb made them the Pacifists they are today, and reparations also helped them become the most technologically advanced nations on earth. It's called "utilizing resources". We wanted to win. We had atom bombs, so we used them. That THEY didn't have any is THEIR problem. The Japanese were amongst the most brutal people on earth. Of course it's always sad when civilians die, but that's war. We gave them the taste of their own medicine they needed to change their violent ways.

    Good Take. I wasn't aware of the numbers of soldiers and civilians lost, so thanks for posting that.

    by the way, how do you feel about the US government putting Japanese-Americans into internment camps?
    LikeDisagree 4 People
    • Britantic

      Seems like a natural precaution. We did the same with Germans, Austrians and Italians in Britain during ww2.

    • You DID?
      Yet no one complains.

      And I read about the camps, they weren't so bad. They just had lack of privacy and crappy food. But everyone was given paid jobs, and they were able to play sports and grow gardens.

    • Britantic

      During ww2 rationing was in full swing so the food was pretty crappy anyway, everyone in the country was put to work, even the queen was a mechanic.
      Interned enemy foreign nationals were litterally sent to a holiday camp on the isle of man.

    • Show All
  • Show More (46)