Was it morally and strategically right for the US to drop the atomic bomb?

[MrShaun]

This is the 81st anniversary to the first atomic bomb being dropped. This was the beginning of the end. Three days later, on August 9th, the second bomb was dropped, bringing an end to World War 2.

Was it a good move?

[Chazmatazz269]

Strategically it was brilliant. Japan surrendered like nine days later.
Ethically it was nothing short of deplorable. It was a direct response to Japan’s attack in Pearl Harbor, a US military installation. 2400 people died in that attack, less than 70 were civilians.
More than 200,000 civilians were killed in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Untold more suffered and died for months and years after, due to radiation exposure and widespread infrastructure destruction. If your math ain’t good, that is 100 times more civilian casualties. If the roles were reversed, US citizens would unanimously agree that was a deplorably excessive response. But there is no arguing its effectiveness.
In a way, the US did acknowledge that the nukes were atrocious. The US government led the charge against nuclear proliferation. Almost certainly because they feared even an equitable retaliation or avengement. Let alone a proportional response. In 1945, the US had roughly twice the population of Japan. A proportional response would have meant the massacre of 400,000 civilians. It’s also prudent to consider how many more women would have died in attacks that targeted military industrial targets. Remember that WW2 was when more women than ever entered the workforce as men were drafted into the war.
But nobody wants to talk about that.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

@Chazmatazz269 most people also never talk about 2 realities.
1. The fire bombing of Japan was more destructive
2. Operation Downfall would have been far worse than the atomic bombings.

[Chazmatazz269]

False. The Tokyo attacks killed less than half as many people as the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and included high value political and military targets as Tokyo is the capital city.
Second, any invasion would have been required by the rules of war to target military targets and combatants exclusively. Otherwise the US would have faced international charges for war crimes.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

1 amp.scmp.com/.../activist-demands-japan-revoke-award-us-general-behind-500000-deaths-wwii The fire bombing of Japan inficted 500,000 deaths. Tokyo being the most notable.

2. www.pacificwarmuseum.org/.../bomb-pin operation downfall would have cost perhaps 1 million US casualties and 10 million Japanese

3. www.icrc.org/.../geneva-conventions-and-their-commentaries the 1949 Geneva convention covers protections for civilian. Remember, allied powers killed millions of axis civilians

[Kaneki05]

The 1st was, it ended a prolonged war that would've led to more suffering and who knows what. It massively changed the culture of Japan into a more peaceful country that became to be admired rather than a country still stuck in the old tradition of empires and wanting to kill, rule other land solving many other problems.
Japan is better off today because of it, sometimes to learn you need to be forced to open your eyes. Nvm it of course led to Ww3 still hasn't happened nor some other country trying to test a nuke out on another country which without seeing it in actual action this may not of been the case.
The 2nd however is a different case, if Soviet Union declared war sooner towards Japan and they had a week to realize the first nukes impact was very real and US for sure has more they'd surrendered soon anyway.
Really US didn't give Japan enough time to surrender which they would've done... and if not okay then drop the 2nd I don't see any reasonable purpose another one had to be dropped in such a short time to respond.

[purplepoppy]

Japan's an island a simple blockade would have brought it to its knees very quickly. Even if they never surrendered would it really matter if they couldn't leave Japan?

[Cidknee]

And attain the bomb and get it to the shores of America. Sure! 🙄

[MrChinaski]

Imperial Japan had demonstrated a preference for death over surrender throughout the conflict. Japanese civilian health was woeful in 1945. Even if your only criteria for moral decision making was the number of civilian deaths, dropping the bomb was a better outcome...

... ex post

... ex ante it was a massive bluff. Japan surrendered on the belief the US could now destroy the civilian population at will. In reality production of atomic weapons still needed to ramp up as an industrial process... the ones they dropped were basically hand-made lab experiments.

[itss_lily]

no. absolutely not! hundreds of thousands were killed, mostly civilians. dropping an atomic bomb is never moral

[FrodoSkywalker007]

Should Operation Downfall have been launched instead?

[Agape93]

Perish the thought, soldiers dying in a war on another nations soil.
Lol jokes aside idgaf personally. But y'all have fun bickering

[FrodoSkywalker007]

@Agape93 well, I suppose it was either launching an invasion that would take an estimated 10 million or more lives and extend the war by at least a year, or use a new destructive technology.

[Agape93]

Either one I'd have been happy with lol hence idgaf

[FrodoSkywalker007]

@Agape93 lol well, glad you are happy with the use of the atomic bombs. Civilian casualties really have nothing to do with it. The fire bombing or Tokyo was more destructive. Civilians made up the majority of losses.
@itss_lily likely doesn't realize that.
Modern people are quite ignorant.

[Agape93]

Agreed.

Yeap, I've been calling for a few counties to be nuked for about 2 years now

[itss_lily]

@FrodoSkywalker007 false dichotomy lol

[FrodoSkywalker007]

Hey, if you preferred a land invasion of a empire that usually fought to the last man.
If you preferred the war to continue another year at least.
If you preferred millions of extra deaths.
That's your problem

[itss_lily]

@FrodoSkywalker007 again, that's a false dichotomy.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

No, it's you realizing your ignorant of the topic.

[itss_lily]

@FrodoSkywalker007 no, you made a false dichotomy.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

@itss_lily so what's the other choice?

[strateguy632]

Based on what they thought at the time: nuking german cities might have been moral. In 1945. But it was not prepared before doenitz-n surrendered.

Or maybe just as deterrent, but not first use. As einstein said, "need as a "deter to nazi" who were building atom bomb".

But against japan no doubt: not justified. I believe a republican president would not use it on japan.

It was bad strategy and i believe immoral. Truman -d stained america and its history. Despite warnings from generals and admirals and probably einstein too.

The other option was to do what russia did to manchuria but from china side. Soviet should not have violated treaty with japan.

[RingOfFire]

It was absolutely morally right. The United States was attacked by Japan in a surprise attack that led to a vicious war. In fact the Atomic bomb SAVED millions of lives because if America did not have it they would have had to invade Japan with ground forces and millions of soldiers and civilians would have been killed in what definitely would have been a massive battle.

One of the lives saved was my father, who was a US Navy officer serving with the Sixth Marine Division in China when they dropped the bomb. He was there in case the bomb didn't work and his division would have had to be on the front line of the invasion of Japan. I almost certainly wouldn't be here today if Japan had not surrendered because of the two atomic bombs America used to end the war that lead to Japan's surrender and ended Imperial Japan's threat to the entire world.

[Twalli]

This is actually heavily debated among historians. When going for my degree I believe I participated in 7 debates on this very topic. My personal opinion is that dropping the second one necessitated dropping the first one. It illustrated that we had nuclear capabilities and were not afraid to use them. One bomb shows what we can do, the second bomb shows we're willing to do it again. It also probably stopped The Cold War from being the US and USSR nuking each other. Even if The Soviets had nuclear weapons, MAD was attached if they nuked the US.

[Cidknee]

Well, a bright side to the horrible mess after all.

[ChiTown33]

Before that there was no point of reference. I mean you can say it was wrong. But only the guys in the know really new the true scale of the destruction. To that point we were only thnking the lives that would be saved. And besides they say the fire bombing that preceded it killed far more.

[Kelley1]

It was unnecessary. Japan has already agreed to surrender on the condition that we don't arrest and prosecute their God; something MacAuther chose not to do anyway.

[loveslongnails]

All the yahoos will say "yes, of course", but it could have been avoided with a demonstration of it's power to the Japanese by simply blowing up one of their uninhabited islands in the Pacific.

[Cidknee]

I think not! They continued after the first one decimated Hiroshima.

[loveslongnails]

@Cidknee Think whatever you like. It took all of 9 days to surrender after Hiroshima. Nagasaki was 3 days after Hiroshima, hardly enough time to get a warring nation to surrender. The US could have demonstrated it's weapon then given them a set amount of time to surrender with an ultimatum. "You think not"? I doubt you've ever even THOUGHT about what else could have been done.

[Cidknee]

They could have NOT sneak attacked Pearl harbor killing about 3k Americans and no bombs would have been used on them.

[loveslongnails]

@Cidknee 2,403 Americans were killed at Pearl Harbor. 210,000 Japanese were killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So what's your point? Never mind, you don't have one, per usual.

[Cidknee]

You overlook the punishment for attacking and attempting to kill or enslave free Americans. You're to busy thinking up insults to keep an eye on the target. The point being, had they not tucked around they'd not been conquered.

[loveslongnails]

@Cidknee Good Lord, you're such a brainwashed little snit. LOL The USA didn't "conquer" Japan, they got them to surrender. The US occupied Japan for about 7 years and they began to industrialize. They started exporting goods to the US en masse, and by the early 60's, "made in Japan" was on half the labels of products in the USA. By the late 70's and 80's, US businesses were closing their factories because they couldn't compete. Sounds like a real conquering, doesn't it?

Now the USA gets nearly all its hard goods from China, Japan or Asia, while you and your friends are still waiting for all those manufacturing jobs to come back, as promised by your hero, the Rotund Rapist. LOL

[Cidknee]

Lol, you believe in such weird shit. Lol

[loveslongnails]

@Cidknee You mean like... FACTS? Yeah, really weird shit. What are you LOL' about --- everything I said in the previous paragraph is a historical, verifiable, provable fact. The other parts were opinions. Learn the difference.

What's really weird is that you DON'T believe them. That's the weird shit, dude.

[Cidknee]

You've no idea what I believe! You're a strange dude. You think you are smart, going around speaking this and that but actually you're pretty stupid. If you set aside that ego you may see things that you have missed.

[Cidknee]

You must have missed the FACTS talked about by Eisenhower and Truman. How the Japanese would never surrender. This was the reason for the second one to be dropped. This is what broke their spirit.

[loveslongnails]

@Cidknee Thanks for proving my point that you don't even KNOW the difference between facts and opinions. That they SAID it... is a FACT. WHAT they said, was their OPINION. It's MY opinion that EVERYTHING they said was to justify the use of the weapon.

And you call ME stupid and full of ego? You couldn't even swim through that. LOL

"This is what broke their spirit" -------- also an opinion. It's called "confirmation bias"; it's what you want it to be to validate your opinion, so you stop looking for more information.

I don't care what you "believe", I hear what you SAY. I hear your defense of Trump and that's how I know you're goddamn moron. Pssst... you also don't know the difference between ignorant and stupid.

[Cidknee]

No, that's where you are stupid. If you can't weigh human conditioning, and refrain from dismissing all that is talked about, in favor that leaves what you already said valid.
You speak as though you were next to them.
😅
Tell me Einstein, do you carry those numbers in your vast memory? You must have the numbers for the dead at Iwo Jima, Midway, and at Sterling when William Wallace was fighting for independence?
You presume to know the feelings of what was said while not knowing either individual. You are one arrogant ashore! 🥹
😅🖖🫰👍

[loveslongnails]

@Cidknee No, that's where you are stupid.- Again, you don't know the difference.
* If you can't weigh human conditioning * What does that mean?
* and refrain from dismissing all that is talked about- Refrain from what? You present NO facts, opinion.
* in favor that leaves what you already said valid. -- The only VALIDITY worth talking about here is how you foolish keep RE-STATING your OWN opinions as IF they were facts simply because it fits your scenario.

I'm giving OPINIONS -- you're countering them with your OWN opinions AS IF they are facts.
Why? For the reasons I already stated.

" You presume to know the feelings of what was said while not knowing either individual. You are one arrogant ashore! 🥹" --- Your density is remarkable. It's my OPINION, considering all the FACTS that I'm aware of during that time of war, which includes Eisenhower's personality, statements and repartee, and my OPINION of Truman's Presidency, that I said what I did.
It's my OPINION that at that time, they had no other choice but to say "This was our only option".
Get it bozo?

Things like this -- " Tell me Einstein, ... etc," are your infantile behaviors on display. You will NEVER find me reporting numbers or stats that I haven't researched. I'm done with you on this point.

[loveslongnails]

lol my sticky keyboard typos:
* you present no facts, only opinions
* ... how you foolishly...

I'll further point out that I form my opinions based on available facts, but I know full well that doesn't make my OPINION a fact, it just gives it some foundation. There actually IS foundation for some of the things you've said, but you're too lost in your own bullshit to know what to do with it.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

Those who argue against rarely know that Operation Downfall was planned. It was a massive invasion of Japan. Millions of dead were expected.

The US saved lives.

[strateguy632]

And you don't know about manchuria in 1945. Many admirals and generals said do not use it on japan.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

@strateguy632 yes I'm aware of the soviet invasion of Manchuria

[strateguy632]

despite soviet treaty. we needed to do that. then they would surrender without invading honshu.

[Cidknee]

Yes, it was considering the hundreds of thousands of US lives that were saved to return back to their families after the brutal sneak attack upon Pearl Harbor.

[Agape93]

Sure. They should have glasses a different area though

[lightbulb27]

You mean blow up the emperor?

[Agape93]

Glassed* and I mean nuke the middle east. Prevent future problems

[lightbulb27]

Probably happens at some point. there's no way to resolve the hate.

[Agape93]

Sure there is. Take the side causing 90% of the problems, and rip them from the garden, root and stem.

[MrChinaski]

@Agape93 You think more conflict in the middle east would have sorted things out... that 1000 years of conflict wasn't enough, but one or two nukes would suddenly change things for the better?

[Agape93]

Can't hurt

[msc545]

No, it was absolutely unnecessary and completely immoral. The US did this only because they wanted to play with its new toy and it wanted to impress Russia.

[Cidknee]

Wrong, doc! You should research it. And if you have and see it this way then what's a fella to do?

[exitseven]

Yes, it shortened WW2 considerably and saved many American lives

[KostasKouvalis]

No, but it's not like the Japanese fought clean and were in general good people

[FrodoSkywalker007]

The only other option was Operation Downfall

[KostasKouvalis]

I don't know what that is

[FrodoSkywalker007]

The US planned an invasion. Estimated 10 million Japanese losses.

[KostasKouvalis]

Seriously? That's more than they got with the bomb.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

Yes, they expected it to last a year, and for the US military to suffer 1 million casualties as well.

[noohair]

The alternative would have been an invasion of Japan. That would have cost millions of lives on both sides. Yes; it was the correct thing to do.

[NathanDavis]

war is never moral...

period

[Cidknee]

But sometimes it's necessary, aye champ!

[MrChinaski]

Sure it is.

[NathanDavis]

moral... and necessary

these are two very different things... lol

[canamlusciouslad73]

H**L to the NO, at least morally.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

@canamlusciouslad73 Operation Downfall would have been preferable?

[canamlusciouslad73]

@FrodoSkywalker007 I think it was easier "morally" to incinerate slant-eyed, yellow-skinned people than other white folk, even if the other Caucasians had been hideous, genocidal maniacs.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

So the Japenese never committed genocide? 🤔