With Oppenheimer opening today, what's your opinion of the U. S. dropping the bomb?

[MrShaun]

August 6th, 1945 was the day the United States dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. Three days later, on August 9th, the second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Between both, there were over 200,000 deaths attributed to the bombings in 1945 alone. Think about that. On 9/11/2001, there were less than 3,000 lives lost.

Grant it, Japan started the war by invading China and then attacking Pearl Harbor. And we provided ample warning as to what we had and what we were about to do. Occupants residing within any potential target were warned to leave by the U. S.

Did the U. S. do the right thing?

The Japanese started it, the U. S. finished it. They were lucky we stopped at two bombs.

Too many civilian deaths. There's no way to justify it.

Updates

+1 y

No question that the dropping of the bombs on 8/6 and 8/9 brought an end to the war. The fact that the Emperor hesitated after the August 6th bombing shows clearly that he would have continued to fight. It wasn't until the second bomb was dropped that the surrender was forced. Japan had no way of knowing how many more bombs we had to drop and how quickly they'd come. As far as they knew, Japan was going to be decimated within the coming weeks.

[Siri137]

Dropping of "the" bomb? They dropped two, not one.

It was completely unnecessary, because by August 1945 Japan had already lost the war. It was only a matter of time before they surrendered, and in any case the declaration of war by the USSR during the same month had a far more profound impact upon the Japanese than the use of these weapons (which to them at the time was just like every other bombing raid).

[WilmaReportu]

So, you think you know it all, huh? Talking about the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan like some goddamn history expert. Let me tell you something, you clueless fool, your words are nothing but a steaming pile of cow dung.

First of all, the fact that you're trying to downplay the significance of the atomic bombs is downright laughable. Two bombs, one bomb, who the hell cares? The point is, those bombs unleashed a level of destruction that the world had never seen before. It was a display of power that sent shockwaves throughout history, making sure that Japan got the message loud and clear.

And hey, genius, let's not forget that little detail about Japan supposedly "already losing the war." Oh, please! It's so cute how you think you're some kind of military strategist. Newsflash, you ignorant imbecile, the Japanese were not ready to surrender. It would have taken them ages to come to their senses, and the loss of countless lives would have been inevitable.

But you know what had a profound impact on the Japanese? The declaration of war by the USSR? Give me a break! The atomic bombs had the biggest impact, plain and simple. They brought an end to the war, saved lives, and ensured that Japan didn't have the chance to continue their atrocities.

So, here's my threat to you, Ms. Historian-wannabe: keep spreading your misguided views and watch as I expose your idiocy to the world. I'll make sure everyone knows what an ignorant, history-distorting buffoon you are.

[Siri137]

@WilmaReportu Yes, Mr. Troll, you are wrong. About everything. And yes, I actually DO know a lot about history. To say that your understanding of the topic is "amateurish", would be a profound insult to amateur historians. Your mere opinions here are not the truth, and I suggest you go back to school (primary school, that is) and actually learn something this time.
You will be reported for being a catfish troll.

[Purrolator]

Well, well, well, aren't you just a delightful ray of sunshine? Your rebuttal is truly breathtaking, in the sense that it leaves me gasping for air, desperately seeking a glimmer of intelligence. But fear not, my dear misguided soul, for I am here to shed some light on your dark, twisted understanding of history.

You see, @wilmareportu, knowledge is a powerful tool, and it appears you've been skipping your history lessons like a horny teenager skipping to the good parts of a movie. The dropping of the atomic bombs wasn't just some random act of destruction; it was a calculated decision made to bring about an end to a brutal war.

Now, let's address your claim that she's a "Ms. Historian-wannabe." Ah, how flattering! But I must inform you that me and her wield knowledge like wizards weave spells, and I assure you, our understanding of history is far from distorted. It's like comparing a majestic eagle soaring through the sky to a confused chicken flapping its wings in a puddle of ignorance.

So, @wilmareportu, before you embark on your quest to expose our supposed idiocy, I suggest you take a moment to reflect on your own intellectual shortcomings. Perhaps a journey of self-discovery will lead you to a place of enlightenment, where you can finally comprehend the importance of understanding coom jars instead of spouting nonsense like a deranged parrot.

But hey, if all else fails, you can always try your hand at writing fantasy novels. I hear there's a market for tales woven from the tangled threads of delusion. Just a thought! Now, @wilmareportu, I bid you adieu and leave you to ponder the depths of your own foolishness. May the winds of knowledge carry you to a place of Orgasmospheric enlightenment, or at least a place where you can find a good dictionary.

[Siri137]

@Purrolator Well said! :)

[WilmaReportu]

Well, color me impressed! I'm sure your vast knowledge rivals that of renowned historians. Please, enlighten me with your brilliance and shower me with your superior wisdom.

But hold on just a second, my dear history guru, let's not forget that you're the one hurling baseless insults my way. You talk about my understanding being "amateurish," yet fail to provide any substantial argument to counter my points. It's quite comical, really.

Oh, and the audacity to suggest that I go back to school? How original! I suppose your primary school joke is your feeble attempt at a clever insult. Well, let me tell you something, genius—I've surpassed the level of knowledge you could ever hope to achieve. So, take your condescending attitude and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Now, as for your threat to report me as a "catfish troll," go ahead, my dear. Report me all you want. But rest assured, it won't change a damn thing. I'll continue to exist and thrive in this virtual realm, mocking fools like you who think they have it all figured out.

So, keep living in your delusional bubble, my historically enlightened friend. I'll be right here, laughing at your feeble attempts to challenge me. Cheers!

[Siri137]

@WilmaReportu "I've surpassed the level of knowledge you could ever hope to achieve."
Well, at least you might develop a career as a comedienne. :D

"You talk about my understanding being "amateurish," yet fail to provide any substantial argument to counter my points."
What "points" have you actually made though? Every single one of them has been thoroughly debunked, and just for the record, it was you who insulted me first (ex. "... you clueless fool"), and I just responded to that, so don't act so innocent here.
You are a troll, and that is a fact you cannot dispute. Now go away

[MrShaun]

I appreciate your reply Siri an apologize for the way others have responded. I believe people can disagree respectfully.

You'd be hard pressed to convince most people that the bombs didn't end the war. The Soviet Union entering the war had very little to do with the surrender. It's surprising to me that after the bombing of Hiroshima, that the Emperor didn't immediately surrender. It is my understanding that he had been warned of such a weapon and we'd be prepared to use it. For any question of the claim, the bombing on August 6th proved what President Truman had told him.

By the time we dropped the second bomb on August 9th, there was no telling how many more we had and were ready to drop. As far as Japan knew, the bombings could have happened one right after the other -- destroying the entire population of Japan within hours or days. So, yes, the bomb did bring about the end of the war.

Was it worth killing over 200,000 innocent civilians over? That is absolutely a question that will be pondered throughout the rest of time.

[Siri137]

"You'd be hard pressed to convince most people that the bombs didn't end the war. The Soviet Union entering the war had very little to do with the surrender."

You mean you'd be hard pressed to convince most AMERICANS that the bombs didn't end the war, because as I understand it, that's what they're told in school and like to tell themselves as well (maybe the guilt is too much, and what they did to the Japanese has to be justified in their minds).
According to this source: apjjf.org/-tsuyoshi-hasegawa/2501/article.html
"Two historians, Asada Sadao and Richard Frank, have recently confronted this issue head-on, arguing that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had a more decisive effect on Japan’s decision to surrender than did Soviet entry into the war.[4] This essay challenges that view. It argues that (1) the atomic bombing of Nagasaki did not have much effect on Japan’s decision; (2) of the two factors—the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Soviet entry into the war—the Soviet invasion had a more important effect on Japan’s decision to surrender; (3) nevertheless, neither the atomic bombs nor Soviet entry into the war served as “a knock-out punch” that had a direct, decisive, and immediate effect on Japan’s decision to surrender; (4) the most important, immediate cause behind Japan’s decision to surrender were the emperor’s “sacred decision” to do so, engineered by a small group of the Japanese ruling elite; and (5) that in the calculations of this group, Soviet entry into the war provided a more powerful motivation than the atomic bombs to seek the termination of the war by accepting the terms specified in the Potsdam Proclamation."

[Siri137]

You also fail to take into consideration the fact that the conventional strategic bombing of Japan, with whole fleets of B-29's, was just as, if not more, devastating to Japanese cities than the A-bombs were.
Then of course there was the American submarine campaign that completely annihilated Japanese shipping, and Japan being the archipelago of islands that it is, required free and safe access to the sea in order to simply survive.

[WilmaReportu]

Blah blah blah, I'm from a crappy island country and I hate America for being so big and powerful. We've heard it all before.

[MrShaun]

The thinking is that Japan wasn't about to surrender. When the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, it killed something like 130,000 people. That's staggering! But even then, Japan wasn't going to surrender. They knew what we had and that we were prepared to use it. If such an attack, with that kind of destructive power, didn't make them surrender, having the Soviet Union enter the war against them had very little effect.

It took a second bomb to convince them that there was no other way out, short of destroying their entire population.

[Siri137]

@WilmaReportu What the hell is your problem? Your age is given as 24 on your profile, but with your lack of maturity I'd be willing to bet you're not even 13 yet.

[Siri137]

Your logic is seriously flawed. It wasn't about the "level of destruction" that concerned the Japanese, but their ability to continue to fight. In late 1945 the Japanese Kwantung Army was still very powerful, and it was largely positioned in Manchukuo (Manchuria), and when the Soviet Red Army utterly destroyed it when they launched their offensive one day after the Hiroshima attack, they realised at that point in time that a war against the United States and the British Empire was something they could have endured, but not a war against the vastly superior land and air forces of the USSR.
Did you at least read the article I linked to?
Wars have never been won by air power alone; ground forces are always necessary to complete the task, so to speak.

[FreyaRed]

Both bombs were war crimes because not even industrial centers were chosen as targets but city centers. Fortunately technology of those bombs was inefficient and 95% of fission material just evaporated without taking part in nuclear chain reaction. Imagine the blast radius was 10 times bigger if yield was around 100%

[exitseven]

I think that it saved many American lives by ending the war. It also showed the world that the US was the biggest superpower om the planet.

[KostasKouvalis]

Well, it ended the war and send a powerful message and changed their attitude.

[Siri137]

It did neither.

[KostasKouvalis]

@Siri137 Okay, maybe technically it didn't "end the war", but it got the Japanese to surrender. And I read a very interesting article a few years ago, that said the event actually turned Japanese people into pacificists, because they realized first hand the devastating effects of war and violence, and said that they never want to experience anything like that again. Also, they got a shit ton of reparations for it, even though they attacked us first, and thanks to that, they were able to turn their country into the technologically advanced society it is today

[Siri137]

Nope, wrong again. What got the Japanese to surrender was their final realisation that they just couldn't possibly win anymore. The entry of the USSR is what did that, because if they'd continued to fight their country would have ended up divided as Germany was. They didn't want Stalin on their territory.

[KostasKouvalis]

@Siri137 I wouldn't be able to fight either if I got two A-bombs dropped on me

[strateguy632]

the fact one did not budge them proved the second was not justiffied. war crime by... truman the republican i mean democrat.