Your opinions on the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[Bram Turismo]

Ok, here's the deal:

Right now I'm in the middle of my English project, and as subject, I have chosen the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I've gathered as much facts as I could, but now for the last part, I need to discuss the whole thing. Instead of only my own opinion for adding, I thought I would ask some what you guys think about it, since I'm not American...

So, as an American, how do you feel towards the bombings?

- Do you think it ended the war earlier?
- Did it indeed end the war earlier, or was it just America being hopeless, and instead killing more civilians than enemies?
- Even though this kind of power was discovered earlier on, should America have ever been allowed to use it against human lives?
- What are your general opinions on the whole fact?
- As a result of the bombings, do you find America guilty or related in any way towards current and/or earlier nuclear activity by eastern countries or the Soviets?


If this thread is inappropriat in any way, allow me to apologize myself, I thought a couple of your opinions could do my project good instead of all the Norwegian opinions 👍

 

[Denur]

Just a short reaction. Although nukes are horrible weapons, these two did end the war. If they had not been used, my reconning is that the loss of life would have been a lot more than the tens of thousends killed by the nukes. It would have taken mass bombing of both military and civilian targets, killing more than the two bombs combined. Of course, the loss of life among american soldiers would also be pretty high, because a landbased attack would have been nescessary to bring the japanese high command to their knees and acknowledge defeat.

I do believe that nukes have worked as a deterrent against war between the east and west during the cold war, although war has been close at least once (Cuba crisis, the only one we know of).

But now with terrorism, nuclear bombs are a real threat again. If only these horrible things has never been invented...

 

[Sureboss]

I think the most apt term to describe the events is, 'necessary evil'. Not a nice series of events, but probably killed less than those who would have died during a land assault.

I do believe that nukes have worked as a deterrent against war between the east and west during the cold war, although war has been close at least once (Cuba crisis, the only one we know of).

Yes, but wasn't the cause of the tension, the nukes themselves?

 

[Denur]

Yes, but wasn't the cause of the tension, the nukes themselves?

Not really, more their location. Now bombs could reach US targets within mere minutes, giving the US government little to no time to counter-act. So the whole deterrent idea went down the drain.

 

[Bram Turismo]

Just a short reaction. Although nukes are horrible weapons, these two did end the war. If they had not been used, my reconning is that the loss of life would have been a lot more than the tens of thousends killed by the nukes.

I'm pretty sure both bombs killed more than a few ten thousands, wasn't the combined number around 200,000-300,000 lives, including those who died due to radiation exposion after 1945?

I've never been in favor of the bombs, as they killed more civilians than original targets, but I don't know how the war would've ended otherwise. But I don't think it would lasted that much longer since Germany already surrended around the time the bombs were released, and all food supplies to Japan seemed to be cut off by America as well...


Discuss?

 

[Denur]

I'm pretty sure both bombs killed more than a few ten thousands, wasn't the combined number around 200,000-300,000 lives, including those who died due to radiation exposion after 1945?

The bombs killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, roughly half on the days of the bombings. Since then, thousands more have died from injuries or illness attributed to exposure to radiation released by the bombs

Indeed.

As for a rapid end to the war without the bombs because Germany had already surrendered and food was running-out... I doubt it, because the japanese military command (including the Emperor) we're still convinced they could win this war. Besides, the shame surrender without a good fight would bring was an unbearable thought to them (or so the historians claim). They would have preferred to fight to the last man, woman and child (and die of starvation while doing so). Ironically, the bombs "gave an easy, less shameful, way out".
It is also claimed though, that among the High Command were a few that were already thinking about surrender before the bombs.

 

[Bram Turismo]

They would have preferred to fight to the last man, woman and child (and die of starvation while doing so).

Yes, I've read about this before, scary isn't it?

However, I don't think the bombs were the only thing to make Japan surrender...The Soviet Union and the Red Army anyone?

 

[Speedster502]

I'm not American but I suppose you could take the opinion of a English person. After all, after a recent speaking and listening assessment I had to learn/research quite a bit about these bombing and come up with theories and stuff so I could win the debate I was in.

- Do you think it ended the war earlier?

I'm not to sure about this, I think partly it did as guranteed the Japanese would have kept coming at the Americans and then probably forcing surrounding countries to fight with them which may have become a bigger threat to the world. This may have then dragged the world back into war again. Maybe.

- Did it indeed end the war earlier, or was it just America being hopeless, and instead killing more civilians than enemies?

I think that America knew that the death count was high for the troops fighting, and still rising with every passing day. They probably had many people figuring out how many people were supposdly in the cities they were targetting with the bombs and then figured out that within a certain amount of days the loses would be back to normal evening out the world's balance. If you know what I mean.

- Even though this kind of power was discovered earlier on, should America have ever been allowed to use it against human lives?

I'm not sure. I think that perhaps the situation that the US and the world was in, was a desperate one at the time. So concerning the situation that the US was in, I think it was perhaps their only plan left. They dropped the bombs only on those 2 cities as thats where the government of Japan was being based at the time, so I suppose by dropping them their it meant that the whole government would be wiped out.

- What are your general opinions on the whole fact?

I think that in these circumstances it was perhaps the best thing to do. I can't think of anything else that the US could do to end the war quickly, I'm not even sure that negotiations would end it quick enough as well as waiting for them to give in to having no food. So, perhaps it was the quickest solution?

- As a result of the bombings, do you find America guilty or related in any way towards current and/or earlier nuclear activity by eastern countries or the Sovjets?

No. I think the people guilty for the nuclear activity by the other countries of the world which give nuclear threats are the people who gave them the information to create the weapons.

Oh, BTW I think Sovjets is actually spelt Soviets not Sovjets....Then again I think it is Sovjet in Norwegian.

Anyway, good luck!


EDIT: Plus, if people think the danger is still with Nuclear weapons they obviously haven't heard of a EMP bomb. Personally I know which I'm more scared of.

 

[Barracuda]

I don't really see them as a bad thing.

If we hadn't have used them, then who knows what events could have happened differently. They didn't really know the power they had with the bombs until after they dropped them, so consequently, the cold war could have been the last thing the human race ever saw.

I also would think that racial tension between the Japanese and the Americans played a part in the decision. To quote a phrase, "The only good Japanese, is a dead Japanese"

 

[Bram Turismo]

Just saw the typo Speedy, thanks 👍


And thanks for your reply, that was just exactly how I was thinking about the replies, cheers

 

[Speedster502]

Just saw the typo Speedy, thanks 👍


And thanks for your reply, that was just exactly how I was thinking about the replies, cheers

Thats alright. A pleasure to help you Bram, considering how many times you've helped me. 👍

 

[wfooshee]

Do you think it ended the war earlier?

Without question. The only alternative was invasion, and look how long the invasion of Europe took to end that war, and the cost in American lives, and finally consider that that was with nearby air support (England.)

Did it indeed end the war earlier, or was it just America being hopeless, and instead killing more civilians than enemies?

It was a huge gamble by the Americans. Had Japan said, "Wow, these are terrible, but we can persevere," then we would have had to go ahead and draw up an invasion. We were out of bombs. Also note that the bombs were 2 different designs, only one of which had actually had a real test device.

It was not a hopeless measure against civilians, it was a desparate measure to avoid a repeat of the European campaign and a further year or two of war.

Even though this kind of power was discovered earlier on, should America have ever been allowed to use it against human lives?

So, um, exactly who was gonna say we couldn't? Remember that atomic research was going on in all circles, Germany, Russia, US, England at least. Remember also that we had literally just saved the world by being the armoror for the Allies. Our geographic separation from the points of conflict allowed industry to run unimpaired, unlike German and Japanese heavy industry. So having put down the biggest aggressor in European history, who was there that would tell us, "No, no, no. You shouldn't use those things."

What are your general opinions on the whole fact?

A horrible thing to inflict upon those cities, but not so horrible an infliction as what would have occurred to the entire nation had we needed to invade.

As a result of the bombings, do you find America guilty or related in any way towards current and/or earlier nuclear activity by eastern countries or the Soviets?

They were already working on it. Russia got more rocket science from the beaten Germany than we did, although we got a bit more in the physics side of things, I think.

 

[Max Powers]

Hiroshima was neccessary to end the war, but Nagasaki was one of our country's biggest mistakes in my opinion and was not needed.

 

[Speedy Samurai]

Curtis Lemay, the american military officer in charge of the air assaults against the nation of Japan (and the man who thought up the idea of firebombings) stated that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were almost irrelevant as he would have been able to cause that much destruction and death in only a few more runs of his bombers. He had already burned down most of the major japanese cities.

Japan, was a beaten nation, and according to several sources was already discussing surrender when the bombs fell. Japan had no airforce, had next to to navy, no way to obtain crucial supplies such as oil or fuel, thousands of soldiers stranded and abandoned throughout the pacific with no food, ammunition, etc.

America was planning an invasion of Kyushu for November 1st, and with japan touting its 'million shattered jewels' (civilians young and old with bamboo spears training to defend their beaches) the americans felt that the outcome would have been far too many casualties on both sides.

There has also been the opinion that the bomb(s) were dropped to show Russia quite clearly what kind of weaponry America had.

I don't think it can be judged as a good or bad thing. In war, although often necessary, nothing is ever good.


p.s. I am neither American, nor Japanese. I just live in Japan and study its military history.

 

[Tornado]

I've always been split. On the one hand, I feel that the distinct tactical disadvantage we were in with Japan because of location made them necessary to make the war end. I also think that the bombings were a big gamble, as there is no real way to quantify the difficulty that we would have had just invading the country (as Speedy Samurai said, Japan was considering surrendering), so world opinion could have turned quickly if the rest of the world found the ends didn't justify the means (and it was becoming obvious that the Cold War was looming far before WWII ended, so that could have been a bad thing).

On the other hand, one could look to the Western Theatre to show that the bombing of Hiroshima was unnecessarily cruel (though it would be arguably impossible to determine this beforehand, it could have at least prevented Nagasaki). The firebombings of Dresden, for example, showed that a single bombing of a populated city would have a devastating effect on morale (indeed, Dresden claimed roughly the same amount of lives as the atomic bombings did combined, according to some). At the time, too, German pride and resolve for the war effort was easily far higher than Japans was a year later (when Japan was the one left holding the ball with Italy and Germany both defeated), and I am sure Truman knew this. So one could make a fine argument to say that an attack of that caliber really wasn't necessary (and Nagasaki was pure overkill to the point of War Crimes, in my opinion) simply because it had been proven that a nation with far stronger resolve was dealt a huge blow by similar proceedings, and that Japan (who was considering surrender) was no where near as dedicated to the war as Germany as to necessitate such an attack. Furthermore, the act was carried out seemingly just to get an unconditional surrender rather than the surrender being thrown around Japan's inner circles.

Nagasaki is an interesting situation too. I personally believe that it was an immoral act, mostly because of its reasoning. It was said to be necessary to completely destroy the Japanese resolve as Hiroshima could not (as if Japan was daring us to do it again), but I think that is a falsehood. The quick timing between the blasts led to Nagasaki being bombed before Japan really even knew what had happened at Hiroshima. Its as if the U.S. bombed Nagasaki accepting the demands of the U.S., without even thinking that maybe Japan didn't even know what had happened in the first place (like punishing them because they had been punished). I think the U.S. should have taken a couple of different options:

1. Given Japan more time to figure out what had actually happened at Hiroshima so they knew what they were dealing with. This could have spared countless lives, as Japan may very well have surrendered when they learned what had really happened there without any invasion or second bombing at all. Indeed, warnings of the Nagasaki bombings didn't even arrive until the day after the bombing (of Nagasaki) actually happened, when even a week of warning after Hiroshima may not have been enough with the panic in the Japanese government.
2. Supplanted the initial bombing with an invasion force; to take the surprised, confused and panicked Japanese of guard and have a quick victory. I doubt the loss of life in this case would have been anywhere near as much, even with both sides combined. With a quick invasion during the panic of Hiroshima, lives lost on both sides probably would have been far lower if the Japanese government didn't surrender immediately. Hell, even without the Hiroshima bombings, I doubt total lives lost would have been near that of the bombings by themselves (remember, Operation Overlord and Operation Downfall would have taken place under completely different circumstances, as Japan would have had far more places to be invaded from and therefore would have been spread far thinner than German forces at Normandy).

There are problems with both of these solutions, naturally (#1 assumes that the bombings wouldn't strengthen Japanese resolve, which could have happened, and #2 would have had more American lives lost at a time where war weariness was starting to take America), but I hardly think that Nagasaki was the answer to the equation.

To sum up? I guess I would say the Hiroshima was necessary depending on how you looked upon it. If America felt that the Japanese surrender would have led to further aggression (and a potential WWIII), than I think one could argue that it was necessary. If one thought that the mere threat of a repeat of Dresden would have shaken Japanese officials enough to surrender, or that a conventional invasion would have had a far lower life toll; then I think you could argue it was unnecessary. In either situation, however, Nagasaki was pure criminal. Japan wasn't given enough time to assess what had actually happened at Hiroshima to react to U.S. demands regardless, but a conventional invasion could have at that point been easily done and may not have even been needed.

 

[superberkut]

- Do you think it ended the war earlier?
- Did it indeed end the war earlier, or was it just America being hopeless, and instead killing more civilians than enemies?

It ended the war earlier, but that happened mainly out of deception: if I recall correctly (and sorry if it has been mentioned), the Japanese thought that the Americans had more of those bombs on hand and surrendered, though to build another one would have taken almost another year. It did not appear to be a despertae act; in so doing, the Americans revealed their superior technology, this time in the first bomber to carry a nuclear weapon.

When I have more time, I will finish my answer.

 

[frestkd]

hmm I think I shouldn't say anything, because I be warned again .... maybe even banned on this fine website.

 

[Barracuda]

hmm I think I shouldn't say anything, because I be warned again .... maybe even banned on this fine website.

Your opinion is your opinion and you can share it, you just have to realize that there are certain constraints as to how you put your point across, especially in the opinions sub-forum of all places. (They'll tear your up )

If you don't have anything to add to a conversation, such as the post you just made, then try your best not to post anything and everything will be fine.

 

[YSSMAN]

A quick summation of my feelings before bed:

- Americans were justified in their choice, it saved American lives
- The bombings, in theory, saved Japanese lives as well --> Plus, the firebombing of Japan had killed far more people anyway, so where is the criticism for that?
- We should have been willing to share some of the secrets with the Soviets instead of keeping it between us and the British... May have prevented the Cold War?

Hard to say, but I continue to maintain the American historical prospective on the bombing... There wasn't much else what we could have done that wouldn't have completely leveled the island of Japan and likely wiped out a sizable chunk of their population.

 

[wfooshee]

Hiroshima was neccessary to end the war, but Nagasaki was one of our country's biggest mistakes in my opinion and was not needed.

I don't see it that way.

Hiroshima was bombed on August 6, about a week and a half after the Potsdam Declaration, the formal demand for unconditional surrender.

No official response from Japan.

Nagasaki was bombed on August 9. On August 10 the Emperor intervened in the Supreme Council, until that time deadlocked as to the surrender, and the cabinet drafted a document accepting the terms of surrender. There was very nearly a military coup raised to prevent the dishonor of surrender, but finally, the Emperor's reading of the speech accepting terms to end the war was broadcast on August 15th, having been recorded on the 12th or 13th. The first time the Emperor's voice was heard by the general population.

Apparently, the speech did not use the word "surrender," but stated that the Potsdam declaration was to be accepted.

The formal signing of the documents took place September 2nd, and many people use that date by itself, not placing any significance to (or perhps awareness of) the events of August 10-15, and thus reach the conclusion tht the Nagasaki bombing was superfluous.

So my point is: Nothing happened in the higher circles after Hiroshima. Everything happened after Nagasaki.

So I do not think it can be said that Nagasaki was "unnecessary."

 

[niky]

It's very hard to look back on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In modern light, yes, the use of nuclear weapons against a civilian target is a grave injustice... but in the culture of the time... during WWII... civilian targets were an acceptable part of warfare... destroying the enemies' manpower resources.

Is it any worse than the firebombing of dozens of cities in Europe? Arguably not. Did it start the cold war? I think not... Everyone was researching the atom bomb before this... it was just a matter of time until somebody built a working one and used it. And Russian Communist aggression against the "free world" would have existed, bomb or not, in the decades following WWII.

People go on and on about this "crime against humanity"... but the truth is... the entire war was a crime against humanity... and contrition for various nefarious actions... on all sides... justified or not... has been a long time coming.

 

[Bram Turismo]

Thanks for the replies guys 👍

 

[Tornado]

So my point is: Nothing happened in the higher circles after Hiroshima. Everything happened after Nagasaki.

Because at the time no one in the Japanese government knew what had actually happened at Hiroshima, perhaps? A similar bombing could take place today and I hardly think that the government in charge would be able to determine what had happened in a similar period of time, much less make decisions based on it. All despite the advances of communications in the past 60 years.

 

[wfooshee]

Exactly my point. They thought it was some kind of fire bomb raid at first. Nagasaki drove the point home, and the government began to fold.

Aside from that, not mentioned yet in the thread was the movement among some higher-ups in the US government and military who favored an offshore "demonstration" in place of actually bombing a target. The fear, of course, was that the largely untested system would fail, not only embarrassing the US, but setting back the surrender timetable by months at least. Hard to be afraid of something that doesn't work.

 

[RecklesAbandon2]

- Do you think it ended the war earlier?
Yes.

- Did it indeed end the war earlier, or was it just America being hopeless, and instead killing more civilians than enemies?
indeeed

- Even though this kind of power was discovered earlier on, should America have ever been allowed to use it against human lives?
allowed? I'm still not convinced any country other than the one attacked should have any say in what weapons they use or how they retaliate. I believe this can be proven when veiwing the Isreal/palastein conflict.
aside from that, these weapons hadnt been used, and it was a different time, somebody was going to test them in war, sooner or later. given how much more powerful these weapons are today, it was a better time to experiment, back when they had less power.

- What are your general opinions on the whole fact? civilians are wars casualty no more than soldiers, there are people in both that don't want to go to war, and those who do. the current events in Iraq show us exactly what civillians can and will do. When war happens, innocent people die, and it is not the fault of weapons, nor is it neccessarily the fault of the country using them. I believe the countries that start the wars, or try to take over land, or are run by problomatic terrorist groups are the ones truely responsible, unfortunate as it may be, sometimes there is no other way, because some people will not allow another way.


- As a result of the bombings, do you find America guilty or related in any way towards current and/or earlier nuclear activity by eastern countries or the Soviets?
No. I believe we showed people the exact definition of a last resort, something that can only be considered for use when the alternative is extinction.

 

[Sureboss]

If a soldier doesn't want to go to war then don't join the army. Soldiers aren't innocent. Tragic loss of life, but not innocent.

 

[TheCracker]

As unfortunate as it was for the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to say the very least, the bombs have had the useful side effect of showing the world just what an atomic bomb can do. Facts and figures can only go so far as describing what would happen, but actual footage and first hand reports of the bombings give people a much better reference point.

 

[Sureboss]

Yup, and just how much stronger are today's nuclear bombs? We're talking 100s of times stronger. Probably could wipe out a country in one hit.

 

[Danoff]

If a soldier doesn't want to go to war then don't join the army. Soldiers aren't innocent. Tragic loss of life, but not innocent.

Not everyone is given a choice.

- Do you think it ended the war earlier?

Obviously. And Nagasaki particularly was an important part of that. Japan would probably have thought that we only had resources for one. It was important to demonstrate that we could do it multiple times.

- Did it indeed end the war earlier, or was it just America being hopeless, and instead killing more civilians than enemies?

Obviously it ended the war earlier based on the sequence of events.

- Even though this kind of power was discovered earlier on, should America have ever been allowed to use it against human lives?

Uh... yes. What was going to disallow America from using it? Morality? We were at war! That doesn't necessarily mean that all civilians are potential targets, but collateral damage can be acceptable in war. The trick is ensuring that you're justified in being at war and that your response isn't disproportionate.

- What are your general opinions on the whole fact?

Positive.

- As a result of the bombings, do you find America guilty or related in any way towards current and/or earlier nuclear activity by eastern countries or the Soviets?

I think that those two bombs saved millions of lives during the cold war. It demonstrated to the world the awesome power of nuclear weapons, and I think without that demonstration one would certainly have been used in a different circumstance, a more sustainable circumstance, a circumstance in which retaliation was guaranteed.

 

[Sureboss]

Not everyone is given a choice.

In the case of National service then no.