POLL: Do you believe the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary?

[Anansasem]

This debate seems as though it will never come to any sort of closure. There are so many minute political details involving Japan, Russia, and the U.S. both for and against the bombing, that a rational argument could be made for almost any stance. To me, this article highlights the never ending controversy: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4724793.stm

There are probably thousands of variables to take into consideration for the thoughts of the time, political motives, and time-line of events. I'd just appreciate any arguments in support of an opinion. Personally, I'm leaning towards the assertion that it was justifiable during the times and circumstances. Although I do see some holes in the way negotiations were made, I still see more support for the 'necessary sacrifice to save more lives' viewpoint than against.

This is the first time I've discussed this in a group with an East Asian outlook, so I truly want to see where this will go.

[nightshade]

America would have never dropped atomic bombs on Germany. Never. Just like people of German descent living in the U.S. were not rounded up and put in internment camps.

[Anansasem]

Alright, so were you going to vote? You could also try to elaborate on the situations. Also, I'm not sure the Atomic bomb was even complete before VE day, Japan lasted a while longer before VJ day.

Though, the question does have merit. Here's a post from a Historical forum that answers your question.
Would the U.S. have used the A-bomb against Germany?

The following is the response of Carey Peck to a dialogue between him and Bevin Alexander over which way the war against Germany might have gone—if Adolf Hitler had taken advantage of his strategic opportunities, and if he had not challenged the United States directly by declaring war shortly after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Carey Peck’s conclusion was that the United States would eventually have been drawn into war with Germany, and if so we would have used nuclear weapons against them.

Dear Bevin: It was remarkable and gratifying to receive your response. Thank you.

I agree the German attack on Russia fatally weakened their overall effort, as did their declaration of war against us. Empires usually fall due to a suicidal foreign policy. That is Toynbee's judgment. The Third Reich followed the pattern. The historical question is, then, would Hitler have declared war against the U.S. in any case? This goes into psychology and national Zeitgeist, but Germany's history and actions suggest yes.

You are right that it would have been difficult for the U.S. to pull the atomic trigger against a European state—even Hitler's Reich. There is an element of culture here, and also perhaps racism. Nobody really knew Hiroshima and Nagasaki so nobody really cared. They were targets. Kyoto, a city renowned for its temples, was spared—an exemption made easier because it never was a major industrial target. Could we have deployed a nuclear weapon against Berlin or Munich? Well, we were accomplishing the same end through conventional means. The RAF and USAF equaled the effects of an atomic attack in massed raids on Dresden (the most brutal example) and Hamburg. The center of virtually every large German city was laid waste. There is a large hill outside of Berlin called Der Teufelberg which was created by the rubble scraped from the streets and lots of the city and deposited onto what was once a forest. The bones of tens of thousands rest there as well. Each of those death lists equaled Nagasaki. I'd say that was a good start, and suggests that in a closer drawn contest we would have been prepared to hit harder.

Here's my thinking. If Hitler owned the Continent—and I do not think he ever had the cross-Channel logistical or naval heft to mount a successful invasion—but if the war had been even more desperately close-fought, maybe we would have waited. We might have played for time. However, if Hitler was attacking England, especially if he was getting ashore, then all bets would be off. Blood is thicker than any scruple in that regard.

Thank you again for your response. It has made me think about destiny and the workings of history.

[kimtae]

America would have never dropped atomic bombs on Germany. Never. Just like people of German descent living in the U.S. were not rounded up and put in internment camps.

Yoou're right about the internment camps but I'm not too sure about the atomic bombs. The fire-bombing of Dresden (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm), a largely undefended city, resulted in anywhere from 30,000-100,000 deaths depending on whose figures you use. One thing is for certain, the allies had no qualms about wiping out a largely civilian population in Germany. Perhaps the Japanese were vilified more, perhaps the bombings of Hirshima and Nagasaki were more horrific, but the Pacific theater in WWII was not a war against the yellow man, though the enemy being yellow may have made certain decisions easier. It was no Vietnam. In the end, Japan reaped the whirlwind for its own imperialistic ambitions as did Germany.
We seemed to fly for hours over a sheet of fire...

[Pat the Great]

Yoou're right about the internment camps but I'm not too sure about the atomic bombs. The fire-bombing of Dresden (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm), a largely undefended city, resulted in anywhere from 30,000-100,000 deaths depending on whose figures you use. One thing is for certain, the allies had no qualms about wiping out a largely civilian population in Germany. Perhaps the Japanese were vilified more, perhaps the bombings of Hirshima and Nagasaki were more horrific, but the Pacific theater in WWII was not a war against the yellow man, though the enemy being yellow may have made certain decisions easier. It was no Vietnam. In the end, Japan reaped the whirlwind for its own imperialistic ambitions as did Germany.

Thank you for your response. It has made me think about destiny and the workings of history.

[Anansasem]

Pat the Great, that's real cute. Now, did you want to add anything constructive here?

[ellencho]

Pat the Great, that's real cute. Now, did you want to add anything constructive here?
Quit being such a dick. Just because you might have started a thread doesn't give you the right act like you own it. I'm tired of you snapping at people who don't deserve it. Cool off.

[Anansasem]

I apologize if my response was uncalled for. The way he took that phrase, from the quote I posted above, looked to me as though he was trying to come from a superior standing while mocking the discussion. Now, I see that his actual intent could have been different, though the way he applied it left that impression on me.

Ah, did you have anything you wanted to say about the topic?

[OctaVentiConPanna]

.... I'm not sure the Atomic bomb was even complete before VE day.....


I think the atomic bomb was ready well before VE Day. It was detonated in the San Francisco Bay Area in July 1944. This was better known as the Port Chicago disaster where the story was that a munitions ship exploded killing all the black sailors aboard.

To make a long story short, pilots who witnessed the explosion saw a bright flash and a mushroom cloud over where the ship exploded. A munitions ship loaded with bombs and ammo would've went up in a series of explosions with black smokey cloud formation, but that was not the case. The only type of explosion that forms a mushroom cloud is an atomic blast.

The full story is in Peter Vogel's book. The full story is here:
http://www.portchicago.org/lastwave/index.htm

There's also a couple 1/2 hour interviews with the author in real audio there.

[minbo]

Was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary for what? The question is too open ended.

Was using the atomic bomb necessary in order to defeat Japan? No
Was using the atomic bomb necessary in order to compel the Potsdam declaration? No.
Was using the atomic bomb necessary in order to defeat Japan before Russia joined the Asian campaign? Yes
Was it necessary to defeat Japan before Russia joined the Asian campaign? No

Now for some other related questions at are more "should" it have happened rather than was it necessary.
Did the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki result in fewer deaths (for invading forces AND for the Japanese) and less destruction than total war/invasion of the Japanese Mainland? Yes
Was it immoral to use the bomb? Not in that time. It was actually less destructive, caused less death and suffering (in the short term, they did not know about the long term effects of radiation) than the firebombing campaigns. Simply, "Total War" was how you waged war at the time, and the Atomic bomb was actually believed to be cleaner and NICER than the firebombing alternative.

[minbo]

I think the atomic bomb was ready well before VE Day. It was detonated in the San Francisco Bay Area in July 1944. This was better known as the Port Chicago disaster where the story was that a munitions ship exploded killing all the black sailors aboard.

To make a long story short, pilots who witnessed the explosion saw a bright flash and a mushroom cloud over where the ship exploded. A munitions ship loaded with bombs and ammo would've went up in a series of explosions with black smokey cloud formation, but that was not the case. The only type of explosion that forms a mushroom cloud is an atomic blast.


As for this, conventional explosions can generate a fireball and a mushroom cloud. The bomb that was used in Iraq to blow up some restaurant that they suspected Saddam to be did that. The Divine Strike test that was scheduled but canceled for 2006 would have done the same, and it was only the most recent test. The US Military has been doing conventional weapons testing since 1977 that did as much. Heck, some performance artists did the same in Nevada using just gasoline for the 60th anniversary of the first nuclear explosion as a disarmament protest.

The Port Chicago disaster was two explosions, and the characteristic of the munitions explosion follows the characteristic of several other munition dump/munition ship explosions, such as the Black Tom explosion in New York, the Hercules Powder Factory Explosion in NJ and the Halifax explosion in Nova Scotia.

All these, combined with a lack of residual radiation is enough for me to believe that the Port Chicago disaster was not an atomic explosion.

[minbo]

Ahh and for some linkages to other sources (damn that Wikipedia for being so convenient, yet not authoritative!). The Halifax explosion specifically describes a fireball that rose 1 mile into the air and a mushroom cloud. I don't think that anyone believes that anybody had an atomic weapon in 1917.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Tom_Explosion
http://www.roxburynewjersey.com/hercules.htm
http://www.nukestrat.com/us/stratcom/gs-divinestrake.htm

[Kuroyama]

While the war in the Pacific may not have been targeting solely "Yellow" men... that didnt prevent the allies from demonizing them. As has been stated the continued carpet-fire bombing of cities killed more people and caused more destruction than the a-bombs did. Japan was crushed. There wasnt much left to bomb. The atom bomb was just making a statement with the burned bodies of thousands. As a kid we are just taught that they were used at the end of the war. The dont tell you about the kind of death and destruction wrought before Fat Man and Little Boy were ever even loaded...

[atlasien]

I agree with minbo's re-questions. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unnecessary. The actions of the Japanese military fascist regime were similarly unnecessary.

The atom bombs may have saved many Japanese lives. There were already horrific problems in the immediate postwar period, and these would have been much worse if there had been a full-scale invasion and further interruption of food supply routes. Many more civilians, especially the most vulnerable, like children, would have starved to death. But all of the "what-ifs" still don't excuse the fact that the bombing was an atrocity that should never be repeated again.

[ZhuBaJie]

While the war in the Pacific may not have been targeting solely "Yellow" men... that didnt prevent the allies from demonizing them. As has been stated the continued carpet-fire bombing of cities killed more people and caused more destruction than the a-bombs did. Japan was crushed. There wasnt much left to bomb. The atom bomb was just making a statement with the burned bodies of thousands. As a kid we are just taught that they were used at the end of the war. The dont tell you about the kind of death and destruction wrought before Fat Man and Little Boy were ever even loaded...

correction. they didn't demonise "the yellow men". they demonised specifically Japanese people. Sino-American relations improved dramatically during WW2, and all of a sudden the Chinese people turned into a race of upstanding people in the eyes of the American public.

for Chinese Americans, that period of time was actually quite unprecedented. the Chinese Exclusion Acts were repealed, and the Chinese American community united like nothing ever united them before to help support China in the Sino-Japanese war.

[Pat the Great]

I don't know about Hiroshima, but Nagasaki was DEFINITELY unnecessary. Whether Americans would have dropped a bomb on their fellow white people or not is one question, but I'm sure they wouldn't have dropped TWO.

Pat the Great, that's real cute. Now, did you want to add anything constructive here?

Thank you for your response. It has made me think about destiny and the workings of history.

[Vetrean]

I don't think it was necessary. Was it justified at the time? I don't know. I don't have anything close to an answer for that. But I know that it wasn't necessary, and I agree that the second bomb should never have been dropped.

When you look at it just by itself, you'd think there's no way that's justified, but if you look at the firebombings along with that, it seems a bit different. Either way, I think the acts of the Allies should also be classified as war crimes. Are they as bad as those of the Nazis and Japan? Maybe, maybe not, but that's no excuse.

[Anansasem]

Hey ellencho, are you going to call him out for all of this? Or his he immune to the same treatment?

Minbo, if I wanted to give a complete and specific list of the objectives that would have been necessary, I would probably have a list of several hundred options. The options were meant to show that given the time and circumstances and the political and national goals for the people of all sides, whether the posters thought the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary or overzealous in the pursuit of their desired outcome. The details and specific arguments are what should be discussed.

Your scenarios are imperfect as well. Was using the Atomic bomb to force the divided Japanese regime into accepting a complete surrender necessary? Part of the plan was to use the 2 bombs they had ready in a way that would show they could quickly and systematically annihilate them city by city, was the A-bomb necessary for that? The complete surrender was required as other Asian countries were already demanding that Japan be reduced from any state where it could initiate war again, was the A-bomb necessary for that? All these are specific parts of the situation, though they all make up the overall conflict with the bombings. We could even go into the aftereffects of radiation and the social stigma and fear the image has imbued during the Cold War. What if the A-Bombs had never been dropped and the U.S. and Russia had been stockpiling them without a visual and exemplary comprehension into the overall devastation and radioactive fall out?

I don't know why you brought that issue up, those are all part of the discussion. It's more like a list of every possible objective, goal, and the hundreds of variables than a realistic option to ask for someones opinion. I was asking any poster, what they thought on the issue. Even though I used 'necessary' in the question, the options ask the reader what they think was 'necessary' or 'should' have been done. What other choices would you have suggested I made?

Vetrean, after the first bomb was dropped they again gave Japan the option of surrender. When it wasn't answered they bombed Nagasaki, it was meant to clearly show the U.S. was willing to systematically destroy the country. The U.S. had no more A-bombs to use, so I think they threatened to drop one directly on Tokyo to scare them into surrendering. It was to intimidate the Japanese into accepting the terms of complete surrender, though some say the fear of Russian occupation motivated them to surrender to the U.S. just as much.

[minbo]

If you don't want to specify what using the atomic bomb was necessary for and leave that up to the imagination of the respondents thats fine. But then people are answering different questions and might not actually disagree with each other, since they are not talking about the same thing.

Personally I prefer wars to be brutal, bloody, horrific and totally reprehensible. That way everyone knows what is involved and can't make some excuse of glamorous heroism, freeing a oppressed population and being welcomed with open arms. If you start a war, then you damn well have to have a good reason, not some half baked unsubstantiated "hunch". Also make a rule that you can't propose a declaration of war unless you actually saw action. Perhaps then some ex coke snorting air national guard AWOL draft dodger wouldn't have been so quick to start one.

If you are going to invade and occupy a country, I believe in the "Total War" concept. If you are going to force your will upon someone else, going all passive aggressive against a population that doesn't want to be ruled just doesn't work. If you are going to negotiate a peace with the country, then total war is inappropriate.

Occupying a country for 10 years and instilling a new puppet government? Then crush them and grind their will beneath your hard tack boots. Sahel all the way. As Conan paraphrased Genghis Khan's words "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."

[ellencho]

Hey ellencho, are you going to call him out for all of this? Or his he immune to the same treatment?


I'm not calling him out for anything because he doesn't have a track record of freaking out and acting like an ogre when he can't control discussions. Your warning was long overdue. And don't you dare use the excuse you were drunk because there are drunken members of this forum who make a lot more sense than you do while intoxicated.

[DONKEY]

And don't you dare use the excuse you were drunk because there are drunken members of this forum who make a lot more sense than you do while intoxicated.
aww thx ~~

[Anansasem]

Minbo, I just want to see their general opinion. The discussion I meant for anyone to bring up any assertion to support their point. I think people would disagree unawarely no matter what, if one looked at the issue from a purely tactical standing while another looks only at the innocent, as they were, victims themselves their opinion is going to conflict no matter what the options are.

As for what you said on war; Oddly, I can see what you mean, and even stranger is the way I agree. Though, I see it as we shouldn't initiate or retaliate with military force unless we're aware of the full consequences of our loses and the atrocities we'll commit and have to account for afterwards. Though, we never went to 'war' with Iraq we just gave a little AUMF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Current_st atus_of_the_U.S._debate

ellencho, so how long will you have me on probation?

By the way, here's an excellent article from the August 2005 edition of TIME detailing some first-hand witnesses to the event: http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2005/1101050801_400.jpg
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1086168,00.html

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2005/0507/wkennedy.jpg
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1086166,00.html

This page has a number of resources on many of the issues:http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2005/0507/hiro_webguide.jpg
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1085424,00.html

I should add all of this to my opening post, later.

[DONKEY]

i was under the impression that Japan had already surrendered when the a-bombs were dropped and that the u.s. chose to go ahead and do it first and then say "oh ok, we accept your surrender" because they wanted to show off their new weapon to intimidate the USSR

[Dialectic]

i was under the impression that Japan had already surrendered when the a-bombs were dropped and that the u.s. chose to go ahead and do it first and then say "oh ok, we accept your surrender" because they wanted to show off their new weapon to intimidate the USSR

Read minbo's earlier post. What he said is spot on to what I know. I'll take a stronger stance, however, and say it probably was the right thing to do on the sole basis that it prevented more damage and bloodshed than an invasion. And it's not wrong to ask for an enemy's unconditional surrender in war.

(Also, note how Japan is the most developed, most prosperous Asian nation right now, and has been since, oh, WWII.)

[ellencho]

There is no probation. I'm not about to put you on probation, have you play nice for the prescribed amount of time and then ding! when time is up you're a dick again. Just don't be a control freak and we'll all get along fine here. If you can't manage that, then choose another AA message board to annoy.

[DONKEY]

(Also, note how Japan is the most developed, most prosperous Asian nation right now, and has been since, oh, WWII.)
what does that have to do with the a-bombs?
i thought Japan's success was due to their high education standards, development of electronics, and general reliance on trade rather than raw materials production due to their lack of natural resources.
should other countries ask to get a-bombed so they can be prosperous too?

[nightshade]

what does that have to do with the a-bombs?
i thought Japan's success was due to their high education standards, development of electronics, and general reliance on trade rather than raw materials production due to their lack of natural resources.
should other countries ask to get a-bombed so they can be prosperous too?

As part of some sort of treaty or agreement, Japan agreed not to have a military after the war. Germany had to do the same. Thus, the two countries did not have to spend money on a military budget, which is an incredible financial drain, and were able to put money towards economic development.

This being said, I'm still trying to get my head around the fact that the A-bomb may have been in some way a necessary military tactic.

[kimtae]

As part of some sort of treaty or agreement, Japan agreed not to have a military after the war. Germany had to do the same. Thus, the two countries did not have to spend money on a military budget, which is an incredible financial drain, and were able to put money towards economic development.

This being said, I'm still trying to get my head around the fact that the A-bomb may have been in some way a necessary military tactic.

The A bomb wasn't a necessary military tactic, it was merely an expedient. It served a multitude of purposes. The forcing of an early and unconditional surrender from Japan, a warning to Russia, a propaganda tool for the folks back home, to satisfy the military's curiosity (as gross as this sounds).
The military certainly has its racist individuals, as any large organization is bound too, but on the whole it makes its decisions based on winning conflicts in as thorough and efficient a method as possible. The A bombs weren't necessary at all but to the military and its way of viewing conflict resolution it was certainly better than a conventional approach. I also have little doubt that they would have used the same technology on the Germans, whether they would have done it twice, I'm not sure of.

[Kuroyama]

Kimtae makes the point that is close to my understanding with one key ingredient missing. Thats skin color. It was mentioned here before, but had Japan been a nation of white skinned people, the A-bombs would likely never have been dropped. Not once. Certainly not twice. Perhaps thats why they "warned" Russia in that way. Instead of the US just moving in and attacking white skinned people... why just show them what our weapons do to those "other" people and let them get the hint.

I am for the most part proud of my country, but you dont have to look far to see some pretty fucked up politics/history.

[Tyger Durden]

...I'm still trying to get my head around the fact that the A-bomb may have been in some way a necessary military tactic.

In a way, it was a necessary military tactic (not that I personally approve of the dropping of Atomic Bombs,let's get that out of the way) if you take into account what was the planned alternative. The USA was planning Operation Downfall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall) for the invasion of Japan, but the cost of lives would've been staggering to both sides:

Casualty predictions varied widely, but were extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for American casualties and the tens of millions for Japanese casualties.

The Allies were planning to use a costly invasion of Japan to end the War in the Pacific because no one knew of the existence of the Atom Bomb yet:

At the time, the development of the atomic bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bomb) was a very closely guarded secret known only to a few top officials outside the Manhattan Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project), and planning for the invasion of Japan did not take its existence into consideration.

The Atomic bombings ended the invasion plans:

The operation was cancelled when Japan surrendered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan) following the atomic bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki) of Hiroshima (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima) and Nagasaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagasaki), and the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union)'s declaration of war against Japan.

[Synthetic]

Read minbo's earlier post. What he said is spot on to what I know. I'll take a stronger stance, however, and say it probably was the right thing to do on the sole basis that it prevented more damage and bloodshed than an invasion. And it's not wrong to ask for an enemy's unconditional surrender in war.

(Also, note how Japan is the most developed, most prosperous Asian nation right now, and has been since, oh, WWII.)

racism aside, i think anytime one country can completely end a war as fast as possible, anything goes. i mean it is war...people are gonna die and i'm sure as hell not gonna defend the japanese and what america did to them just because they're the same race as i am...if they're fighting to kill me, fuck 'em.

the educational system is also a good point.

had america not smashed the hell out of japan, completely forcing them to rebuild, it is possible they could still be an imperialist nation....but by completely wiping out the culture at the time gave them an opportunity to start anew...hence, the educational system, health care system, and advancements in technology for which they all rule.

which then makes you wonder, if north korea was completely demolished and forced to move on....perhaps maybe they could be a bit more manageable instead of staying stuck in their...well, fucked up, ways.

it's also important to note that we're looking at this as humanitarians 60 some years later...we weren't alive back then, we weren't fighting back then, and we weren't directly effected by japan's diabolical methods.

no one likes to be at war, but if you have the opportunity to completely cripple your enemy, as a general, that's what you have to do...it's like mowing weeds, but not digging them up at the root....they just grow back.

[Golgo13]

The fire-bombing of Dresden[/url], a largely undefended city, resulted in anywhere from 30,000-100,000 deaths depending on whose figures you use.


Other cities in Japan, such as Tokyo (see photo at: http://www.ls23.jp/img/picture/apori/history/Air_raid_on_Tokyo_a2.jpg) and Osaka were fire-bombed.

So it would've been like fire-bombing Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin, and then dropping an atom bomb on Frankfurt and Munich.

Never would've happened, unless the Germans had suddenly turned into people of non-white race.

[kimtae]

Other cities in Japan, such as Tokyo (see photo at: http://www.ls23.jp/img/picture/apori/history/Air_raid_on_Tokyo_a2.jpg) and Osaka were fire-bombed.

So it would've been like fire-bombing Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin, and then dropping an atom bomb on Frankfurt and Munich.

Never would've happened, unless the Germans had suddenly turned into people of non-white race.
Please don't selectively quote my posts. It gives the impression that I'm saying something that I'm not.

[CJF]

By the way, it is unfair that the 2 a-bomb's get more press than anything. Bombing raids with conventional bombs upon civilian targets were common tactics of the Alliance. I believe the fire bombings of Tokyo killed more than the A-bombs. German city of Dresden was another city where innocent civilians were ruthlessly bombed.

Nuclear bombs just have more of the psychological impact than conventional bombs, for it only takes 2 for so much destruction, but nots let forget the other bombing raids.

[CJF]

Other cities in Japan, such as Tokyo (see photo at: http://www.ls23.jp/img/picture/apori/history/Air_raid_on_Tokyo_a2.jpg) and Osaka were fire-bombed.

So it would've been like fire-bombing Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin, and then dropping an atom bomb on Frankfurt and Munich.

Never would've happened, unless the Germans had suddenly turned into people of non-white race.

The atom bombs were initially intended for Hitler. That's why Albert Einstein and Oppenheimer, as Jews, intended to develop the bomb, to help save their tribal people. Don't be naive to think that the Allies would say 'ooh, Germans are white people and our friends'. They were definitely enemies who the bombs were intended for.

[Heyyu]

racism aside, i think anytime one country can completely end a war as fast as possible, anything goes. i mean it is war...people are gonna die and i'm sure as hell not gonna defend the japanese and what america did to them just because they're the same race as i am...if they're fighting to kill me, fuck 'em.

the educational system is also a good point.

had america not smashed the hell out of japan, completely forcing them to rebuild, it is possible they could still be an imperialist nation....but by completely wiping out the culture at the time gave them an opportunity to start anew...hence, the educational system, health care system, and advancements in technology for which they all rule.

which then makes you wonder, if north korea was completely demolished and forced to move on....perhaps maybe they could be a bit more manageable instead of staying stuck in their...well, fucked up, ways.

it's also important to note that we're looking at this as humanitarians 60 some years later...we weren't alive back then, we weren't fighting back then, and we weren't directly effected by japan's diabolical methods.

no one likes to be at war, but if you have the opportunity to completely cripple your enemy, as a general, that's what you have to do...it's like mowing weeds, but not digging them up at the root....they just grow back.

Actually, I once had a history professor who said the best thing that ever happened to Japan and Germany was getting the shit bombed out of them because that forced them to rebuild their infrastructure and gave them a clean slate to work with since everything was wiped out. As sad as that is... it's probably true.

This is why they say great conquerors and leaders have to be amoral, because you're basically weighing the lives of people against the future prosperity of your country...