Was the nuclear strike on Imperial Japan justifiable? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The Second World War (1939-1945).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13994933
Was the nuclear strike on Imperial Japan justifiable?

No, Americans were just cowards and couldn't cope with the Japanese fighting spirit so they tested their new weapons on the Japanese to show off their nuclear power to Soviet Russia and for that millions of Japanese suffered.

Even the battle of Berlin was a race between the Soviet Union and USA for the uranium deposits in Berlin. Thank Tengri the Soviets reached the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute first and found 3 tonnes of uranium oxide deposits or we would've been dictated by Americans.

All America had to do was blockade the islands and peninsulas of Japan and she would've surrendered sooner or later, there was no need of nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima which incinerated hundreds of thousands and killed millions in the long run from radioactive poisoning! If America had any honour she would've invaded Imperial Japan but were scared because they knew it meant at least another one million American casualties!

My point is America never nuked Japan to end the war quickly, they nuked Japan to show off how strong they were to rising super powers such as the Soviet Union.
#13994951
It was needed so the American empire could demonstrate their military superiority to the Soviet Union. As the Soviets made no move to go west it can be said to have been successful.

The problem with the bombings is that people believe they were about the Japanese, they had nothing to do with the Japanese, they were about to surrender anyway. The bombings were about scaring the Soviets.
#13994962
Exactly! x2 In many ways the Americans were more evil than the Imperial Japanese or Nazi Germans.


What do you mean, how could you say such a thing, how many races of people have the Americans ever tried to wipe out?

Oh wait... :lol:

Image
#13994978
Haha so true

Even in another thread I said thanks to Hitler nobody talks of the Allied including American atrocities committed against millions of Asians, Natives, Africans and Muslims.


Or look at the British empire, the most evil entity to ever exist on the face of this planet, and yet people still argue that it was a good thing, the Capitalists have very good propaganda.
#13994990
Or look at the British empire, the most evil entity to ever exist on the face of this planet, and yet people still argue that it was a good thing, the Capitalists have very good propaganda.


Spot on, the Brits wiped out millions of Indians, who now talks of those butchered Indians thanks to Hitler? Nobody.

Did you know the British were the first to introduce and use concentration camps in the Boer war? The average human isn't even aware of this and the moment you say "concentration camp" they think of the Jewish Holocaust.
#13995020
Spot on, the Brits wiped out millions of Indians, who now talks of those butchered Indians thanks to Hitler?


It has nothing to do with Hitler you know?

Even before the second world war the British empire was very good at pretending to be a saintly organisation bringing progress to the word. Even without the Second World War this would be the case.
#13995163
Tezelian_Imperialist wrote:Was the nuclear strike on Imperial Japan justifiable?


Oh great, here we go again. :roll:

No, Americans were just cowards and couldn't cope with the Japanese fighting spirit so they tested their new weapons on the Japanese to show off their nuclear power to Soviet Russia and for that millions of Japanese suffered.


Can you provide any evidence to suggest that Truman, or any of the persons involved in deciding to drop the bomb, thought this way?

All America had to do was blockade the islands and peninsulas of Japan and she would've surrendered sooner or later


Which would have killed far more Japanese citizens from starvation and disease than the dropping of either atom bomb. Prolonged sieges are rarely good for the health of the besieged populace. :roll:

, there was no need of nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima


Can you demonstrate anything to support this?

and killed millions in the long run from radioactive poisoning!


Evidence?

If America had any honour she would've invaded Imperial Japan but were scared because they knew it meant at least another one million American casualties!


Estimates for the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan are 1.7 to 4 million injured and dead Americans and five to ten million Japanese casualties (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ ... iderations). Why would hundreds of thousands of dead Americans and the death of tens of times as many Japanese who died from the atomic bombings be a good thing? :roll:
#13995230
Can you provide any evidence to suggest that Truman, or any of the persons involved in deciding to drop the bomb, thought this way?

If you read my earlier comment I provided evidence such as the race to Berlin between the Soviets and Americans for the Uranium deposits situated in a Military Research Facility (Kaiser Wilhelm Institute) in South Western Berlin.

It's also common sense, the Soviets grabbed three tonnes of Uranium deposits in Berlin before the Americans got there so the Americans wanted to do everything they could to prove to the Soviets, a superpower who the real daddy was. In addition the nuclear bomb had never really been tested in a wide scale which was another reason to nuke Imperial Japan.

Which would have killed far more Japanese citizens from starvation and disease than the dropping of either atom bomb. Prolonged sieges are rarely good for the health of the besieged populace.


No because Imperial Japan was about to surrender anyway, here read this, even General McArthur thinks the nuclear strikes on Imperial Japan was "completely unnecessary".

-------------------

In a trenchant new book, The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb (Praeger, 1996), historian Dennis D. Wainstock concludes that the bombings were not only unnecessary, but were based on a vengeful policy that actually harmed American interests. He writes (pp. 124, 132):

... By April 1945, Japan's leaders realized that the war was lost. Their main stumbling block to surrender was the United States' insistence on unconditional surrender. They specifically needed to know whether the United States would allow Hirohito to remain on the throne. They feared that the United States would depose him, try him as a war criminal, or even execute him ...

Unconditional surrender was a policy of revenge, and it hurt America's national self-interest. It prolonged the war in both Europe and East Asia, and it helped to expand Soviet power in those areas.

General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, stated on numerous occasions before his death that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: "My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender."

General Curtis LeMay, who had pioneered precision bombing of Germany and Japan (and who later headed the Strategic Air Command and served as Air Force chief of staff), put it most succinctly: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war."

[Redacted] You can't link to that site on this forum - SD

Can you demonstrate anything to support this?


Read the article Above.

Evidence?


90,000-166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000-80,000 in Nagasaki,[4] with roughly half of the deaths in each city occurring on the first day. The Hiroshima prefectural health department estimates that, of the people who died on the day of the explosion, 60% died from flash or flame burns, 30% from falling debris and 10% from other causes. During the following months, large numbers died from the effect of burns, radiation sickness, and other injuries, compounded by illness. A plausible estimate of the total immediate and short term cause of death, 15-20% died from radiation sickness, 20-30% from flash burns, and 50-60% from other injuries, compounded by illness.[5] Since then, more have died from leukemia (231 observed) and solid cancers

Also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bom ... Commission
#13995232
Fully and totally justifiable. Given the behaviour of Japan and its 'honourable' military in the war they were damned lucky not to have been blown off the planet.

Tezelian_Imperialist wrote:No, Americans were just cowards and couldn't cope with the Japanese fighting spirit


Yeah that Japanese fighting spirit as demonstrated by them beating and executing unarmed POWs, starving and working them to death in putrid camps.

Japan picked a fight and got its 'honourable' arsed kicked.

Tezelian_Imperialist wrote:Even the battle of Berlin was a race between the Soviet Union and USA for the uranium deposits in Berlin. Thank Tengri the Soviets reached the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute first and found 3 tonnes of uranium oxide deposits or we would've been dictated by Americans.


A stupid statement. If America had wanted to rule the world they could have bombed the USSR into submission and anyone else for that matter in 1945 the same as they did Japan.
#13995245
It was totally justifiable. Not only did it crush the will of the japanese it also demonstrated the soviets that a war with america will cost them dearly. If it hadn't been for the nuclear bomb WW2 would have continued with communists vs the capitalists after 1 or 2 years. The soviets had massive armies in asia and europe and could possible push americans armies out of europe and korea / taiwan etc. The sole existance of the bomb stoped that from ever happening.

Not to mention the bomb saved a lot more lifes than it killed in the 50-80s , so........
#13995255
The Romans had it right. The only thing that matters is VICTORY. If those Japs didn't like being nuked perhaps they shouldn't have bombed Pearl Harbor.

Quick, what's a word for a Japanese barbecue that starts with H?

Hiroshima!

Suck it Japs!

Usually people who argue that such deeds are "wrong" come from inferior states or peoples on the losing side of history and resort to the pathetic crutch of slave morality. Might makes right, deal with it.

Decky for instance has a chip on his shoulder about the British Empire, one of the greatest achievements in human history, because he has some Irish blood. Maybe if Ireland hadn't sucked so much the English wouldn't have conquered them?
#13995389

If you read my earlier comment I provided evidence such as the race to Berlin between the Soviets and Americans for the Uranium deposits situated in a Military Research Facility (Kaiser Wilhelm Institute) in South Western Berlin.

It's also common sense, the Soviets grabbed three tonnes of Uranium deposits in Berlin before the Americans got there so the Americans wanted to do everything they could to prove to the Soviets, a superpower who the real daddy was. In addition the nuclear bomb had never really been tested in a wide scale which was another reason to nuke Imperial Japan.


So, no evidence.

[Redacted] - SD


Your source is [redacted], a prominent anti-Semitic website with links to neo-Nazi organizations that publishes non peer-reviewed journals. You also do not cite the actual book in question, and, as such, are relying on the [redacted - SD :|]'s review as the crux of your argument. This quote is effectively useless

90,000-166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000-80,000 in Nagasaki,[4] with roughly half of the deaths in each city occurring on the first day. The Hiroshima prefectural health department estimates that, of the people who died on the day of the explosion, 60% died from flash or flame burns, 30% from falling debris and 10% from other causes. During the following months, large numbers died from the effect of burns, radiation sickness, and other injuries, compounded by illness. A plausible estimate of the total immediate and short term cause of death, 15-20% died from radiation sickness, 20-30% from flash burns, and 50-60% from other injuries, compounded by illness.[5] Since then, more have died from leukemia (231 observed) and solid cancers


I asked for evidence to support your statement that the atomic bombs killed millions of people. The fact that between 150,000 and 246,000 Japanese were killed in the blasts is not disputed. 231 dead from leukemia maketh not a million.

You also haven't responded to this point:
Why would hundreds of thousands of dead Americans and the death of tens of times as many Japanese who died from the atomic bombings be a good thing?
#13995528
T_I wrote:Even the battle of Berlin was a race between the Soviet Union and USA for the uranium deposits in Berlin.

It wasn't really a race. The Western Allies diverted to the south, for various reasions which didn't include uranium oxide, rather than go straight at Berlin.

T_I wrote:Thank Tengri the Soviets reached the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute first and found 3 tonnes of uranium oxide deposits or we would've been dictated by Americans.

The US had a nuclear monopoly from 1945 to 1949, despite the uranium acquired by the Soviets. This doesn't make sense. The Soviets were not about to produce a bomb in 1945, and the US knew that perfectly well.

T_I wrote:All America had to do was blockade the islands and peninsulas of Japan and she would've surrendered sooner or later

It's not as exotic, but death by starvation and associated disease, which very well could have been in the millions, isn't really a better end and wouldn't have been any less "cowardly" :roll: .

T_I wrote:Unconditional surrender was a policy of revenge

Not really. Among other items, there was a perception during WWII that maybe if WWI had been fully resolved that there wouldn't have been any capacity to wage a second world war.

EDIT: So, T_I, I've come across you advocating genocide in one thread now and in another you try to deny another. What kind of twisted logic do you employ to morally condemn the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki exactly? :|



Dave wrote:The Romans had it right.

Make strategic alliances in order to divide and conquer rather than adopt a kill 'em all solution to all problems? ;)

JohnRawls wrote:If it hadn't been for the nuclear bomb WW2 would have continued with communists vs the capitalists after 1 or 2 years.

I think that's unlikely. The Soviets were reasonably aware of the capabilities of the nuclear bomb, and all sides considered the possibility of another war but shelved it because they were exhausted.
#13995532
Eran wrote:Many other allied actions during the war (e.g. the bombing of Dresden) were equally unjustified in targeting civilians.

Dresden was actually bombed because it was a logistics hub, and it was thought bombing it would disrupt the German forces fighting further east. As I understand it, they weren't actually specifically targetting civilians in that instance, unlike other instances of area bombing.
#13995540
Smilin' Dave wrote:Dresden was actually bombed because it was a logistics hub, and it was thought bombing it would disrupt the German forces fighting further east. As I understand it, they weren't actually specifically targetting civilians in that instance, unlike other instances of area bombing.

Even if civilians weren't the specific target, killing civilians to obtain your goals is never justifiable. Imo its also very hard to claim that your intention is not to kill civilians when dropping bombs on a city.
#13995541
As I understand it, they weren't actually specifically targetting civilians in that instance, unlike other instances of area bombing.

Then substitute some of those other instances of area bombing for Dresden as examples of why the nuclear strikes against Imperial Japan weren't uniquely unjustified.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 12

Nobody is trying to distract from the humanitarian[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Again: nope. Putin in Feb 2022 only decided ... […]

Helping Ukraine to defeat the Russian invasion an[…]

https://twitter.com/huwaidaarraf/status/1773389663[…]