• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

John Kerry Makes Historic Visit To Hiroshima Memorial

I already did. You cut down my posts when replying and responded to the one sentence where I wasn't explaining it.


Truman's decision only seems simple if (1) you only see things in either black or white, and (2) you think Americans are the only real human beings on Earth.

If you don't agree with either, or both, then it is a very bitter decision with no clear right answer

It had nothing to do with us viewing the Japanese or anyone else as less than human. That's not why those bombs were dropped.

It had to do with ending the War and saving American lives.

If its not just " Black and White " then explain the complicated minutia that I'm apparently missing here.
 
Of-course you think forcing Japan to surrender and saving Americans lives was the wrong thing to do....
I think dropping an atomic weapon on a civilian population is wrong.
 
I think dropping an atomic weapon on a civilian population is wrong.

You have the luxury to armchair quarterback a war that's been over for 70 years, Truman didn't.

He was responsible for saving American lives during a time of War. He made the right and ONLY choice.

And you DO realize we dropped incendiary munitions on population centers prior to bombing those two cities, right ?

So what's the difference? The existence of a plutonium pit ?
 
Along just one front, they had 3700 aircraft, 80 subs and numerous other naval support. Could ally tanks have swum across to normandy? No, it's the same concept. They had 1.5 million ground troops which is far beyond the ability of japan to defend. Again this was just their northern front

They conquered manchuria in short order, in fact in between the two atomic bombs. The soviets then landed and captured the kuril islands attached to japan's main land, which remain in their control. Only then did japan surrender, a full month after the bombs

Stalin was never impressed by the bombs, which did very little damage to japan militarily. It did not impress much of japan's own high command either, as they attempted a coup on the emperor to prevent a surrender

Ok there is a lot to correct here.

1.

The Soviet military greatly exceeded the ability of the Kwantung Army, however it wasn't a pushover either. Most historians believe the Soviets massively underreported their casualties, especially in heavily engaged areas like Mudanjiang where the Soviet army was delayed and the Kwantung Army was able to extricate itself and began a withdrawal towards Korea. The Soviets place their casualties at a little over 10,000 for the entire Manchuria campaign, other historians estimate that 10,000 is a fair estimate for Mudanjiang alone. Either way the Soviets had, in point of fact, not destroyed the Imperial Japanese army which was able to extract the bulk of its major formations. When the Soviets attacked the Japanese were in the process of redeploying to Korea for a defense of the peninsula which is why they were caught strung out. However major formations had reached the Korean border and many more were en-route after the successful delaying action at Mudanjiang. The Japanese surrender in mid-August precluded further Soviet offensives and further engagements against a tenacious defender that still numbered several hundred thousand troops. Soviet victory was inevitable but it would have been paid for in blood.

What the invasion of Manchuria did however was obliterate the Japanese strategic map. Prior to the invasion Japan despite mounting losses held an apparently strong position in China. They had retreated to the coasts and tightened their lines of defense but they still dominated everything from Guangzhou to Beijing, they retained control of a strong puppet in Manchukuo, and their old dominion over Korea was unchallenged. This continental Empire gave Japan hope that it could drag out the war to such an extent that it might force favorable peace terms on the Allies, moreover it gave psychological confidence. The loss of islands and fleets was one thing, but the Empire was still relatively 'intact'. After the invasion it was clear that Japanese field armies and garrisons in China were unequivocally doomed and that nothing but the Home Islands could be defended.

That being said there is overwhelming evidence that the atomic bombings figured more prominently in forcing the immediate Japanese capitulation. It is incredibly unlikely that a swift unconditional Japanese surrender would have been forthcoming in mid August just because of the loss of Manchukuo-Manchuria and Korea. Devastating yes but it did not directly imperil the Home Islands nor did it deflect from the possibility of a terrible resistance that might minimize the peace conditions. With the atomic bombings it completed the strategic picture of total and utter defeat.

2.

The invasion of the Kurile Islands took place after Japan had officially broadcast its surrender. As a result the garrison troops mounted only a haphazard defense with some choosing to observe the ceasefire and others resisting. Nevertheless the Soviets still suffered heavy losses from this sporadic resistance. It was the attack on Sakhalin which occurred before the surrender and that island was lightly defended but it still strained the capabilities of Russian sealift. There is not evidence that the Japanese greatly feared an assault on the home islands from the Soviet Union. The Soviet sealift was only possible as the result of major United States shipping transfers under Project Hula which saw close to 4,000 vessels transferred into Soviet service. Nevertheless it is unlikely in the extreme that a Soviet landing on a major island like Hokkaido could have been successful.

3.

Incorrect. The Japanese 'high command' did not launch a coup (nor was it launched against the Emperor, that would have been sacrilege), it was instead a desperate attempt by a fanatical major named Kenji Hatanaka who attempted to stage a palace coup utilizing a few hundred troops and counterfeit orders. It failed but it does demonstrate that Japanese troops were willing to engage in fanatical resistance even in the aftermath of major defeats and the atomic bombings.
 
What about bombing a military target instead?

There wasn't exactly a JDAM kit to affix to Little Boy. As far as things were defined in that era Hiroshima was a strategic target.
 
What about bombing a military target instead?

They were military targets and population centers.

Truman wanted those attacks to have a psychological effect and besides, civilian centers were targeted before those two bombs were ever dropped.

No one spared Civilians and who ever said Population centers were off limits during times of war ?

There are currently thousands of Nuclear warheads in Russia and in the US with a major Cities name on them.

The fact that my City would be reduced to a toxic cloud of nuclear waste is some concellation if they ever decide to start lobbing those things over the Ocean. I would rather be vaporized than have to suffer in a post apocalyptic hell

Houstons, actually the City of Pasadena's large petrochemical installations would take direct hits and Im not far from Pasadena
 
You have the luxury to armchair quarterback a war that's been over for 70 years, Truman didn't.

He was responsible for saving American lives during a time of War. He made the right and ONLY choice.

And you DO realize we dropped incendiary munitions on population centers prior to bombing those two cities, right ?

So what's the difference? The existence of a plutonium pit ?

Sorry, I find the act of dropping an atomic bomb on a civilian population an idea one should never see as a justifiable decision.
 
There wasn't exactly a JDAM kit to affix to Little Boy. As far as things were defined in that era Hiroshima was a strategic target.

It's not like accuracy was of much importantce. Just hit a base somewhere that's not surrounded by so many civilians.


They were military targets and population centers.

Truman wanted those attacks to have a psychological effect and besides, civilian centers were targeted before those two bombs were ever dropped.

No one spared Civilians and who ever said Population centers were off limits during times of war ?

There are currently thousands of Nuclear warheads in Russia and in the US with a major Cities name on them.

The fact that my City would be reduced to a toxic cloud of nuclear waste is some concellation if they ever decide to start lobbing those things over the Ocean. I would rather be vaporized than have to suffer in a post apocalyptic hell

Houstons, actually the City of Pasadena's large petrochemical installations would take direct hits and Im not far from Pasadena

Bombing one or two targets to demonstrate how badly outclassed the enemy is by your new, unprecedented weapon is not remotely comparable to a potentially species-ending hypothetical exchange with Russia.

And I'm really shocked that I have to explain that to you.
 
It's not like accuracy was of much importantce. Just hit a base somewhere that's not surrounded by so many civilians.


Bombing one or two targets to demonstrate how badly outclassed the enemy is by your new, unprecedented weapon is not remotely comparable to a potentially species-ending hypothetical exchange with Russia.

And I'm really shocked that I have to explain that to you.

The Japanese were going to fight on even if we performed a demonstration---hell, even after losing cities they were still willing to fight on
 
It's not like accuracy was of much importantce. Just hit a base somewhere that's not surrounded by so many civilians.




Bombing one or two targets to demonstrate how badly outclassed the enemy is by your new, unprecedented weapon is not remotely comparable to a potentially species-ending hypothetical exchange with Russia.

And I'm really shocked that I have to explain that to you.

What base would you recommend? Almost every major military installation in Japan was located either within or adjacent to a major city. In fact I struggle to think of one that wasn't.
 
Sorry, I find the act of dropping an atomic bomb on a civilian population an idea one should never see as a justifiable decision.

Never? You really can't ever imagine such a scenario? Something something only Sith deal in absolutes.
 
What base would you recommend? Almost every major military installation in Japan was located either within or adjacent to a major city. In fact I struggle to think of one that wasn't.

Yes, I wonder how you nuke just a military base. Did they have any bases that were that far removed from civilian population? I hope Kerry dropped a copy of "Unbroken" at the memorial.
 
The Japanese were going to fight on even if we performed a demonstration---hell, even after losing cities they were still willing to fight on

Speculative. The morally superior choice would have been to try a demonstration with fewer civilian casualties first.
 
Yes, I wonder how you nuke just a military base. Did they have any bases that were that far removed from civilian population? I hope Kerry dropped a copy of "Unbroken" at the memorial.

Surely something more remote than a city existed.
 
Speculative. The morally superior choice would have been to try a demonstration with fewer civilian casualties first.
I don't think that the Japanese would have been convinced to surrender if we did that.
 
I don't think that the Japanese would have been convinced to surrender if we did that.

I think they would have. That there was no defense against such weaponry would have been readily apparent.
 
Speculative. The morally superior choice would have been to try a demonstration with fewer civilian casualties first.

Not speculative, seeing as that's what happened in real life after the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which is much more devastating than any demonstration
 
Not speculative, seeing as that's what happened in real life after the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which is much more devastating than any demonstration

They did surrender after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
 
I think they would have. That there was no defense against such weaponry would have been readily apparent.
I don't agree. Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a devastating effect on Japan and forced them into surrender, and I don't believe a demonstration would do that, at least not very easily.
 
I would argue it's historic in that the US government is visiting a memorial dedicated to one of the most horrific events in world history, which was instigated by the US. I think it's good Kerry is there and think it would be good if a President were to visit at some point as well, whether it be President Obama or whomever wins the election.

With that said, and keeping in mind the absolute horror and devastation caused by dropping the bombs, I don't think it was the wrong decision to use the atomic bombs. At the end of the day, we were engaged in a war in which our involvement first began due to the actions of Japan, and dropping the bombs saved many many American lives. Truman made the correct decision.

But even though he made the correct decision, that doesn't mean the world, including us, cannot feel sympathetic or even remorseful about it. While I realize the much smaller scale of the action, it is akin to disciplining your child to the point it makes them cry...you know it's the right thing to do, but you still can feel bad your child hurts. We can recognize that dropping the bombs was the right action, yet still hate the fact it was our best option.
 
Back
Top Bottom