• 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!

Did the US do the right thing in dropping the atomic bombs on Japan to end WWII?

Did the US do the right thing in dropping the atomic bombs on Japan?

  • yes

    Votes: 72 69.9%

  • no

    Votes: 20 19.4%

  • not sure

    Votes: 11 10.7%
  • Total voters
    103
RabidAlpaca said:
Like I said, coward, please never join the military. You'll start telling yourself it would be morally acceptable to level an entire village of innocent people because there might be a taliban fighter inside who could hurt you. Not a shred of honor.
Click to expand...

You keep talking like you think your opinion is going to hurt my feelings or something. It doesn't. You are random dude posting on the Internet, who rather we have let thousands of people starve to death, or cause far more casualties in an actual ground invasion of Japan, than use the weapons we had avaible to us to end the war as quickly as possible.
 
Tigerace117 said:
You keep talking like you think your opinion is going to hurt my feelings or something. It doesn't. You are random dude posting on the Internet, who rather we have let thousands of people starve to death, or cause far more casualties in an actual ground invasion of Japan, than use the weapons we had avaible to us to end the war as quickly as possible.
Click to expand...

They would not have starved to death and an invasion and the bombs were unnecessary
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So basically, any nuclear armed nation that feels threatened has the moral right and obligation to nuke millions of innocent people if they feel it will protect them. How is that not a war crime again? That's a pretty cowardly position and I'm glad our foreign policy hasn't been that way for 70 some odd years.



Along with hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children. They were jappos so **** them though, right? They were inhuman and deserved to be wiped off the face of the earth for even existing, huh?
Click to expand...

"Innocent people"? You think the Japanese troops garrisoned in both those cities, and the people who ensured the Japanese military had the ability in the first place to go out and commit all of those atrocities, were "innocent?

Incredibly naive.

We haven't been in a campaign where it was anticipated we would take so many casualties that we are still working through the the supply of Purple Hearts printed up for it more than five decades later.

Ah, and now I see what your problem is. You are so fixated on this fantasy of "US evil racists" that you can't seem to use logic.

Would you rather those innocent civilians have been throw at US troops armed with nothing more than spears? Or given hand grenades and told to blow themselves up when Americans got near? Better yet, have them fling themselves off cliffs like at Saipan, right?
 
vegas giants said:
You will learn a lot after you join the military son
Click to expand...

Considering the marines are the ones who were going to be most heavily involved in the actual on the ground fighting in Japan, I rather highly doubt I'm going to find any bleeding hearts for poor Imperial Japan. Nice try though.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Considering the marines are the ones who were going to be most heavily involved in the actual on the ground fighting in Japan, I rather highly doubt I'm going to find any bleeding hearts for poor Imperial Japan. Nice try though.
Click to expand...

If you find a bleeding heart....call a corpsman. LOL
 
vegas giants said:
They would not have starved to death and an invasion and the bombs were unnecessary
Click to expand...

Yes they would have. We were blockading them. That's the entire point of a blockade. If the enemy isn't adversely affected by said blockade, your little plan makes even less sense because it calls for us to sit around and do nothing for weeks in the fantasy that the Japanese will get bored and surrender.

You either had to invade or drop the bombs. Sitting around would no more make Japan surrender than stopping at the Rhine would make Germany surrender.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Yes they would have. We were blockading them. That's the entire point of a blockade. If the enemy isn't adversely affected by said blockade, your little plan makes even less sense because it calls for us to sit around and do nothing for weeks in the fantasy that the Japanese will get bored and surrender.

You either had to invade or drop the bombs. Sitting around would no more make Japan surrender than stopping at the Rhine would make Germany surrender.
Click to expand...

Well the military experts of the day had a different opinion....but you will soon be a boot so we should listen to you. lol
 
vegas giants said:
Well the military experts of the day had a different opinion....but you will soon be a boot so we should listen to you. lol
Click to expand...

Actually false, as other posters have shown, and yet you have been unable to find any Japanese generals saying any such thing.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Actually false, as other posters have shown, and yet you have been unable to find any Japanese generals saying any such thing.
Click to expand...

I quoted virtually all of the American generals of the day. Who did you quote?
 
Tigerace117 said:
"Innocent people"? You think the Japanese troops garrisoned in both those cities, and the people who ensured the Japanese military had the ability in the first place to go out and commit all of those atrocities, were "innocent?

Incredibly naive.

We haven't been in a campaign where it was anticipated we would take so many casualties that we are still working through the the supply of Purple Hearts printed up for it more than five decades later.

Ah, and now I see what your problem is. You are so fixated on this fantasy of "US evil racists" that you can't seem to use logic.

Would you rather those innocent civilians have been throw at US troops armed with nothing more than spears? Or given hand grenades and told to blow themselves up when Americans got near? Better yet, have them fling themselves off cliffs like at Saipan, right?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that cities full of civilians are filled with innocent people. You're advocating for a war crime and it would be no different if we bombed a school in Afghanistan killing 200 children to get 1 taliban. When you intentionally select your munitions to kill as many civilians as possible and maximize collateral damage, you're committing a war crime.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Yes, I think that cities full of civilians are filled with innocent people. You're advocating for a war crime and it would be no different if we bombed a school in Afghanistan killing 200 school children to get 1 taliban. When you intentionally select your munitions to kill as many civilians as possible and maximize collateral damage, you're committing a war crime.
Click to expand...

Your mythical school keeps getting bigger.
 
Fledermaus said:
OPINION noted.
Click to expand...

Here is some more. LOL

In a 1986 study, historian and journalist Edwin P. Hoyt nailed the "great myth, perpetuated by well-meaning people throughout the world," that "the atomic bomb caused the surrender of Japan." In Japan's War: The Great Pacific Conflict (p. 420), he explained:
The fact is that as far as the Japanese militarists were concerned, the atomic bomb was just another weapon. The two atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were icing on the cake, and did not do as much damage as the firebombings of Japanese cities. The B-29 firebombing campaign had brought the destruction of 3,100,000 homes, leaving 15 million people homeless, and killing about a million of them. It was the ruthless firebombing, and Hirohito's realization that if necessary the Allies would completely destroy Japan and kill every Japanese to achieve "unconditional surrender" that persuaded him to the decision to end the war. The atomic bomb is indeed a fearsome weapon, but it was not the cause of Japan's surrender, even though the myth persists even to this day.
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.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Fill in any number you feel like. Intentionally selecting your munitions to kill as many civilians as possible is a war crime.
Click to expand...

Your OPINION is noted.

How many civilians died in the liberation of Okinawa? Was that a war crime?

Saipan. War crime?

Philippines. War crime?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom