• 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
M

Masterhawk

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
489
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
People still ask this question today. Some people feel that it was wrong to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki while others think that the casualty count would have been higher had the US invaded the mainland.

What are your thoughts on this?
 
I feel like it's odd that the unpopular opinion is that we shouldn't have dropped WMDs on civilian populations.
 
Yes, we did the right thing.
 
Masterhawk said:
People still ask this question today. Some people feel that it was wrong to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki while others think that the casualty count would have been higher had the US invaded the mainland.

What are your thoughts on this?
Click to expand...

I'm think that if you were a US WW2 soldier, you'd think it was a great idea!
 
CMPancake said:
I feel like it's odd that the unpopular opinion is that we shouldn't have dropped WMDs on civilian populations.
Click to expand...

Are we not counting the major military installations that both cities had?

Would it have been better to launch a conventional invasion, with the heavy Allied casualties and absolutely horrific Japanese civilian casualties that would have caused? Or better yet, let hundreds of thousands of people starve to death?
 
Masterhawk said:
People still ask this question today. Some people feel that it was wrong to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki while others think that the casualty count would have been higher had the US invaded the mainland.

What are your thoughts on this?
Click to expand...

Yes, it was the right thing to do. Any sort of conventional invasion would have led to extremely heavy casualties, especially among the civilian populace of Japan. Not to mention, if I recall correctly we are still working through the stockpile of Purple Hearts they created in preparation for the invasion.
 
Targeting civilians is never the right thing. The US insistence on unconditional surrender was unnecessary as Japan was already essentially defeated.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Are we not counting the major military installations that both cities had?

Would it have been better to launch a conventional invasion, with the heavy Allied casualties and absolutely horrific Japanese civilian casualties that would have caused? Or better yet, let hundreds of thousands of people starve to death?
Click to expand...

Why invade Japan at all? At the time of the dropping of the atomic bombs they had no air force or navy and there was mass starvation. A peace could easily have been negotiated at that point.
 
General Eisenhower and MacArthur said it was completely unnecessary. I side with the generals on that.
 
phattonez said:
Why invade Japan at all? At the time of the dropping of the atomic bombs they had no air force or navy and there was mass starvation. A peace could easily have been negotiated at that point.
Click to expand...

You do realize there was an attempt at a coup even after the nuclear weapons were dropped to keep the war going....right?

There is literally zero chance a peace not imposed at the point of a bayonet would have been accepted. Surrender was seen as worse than death. It's far more likely there simply would have been more kamikaze attacks and mass starvation.
 
phattonez said:
Targeting civilians is never the right thing. The US insistence on unconditional surrender was unnecessary as Japan was already essentially defeated.
Click to expand...

Essentially defeated is not the same thing as defeated. A cornered animal is an animal at its most dangerous. Would you rather Unit 731 bio warfare products get unleashed in San Francisco? Because the Japanese were planning to give that another go by the end of the war.
 
Tigerace117 said:
You do realize there was an attempt at a coup even after the nuclear weapons were dropped to keep the war going....right?

There is literally zero chance a peace not imposed at the point of a bayonet would have been accepted. Surrender was seen as worse than death. It's far more likely there simply would have been more kamikaze attacks and mass starvation.
Click to expand...

So there's nothing to be made of the peace that Japan was attempting with the Soviet Union?
 
phattonez said:
Why invade Japan at all? At the time of the dropping of the atomic bombs they had no air force or navy and there was mass starvation. A peace could easily have been negotiated at that point.
Click to expand...

Japan was not willing to agree to unconditional surrender, which was what the allies were demanding
 
Tigerace117 said:
Essentially defeated is not the same thing as defeated. A cornered animal is an animal at its most dangerous. Would you rather Unit 731 bio warfare products get unleashed in San Francisco? Because the Japanese were planning to give that another go by the end of the war.
Click to expand...

Why would they have done it? What would it have accomplished?
 
phattonez said:
So there's nothing to be made of the peace that Japan was attempting with the Soviet Union?
Click to expand...

Japan was attempting to distract the allies; to drive a wedge between them and buy time. They'd always had a weird blind spot when it came to the USSR. They never had any intention of surrendering.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Japan was not willing to agree to unconditional surrender, which was what the allies were demanding
Click to expand...

Was that demand worth killing hundreds of thousands more innocents?
 
Tigerace117 said:
Japan was attempting to distract the allies; to drive a wedge between them and buy time. They'd always had a weird blind spot when it came to the USSR. They never had any intention of surrendering.
Click to expand...

Buy time to do what? They had no chance to fight back. Again, they had no air force and navy at that point. Their fate was sealed.
 
phattonez said:
Why would they have done it? What would it have accomplished?
Click to expand...

Because they could try, and because they were ****ing fanatics. These were not rational people running Imperial Japan. They were every bit as bad as Nazi Germany.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Yes, it was the right thing to do. Any sort of conventional invasion would have led to extremely heavy casualties, especially among the civilian populace of Japan. Not to mention, if I recall correctly we are still working through the stockpile of Purple Hearts they created in preparation for the invasion.
Click to expand...

We have pushed the "would have had to invade" scenario since the war so we could feel better about killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians. The truth is, Japan was seeking peace negotiations and the US wanted nothing short of unconditional surrender. We would not even guarantee the emperor's position, which was really what the Japanese ultimately wanted. Ironically, we would go on to 'pardon' him anyways.
 
Almost every military leader of that time has come out and said we did not need to drop the bomb. Japan was done
 
Re: Did the US do the right thing in dropping the atomic bombs on Japan to end WWII?.

phattonez said:
Buy time to do what? They had no chance to fight back. Again, they had no air force and navy at that point. Their fate was sealed.
Click to expand...

Once again, not rational people. These are the guys who to tried to fight on even after getting nuked twice. As long as they had bodies to throw at the Allies, they thought they still had a chance.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Because they could try, and because they were ****ing fanatics. These were not rational people running Imperial Japan. They were every bit as bad as Nazi Germany.
Click to expand...

Then why surrender after the atomic bombs?

Enemy governments aren't devils. This isn't a rational way of looking at international politics.
 
Geoist said:
We have pushed the "would have had to invade" scenario since the war so we could feel better about killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians. The truth is, Japan was seeking peace negotiations and the US wanted nothing short of unconditional surrender. We would not even guarantee the emperor's position, which was really what the Japanese ultimately wanted. Ironically, we would go on to 'pardon' him anyways.
Click to expand...
Exactly right. We gave them the one concession they wanted
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom