• 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!

Hiroshima Bombing vs. Torture

Hiroshima Bombing vs. Torture

  • Hiroshima was worse

    Votes: 10 41.7%

  • Torture is worse

    Votes: 4 16.7%

  • Hiroshima was neseccary

    Votes: 20 83.3%

  • Torture was neseccary

    Votes: 7 29.2%
  • Total voters
    24
Saboteur said:
My thought process is that both were/are atrocities.
Click to expand...

I think the scale makes it difficult to compare.

The Hiroshima bombing is really specific, whereas, torture is very murky and dynamic.
 
Hiroshima was worse, and more necessary.
 
I would say that Japanese proper (the Monarchy) was willing to surrender, but the Monarch was not the decision-maker at the time. The military Generals who told soldiers and soldiers family that their duty was to protect their island.
Click to expand...

There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

US Strategic Bombing Survey

Chicago Tribune, August 19,1945

JAPS ASKED PEACE IN JAN. ENVOYS ON WAY -- TOKYO

Roosevelt Ignored M'Arthur Report On Nip Proposals

By Walter Trohan

Release of all censorship restrictions in the United States makes it possible to report that the first Japanese peace bid was relayed to the White House seven months ago.

Two days before the late President Roosevelt left the last week in January for the Yalta conference with Prime Minister Churchill and Marshal Stalin he received a Japanese offer identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, Harry S. Truman.

MacArthur Relayed Message to F.D.

The Jap offer, based on five separate overtures, was relayed to the White House by Gen. MacArthur in a 40-page communication. The American commander, who had just returned triumphantly to Bataan, urged negotiations on the basis of the Jap overtures.

The offer, as relayed by MacArthur, contemplated abject surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. The suggestion was advanced from the Japanese quarters making the offer that the Emperor become a puppet in the hands of American forces.

Two of the five Jap overtures were made through American channels and three through British channels. All came from responsible Japanese, acting for Emperor Hirohito.

General's Communication Dismissed

President Roosevelt dismissed the general's communication, which was studded with solemn references to the deity, after a casual reading with the remark, "MacArthur is our greatest general and our poorest politician."

The MacArthur report was not even taken to Yalta. However, it was carefully preserved in the files of the high command and subsequently became the basis of the Truman-Attlee Potsdam declaration calling for surrender of Japan.

This Jap peace bid was known to the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald shortly after the MacArthur comunication reached here. It was not published under the paper’s established policy of complete co-operation with the voluntary censorship code.

FULL STORY

DISCLAIMER:
And in case you don't believe this article is valid (as the IHR is a noted revisionist organization), here it is in the archives of the Chicago Tribune.
Click to expand...

And so...?
Click to expand...

And so the bombs were unnecessary, as it is quite clear that Japan was willing to surrender.
 
Last edited:
Arch Enemy said:
I think the scale makes it difficult to compare.

The Hiroshima bombing is really specific, whereas, torture is very murky and dynamic.
Click to expand...


True but they're both things the U.S. resorted to in the course of war.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

US Strategic Bombing Survey





And so the bombs were unnecessary, as it is quite clear that Japan was willing to surrender.
Click to expand...


I thank for your response, but you still have not addressed that the surrender being of Japanese Government. The sentiment of the Japanese culture is one of honor and warriors. They would drop dead before they allowed another nation-state to occupy theirs without a measure of the occupying nation-state's power.
 
I thank for your response, but you still have not addressed that the surrender being of Japanese Government. The sentiment of the Japanese culture is one of honor and warriors. They would drop dead before they allowed another nation-state to occupy theirs without a measure of the occupying nation-state's power.
Click to expand...

If that were the case then I don't think they would have offered to surrender.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.
Click to expand...
I love the 'could have' and 'might have been' and "it seems clear'.
I wonder how these terms would be viewed if they were something issued by the Bush administration.

Fact is, prior to the bombs being dropped, the Japanese had not surrendered. However 'open' some of them may have been to the idea, they had not done so -- and so, absent that surrender, the ONLY prudent course of action is to contine to attack the Japanese with the full force af the allied war machine.

That includes the use of the nuclear weapons. It also includes the continued use of incendiary raids, and, if the surrender still doesn't come, an invasion.

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
Click to expand...
Assuming that is indeed accurate -- how could have any of this in any way been known to any degree on certainty -before- the end of the war?

And so the bombs were unnecessary, as it is quite clear that Japan was willing to surrender.
Click to expand...
You keep saying that -- and yet, there was no surrender.
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Hiroshima was necessary because the Japs refused to surrender.

Too bad for them.

Enhanced interrogation of the Gitmo detainees is necessary when they won't talk.

What's the big deal, it's not like they're human?
Click to expand...

They were willing to surrender they were not willing to surrender on our terms. They wanted it their way. So the bombs were BS>

Let be know how you feel about torture when they are doing it to our troops. Tell me then the difference between torture and torture lite.
 
Thanks to the stupidity of Japan's military, and government, the world learned, or should have learned, a valuable lesson....
don't attack a powerful nation and then when they have you by the throat expect to be given quarter...
Wars are not fought by the rules of badminton....
 
Inferno said:
They were willing to surrender they were not willing to surrender on our terms.
Click to expand...
And so, we continued to beat on them.
That's how war works -- you issue terms, and then the other side accepts or declines. If they decline, the war continues.

In this case, it meant using nuclear weapons in an attempt to hasten the end of the war and save lives.
 
Goobieman said:
And so, we continued to beat on them.
That's how war works -- you issue terms, and then the other side accepts or declines. If they decline, the war continues.

In this case, it meant using nuclear weapons in an attempt to hasten the end of the war and save lives.
Click to expand...

It was just an excuse to drop this weapon that we spent the big bucks on. We could then really study the effects of nuclear holocaust. That I guess was one of the benefits from your view. Whats a few dead civilians when we can see what radiation does to them. Yipee Go Team America.
 
Goobieman said:
And so, we continued to beat on them.
That's how war works -- you issue terms, and then the other side accepts or declines. If they decline, the war continues.

In this case, it meant using nuclear weapons in an attempt to hasten the end of the war and save lives.
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that the decision was influenced by the desire to let the Russians know that we had the bomb. Supposedly Stalin already knew we had it, but may not have known just how powerful it was.
 
Inferno said:
It was just an excuse to drop this weapon that we spent the big bucks on.
Click to expand...
No... it was a means to affect the defeat of the enemy.

In war, especially in a total war, you use every means available to force the other side to surrender as quickly as possible -- anything less means the war goes on longer than necessary, and more people die.

To NOT use the bombs, chosing instead to allow thw war to go on longer than necessary, resulting in the deaths of more Americans -and- Japanese, would have been irresponsible.
 
UtahBill said:
I read somewhere that the decision was influenced by the desire to let the Russians know that we had the bomb. Supposedly Stalin already knew we had it, but may not have known just how powerful it was.
Click to expand...
I am sure that is part of the reason -- and its a perfectly legitimate reason at that. The US and USSR were co-belligerents, not allies, and had numerous competing interests.

Consider, too, had we not seen the destruction of Hiroshima and nagasaki, how much more likely a nuclear exchnage between the US and USSR might have been.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.
Click to expand...
which is contradictory to most if not all US documents showing vast preparations to conduct a land offensive and invasion of Japan. Furthermore, the production of about 2 A-bombs per month was calculated and discussed as weapons to be used during the ongoing invasion of Japan.

Your speculation is just that, speculation. You might as well claim the Cardinals would have one the SuperBowl if one of the many penalties was or wasn't called. Its absurd claiming what you do.

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
Click to expand...
Funny how the US military leaders were anticipating quite the opposite, though they did hold out some hope that surrender may occur.

And so the bombs were unnecessary, as it is quite clear that Japan was willing to surrender.
Click to expand...
But not on terms the US demanded so your argument is moot. The conditions for surrender offered to Japan by the US were fair. Japan refused. The first bomb was dropped. They refused again. The second was dropped. They consented. The war was over. All of this occurring while the US planned for a land invasion.
 
Last edited:
Saboteur said:
Like the Pearl Harbor vs. 9/11 thread. Which was a worse? Which was more necessary?
Click to expand...

false analogies are worse than valid analogies. valid analogies are more necessary than false ones.
 
Inferno said:
It was just an excuse to drop this weapon that we spent the big bucks on. We could then really study the effects of nuclear holocaust. That I guess was one of the benefits from your view. Whats a few dead civilians when we can see what radiation does to them. Yipee Go Team America.
Click to expand...

Its always amusing when such flagerant speculation supported by nothing more than the imagination of those who wish to impugn the actions of the US is blathered.

If you can PROVE this then do so, however, all the EVIDENCE points to the conclusion that the bomb was simply viewed as another weapon to be used to achieve victory over the Japanese. Surrender by use of the a-bomb was hoped for but this outcome was not given any better probability except by those today who benefit from the error of hindsight.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Anyone that takes a quick look through that thread will realize that I was the one that provided overwhelming evidence to support my case whereas you simply resorted to statements like this.
Click to expand...

No. You failed to demonstrate that the japs were going to surrender, since the japs did not surrender until we nuked them, which is, by the way, the historical fact of the matter.

You do know the war ended AFTER the bombs were dropped, not before?

You do know that we demanded their surrender before we nuked them, and they refused, right?
 
celticlord said:
Hiroshima killed over a hundred thousand people. That's a pretty high bar on the brutality scale to top.
Click to expand...

Wasn't brutal. We didn't start the war. Nor did we treat the half-dozen or so Japanese prisoners that surrendered like diseased cattle.

Perhaps if the Japanese hadn't started the war, they wouldn't have come face to face with someone that was totally pissed off and capable of so thoroughly whupping their asses that they were reduced to using suicide pilots to fend us off while they prepared their old men and babies to defend their shores.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You do know that we demanded their surrender before we nuked them, and they refused, right?
Click to expand...
That they didnt surrender is obviously -our- fault, as we demanded an unconditional surrender.

Had -we- not been so uncomprimising, the war would have been over and the bombs not been dropped.
:roll:
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
And so, it took two boimbs to force the surrender, because...?

Dropping the bombs saved American and Japanese lives. That's what matters.
Click to expand...

No.

The only thing that mattered was that nuking those two cities saved American lives.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
It didn't take two bombs to force the surrender, as the Japanese were willing to surrender before the bombs were dropped, as I've already outlined in the other thread and backed up with substantial evidence.
Click to expand...

If they were willing to surrender, but didn't, then they weren't willing to surrender.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom