American use of nuclear weapons against Japan

[tom_mai78101]

Source.

Japanese World War II leader Hideki Tojo wanted to keep fighting even after U.S. atomic bombs destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, accusing surrender proponents of being "frightened," a newly released diary reveals.

From here, we expect a tyrant coming into our thoughts from the diary.

But, as you read onwards, there's this thing that's just..."undeniable".

The diary shows Tojo remained convinced of the justice and necessity of Japan's brutal march through Asia and its disastrous decision to draw the United States into the war by bombing Pearl Harbor.

On Aug. 10 — the day after the Nagasaki bombing — Tojo wrote that the purpose of the war was to "maintain stability in East Asia and defend our country."

"Many soldiers and the people cannot bring themselves to die until the goal is achieved," he wrote.

Should it be necessary to wage an attack on Pearl Harbor, just to maintain peace and harmony in the Eastern Asia? Should it be reasonable for America not to fight back in the World War 2 era, until they were attacked? Can we expect an apology from those claiming that the American use of nuclear weapons was unnecessary?

 

[Miz]

We(the united states) used the Atomic Bomb
1) Because We were not completely sure the affects of it yet...
2) The Japanese were going to the fight to the last man, and wouldn't surrender.

So really, I don't believe it was unnecessary

 

[Sevion]

But Mizuio, by bombing the Japanese, we killed innocent civilians.

 

[undeadorcjerk]

They were bonus points.

Besides. Mizuio is right. The Japanese would rather die then surrender. We either were to take the quick way out, nuclear ownage, or risk losing thousands more American troops.

I personally think it was a good idea. It established America as a world super power. And after a time of chaos, one needs to step up to lead those back into order. America stepped up.

 

[esb]

Would it be necessary to send soldiers (possible a draft) into Japan and kill them, along with innocent Chinese civilians?

 

[tom_mai78101]

Or the Americans can just propose a treaty that forbids the Japanese to attack/harm the Eastern Pacific countries, especially Hawaii. There are hundreds of different methods that can work, but what the Americans did was "testing something radioactive/dangerous on human beings", which was against the human rights.

It's like, Japanese are lap mice, being used for testing how powerful a nuclear bomb is.

 

[Seb!]

The Americans didn't understand how much damage the bombs would do. They didn't understand the effects of nuclear radiation or fallout or anything.

People don't even question the decision now, but even the people who invented the bomb and decided to use it understand that the effects weren't worth it. That's not even a question among experts and it is why they haven't been used since.

 

[Miz]

But Mizuio, by bombing the Japanese, we killed innocent civilians.

You forget, this is World War 2; almost a complete global war. Japan was going to fight to the last man. Really we only dropped 2, we were on the way of making 15 more...

Japan wasn't going to surrender till the last man, and at that time the US wasn't afraid to kill them to that.

But Don't forget, we did rebuild Japan to what we see today (Although, they don't have a real army, that have something like a national guard and they also have the US Army)

 

[Ninva]

But Mizuio, by bombing the Japanese, we killed innocent civilians.

That wasn't the first time we killed thousands of civilians.

The Americans didn't understand how much damage the bombs would do. They didn't understand the effects of nuclear radiation or fallout or anything.

We were well aware of what we were doing. We bombed the crap out of them to demoralize them.

 

[Miz]

We were well aware of what we were doing. We bombed the crap out of them to demoralize them.

Yes, but we didn't know the after affects, such as mass radiation, etc.
It was a new weapons, that would help us win a war. We decided to use it unknowing, what the consequences would be.

 

[Uberplayer]

> Yes, but we didn't know the after affects, such as mass radiation, etc.
I think the Americans of that time were too 'stupid' (couldn't think of a better word) to test a smaller bomb in their own country.

> 2) The Japanese were going to the fight to the last man, and wouldn't surrender.
It's not America's job to solve all problems. This nuclear weapon way was the worst possible way I could think of.

 

[Ninva]

2) The Japanese were going to the fight to the last man, and wouldn't surrender.
It's not America's job to solve all problems. This nuclear weapon way was the worst possible way I could think of.

We were at war with Japan. Defeating them was our prime objective.

 

[Seb!]

No, they really didn't. American citizens watched the bombs being tested in the desert, completely ignorant of the nuclear fallout.

 

[Blackveiled]

This thread is stupid. Theres already enough debate about it in the real world.. -_-

 

[Sevion]

This thread is stupid. Theres already enough debate about it in the real world.. -_-

That doesn't mean we can't have a debate on the forums.

Let's just look at it this way: Americans were ignorant and dropped bombs on Japan without caring about the consequences. They just wanted it over. Though, they picked a stupid way to do so.

 

[TFlan]

"The Americans didn't understand how much damage the bombs would do."

I'm sorry, you guys are idiots.

We knew 99% what would happen if we dropped Fat Man and Little Boy on Japan. Would either be a dud and a huge bluff on our side, or catastrophic. Don't play stupid, we have schools for that.

In the battle of Okinawa (the last major battle before the dropping of the first atom bombs) the Japanese lost over 100,000 troops, and the Americans lost over 50,000.

Now take the size of Okinawa. 1,201 square kilometers. This battle was the first of many in taking Japan's Mainland Islands. They fought to the last breath doing anything and everything to defend their mainland island of only 1,201 square kilometers.

Image the invasion of Shikoku (the SMALLEST of the 4 mainlands), which is 18,800 square kilometers. 18 times the size of Okinawa! The other 3 main islands are MUCH larger!

Should I break out the calculator or does that say it enough? It would be devistating to both sides if we decided to invade the islands instead of bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The dropping of the atom bomb didn't just kill thousands of people. It lead to the modern age, it sparked the Cold War, the single war that created so much technology that became necessities for the American people over time.

Stop being narrow minded and open your eyes. This debate is old news and this topic is pointless unless the people debating it know what they are talking about, which so far, hasn't happened.

 

[MeRcChRiS]

Yeah being half japanese i would say it was a real bad idea.

They used The Atomic bomb to force a surrender on Japan. Hideki Tojo refused this and wanted every last person to fight if Americans soldiers were to invade. Instead, They droped the Hydrogen bomb which utterly blew up Nagasaki. Forcing Tojo to surrender. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were highly populated areas full with women and children.

 

[TFlan]

You are being ignorant... did you read ANYTHING in my last post?

The casualties of NOT dropping the bombs would be FAR higher than if we did.

Yes the long term effect of radiation did horrible things, but that does NOT overcome the fact that invading Japan would be suicide on both sides of the war.

EDIT:
The casualties of Okinawa were 150,000+.
The casualties of dropping the atomic bombs were 200,000+.

Now think logically before you respond to this "debate" again.

 

[Darthfett]

Japanese were going to fight to the last man, which meant that Americans either had to use the nuclear bomb to try and save American lives, or send in American troops and let both sides suffer huge losses.

The nuclear bomb saved one side, even though it devastated the other.

 

[MeRcChRiS]

You are being ignorant... did you read ANYTHING in my last post?

The casualties of NOT dropping the bombs would be FAR higher than if we did.

Yes the long term effect of radiation did horrible things, but that does NOT overcome the fact that invading Japan would be suicide on both sides of the war.

EDIT:
The casualties of Okinawa were 150,000+.
The casualties of dropping the atomic bombs were 200,000+.

Now think logically before you respond to this "debate" again.

I was typing when you posted..