The debate "The Japanese deserved the nuclear bombs" was started by
July 28, 2015, 12:53 pm.
22 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 53 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
AstroSpace posted 6 arguments, Alex posted 4 arguments, Lane posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 8 arguments, amanofprogress posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 3 arguments, Lane posted 1 argument, goldfox1987 posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
AstroSpace, sabrina, Jlav0820, Alex, drumman22, steady_current, satvik, MoveThatLoser, AmericanScholar and 13 visitors agree.
historybuff, amanofprogress, sloanstar1000, PsychDave, littlelovaticchick, TransPanTeen, I_Voyager, toughgamerjerry, invincible_01, The_lamp, DerpedLocke, Skeetc15, wayneSPEC, Lane, xbulletwithbutterflywingsx, William, gouthamabi, Zeno, goldfox1987, Zooei96, fabby, WaspToxin, athinus, carltonlasy, sageuraeus, Tiger1738, J_Blue, Zinluu, juliette_os, AngryBlogger, Cato and 22 visitors disagree.
for once historybuff, I do.
Well then it sounds like you agree with me gold. if the Americans dropped the bombs as a message to the Russians then the Japanese clearly didn't deserve it. they were just an opportune target.
I am not strongly for the eat of Japan, but another war or a least the extention with the USSR would have killed many people also and not a sure victory. The bombs made sure no one else got involved and ended the war quickly. I am mostly saying why the us did it as I said I am not an expert I am pretty neutral but leaning to the they deserved it side.
Alex as a matter of history alone, the Japs were beaten, their navy in shamblea, they were loading gas and gunpowder onto old airplanes to be used as kamikazes, and most of their cities had been so thoroughly bombed we cannot even today understand it. those two cities alone were saved for this express purpose and it wasnt even meant to scare them (Japan). it was meant to end the war quickly and to deter further escalating a war with USSR. we could have gone in ans finished the job conventionally. but we wanted to send a message to Stalin instead.
OK @historybuff I understand my mistake, I apologize for calling you out like that. Good argument.
In fact, you've succeeded in switching my position on the subject. I realize that my own reasons are attempting to justify why America used the bombs, rather than demonstrating that the Japanese actually deserved the bombs.
If we had beaten them already then they would have surendered already. I was not alive back then am not an expert. we also needed to give the world a statement of we ate powerful as some places doubted this.
I'll try to respond in order. the point of the bombs was to convince the Japanese to surrender without having to invade the home islands. therefore the point was to end the war and to save lives. it would have taken a few weeks to make more bombs. during those weeks the Japanese were powerless to attack. their fleet and air force were gone. they couldn't kill anyone. so why not try to get them to surrender with a less lethal show of force? they had very little to lose. Alex, the nuclear bombs had no effect on Japan "taking over the Pacific". America has already beaten them to a bloody pulp. they were not a significant threat to the Pacific when the bombs were used. Lane. I have read the leaflet's. the ones they dropped before the bombings did not mention the atom bombs. you are referring to the ones they dropped after they bombed them and before the end of the war. in that leaflet he says they have already begun using it. Its a bit like warning a guy I've got a gun after you've gut shot him already. So I was correct. the Japanese had no idea such a device existed until it was used on civilian targets. again I'm not arguing they shouldn't have used the bomb. They shouldn't have it. mbed women and children with it
I agree with Alex and AstroSpace.
@historybuff Pearl Harbor was a military base, but that doesn't mean we need to hit their military base back. I feel that the reason they released the bomb was to show that they could retaliate with extreme power, and, again, to get back at them as well as reestablish themselves over Japan. Also, the leaflets that were dropped let the people know exactly why they felt they were justified in dropping the bombs and doing major damage. Do a google search to read the leaflet.
also @historybuff please note that your previous statement, that the people didn't know that this wasn't going to be your normal bombing, was wrong, look up the leaflet.
Please also note that I am not supporting the death and destruction of the bombs. I am supporting the idea that the power the bombs exhibited was necessary to achieve the goal of the USA, which I believe, behind the military and political reasons, was to put the Japan "back in it's place".
If we had not bombed them, Japan could have taken over the Pacific and killed many inocents. We ended the war quickly with that strike, and though we killed many, many would have been killed if the war went on and on. Japan bombed us and we did nothing to provoke them. We were not going to get involved until then. We sent a statement to the world that day about the power of America.
Lol the Japanese attacked, we attacked back. Nuclear bombs do more than just "shock" you. They send cities into years of radioactive devestation. We only had 2 bombs, so you're suggesting we use an entire nuclear missile on a tiny millitary base...
Considering this us the only example of nuclear weapons being used on people it is rediculous to say they are always used for something specific. the point of a nuclear bomb was to shock them into surrender. killing hundreds of thousands wasn't needed to shock people. the explosive force could have been shown on a military target. At this point in the war the Japanese were not attacking anyone. they were defeated. they were only on the defence.
PsychDave, your police analogy is outlandish... We're talking nuclear war, and the slaughter of innocent American and Japanese civilians, not criminals. The nuclear bombs saved American and Japanese lives, believe it or not.
Are you kidding me historybuff? They showed a lot more restraint? Is that why they killed thousands of innocent people and civilians? Why they dropped 'bunker bombs,' which literally explode inside of ships? They didn't have nuclear weapons in their inventory bud. We did. They showed no restraint at all.
So are you guys suggesting that we should have bombed a millitary base in the middle of nowhere? Why? So they could just go ahead and continue attacking us? You guys should learn a little bit about millitary strategy. Nuclear bombs cost billions of dollars, so using an entire nuclear weapon to destroy a single millitary base is very moronic. If they saw that we're too afraid to take out large cities, they would continue to fight. Nuclear bombs are strategically placed, and meant to do a lot of damge. A single missile or carpet bombing cold white out a millitary base. Nuclear bombs are only used for massive devastation (with an exception for the early experimental launches).
The Japanese showed alot more restraint in their bombing of America than the Americans did in Japan.
Not to mention that Pearl harbour WAS a military target, not a large civilian population.
That is like saying the police should randomly pick a day and execute anyone who breaks the law to prove a point. Yes, a point would be proved, but it is excessively brutal and inhumane.
The USA needed to unleash it's true force on Japan for pearl harbor. Striking a millitary base would not have nearly the same effect as annihilating cities. It showed other countries that the US doesn't take any shit and that it would happen to them if they attempted it.
I don't agree in a they-all-needed-to-die kind of way. Not supporting the death toll and destruction. But regarding the actual use of the bombs... the Japanese people were warned that America would use a top secret weapon, the exact quote was "We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man." that is from a PBS website. Also, it was part of a response to the attack on Pearl Harbor wasn't it? The U.S. built right back up and retaliated. Have to respect Japanese nationalism and loyalty to country, but I bet America was eager to win back it's dignity. These bombings were certainly a way to demonstrate superiority over a country that dared to attack them... Today these bombs would be considered unethical and excessive. But the United Nations didn't even exist yet. And back in that time, when nationalism was surging in the US after rebuilding their navy in a matter of weeks instead of the months it was expected to take, I can't blame them for using their best weapon to not only get even but to show them who's boss.
I can see how dropping a warning shot off the coast would not have the same effect, but at least picking a military target to destroy would be less abhorrent to me than a major city. I had not been aware that they dropped leaflets warning the Japanese about the attacks, which does at least show at least some attempt was made to spare the innocent.
They dropped leaflets on 35 cities saying we're going to bomb 4 of them. These leaflets didn't say anything about a super weapon. the implication was that it would be a conventional bombing. most of these cities had already been bombed so there was little reason to fear that bombing more than the others. So no, there was no real warning beyond "we're going to bomb you like we do every day". The point of a nuclear bomb is to instill fear. to do that you need to see the scope of the blast. there were lots of targets that would let people witness it without obliterating entire cities. again I'm not saying the bombs shouldn't have been used. but I don't want anyone to delude themselves that it was done nobly.
the us warned Japan we have bombs and are going to drop them on this city. Some listed and evacuated but mostly they all did not believe and died. if we did drop the bomb in the ocean away from everything that would be a waste of bombs and money.
PsychDave, I do agree that civilians did not deserve the bombs. However, nuclear bombs are very costly and should only be launched when you're ready to annihilate a city. I believe dropping one as a warning would only infatuate more anger and cause more people to be attacked and killed.
I can see that nuclear weapons needed to be used because otherwise the Japanese government would not believe that the USA had the power they were claiming to. I do not agree that they should have been dropped on major cities full of innocent civilians. Perhaps a better option would have been to drop the first one over the ocean off the coast so that the Japanese could see the destructive power and, if that was unsuccessful, then drop one on a military base away from major cities, or the Japanese fleet itself, or some other military target that would show how powerful they were. It would not have had the same effect immediate effect as the death toll would have been lower, but if the decision had been up to me I would have preferred an extra few weeks of war over so many innocent deaths.
But the nuclear bombs weren't used on military positions. They were used on cities.
the japanese ARMY deserved it. the civilians did not
Civilians never deserve to be annihilated. Now it may have been strategically necisary, and I dont disagree that they should have done it. but the people they killed most certainly did not deserve it.