Springfield XD Forum banner

Should the USA have dropped the bomb on Japan

  • Yes, it shortened the war and saved more lives then it cost

  • No, it killed too many innocent people. We should have just invaded the home land.

1 - 20 of 87 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,135 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
August 6th, 1945,
The U.S. dropped "the" bomb on Japan.
Ending the desires of Japan to expand their rule.
Thus ending the war that started at Pearl Harbour.

What do you think, should the USA have dropped the bomb on the Hiroshima, and Nagasaki(sp?)?

Many say no to the fact that the citys did not represent a good enough military target that called for the killing of so many civilians.

Many say yes. If the bombs had not been dropped, the US forces would have had to invade Japan soil and that the loss of life on both sides would have been greater then the losses suffered from just the bombs.

Thoughts????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
532 Posts
the world was a different place 60 years ago.my uncle john was in the death march.it was a shame we "only" had 2 bombs at the time.
to this day the japs haven't apologized for there war crimes.
pete
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,721 Posts
The Japs are never going to apologize for the atrocities they committed during WWII. They say they did nothing wrong :roll: They think they are better the us :roll: .
It is a shame we did not have more bombs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,135 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I was watching something the other day on cnn, the Locals of Hiroshima were upset that the US never apologized for the bombing. I could not believe my ears. They started the war. They commited many many war crimes. They did not play by the "rules" of war. they commited crimes on prisioners on a equal if not greater degree then germany did, yet they have the gaul to want an apology for the two bombs.

On cnn or the history channel, they intervied a guy who was a prisoner in the japenese pow camps. He made a camera that he used to take pictures of the other prisioners and the condition they were in. When the war was over and he was released, he turned the pictures over to the FBI and some other agency, they made him sign a gag order to never speak of it again. ?????? He still had a few pictures that they showed, pretty sad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
Maybe the Japanese should read the "Rape of Nanking". They would beg for everyone's forgiveness then.

We should never apologize for defending ourselves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
539 Posts
Bottom line? It was the choice between hundreds of thousands of Our Soldiers or hundreds of thousands of Japanese, mostly Civilians.

The "Our Soldiers" plan had the added factor of time and the Soviet Army. Given the Soviet's later role in East Asia (Korea, Viet Nam) I'd say we made a good decision.

We should still take full responsibility for knowingly targeting mostly civilians, even in the context of World War II, and even if our enemies had already done the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
I voted "Yes, it shortened the war and saved more lives then it cost"

To be honest, I'd still have voted "YES" if the option read;
"Yes, only saved the life of one(1) U.S.Serviceman, so was WELL worth the cost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
885 Posts
Vampire said:
To be honest, I'd still have voted "YES" if the option read;
"Yes, only saved the life of one(1) U.S.Serviceman, so was WELL worth the cost.

+1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
492 Posts
I didn't vote because I don't think the "bombs" made much difference, the atom bomb always gets the credit for making Japan surrender, but it's not really true, we were destoying japanese citys left and right by fire bombing them and they didn't give up, the real reason they surrendered is because they knew they were losing and it was just a matter of time, plus the Russians had just joined the war with Japan and were about to invade the northern islands and they would much rather be occupied by the US than by Russia so they surrendered before Russia could take any territory, look it up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,135 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Cuda said:
I didn't vote because I don't think the "bombs" made much difference, the atom bomb always gets the credit for making Japan surrender, but it's not really true, we were destoying japanese citys left and right by fire bombing them and they didn't give up, the real reason they surrendered is because they knew they were losing and it was just a matter of time, plus the Russians had just joined the war with Japan and were about to invade the northern islands and they would much rather be occupied by the US than by Russia so they surrendered before Russia could take any territory, look it up.
Per the history channel today. While this was primarily a non combatant city, and the residents of other towns were flocking here due to the fact that the US had NOT bombed the city, This city of Hiroshima was gearing UP to be the staging and planning area of the defense of the japan area. The reason it had not been bombed by the U.S. forces was that the American government wanted to use the first bomb on a city that was relativly intact.

Per the History channel, the japan government surrendered for fear of having more citys destroyed, one by one with a bomb of this nature.

Per the History channel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
That's a big negative.

It's just where my morals stand. I don't care if anyone agrees. I have my justifications.

Call me religious, call me a good soldier, but do not uproot my beliefs.

A third option would've been nice for someone like me:

'No, but it shortened the war and saved more lives than it cost'
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
492 Posts
tec said:
Cuda said:
I didn't vote because I don't think the "bombs" made much difference, the atom bomb always gets the credit for making Japan surrender, but it's not really true, we were destoying japanese citys left and right by fire bombing them and they didn't give up, the real reason they surrendered is because they knew they were losing and it was just a matter of time, plus the Russians had just joined the war with Japan and were about to invade the northern islands and they would much rather be occupied by the US than by Russia so they surrendered before Russia could take any territory, look it up.
Per the history channel today. While this was primarily a non combatant city, and the residents of other towns were flocking here due to the fact that the US had NOT bombed the city, This city of Hiroshima was gearing UP to be the staging and planning area of the defense of the japan area. The reason it had not been bombed by the U.S. forces was that the American government wanted to use the first bomb on a city that was relativly intact.

Per the History channel, the japan government surrendered for fear of having more citys destroyed, one by one with a bomb of this nature.

Per the History channel.
I'm sure there is some truth to that, the bomb is a horrifying weapon but it's also a fact that Russia declared war on Japan on Aug. 8 and they surrendered to us on Aug. 15, I think that was a big part of them wanting to surrender to the good guys, but Russia did manage to seize the Kurile Islands of Japan and they still haven't signed a peace agreement with Japan and they still claim the islands to this day!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
532 Posts
gee I wonder if you would feel the same way if you just watched your family used for bayonet practice.or maybe half your sqaud beheaded so they would check how sharp their swords were or....get the picture.they should have nuked them into the stone age.
pete
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,135 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
HamsXD said:
That's a big negative.

It's just where my morals stand. I don't care if anyone agrees. I have my justifications.

Call me religious, call me a good soldier, but do not uproot my beliefs.
I hear what you are saying. I know what you are saying. I firmly believe in non-violence if at all possible.

However, think of this, If they had invaded the islands, don't you think innocents would have been injured/killed also. The previous fire bombing missions they were running were indiscrimenent in their targets/victims just as much as the use of "the bomb".

Basically, war sucks. What was it that the character Hawkeye said on the tv show M*A*S*H? "Why don't they just have one guy from each side arm wrestle each other?" or something along those lines of thought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
823 Posts
An English teacher had a guest opinion column in the Dallas Morning News today, in which she said we should revisit and rethink. She also stated that June 6th 2005 was the 60th anniversary of D-Day.

My answer:

Don't they teach English professors math anymore?
Last time I looked, June 6th 1944 + 60 years equalled
June 6th 2004, the 60th anniversary of D-Day. This
may indeed be a "summer of World War II
anniversaries." but D-Day Europe is not among them. I
hope the book has been proofread better.

I grew up surrounded by World War II vets, and the
consensus was that dropping the bomb was a good thing
because "the japs" were, ultimately, not likely to
surrender without massive losses of Allied soldiers'
(read US) lives.

The Japanese bombed civilians all over the "Greater
East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" and raped and
pillaged and made slaves out of POWs and others, but
we are bad because we dropped the atomic bomb?

Maybe it is time to revisit and rethink, just maybe
not in the way implied.
 
1 - 20 of 87 Posts
Top