Ok this is a topic that is HIGHLY contentious, with nobody really being absolutely correct, but this just started coming up in the shoutpage today and in the interest of stopping the shoutpage from being spammed to death by it, well, here's the thread for its discussion.

Position A: The nukings were necessary. Japan's leadership showed no willingness to surrender, due to deeply-held cultural and social values, and were willing to fight tooth and nail to prevent the need for surrender, certainly to prevent US troops from invading the Japanese homeland. The nuclear blasts were designed to shock and terrify the public and the leadership into realizing that they could, and would, be annihilated...without ever being able to even put up a fight. Better to surrender and live, than to die without even the dignity of a fight.

Position B: The nukings were immoral and unnecessary; Japan had no military power left, seemingly, and we could have invaded and forced a surrender conventionally, and the nuclear bombings were solely for the purpose of political standing.

I take Position A. I argue that Iwo Jima is a fine example of the "broken military" of Japan doing a colossal job of costing thousands of lives, tons of time, and wasting resources on what was basically a tarpit of horror. The Japanese were also literally flying half-built planes with crude bombs strapped to them into US vessels, bases, and infantry lines, causing even more massive amounts of damage. The furor of the Imperial Army was not diminished by much just because they weren't fighting with great equipment; they were devolving into sacrificial tactics and were determined to die fighting. Further evidence; the extent of Imperial propaganda. US soldiers invading smaller outlying Japanese islands found the citizens jumping to their deaths because they had been told that death was infinitely better than capture at the hands of US forces, whom they had been told were butchers, rapists, and savages of the worst kind who would torment them in ways too horrible to contemplate.

Discuss. And stop spamming the damn shoutbox.

The argument moved on a bit.

This is ridiculous; Mythic has created an imaginary evil dictator who never surrenders under the pressure of an unbeatable foe, an evil America who nukes everything, and an army of hypothetical "what if" arguments. I simply told him what happened and what would have logically happened if it was different. Position A is the best. I fully agree with you, Creed.

The emperor, although determined and quite an asshole, was still sane. He would not watch any more die by these blasts, but he would assume his suicide tactics could stop the American war machine from plowing through a ravaged Japan. Citizens committing suicide, houses/buildings burned, thousands of military deaths, millions of civilian deaths, and trillions in damage. Although he was in a pact with Hitler, he was not slowly descending into madness like Hitler. He also had the privilege of lasting longer than the Reich so he could see what happens to a country that does not surrender against insurmountable odds.

Immoral and unnecessary. Japan was about to surrender, given that Russia had just declared war on them. Yes, they would have continued fighting for a bit longer . . . maybe, but it sure beats killing that many civilians. On top of that, the U.S. was in the process of sending more nukes, as if what we had already done was not enough.

Interestingly, I had a recent change of opinion on this topic. I thought it was necessary to stop the blood bath, or at least successful in doing so. Having done more research, I realize that I was wrong. There is never a reason for nuclear weapons. Ever. I would have preferred the United States surrender and then laugh as the Japanese try to actually enforce the surrender on American soil. I'm happy with our relationship to Japan at this point. I just wish it had a less evil past.

(September 11, 2012 at 8:27 pm)Shell B Wrote: Immoral and unnecessary. Japan was about to surrender, given that Russia had just declared war on them. Yes, they would have continued fighting for a bit longer . . . maybe, but it sure beats killing that many civilians. On top of that, the U.S. was in the process of sending more nukes, as if what we had already done was not enough.

Interestingly, I had a recent change of opinion on this topic. I thought it was necessary to stop the blood bath, or at least successful in doing so. Having done more research, I realize that I was wrong. There is never a reason for nuclear weapons. Ever. I would have preferred the United States surrender and then laugh as the Japanese try to actually enforce the surrender on American soil. I'm happy with our relationship to Japan at this point. I just wish it had a less evil past.

Was Japan about to surrender? Really? I would like to refer to my point in the first post. The nuclear weapons caused less bloodshed and destruction than a fullscale invasion would have (which was planned and soon going to be launched but was nullified due to the nuke's completion). Russia was simply interested in Japan's territories in mainland Asia, pushing on further would have served to purpose for them. And Stalin would have been very reluctant to help the US again-after all, he only got help from us because his country was on the verge of collapse, and he obviously showed no gratitude for that help when you consider the Cold war.

I was also in the shout box debate a little bit. I don't see exactly my position represented by A or B.

It seems immoral to me to have nuked civilians regardless of the consequences of not nuking them. Maybe there would have been more causalities if we haven't bombed them. So be it. At least it would not have been directly caused by us.

(September 11, 2012 at 8:41 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: I was also in the shout box debate a little bit. I don't see exactly my position represented by A or B.

It seems immoral to me to have nuked civilians regardless of the consequences of not nuking them. Maybe there would have been more causalities if we haven't bombed them. So be it. At least it would not have been directly caused by us.

Of course. He accused me of supporting US nuking 100%. Which was a total misrepresentation of my argument.

Here is some things I found on the internet:


July 1945 - Japan's peace messages

Still, the messages from Togo to Sato, read by the U.S. at the time, clearly indicated that Japan was seeking to end the war:

July 11 - "make clear to Russia... We have no intention of annexing or taking possession of the areas which we have been occupying as a result of the war; we hope to terminate the war".
July 12 - "it is His Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war".
July 13 - "I sent Ando... to communicate to the [Soviet] Ambassador that His Majesty desired to dispatch Prince Konoye as special envoy, carrying with him the personal letter of His Majesty stating the Imperial wish to end the war" (for above items, see: Potsdam 1, pg. 873-879).
July 21: "Special Envoy Konoye's mission will be in obedience to the Imperial Will. He will request assistance in bringing about an end to the war through the good offices of the Soviet Government." The July 21st communication from Togo also noted that a conference between the Emperor's emissary, Prince Konoye, and the Soviet Union, was sought, in preparation for contacting the U.S. and Great Britain (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/22/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).
July 25: "it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter." (Potsdam 2, pg. 1260 - 1261).
President Truman knew of the messages' content, noting, for instance, in his diary on July 18, "Stalin had told P.M. [Prime Minister Churchill] of telegram from Jap [sic] Emperor asking for peace" (Robert Ferrell, ed., Off the Record - the Private Papers of Harry S. Truman, pg. 53). In passing up this possible opportunity for an earlier and less deadly peace, Truman was not deliberately trying to prolong the war so the atomic bomb could be used on Japan to intimidate the Soviets, as some have suggested. Briefly stated, it is likely that Truman believed the use of atomic bombs on Japan was necessary for the reasons he always gave: "We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans" (Public Papers of the Presidents, Harry S. Truman, 1945, pg. 212). (For the most thorough exposition of the view that atomic bombs were dropped on Japan primarily for their effect on the Soviet Union, see Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, published in 1995. Due to its many sources of documentation, this book will be of interest whether one shares Alperovitz' view or not).

http://www.spectacle.org/696/long.html



Anyways, the Japenese were willing to surrender upon one condition. The emperor remains. They were willing to make all sorts of concessions.

Now the Emperor was sort of god to them, they didn't want to lose that way of life for obvious reasons that it was rooted in their culture.

The first question is why not compromise, why force them to surrender only on your terms?

This is more when "lives" are in stake? Surely if it's all about saving lives, a surrender with their one condition was not totally wrong.

Another is, with this statement:

The nuclear blasts were designed to shock and terrify the public and the leadership into realizing that they could, and would, be annihilated...without ever being able to even put up a fight. Better to surrender and live, than to die without even the dignity of a fight.

This is saying "nuking you and annihilating you" is FINE AND MORAL from US point of view.

This one issue I have with it. When you force a person to do chose between two options, whatever the "punishment" for the wrong choice, it should be "moral" yet.

Basically, it's saying if they didn't surrender, then it is justified to nuke them till they are annihalated.

Basically this is the fear US wanted Japan to have of them, well congratulations, that is the monster much of the world sees now.

A country willing nuke a country to annihilation if they don't get the exact surrender on their own terms.

IF it's all about saving lives, why couldn't the Japanese have been allowed to surrender on the terms they suggest (everything agreed upon except they get to keep the Emperor).

I suggest reading that link. And other links over the internet that show a different perspective then the one you are use to.

Another to mention, is when you open the can of worms of ends justifying the means....we get into all sorts of ethical dilemna.

If a terrorist organization says you support killing civilians (like drones killing civilans in Pakistan + like supporting Israel bombing civilains for a few soldiers captured/killed, as a measured response) and you support sanctions that are destroying the lives of our people, and if you don't stop, we will kill your civilians. We see no way to stop you but force you to stop because your civilians will continuously get killed.

Right now, most people condemn terrorism and see no justification to it.

But if we go by the logic of these two nukes being justified as a means to an end, I don't see how you can condemn one and not the other.

IF you say a few killing of civilains here and there, won't cause US to deter, then what if billions of people are convinced terrorism is not "evil" but "justified" from the perspective of ends justify the means, like nuking two cities to force surrender in the case of Japan which would save lives ofcourse if and only if Allies and US didn't accept the surrender proposal of Japanese...

Also, the sense of honor Japanese have with not surrenderring, they could've gone that route, and that honor could've been more important to the emperor then saving the lives of his people. In this case, you would have nuked them to annihilation.

Really whom is the biggest terrorist? Bin Laden or US.

Given a strictly secular utilitarian viewpoint, the bombings were justified.

(September 11, 2012 at 8:42 pm)System of Solace Wrote:

(September 11, 2012 at 8:41 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: I was also in the shout box debate a little bit. I don't see exactly my position represented by A or B.

It seems immoral to me to have nuked civilians regardless of the consequences of not nuking them. Maybe there would have been more causalities if we haven't bombed them. So be it. At least it would not have been directly caused by us.

Of course. He accused me of supporting US nuking 100%. Which was a total misrepresentation of my argument.

I'm confused. If you're not 100 percent behind it, what percentage are you then? And how exactly would your less-than-100 percent position be different compared to being 100 percent for nuking? What would you have done differently?

(September 11, 2012 at 8:32 pm)System of Solace Wrote: Was Japan about to surrender? Really?

Russia declared war on Japan the day before the first bomb was dropped. Look it up, if you don't believe me. Not even a kamikaze pilot would be nuts enough to think it could take Russia and the United States. Remember, the European part of the war was already over. Japan was fucked. China hated Japan, thanks to their recent indiscretions. Russia was turning its eyes to Japan like fucking Sauron on his fucking period and the United States was fast making it possible to attack the mainland, which had been a major strategic problem since the start of the Pacific conflict.

Quote:I would like to refer to my point in the first post. The nuclear weapons caused less bloodshed and destruction than a fullscale invasion would have (which was planned and soon going to be launched but was nullified due to the nuke's completion).

Prove it.

Quote:Russia was simply interested in Japan's territories in mainland Asia, pushing on further would have served to purpose for them.

They declared war on Japan, which had fast fading resources, thanks to the U.S. refusal to do trade with them unless they pulled out of China, which led to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Their greatest ally was defeated and they had absolutely no means of sustaining their country with goods from elsewhere. Do you think Japan has all of the natural resources needed for war? Russia and the U.S. could have easily put up a naval blockade, particularly if China cooperated. The only strategy problem they had was fuel.

Quote:And Stalin would have been very reluctant to help the US again-after all, he only got help from us because his country was on the verge of collapse, and he obviously showed no gratitude for that help when you consider the Cold war.

What the fuck are you talking about? Help the U.S.? Germany declared war on Russia before Pearl Harbor even happened, so well before the United States entered the war. The Cold War had everything to do with the aftermath of World War II and who would take the bulk of power. It had fuckall to do with what happened before or even during the war, unless you count the nuclear arms race.