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.
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.
