Was the atomic bombing of Japan really necessary?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Adam
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the necessity and ethical implications of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. Participants explore historical perspectives, motivations behind the bombings, and the consequences of such actions, with a focus on both theoretical and historical analysis.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Historical
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants cite historical figures such as Admiral Leahy and General Eisenhower, who argue that Japan was already on the verge of surrender and that the bombings were unnecessary.
  • Others suggest that the bombings served as a demonstration of power, particularly to intimidate the Soviet Union, as noted in a later post.
  • There are claims that the bombings were acts of terrorism, with references to the civilian casualties and the ethical implications of using such weapons.
  • Some participants compare the atomic bombings to conventional bombings, arguing that the intent and effects were similar, and express a desire to avoid both in the future.
  • A few participants question the rationale behind dropping two bombs instead of one, suggesting that the second was unnecessary given Japan's already weakened state.
  • Disagreements arise regarding the definition of terrorism and whether the bombings fit that classification, with some asserting that they were not unprovoked attacks.
  • Historical context is provided, including mentions of the Japanese government's offers to surrender prior to the bombings, which some argue were not adequately considered.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the necessity or morality of the bombings. Some agree on the idea that Japan was close to surrender, while others defend the bombings as a strategic decision. The discussion remains unresolved with competing perspectives on the implications of the actions taken.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying interpretations of historical events, differing definitions of terrorism, and the reliance on subjective ethical standards. The discussion reflects ongoing debates about the consequences of wartime decisions and the complexities of historical narratives.

  • #31


Originally posted by Adam
"What IF"s are meaningless drivel.
Make no mistake, you guys are arguing a single mirror image "what if?"

What if Japan had/had not intended to surrender in August of 1945 without the atomic bombs being dropped.

So Adam, it is up to you to prove that they DID intend to surrender, and also that the NCA KNEW they were about to surrender. You have to prove that "what if" to a near certainty. All Lyuokdea has to do is prove that some people THOUGHT they MIGHT not be ready to surrender. I believe s/he has gone far beyond that.

Your burdern of proof, Adam, is significantly higher and so far all you have done is repeat over and over again quotes that are mostly from people not part of the US or Japanese command structure. The opinions of scientists are IRRELEVANT to this conversation.
 
Last edited:
Science news on Phys.org
  • #32


Originally posted by russ_watters
Well this is something I wanted to ask you actually. You tell us: Why is it that you are more concerned with these two events than any of a dozen worse events in WWII? Or do you think those two events were the worst? WHY? I know you would not dispute that there were a good dozen other single events during the war that killed more people. Or that in many of the other events, the deaths were at least as senseless if not more. So it can't be the number of deaths and it can't be the reason for the deaths. So what is it?

I only see one possible reason why you (and not just you, but a lot of people) would focus on these two events).

Read the first post of this thread. Anniversary.
 
  • #33


Originally posted by russ_watters

So Adam, it is up to you to prove that they DID intend to surrender, and also that the NCA KNEW they were about to surrender.
Once again, please read the statements of people directly involved at the time, which I have provided.

To make it VERY simple: There is supporting evidence that the nukes were not necessary, and provided no numerical benefit. There is NO evidence that "hundreds of innocent young 'merican boys would have died if...".
 
  • #34


Originally posted by Adam
Read the first post of this thread. Anniversary.
Adam, in your first post you didn't SAY anything other than to list the dates. So the anniversary of the event is what makes the event important? Do you even know when the anniversary of the fire bombing of Dresden was?

I'm sorry, but I just can't accept that. It does NOT explain WHY you think this event is more important than the others.

In your second post you expressed dismay that people didn't seem to care: the implication being that this should be an EMOTIONAL issue for people. That makes your opinion on the subject strictly emotional.

Once again, please read the statements of people directly involved at the time, which I have provided.

To make it VERY simple: There is supporting evidence that the nukes were not necessary, and provided no numerical benefit. There is NO evidence that "hundreds of innocent young 'merican boys would have died if...".
I guess I can't continue here. You're a brick wall. You keep regurgitating the same pieces of information and not making any real arguments. The statements you quoted are at best incomplete and at worst most are completely irrelevant. Feel free to defend their validity, but you have to say WHY they are valid. We have argued why they are not and provided contradictory statements from people more directly involved, but you haven't responded to the objections. Just repeating over and over that they (and ONLY they) are valid is not an argument.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
russ_watters

Adam, in your first post you didn't SAY anything other than to list the dates. So the anniversary of the event is what makes the event important? Do you even know when the anniversary of the fire bombing of Dresden was?
1) Any idiot can find the anniversary of the many bombings of Dresden on the web anyway.

2) I posted this thread around the dates of the two nukings. I posted the thread at that time fpr that reason. Very simple.

I'm sorry, but I just can't accept that. It does NOT explain WHY you think this event is more important than the others.
1) Accept or don't accept whatever you want. Like most people, your ideas are based on faulty logic and misconceptions and misinterpretations. Nothing personal, that's just how people are.

2) I do not think the nukings are more important than some other events. Clearly more important that my breakfast this morning, but maybe less important to a crippled Hamburger than Nagasaki was. It was merely relevant due to the date.

In your second post you expressed dismay that people didn't seem to care: the implication being that this should be an EMOTIONAL issue for people. That makes your opinion on the subject strictly emotional.
Not an expression of my dismay. More a simple observation. Interepreting it as "Adam's dismay" is basically transference.

I guess I can't continue here. You're a brick wall. You keep regurgitating the same pieces of information and not making any real arguments.
I feel the same way when people continue gibbering on in ways that indicate a complete lack of understanding of the principles of logic and reason. As this is a rather science-oriented message board, I would have expected many users to have come into some contact with ideas like "evidence", and "Occam's razor", and so on. Follow the bouncing ball.
  • There is evidence of the opinions of people directly involved at the time. The quotes I provided, the information at the websites I linked to.
  • There is no evidence for the great big "what ifs" involved, the purely hypothetical superstition that in some possible future zillions of good ol' boys from Kansas might have died in a ground invasion of Japan.
  • Given the evidence for one case, and lack of evidence for the other, we use a basic principle of logic: don't introduce extra crap when there is no reason to.

If you can't follow those basic ideas, why are you even discussing anything here?

The statements you quoted are at best incomplete and at worst most are completely irrelevant. Feel free to defend their validity, but you have to say WHY they are valid.
The WHY is that the sources were there at the time, involved in it, and had first-hand knowledge of the strategic situation. Pretty simple.

We have argued why they are not and provided contradictory statements from people more directly involved, but you haven't responded to the objections.
There has BEEN no objection beyond "in some hypothetical mystery future, some people might have died". If there's anything other than that, please point it out.
 
  • #36


Originally posted by Adam
1) Any idiot can find the anniversary of the many bombings of Dresden on the web anyway.

2) I posted this thread around the dates of the two nukings. I posted the thread at that time fpr that reason. Very simple.
So you acknowledge that this is NOT the worst event of the war. Good. Do you plan to start similar thread at the time of the other anniversaries? I haven't seen any others... So why not?
The WHY is that the sources were there at the time, involved in it, and had first-hand knowledge of the strategic situation. Pretty simple.
Yes, it is that simple - simply false. The vast majority of the provided quotes are from people who did NOT have first-hand knowledge of the strategic situation, namely scientists. As I said before, noteably lacking from your quotes are the very people who would have the necessary information: commanders in the pacific theater and in Japan.

A good 3/4 of the links on that website for example are devoted to ONE scientist who'se opinions are completely irrelevant.
There has BEEN no objection beyond "in some hypothetical mystery future, some people might have died". If there's anything other than that, please point it out.
The article provided by Lyuokdea was quite compelling and you haven't commented on it.

Remember, your speculation is based on a mirror image of that "hypothetical mystery future."
 
Last edited:
  • #37
russ_watters

So you acknowledge that this is NOT the worst event of the war. Good. Do you plan to start similar thread at the time of the other anniversaries? I haven't seen any others... So why not?
I have only started coming here regularly quite recently. Simple. Get over it.

Yes, it is that simple - simply false. The vast majority of the provided quotes are from people who did NOT have first-hand knowledge of the strategic situation, namely scientists.
Good grief, this is ridiculous. Scientists would not have a knowledge of the strategic situation. The military commanders would. I quoted many military commanders.

As I said before, noteably lacking from your quotes are the very people who would have the necessary information: commanders in the pacific theater and in Japan.
Check again. And actually read them this time.

A good 3/4 of the links on that website for example are devoted to ONE scientist who'se opinions are completely irrelevant. The article provided by Lyuokdea was quite compelling and you haven't commented on it.
1) Ad hominems. Yay. Is he wrong?

2) The article provided by Lyuokdea was basically irrelevent. It's all about the almighty "what if". Thus, as previously explained, it is irrelevent.

Remember, your speculation is based on a mirror image of that "hypothetical mystery future."
As previously explained, it is based on the words of military and political leaders of the time.
 
  • #38
Life is a What if, so for the argument to focus on what if's is logical.

To beat an army of 25 million soldiers, this is what japan supposedly had, you would have had to kill a large percentage of those 25 million so ask yourself this. Would you rather 200,000 people die or 25 million?
 
  • #39
Ha, I got Andy confused with Adam for like 10 minutes, and I thought you were posting an answer to your own argument, which I didn't believe, because although I disagree with you on the issue, I think you are much smarter on that. Well, I guess I'm the one not paying attention.

Now,


How can every possible argument I make be disgarded mearly as a "What if" scenario, saying that the bomb ended the war, as that article said, is not a what if. It is the same class of observation as your articles saying the war would have ended anyway, there is no difference between the two.

My article clearly states that the peace movement in Japan was victorious in ended the war because of the atomic bombing, and that the war would not have ended in the near future otherwise, that is completely relevant to the conversation.

Most importantly on "What if" scenarios is that they are completely relevant to the situation, how can you weigh if a certain decision is just unless you find out the possible results of the other decisions you could make?
 

Similar threads

News Were the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Justified to End WWII?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
Graduate Is Depleted Uranium Weapon Use Justified in U.S. Nuclear Policy?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
News Weapons of Mass Destruction found already.
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
7K
News How long until the left labels Zell Miller a traitor?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
News The Roots of Terrorism and US Foreign Policy
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
ECONOMICS: It's stupid to be afraid (Lee Kuan Yew to Der Spiegel)
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K