But this was war. It was ongoing. Two countries against each other and have been battling for years. Now of course those killed by the atomic bomb didn't deserve it, but they chose to stay. Whether it was for honor or not, they didn't leave and were killed.
Correct, we did not specifically warn any city of an ATOMIC attack, but Japan had been warned over and over of destruction. From Wikipedia: "For several months, the U.S. had dropped more than 63 million leaflets across Japan warning civilians of air raids. Many Japanese cities suffered terrible damage from aerial bombings; some were as much as 97% destroyed. (General) LeMay thought that leaflets would increase the psychological impact of bombing, and reduce the international stigma of area-bombing cities. Even with the warnings, Japanese opposition to the war remained ineffective."
Also from Wikipedia: "On July 26, Allied leaders issued the Potsdam Declaration outlining terms of surrender for Japan. It was presented as an ultimatum and stated that without a surrender, the Allies would attack Japan, resulting in "the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland". The atomic bomb was not mentioned in the communiqué. On July 28, Japanese papers reported that the declaration had been rejected by the Japanese government. That afternoon, Prime Minister Suzuki Kantarō declared at a press conference that the Potsdam Declaration was no more than a rehash (yakinaoshi) of the Cairo Declaration and that the government intended to ignore it (mokusatsu, "kill by silence").[96] The statement was taken by both Japanese and foreign papers as a clear rejection of the declaration."
It was to prevent further bloodshed. The only other option was a joint invasion by America/Australia and China/USSR.
Such an invasion would've been devastating and could have further complicated the cold war.
Not to mention, the targets were of military significance and were thus valid, but were still warned beforehand.
Also, the atomic bomb stop the USSR Advancement at Korea. If the atomic bombs were used, there's a chance Japan as of now would be split between a communist and western state.
The point of the bombings were to demoralize the Japanese populace and show the government that there is nothing the US won't do to win the war. Einstein also regretted his work in developing the bomb and pleaded with Truman not to use it, whole Oppenheimer dubbed himself the destroyer of worlds. It's an extremely complicated topic that doesn't have a right answer.
Einstein actually encouraged Americans to hurry and create the bomb first. It was terrible to have to use it....but its use saved over a million American soldiers from dying and crippling America in a protracted war campaign. It wasn't to demoralize, it was to crush their entire civilization. The Japanese don't surrender, they chose the "hard way."
Apparently someone needs to go back and learn their history... If we didn't drop the bombs, then tell me: how would Truman have explained (after the carnage from invading mainland Japan) that all along the Americans had the weapon that would've ended the war sooner but he didn't use it...
7Reply
deleted
· 8 years ago
I think everyone is both proving and missing the point of the comic. First of all, yes, from the western viewpoint the dropping of the bombs was necessary at the time because yes, it was war and yes, it was escalating. However, in absolutely no way does it excuse the damage that was done. As a nuclear nation, we have the responsibility to look at this as a tragedy in spite of its necessity, something we hope never to repeat and not as a victory in a pissing contest. Guilt isn't necessary, but "hey, uh, maybe we should try everything to avoid doing that again" is. The comic is attempting to show that from the eyes of an outsider (a child), the things people will do are cruel, violent, and horrifying no matter what the rarionalization. Because ISIS and Boko Haram will claim all their attacks are necessary in their war too, the difference between us and them is that we recognize and admit when something we've done is kind of terrible, learn from it, and try not to do it that way again.
The difference was that the nukes were used during wartime, when an invasion that would have cost far more lives was the only other option. And groups like ISIS are killing innocent people for their fake god.
Japan was the violent aggressor. That fact justified anything we had to do to stop them. The Allies tried everything they could to stop the bloodshed on both sides. No one wanted to use the bomb, and after the second was dropped on Nagasaki president Truman declared that no more would be used, regardless whether Japan surrendered. The atomic bombs were terrible, but what about all the lives lost in conventional attacks throughout the war? We did nothing that we should feel guilty for. In conflict, the aggressor sets the rules.
3
deleted
· 8 years ago
Every perpetrator of a violent act can justify that act, period. They can say it saved lives, they can say it was necessary, they can say it was for the greater good of their country or people or allies. If you flip the switch on a railroad track to stop a train from crashing only to have it hit somebody who was on what they thought was an inactive track then you've saved many but still actively murdered one. Like I said, guilt isn't necessary because sometimes there simply is no GOOD choice, only bad choices from which you have to choose the lesser evil. But I also don't think anyone should ever defend the dropping of those bombs by trying to frame it as a noble or victorious act. It was a terrible thing we did, out of a list of terrible choices available, during a terrible and dark moment of human history in general. There was no greatness or victory there, for anyone.
Yes it was a terrible choice. We were faced with many and chose what we thought, at the time to be the lesser of them. It was not, however, a terrible thing we did. We did what we had to do to stop a war that seemingly would not stop. Japan was the aggressor. Let me repeat that for those of you in the back; JAPAN was the aggressor, not us. They were given ample opportunities to cease, and only intensified their aggression out of desperation. If there is blame to be placed anywhere, it falls squarely on Japan, not America.
This debate about the atomic bombs is really pointless anyway. If it had not been two atomic bombs, it would have been hundreds, if not thousands of conventional bombs. The result would still have been a decimated Japan. Would that make you happier if we just had to work harder for our victory?
I think there were better ways that Anerica could have gotten the message across without this level of devastation and loss of life. I believe these bombs were completely unnessecary
The Allies, not just America, had pretty much tried everything at their disposal. The Japanese leaders would not budge. Even toward the end when they signaled they would actually be willing to surrender, they refused the Allies' conditions. Emperor Hirohito thought that he should be able to outline his own terms and stubbornly refused to negotiate surrender otherwise.
During that time, the Japanese had a "fight to the death" mentality. The U.S. didn't want to send ground troops in because they would lose too many. It was Japan. Their homeland. They would have probably used guerrilla warfare which would kill a lot of American troops.
It's always funny to me that this was built in the 1940s and these bombs were between 20 and 30 kilotons of tnt and 20 years later Russia builds the most destructive weapon ever created a 50 - 100 megaton three stage fusion nuclear bomb. Tech advances Very quickly when the government allows it.
*Saves world from tyrannical/genocidal cummunist, fascist, and socialist maniacs* "Americans are such monsters" ...get a history lesson and look at the treachery Americans fought against...it's astounding.
I wouldn't call that terrorism...but even if you do, look what the result was. Japan and the Axis powers lost the war. So do you want to wait until the current "terrorists" can do the same and this time America and then rest of the entire civilized world loses? All this does is prove that if we don't want what happened to the Japanese to happen to us, we need to fight terrorism.
"Hey japan, you're kinda looking the war and all. And we have this big add bomb that can blow cities up... So can you surrender?"
"NO!!!!"
"Ok we will blow up this city though :/"
*bombs city*
"Ok dude surrender, or we will blow up this city."
"NO!!!!"
*bombs another city*
"Hey.... Wanna surrender now?"
"Ok America...."
The Japanese government had tried to surrender multiple times but the US government refused to accept it. The US dropped the bombs knowing full well that civilians wouldn't be allowed to leave the cities, and then they accepted Japan's surrender under the EXACT SAME TERMS that they had earlier refused. The entire thing was just a way for the US to flex its muscle to scare the Soviet Union. Learn history. Not just what the US tells you in their schools, but also what they're not telling you.
You couldn't be more wrong, again. The U.S. tried to get Japan to surrender, and in fact, the Japanese leaders did want to surrender but Hirohito refused. Even after the first bomb was dropped he would not surrender. Get some facts before you open your yap. (Figuratively)
I just looked it up, apparently experts from the time were of the opinion that japan was already ready to surrender because of the succesfully blocked ports and bomb attacks with normal bombs, and was planning on the best way to do so, but it was a political aspect which made the us attack, not a militar one
I was also taught the exact same version of the facts as thepacifist just said and my country was an impartial one during the war, so it makes more sense that we are taught an impartial point of view and you a more biased one
I think you're getting mixed up. Japan was desperate and being squeezed by the Chinese and Koreans in the west and the Americans in the south. They knew they were going to lose, but the code at the time did not let soldiers surrender, which is where the idea of kamikaze came frome.
There is no such thing as impartial; everyone has an opinion, especially in war. YES the allies were winning. YES Japan was being slowly strangled. YES many Japanese government and military leaders were ready to surrender. Emperor Hirohito and a few others would not listen to reason. Do you have any understanding of what the kamikaze attacks were about? The Japanese were running out of supplies, arms, and soldiers and were desperate. Instead of surrender the commanders ordered their men to use themselves and their equipment as weapons when they ran out of bombs and bullets. The soldiers, and especially the pilots, had little choice but to obey these orders because if they had returned alive they would have been forced to commit suicide or been murdered for bringing disgrace upon their country. You cannot reason with that kind of mentality. The atomic bombs were a last resort for America, and one no one really wanted to use.
Such an invasion would've been devastating and could have further complicated the cold war.
Not to mention, the targets were of military significance and were thus valid, but were still warned beforehand.
This debate about the atomic bombs is really pointless anyway. If it had not been two atomic bombs, it would have been hundreds, if not thousands of conventional bombs. The result would still have been a decimated Japan. Would that make you happier if we just had to work harder for our victory?
"NO!!!!"
"Ok we will blow up this city though :/"
*bombs city*
"Ok dude surrender, or we will blow up this city."
"NO!!!!"
*bombs another city*
"Hey.... Wanna surrender now?"
"Ok America...."
I was also taught the exact same version of the facts as thepacifist just said and my country was an impartial one during the war, so it makes more sense that we are taught an impartial point of view and you a more biased one