*edit* gah...Im in a poor mood today!

And the Subsim over-reaction of the day award goes to.........

Agreed. It was necessary, but not something we should celebrate.

But there was no need to drop the bomb OR invade!
A peace agreement, not at all dissimilar to the post war agreements, was well within reach before the Bomb.
So how can it be necessary?

Here in Rhode Island VJ day is still a holiday but that's a bit different.

But would the Japan of today be the same if the bomb wasn't dropped? Imperial Japan was a lot differant then the modern Japan i'd love to go on holiday to.

Don't forget the Germans surrendered once as well... A cease fire is a means for the nations involved to re-supply front lines and prepare for more war.

Either way 'could haves' over something that happened 60 years ago don't really seem right.

I think the most compelling argument in favour of the decision to go the 'atomic bomb' route was that it took two. Any sane foe would have immediately surrendered after the devastation of the first and after having its bluff called in that the USA would not use it. Terrible as it was, that decision by the USA has echoed down history and IMHO made the world safer from a third world war. Think of Cuba and the Soviet Union wanting to place nuclear missiles on that island. I would argue that when the the USA again threatened use of nuclear weapons the Soviets backed down because the threat from the USA had to be taken seriously.

So yes, I feel for the civilians of the time but the bigger picture tells me it was the right decision.

I've always thought in the same direction. WE have to remember folks, that the two bombs over Japan is the only ones that have been used in war. Why? Well, beats me, but one of the reasons must be that the entire world (and their leaders) are scared, very very very scared of what they'll start if they use a bomb, and now when the nukes are so much more devestating than the "Little Boy" and the "Fat Man", we really need to be catious. (That means you, North Korea).

:nope: I red this yesterday , kinda was a bit disgusted about how this thread started

but about ''invasion, the Bombing, the Ceasefire etc etc''
the Bombs have been dropped , it happend that way and no way we can ever change that.
for what reason? well, many we say.
but yesterday we had to remind that we never ever should use those weapons again. as the horror of it is too terrible to describe.

HunterICX

Booooo @ the bombs! :down:

basically america had to flop its big PP on the world table and say, "ours is bigger than everyones".





that sums up hiroshima.

No, that does not sum up Hiroshima. The United States was faced with the prospect of a bloody amphibious invasion that would have made D-Day look like a skirmish. The Truman administration elected to attempt to coerce Japan to capitulate by other means. Conventional bombing was not working. The loss of Okinawa did not work either.

While I do feel that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are certainly not mankind's finest hour, they are what they are. You would also do well to remember that America did not start that war, nor enter into it willingly.

End rant.

PS As a moderator, I should warn about the insensitivity used when beginning such topics in the manner in which this began. There are some members here who should know better. I have edited the title of this thread accordingly.

The intention of America'S demand for unconditional surrender necessarily must have been to make sure that the military regime in Japan does not survive by ways of negotiating a deal, a peace condition which would have allowed them to survive as a governmental institution. for the sake of later peace and stability in the region, Japan was to be changed substantially, and for that the old order had to be destroyed, for it was not willing to step back voluntarily. This was, after years of war, not only an absolutely justified but also highly reasonable goal - like it also was out of the question to negotiate a peace deal with the Third Reich. both were the agressors, not the victims. The Third Reich had to die, and the military regime in Japan had to die, too - period. I fully back this war intention - in both cases. If I would have lived in that time as a German and if I would have found the courage to reject obedience to the Nazi regime, I would have fought against the Nazi regime and still would not have felt like a traitor to Germany, for in my vision of Germany there was (and is) absolutely zero space for Nazis. Seen that way I always had the attitude of seeing the Allies fighting for the Germany to come after the war (a more peaceful, free and democratic Germany living in peace and not in war with it's neighbours) - but on the way to that Germany, the Nazis had to be killed at all costs, unconditionally. This is my motivation to feel thankful for those people of that generation who shouldered the burden of that monumental fight - because I live in a country and a condition that would not be without their effort. I see it in a similiar way with regard to Japan.

I cannot judge if the second bomb drop really was necessary or not, and if an initial warning drop before maybe would have done the trick, too, or not (propably not, they maybe would have thought that America would have scruples do bomb a city with that new weapon if for illustration purposes it would have been dropped onto some God-forsaken place only). none of us can judge that, escept those who still have living memoeirs from haveing lived in that time and experienced the public mindset and atmosphere of that time.

I agree with Brad. It certainly was no nice thing, but very probably it was a necessity. Since the dead do not care if they got killed by an air bombing, got rolled over by a tank, were shot by a bullet or were vaporized in a nuclear explosion, the same could be said about war in general: war is no nice thing, but sometimes it is necessary.

Just that some people are more easy about declaring a war a necessity than others (not meaning Brad here).

Yup blood of innocents, on the hands of the Japanese militarists as well as an over-hasty US administration.

Yea, boo at Unit 731 and and the Death March of Battaan, boo at Katyn and Dresden as well as Aushwitz and Oradour-sur Glane.

I agree 100% with Skybird's post. I will say I think the brilliant (from a military standpoint) Soviet offensive in Manchuria had as much to do with the surrender as the bombs. I still feel a demonstration with the first bomb and a more clear communication on the status of the Emperor would have been worth trying.

Still nothing but sadness and horror at this event. Nothing to cheer, the end of the war yes of course, the victories at Midway, Stalingrad, Normandy yes ... but didn't the Duke of Wellington say "The only thing sadder than a bettle lost is a battle won?" :cry:

@ Dowly, Finland was one country that acquitted itself the best in WWII. Jews were safe in the Finnish army, Mannerheim was quite adamant about that. AFAIK, Leningrad was not bombed by the Finns either.

It is true that it ended the war prematurely, but I don't see why they couldn't have first made a demonstration of the bomb by dropping it on say an all military target and said "see that? Tokyo is next." At the very least attempting to avoid killing 150k civilians outright.