Why was it okay for America to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

What is coming too short in this discussion, is that the radiation of the two bombs stayed for decades and led to cancer and disabilities of japanese people long born after WW II.

So no, it was not worth the price. American Submarines had nearly extinquished the japanese trade fleet. The Japanese had not enough planes anymore to stop the B 29 Super Fortress airraids. Yes, conventional bombing had killed probably more japanese civilians, but civilians, who were already born at the beginning of the war, not generations later like the A bombs.

[Cyclops]

Equating Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the WTC bombing or North Vietnam is a false equation. OP is pretty wishy washy, war is a fatc of life, so is terrorism and so are nasty proxy wars.

The two nukes dropped on Japan were truly evil weapons, but saved more lives than they took even figuring in cancer and other deaths as the US was preparing an invasion that would have turned the Home Island into Iwo Jima on a large scale.

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

People are often horrified by what the Japanese did in Nanjing, including German businessman and Nazi party member John Rabe who saved many Chinese lives there, however there are some lesser known activities of the Japanese such as plague flee bombing. Was it OK for the Japanese to set up Unit 731?

[Condottiere 40K]

1. People tend to reflect on the barbarities of war in hindsight.

2. War tends to be hell, since once you release the demons, it tends to be hard to control them, especially if one or both sides believe it's existential.

3. Dead is dead, though how that's achieved can be distasteful, forgetting about the Bee and Cee parts of the ABC equation.

4. The Americans had a shiny new weapon, and they wanted to see how it works; the Japanese were looking for a better deal, and in the end came to the conclusion that anything from Stalin was going to threaten their traditional power structure and society far more than any conditions the Americans would demand. They lucked out with McArthur and Kim Il Sung.

5. The American started figuring out that their then strategy with strategic bombing wasn't effective, and then looked at the critical bottlenecks of a wartime economy, like energy and ball bearings. And transport infrastructure, which would be where Dresden comes in.

6. The terror aspect of civilian bombing are part of a long tradition of warfare, which I think that Enlightenment self-interest would want to avoid; the difference is that European militaries shouldn't practice them in European cities. The Germans shelled Paris with a big ass gun in the Great War, and that sure as hell weren't picky as to what was hit, and used Zeppelins to bomb Britain, which would be the actual genesis of the Royal Air Force as a separate military arm.7R

7. Russia by it's nature needs defence in depth and access to the oceans; they are expansionary by default.

8. After the Bataan Death March, Pearl Harbour, and way higher than expected casualties in the Pacific Theatre, the Americans would have little hesitation in using a super high explosive weapon to force a decision.

[Just answer the question]

Equating Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the WTC bombing or North Vietnam is a false equation.

No it isn't:

Hiroshima and Nagasaki = thousands of civilians died

Vietnam = thousands of civilians died

WTC = thousands of civilians died

It's okay if all the ones who died were military personnel....

So again, I ask, why is it okay for America to kill other nations civilians but when it happens to the US, they get angry about it?

[Just answer the question]

So this opinion holds more weight than mine in your eyes?

Did America deserve 9/11?

"The United States Killed, enslaved, murdered and raped millions of people world wide, and what's the worst that happened to them? only 3000 casualties. The USA dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Japan, killed innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their willing to start a crazy bogus war for a drop of oil. they show no pity to the starving children in Africa, and ONLY care about their own people. they killed millions and millions worldwide thinking no ones gonna fight back, and when they DO fight back, they go all crazy and make a big deal about. ONLY 3000 people died and they all start whining and crying about it, meanwhile there are people dying everyday due to starvation. You NEVER see them cry for the starving people in 3rd world countries."

The, Yahoo Answers

[95thrifleman]

No it isn't:

Hiroshima and Nagasaki = thousands of civilians died

Vietnam = thousands of civilians died

WTC = thousands of civilians died

It's okay if all the ones who died were military personnel....

So again, I ask, why is it okay for America to kill other nations civilians but when it happens to the US, they get angry about it?

You create two fallacies here. That Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Vietnam where "ok" and that nobody got angry about it.

Your entire argument is in bad faith there is no discussion here. You disregard, out of hand, any view or argument that does not support your anti-american position.

[Cyclops]

No it isn't:

Scintillating analysis.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki = thousands of civilians died

Nagasaki was one of the chief Japanese naval bases. Hiroshima was IIRC also important for the war economy. Japan was not operating under the normal European conventions of war, and seemed determined to fight to the last man, woman and child.

Vietnam = thousands of civilians died

Ho Chi Minh city was a major military hub too, and was sponsoring an insurgency in a US client state.

WTC = thousands of civilians died

That was a terrorist attack by Saudi agents, and a betrayal of trust by firstly the Saudis who undertook the attack, and then by the US government that invaded a bunch of non-Saudis on the back of US public anger.

You've set up false equivalences here, its like you don't have all the facts at your command.

It's okay if all the ones who died were military personnel....

Why is that? What if the military personnel are off duty, on leave, wounded etc. Is it OK to attack by surprise? What if the civilians consider them selves soldiers in the service of the emperor, or part of a total war struggle against imperialism? You're treating a pretty nuanced question with no subtlety.

So again, I ask, why is it okay for America to kill other nations civilians but when it happens to the US, they get angry about it?

I guess you mean the US, and I imagine they get angry when their people are killed because they're loyal to their own people? I mean its a pretty simple answer.

People in the US often question the rights and wrongs of their actions in war. Its a free society and many people question the right of the government to do anything. I feel like you're swinging at a strawman and not getting it all your own way.

[conon394]

Did America deserve 9/11?

"The United States Killed, enslaved, murdered and raped millions of people world wide, and what's the worst that happened to them? only 3000 casualties. The USA dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Japan, killed innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their willing to start a crazy bogus war for a drop of oil. they show no pity to the starving children in Africa, and ONLY care about their own people. they killed millions and millions worldwide thinking no ones gonna fight back, and when they DO fight back, they go all crazy and make a big deal about. ONLY 3000 people died and they all start whining and crying about it, meanwhile there are people dying everyday due to starvation. You NEVER see them cry for the starving people in 3rd world countries."

The, Yahoo Answers

I believe in one of mirror image threads you posted Hucaby nattering about how great the US was on FOX. Posting yet another internet rant is the functional equivalent you just find your own personal echo chamber on the internet.

But since I have time to kill


"The United States Killed, enslaved, murdered and raped millions of people world wide" On the enslavement part we did kinda fight a war to deal with that. Other the other charges are to vague to answer and most any powerful and or near powerful nation is likely equally guilty. I will entertain a discussion about if American exceptionalism is well an exceptional version of Imperial rhetoric. That is out of line with what others say or have said to convince themselves their great power action were justified. But only after you come back with thought discussion after visiting a library or JSTOR for Historical analysis of the concept and its context with real sources.

The USA dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Japan

Yes. To avoid repetition you can find my answer in the linked thread above.

killed innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their willing to start a crazy bogus war for a drop of oil.

The Taliban government failed to turn over AQ, You are saying China would not have done the same?

On Iraq you seem act like every American is one hundred still behind the war. No it was probably the worst US foreign policy blunder in a century. But the like China annexing Tibet the US will not punished for until it looses war just like in 100 years Tibet as an independent place will be a historical footnote. You have loose a major war for that to happen the punishing seem to want.

Their willing to start a crazy bogus war for a drop of oil.

Well aside from oil was not the reason, wow France the UK and Israel never started a crazy war over a canal?

they show no pity to the starving children in Africa

Ebola - look up who spends the most funding the WHO, who provided the bulk of all the key funding for the current Ebola vaccinate and treatments. Yep the US just let the Africans die did the virus burned out, good thing China and India stepped up right? - not.

and ONLY care about their own people

So right the US intervention in the former Yugoslavia was only motivated by the hostages the Serbians were holding, not trying end a war that was more or less just killing Europeans.

they killed millions and millions worldwide thinking no ones gonna fight back, and when they DO fight back,

Where when how under what circumstance. Certainly not on a day to day basis. If you take the most maximum estimate for Iraq over the entire occupation you can get over million but of course you have to remove any agency on the part of the locals and say its all the US fault. But as I said above I not arguing Iraq was anything but a disaster, but power is power, nobody is going sanction or save the Uyghurs in China from internment either.

meanwhile there are people dying everyday due to starvation. You NEVER see them cry for the starving people in 3rd world countries."

What.

U.S. International Food Assistance

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R45422.pdf

Although food aid is problematic. Recall first Famine is more a manufactured political event. So the Local governments really have the agency. Food aid is paradoxically needed to save people but it can drive out local farmers from being able to market their produce. Free US in kind food can drive out local goods for sale if it not carefully used just for acute situations.

I am pretty Sure Bill and Melinda Gates are American

https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Wher.../Africa-Office

Also did I not have listen we are the world back in the 80s

How about Bush's project on AIDs in Africa?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presid...l_requirements

By in large a successful effort.

Its an interesting read however . Considering the level of corruption in most African countries just turning over the money would likely just be enriching the political class. But by hiring local medical personal at western wages the program seems to have got best personal but also have made them more likely to be part of a brain drain to the west rather than work at local wages when not working for the AIDs program.

Aid is tricky. Personally I'd like to see AID do more things like micro-loans.


JATQ

I would suggest a reading list
See Frank Downfall:

http://www.amazon.com/Downfall-End-I.../dp/067941424X

See Sadoa Asada

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...id=55870957113

Kort has a nice survey of all the key sides in the debate and its still online:

http://www.theamericanpresident.us/i...ruman_bomb.pdf

Kort does not agree with Hasegawa (below) but the above link is the kind of review of the current state of the trade that an expert is expected to be fair and reasonable in producing and must pass review.

For Kort's more direct criticism of 'Racing...' see this review:

http://www.bu.edu/historic/hs/kort.html

You can find most of this in published articles (follow the notes in the Kort review of the debate above) but if you prefer books also see Madox's recent collection of various historians:

http://books.google.com/books?id=A2Z...review&f=false

Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan
by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa

https://www.amazon.com/Racing-Enemy-.../dp/0674022416

Truman and the Hiroshima Cult
Robert Newman

http://msupress.org/books/book/?id=5...1#.XG6zb7h7mHs

of course you will prefer the Gar Alperovitz

The History of the Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb

https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...=firefox-b-1-d

And ignore all the criticism of his work in the more recent scholarship I cited. But in case any shake yourself away form internet rants and do some reading and them maybe you can post intelligibly on the subject. Sign up for JSTOR in particular Sadoa Asada is a must read.

[Mayer]

Nagasaki was one of the chief Japanese naval bases. Hiroshima was IIRC also important for the war economy. Japan was not operating under the normal European conventions of war, and seemed determined to fight to the last man, woman and child.

Ho Chi Minh city was a major military hub too, and was sponsoring an insurgency in a US client state.

The americans were ignoring European conventions of war too. I think Washington is a major military hub which supports insurgency all around the globe, we should destroy it.



Live by the sword, die by the sword.

[Mamlaz]

Why was it okay for America to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

"I'll tell you what war is all about.
You've got to kill people, and when you've killed enough, they stop fighting."

Curtis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOCYcgOnWUM&t=0m50s
LeMay

[Cyclops]

The americans were ignoring European conventions of war too. I think Washington is a major military hub which supports insurgency all around the globe, we should destroy it.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

If you attack my country's ally you should expect to be enemies with me. If you think Germany could attack the US and survive intact I'll refer you to the last occasion Germany tried that. See you in Berlin.

[Mayer]

My god how daft
No, i didn't claim Germany could attack the US, what is wrong with you people? The same inane justifications for bombing Japan and Vietnam could be used to kill 10 times more people in the US, that is my argument. If you look at history, you would see that germans were a lot more often peaceful than the americans, almost every other people were more peaceful than your US friends.


Invading Germany right now isn't much of a challenge with the terrible state of our armed forces, you can topple Merkel while you're at it

[hellheaven1987]

What is coming too short in this discussion, is that the radiation of the two bombs stayed for decades and led to cancer and disabilities of japanese people long born after WW II.

No one had idea about radiation effects well until mid 1950s, when US and France studied radiation effect on Pacific Ocean.

[hellheaven1987]

Was it OK for the Japanese to set up Unit 731?

Not ok but expected, since West viewed Japan as a primitive state so Japanese behaving like barbarians was not a surprise. In short, you can argue that it was Japanese's own choice to behave so lowly that West classified it as a second class state, just like if someone behave like a thug then it is not surprise people treat him like a thug.

And it is not first time West has such view nor is it Western exclusive.

[95thrifleman]

The americans were ignoring European conventions of war too. I think Washington is a major military hub which supports insurgency all around the globe, we should destroy it.



Live by the sword, die by the sword.

The British did that already, why do you think the Whitehouse is white?

Your comments all seem to be just bsed on this petty, jealous concept "we started a total war, the enemy used our tactics and where better at it, MUMMY!"

Also you create the strawman of city bombing to try and say victor's justice was unfair and unequal. The fact is neither Germany nor the Allies considered city bombing to be warcrime. Not a single German was indicted for the bombing of British, French, Russian, Dutch or Polish cities.

Even the German atrocities against British and American pows and the extensive use of Slavic pows as slave labour has been largely fogotten and ignored by history. The only thing that Germany still gets flak for is the organised, industrial genocide of an entire race of people.

Your attempts to justify and equate the holocaust to Dresden were telling but ultimately fail.

[Just answer the question]

Hiroshima was IIRC also important for the war economy. Japan was not operating under the normal European conventions of war, and seemed determined to fight to the last man, woman and child.

WTC was also important for the war economy, so it's okay for a group of people to throw planes at their buildings and kill 3000?

Ho Chi Minh city was a major military hub too, and was sponsoring an insurgency in a US client state.

As Mayer said, it's okay to destroy Washington and kill the peasants living there because it is a major military hub too?

People in the US often question the rights and wrongs of their actions in war. Its a free society and many people question the right of the government to do anything.

Hmmm....... so if the society tells its leaders to not waste money on wars and bases and having military abroad and stop sending money to support dictators and save the money for their nation instead, the leaders listen and will do it?

[Just answer the question]

The British did that already, why do you think the Whitehouse is white?

Why don't you do it again?

[Morifea]

Why don't you do it again?

Do you know how Reaper-drones and incoming Hellfires sound? Just curios....

Another Question, who`s next on your list, after the USA got righteously destroyed?

@Mayer: As long as the Invader repairs our Streets and Bridges I could be convinced

[conon394]

Another Question, who`s next on your list, after the USA got righteously destroyed?

Well as far as I can tell since JATQ is harping on about stolen land returning to the First Nations... I assume All the Rest of North and South America, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, At least the Whites in South Africa, China, Can't really figure where he would come down on the Kurds... Nor am I sure if he really means to undo all population movements over the last 500 years and if that is a terminus point. Does include undoing the Bantu migration in Africa?

So JATQ been doing any reading yet?

Hmmm....... so if the society tells its leaders to not waste money on wars and bases and having military abroad and stop sending money to support dictators and save the money for their nation instead, the leaders listen and will do it?

Yes that's kind of elected governments work.