What is causing this "disease"?

[JJJJ]

Ok, im having a debate on Hiroshima/Nagasaki on a non-american message board, and it just baffles me how people can say that the A-bomb wasnt justified.....

Im getting irrelevant one-liners as responses to my "lengthy" posts, and when i continuously ask:

"Why should a government of a country that was attacked, sacrifice its own citizens lives for the sake of the enemy's civilians lives?" i do not get a straight answer. I've asked it now for 4 or 5 times at the end of my posts, but ive yet to receive a single answer conserning that question. Im getting answers like "it wasnt the japanese civilians fault" or "even though i agree that the government should protect its people, nothing justifies killing that many people". Then when i ask why the amount of dead enemy civilians is important for you, if you otherwise agree with my point, i get the answer, "well, its just wrong to kill that many people".

Also, the most sad part is, that none of the people disagreeing with me, even admit that the ultimate blame should be put on the japanese government, for going to war with the US.

I consider myself as a patient man, and usually i show enormous "self-control" while trying to get answers from people that disagree with me.

I do not understand why these people im debating, even want to debate about anything(i didnt start the topic about the A-bomb), when they are not at all interested in explaining their views, nor answering to questions i ask them that are really relevant to the discussion? It has to be said, that the forum is not a political forum, but still, i cant understand why these people engage in debate at all, if they are not at all interested in explaining their views, and just resort to one-liners and irrelevant drivel. Is this some kind of mental disease, because im getting really fed up with the fact that these people, the majority on that site, hold such perverse view of reality.....

[Grames]

If it is not a political forum, probably the people you are corresponding with cannot explain their thoughts about this because they have spent no time thinking about it, and thus have no thoughts merely opinions.

[JJJJ]

If it is not a political forum, probably the people you are corresponding with cannot explain their thoughts about this because they have spent no time thinking about it, and thus have no thoughts merely opinions.

yeah, but why do they choose to give them, especially without a disclaimer, "this is just my opinion, and i have thought it through...."

I have no need on commenting about who is the worlds best cricket player, as i dont watch that sport, so its a bit like i would go take part in a debate whether player A is better than player B, just because i "feel like it". And after some cricket-fan would bring up evidence why it isnt true, i would respond with one-liners about player B being "gay" and ugly.

I have no urge to do something like that, so what is it that causes people to do that in political debates?

edit: im sorry that im venting here, but as i want to come across as a patient and calm debater on that forum, im just going to vent here.....

Now there idiots are saying that it would have been sufficient to just drop an a-bomb in some desert location, and the japanese would have surrendered? Well, then i obviously said: "well, they dropped an A-bomb in Hiroshima, and the japanese didnt even surrender then, so by which logic would they have surrendered if they had dropped it in a desert location?" I get the answer along the lines of, "well, we can always speculate, but i think a warning shot would have sufficed". AAARGGHHHH!!! How can anyone have such faulty logic?

Edited July 6, 2008 by JJJJ

[fletch]

What you have is people forming opinions based upon superficial assessments or emotional reactions to certain events. Many people view pictures of Hiroshima and see massive devastation, death and human suffering and conclude that A-bomb=bad. They quite probably have not thought about it on a much deeper level, except to say that anyone who uses an A-bomb is bad as well. The context of why such a weapon was used or might be used in the future is dropped. The consequences of such a weapon's use are so unthinkable to them that they, well, refuse to think about it. They wind up with, as Grames noted, "no thoughts merely opinions." And you might well be the first person to expose the lack of foundation underlying those opinions.

[Dr. Radiaki]

The atomic bomb attack was expedient, but it's necessity is debatable.

At the time the bombs were dropped, Japan was defeated, whether they had officially recognized it or not. With no oil and no hope of getting more, any effort they might have made would have been brought to a screeching halt. Such an effort supposes a viable navy or air force which they did not have. Further, the Japanese home islands are small and easily blockaded, making the waiting game an easy one to play for a numerically superior force.

Given the Japanese leadership at the time it is certain that such a blocked would need to be maintained for some time. The sheer fanaticism of the military elite would make surrender a long time coming. Further, without any outside assistance, it is certain that many Japanese would have starved to death as food supplies ran short and the economy completely collapsed. Perhaps fatalities would have even reached the levels of the atomic attacks. However, such fatalities would not have the far reaching consequences of radiation. Namely, slow and painful death from radiation poisoning, horrific mutations of unborn children, and lasting danger from contaminated soil in the surrounding environment.

We must keep in mind that Truman was under immense political pressure to bring the war in Japan to a close, both from his own government and the populace at large. The atomic attacks were, as history proves, a remarkably quick solution to this problem, much faster than any blockade. However, speed is the only benefit of such a solution. A long term blockade would have endangered American lives only insofar as anyone is at risk living long term on a ship, and further would have left more infrastructure intact for the eventual rebuilding process.

I assert that atomic attacks were undertaken primarily for the speed at which they would achieve American goals.

[Grames]

A long term blockade was out of the question because a blockade is merely a stalemate, neither defeat nor victory for either side. Since America was winning the war, the rational thing to do was to bring the war to an end as an American victory. Bringing war to an end quickly is always the best way to reduce casualties all around.

[D'kian]

The atomic bomb attack was expedient, but it's necessity is debatable.

This is so. But it is also true of every military action ever taken, as there are always alternatives armies can take.

At the time the bombs were dropped, Japan was defeated, whether they had officially recognized it or not. With no oil and no hope of getting more, any effort they might have made would have been brought to a screeching halt. Such an effort supposes a viable navy or air force which they did not have.

At the time Japan also occupied a sizable chunk of China, Korea and other parts of Asia, for all thet it was by then a hollow shell. In addition the Japanese military were highly fanatical; remember how many battles were fought to the last man for chunks of rock in the Pacific, not to mention the Kamikaze. As for their navy, they had several subs in operation still. Subs won't win you a war, but they can delay and inflict heavy losses on any attacking force.

More important Japan would have wound up as bitter after WWII as Germany ended up after WWI. Its territory largely untouched, its armies holding land in other countries, yet defeated. No. If you're going to defeat an enemy, make sure he knows he's been utterly defeated.

Further, the Japanese home islands are small and easily blockaded, making the waiting game an easy one to play for a numerically superior force.

Maybe. Siege war is as ugly as any other kind, though, with the added detail of a trapped civilian population.

And that's not all. The Soviet Union had joined the war against Japan. Any protracted action would have allowed the Soviets to extend their influence in Asia as they did in Eastern Europe. I know it happened anyway, but decades later. More important, China, the 800 lb gorilla in Asia, never truly warmed up to the Soviets.

We must keep in mind that Truman was under immense political pressure to bring the war in Japan to a close, both from his own government and the populace at large.

And before the Soviets made any real inroads into Asia. Imagine if we had blockaded and the Soviets invaded. Imagine a communist North Japan and a semi-free South Japan.

Further, using the A-bomb let the Soviets know we had a powerful weapon we could use against them. Of course they went on to develop their own nukes, as was to be expected. Which brings me to the last point:

By showing how awful a nuclear attack is, a strong inhibition against using nuclear weapons was established. Without such a demonstration it is likely a Cold War battlefront would ahve flared up to a nuclear exchange, one made worse by bnoth sides having such weapons. Perhaps in Korea, but this time targeting a busy port or an industrial center. Perhaps in Vietnam. Perhaps by China against Taiwan.

I assert that atomic attacks were undertaken primarily for the speed at which they would achieve American goals.

Speed is not to be dismissed in the battlefield. A quick war causes fewer deaths than a long one. Conventional warfare within the Japanes Home Islands would have been more horrific than anything else in WWII (save perhaps the nazi death camps). If anything I'm grateful Hirohito took control from the generals and surrendered, because the generals weren't about to even after Nagasaki. Had Japan not surrendered, a third and perhaps a fourth A-bomb would have been necessary.

[KevinDW78]

By showing how awful a nuclear attack is, a strong inhibition against using nuclear weapons was established. Without such a demonstration it is likely a Cold War battlefront would ahve flared up to a nuclear exchange, one made worse by bnoth sides having such weapons. Perhaps in Korea, but this time targeting a busy port or an industrial center. Perhaps in Vietnam. Perhaps by China against Taiwan.

This is the most important point any in this thread has made (or can be made by anyone) on the subject. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs established the precedent that kept another nuclear attack from happening through the entire Cold War into the 1980s and was an effective deterrent in the Game Theory of all those decades between the US and the USSR

[stonebuddha]

This is the most important point any in this thread has made (or can be made by anyone) on the subject. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs established the precedent that kept another nuclear attack from happening through the entire Cold War into the 1980s and was an effective deterrent in the Game Theory of all those decades between the US and the USSR

While this may be true, it does not make a good argument (after the fact) for the justification of dropping the A bomb. It's like saying "the use of gas chambers showcased to the world its full horror and contributed to the fact that gas chambers never regained its popularity. Therefore, however horrible it was, it did serve a purpose." Think of it another way, if a nuclear weapon were detonated in a war, let's say in 2010, are you going to say "Hiroshima & Nagasaki established the horrors of nuclear weapons and contributed to the fact that they haven't been used between 1945 - 2009. But after 2009 the Hiroshima effect had worn off!"

Here are a couple of short articles to mull over....

The Hiroshima Myth

Whitewashing Hiroshima

Some of the main points in the articles were:

1. The three day interval between Hiroshima & Nagasaki was unconscionably inadequate – Japan being in shambles in its communications and transportation capabilities – and besides, no one, not even the Japanese high command, fully understood what had happened at Hiroshima.

2. The Russians had proclaimed their intent to enter the war with Japan 90 days after V- Day, which would have been Aug. 8, two days after Hiroshima. Indeed, Russia did declare war on August 8 and was marching across Manchuria when Nagasaki was incinerated. The US didn't want Japan surrendering to anybody else, especially a future enemy, so the first nuclear "messages" of the Cold War were sent.

3. The popular notion that dropping the A bomb saved the lives of up to 1 million US serviceman because it prevented a full scale invasion of Japan was a myth created by then Secretary of War Henry Stimson.

Edited July 7, 2008 by stonebuddha