Bomb Japan Now

[Ft. Worth Frog]

I know there was a discussion awhile ago that discussed the Enola Gay exhibit. However, it had more do to with what label should go with it rather than the actual usage of it. I have come to the conclusion that, horrific as it may sound, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the right thing to do. It actually saved lives. I think the whole situation surrounding the ordeal must be looked at in order to get an objective picture of the bombing. Often, people's argument against the bombs stem from its seemingly horrific results instead of the context it was in.

Let's place ourselves back in 1945. Japan is fighting ferociously and is giving no sign of giving up. Okinawa has just been captured by the Americans at a massive cost of lives. Japanese civilians and soldiers refused to give up and resorted to jumping off cliffs to avod surrender. More than 99% of the Japanese garrison there was killed. Now imagine an invasion of the Home Islands-Kyushu, Shikoku, and Hokkaido being the main ones. Contemporary estimates placed the loss of American lives from between 500,000 to 1,000,000. The planners of the invasion had no idea of the atomic bomb. How many more Japanese lives would it have cost? Iwo Jima, the Marianas, Tarawa, etc.-the Japanese soldiers on these Pacific islands also fought to nearly the last man. Even if the United States did not invade but relied on continuous conventional bombing and a tight blockade, many more Japanese civilians would have died than did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thus, millions of lives were spared because of the Enola Gay.

 

[Dreadsox]

I hope you have a decent fall out shelter...hehe

 

[melon]

I wouldn't go as far as to give a moral justification to the atomic bomb. For me, it is just "matter-of-fact." It happened, and there's absolutely no way to go back to 1945 and reverse it.

It was in the mindset back then that whatever the most powerful weapon was, it was open to usage. And President Truman, while he is guilty of ordering its usage, is also credited for having the foresight to not use them in the Korean War, thus creating the concept of a "limited war."

So, really, I think that there are plenty of angles on this issue, and it is best to look at this issue from a sterile, academic POV, rather than a "good" or "evil" POV. There are no fast, hard answers to this historical controversy.

Melon

 

[BVS]

WTF? First of all your subject title is ridiculous. Secondly why bring this into debate? What is your point? This has been done, why debate it?

 

[Elvis]

Oddly... this seems timely...

on a weekly basis, I often hear people say things that we should 'bomb' one country, or another... to just end the violence...

oh.. .if it were only so simple.

 

[Ft. Worth Frog]

Umm...I was not discussing this because of any current events. I simply thought that since this is where different debates go on this would be a good topic. The title comes from the ZOO tv maxim. And why bring this into debate? HAven't most things been brought into debate at some point? What is history but a debate (at least the profession of history). And Melon, this is from an academic point of view the thesis being that the bomb had some benefits and was not all bad. Believe it or not, this point of view is similar to what many historians today believe. That is something historians are still debating and will for a long time but that does not mean it is meaningless.

 

[BVS]

Well then why not go ahead and bomb and eliminate every country but the U.S. and we won't have to worry about any more wars except civil wars. I mean we probably have the means.

 

[Ft. Worth Frog]

Did anybody actually read my post? It has nothing to do with bombing random countries.

 

[BVS]

My response was a tongue in cheek response to Elvis' post.

I don't agree with the idea of killing thousands to promote peace. And honestly your statement about millions being spared due to this action is one that can't be proved. No one could say for certain what would have happened if we hadn't used the A-bomb. I think it's a horrific scar that we'll have to live with for the rest of our lives. I just hope people will learn from it.

 

[meegannie]

Let's place ourselves back in 1945. Japan is fighting ferociously and is giving no sign of giving up.

The Japanese had approaced the Soviet Union about negotiating a peace deal with the US in July, and these communications were intercepted by the US.

Contemporary estimates placed the loss of American lives from between 500,000 to 1,000,000. [/B]

There is no record of such large estimates being used before or even immediately after the use of the bomb. The first time they appeared was in the postwar memoirs, and there is no documented source for them.

 

[melon]

And Melon, this is from an academic point of view the thesis being that the bomb had some benefits and was not all bad. Believe it or not, this point of view is similar to what many historians today believe. That is something historians are still debating and will for a long time but that does not mean it is meaningless.

No I know that. It is just sometimes difficult to debate controversial subjects in here without passions getting inflamed.

Melon