Do U think it was a good idea to drop the Atomic Bombs on Japan to end WWII?

[MaggioreItalian]

?

[Full Monty]

This subject seems to bring out the worst in some people. Check out this thread my Italian friend.

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...ight=hiroshima

No criticism intended, but you might want to use the 'Search' function to check whether subjects have been debated before and how the debate proceeded before starting a new thread. You might find that there's an aspect of the subject that you think was overlooked, or didn't receive the attention it deserved, thus allowing you to start a more focussed thread.

[Ogukuo72]

Another potential zombie thread. Let's leave it alone.

[MonsterZero]

Edward Teller wanted the first detonation over Tokyo bay but far away from the city. The goal was a demonstration of the power of the bomb but without killing anybody. Hopefully the Japanese would have sue for peace after such a spectacle. I think I like Teller's idea best. Even if it failed to persuade Hirohito, it would have made the Americans look more humane in the post-war years.

[copenhagen]

I've heard that too but hindsight is a wonderful thing. It certainly stopped the war which would have cost a lot more lives. The Japanese were far from beaten at that point. To take the islands and pacify them would have been a very costly effort.

[RapierFighter]

In his radio broadcast to inform the Japanese people about his intention to surrender, Hirohito stated that the Americans have begun to use a "most cruel bomb..."

he must have brought that up for a reason.

My grandfather was on a destroyer, as in the first ships that would have been obliterated by the 3000 or so kamikaze aircraft that were just waiting for an amphibious assault.

Granddad died in 2004, not on his ship in 1945.

So a good idea?

Hell yeah.

[D1J1]

Since my dad was scheduled for the first assault wave in Tokyo Bay, hell yes. Now as stated above, there is a thread on this and I've never seen it not be incendary at any website its been visited. Maybe our Mediterranean friend will consider deleting it.

Regards,
Dennis

[Von Richter]

Kind of proved Bomber Harris's theory that bombing could win a war, dinnit?

[Andy H]

Yes and twice on Sundays for those modern day moralists

[frisco17]

Considering that the Japanese were training children to fight Allied soldier with pointed sticks, I'd say we did them a favor. Losing two cities is nothing compared to having most of your population die fighting. Not to mention the incredible number of allied casualties that would result from an invasion of the home islands.

[The Doctor]

Originally Posted by Andy H

Yes and twice on Sundays for those modern day moralists

[Full Monty]

Originally Posted by Andy H

Yes and twice on Sundays for those modern day moralists

There are several arguments against whether using the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary/'a good idea' that don't take a moral track. They're on the thread (together with some interesting links) that I linked to above.

[Half Pint]

In his radio broadcast to inform the Japanese people about his intention to surrender, Hirohito stated that the Americans have begun to use a "most cruel bomb..."

he must have brought that up for a reason.

An excellent point that is usualy over looked by those that support the idea the USSR entering the war was the "Real" reason.

HP

[dgfred]

Yep! No problem with it from me.

[Ogukuo72]

So here we go again.

Few tears dropped here in Asia by those occupied by the Japaneses. Many feel they got what they deserved. They sowed the wind with their cruelty and barbarism, and reaped the atomic whirlwind.

For those who believe that the Allies should have waited patiently for the Japaneses to eventually surrender, keep in mind that 100,000 Chinese were dying a month from starvation, malnutrition, ill-treatment etc. In other parts of Asia, the occupied people and the POWs weren't doing too well either. Saving Japanese lives at the expensive of other Asian lives does not have much appeal around these parts.

As for those who think that demonstrating a bomb will be enough, remember that even after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, the Japanese military were insistent on continuing to wage war. It took the Emporer's personal intervention to bring matters to a close.

For those who argue that the Allies should have dropped one on an empty island, then another on a city when the Japaneses refuse to see reason - it's a good idea, except that it waste a perfectly good bomb. There were two in total in Jul 45 on Tinian, with a third on the way. That's it. You have to wait a couple of months before more could be had. Which brings us back to the first point about waiting around while the occupied people and POWs die by the thousands.

Make no mistake, it's a difficult moral decision. The Americans made the least morally bad of the decisions.