Class discussion over whether or not the Atom Bomb should have been used in WW2
>I think a better solution would be to invade Japan because less civilians would die.
Because nothing says "minimizing civilian casualties" like an invasion leading to a protracted and arduous ground war and occupation against an enemy who's prepared to literally throw school children into the grinder.
From the point of view of the President during the war, it's not an easy choice, but ultimately the answer is probably 'it was justified given what knowledge was known at the time'.
In retrospect the Japanese may have been ready to surrender anyways, but they had shown no sign of EVER being willing to stop, as a people, before.
If the US would have been forced to enter a land campaign on the Japanese islands, based on what they had experienced before, they could have expected a grueling fight with massive casualties on both sides as they clawed their way straight to Hirohito. The numbers probably would have exceeded the casualties of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings on JUST the Japanese side, and the experience up until then had been that there was no such thing as a Japanese non-combatant. Women and children would fight the troops en masse alongside men.
If they had waited a month, MAYBE the Japanese would have surrendered. Or maybe they would have killed hundreds of American troops and then the bombs would have been dropped anyways.
It's a somewhat horrific answer, but it boils down to 'it probably wasn't NECESSARY, but there was no way for them to know that at the time, thus it was sort of justified'.
the whole point of dropping the nukes was because every single jap was willing to go to war on us forces. more people would have died if the us handnt dropped the bombs.
the entirety of japan would have been decimated. the war would have dragged on for maybe another 3 years and we would have lost A TON of people trying to take japan
unlikely. The Japanese war machine was on its last legs and their resources were exhausted.
but see >>28463249
The US had no way of knowing those things, and even if they had, their experience had been that the Japanese would fight back beyond the reach of reason.
>Japanese may have been ready to surrender anyways, but they had shown no sign of EVER being willing to stop, as a people, before.
6 months before the nuke the japanese were already floating their surrender terms and US had discovered them, we simply decided to pretend we didn't know so we could use the nuke we spent so much on.
To this day if an American soldier gets wounded, they get a Purple Heart made in anticipation of the casualties that would happen during the invasion of Japan. They made like 500,000 purple hearts and expected well over a million casualties from the first phase of the invasion alone IIRC.
The IJA was preparing civilians to fight to the last man, and have the women kill the children before killing themselves so they wouldn't be raped and slaved.
I heard a story where troops found a few Jap civilians during the island hopping campaign, and they were apparently shocked that they were treated humanely.
The bombs saved both Japanese and American lives. If Japan was invaded, there wouldn't be many Japanese people alive today at all. They would be an endangered culture.
Look at "before and after" pictures of WW1 battlefields and imagine that all across Japan.
>The IJA was preparing civilians to fight to the last man, and have the women kill the children before killing themselves so they wouldn't be raped and slaved.
Ouch. We prepare based on what we anticipate we ourselves would do. That does not speak kindly of the WWII Japanese...
There's actually a historical debate going on whether it was the bombs or the fear of Soviet invasion and thus overthrow of the Emperor that was the main reason for the Japanese surrender. Most agree it was both but they only debate about which one the Japs feared more..
Considering how they had trained their civilian population to commit mass suicide attacks against Americans and how people on Okinawa rather jumped off cliffs than lived under American occupation I'll have to go with the theory of fear for the communist overthrow of the Emperor.
The Japanese did not approve of people who allowed themselves to be taken alive.
To be fair, most combat units in the Pacific Theater stopped taking any Japanese alive after they'd seen what the Japanese did to American POWs. Not that there were ever a lot of opportunities.
It's got nothing to do with kindness.
Pretty much every culture is aware of the horrors of total war because of what's been documented in the past, and sparing women and children the shame and pain would be thought of as humane under the circumstances.
In my opinion, it was the "honorable and right" thing for civilians to consider, given the circumstances of course.
Propaganda can cloud your mind, and suicide is a certainty rather than surrender, which is a risk.
Don't think any less of the Japanese people or military during WW2 because of this. You have to remember what information they had, what they believed, and what was happening. Honestly, it's a wonder WW2 didn't have more deaths. It's a damn miracle.
Russia lost a full quarter of their 1939 population! They had it worst, by far.
All this, including what I've said in >>28464285, is OPINION. It's only my OPINION. It's based on what I've read, heard, researched, etc.
A good portion of why we dropped the bombs was to shoo off the Russians. We didn't want them to take a portion of Japan and limit trade like they were doing with eastern Germany.
US military estimates were casualties only in the ten thousands for US forces for a mainland invasion. Not the million that Truman spouted. And the estimates for Japanese casualties weren't terribly high either.
So, how much do you hate communists?
Well, sure, but commies were alive and well long after Nazis were history.
Though, if it had been the other way around, Rocky IV would have probably still been pretty much the same movie.
Was the Atomic bomb the best option for ending the war in the Pacific Theatre? Yes.
As is evident with the battles on Okinawa, and in late war Germany, civilians were either drafted into militias (e.g. the Volkssturm) or used as human shields (Okinawa). This is far from ideal when trying to reduce casualties for both parties.
A full-scale invasion of Japan could have easily extended the war several months, if not an entire year, and at that point, pretty much EVERY Japanese city would have been leveled by strategic bombing anyways (it should be noted that the conventional bombing of Tokyo caused almost as many casualties as Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.)
As dumb as it might sound, dropping the A-bomb on Japan was the better option for both sides.
Was the atomic bombing of Japan a good idea in terms of ethics? Probably.
As stated above, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki very well may have saved more lives than they ended. It was only when we demonstrated that we were capable of destroying the entire country of Japan in the span of a day that they finally surrendered. It is frankly asinine to think anything short of that would have brought about that reaction.
Was the deployment of the first and only atomic bombs ever used in war a good idea in terms of it's long-term social and political effects? Maybe.
America was not the only country working on building nuclear weaponry, and if we weren't the first to use that technology, it would be safe to assume that it would have been used in a situation in which both belligerents in a conflict possessed such technology, and the results would have been disastrous.
However, one can also argue that this event is what spurred other countries into making the development of nuclear weapons a top priority, and was one of the main contributing factors towards the Cold War, and with it, the era of Mutually Assured Destruction.
>From the point of view of the President during the war, it's not an easy choice, but ultimately the answer is probably 'it was justified given what knowledge was known at the time'.
No, it was an easy choice. Basically the only question was, were the bombs ready? They were in the middle of a war and they weren't interested in an ethics debate.
She's being raped, probably slapped and punched. Boredom is the last of her concerns.
My thought, but I wonder what makes someone die from rape. People have rough intercourse all the time. Beaten to death while being raped, I can see, but being "raped to death", yeah I don't see it.
Why would any man prefer putting a cacti in a woman instead of his dick. Unless she's old/ugly like, I dunno, Hillary.
She thus dies of starvation. She's not "raped to death".
An interesting case would be a choking on a dick until death by asphyxia. Cause of death would be asphyxia, but I would definitely consider "raped to death" to be valid.
Jesus Christ, who in their right mind would do that.
But seriously, the average Japanese soldier probably just wanted to empty his balls. Not play herbologist with a woman's genitalia.
I imagine you're right about the sack drain, but when peoples' lives have little/no value, there's always someone out there who'll just up and kill them for whatever reason strikes their fancy.
Kill OR cactus them, that is.
>Man, going after the cactus guy would suck.