Dropping the atomic bombs vs. an American invasion of Japan

[Earth]

Dropping the two bombs was utterly despicable. Regarding the thread's dichotomy, an invasion would've been more preferable.

[RosettaStoned]

Tokyo should have been bombed.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Option 2. Many fewer people would be maimed or killed that way than by an invasion.

[pbrower2a]

Japan was on the brink of economic and political collapse. The submarine blockade of Japan ensured that Japan could not get food while its men were soldiers instead of rice growers. But that was not quite so well known, and the Japanese government continued its strident defiance of reality.

Even so, the Japanese government showed no sign of willingness to surrender, it was going to fight to the last child or old woman capable of wielding a spear.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Regarding the thread's dichotomy, an invasion would've been more preferable.

It would have led to far more deaths, and a prolonged military engagement.  How is that preferable?

[Earth]

Regarding the thread's dichotomy, an invasion would've been more preferable.

It would have led to far more deaths, and a prolonged military engagement.  How is that preferable?

Deaths of combatants or civilians? I find it seriously hard to justify the murder of civilians.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Regarding the thread's dichotomy, an invasion would've been more preferable.

It would have led to far more deaths, and a prolonged military engagement.  How is that preferable?

Deaths of combatants or civilians? I find it seriously hard to justify the murder of civilians.

It would have led to more overall deaths; I don't know the exact breakdown.

[Earth]

Regarding the thread's dichotomy, an invasion would've been more preferable.

It would have led to far more deaths, and a prolonged military engagement.  How is that preferable?

Deaths of combatants or civilians? I find it seriously hard to justify the murder of civilians.

It would have led to more overall deaths; I don't know the exact breakdown.

There's a distinction to be made, though, between those who choose to fight, and those caught in the middle, like the residents of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. If war is inevitable, then let those willing to fight face the consequences, not those trying to live their lives. It might become a worse situation considering the loss of civilian life if invasion took place, but I still see invasion more favorably than to being obliterated.

[jokerman]

More casualties of both, I'm sure.  An invasion would have required bombing of industrial capabilities en masse, not only killing more people but crippling the welfare of all people of Japan after the war.

[??????????]

Dropping the bombs was the best choice in this situation. The American government had no idea how unstable Japan may have been. I personally doubt they were unstable to begin with.

[TeePee4Prez]

Option 2.  We had to do it.  This is one case I don't understand some of the extreme liberals.  Japanese brutality up to that point well warranted what we did.  More people would have suffered had we not dropped the bombs.

On a side note my grandfather was in the amphibious unit in the Navy and never got deployed.  My aunts were already born, but my dad wasn't until 1950.  Had they not dropped the bomb, he might have been sent and a very good chance I wouldn't be here.

[SPC]

Option 2.  We had to do it.  This is one case I don't understand some of the extreme liberals.  Japanese brutality up to that point well warranted what we did.  More people would have suffered had we not dropped the bombs.

On a side note my grandfather was in the amphibious unit in the Navy and never got deployed.  My aunts were already born, but my dad wasn't until 1950.  Had they not dropped the bomb, he might have been sent and a very good chance I wouldn't be here.

So, the lives of servicemen are worth more than the lives of innocent civilians?

[TeePee4Prez]

Option 2.  We had to do it.  This is one case I don't understand some of the extreme liberals.  Japanese brutality up to that point well warranted what we did.  More people would have suffered had we not dropped the bombs.

On a side note my grandfather was in the amphibious unit in the Navy and never got deployed.  My aunts were already born, but my dad wasn't until 1950.  Had they not dropped the bomb, he might have been sent and a very good chance I wouldn't be here.

So, the lives of servicemen are worth more than the lives of innocent civilians?

In this case.. yes.  Ever see the Rape of Nanking?  These Japanese were brutal and honored death.  They did not care about the civilian population of their conquered population at all.  They were sick s- bayoneting babies and "comfort stations".  Yeah, they had to be dealt with appropriately.  Even as a moderate liberal Democrat I feel there are times where we have to use force, sometimes excessive even if it's against innocent civilians.  The Japanese would not surrender otherwise and there was no other solution for humanity's sake than to drop both bombs.  The threat of total annihilation was the only thing that would have swayed the Emperor.

This is where I'm a little Truman-esque.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Dropping the bombs was the best choice in this situation. The American government had no idea how unstable Japan may have been. I personally doubt they were unstable to begin with.

I have to agree.  This is a really tough issue for me.  I oppose the use of nuclear weapons in general, and no matter the victory it brought us, it is still a dark spot in our national history.

I hope the people who died at the hands of our atomic weapons are a reminder to everyone that we should never go down that road again.. that no silly skirmish or war is worth the utter destruction that such weapons bring.  We didn't really know that at the time.  It's no excuse, but I hope we've learned.

Still, it is great that Japan has risen from the ashes and become an extremely prosperous and quite possibly the most technologically advanced society in the world, all under peaceful times.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki were testaments to the horrors that human innovation can bring, and postwar Japan is a testament to the wonders it can bring.

[??????????]

Still, it is great that Japan has risen from the ashes and become an extremely prosperous and quite possibly the most technologically advanced society in the world, all under peaceful times.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki were testaments to the horrors that human innovation can bring, and postwar Japan is a testament to the wonders it can bring.

Yes, but it's a shame the Japanese govt was never properly punished for their actions during the war.

[TeePee4Prez]

Still, it is great that Japan has risen from the ashes and become an extremely prosperous and quite possibly the most technologically advanced society in the world, all under peaceful times.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki were testaments to the horrors that human innovation can bring, and postwar Japan is a testament to the wonders it can bring.

Yes, but it's a shame the Japanese govt was never properly punished for their actions during the war.

We actually agree on something other than Ireland.

[SPC]

Option 2.  We had to do it.  This is one case I don't understand some of the extreme liberals.  Japanese brutality up to that point well warranted what we did.  More people would have suffered had we not dropped the bombs.

On a side note my grandfather was in the amphibious unit in the Navy and never got deployed.  My aunts were already born, but my dad wasn't until 1950.  Had they not dropped the bomb, he might have been sent and a very good chance I wouldn't be here.

So, the lives of servicemen are worth more than the lives of innocent civilians?

In this case.. yes.  Ever see the Rape of Nanking?  These Japanese were brutal and honored death.  They did not care about the civilian population of their conquered population at all.  They were sick s- bayoneting babies and "comfort stations".  Yeah, they had to be dealt with appropriately.  Even as a moderate liberal Democrat I feel there are times where we have to use force, sometimes excessive even if it's against innocent civilians.  The Japanese would not surrender otherwise and there was no other solution for humanity's sake than to drop both bombs.  The threat of total annihilation was the only thing that would have swayed the Emperor.

This is where I'm a little Truman-esque.

That's a collectivist stereotype. It is impossible for an entire ethnic group to be brutal and honor death. One should not resort to stereotyping an entire population as a justification for civilian murder. And is the dropping of the atomic bombs somehow morally superior to the Rape of Nanking because the civilians were vaporized instead of shot?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Still, it is great that Japan has risen from the ashes and become an extremely prosperous and quite possibly the most technologically advanced society in the world, all under peaceful times.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki were testaments to the horrors that human innovation can bring, and postwar Japan is a testament to the wonders it can bring.

Yes, but it's a shame the Japanese govt was never properly punished for their actions during the war.

I think we were a little weary of punishing nations for their actions during wartime... especially considering that one of the root causes of WWII was the punishment we inflicted on Germany after WWI.

[DC Al Fine]

I'll bite. Given the tenacity of Japan, 1 nuke was probably the best option. They should have waited a few days more for the 2nd one.

[Simfan34]

The problem is we did wait after Hiroshima- and the Japanese High Command refused to surrender still. An invasion would have killed more servicemen and civilians on all sides- but I'm curious what those who say we should have done neither think we should have done.

[anvi]

I have posted the story about my dad, the WWII vet, who, after four years of service in Africa, Italy, Europe and the Philippines, was on an aircraft carrier bound in the direction of mainland Japan when the Hiroshima bomb was dropped.  I won't share the story again because many here have read it before.  I'll only comment by repeating that I, though for different reasons, agree with my dad's view.

I don't believe that mass murdering civilians is ever the right thing to do.  Not during war.  Not to end a war.  Not in defense of country.  Threaten the invasion, keep driving Japanese forces back to the mainland, as the threat had been accomplishing, and then demand terms in exchange for avoiding it.  No atomic bombs.  No fireboming.  No.

[Supermariobros]

Dropping the bombs was the right choice, spared American lives and stopped Russia from gaining anything from their own invasion.

[John Dibble]

I don't believe that mass murdering civilians is ever the right thing to do.  Not during war.  Not to end a war.  Not in defense of country.  Threaten the invasion, keep driving Japanese forces back to the mainland, as the threat had been accomplishing, and then demand terms in exchange for avoiding it.  No atomic bombs.  No fireboming.  No.

There's a few problems with this view.

First, is seems to indicate that the life of a civilian is somehow more important than the life of a soldier. A family is no less heartbroken when a family member dies just because the deceased was a soldier. I think you can make a case for it when the soldiers are all volunteers who have chosen to take the risk - they signed up to fight knowing they might die, usually at least in part to protect the people of their country, and so they have chosen that distinction for themselves. However, Japan at the time of WWII had universal conscription - every man at some point in his life was forced to serve in the army whether he like it or not. How is killing someone who was forced to go to war any worse than killing someone who happens to not be at war?

Second, countries in WWII were in a state of total war - the majority of resources and population were used for the war effort. Can you really get away with not bombing anything? The civilians were actively working against us - they were producing food, vehicles, weapons, etc. for their military for the express purpose of killing and conquering our side. The line between soldier and civilian is rather blurred in this scenario.

Third, a ground invasion would result in killing civilians anyways. If you only threaten to do it but never actually get around to it your threats will not be taken seriously. If you don't even bomb any targets in their country they'll take it even less seriously. Furthermore not bombing anything like production facilities - where you'd have civilians working - would result in the enemy being able to continue production with impunity. They would simply retreat, rearm, and then try to break any blockade as many times as it took. And if you actually would go through with an invasion and their civilians were indeed ready to fight us to such a level that we could expect housewives to attack with kitchen knives, the the actual invasion would kill more civilians than some bombing would. Dead is dead - it doesn't really matter if you're blown up or shot, you're still dead.

War is killing, and if you'd like to minimize the killing you sometimes need to make choices that are less than savory. Sometimes we don't have a right choice, rather we just have a few choices and one of them is less wrong than the others.

[Sbane]

I voted for option 2....but I have changed my mind. I think an invasion would have led to far less casualties of people who didn't want anything to do with the war, especially children. Many innocents who did not want to kill Americans died, or suffered lifelong ailments due to the bomb. Holistically speaking more lives were not lost to the bomb, but many more innocents got harmed which would not have  been the case in an invasion.

[SPC]

The problem is we did wait after Hiroshima- and the Japanese High Command refused to surrender still. An invasion would have killed more servicemen and civilians on all sides- but I'm curious what those who say we should have done neither think we should have done.

The United States should have accepted the initial Japanese peace offer in January 1945.