TakeOnIt
Compare opinions of world leading experts and influencers.
  Japan    Nuclear Weapons    Terrorism    Crime    War    Ethics    Philosophy    Politics    Topic Index  Add Expert Opinion    Edit Question    Edit Implications    History   

Were the atomic bombs dropped on Japan justified?

On August 6 and 9, 1945, the U.S. President Harry S. Truman ordered the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, upon which Japan surrendered, ending World War II. Over 200,000 people died, mostly civilians. It has remained the only time atomic bombs have ever been used in warfare.

Implications to Other Questions


Experts and Influencers

Suggest Expert Quote (click to expand, no login required)
Agree
Experts In Politics


Winston Churchill    Former Prime Minister of U.K.
Agree
There were those who considered that the atomic bomb should never have been used at all. I cannot associate myself with such ideas… I am surprised that very worthy people—but people who in most cases had no intention of proceeding to the Japanese front themselves—should adopt a position that rather than throw this bomb we should have sacrificed a million American and a quarter of a million British lives...
01 Aug 1945    Source

Sub-Arguments Of This Expert:
Is it acceptable to target (i.e. kill) civilians in war?
   Mostly Disagree

Harry Truman    United States President,1945-1953
Agree
Having found the [atomic] bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans.
09 Aug 1945    Source

Sub-Arguments Of This Expert:
Is it acceptable to target (i.e. kill) civilians in war?
   Agree

Experts In Physics


Karl Compton    Physicist, Former President of MIT
Agree
[asking a] well-informed Japanese Army officer in Yokohama, [what] would have been the next major move if the war had continued. "... We would have kept on fighting until all Japanese were killed, but we would not have been defeated," by which he meant that they would not have been disgraced by surrender. ... On the basis of these facts, I cannot believe that, without the atomic bomb, the surrender would have come without a great deal more of costly struggle and bloodshed.
01 Dec 1946    Source


Experts In Psychology


Satoshi Kanazawa    Evolutionary Psychologist
Agree
Repeated carpet bombings of Tokyo in March 1945 did not faze them. The only thing that would convince the Japanese people, and, more importantly, their military leadership, of the utter American technological superiority and the complete futility of resistance were the atomic bombs, which they did not have. They would never have surrendered had we not dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That would have necessitated [a far bloodier] ground invasion of mainland Japan...
21 Aug 2008    Source


Disagree
Experts In Politics


Dwight Eisenhower    United States President 1953-1961
Disagree
I told him I was against [the atomic bomb] on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.
01 Jul 1945    Source


Experts In War


William Leahy    U.S. Chief of Staff 1942-1949
Disagree
The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender ... in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. [Leahy's Memoir, I Was There, pg. 441.]
01 Jan 1950    Source


Suggested Expert Quotes


Confucius
Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.


General Douglas MacArthur
MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed …. When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.



Comments

Add Your TakeOnIt (click to expand, no login required)
0 Points      Anonymous      01 Feb 2016      Stance on Question: Neutral
Indeed almost everyone knows that Just before 8 a.m. on December 7, 1941, hundreds of Japanese fighter planes attacked the American naval base at Pearl Harbor near Honolulu, Hawaii. The barrage lasted just two hours, but it was devastating: The Japanese managed to destroy nearly 20 American naval vessels, including eight enormous battleships, and more than 300 airplanes. More than 2,000 Americans soldiers and sailors died in the attack, and another 1,000 were wounded. But this compared to the attack of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 is virtually nothing, during World War II (1939-45), an American B-29 bomber dropped the world’s first deployed atomic bomb over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The explosion wiped out 90 percent of the city and immediately killed 80,000 people; tens of thousands in a instance, leaving shadow marks on the walls. Many more would later die of radiation exposure. Three days later, a second B-29 dropped another A-bomb on Nagasaki, killing an estimated 40,000 people. This resulted in the Japanese Emperor Hirohito that the country was defending even if their country reached a bloody end. To announce his country’s unconditional surrender in World War II in a radio address on August 15, citing the devastating power of “a new and most cruel bomb.”


0 Points      Thinking...      18 May 2016      Stance on Question: Neutral
i have a proposal.
what if America trained an elite team of soldiers so that they could kidnap the emperor?
they would be trained to capture him at night, covertly, and japan wouldnt know that the emperor was gone until the following morning. the soldiers would take the emperor back to america.
that way, America could exchange the Emperor's life for peace in the Pacific. then, the bombings might have been unnecessary, and so many peoples' lives could have been saved. only the Emperor and the men trained to kidnap him would have been in mortal danger. this would have also deeply humiliated the japanese, as they believed the emperor to be a GOD. capturing the emperor would have either set the US military on a level above that of a god (to the japanese), or it would have broken the Bushido/Shinto belief system. if the japanese military still refused to surrender, then i believe that the next thing to do would be to keep capturing military officials, starting with the highest rank first, until japan surrendered.



0 Points      corinne      11 Jan 2016      Stance on Question: Neutral
I believe it it was are lat result if not no one deserved to die the children who had a future who could have invented some thing new kids who would have two grow up with out a mother and farther or parents having to deal with the lost of the child just think if it was are country we would be so heart broken. Yes japan was prideful and arrogant on not surrendering but they did not deserve to loose a hole bunch of the population


0 Points      Anonymous      01 Feb 2016      General Comment
Japanese cultural attitudes to the elderly

Six members of the military and prominent Japanese politician – ruled the country in 1945. Emperor Hirohito was largely a figurehead ruler who could intervene as a last resort. In the last days of the war, the ‘big six’ decided that Japan would never surrender to the Americans unless America promised to preserve the life of Emperor Hirohito. They were quite willing to lead their country to a bloody end in defense of the emperor. They say nothing wrong in ordering the Japanese people to give their lives for this goal – even when they knew Japanese was defeated. Most ordinary people seemed to accept this fate. Many saw the destruction of their country as a great act of self-sacrifice in the name of their spiritual leader, the emperor.



0 Points      Akinaka Takeshi      23 Jan 2015      Stance on Question: Neutral
The nuclear bombs did NOT end the war. That is an American myth based on Hirohito's surrender speech.

Let's face the facts.

After Hiroshima the Japanese military claimed to have 5,000 airplanes ready for special attacks (aka "Kamikaze") in case of an invasion, they were willing to keep fighting.

Japan was actively seeking peace via Moscow. The correspondence between Tokyo and the Japanese embassy in Moscow proves that. However, Stalin had already promised Truman to enter the war, thus nothing came from that. Plus, Japan was pushing for several conditions, which didn't work with the unconditional surrender demanded by the Allies.

Soviet forces steamrolled the Japanese army in Manchuria right after Nagasaki. That was the big shock that sent Hirohito and several upper level bureaucrats reeling. It was after this that surrender was decided and even then the speeches (yes there were several) had to be smuggled out of the imperial palace in Tokyo because the army still wanted to fight.

Hirohito's surrender speech calls the nukes the reason for surrender, however, they gave him a great opportunity to save face. He didn't have to say "Look people, we surrender because the Americans have beaten us on every battlefield for several years." Instead he blamed the surrender on the nuclear bombs. It allowed Hirohito to create a myth similar to the German "Dolchstoss" legend of WW1, but unlike that legend (which was later used heavily by Hitler) the world accepted it as truth, even though the factual evidence points solely at the Soviet invasion of Manchuria as the reason for surrender. Hirohito and his men knew that now they had no chance. In fact, by surrendering to the US Hirohito avoided a split of Japan between the US and the USSR, and a Soviet invasion and occupation, which would have been a lot worse than the US occupation (which was bad enough, with thousands of rapes and sexual assaults committed by Allied soldiers.)

Important in this context is that the US let war criminals from the imperial family walk. Hirohito, who signed every single order, including the one to murder Chinese POWs, was never punished. Prince Asaka, who gave the order that started the Rape of Nanking, was never punished. Instead the Allies tried and executed general Matsui, but even Chinese historians today absolve Matsui of the responsibility for the Rape of Nanking. The murder and rape began following Asaka's orders and it stopped when Matsui arrived in Nanking.

As for the bombs: it was war. Truman was CiC. He had an enemy that would not accept unconditional surrender. He had a weapon that worked. So he used it. From a military point of view his actions were correct.

Also, the raid on Tokyo in March 1945 was more devastating than the nuclear attacks. It was, in fact, the most devastating air raid in history.

As for attacking civilians, it was war. In fact, it was total war. The Allies stepped on the same level as the Axis. Remember that it was the Axis that started such attacks.


0 Points      JON      10 Apr 2015      General Comment
I NEED TO WRITE AN ESSAY 8 PAGES LONG ABOUT "What events and beliefs led to the U.S. Decision to use the atomic bomb and what justified this decision?" ATOMIC BOMB NEED HELP IT IS DUE TODAY FRIDAY BY 12 PM (April 10th)



0 Points      Don      01 Jan 2015      Stance on Question: Neutral
I don,t understand why we would ever apologize to an enemy and for anyone who doesn't understand that, you are probably under 60 or a wacky liberal. Forget trying to justify our use of the atomic bomb. Let's go back to basics. The Japs started it, but couldn't finish it, so we did it for them.


0 Points      JON      10 Apr 2015      General Comment
NEED TO WRITE AN ESSAY 8 PAGES LONG ABOUT "What events and beliefs led to the U.S. Decision to use the atomic bomb and what justified this decision?" ATOMIC BOMB NEED HELP IT IS DUE TODAY FRIDAY BY 12 PM (April 10th) with citations



0 Points      Anonymous      13 Nov 2014      General Comment
In class we have to do a Socratic seminar on this exact topic and we have managed to narrow down the main arguments for and against.
For:
-The bombs ultimately ended the war
-Japanese were not planning on surrendering
-"Revenge" (for lack of better term) for Pearl Harbor
-Saved Japanese and American lives (we were planning a large scale invasion people, historians estimate this would have take 1 million lives total between Japan and America. There was expected to be 400,000-500,000 American deaths in and invasion. The dropping of atomic bombs caused how many American deaths-0)
-Its war, and in war weapons are used-this weapon creates the same damage other weapons can, just in one shot instead of lots more bombs

Against:
-Brought death to innocent civilians (but to counter-attack people drafted in the army could be considered innocent too)
-the scientists who made the bomb advised against it
-the weapon is too powerful and could lead to world destruction
-fear of atomic arms race (where multiple countries would try to create the most destructive weapon)
-the Japanese were near surrender (Hirohito-the emperor-was ready to surrender, however the military was not)
Personally in my socratic seminar I chose to argue that is was justified but I can agree with both side's arguments


0 Points      Akinaka Takeshi      23 Jan 2015      General Comment
-The bombs ultimately ended the war
-Japanese were not planning on surrendering

Are both utterly false.


0 Points      Anonymous      01 Feb 2016      General Comment
the attack of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 is virtually nothing, during World War II (1939-45), an American B-29 bomber dropped the world’s first deployed atomic bomb over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The explosion wiped out 90 percent of the city and immediately killed 80,000 people; tens of thousands in a instance, leaving shadow marks on the walls. Many more would later die of radiation exposure. Three days later, a second B-29 dropped another A-bomb on Nagasaki, killing an estimated 40,000 people. This resulted in the Japanese Emperor Hirohito that the country was defending even if their country reached a bloody end. To announce his country’s unconditional surrender in World War II in a radio address on August 15, citing the devastating power of “a new and most cruel bomb.”


0 Points      Anonymous      23 Apr 2015      Stance on Question: General Comment
Were you there?


0 Points      Anonymous      15 Mar 2016      General Comment
YES I was there


0 Points      yes      17 Nov 2015      Stance on Question: Agree
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes


0 Points      leebroon hames      05 Jan 2016      Stance on Question: Mostly Agree
kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yeskinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes kinda yes


0 Points      noob tube      22 May 2016      General Comment
k i n d a n o







0 Points      agains terrorism      12 Nov 2014      Stance on Question: Disagree
This is very simple, how would you call it if someone drops a couple of bombs in two US cities full of civilians?. I call it Terrorism. Wikipedia --> definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutral military personnel or civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war.


0 Points      8===============D      22 May 2016      General Comment
8=======D--------


0 Points      Not Exactly      08 Apr 2016      Stance on Question: Mostly Disagree
That's not quite right, the US dropped the bombs in order to bring a swift end to a brutal war that would cost several million more lives otherwise. The Allies gave Japan several chances to surrender before each bomb dropped, and japan would have still remained adamant if the emperor had not intervened. Terrorists however, they attack innocent people purely for the sake of causing trouble, not to end a war and save lives.


0 Points      rcpaulsen      31 Dec 2014      General Comment
The first error in all of these discussions is debating a 20th century event from a 21st century perspective. It is important to learn the lessons of history so as not to repeat the same mistakes, BUT in so doing, those of us who were NOT THERE living through those events are not FULLY qualified to judge those who were. (It's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback when you're not the one facing the blitz.)

Secondly, so many aspects of the situation have been lost to history, that we must be careful to base whatever judgements me make ONLY on the facts that are not in dispute; and recognize that some questions may never be answered to our satisfaction. Consider some of the high-profile trials that have divided American society in recent years. When the facts cannot be clearly determined by the physical evidence, and equally-qualified witnesses provide conflicitng testimonies, neither side wins. In our frustration, we then divide along social and/or political lines and draw our own conclusions, based not on facts, but on personal prejudices. So it is with history.

Finally, putting aside speculation about the intentions of the U.S. in dropping leaflets, or not dropping leaflets, before (or after) the bomb was dropped, and condemning our government for participating in the UNIVERSAL practice of employing military propagana and psychological warfare; lets take a moment to recognize the unprecedented act of rebuilding the nations of our vanquished foes, maintaining stability with a civilized occupying force (only) until they were once again able to stand on their own, then handing control back to their citizens and forming alliances with their new leaders. Would modern-day Germany and Japan look anything like they do today if the U.S. had followed the "spoils of war" policies that had been the standard practice of ALL nations for millenia? That, alone, provides all the insight anyone needs into the intents and integrety of our great nation in perilous times.

Our country, our citizens, and our leaders are imperfect people, living in an imperfect world. We have not always done the right thing in the best way, but when you compare our OVERALL record against any other nation in the history of the world, we come out looking pretty damn good.


0 Points      General_Zhukov      14 Dec 2015      Stance on Question: Disagree
I disagree with you rcpualsen. America isn't the best nation in the world, we dont come out looking "pretty damn good" Take in mind, Hitler, Stalin didn't kill the most in world war II (excluding soldiers) in fact, most civilian casualties were caused by USAF bombings and the rest either by execution camps, or much weaker RAF/Luftwaffe/ and Japanese air force bombings. Most of american/British bombings didn't even hit the right targets, most actually hit civilian area's. America has done many war-crimes. The nuclear bombs shouldn't be one of them. Harry S Truman used his least casualty option which was the Nuclear bombs, and that so he shouldn't be accused. Today, after the baby boomers have brain washed our children with stupid stupid things. It hurts to see kids do things like this, and act so immaturely in class that there teachers cant barely teach them anything. Thats one reason why america isnt the best country in the world, not even close to looking "pretty damn good", Thats why are history is being forgotten so damn fast. I would choose modern germany, japan, and modern italy which were one 3 major axis powers, more mature than the todays american kids, which is surprising




0 Points      Anonymous      31 Aug 2013      Stance on Question: Neutral
I remember my contract teacher once said, "You must distinguish between 'what you want,' and "what you need.'" People are always confused about this distinction. We don't want to bomb nobody, we don't want to kill. After all, we don't want to go to war. Even Hitler wished that the war would not be necessary. No one in this world wants blood shed, but we all have our basic needs. When we couldn't get it, we go to war; when we go to war, the only thing in our mind is winning the war. Japanese have to be stopped from pushing millions upon millions to deaths. They have to be stopped! They need to. What can stop them, then? Nothing! Except that we eliminate them from the face of the earth. The Americans did it, by the A-bomb. The Russians did it, by the old-fashioned way of killing them one-by-one. The Chinese did not. That's why the Japanese would not consider China (as well as Korea) to be victors. Well, after all, the Japanese need another bomb or two, or three.


0 Points      Ron      22 Jul 2013      Stance on Question: Agree
Simply put, after we dropped the first bomb they refused to surrender. After the second they reluctantly surrendered. Considering Pearl Harbor and the considerable atrocities committed bt the Japanese I only wish we had a 3rd


0 Points      Anonymous      08 Apr 2016      Stance on Question: Agree
THANK YOU, finally someone gets it.


0 Points      lil      12 Mar 2016      Stance on Question: Mostly Disagree
you are disgusting



0 Points      Doug      29 Nov 2012      Stance on Question: Agree
Just before Japan's surrender, but before the atom bomb was dropped, Japanese middle school girls (ages 12 and 13) were being trained to attack invading American soldiers with sharpened bamboo polls. This information was related to me by a Japanese American friend whose mother was one of thousands of girls being trained. This is just one example of the extremes the Japanese military, which controlled the government, was willing to go to avoid defeat. So it seems obvious that (1) Japan was not ready to surrender before the atom bomb was dropped, and (2) millions of Japanese civilians, including children, would have died had the bomb not been dropped.


0 Points      Stan      07 Dec 2012      General Comment
I could not agree more Doug. I just have one question for the people who disagree with the bombing. IF Japan would have gotten the atomic bomb first do you think for one second that they would not have used it in EVERY American city that they could reach?


0 Points      Akinaka Takeshi      23 Jan 2015      General Comment
Japan had no means to create a nuclear bomb.


0 Points      Anonymous      08 Apr 2016      General Comment
Not the point of the question.


0 Points      Anonymous      23 Apr 2015      General Comment
Shut up you stupid Jap idiot


0 Points      Jeff      10 Jun 2015      General Comment
Lol so racist... GET A LIFE!!!! you suck, lololol, doing this for attention. go to lifelife #2cool4school bru


0 Points      Morgon Free-man      10 Jun 2015      General Comment
This jeff guy is so inspiring, give him a logie, YOU'RE MY BAE!!! lololol


0 Points      Jeff      10 Jun 2015      General Comment
Omg, thank you BAE, please will you marry me, I thought I was only gonna get haters, like isis, but I have leartn't there is more to friendship then this. thanks Morgan freeman. LOSER HAHAHA GET A LIFE HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH :LOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOl






0 Points      Doug      31 Dec 2012      Stance on Question: Agree
You are right Stan. The U.S. hesitated to use the atomic bomb. Given the barbaric behavior of the Japanese military throughout the war, toward civilians as well as military personnel, they would not have hesitated to use the bomb.


0 Points      mak      09 Mar 2015      Stance on Question: Agree
I completely agree because the Japanese had it coming. they always say do on to others as you want done onto you. The bomed the US and mistreated other people for various countries. They had it coming.


0 Points      Anonymous      15 Jul 2013      Stance on Question: General Comment
i don't think this justifies the killing of over 140.000 innocent people cue lets be honest if someone Nuked the U.S they would have undoubtly faced war crimes


0 Points      Paul      13 Feb 2014      Stance on Question: Disagree
Since there was no international law against the use of nuclear weapons in 1945, no. If Japan had the nukes then used them on two U.S. cities of military significance, they would be justified in using them because they wanted to destroy the enemy's weapons to prevent our troops from using them against them. Add to the fact that no German and Japanese combatants were charged for conducting stragetic bombing raids on enemy cities in post-WWII trials. So no, not at all.


0 Points      Thomas      19 Jan 2014      General Comment
There is only one thing i don't understand about this whole story. Why did the US choose two city (full of innocents) instead of military objects?


0 Points      Perplexed      07 Sep 2015      General Comment
What makes you think those "people" we're "innocent"? Somewhat presumptuous, I think. I'm not sure your method (I presume sending the Japanese Army to bed without supper) would have accomplished the task. I would agree the bombs weren't "necessary"; but I would counter with expedient and justified. 25 more bombs would have been justified. This was one of the most brutal, repressive, murderous regimes in the history of the world. They've been nice for 70 years.....maybe 40 per bomb given the fact they are once again making nationalist noise.


0 Points      Anonymous      05 May 2015      General Comment
The cities were chosen as they were of average population, they need to send a message but didn't to kill to many people to be complete monsters but also not to little to leave no impact.
After they had a list of avg pop cities they then looked for any military bases or such.


0 Points      Matt      26 Jan 2014      General Comment
In war the major cities are the military targets, those cities are where the planes and tanks were made, do some research or watch some history then you wouldn't need to understand the basics






0 Points      Stan      07 Dec 2012      General Comment
I could not agree more Doug. I just have one question for the people who disagree with the bombing. IF Japan would have gotten the atomic bomb first do you think for one second that they would not have used it in EVERY American city that they could reach?


0 Points      The muslim      10 Apr 2015      General Comment
America is a terrorist county. They promote it and everyone knows that they are barbaric and look at what happened to Iraq. So, before you jump to conclusions about Japan, understand the atrocities of your stupid country.


0 Points      Anonymous      25 Feb 2016      Stance on Question: Mostly Agree
What makes u say that we stepped in to stop houssein from gassing cities. True we did not have a good plan for rebuilding a government there but that does make us terrorists. Look at 911, and the Paris attacks both terrorist attacks on countries that only stepped in to stop countries from bombing the crap out of each other and killing civilians. Israel is our ally a Jewish nation among Muslim countries that attack it we had to protect them. We are also one of the least barbaric countries in the world we have a lot of freedom, for women and everyone that middle eastern countries don't have. There if someone has an affair they are stoned to death, here they file for divorce or break up. A big difference.


0 Points      Just Saying      18 May 2016      General Comment
Before you guys read the following, i would like to first say that i have no opinion on the bombings, because i have not done the research on them.

im just gonna say that most of the bombers in paris were in fact from belgium. i agree that it was a horrible crime, but when people say that all muslims are terrorists, it erks me. and im not saying that you said that.

my two cents. im american, and i think that every country has it's good parts and it's bad parts.


0 Points      Just Saying      18 May 2016      General Comment
oh.
when i said "no opinion on the bombings", i ment the japan ones.





0 Points      Garrett West      02 Mar 2013      General Comment
What an incredibly nasty idea. It is one thing to be nasty about war but a wholly other thing to consider that anyone should use such a disgusting weapon. No sane person would willingly drop an atomic bomb on a city filled with civilians. I hear that all the people involved in the dropping of the bomb went insane. The atomic bomb was humanity's most shameful moment.


0 Points      Anonymous      22 Jul 2013      General Comment
Yeah those poor misunderstood japs didn't mean to sneak attack Pearl Harbor, thety never wanted to torture American soldiers, they were just playing around. WISH WE HAD A 3RD!!


0 Points      ashley      23 Jul 2013      General Comment
oh yeah those poor american they just wanted a water fight no hard feelings but ended up as a fire bomb which unfortunately took many of those poor japs lives. :'( -goes back to straightening hair and getting a manicure. -:)



0 Points      Terry      10 May 2013      General Comment
Complete rubbish. The 2 N bombs saved about 10 million Japanese lives. They saved over a million allied lives . This would have been the death toll if the allies invaded the Japanese islands.





0 Points      End of story      15 Apr 2012      Stance on Question: Neutral
Guys this can be argued from both points of view. I am an American and my dad served as a fighter pilot in the gulf war and operation desrt shield and storm, so i am fairly sure i know what im talking about. The American side of the arguement is that without the A bomb the war might not have ended. I also think that the attack on Pearl Harbor was not necessary because there was no warning or negotiation prior to the attack from what i know. I could be wrong and am opn to opinions. But from the japanese side pearl harbor was necessary and the atom bombs were not. But here is the thing, Japan was expecting a ground invasion, not a bomb, sommany americans would have lost their lives. Heres the end of the arguement, both sides can justify what they did in the war, but put yourself in this situation, if you had a weapon of power that could end a war without any lives on your side being lost, Would You Use It?


0 Points      The guy who thinks      22 May 2012      General Comment
Yes but I wouldn't drop it on a city I would demonstrate its destructive power on a military unit. (Less lives lost and not a war crime...)


0 Points      chris      17 May 2012      General Comment
According to what i have read we knew that Japan was going to attack us we just didnt know when or where. Second the only reason japan attacked us was because we were supplying their enemy and cut off oils supllies with japan. The friend of the enemy is also my enemy is what japan went by not to mention that we did some black op attacks agianst japan. the secerary of the state at the time is on record saying in order to enter the war japan must hit us first. not to mention after further research i have found out that in order to stop the soviets from gianing land in asia like they did in europe we had 90 days to make japan surrender before the ussr eneter the war on aug 8 1945. the first bomb was droped 2 days before that. it was only about scaring russia and keeping them out of asia


0 Points      Joe      17 May 2012      Stance on Question: General Comment
ur gay and u know nothing


0 Points      merideth      06 May 2015      General Comment
is there a problem with being gay? gay shouldn't be an insult so shut the fuck up. and this commenter knows a hell of a lot more than you do. i don't agree with them either but i'm not going to insult them for it.


0 Points      Matt      26 Jan 2014      General Comment
That is a huge compliment, your saying he was named after the plane that dropped the bomb, well that is an honor.


0 Points      Rebekka      20 May 2012      Stance on Question: Disagree
While I don't necessarily agree with Chris...

Joe, you're just plain ignorant. "Gay" is not a derogatory adjective, meaning it is not an insult, nor is it meant to be used as one. When someone is "gay", they are happy - or homosexual. If you call someone "gay" in the derogatory sense, you are making yourself another statistic - you are adding to the ignorance of the world.

And so far, I fear for the future generations.


0 Points      Bear      15 Sep 2012      General Comment
LMAO Rebekka excellent good onne...lol good for you and yes you are correct I think he's only 12 or 13 years old ..lol no one talks like that unless they are flunkies in high school .. he was proably often shoved in his locker at school ..lol or still is being..lol..






0 Points      Matt      13 Apr 2012      General Comment
i'm open to suggestions really, i mean the first atomic bomb could've ended the war then if America hadn't chucked another bomb without Japan answering maybe they would have surrendered. Then there's the after effects like phil mentioned, his father went through all that and like many others he died (no disrespect ment), so couldn't they have ended the war if America had just left it at that and let Japan surrender? Although they weren't exactly on the verge of surrendering either, they were going to strap bombs to soldiers chest making them go under advancing enemy tanks and blow them up! In all i believe that America could've given Japan a demonstration with no one getting hurt then maybe America could've got to Europe sooner and helped stop Hitler sooner and saved many more lives that way. (might've even stopped the cold war)

Here's another shock: i'm 14 ;)


0 Points      Edis Niksic      18 Apr 2012      General Comment
world war II was over in europe before the bombs, hitler was stoped before A bombs. After europe america shifted all of its resources to fight against Japan same with Britain. America believed even though Japan attacked her, nazis were a bigger threat than japanese militerist. A bombs ended the war completly not just the pacific since hitler taken down first. U got ur history backwards.


0 Points      Garrett West      02 Mar 2013      General Comment
Whether Japan would have surrendered or not should not be the question. The question should be whether it is right to become as bad as Hitler was said to be, to end a war. The atomic bomb is humanity's most shameful act. I am 15. Surprise.


0 Points      GK      21 Apr 2015      General Comment
The atomic bomb is more shameful than the Holocaust or the Crusades? That's what you're saying?

Excuse me while I vehemently disagree.





0 Points      phil      16 Mar 2012      General Comment
in any case after the war usa gave japan money to rebuild and then they did take over the world....INDUSTRIALLY...and so it goes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF-Tast2Ua8&feature=plcp&context=C4293904VDvjVQa1PpcFPeRh2SDZcx_eh0AYZO2AU_QlHLiFpe1Pk=


0 Points      phil      16 Mar 2012      General Comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF-Tast2Ua8&feature=plcp&context=C4293904VDvjVQa1PpcFPeRh2SDZcx_eh0AYZO2AU_QlHLiFpe1Pk=


0 Points      Ah Hem      16 Mar 2012      General Comment
Is sucess after war really a bad thing? Is reviving your country and making it into one of the leaders a bad thing? Would you hate if the country you live in or was born in was sucessful. Oh yeah after the war the Japanese government gave money to victim countries with formal apolgies. Is making your economy better bad? Maybe you just hold a grudge or maybe not.


0 Points      phil      17 Mar 2012      General Comment
yes i do hold a grudge as the video clip i pasted here is my fathers story




0 Points      Blame      14 Mar 2012      Stance on Question: Disagree
All of these comments are very true, I have to do an essay on this can someone help me?


0 Points      w      12 Mar 2012      Stance on Question: Agree
The only reason not to use the bomb on Japan, was then the world knows the USA has it. The Japanese should have all been sold into slavery to the Koreans, the Chinese, the Philippines, the south east Asian countries for all their war crimes and Japan should have become another USA state full of Americans.


0 Points      The guy who thinks      22 May 2012      General Comment
Your an idiot. why do stupid people with outrageous statements even bother joining in discussions. Go take a seat on the couch with Ann Coulter and leave the thinking to the thinkers.


0 Points      Ah Hem      12 Mar 2012      General Comment
What are you(are you a modern day person)? If anything like that happened you know the world would not be like it today! They have done many things such and consant apologies to countries that were a victim to them in ww2. Lots of videogames, popular icons : Hello Kitty, Domo and many more,years of geanerations culture would have been distroyed and people would hold grudges( that could lead to other things. I know things that happened in the war was REALLY bad and anything like videogames, anime, manga doesn't matter at all but they tried to make it right so they should not be hated upon after so many years. Most of those generations have already died and you still hold a grudge. If you still people in slavery and you want Japan to be a USA state OMG thats laughable. I would rather have the Britsh take over( NOT that i have anything against Americans). The Atomic bomb was a huge punishment and lesson but you still wish for more?The boms could have been avoided through many means (eg negoiations). I think what you said is inresponsible, and is was not written with a clear mind( with fact or reason) but pure hate for the Japanese.



0 Points      Anonymous2      05 Mar 2012      General Comment
wow. I am learning about this subject in school and I was looking for information about the bombings in Japan, and I found this. I believe that the bombings were unnecisary, but that doesn't mean that America didn't have its's reasons for doings what they did. I can see both sides of the story, and both sids have good points. What happened is in the past and we need to understand that what happened, happened. Whether good or bad we just need to remember it, and not insult each other.


0 Points      Japanese Lover      04 Mar 2012      Stance on Question: Disagree
I strongly disagree with the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. First, the Japanese were already going to surrender, so there was no point in destroying many homes and many lives. Second, no matter what would have happened if the Japanese didn't surrender, the fact is, those bombs radiation are still killing people today, and that was almost 80 years ago. I believe they should have just went to raid Japan on foot than dropping a bomb on them. It would have been more honourable and less destroying.
Those who agree can't see the big picture. Even regular bombs has their disadvantages, but at least they do not have long term effects. If you are a person who agrees, you are a cold blooded person who can't think of the aftermath of your actions. How can you not care that there are people who will suffer if you cannot make smart decisions. The U.S. back then could have made better decisions then just dropping bombs on Japan that they didn't even know how things will turn out after the first bomb detonated! And here they go dropping the second "Fat Boy" on Nagasaki!
I may not be religious, but even I can see that this is wrong. I don't see the U.S. suffering from bombs that dropped on them (no offense to the U.S.)! The only people who are still suffering from the Second World War is Japan--and no, they did not bring it on themselves! What would the world come to if we become soulless, heartless beings--heck, it's happening now in Syria, Egypt, and other countries with the Arab Spring! Sooner or later, another World War will start and this may not resolve with a bomb or two. It would be a full out war for democracy and rights for the civilians.


-1 Point      I love Japanese (women)      02 May 2012      Stance on Question: Agree
I strongly disagree with the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The US should have drop both bombs in Tokyo.


0 Points      EXO-K      15 May 2012      General Comment
I don't think that should have happened!


0 Points      EXO-K      15 May 2012      General Comment
I don't think that should have happened!



0 Points      war despiser      14 Mar 2012      Stance on Question: Disagree
I definitely get where you're coming from I mean who in their right mind would go and just bomb TWO ENTIRE CITIES just because they thought it was "better" to kill about 200,000 civilians as opposed to a couple million others. I'm not saying killing anyone is okay. I'm only in the 8th grade so I doubt anyone would listen to what I'm saying, but from MY perspective I'm in the point of wondering "What if it were our country to have been bombed- I don't mean ordinary original war bombs I mean ATOMIC BOMBS- would we think it was okay or would we go out for REVENGE! How would you feel about that!?


0 Points      war despiser      14 Mar 2012      Editorial Comment
SORRY but DO NOT go to the E-mail adress that I posted on my last comment it's not real and neither is this one I just wanted to speak for what I think is mutually(or should be) felt. THANKS FOR READING SEE YA!☻



0 Points      w      12 Mar 2012      Stance on Question: Agree
Unit 731
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731



0 Points      Shit Happens.      04 Mar 2012      Stance on Question: Agree
I dislike when people say the bomb should have never been dropped, I know that its consequences were terrible, but the entire war was terrible, and the bombs being dropped end the war you cannot denie that... During times of war things are different and I think none of us can truly say what should or shouldn't have been done because we were not actually there... I mean what would you have done I you were the president of america or the leader of a militant group. You say you dont want to do hurt people but you have no choice in that position no matter what you do someone gets killed.

Its like if someone had a weapon pointed at your family and you had to make the choice to either let your family die or attack the enemy, what would you do? You cannot say that you wouldn't try to say the ones you love... You cannot say that your reason for your family dying was that you didnt want to hurt the enemy because they are a person to. You would have done anything to save them. Thats exactly how those who initiated the bomb to be dropped saw it, they loved america like it was their family and did what they had to do to save them.
War is crazy, war is wrong, war is war.


0 Points      Rebekka      20 May 2012      Stance on Question: Disagree
deny*

Your last argument is invalid for one reason, and one reason only.
Japan was not pointing the weapon of mass destruction at America - it was the other way around. America was the one with the A-Bomb, not Japan. Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, yes, and that did cause 2,400 documented deaths. However, 2,400 is a very small number - there are more people at my High School. The A-Bomb killed 356,000 people - that's nearly 149 Japanese deaths for every single American death. Now, I know that these people are not just statistics. They had families, they had lives. But so did the 356,000 Japanese who were utterly decimated that day.

I'm not saying that Pearl Harbour was right. Nor am I saying that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were right, either. But, really, the Japanese were trying to surrender - they were already trying to surrender while Hitler was still alive. All they wanted was for their Emperor to be able to stay in power - which shouldn't have been that much of a problem, because it was Hideki Tojo who was pulling war strings, not the Emperor.

America was not protecting his family from an enemy. He was kicking someone who was already down.


0 Points      matt      26 Jan 2014      General Comment
There was a lot more conditions they would not agree to then that one, do some research.




0 Points      South American      03 Mar 2012      Stance on Question: Disagree
I don't understand people who actually justify the bombings. I might be of the minority that believes this whole war was just a stage for people above and that every move was kinda planned, everything to test stupid weapons. After 9/11 how the heck do we know Pearl Harbor was not planned anyway.

But either way, if the Japanese attacked first or whatever, it doesn't have anything to do with what happened in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, an eye for an eye, really? People there were mostly civilians, and really, war is never democratic. Not all Germans were nazis. War isnever justified in my opinion, but some actions scream louder than others.

Still, I don't get why people get so fanatic about it, I mean, why are you so keen in defending your country, say, the US, that sent millions of soldiers to die in Vietnam, or why people don't get we are caddle and all wars are for colonization and weapon-testing. There is no nacionalism.


0 Points      phil      16 Mar 2012      General Comment
the nagasaki target was originally the docks, my father worked there, but due to the weather conditions the approach was changed and it was dropped on the city reason due to wind the bomb on the docks would have meant that the plane would have had to climb over the mountains, which was not possible...in fact the liberator plane crashed into the mountains during a food drop to my father on one of the last days of the war see my clip below to explain

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF-Tast2Ua8&feature=plcp&context=C4293904VDvjVQa1PpcFPeRh2SDZcx_eh0AYZO2AU_QlHLiFpe1Pk=


0 Points      Black and White      16 Mar 2012      General Comment
Does is matter where they wanted to drop the bomb? If it was dropped in the right place the outcome would have been more devasating reason: The valley area if was dropped at made the effect not as bad because of the height. The bomb that was sent was stronger then the one dropped on Hiroshima, but they made about the same amount of damage as it because it was dropped in a valley area.


0 Points      phil      17 Mar 2012      General Comment
oh yes it did matter where the bomb was dropped as if it was dropped on the docks i would not be typing here as i would not have been born see my link


0 Points      Black and White      17 Mar 2012      General Comment
Your father was lucky then about where it was dropped then. Sorry, I saw the video.


0 Points      phil      18 Mar 2012      General Comment
btw its refreshing that you are not like many who do not believe what i say and my video and my fathers history, for the record my father told many people about his experiences in ww2 and many simply did not believe...some said he was making it up as no one could have lived through that treatment, for many it is too hard in this day and age to comprehend...but you are not one of those, so thanks for replying and viewing my video....lets see if anyone else comments on it..and reponds...maybe not


0 Points      phil      18 Mar 2012      General Comment
lucky in what way...well lucky in the sense that in the short term it saved his life but it did kill him long term.....also myself, my older sister and my younger brother all suffer from illnesses that have been passed to us by my father biologically which is too complicated to go into here but suffice to say that we are suffering from the bomb even now...of course the authorities and defence dept gov't etc etc would deny all of it







0 Points      Kain Ragner      01 Mar 2012      Stance on Question: Agree
War is hell, especially the kinds of war; that this one was.. Blood and faith. They are not the same, as a war between North Korea and United States- that would be a political war.

We had fascist Japan, who felt the Japanese were the only "divine race", and did monstrous things to the Chinese; worse than what Hitler was doing to the Jews, as many of the German Generals- were shocked when they'd see the things the Japanese were doing to the Chinese.

When you throw in distorted warrior culture/ideology- with twisted views of faith, or believing you are more superior than another group of people- you have something that shows such a malevolent side of humanity- that really makes you believe that there is a devil, and those fighting against this evil- are on god's side. These beliefs made the Japanese soldiers, so relentless and horrible to fight- it was worse than what had been going on in Germany.

5 weeks before the bombs were dropped, leaflets were; which instructed the people of Japan- that America was not at war with them- but the regime, and to pass this info along to get others out of harms way... Out of the cities. I actually have one of the many leaflets dropped, I have a lot of WWII history due to my grandparents. Unfortunately though MANY people died when the bombs were dropped. The images of the destruction, not just of objects and the land; but the people- truly do make you have very little hope and faith in mankind- as they are so very abhorrent.

However I do not sit back, and hate America for such a thing- I blame the men, evil men- who created the atmospheric that brought it to such an outcome. I find that those who are opposed to what happened- lack an understanding of what such ideology does to people. It is very much the same with the Islamic fascist; people do not take their words seriously- because they cannot fathom people being so evil, then are shocked and surprised when these men carry out the very things they said they would. Political correctness, ignoring, and doing nothing in the face of people like that- is wrong, and dangerous- history has already proven such.

The other group of people who oppose it, are those who think they are intelligent, and empathetic; having a higher moral standing... It does not, nor does it. They are nothing more than self-righteous fools, who try to mask it; it is also always unsurprising that these people have a dislike for America. These people do a huge disservice to the many past and present- who are killed by men who seek rule over another's body and soul.


0 Points      Rebekka      20 May 2012      Stance on Question: Disagree
Were those pamphlets written in Japanese? Have you translated them into English, to reinforce the fact that they say what they are supposed to? Have you even considered the fact that maybe the Japanese were prohibited from acknowledging anything dropped by Americans, as it was war and, therefore, it could all just be intricate propaganda?

I live in America. I don't hate America, though - I love it. It's beautiful here; the weather, the landmarks, the history. The people are...less pleasant, most of the time, but I blame that on the educational system.

No; I don't hate America, for anything. Americans have been through some crazy shit - 9/11, Pearl Harbour, and the burning of the White House in 1812 being only a few. I just disapprove of the methods America used to force Japan to surrender.


0 Points      Japanese Lover      04 Mar 2012      Stance on Question: Disagree
I agree with that [Ah Hem]. But the U.S. could have done something different--raid Japan on foot, or used less, powerful bombs. And if you want to talk about what the Japanese did to the Chinese, the Chinese isn't all that innocent either. Heck, a lot--or all--races think they are superior to others so you cannot just blame it on one specific group. Just like Hitler did with the Jews when he was a Jew himself! No one can sit there and say that they never once that that they were better than someone--race, religion, sonority over someone, siblings. They all boil down to one thing: thinking you are better than someone else. Instead of signaling one group out, look at yourself and think back when you thought you were better.
Just because you think yourself better, it doesn't mean you should kill or bully someone over it. So the point that you made that the Japanese find themselves a "divine race" does not make it right to get bombed on. In a lot of cases, the Japanese are better, mostly because of their intelligence. If you try to disagree, look it up: Japanese people are more strict with education on their kids (same with a lot of other Asian countries) than those, for example, in North America. I am from North America (Canadian), and if I can admit it, then others can, too.


0 Points      Ah Hem      01 Mar 2012      General Comment
Most of us do not dislike America, but just think it was wrong for the atomic bombs to be dropped.


0 Points      Karl Spackler      01 Mar 2012      General Comment
Brilliantly stated.



0 Points      Jan      29 Feb 2012      Stance on Question: Mostly Agree
In a class of mine, we discussed the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and have been looking at both sides of this arguement. I honestly think that on a moral level, the bombings were wrong. But then again, what about war is moral? In war, you kill both soldiers, who had chose to fight, and innocent citizens, who had no choice. If you support war, you have to support this is my main opinion, because this is apart of war. It's brutal and sad, but innocent people are always going to die some how in war.
And anyways, why are we reacting this way towards Hiroshima, when more people had died in the fire raids in Tokyo?


0 Points      God      29 Feb 2012      Stance on Question: Disagree
Atomic bombs are never justified. The invention of this weapon started the Cold War, and think how many billions of lives would be lost in a nuclear war!


0 Points      Me      26 Feb 2012      Stance on Question: Disagree
Why is everyone telling that america should have won a war,a war is 50-50 outcome thing there is never one way ending.It was totally brutal and unbeliveably horrid thing,if there is a higher power or karma then those who justify using nukes against humans and other living beings should never be forgiven.


0 Points      Matt      26 Jan 2014      General Comment
War isn't a 50 50 outcome, just because there is only 2 outcomes to a war(there isn't really but thats what you seem to believe) that doesn't mean giving 2 options you have an equal chance of either happening. If there was karma it would of taught you the 4-5 things i see wrong with your comment.



0 Points      Tim      21 Feb 2012      Stance on Question: Agree
One aspect that I haven't seen mentioned here is the reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets for the atomic bombs (along with Kokura and Niigata.) Starting in June of 1945, the XXI Bomber Command fire-bombed 67 Japanese cities. The 9–10 March Bombing of Tokyo caused 80,000–100,000 casualties and destroyed 16 square miles (41 km2) of the city with 267,000 buildings–the deadliest of the war including the atomic bombings. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Kokura and Niigata were not targeted in the fire-bombing raids for various reasons, including wanting to be able to accurately assess the damage the atomic bombs did to cities.

I don't know about those of you who claim the weapon is somehow "immoral" or whatever - dead is dead whether you are burned to death in your bed by incendiaries or vaporized by an atomic blast. War is hellish, nasty and brutal. The facts are the Japanese military attempted to capture the Emperor and continue the fighting AFTER the bombs had been dropped. I fail to see any scenario in which Japan would have surrendered without the atomic bombs (not one, they didn't surrender until the US dropped two.)


0 Points      phil      17 Mar 2012      General Comment
nagasaki was chosen to hit the industrial base as they had heavy steel works there and ship building and repair the original target was the docks but due to weather conditions the target was changed to further in there were other industries around the city centre also how do i know this...well my father was a slave labourer in the docks for 3yrs he was a riveter and built and repaired ships after first being put to work building the dry docks there along with thousands of others korean, indonesian, and allied POW's usa british dutch and australian my father survived that brutal time but would not have if the bomb was not dropped, the japanese were not going to surrender even if they had wanted to because in their culture you fight if you win you live if you are loosing you die trying to win, in my fathers words he said ..they were cruel to us as they are ruel to each other...he should know as they were beaten starved and tortured on a regular basis...see here my clip it my own clip and that is my dad..also a pic of me with him

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF-Tast2Ua8



0 Points      dude      14 Feb 2012      Stance on Question: Agree
Rebekka's arugument on this subject is very good i disagree that they should of droped the a-bomb on japan. I think that they should of dropped a less powerfull bomb on japan but i wonder if they droped a less powerfull bomb would that of stoped japan fighting or would it of angerd them and they could of kept on fighting


0 Points      Rebekka      20 May 2012      Stance on Question: Disagree
Thank you, I do try. ^^

My only statement on your argument is that the Japanese tried three times to negotiate a means of peace, with their only requirement being that they wanted their Emperor to remain in power. The Allies, however, refused to acknowledge their treaties.



0 Points      Stephanie      13 Feb 2012      Stance on Question: Mostly Agree
While I completely agree that the consequences of the dropping of the A-bombs were terrible and I wish that they didn't have to happen, I do think that the action taken was necessary and justifiable. The Allied forces sent their ultimatum, the Potsdam Agreement, to Japan telling them that if they didn't surrender, then there would be dire consequences. Several days passed and the Japanese tried to "kill it with silence". Because of this, the "dire consequences" came. The U.S. dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. Now, if the Japanese had responded/surrendered after that, we would have a different story. Instead, two full days after Hiroshima and the surrounding areas were obliterated, there was still no response from the Japanese. Thus, the destruction of Nagasaki.
All that to say that Japan had fair warning about what would lie ahead (though, admittedly, they didn't know what they would face) and they chose to do nothing. If they had responded to the Allies' ultimatum, then the bombing of Nagasaki never would have happened. Also, if the U.S. hadn't bombed the two cities, then who knows what may have happened? In actuality, Japan had made it pretty clear that they would fight until there was nobody left in Japan. Despite the 200,000 person death toll, there may have been millions more that would die because of Japan's stubbornness and national pride.


-1 Point      Anonymous      24 Jan 2012      Stance on Question: Agree
Here's the thing, you cant say "innocent civilian". Mainly because they weren't innocent. Once you have supplied firearms, you aren't innocent. Once you have taken a side to support on during a war, you are no longer considered innocent.


0 Points      Rebekka      31 Jan 2012      General Comment
But if it is your job to supply firearms? If you supply firearms because you need to feed your spouse and children? What then?

And you cannot "take a side" in a war like this. If you lived in Japan, Germany, or Italy, you were an automatic Axis. To "side" with the Allies when you were of Axis birth and blood would change that "side" into "suicide", and vice versa.

Think of it from the point of view of either side:
Japan ~ You defect, you are a traitor. You can be tried for treason, and put to death.
America ~ You move from Japan to America, but you are Japanese. Maybe you're a spy! So let's throw you into confinement, yea?

Your sides are chosen for you in a war, really. And defection isn't always the best option.


0 Points      ThinkAboutIt      25 Jan 2012      General Comment
In every country during the war citizens help create or supply firearms, but they are still innocent.



-1 Point      Ethan McGee      21 Jan 2012      Stance on Question: Mostly Agree
To debate an action already taken... is to question the authority of the dimension we call time. We bicker as though we are still at war with one another. Doesnt it occur to you, that maybe, just maybe, a leauge of government officials, experienced generals, able-minded scientists, and questioning philoshophers could have made a better decision than an argumentative man or woman with a computer? Wether or not you like it, bombs will be dropped. Human morality is, you guessed it, based on human standards of self benifet and pity. And as long as we are around, we'll fight. So until something unites us all, thats how its going to be.


0 Points      Rebekka      31 Jan 2012      General Comment
Just pointing it out:
Your position doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you are a scientist, a historian, a soldier, a civilian, a leader, a victim... Everybody has the capacity to think, everyone has the capability to judge rationally. You cannot call someone out because they are not a philosopher. You can't say that I [for instance] am not able to think as inquisitively and innovatively as one. People have minds. People argue, people question. You cannot make such an assumption solely based upon another's age, or race, or occupation. Such reflects the ignorance of the generation.

I intended no offence, if you thought I did then please excuse my rudeness.

By the way, I've taken multiple history courses, and I think that many historians and philosophers I have read about are rather... touched in the head, for lack of a better phrase. I could probably make a better historian, and I am fifteen.



1 Point      Rebekka      16 Jan 2012      Stance on Question: Disagree
To get straight to the point, I firmly disagree. Here, allow me to illustrate for you, a scene.

You are standing in the streets of Hiroshima, 1945. The world has just slipped out of war, but your home country is still fighting against the Americans. Now, you realise that Japan bombed Pearl Harbour, but it was only a phase of the war, correct? You don't feel too terribly upset for the people of Pearl Harbour. It was, after all, a military base. War is war is war. No long-lasting damage was done, the bombs that your country dropped on Pearl Harbour weren't even high power.

Looking up at the clear blue sky above, you see a few plans. Nothing too suspicious, nothing unusual. But upon further inspection, you notice the blue circle and white star symbolic of the nation that your country is at war against. Your eyes widen, you start to run. You've seen this in your nightmares; you know what is going to happen.

"Cover," you think, "I have to find cover..." But it's too late. Your world is thrown into chaos the moment you see the... thing being dropped from the sky. Obviously, the object is a bomb. You run faster and faster, trying to find some form of shelter from what you know is about to come.

It's no use.

The bomb hits the ground, and depending on your location, a number of things happen to you.

1. Within thirty feet of Ground Zero: you are instantly vaporized. You feel nothing, and neither the birds who happened to be flying over Japanese airspace. You (and they) are dead.
2. Within a mile of Ground Zero: you feel a searing pain erupt from your body. You are being burned alive, from the inside. If this is the case, you are lucky. Other people's molecular structures are completely rewritten, often leaving the bodies either disfigured or turned inside out. Either way, there is no hope for you. You are dead.
3. Within three miles of Ground Zero: you start to burn as well. However, you may not be doomed to die soon. No, your skin just turns coal black and shrivels up, your hair is gone. You are carted to a hospital, and you are denied the one thing that you really, truly desire: water. The doctors refuse to give you water, because giving you water will harm your now-brittle skin and organs. Eventually, you get water or you become too dehydrated. Either way, you are dead.
4. Within five miles of Ground Zero: your injuries heal, though you feel weak all the time. Pretty soon, you start to adapt mutations: growing nerves in your hair or fingernails. Your skin turns purple, your veins inflate, your muscles in your arms and legs start contracting on your bones and eventually break them. About a year or so later, you will die.

Did you know that the fallout from the A-Bomb causes leukaemia? Because you are twelve. You were born in 1943, and you are currently living in Fukuoka. Your neighbouring city, Nagasaki, was blown up ten years ago. The sky over the city still glows a hazy orange at night, though it's barely noticeable anymore. When your doctor tells your mother that you have leukaemia, she bursts into tears. You go to a hospital and start chemotherapy, but you know that you are going to die. Six months later, you do. Still twelve. Still innocent. Still young.

So, tell me. Were America's actions really justified? Can you honestly say that they were, now that you've "experienced" only a few of the horrors of the Atomic bombs? The A-Bomb was an untested weapon. Before America dropped it on Japan, he should have at least figured out what kind of power it packed.

Granted, this is coming from a German. A German who has lived in America for most of her memorable life, but a German nonetheless. An Axis Power. So don't believe me, if you don't want to. Go to Japan and see for yourself, in the various Hiroshima and Nagasaki museums.


0 Points      matt      26 Jan 2014      General Comment
Considering that the Japanese said they would not stop until they had full control of the world. Ya know the same doctrine that Hitler used to convince almost your entire country to do the same. He convinced your country and 2 other wold leaders (japan,Italy) that they had to control the world and any other ideology is wrong. Japana would of dropped the bombs on us if they had teh tecnology. And i am not american,british,italian, french, japanese. I am like any other human who can read history. They may be civilians but those civilians made tanks that where used to kill. And those civilians where trying to eventually have full control over the planet. Read some history Mr German.


0 Points      matt      26 Jan 2014      General Comment
Considering that the Japanese said they would not stop until they had full control of the world. Ya know the same doctrine that Hitler used to convince almost your entire country to do the same. He convinced your country and 2 other wold leaders (japan,Italy) that they had to control the world and any other ideology is wrong. Japana would of dropped the bombs on us if they had teh tecnology. And i am not american,british,italian, french, japanese. I am like any other human who can read history. They may be civilians but those civilians made tanks that where used to kill. And those civilians where trying to eventually have full control over the planet. Read some history Mr German.


0 Points      jean      04 Jun 2013      General Comment
i have always admired japan, but you can't look at only one side.. both countries, heck all the countries involved in stupid wars have their painful stories to tell..


0 Points      phil      16 Mar 2012      General Comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF-Tast2Ua8&feature=plcp&context=C4293904VDvjVQa1PpcFPeRh2SDZcx_eh0AYZO2AU_QlHLiFpe1Pk=


0 Points      jim bob gunuh fuck yo mom      16 Nov 2015      General Comment
timmy!!!!!!!!!!!!!



0 Points      Johnny      25 Jan 2012      General Comment
This is a good reason not to drop the bomb, but there would have been even more casualties on BOTH sides. But imagine all the suffering.


0 Points      Themadhatter      10 Feb 2012      Stance on Question: Mostly Disagree
I highly doubt that the japanese would have continued to fight. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
According to this website, the japanese were already looking for a way to surrender. So there probably would not have been any more casualties-the japanese weould have surrendered within a couple weeks after some negotiations. I feel that because America has used the atomic bomb, it's almost as if it is okay for other countries to use it as well. If we hadn't used it, the atomic bomb would have been considered too powerful and destructive for any country to use. However, now we have to deal with all these nuclear threats, etc.


0 Points      Matt      26 Jan 2014      General Comment
accord to 1500 websites they wanted to surrender and according to 2000 sites they didn't. Lets quote one website because it is impossible to type a lie!





0 Points      Noah      28 Dec 2011      Stance on Question: Mostly Agree
I think the hardest part of this debate is seeing it in its context. No one goes into a War looking at how many lives lost are "acceptable." The ultimate answer to that is none. Now obviously that's not realistic so the only reasonable way to fight a war is to minimize deaths FOR YOUR SIDE. Japan is strong willed and honorable, Kamakazi spirit is to die for their country. America is fatigued and weary. Nobody wants to invade Japan, but were on the threshold of doing it anyways. Carpet bombs didn't work, every island we come to we engage in serious battle against the Japanese, From an American perspective, they're going to fight it out until the end. Everyone seems to think there are alot of options rolling around at this point but imagining the mindset for America back then, the atomic bomb is a no brainer. Emperors, Presidents, Generals, ALL make decisions for the welfare of their ENTIRE country. Japans chose to fight on, knowing the risks. America drops the bomb because there's NO SENSE in killing your own people for the sake of a strong willed country. Japans military would die for their cause. Civilians supported the war every way they could an unfortunately paid the price for their country, but it sent a message about what the cost of war IS when your to strong for diplomacy.


0 Points      Rebekka      02 Mar 2012      Stance on Question: Disagree
See, my only problem with this argument is that you never investigate the Japanese perspective. Saying that all of the Japanese are Kamakazis is like saying all Americans are cowboys or all Germans are National Socialists (Nazi). We all know that this is not the case.

The thing is, from what I've seen, every person on America's side in this matter has failed to exhibit the idea that the Japanese are people, too. The Japs have feelings and families and friends, and they had them at the time that the bombs were dropped. They had <i>lives</i>, and we took that away. We killed generations of intelligent beings - humans - people <i>just like us</i>, snuffing out the lights of both seasoned war veterans and clumsy, smiling toddlers alike. Imagine sitting in your primary school classroom, age five, learning how to properly write your language, when BOOM! you're dead. And it hurts.

The problem with most of the American arguments is that you look at the countries as a whole. We in support of the Japanese look at the people IN the countries, and each and every one of us understands that there were plenty of Japanese and Americans ALIKE that didn't support the war. We know that there were Americans who didn't support the bombs being dropped, and we know that there were some Japanese who were ready to keep fighting to the end. Does that justify the bombing? No. No bloody way in hell.

Because that tiny percentile of people who wanted to keep up the fight were on military bases or of too small numbers in city borders to make a difference.

Sometimes looking at the bigger picture throws people into perspective, so I'll close with this: with the Pearl Harbour bobming, they killed hundreds of us. In the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, we killed hundreds of THOUSANDS of them.


0 Points      Rebekka      02 Mar 2012      Editorial Comment
Actually, wait. I lied. 2000 Americans were killed in Pearl Harbour. 300,000 Japs were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.




0 Points      Rud      10 Dec 2011      General Comment
Anyone who agreed is more than likely American. You are raised to believe that the bombings were justified. Just as the Japanese are raised to believe the attack on Pearl Harbor were justified. I think any answer coming from an American or Japanese is a bias one. Also, I apologize for spelling or grammer mistakes, only in my 3rd English class


0 Points      Themadhatter      16 Feb 2012      General Comment
I agree your opinion, but in reality no one is really "unbiased." we have all grown up thinking one thing or another and it is difficult to tell if the information you are being told is in fact ture or whether it was exaggerated. But I think this pretty much justified the actions of the Japanese. Read about the rape of nanking and you'll understand. (Notice that I had said that the Japanese were already seeking peace when the bombs were dropped so please don't criticize me as being a typical American).



0 Points      D. Domenic      10 Dec 2011      Stance on Question: General Comment
Just found this site looking for an answer to another (related?) question: How many people (civilian or otherwise)from countries other than Japan died or were injured in the 2 bombings?
Specifically: Americans, Brits, Canadians, etc.
BTW . . . . if civilians are always "innocent", are soldiers always "Guilty"? Of what? Who is more guilty, the soldier who shoots a gun or the civilian that manufactured it? I have always wondered about the term, "innocent civilians".


0 Points      Ch      14 Dec 2011      General Comment
Its not whether the soldiers are guilty or not. It is more that it is their duty, as soldiers, to defend the country and therefore, they are the ones involved in battle, not the civilians. The civilians are not directly involved and therefore, it is not right to target them. Furthermore, they are unarmed.



0 Points      Common sense      24 Nov 2011      Stance on Question: Agree
Agree 100%, it is a weapon of war and was used as such.

You think Japan would have even taken the time to think on it before dropping it on America if they had it?

What about Germany? Russia? Britain? France? Give me a break. Anyone who had developed this bomb during that war would have used it without second thought.


0 Points      Robert Scott      15 Feb 2012      Stance on Question: Agree
You are right, The Japs wouldn't have given it a moment's thought. They would have used what ever they had in their arsenal. Saving face is a very Asian thing. It is considered above all else they would not ever have surrendered.


0 Points      ME      15 Feb 2012      General Comment
Yet everywhere countries leave very biased information in there textbooks so the next generation would never find out the truth. If you can fight to all the evidence of negiotations were requested beforehand three times.



0 Points      Anonymous      22 Dec 2011      Stance on Question: Disagree
Just another example of someone justifying a barbaric action by pointing out that someone else would have done it. When have two wrongs ever made a right? Murder is murder.


-1 Point      Jackson      09 Feb 2012      General Comment
Look you pus, Japan brought the war to us. Not the other way around. They, the Japanese government made that decision and yes...innocent lives were lost. I would bet 1,000,000,000:1 that if someone keyed your car you would be willing to kill them. Take your liberal, Obama loving butt and shove it! You are an elite member of what's killing the USA!!!!!


0 Points      Understand The Facts      10 Feb 2012      General Comment
Do you have anger management issues? What is the meaning to "no other way around it" the Japanese WAS going to surrender and that is a fact with a lot of proof to back it up. Next time many if Americans (At the time not saying that all Americans are Bad or unfair)should negotiate more fully or at all.Why would you be willing to kill someone over ruining you car, yea i would be really mad but not enough to hurt them. I would called the police like civil people would. Also I don`t think you should make fun of the President.



0 Points      Craig Hearn      17 Jan 2012      General Comment
War will never end as long as one covets what another has or feels empowered for whatever reason to take what another has. It has been this way since day one of human existence and will be so long from now.
Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were attempting to invent the atom bomb, the Nazi's had developed a jet aircraft that could have at least lengthened the war if not have changed it outcome. Kruschev did put nuclear warheads on the Cuban missles and Stalin murdered more people than Hitler did simply because he felt like it. So moral conclusions on human nature aside, itnis clear from the communiques of the non-military governors of the empire of Japan that they were searching for a means to and end but were stuck on the term unconditional and concern for their Godlike emperor months before the bombs.
It is a legitimate point to define the willingness of others to use such a weapon and it is also correct that though Japan would have capitulated and surrendered after a few more weeks of fire bombing without an invasion, which would have been costly in American lives, and against the militarys Bushido mentality, the dropping of the first bomb forced Japan's hand and demonstrated to the world that we not only had the bomb but also the willingness to use it.
Part of JFK's diplomacy that backed Kruschev down was his ability to convince Kruschev that we would retaliate to the extent of our abilities . Mutually assured destruction. Nuclear war without restraint.



0 Points      -      14 Dec 2011      General Comment
Definitely other countries would have thought twice about using such a weapon, as i'm sure did the U.S. Why? Simply because it is a weapon of such monstrous nature. its use was unethical and wiped people out like nothing, pratically vapourised them...


0 Points      You have "Common sense"?      26 Nov 2011      Stance on Question: Disagree
That weapon could have been not used, the japanese people knew they would lose from the lack of raw supplies! They would have surrendered so the atomic bombs were not called for. The proof is near the end of the war before the war ended, a few squad captians committed noble suicide. That means they knew the would lose! Search noble suicide for info


0 Points      Deez nutz      17 Apr 2015      General Comment
y'all right


0 Points      Nick      07 Dec 2011      Stance on Question: Agree
They were in the middle of developing the atomic bomb to attack us, so you are completely wrong there. You also make yourself sound really stupid when you say "noble suicide" as that is a complete oxi-moron; noble people cannot commit suicide. Who cares if they knew they would lose, obviously they weren't going to defeat the United States. Attacking Pearl Harbor was such a cowardly move the little Japanese people deserved exactly what they got, in fact we should have done about ten more in hopes of wiping the losers out.


0 Points      Rebekka      02 Mar 2012      General Comment
Actually, the Japanese saw taking America as a strategic move. If the Pearl Harbour bombings had been successful, the American Navy would have been almost entirely useless and/or gone. However, the Naval units were out practising that day, so instead of wiping out the entire Navy they only got a few boats and four hundred or so people (Which is a relatively small number, considering the fact that my grade level at my high school has about 600 people).

I say that it was a strategic move because, well, look at a world map. The archipelago of Japan is just off the coast of China, which is south of Russia and east of Kazakhstan. From there west, the Japanese would need to travel through Russia to eventually get to Europe (which was out of the question because Russia was enemy territory) and their allies. Because of Russia's side, they would have to go through the long way, and blitz Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey, and the small part of Europe separating them from Germany.

That, or they could travel the shortcut and take over a country just emerging from an economic crisis. Because America is just an ocean away from Europe and the war, while Japan is a bunch of neutral or enemy countries away. The way through America was the path of least resistance, in their eyes. Just saying.


0 Points      Rebekka      02 Mar 2012      Editorial Comment
Oops, I lied. 2,400 Americans died at Pearl Harbour, not just 400. Big difference, I know, bet let's not forget that 356,000 Japs died at H&N. That's a ratio of one American death to 148 Japanese deaths, thank you.


0 Points      phil      16 Mar 2012      General Comment
how about the millions of other people that died from the japanese

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF-Tast2Ua8&feature=plcp&context=C4293904VDvjVQa1PpcFPeRh2SDZcx_eh0AYZO2AU_QlHLiFpe1Pk=


0 Points      Black and white      16 Mar 2012      General Comment
But do people now still hold grudges? Maybe they do but mostly in older generations, only people that can not forgive. Many benfits from the Japanese have coming in the all few decades. From the bombs like (Ah Hem said)

"Hiroshima
255,000 people total,
In bombing 45,000
+ 19,000 next four months
+ 20,000 korean and other asians form different countries ( they count too)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ 87,000 years after from radiation ( you have to count aftermath)
+ ?????? the radiation effectes is not going to be counted
= 171,000 died in total of the atomic bomb/ effects in Hiroshima (could be more in future), estmiated 90,000/255,000 in four months.

On to the next city

Nagasaki

70,000 in bombing
+ 2,000 forced worked koreans
+ 8 POWs
+74,909 hurt/dying
+ est about 100,000 died for radiation effects (not counting the dying)
= 172,008 died and 74,909 dying
= 246,917 9 (if the dying was counted)

Grand total = 343,008 died + 74,909 dying
= 417,917 ( if the dying was counted)"

There are many people that are still dying from the effects of the bomb alone.





0 Points      You have "Common Sense"?      10 Dec 2011      General Comment
wow you really like to tell people you sound stupid or idoits! Figure out what noble suicde is, it is just a term. Don't you think generally the idea of bombing anyone is horrible?





0 Points      Jesse S      24 Nov 2011      Stance on Question: Agree
There are several flawed arguments I see constantly by people who disagree with use of the bomb

1) That these were 'helpless civilians' These civilians at the time of the bomb dropping were being trained to fight the American invaders. These people were so wildly loyal to the emperor that they were ready and willing to fight down to the last man. You stop being simply a civilian when you prepare to kill enemy troops.

2) That the atomic bomb was not needed because Japan was going to surrender anyways. This is the most flawed of the arguments I've seen. Even AFTER atomic bombs wiped out two complete cities, the leadership was STILL split down the middle. Half wanted to stop fighting, half wanted to keep fighting. The only reason Japan surrendered in the end is because they called on the emperor to split the tie and he decided to finally give in. So tell me, if it was that close, even after the atom bombs were dropped, how can any of you say Japan was ready to surrender before it?

It WOULD have taken a full scale invasion, and tons of American, British, Soviet, troops would have died, along with countless japanese, likely even more than would have died from the atom bomb.

Also, how do you suppose the war fatigued troops would have behaved if they were forced to go door to door to fight each man? You think the Allies would have restrained their hate and resentment for the civilians after getting attacked by so many of them? If you believe that, then you need to brush up on your Vietnam war history. The prolonged invasion of the Japanese homeland would have created MANY atrocities and war crimes. It would drag the war on for months, if not years, and would have resulted in a much harsher peace agreement in the end.

Yes it is terrible so many people had to die in the Atomic bombs, and yes, it is a awful weapon, but the consequences of not using it very well could have surpassed the results of doing so. You also have to understand that, in war, sacrificing 3 of the other sides people to save 1 of your own, is a very logical, and correct decision to make.

It is very easy to look back on the events and judge them for the decision they made, seeing everyone as equals, but by the end of the most brutal, horrific war the world has ever known, we were not equals, it was us, or them. We chose them, and it WAS the right call.


0 Points      Themadhatter      10 Feb 2012      General Comment
Have you done any research in this topic? You're first point may be right-the people were very loyal to the government but they didn ot want to fight; they did what the emperor told them to do and the emperor wanted to surrender at that time. The U.S. sent huge bombing raid on many major japanese cities that pretty much leveled all the buildings and the left the people without any food or water. If you want more information on how the U.S. knew that the japanese would surrender, read this:http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html.


0 Points      Craig Hearn      17 Jan 2012      General Comment
I believe you should do a little more research on this topic. Yes, the military was insistant on no surrender at any cost. The Bushido, warrior, mentality. It is also quite possible that the emperor took both sides.
All of the information I've found states that months before the bombs the political arm of the emperor's government were searching for a way to end the war without accepting the term unconditional and were also primarily concerned with the treatment of the emperor, insisting that he continue to be allowed to rule. The Japanese sent Truman and Churchill many communiques requesting alternatives to conditional and requesting promises on the treatment of the emperor. The allies would have none of it.
An arguement can be made, easily 70 years later, and was made by such notables as Eisenhower and MacArthur that the bombs would and did serve no purpose and that an invasion would not have been necessary. Hiroshima certainly sealed the deal but it coukd have easily have fired just the opposite reaction had the Japanese had the raw materials available and the military able to convince the emperor of the need and desire of and for the people to adhere to the Bushido code. There was miniscule justification for Nagasaki.


0 Points      Ah Hem      26 Nov 2011      General Comment
Then ok IF you arguement were correct then how about not taking this from a american prospective, Chinese people were the main victims of the japanese along with other asian countries. I myself as a citizen of China back then also though it was not called for. Also if you don't know the japanese killed 10 000 times more chinese people alone then the soldiers at Pearl Harbor. @ Jesse S "You also have to understand that, in war, sacrificing 3 of the other sides people to save 1 of your own, is a very logical, and correct decision to make." Sure you say that because you are on the other side. But in the end many more Japanese people died more the 3-1.


0 Points      Kasalin Porter      14 May 2012      General Comment
Ah Hem, i looked it up and u r right. China took devestating numbers of casualties. It was about 11,324,000 total, america with only 295,000. im sorry some people on here have no sence of understanding


-1 Point      nick      07 Dec 2011      General Comment
you should learn how to speak english before you even give your input. You sound so stupid no one will even pay attention to what you say idiot


0 Points      TheGrammarNazi      02 Mar 2012      General Comment
Says the person who forgot to capitalize his first sentence and punctuate his last one...


0 Points      James      07 Dec 2011      General Comment
I'm not chinese, I'm not american. But I can see Nick by your arrogance you're american for sure. Ah Hem is speaking English, good or bad it doesn't matter, I bet you don't even know how to say good bye in chinese.
Also you show your ignorance by calling stupid everyone who disagrees with you.
The bombs were a terrible thing the US did, I believe the war could have been won in a different way, unfortunately in war everything's allowed, it's a war after all.
I also have to mention attacking Pearl Harbor wasn't a cowardly move, it was a war move, the US was supplying the allies, and in war you have to cut the resources of your enemy.
Pearl Harbor was a terrible thing..
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a terrible thing..

By the way, I'm from a country that's ally with the US.


0 Points      Ah hem      10 Dec 2011      General Comment
Thx James, I agree that bombs and war are both horrible. But I must state the fact that Japan did indeed try to surrender three times in three different neutral countries under the condition that the protection of the emperor. I now recently moved to Canada to teach in a university. But Nick I know my comment above have many spelling and grammer mistakes but I didn't proof read. Even so don't call people idoits before you really know them. Maybe u really are American, not that all Americans are like that some are really good people.






0 Points      Hiroshi Naito      14 Nov 2011      Stance on Question: Disagree
It was not necessary nor is it right. If the people killed are soldiers, fine. Soldiers should be proud to serve their country. But the people killed were civilians. Helpless civilians. And you call this humane? If the war continued we would have lost anyway. But those who die will be soldiers. Not civilians.
From a friend in Japan.


0 Points      phil      16 Mar 2012      General Comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF-Tast2Ua8&feature=plcp&context=C4293904VDvjVQa1PpcFPeRh2SDZcx_eh0AYZO2AU_QlHLiFpe1Pk=


0 Points      Kevin      22 Feb 2012      General Comment
I need to ask with what you being from Japan what did they Teach you in school about the WW2? Did you have any Family that fought in the war? My GrandFather on from my Mother's side fought in the Europe front. My GrandFather from my Father's side fought in the Pacific front. Ive heard their storys about the war and Id like to hear both sides. Feel free to write me at Farmall3952@aol.com


0 Points      Anonymous      24 Jan 2012      Stance on Question: Agree
No, no, no. You can not say it was not necessary. Pearl Harbor was not necessary, yet the Japs carried it out. Whatever the U.S. did, was only a counter to Japan's move. What so I believe you think there weren't civilians in located at Pearl Harbor? They were not helpless, if they truly were helpless, then they wouldn't have been cheering on the war effort, now would they?


0 Points      Rebekka      02 Mar 2012      General Comment
Research the topic before posting, please. If you did, you would have known that Pearl Harbour was a military base. You would have known that plenty of Americans who did nothing wrong cheered for their country. Were they not innocent? Is nationalism bad?

Pearl Harbour was quite necessary in their eyes: it would have made getting to Europe a lot easier that having to go through hostile territories in Asian countries, the Middle East, Russia, AND eastern Europe.

What the US did was no "counter to Japan's move". 2000 Americans died in Pearl Harbour, give or take. Most were in the military, 68 were civilians. After all, Pearl Harbour was a Navy Base. Over 300,000 Japanese civilians died because of the A-Bomb. So let's check the ratio, eh? 2403:356000 is 1:148. Therefore, for every American that died at Pearl Harbour, 148 Japanese died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


0 Points      ThinkAboutIt      25 Jan 2012      General Comment
There was mostly soldiers located at Pearl Harbor and at the time not all of the ships were there. It was not necessary if they listened to the negotiation in neutral countries after. Also was TWO atomic bombs necessaryÉ


0 Points      Themadhatter      16 Feb 2012      General Comment
Read about the rape of nanking and other japanese atrocites and you may feel that it has justified or avenged those people. But in defeating the nation, it was pointless and unnecessary-there is serious evidence that Japan was trying to seek peace before they were dropped. Had they waited a month or two, Japan would have surrendered and the atomic bomb would have been viewed as some unthinkably evil weapon.




0 Points      kayla      21 Jan 2012      General Comment
thanks, we are learning about this in school right now and im on the disagree side. Its nice to hear the opinions of a Japanese citizen now. Thanks for your opinion.


0 Points      Craig Hearn      17 Jan 2012      General Comment
Hiroshi. It is sadly disturbing that civilians must die along with the soldiers but lets not kid ourselves or anyone else for that matter.
Countless Americans can can sympathize with those of other cultures that would sacrifice their lives for their country. Unfortunately not enough to fight internal battles of politics and ideology nevertheless armed confrontations. The culture of Japan at the time of WWII was not much different from what it had been during the feudal era, as you obviously know, with the exception that unlike the violent period of tribe against tribe or clan against clan, the people's combined fealty was to the emperor and country.
The people had been instructed in the ways of war. Bushido and the Samari. It was in their genes, their makeup and the propaganda they had been fed for decades on end.
The British were little different. With a century of the same blood on the thronesnof England, Germany and Russia, the English had prepared a civilian defense against a Nazi invasion that would have seen conflicts nearly as bloody as any on the battlefields.
An American invasion of Japan would have seen women and children in battle with American soldiers fighting in the same manner as those years later in Korea and Viet Nam.


0 Points      Nick      07 Dec 2011      General Comment
Please just say in Japan. If you honestly think they were helpless citizens, you should probably remove your head from your anus and maybe think about the fact that the people that taught you are related to a bunch of cowards who attacked Pearl Harbor. Your little pathetic country got what they deserved for attacking the US before we were in war. BTW you are not a friend if you are from Japan


0 Points      Anonymous      16 Feb 2012      General Comment
Do you not know that the Japanese are now our, the U.S.'s, allies. I like Japanese people and respect them. You are not a true American if you call people from our allied nations, "not a friend."


0 Points      Rebekka      02 Feb 2012      General Comment
I can't help but feel my eye twitch every time I read your so blatantly ignorant comments, comrade.

The fact of the matter is that the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not all warriors. They were not all soldiers, they were not all in support of the war. I'd be willing to bet that a number of them were pregnant women, toddlers, babies, little children and mothers and ladies waiting for their heroes - their husbands, their brothers, their lovers - to return to them.

It also never ceases to amuse me that you constantly criticise other people's grammar when you yourself neglected to put a period (.) at the end of your last sentence. Not to mention that you are constantly butchering the Queen's good English with the most obviously American spellings of "words" that you are using.

My dear troll, maybe YOU should remove YOUR head from your arse and think about the fact that the people who taught YOU are related to a bunch of sick, bomb-dropping idiots who attacked two heavily populated civilian cities on the idea that it would stop the "imminent destruction of the Earth" or some such sod like that. Although, I guess I shouldn't expect any less from a racist septic. Bloody biased Yank...

Japan gave America EVERYTHING. Honda, Toyota, and Nissan are all Japanese. Japan brought you comics, Japan brought you cartoons. Japan's media is everywhere, and the Manga/Anime fandom alone is a vital part of America's economy. Not to mention all of the Japanese car companies, the Japanese-American food industries, Japanese technology that you most likely use every day without your knowledge of it... Japan is by no means "Pathetic".

And, while I'm sure Pearl Harbour had quite a few civilians, it was a Military Base. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not, they were civi-populated, and that is the flaw in every A-Bomb supporter's logic right there.


-1 Point      I love janapese (women)      02 May 2012      Stance on Question: Agree
who care about those Japanese. Those bombs did end the war.


0 Points      The Thinker      15 May 2012      General Comment
Im sorry but, Who cares about you?



0 Points      zane      21 Feb 2012      Stance on Question: General Comment
Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasnt even that populated the whole reason the bombs were drop on the two cities was because they were small and didnt have more than 18,000 people put together


0 Points      Rebekka      02 Mar 2012      General Comment
Incorrect. 356,000 Japanese died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Look it up.


0 Points      Anonymous      07 Mar 2012      General Comment
Wrong - roughly 200000 died. The entire pre-war populations of each was barely 450,000. LOOK IT UP INDEED...
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml


0 Points      Ah Hem      12 Mar 2012      General Comment
Hiroshima
255,000 people total,
In bombing 45,000
+ 19,000 next four months
+ 20,000 korean and other asians form different countries ( they count too)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ 87,000 years after from radiation ( you have to count aftermath)
+ ?????? the radiation effectes is not going to be counted
= 171,000 died in total of the atomic bomb/ effects in Hiroshima (could be more in future), estmiated 90,000/255,000 in four months.

On to the next city

Nagasaki

70,000 in bombing
+ 2,000 forced worked koreans
+ 8 POWs
+74,909 hurt/dying
+ est about 100,000 died for radiation effects (not counting the dying)
= 172,008 died and 74,909 dying
= 246,917 9 (if the dying was counted)

Grand total = 343,008 died + 74,909 dying
= 417,917 ( if the dying was counted)






0 Points      -      14 Dec 2011      General Comment
nick, i don't understand how insulting others, using foul language and implying your 'supreme' use of english helps to show your point in this debate. All it shows is a childish nature. please learn to look at this from an unbiased perspective. Thank you.


0 Points      being mean does not help      10 Dec 2011      General Comment
you nick are trash too! IF you are american! They spend more money on fighting wars then on helping poverty in your own country they could spend it on better health care or help the helpless. I am really sorry for insulting and good americans. I have nothing against. Also to add what pathetic country they are more advanced in technonogly right now. But also bombing pearl harbor has less people than died.
Then also for you imformation i am chinese and was born in china 9 year before the start of the war and i lived through that. I know citizens( not soldiers) would never want or deserve to be killed no matter what there country did. No matter what happen to the people in my country that the japanese did( was far worse then pearl harbor) i don't think atomic bombs should be dropped.
Again sorry if i went too far!


0 Points      Logan      12 Jan 2012      General Comment
i agree with you completely. Im American and i would like to say im a good guy. I definetly say that both sides were wrong in some areas but Japan is honorable and we are all looking for peace. nick your crap is uncalled for youre discrasing America by being so utterly racist. Im thirteen and i can understand both sides better than you seem to nick. I find it extremely uncalled for that you would say the stuff your saying. Ive always wanted to go to Japan and look at all the cool places and maybe even live there. I think that ya the atomic bomb was overboard but the pearl harbor was uncalled for as well. BOTH SIDES ARE WRONG IN THIS SUBJECT. i dont think anyone commenting on this was the reason any of this happened. America is friends with Japan now. I have Japanes aunts and cousins. so seriously calm down and stop being so hateful towards Japan and everone comenting on this nick. and ya im american and ive had plenty of grammar mistakes in this comment so making fun of somebody because they might still be learning or didnt proof read is ridiculous.


0 Points      Maple      10 Dec 2011      General Comment
i agree with you being mean does not help!




0 Points      Declan Chiu      14 Nov 2011      General Comment
I think you are right, Hiroshi. The civilians only wanted the war to end, not be killed. They aren't supposed to die, right? I mean, it's the soldiers that do all the dying and killing, not the civilians.



0 Points      Allen      09 Nov 2011      Stance on Question: Neutral
I have read the same arguments from both sides for a few decades. "The Japanese were ready to surrender", just speculation. "The Japaneses would never surrender", again speculation. Although the Japanese did, in the end, surrender.

Here is an undisputable fact. The bombs were dropped and the war ended.
None of you REALLY know a d@mn3d thing about what Truman truly thought or what the Japanese would have done given more time.

Al


0 Points      Allen      09 Nov 2011      Stance on Question: Neutral
Sorry for my ignorant typing. I really did mean indisputable. <;^)



-1 Point      Mr_HerpVanDerp      31 Oct 2011      Stance on Question: Mostly Agree
I think that it was necessary to use the bombs becuase it saved American lives, it saved Japanese lives, and it saved money. If we wouldnt have dropped the bombs we might not be here, the world might have been controlled by Hitler. By bombing Japan it more likely than not saved the world.


0 Points      Craig Hearn      17 Jan 2012      General Comment
The war in Europe was over several months before the war in the Pacific and Hitler had, supposedly, committed suicide, I believe in late spring.
Japans coffin was already closed and they simply did not have the matériel to continue on much longer. That the bombs saved lives is highly debatable. They, most likely, sealed the deal but to argue they were any kind of outcome changing event is simply indefensible.


0 Points      Mista Cline      01 Nov 2011      Stance on Question: General Comment
I also believe that the use of atomic power was necessary, however, Hitler was no longer a factor at the time that the bombs were used. He commited suicide in April of 1945, a few months before the atomic bombings.


0 Points      Mr_HerpVanDerp      01 Nov 2011      General Comment
Well you get my point, for all we know we could be ruled by some dictator.


0 Points      Critic      14 Nov 2011      General Comment
The struggling of a failed point... sigh





0 Points      Frederick Trombley      24 Oct 2011      Stance on Question: Agree
Thank God I live in america, Let me tell you something, I gave 20 years of my life ,most of those years were at sea, not at home with the woman and children that supported me, cause God only knows how many of yall would have. If it was't for those of us who gave their lives for you, you wouldnt have the opportunity to express your thoughts here or anywhere else. I am so sick to my stomach , you dont have an idea what freedoms yall take for granted and what is even worse yall dont care or even think for a sec what6 it would be like without them. We are own worst enemy. Why? Cause most of you dont vote and are waiting for some redeeming politician to be your savior so you dony have to make a responsible decision to which way you want your elected senators and congressmen to vote to represent you. Case in point there shouild have been a public outcry and walk on washington to make sure that the presidents health care bill did not pass, but instead we just bitched to our friends, Now when you sell your home dont be surprized when you pay a new added on tax poassed through the health care bioll. Dont act like you care now cause you didnt care then. Step up and be citizens who care or just send me a dollar , everybody, and Ill just pay off all my bills and move to a country that has more individual who care . I nwill treat every dollar like a losn and will return it with interest as soon as possible too.


0 Points      zane      21 Feb 2012      General Comment
wat was the point of you saying that that had nothing to do with wat this is about


0 Points      --      14 Dec 2011      General Comment
what's your point? Is there even a link to this debate?


0 Points      Anonymous      16 Feb 2012      General Comment
I just want to say thank you for your service, friend.




-1 Point      Anonymous      12 Oct 2011      General Comment
They should have dropped poop instead.


0 Points      Alan      30 Sep 2011      Stance on Question: Mostly Agree
Is it better for soldiers to fight and die than bomb innocent civilians?
Soldiers choose to fight and therefore accept the possibility of death, true.
Yet in WW2 many of the soldiers on both the US and Japanese sides were conscripts.
As to how many lives were saved by dropping the bombs, we can only really speculate.
However what happened in the aftermath of Little Boy and Fat Man we do know.
The devastation caused to the Japanese people and their future generations.
The 45 years of fear and paranoia of the Cold War.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did show us one thing.
That we must never again use these terrible weapons.
If we have learnt this lesson, then the end justifies the means.


1 Point      Jake Christensen      01 Nov 2011      Stance on Question: Mostly Disagree
i agree with the first paragraph but did we have to experience it to know we dont have to use it we may think that the bombs helped us but the Japanese only kill the military people and some civilians in pearl harbor but we kill military and CITIZEN 90,000–166,000 in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 killed in Nagasaki and they were men women children and BABIES plus there military was like china they filtered everything so the people didn't even know about pearl harbor or the other horrible thing their military did and we just bomb them all the citizen except the military don't know why we bomb them not just once but twice just everyone think about that

before you say that it was great to bomb the CITIZEN and mabye a few military and the problem is their are still places in those cities that are still closed off because of the radiation. also I see it a lot but some Americans cant swallow their pride and forgive because the Japanese have forgiven us plus if they didn't we would only have the xbox 360 because the ps2, 3 and psp is made by the Japanese also anime, Toyota, Suzuki and and Nintendo we would have none of that if they were like Americans and never forgive us for bombing them they knew nothing about until after ww2.

i am a seventeen year old and i say grow up and forgive people unless it something really bad and pearl harbor is nothing compared to the atom bombs so stop being selfish AMERICANS and swallow your pride and another thing is if we were going by our standards of classifying terrorist we would be just like Saddam and Asama bin Lapin killing the thousand of innocent CIVILIANS and i know what u will say why i capitalized CIVILIANS because i am making a point.

plus you guys all know this person and here is his quote

Osama Bin Laden Former Leader of Al Qaeda

The US today as a result of the arrogant atmosphere has set a double standard, calling whoever goes against its injustice a terrorist. It wants to occupy our countries, steal our resources, impose on us agents to rule us based not on what God has revealed and wants us to agree on all these. If we refuse to do so, it will say you are terrorists. ... The US does not consider it a terrorist act to throw atomic bombs [killing] women, children and elderly people [...] in Japan.


0 Points      Matt      26 Jan 2014      General Comment
The Japanese didn't only kill military are you that ignorant. Tehy killed an estimated 250-300 thousand chinese by mass rape and murder that was witnessed filmed/photographed. This was all after the chinese had been defeated and surrendered in that area, so yes they only rape and kill their captive civilians of course they only kill the military. Yes lets account a wartime action when the entire ideology of the free will of several billion people is the cost to a terrorist act. We didn't start the war,(I am not american/british/french) but we finished it. They declared war along with germany and italy and said they would not stop until the entire world was under their control and their way of thinking. So who is the terrorist, when we are defending ourselves from a threat that was issued to us(a threat that was meant to instill terror).



1 Point      ZT      03 Oct 2011      General Comment
Good point, but both the Japanese and American armies were primarily draftees, so they didn't choose to fight any more than the civilians.

Also, urban warfare in Japanese cities would have killed many civilians-- except in stead of being in two cities, it would have been in every city.


0 Points      Jake Christensen      02 Nov 2011      General Comment
that is true but i think they would have evacuated most of the citizens because they would have know about urban warfare where as the bombs they knew nothing about and could not evacuate the citizens so it killed more people


0 Points      Anonymous      16 Nov 2011      General Comment
We warned the Japanese that Utter destruction would fall upon them if they did not surrender. Not to mention it took two bombs before they actually would. The side effects were horrible, but it would have been more horrible if we invaded and wiped them out completely. "... We would have kept on fighting until all Japanese were killed, but we would not have been defeated," Taken from Karl Compton's quote. I agree that we American's are arrogant and need to suck up that we did murder many innocent people, and cause a widespread of fear, but it could have been much worse had we gone in and personally killed many of the japanese. Not only for our soilders, but for the Japanese and their culture.





1 Point      Anonymous      28 Sep 2011      Stance on Question: Agree
I happen to think that the decision to drop the bomb was a just one. The fact that the American air force dropped leaflets over japan saying “Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America’s humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.”

for more information see this website: http://www.damninteresting.com/ww2-america-warned-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-citizens/


0 Points      Jake Christensen      01 Nov 2011      Stance on Question: Mostly Disagree
yea but the problem with that is that was it in Japanese or was it in English because English was most likely banned from japan in that time also was the source that you got that from was it reviewed by multiple parties or cultures to say it was true or did you make that up


1 Point      Lydia      15 Oct 2011      Stance on Question: Disagree
the fact that the Americans dropped leaflets over the city does not make the dropping of the bomb just. the leaflets were in english and most of the people in Japan couldnt speak english let alone read it. hundreds of thousands of innocent people died for nothing, they died because the Americans were looking for a quick fix and didnt want to deal with the concequences.


0 Points      RationalThinker      13 Jan 2012      General Comment
I'm sure they printed them in japanese.




0 Points      Balrohan      27 Jun 2011      Stance on Question: Mostly Disagree
Although I agree with the end result, I don't agree with the use of the atomic bombs just because of the level of destruction they caused and because they were dropped on civilians. Truman had a new toy, thanks to defected German scientists, and he wanted to play with it.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Japanese would not have surrendered and so the bombs probably did save both Japanese and American lives in the long run. When you've got a culture that thinks nothing of using kamikaze bombing as a valid attack strategy then you know that they are going to fight to the death.
The Japanese made a bad decision in attacking Pearl Harbour but they did it because they thought that the Americans would interfere with their invasion of Southeast Asia, which they didn't. All the Americans did at the time was cut off supplies like aviation fuel and eventually oil. The Japanese were so dependant on American oil that they felt they had no other choice but to attack. Of cause, you could argue that had the Japanese not invaded Southeast Asia and commited atrocities like Nanking, then the Americans wouldn't have cut off their supplies in the first place. One point I'd make here though is Pearl Harbour is a large military complex and therefore would be a valid target in war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on the other hand were everyday Japanese cities helping their countrys war effort. It would have been the same as dropping bombs on Detroit and Buffalo.
It's a difficult argument either way but when you think of the aftermath that we've had to suffer since like the Cold War and the constant worry that a nuke will fall into the hands of terrorists then, in hindsight, I say it would be better if the atomic bomb was never created. It was and we have to live with it. Finally, as a Brit, I'm thankful that it was one of our allies that used it first because let's face it, if Hitler had managed to create them first, we wouldn't be here debating this.
Sorry about the contradictions in my comment but as I said, it's a difficult argument.


0 Points      Alex Fry      20 Jun 2011      General Comment
An interesting point to add here would be that at the point we dropped the Atomic Bomb in the war was in fact the same time that the Soviets had started to prepare an attacking force to invade Japan with. With that information one could also assume that the bomb was dropped to scare the Soviets and keep them from gaining more territory.


0 Points      Anonymous      15 Jun 2011      Stance on Question: Mostly Agree
lol i love finding comments sections after DEBATE sites. debate is about arguing logically and not slandering your opponent. one homsexual comment and thats pretty much out the window. special saying time: fighting on the internet is like winning the special olympics. you might win but your still a retard! (for those who've heard it dont blaime or repition when there fools out there like these who havent.... its obvious who they are)(no offense to the devolopmentally disabled out there)


0 Points      SG      19 Jun 2011      General Comment
It is really good for those doing history projects on whether they should have been dropped though. Some great points. Thanks people



1 Point      Anonymous      08 Jun 2011      Stance on Question: Disagree
I would just like to point out that Dwight Eisenhower said, "the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." Maybe he is completely ignorant of Japanese culture, but I think as a five-star general of the United States army, his opinion must be taken into consideration.

Harry Truman said, "We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare." What Truman is saying here is that the Japanese committed terrible crimes to Americans, so we should do the same back to them. Americans want revenge upon the Japanese. Regardless of whether they deserved it or not, revenge is never a good thing. It is a primitive idea. Hammarabi's code of laws says, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." This was written in around 1700 BC. Do we as Americans really connect ourselves to culture and ideas nearly 4000 years old?

As Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." By committing crimes against humanity, like the atomic bomb, we are just asking for the rest of the world to hate us. If people hate us they will want revenge on us. If we cannot be the bigger people as Americans, we cannot expect anyone else to do so. If it's not right when they do it, what makes it right if we do so?

By dropping the atomic bomb, we are saying that it's ok to commit such atrocities against others and it just encourages others to do the same.


0 Points      Overlord      02 Sep 2011      Stance on Question: Mostly Agree
you do understand what the alternative was right? Operation Downfall was potentially the most costly move of the war, the estimated american casualties were nearly half a million dead, another half a million wounded. that was just americans, the japanese casualties were up of 4 million, that is a lot of people, coupled with the massive damage to japanese infastructure they would have been absolutley crippled


1 Point      Aussie_Chick342      12 Sep 2011      Stance on Question: Disagree
It is actually been proven that the Japanese had made 3 attempts at trying to and the war on peaceful grounds through 3 seperate meets with the netrals countries of Sweden and Potugal. All 3 attempts failed due to the American Government's refusal to negotiate. Therefore denying any chance Japan had at ending the war peacefully. The Japanese emperor of the time; Emperor Hirohito, had also got involved with the negotiations for peace, and had admited to being misinformed throughout the entire Pacific War! His cousin (Prince Konoye)stated that the emperor had told him

"To secure peace at any price, notwithstanding it's severity"

this statement referes to the chance that the Japanese Emperor may have lost his throne AND honour.

Another point to back up my arguement is that a memeo which was found and published on August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, revealed that on January 20th that same year, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the American Army at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 that was the complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. The authenticity of the article was never challenged by the White House or the State Department, and for very good reason. After General MacArthur returned from Korea in 1951, his neighbor in the Waldorf Towers, former President Herbert Hoover, took the article to General MacArthur and the latter confirmed its accuracy in every detail and without qualification.

Therefore proving that there had been attempts at surrender from the Japanese AND that there were other options not just Operation Downfall!


0 Points      James      12 Oct 2011      General Comment
They were negotiating peace while bombing pearl harbor. we should nuke them again just because.


0 Points      SlyFox      21 Jan 2012      Stance on Question: General Comment
Are you stupid or what? Learn the date of historical events before you write stupidities!






0 Points      KM      02 Jun 2011      Stance on Question: Disagree
It pretty much scared bricks out of them. The fact that civilians, especially children and women, were being nuked made the emperor order the government officials to surrender. It made them surrender with us looking like were about to exterminate them. We look like the bad guys now because we pretty much did overkill. Also, it was pretty improbable to drop the bomb sooner because it still had to be prepared and the mission had to be planned out. Also, when you compare the people killed during Pearl Harbor and the people killed by the bomb, the 150 thousand killed by radiation and instant effects of nukes were mostly civilians while the 2.4 thousand killed while putting their lives on the line to protect their country and way of life were mostly soldiers. I think we're the ones at fault here. The estimates of casualties in the supposed invasion of Japan was pretty ambiguous with people saying 42 thousand to 1 million realistically. If we planned our attacks much better, we probably could have reduced the casualty figure. The estimated casualties were based on the death rates of the poorly planned battles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima. Both sides didn't adhere to international law. Both sides played dirty tricks. One side can't be better than the other in regards to how fair they played. Also, I've been seeing this a lot in the comments, about the citizens of the cities receiving advance notice. This is the case for the air raids that happened before, using normal, regular, ordinary bombs, on several cities, including Tokyo. However, ADVANCE NOTICE WAS NOT GIVEN for the ones pwned by the atomic bomb. The atomic bombing was meant to be stealthy, not giving the Japanese time to shoot down the plane holding the bomb even if they had poor air defence.

The bomb was unnecessary, adding that it brought about the Cold war and brought trouble for presidents from 1945 up till now.


0 Points      SG      19 Jun 2011      Stance on Question: Mostly Agree
I think that many more than you believe would have been killed by a full scale invasion. Mass suicide and civilians picking up arms were some of the many horrors seen by soldiers as they invaded parts of Japan. Women were being TRAINED to fight US soldiers. Many civilians were not exactly 'innocent' in this war. Due to culture, civilians were prepared to fight to the death rather than let their country be taken by the US. I think that the bombs really saved the lives of many civilians- many would die in an invasion anyway. War is not fair. I don't believe that they US really used it for the right reasons (i doubt that Japanese civilian casualties was first on their list of pros), but really, the dropping of the bombs was probably the best descision at the time. I don't think they would have surrendered easily otherwise.


0 Points      Aussie_Chick342      12 Sep 2011      General Comment
Could I just ask a question?

Had you been in their position what would you have don? what would you have done differently if your home country was going to be invaded? What would you have done if your country was already defeated and trying to end the war peacefully?

There is bloody damn god proof stating that the Japanese were thinking about surrender even bloody attempted it 3 times each time was denied by the American Government refusal to negotiate a peace treaty!!!

So I'm sorry but despite War not being fair. America should have been the bigger "man" and bloody should not have bombed them! It was petty revenge and don't bring up the arguement about good soldiers dying its was a fucking war people die it's sad but it's the truth. Australian soldiers died too a lot of them BEFORE the Americans even joined the war, but I still don't think the Japanese people who were caught in that bomb blast deserved to die with their skin melting off them or those unfortunate souls who carried the mutated gene of radition cancer and passed it on to their descendents who are still living with the remenants of that atrocity today, right now, this very second!

I've been to Horishima I've have seen somethings that no-one really wants to see but I think opens your eyes. Japan was going to surrender no doubt about it


0 Points      James      12 Oct 2011      General Comment
Pearl Harbor!




0 Points      Ashley      04 Jun 2011      Stance on Question: Agree
I'm glad to see someone besides me agrees that it was uncalled for and not right by any means! :3


0 Points      CPT S Monroe      19 Jun 2011      Stance on Question: Mostly Disagree
Wow really? Its pussy cowards like you who dont understand the fact that the japs wouldint have stopped they would have kept attacking us until we surrendered then you wouldint be able to cry on the internet because you would be non exsistant.. You kids run your pathetic mouths like you have the fuckin right. This generation is full of liberal cowards who would rather kiss the feet of the enemy then kill. I lost faith in this country many years ago because of pussies like y'all.


0 Points      Diarrhea      25 Jan 2012      General Comment
It's the 21st century, grow up and realize what you're saying is utter trash that doesn't even deserve anyone's attention.


0 Points      Someone that Cares      21 Nov 2011      Stance on Question: Mostly Disagree
shut up! don't make fun of ppl.u are not always right! guess what i am chinese and i do not hate japanese ppl it was the fault of there ancestors not the ppl now! and the two atomic bombs were uncalled for! If you didn't read they tryed to end the war 3 Times!
pearl harbor was full of soldiers vs citzens not saying soldiers weren't important,i know no one should die. but just saying they were perpared to die at any moment in the war.
In the end it just proves that man had made bad choices in history and we should never fallow in its tracks.

from a canadian and chinese


0 Points      HR      08 Aug 2011      Stance on Question: General Comment
Then go move to China. Prick..





1 Point      AW      31 May 2011      Stance on Question: Neutral
Dropping the bomb was a tough decision for Truman to make. He, in the end, did decide to drop it because he felt that it was necessary to save the lives of Americans, which as the President of the United States is one of his primary goals. Now I would not argue that we as Americans are better and therefore do not deserve to die, all humans are equal, but the Japanese were our enemy, and in fact were NOT on the brink of surrender, so it made more sense to kill the enemy then ourselves.

I would also like to mention other facts from the war:
The Japanese were responsible for the deaths of many other Asians, look up "The Rape of Nanking"
The Japanese did not follow the Geneva convention in their POW camps whereas the USA did.
The USA had already been bombing other major Japanese cities and had killed more people with conventional bombing than with the atomic bomb

And no matter what war is terrible thing and horrible things will happen, but it should be our goal to make sure nothing ever happens like the dropping of the Atomic bomb again, and hopefully no more war.

God Bless America, Japan, and Everyone in the world.


0 Points      Aussie_Chick342      12 Sep 2011      General Comment
Japan had made 3 attempts of surrender all knocked back by the American Government's refusal to negotiate a peace treaty but I have to admit the Japanese commited atrociaties and those who were tried and convicted as war criminals were properly dealt with. The Japanese signed the Geneva convention in 1942 promising to abide by it's terms to which they kept their romise, The Government kept a tight reign of the Generals at that point on wards, though they still managed to attempt a coup it failed due to the Genrals, all commiting suicide... due to a open betrayal of the Emperor.



0 Points      Chris      20 May 2011      Stance on Question: Neutral
The dropping of both bombs was the right idea at the time. Truman had no other choice (Besides waiting longer for Japan's surrender, but would have cost more lives)

My stance as of May 18 2011 is that no we should have not dropped them. Hell no. But put yourself in the shoes of the President at that moment in history...


0 Points      Fred      29 May 2011      General Comment
My now deceased father and potentially hundreds of thousands of other American soldiers would have needlessly died at the hands of ruthless Japanese soldiers had the two atomic bombs not been dropped! If I had to choose between devastation and death falling on the heads of my family members and my countrymen or devastation and death falling on the heads of my enemies, the choice is an easy one!


0 Points      HR      08 Aug 2011      Stance on Question: Disagree
Im sorry for your loss, but many other innocent japanese lost their whole families. The bombs were inhumane. war is inhumane......


0 Points      Aussie_Chick342      12 Sep 2011      General Comment
I agree wth HR.

in the dropping of both atomic bombs over 200,000 nearly 300,000 Japanese CIVILIANS were killed opposed to the 108,504 American military deaths that occured before either bombings in the Pacific Theatre of War.

Now forgive me for sounding unforgiving I do not mean to come across as such but War is never fair. And it's always going to be around.

As an Australian I can say that America earned the reputation of believing that commiting such atrocities against others was okay, in order to save their country of course but you have to relise it just encourages others to do the same. Please forgive me but I feel I have to also bring up the event of 9/11 this event occured because of the reputation America has earned throughout the ENTIRE World it was a terrible event and it killed heaps of people as well but it is the exact same circumstance as what happened on August 6th 1945 in the Japanese City of hiroshima and on August 9th 1945 to the city of Nagasaki.

(((I apoplogize deeply for bringing up a sore spot for anyone with the mention of 9/11, I was only5 years old at the time so it doesn't seem to effect me as much as I didn't understand what was happening. I did cry though when I saw the footage that was shown here in Aus and I have been told I am a human carebear (it explains why I feel bad about mentioning 9/11) So please Forgive me I mean no disrespect for the dead I'm just hoping that I have proven my point and not offended anyone at the same time >.<)))





-1 Point      Rozie      13 May 2011      Stance on Question: Disagree
What I dont get is why Truman would want to bomb civilians if they are pretty much the only people in Japan that aren't our enemy. we were against their government. Truman is just an idiot who obviously did not think this through enough. if we absolutely had to use a bomb, we should have bombed Japan's leaders. Truman needlessly killed innocent people. even if they were against America, they weren't any harm to us. they couldn't attack us. so truman is heartless and brainless, which is a bad combination.


0 Points      chickenhead      17 Apr 2015      Stance on Question: Neutral
Haaa, just playin


0 Points      Jasper Townsend      01 Sep 2011      General Comment
the nature of a neclear bomb is that its quite a blunt enveloping attack, designed not to pick out individual 'guilty' people but to rain death and distruction of the nation as a whole. regardless of whether the bomb should have been dropped or not (i am undesided) there was never any possibility of dropping a neclear bomb at specific human targets, the whole point of an atomic bomb is to kill indiscriminatly.


0 Points      SG      19 Jun 2011      Stance on Question: Mostly Agree
see above comment- all 'civilians' not exactly 'innocent'



1 Point      Ashley      30 Apr 2011      Stance on Question: Disagree
What I've always said about it is why do so many Americans use the argument "Oh we were saving AMERICAN lives?" I myself am American, but I do not believe that the life of an American is more valuable than the life of a Japanese person. I respect the Japanese for being so honorable. And we can't say they were "merciless" when we know nothing about them. It was a different culture, and one culture can't judge another based on morals and assumptions. And as far as the "they deserved it" goes, who exactly is "they"? Thousand of CHILDREN were killed. They deserved being bombed and poisoned? And we call ourselves moral... Ha! Were those babies plotting against us? Unlikely. Their government was our enemy, not the Japanese citizens. Bomb warfare is EVIL, pure EVIL. I don't give a fuck how many on either side were going to die, resorting to something like that is wrong and goes against everything America is supposed to stand for. America has lost sight of what it truly believe in... The Japanese men that joined their armies chose to fight for their country. The innocents back home didn't. The entire thing was just terrible and I personally believe Harry Truman was one of the cruelest human beings to ever live. Screw America, it has become unrecognizable in its evil decisions. George Washington would be rolling over in his grave if he could see what the country has become... It makes me SICK!


Please, if you want to argue with me over this, email me:
amzcole@live.com
I'm always in the mood for a debate on a supject like this...
GOD BLESS JAPAN! I pry for you for then and the earthquake.


0 Points      CPT S Monroe      19 Jun 2011      General Comment
Ya know what? Your probably some fat slob sitting on the computer crying for the enemies of America the kind I kill in fire fights soo your fat ass can cry on the internet about how cruel America is. You make me sick!


0 Points      CPT S MONROE IS ANNOYING      21 Nov 2011      General Comment
Again stop making fun of people because of there views on other people, guess what japanese ppl have changed, move on!


0 Points      I hate CPT S Monroe      11 Jul 2011      Stance on Question: Disagree
You know, you are one of those red-neck, gun wielding arse holes that has made the world such a horrible place to live in. You are completely biased, you're argument doesn't make much sence and you don't take anyone else's points into consideration. I'm glad i don't live in america. please, go get shot by america's "enemies"


0 Points      Balrohan      27 Jun 2011      General Comment
Hey, this is a debate not a slanging match. If you do not have a constructive argument then fuck off. Go clean your guns then hopefully you'll shoot yourself in the face and the world won't have to deal with another gun-ho American prick.


0 Points      Bal the little dick Brit      20 Aug 2011      General Comment
Yea... "Go clean your guns then hopefully you'll shoot yourself in the face" <--this is something you were trying to get them to not say. I think you fucked it up. :/


0 Points      Mr_HerpVanDerp      07 Nov 2011      General Comment
Your contradicting yourself. Your saying it isnt a slang match then your bashing the guy and telling him to shoot himself in the face...




0 Points      SG      19 Jun 2011      General Comment
Well that's nice



0 Points      Jose      26 May 2011      Stance on Question: General Comment
No you me sick feeling bad for them bc of the earthquake is one thing but trying to justify that culture has to do with was is silly. Bc if you know anything about american culture our culture is to protect our own first. we dont go helping every country just to help them we go so the war wont come to us. American lives come first.


0 Points      Aussie_Chick342      12 Sep 2011      General Comment
Oh really then why did you come to Australia's aid when the Japanese were on OUR doorstep. When it was AUSTRALIAN blood being shed to keep your country safe? We were the last real defense America had before it HAD to get involved in the War.

Churchill turned his back on Australia, focusing on the Euroupean Theatre of War instead, Australia turned to America to save ourselves from getting slaughtered while I'm greatful that General Mac Arthur and Pressident Roosvelt agreed to lend aid it seems you're gettin ahead of your self when you say "American lives come first" Because that's IS NOT THE CASE, an innocent life comes first no matter what nationality, culture or religion!

I feel like it's the minority in the world who actually seem to support the idea that we have to respect and help others at somepoint in our lives NO MATTER what they look like, beleive or have been raised to think... and i'm bloody 15!

Open your eyes it's not just Americans in the World! Us guys down under are People too! we deserve to be able to live Full Lives! or is that not "allowed"?




0 Points      Someone      28 Mar 2011      Stance on Question: Mostly Disagree
They were not justified at all. Much of the opinions that Americans believe today about the drops are misguided. Japan was already in shambles and were prepared to surrender. The invasion of Japan would not have taken millions of lives. The Generals and Admirals of that time are the most trustworthy in this question.


-1 Point      Matt      15 Apr 2011      Stance on Question: Agree
No they weren't... They had been given several offers to surrender, and the only thing they did was try to make peace with the soviets to keep them out of the war... You need to do more research and not just believe "oh they were going to surrender"..

Also you are not familiar with the Japanese culture. Civilians and soldiers alike were expected to fight to the death. If U.S. troops invaded Japan, they would have been forced to slaughter hundreds and of thousands if not millions - city after city.

There are plenty examples of this during the Island Hopping Campaign where Japanses civilians committed suicide and ran at troops with sharpened sticks rather than surrendering and becoming prisoners


0 Points      Aussie_Chick342      13 Sep 2011      General Comment
It is actually been proven that the Japanese had made 3 attempts at trying to and the war on peaceful grounds through 3 seperate meets with the netrals countries of Sweden and Potugal. All 3 attempts failed due to the American Government's refusal to negotiate. Therefore denying any chance Japan had at ending the war peacefully. The Japanese emperor of the time; Emperor Hirohito, had also got involved with the negotiations for peace, and had admited to being misinformed throughout the entire Pacific War! His cousin (Prince Konoye)stated that the emperor had told him

"To secure peace at any price, notwithstanding it's severity"

this statement referes to the chance that the Japanese Emperor may have lost his throne AND honour.

Another point to back up my arguement is that a memeo which was found and published on August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, revealed that on January 20th that same year, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the American Army at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 that was the complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. The authenticity of the article was never challenged by the White House or the State Department, and for very good reason. After General MacArthur returned from Korea in 1951, his neighbor in the Waldorf Towers, former President Herbert Hoover, took the article to General MacArthur and the latter confirmed its accuracy in every detail and without qualifications.

You can't tell me i haven't done my research I did a whole 6 page research papaer on this. The Japanese Government had been tryin gto surrender but it's a bit hard to stop the military when they had Generals like Anami!


0 Points      Name      07 Nov 2011      General Comment
Incorrect. The Japanese had no intentions to surrender. They continuously said no to American calls to end the war, and they even said no when America softened its terms. Japan wanted to fight to the death. Sure, some civilians might have wanted the war to end, but the government kept the fighting going. They can tell you that you haven't done your research because it's clear you haven't done it.





0 Points      Rains      26 Mar 2011      Stance on Question: Agree
They got exactly what they deserve when we destroyed their cites. as others said they would have never surrendered, Japanese soldiers would march civilians off cliffs before letting the allies near them. The Japs fought dirty, with out any humanity or mercy and killed, tortured and humiliated POWs, not to mention Chinese civilians. So, instead our allowing OUR young men to be shot, stabbed, and tortured by sending them into a full invasion, we dropped two atom bombs on their cities. Days before we dropped the bombs we dropped papers that told the people to get out and that their city would be destroyed. The ones that were smart got out, others didn't. If the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima save one american life, It was worth it.


0 Points      Benja      26 Mar 2011      General Comment
"If the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima save one american life, It was worth it."

If all it took to win that war without the bombs was one non-Japanese life, I'd have sacrificed my own. I think if you met face to face with all the people who were going to die, you'd make the same decision as me.

Your thinking, as it stands, has the same absolutist mentality, tribal allegiance, and cultural myopia, as the Muslims who support the 9/11 terrorists. The fact that you can glibly blot out over a hundred thousand deaths with smug righteousness shits on the teachings of every religion that tries to replace blind hate with empathy. You would be wrong if you thought I am anti-war or necessarily against the bombings. But to feel anything other than the worst possible gut wrenching feeling one can imagine when truly realizing what it means to condone these deaths is an indictment of one's humanity. Truman felt awful about what he did, even though he thought it was the right thing to do. That's what separates him from Stalin. Which of these leaders do you most admire?

Enough of your patriotic talk about OUR young men. A death is always a tragedy. We're all fucking humans.

Enough of your Darwinism about the smart ones getting out. Only Hitler incorporates Darwinist justice into social policy.

Enough of your black and white thinking that everything the Japanese did was evil and everything the Americans did was wonderful. You do not know history.

Enough of your gloriously simplified reconstruction of historical events. War is not a Hollywood movie.

Enough of your vague "they" when you say that they got exactly what they deserved. You do not know their names.


0 Points      Anonymous      31 Jan 2012      General Comment
...Benja, will you marry me? (Just kidding, but I sort of love you right now.)


0 Points      CPT S Monroe      20 Jun 2011      General Comment
Go ahead and give your pathetic life.. Youd be doing America a favor you coward. There is a reason i fight for this conuntry and its not so you can sit on your sorry ass and cry about the barbarians that would have killed you.. Or how about the Arab Barabians that would cut your head off without hestitation would you give your life for them? Sure probably because you have no real world experience. For someone to sit there and have sympathy for muderous people incluing civilians is rediculous. Thats one thing we were tought never ever trust a civilian. I lost a couple guys cause a woman and three of her children decided to pick up a weapon. Same goes for WW2!

It makes me feel like shit because i sacrifice my own life and the life of my men so you people can be ignorant and apologetic for war. This country did what it had to! When a great nation is threatened it is expected to exsterminate the threat with whatever means nessicary.

JUST REMEMBER WHO YOU OFFEND BUDDY.


0 Points      Rebekka      02 Feb 2012      General Comment
And, pray tell, what do you think that the people on the other side are saying? Because I'm sure that if you think of them as "murderous" and "barbaric", what's stopping them of feeling the same way towards us? Or... do you even consider them people?

The Japanese were by no means "barbaric". I'm sure that at least half of the items in your home have "made in Japan" written on them, not to mention the fact that your car is more than likely from a Japanese company. How is that barbaric? If the Japanese are barbaric and you rely on their products, does that make you barbaric too?

I am not ignorant, thank you. I've lost many people in my fifteen years, and I like to think that I have a rather good understanding of how the world works. Here you are, crying about how you give your life for your country, and yet you criticise your civilians' views. People die. All the time. It's natural, no matter the cause. But does the Earth stop turning when they do? Does the sun lose its gravity, do the stars supernova, does the moon stop circling our planet? Bloody FrUking NO. The universe does not mourn the loss of one person, because one bloody person is not going to help the universe. When I die, life will go on. When you die, the same will happen. If you change your destiny, you'll still be following it; it will just lead you down a different path.

Maybe YOU should remember what you're up against. Because death will always have the last laugh.


0 Points      Think About It      21 Nov 2011      General Comment
If you are soldier than start actong like one with honour and not hating you PAST enemies. Learn from past mistakes and don't ever comment the crimes again.


0 Points      Jasper Townsend      01 Sep 2011      General Comment
'rediculous' learn to spell you red neck oxygen theif. i don't care if you're in the US army, there a bunch of numbskulls these days anyway. countless british soldiers have been lost to 'friendly fire' from you trigger happy red-neck cunts over the last few years. its amazing, the amount of guns in the US and you still can't shoot straight.



0 Points      ivan kravtsov      31 Mar 2011      Stance on Question: Mostly Disagree
true that.




0 Points      TZX      16 Feb 2011      Stance on Question: Mostly Agree
A different way of showing overwhelming force might have been better, but if the need for an invasion was genuinely avoided, even with a relatively low likelihood, the bombings can be considered acceptable.


-1 Point      dzigi      09 Feb 2011      General Comment
How sad the world is today.
Every man has a right to fight for his right, and they should.
But children, and women. Should never have to wittnes horrors of war.
And just trying to justifiy terrible acts of crimes against huminity isnt good enough when it comes to sides.
There are no sides when we die. No explanations. No just couse. No truths. And no lies.

I have long try to define what makes a human being, human.
Now I know that you can only be human being if you see others as human beings.
Otherwise you are something else.

Not hating anyone is not an option today. But it helps when you give a hand to someone whos beaten and down.


0 Points      Anonymous      11 Apr 2011      General Comment
then why are woman and children in the military


0 Points      Aussie_Chick342      12 Sep 2011      General Comment
Children in the military what are you talking about? When you have the correct information about the child soldiers of africa then bring up that comment again. I spent an entire year learning about the Child Soldiers, Most don't choose it, majority are told join or die...that's not military work that's bloody slavery!

oh and your thinking about the wrong time period hun, There was no women in the military back in the 1940's unfortunately Feminism only came about after the war, though there was evidence of some feminist movements before the World War II.




-1 Point      Ted      07 Feb 2011      Stance on Question: General Comment
they dropped the bombs on women and children not soldiers remember that they were people too


-1 Point      Meg      05 Feb 2011      Stance on Question: Agree
I completely agree with the bombing. We had every right to do it. They weren't innocent people. They did things to our American soldiers that were disgusting and in-natural. They deserved what they had coming to them. The Japanese would have never surrendered if we wouldn't of dropped the bomb, and many more of our loved ones fighting would have died. They Japanese would take our POW's and kill them hang them up on poles, cut of their privates, stick them in their mouths and urinate on them. That's disgusting and terrible. They got what they deserved.


0 Points      HR      08 Aug 2011      General Comment
Youre thinking too much of revenge. Yeah, they did disgusting things to our soldiers and noone should have to go through that. But fighting fire with fire, only makes a bigger fire.


-1 Point      PeacemakeR      16 Mar 2011      General Comment
What about the prisoners in CUBA

then do you agree to the US twin tower bombing to be right

If someone kills and I kill in return will not solve anything.

What is teh difference between US and all those countries which support such acts.


0 Points      Mr_HerpVanDerp      07 Nov 2011      General Comment
They didn't bomb the twin towers. And it is true that if someone kills someone, you should kill them, it was how the world was created.


0 Points      Hve some sen      21 Nov 2011      General Comment
"AN EYE FOR AN EYE" it is not right guess what you ppl make my sick guess what u ppl should not be fighting about this anymore. Guess what the bombing of pearl harbor was wrong and the bombings in japan were also wrong. Learn from mistakes dont repeat them!



0 Points      CCC      17 Mar 2011      Stance on Question: Agree
It is war. Death is a part of it. To enter the war one must be prepared for the loss to that country. Japan knew what it was doing and though their were other options, this was the only one that showed the possiblility of the war ending more quickly! Right and wrong is in an individuals mind. of course an american is going to say it isnt right that we were attack at pearl harbo or 9/11, but someone out their does think it is. Truman made the right decision. You can condemn him but always know he did what he knew at the time was right.



1 Point      Jake      09 Mar 2011      Stance on Question: Disagree
I'm pretty sure you know nothing on this issue by the response you gave. "They weren't innocent people" you mean all the innocent men, women, and children that died from the nuclear bombs and who had nothing to do with the bombing of Pearl Harbor or the war against the U.S. and their future children and their children's children who could still be affected by the radiation? Yeah all those children in Japan did so much disgusting things to our soldiers. Wow, you're the disgusting one. Even if it was true that by not dropping the bomb more people MIGHT of died if we invaded Japan at least it would have hopefully mostly been soldiers who actually were fighting for a reason and willing to die for their country and not innocent people being killed by nuclear bombs. I'm glad people like you weren't in charge of making that decision because I'm sure you wouldn't mind dropping 20 atom bombs on Japan and completely wiping them out. Just because we were attacked by Japan and they did horrible things to our POW that does not make it right to kill innocent people that had nothing to do with that. If a soldier of the U.S. army kills innocent people in Iraq, which has happened plenty of times by the way, does that mean that all people in the U.S. are sick and horrible people? No, and the same goes for the soldiers in Japan who did things to our soldiers.


-1 Point      Jay      25 Apr 2011      General Comment
You are frecking retarded. So you'd rather have millions of your own people die than to bomb a different country and end the war right there? Are you stupid?


0 Points      Rebekka      02 Feb 2012      General Comment
"So you'd rather have millions of your own people die than to bomb a different country and end the war right there? Are you stupid?"

So you'd rather be the cause of death to generations of unborn children? So you'd rather wipe a great nation from the face of the planet? So you'd rather not have video games, cartoons, [MMO]RPGs, CARS [Honda, Nissan, Toyota], sushi, ramen, or anything else that was invented by the Japanese between then and now? So you'd rather cause the tragic destruction of a world power in order to "end the war right there", when the power that you were destroying was already trying to open negotiations for a peace treaty (which your nation was deftly ignoring)? Tell me, comrade, are YOU stupid?



0 Points      CCC      17 Mar 2011      Stance on Question: Agree
The Japanese are raised in a diffrent culture than we are. This is western culture, surrender and fight again. in the east it isnt the same. Surrender isnt an option. and yes civilians would have died if the invasion had occured. the loss was belived to be nearly 10 million for an invasion including 1 million soldiers. the bombs cost under 200,000 in lives. hence why truman choose it. you are also looking it from todays perspective not from one who was living through the war. go talk to one of the GI's waiting for the invasion to happen. they will tell you what they tell everyone. that bomb saved their lives!


0 Points      HR      08 Aug 2011      General Comment
APPARENTLY you didn't realize this.....JAPAN SURRENDERED....jesus..... everyone keeps saying "japan is not a country to surrender." "surrender isnt an option." when they clearly did. They were close to surrender otherwise when we dropped the bombs they would have invaded/fought back. Also, soldiers would have died, yes, many of them, but thats in the contract hun. The bomb didnt just kill people on contact. you got to think about all the ways people died. direct heat from the bomb, bleeding out because of lack of medical assistance (no hospitals left standing), radiation poisioning, starvation, and soooo many more!

our soldiers do horrible things to other countries as well. does that mean the other countries can drop a bomb on YOUR house. nah, i didn't think so.


1 Point      Jake      24 Mar 2011      Stance on Question: Disagree
Where did you get 10 million from? Yeah and around 200,000 were killed from the bombs dropping not including the people who are still effected by radiation. You don't know for sure what Truman's reasons were for dropping it so don't act like that was why. He rushed the decision even though we weren't in any immediate threat from Japan after we already took out their air defense and Navy. There were plenty more options we had on the table that would have been much less destructive then dropping atomic bombs on the Japanese.


-1 Point      Andrew      25 Mar 2011      Stance on Question: Agree
Jake, you are a hypocrite. Why question the fine gentleman, CCC, on his accuracy, when you simply say he rushed the decision? What makes you say that? I would say that the expected deaths are way more well-known than "Truman rushing his decision". And because you sound like a flaming liberal and homosexual for that matter, I would like to point out that Truman was a democrat as well as you. Wow I have never heard of a democrat slashing a democrat. Holy shit


0 Points      Jake      30 Mar 2011      Stance on Question: Disagree
Hypocrite? I said that he just threw out 10 million out of no where. And yeah I did simply say he rushed his decision because I didn't think I would need to explain how he rushed it because anyone who actually studied about Truman would know that, but I guess I forgot republicans don't have the mental capacity to learn history and when they are wrong they have to resort to name calling. "Flaming liberal and homosexual" exactly my point you have to resort to name calling when you have nothing better to add to the conversation, sorry I'm not gay I am sure you're disappointed.


0 Points      Name      07 Nov 2011      Stance on Question: Agree
Jake ur a fucktard


0 Points      Rebekka      11 Feb 2012      Stance on Question: Disagree
I think that I just lost a few brain cells reading your post. "fucktard"? Seriously? That was the best you could come up with? Just because someone opposes your views [and is rather clever about it cough] doesn't mean that you should resort to slander. I'd much rather see your input and reasoning on the matter than your immature blather. This is a debate, so why must you turn to name-calling? It's barbaric, as is your spelling and punctuation. Grammar Nazi Mode Didn't you go to school?

And Jake? You, sir, just made my life.



0 Points      Mr_HerpVanDerp      31 Oct 2011      General Comment
Lmfao, thats amazing



0 Points      Anonymous      25 Mar 2011      General Comment
Wow I've never heard of a homosexual trashing a homosexual.


1 Point      iiisahomo      07 Jun 2011      Editorial Comment
lmao. this just kinda made my day. (:








-1 Point      Shane      06 Jan 2011      Stance on Question: Agree
I think we should of dropped fifty more.


0 Points      Mr_HerpVanDerp      31 Oct 2011      Editorial Comment
Thats a little over kill. I think it was necessary to drop the few bombs that we did to end WW2 but that, thats just making yourself a soulles person.


1 Point      Anonymous      27 Jan 2011      General Comment
Maybe someone should drop fifty on you. Doubt you have a soul whatsoever.


0 Points      Anonymous      28 Apr 2011      Stance on Question: Agree
Agree!!!!!


-1 Point      Anonymous      28 Jan 2011      General Comment
If we hadnt dropped the bombs, millions of Allied troops would have died along with millions of Japanese soldiers. Hell we did them a favor. I think you should go back to history class before you go saying people dont have souls. You sir, are an IDIOT.


0 Points      HR      08 Aug 2011      General Comment
do you know what comes along with signing your name to the army? its not all rainbows and sunshine sweetheart. be sure to stay awake when you go to your history classes k?


0 Points      Anonymous      28 Apr 2011      Stance on Question: Disagree
What a wonderful and courageous man you are to think killing women and children can be seen as a favor! Wow! You are not an idiot, you are a low life because even idiot can have some lesser sense of chauvinism.


0 Points      Mr_HerpVanDerp      02 Nov 2011      General Comment
Thousands and thousands of people would have died on both sides of the war if the US didnt drop the atomic bomb. By doing this it killed some children and women but just think, probably 3 out of 5 of the children would go and be soldiers or japan, and all the women would be giving birth to more children that will join the military. It was completely necessary.


0 Points      Rebekka      02 Feb 2012      General Comment
But they aren't part of the military until they sign their name. You are judging and condemning the unborn to an absence of something that you, your friends, and your family were all granted. Doesn't that seem the least bit unfair? I know that life isn't fair, that people die everyday, that the world will keep turning and the sun will keep rising and the stars will keep shining after I die - which I know I will, everybody does - but why deny those new, truly innocent infants the right that they should have been granted just as you have? To deny something so pure, something so untainted by the horrors of the world, the right to live? It's like allowing your dog to get pregnant and then stabbing her to death.

Your point, from the other side, says that killing YOUR mother before YOUR birth would be justified because "all the women would be giving birth to more children that will join the military." The military is not the only occupation. The bombs wiped out generations of Japanese, civilian and soldier, child and adult, supporter and protester alike.

And you say that it was "completely necessary".






-1 Point      GABE      22 Jan 2011      General Comment
u are a cruel heartless person...who in their right mind would kill Innocent civilians!!!



-1 Point      Anonymous      02 Jan 2011      Stance on Question: Neutral
What's done is done. We could have tried something else. we didn't...


0 Points      Benja      03 Jan 2011      General Comment
Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them.



-1 Point      David Demers      14 Oct 2010      Stance on Question: Agree
I think dropping the bomb was very justified. Everyone is saying that it was barberic to drop such a bomb while everyone that died during Pearl Harbor are rolling in their graves. We saved american lives and we sent warnings to evacuate in advance, all we wanted to do is take out key cities and factories as they did to our Pacific Fleet and Airforce of the pacific. The only thing i dont like about the timing of when the bomb was dropped is that they should have done it sooner! it got them to surrender didnt it?


0 Points      Aussie_Chick342      12 Sep 2011      General Comment
Warnings to Evacuate Tokyo during the air raids no substantial warning was given for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki


0 Points      peacemakeR      16 Mar 2011      General Comment
If Iraq comes and drops a bomb on US would you agree . What IRAQ involved in anty US affairs.

So Let not talk of something we dont understand. These political decision are way high of a common man to comply with .


1 Point      Anonymous      27 Jan 2011      General Comment
Why do only American lives matter? Are you saying the Japanese victims aren't human beings? The numbers that died during Pearl Harbor was way less, and the bombings had lasting effects for years afterward, innocent people lost their lives and there were plenty of birth defects for poor babies. Pick up a copy of Hiroshima the book by John Hersey and read it and gain some empathy.


0 Points      KM      02 Jun 2011      General Comment
I think you could've said that better. Civilians were involved. International law violation even during that time. Use of bomb, unethical. done.


-1 Point      America      25 Apr 2011      General Comment
are you an idiot? we are in a WAR with Japan and you feel bad we killed them? if we didn't drop the atomic bomb, then we would have been fighting for who knows how much longer and we would have possibly lost millions of soldiers in the process! war isn't just a game, we were saving American lives and this was the quickest way to end the war. I didnt know that people can get mad about winning.


0 Points      Germany      02 Feb 2012      Stance on Question: Mostly Disagree
Well, Amerika, in case you hadn't noticed, Japan did in fact send treaties to America and England on more than one occasion. All three times, Japan was refused.

"War isn't just a game. We were saving American lives and this was the quickest way to end the war." You say that it was the quickest path to an end, but was it really? As I've mentioned before, Japan sent those treaties. And what of the Japanese lives sacrificed for those American lives [which may or may not have actually been cost]? Were - no, ARE, the Japanese not human beings? Are they not the same species as Americans? Are they somehow lower than you, as if you are the Aryans and they are the Jews? Because your point of view clearly reflects that hubris, that pride. If it doesn't reflect it, it most definitely refracts it. The way you worded your statement makes it seem as if you find yourself and your citizens holier than the world. Quite the European view, ja?

I am hesitant to say that the Allies, namely America, won the war. I am more inclined to say that they stopped the war, because quite frankly, they weren't too terribly happy with the resulting damage and tension either.

"We're all living in Amerika,
Amerika ist wunderbar,
We're all living in Amerika,
Amerika, Amerika..."


0 Points      Benja      26 Apr 2011      General Comment
"I didnt know that people can get mad about winning"
Well if all that matters to you is winning that is hardly surprising.



-1 Point      mike hawkshard      28 Jan 2011      General Comment
Pick up a copy of the book "How to not be a DOUCHEBAG" by "youre a faggot"
American lives are MUCH more important seeing as every Japanese citizen was trained to fight and kill Americans so they, technically, were all enemies. The bombs saved tons of lives that would have been lost in an invasion.
YOU ARE AN IDIOT


0 Points      A bigger victim!      21 Nov 2011      General Comment
U are a idiot Baka-mono ( means monster in JAPANESE)
and yeah thats right i insulted you in japanese! how r american lives more important that other human beings everyone should be treated the same!

Ps i am not japanese i am chinese ( and my country was attacked by japanese people as well but most people no longer hold grudges u should also) more chinese people were killes but japanese people than the soldiers from the americans altogeher.
The bomb was not needed!


-1 Point      Anonymous      11 Feb 2011      General Comment
you need to be more nice like your moommmy said dork haha but the bomb was the right thing to do


0 Points      .......................      16 Mar 2012      General Comment
Did that comment even make sense?


0 Points      Aussie_Chick342      12 Sep 2011      General Comment
How can you say it was the right thing to do?

I'm sitting in the middle here The Japanese civilians didn't deserve to die like that but the Japanese Government understood that there would be consequences for the atrocities committed by the Japanese Soldiers. But America was not in the right either. I seriously believe that despite America's losses, they were much more equipped to continue the war then Japan was. From your point of veiw do you not feel even slightly guilty for the lives that were lost?

I'm Bloody Australian, had nothing to do with the dropping of the Atomic Bombs and yet I still feel it was unethical and amoral! What is wrong with our world? Are we supposed to start encouraging war, destruction...CHAOS? or is it just my misinterpretation of our world and everything in it?






1 Point      swampdonk      25 Jul 2010      Stance on Question: Disagree
There was absolutly no reason for the allies to be so hasty in dropping the bomb. There were other options available to secure Japan's surrender that were neglected. For instance, they could have made a stronger attempt to induce the Japanese to surrender, they were aware of the fact that the main reason Japan refused to give up was over concerns that by unconditionally surrendering the Imperial dynasty would have been destroyed. The allies also had every intention of keeping the emperor in place in order to govern the Japanese people during occupation. Why they dropped the bombs instead of attempting to coax a surrender is impossible to determine but several theories have sprung up such as revenge (just look at the above quote by Truman), intimidating the Russians so they would be easier to deal with in Europe, and ending the war quickly so the Russians can not occupy Japan and attempt to turn her communist. Had the Allies shown a little more restraint instead of going straight for the throat it would be easier to support the bombing.


-1 Point      anonymous      05 Jul 2010      Stance on Question: Agree
Millions of Americans would have died and the estimates were that millions more of Japanese civilians would have died as well. The Japanese were never going to surrender. They even ordered the citizens to protect the emperor to the death. The Japanese murdered and tortured tens of thousands of americans who were drafted and didn't want to be there but instead home with their families. Also, the war would have went on for another year or two years which would mean more supplies and money wasted on fighting rather then rebuilding Japan.


0 Points      Andrew      28 Mar 2011      General Comment
The so called "millions" of deaths estimate is exaggerated and unreliable. The person that proposed millions of deaths was Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson. Henry L. Stimson was the same man to propose the Japanese internment camps. While other top generals and admirals, such as MacArthur; Leahy; LeMay; Norstrad; and Nimitz, only proposed causualty rate only in the hundred thousands. Why trust Stimson who only reached the rank of Colonel, while other Generals and Admirals are more qualified and trustworthy?

Stimson was highly suspicious in my opinion now.


-1 Point      jonny bear      26 Apr 2011      Stance on Question: General Comment
are you an american then act like it because do you think just cuz its not millions of lives only hundreds of thousands than it doesnt matter???!!!! that is still thousands of lives that were saved because we killed our enemy in war thats what were suppose to do and even if we killed women and children thats not our fault the japenese are your responsible for their citizens it isnt our fault thier country was retarted they started the war and we ended it thats what your suppose to do. so ur saying from now on we should worry bout now killing too many of the enemy? no its our job to end the war and save our soldiers not thiers and the atomic bomb was necessary at that time. what would you have said if you were truman sorry usa were gona send our own soldiers and who cares if tousands die im too worried bout my friends in japan haha dude do you research then come talk to me. btw im a tutor anytime u need more schooling contact me thanks:)


0 Points      Benja      26 Apr 2011      General Comment
"even if we killed women and children thats not our fault"

What makes American soldiers great is that they're willing to die to save any innocent life. Not just an American life. They believe freedom is a value that's universal and everyone deserves it. It takes HUGE BALLS to fight for that. Don't tell me American soldiers don't give a fuck about the life of a woman or child in another country. Many have put their lives on their line - and lost it - to help innocent people - no matter where they come from. Yes, obviously for Americans, America comes first. But America also helps others. Don't be short-sighted here. It's not you. It's not American.

Some quotes from George W. Bush:

"Are the peoples of the Middle East [or anywhere else in the world] somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom, and never even to have a choice in the matter? I, for one, do not believe it. I believe every person has the ability and the right to be free."

"The United States and Great Britain share a mission in the world beyond the balance of power or the simple pursuit of interest. We seek the advance of freedom and the peace that freedom brings."

"When it comes to the desire for liberty and justice, there is no clash of civilizations. People everywhere are capable of freedom, and worthy of freedom."

Yes, those Japanese men, women, and children in that despotic regime in 1945 were also worthy of freedom. And yes, perhaps the awful reality is that those bombs overall saved lives. But that doesn't mean that those lost lives weren't worthy of fighting for.




-1 Point      Anonymous      25 Jul 2010      General Comment
So your supporting that we sink to thier level?


0 Points      Mr_HerpVanDerp      02 Nov 2011      General Comment
Sink to there level...Who's level? It's war, it's not a pretty thing.


1 Point      CCC      17 Mar 2011      General Comment
You are looking at this from todays perspective. A diffrent Generation born in a diffrent time.The Japanese attack on Hawaii was enough of a reason to join the war for us.prior to that the US was attempting to recover from a massive depression. The only thing that saved them was WWII.The attack infuriated the americans and drove them to war against an enemy that had never surrendered.The Japanese people were trained to fight the americans, they were told falsely of our brutality and how we wanted to murder every single one of them. look at the japanese on saipan. they threw themselves off cliffs to avoid being captured by us. The invasion would have cost nearly 10 million lives and over a million allied soldiers lives. those were stats from Roosevelts presidency. The bombs were a last result for truman. the war before the bombs had a loss estimated at nearly 50 million.Instead of condemning truman for finding a quicker end than millions of people dead, why not look at it from someone from the 40s perspective. or better yet go talk to a WWII survivor and get their account of what it was then. it isnt sinking to their level when trying to find the fastest way to end a war!


-1 Point      Anonymous      28 Oct 2010      General Comment
Its not about sinking to their level its about doing what was right for our country.




-1 Point      Anonymous      21 Jun 2010      Stance on Question: Agree
Think about the pow's, the people of china and other asian countries that japan was occupying, ask any of those who experienced the japanese occupation. It was a time of war, and the japanese were as good a target as anybody to be bombed. everyone in the war was killing civilians with the bombing of manufacturing plants, which was a target on everyones hit list at the time. yes, there were "innocent" people who were killed, but if you think about it, if the war had continued into japan and dragged on, how many of those "innocent people" would of fought for their country? how many would of killed in defence of the emporer? you can bet almost all of them would of tried to do something, even the women were being trained to fight. the world needed to see what destruction could be done with such a weapon, and they needed to see the reality of war, the killing of POW's and of innocent asians in occupied lands were going to come back to haunt them, and thankfully, this is how. And also, think of how many americans would of died invading japan, they were not ready to surrender, not even close, just because America was pushing them back did not mean they were going to lay down and give up. it was their belief that they were to fight until the death for the emporer. just think, if the war continued, maybe the japanese would of completed their bomb program, and you can bet they would use it if they had the chance, so ask yourselve, do i want to die? or people who i have never met, but would probably kill me given the chance? simple answer.


0 Points      Benja      21 Jun 2010      General Comment
I'm not a historian so I won't comment as to whether the bombs saved lives. I do believe however, that you're too hasty and enthusiastic in reaching the conclusion that no Japanese person was innocent. Do you think, had you or I been born in the 1920s in Japan, that we could have gone against the flow? Do you think we would have - on moral grounds - refused to join our country's army and have had the strength to face the consequences of taking that stance? By your own words you don't seem to give a fuck about "people who I have never met who would probably kill me given the chance". Most people born into a bad regime could be pushed into bad behavior, and the people who died were not intrinsically better or worse than ordinary people like me and you. Maybe the bombs were necessary, but it was a tragedy, and it is of the utmost arrogance to say that the people who died were not innocent, as if we, with our privileged lives, not only get to live those privileged lives, but also get to claim the moral high-ground over the dead.



-1 Point      Anonymous      21 Jun 2010      Stance on Question: Agree
What the? How can you disagreed what america and allied forces did to japan. Japan had it coming to them, from peral harbor, faking to be friendly then attacking them out of nowere. they should all burn in hell.


-1 Point      Anonymous      27 Jan 2011      General Comment
By saying that they should burn in hell, I think you have it coming.


0 Points      Benja      21 Jun 2010      General Comment
Most people who get killed in wars are not evil people - they're just terribly unlucky people born at the wrong time and wrong place. Most of the people killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just ordinary civilians living under a regime they did not choose. Now, there is ignorance in pacifism - yes, some wars are justified, as is the loss of civilian life. But there is an even less thoughtful ignorance in the belief that an entire country is comprised of evil people.

"They should all burn in hell"? While I don't consider myself a Christian, I still consider it a red flag when someone says something that seems to entirely disregard the compassion that Jesus espoused.


0 Points      benja      11 Mar 2015      General Comment
shut up bitch




1 Point      the27th      09 May 2010      Stance on Question: Neutral
I've been told that the bombs saved lives. We did kill more people in urban firebombings than in the nuclear attacks. But I have my doubts that exterminating a city can be justifiable.

Honestly war horrifies me to the point that I have no appropriate moral framework to apply to it.


0 Points      Benja      09 May 2010      General Comment
"Honestly war horrifies me to the point that I have no appropriate moral framework to apply to it."

I agree it's difficult, but not so much because it horrifies me, but more because the moral equation is complicated.



-1 Point      Bobby Boushay      31 Mar 2010      Stance on Question: Agree
One thing though the Japs wurnt going to surrender before we bombed them. The was going to fight till the death all the way. So you should probably get your facts straight before you say we was wrong on doing so. So like I said aint nothing wrong, we did the right thing on doing that. And so what if we was the first ones to use it. The Nazis was working on one too. so shut yo mouth.


-1 Point      Anonymous      27 Jan 2011      General Comment
Maybe you should get your facts straight. Japan was ready to surrender after the first bombing."shut yo mouth"? yeah real mature....


-1 Point      Anonymous      17 Apr 2010      General Comment
Yesss so true..


-1 Point      Anonymous      21 Apr 2010      Stance on Question: Disagree
If we were so worried about getting back at the Japanese military then why didn't we use the bomb on one of their military bases instead of on innocent civilians.And imagine what happened with 9-11, we hadn't recovered after three days,we were just getting all of the facts at that point and coming up with a plan, and that was just the destruction of 2 buildings in one city. To try to recover in 3 days from a bomb like that is just about impossible, but we still dropped the second bomb. Don't you think if Truman really didn't want to cause that sort of destruction then he would have got the point after the first one or was it just not big enough for him? Also think of the radiation and I'm not talking about in Japan, I'm talking about here in U.S., people here suffer from radiation poisoning. If our government was willing to test the bomb in their own country, not knowing what the damage could be, then how willing do you think they were to drop it on someone who humiliated us, so face it they weren't doing it to save lives. And really if you think about it to say that the U.S. decided to drop a bomb on a city to save lives is pretty ridiculous.


0 Points      Kevin Davison      21 Feb 2012      Stance on Question: Agree
The United States Didn't Start the war. The U.S. tryed to stay out of the war. Don't forget W W 2 started in 1939. The U.S. was brought into the war 12/2/1944. Japan started it with the U.S. then Germany declared war on the U.S. To me the U.S. droping the atom bomb on Japan was justifable. I guess I need to ask all of you who dissagree with the droping of the atom bombs. What would Japan and Germany done if they had the Atom bomb at the start of the war? At that time the U.S. wasnt the bully that it seems to have become. The U.S. didn't want war but was givin NO CHOICE but to be in a war. Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor was like a sucker punch atleast Germany Declared War. The U.S. had every right to end a war it NEVER WANTED to be in as fast as it could without the chance that it could end up in a new war with the same country's that it never wanted a war with in the 1st place. Don't Pick a fight with someone you cant beat and when you do pick a fight with someone you can beat your a bully. That said Id like to ask the whole world a question. After all the horrors of war the world has seen why do we still fight?


0 Points      Ah Hem      22 Feb 2012      General Comment
Because people never learn from the past and learn form mistakes and history keep repeating, that is how the world works but I hope that it would change one day! Also why did they have to have TWO atomic bombs dropped instead of just one?



0 Points      thisguy      15 Feb 2012      Stance on Question: Agree
I'm not going to call you stupid as many others must think you are after saying something so foolish. There was an attack planned and on the standby if we didnt have this bomb. Its name was Operation Downfall. It called for a full out attack on the Japanese Home Islands, also the ruthless Soviet Union was readying their forces for an attack agianst them as well in response to the succesfull Japanese occupation of eastrn Rusia. As I was saying Operation Downfall would call upon the entire Marine Corp., Pacific Navy, and elements of the 7th Army Air Force, 8th Air Force, 10th Air Force and the American Far East Air Force. There would be more the 1.5 million combat soldiers taking place in the invasion. They would be back by 3 million support troops which was 40% of the Armed forces at the time, would be taking part in the amphibious assault. The casualties were going to be heavy. Now estimated casualties would be in the millions lives from both sides would be lost. The Japanese government had actually started arming their school children so that they could help protect the emporer. While the bombs would only take around 110,000 lives the invasion would call on complete genocide because the Japanese culture at the time didn's accept surrender.
I hope this has changed your mind and have a wonderfull day.


-1 Point      Ryan Montgomery      21 Jan 2011      Stance on Question: Mostly Agree
9-11 was an attack by a group of religious extremists.
Completely unjustified whatsoever. The excuse of religion was used as a cover for their own desires. I wonder how the guys are doing without their 71 virgins in heaven P.S.

The Atomic bomb was an attack by the U.S. Against forces of japan.
It was against Japanese culture to surrender #1
Estimated civilian and military forces lost in the ground battle over japan would have resulted in millions of people #2
Sometimes people need to accept the fact that they need to choose the lesser of evils. You say it was unnecessary, I say it was absolutely necessary. #3
A regular bomb on one military base was ineffective and would have killed innocent civilians anyway (factories are powered by people). Your logic is too simplistic... If we were still using 1 + 1 we would be in the middle ages right now. #4
Since when did Japan Humiliate us? I'm pretty sure they attacked a neutral country (pearl harbor) to provoke a war. We dropped the bomb on an enemy country to stop one. You really think they wanted to continue the war? Not to mention the Japanese were not following the rules of the Geneva convention and were presenting inhumane killings of not only american pow's but Chinese citizens. Did you forget about that? Also, have you ever been exposed to radiation? in fact you have. Because the earth naturally produces radiation through the same process that is used in Nuclear Fission (specifically plutonium and uranium). #5
Lets continue... The creation of Technology ALWAYS has SIDE EFFECTS. You think Radiation poisoning is bad? What about the toxic waste produced by the "Safe" Solar cells. UNCHANGEABLE

Nuclear power is by far the safest since eventually the radiation released by the atoms in the atomic bomb are absorbed BACK INTO THE EARTH where it originally started #6

I'm sorry but spiritual guidance will not get you through a question like this. You need ACCURATE LOGICAL REASONING. When spiritual guidance tells you not to surrender, what do you blame? the spiritual guidance, or the atomic bomb.


0 Points      ryan      11 Mar 2015      General Comment
can I fuck you



-1 Point      Anonymous      23 Sep 2010      Stance on Question: Mostly Agree
If you looked at maps of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the time of the attacks, there were military supply and barrack at both locations. Both cities also had war supporting industry. Unfortunately those bombs devistate indiscriminatly. Were there other options, probably. Question would become, if we hadn't used them first, who would have and when?


-1 Point      Anonymous      21 Jun 2010      General Comment
sorry, but if you didn't have your head so far up your bullshit filled ass, you would realize that the japanese were not going to surredner, they were not going to stop, and that an invasion of japan would be the only way to get them to stop. now, lets have a little thought about that shall we? invadind a pissed off country, who will lob off your head, starve you to death, beat you, basically do what ever they feel because who will stop them, is that somewhere you would send your son or husband? estimated at over 100,000 casualties just to get on the island and get a food hold, now, a little math, the bombs have killed nearly 200,000 people, which of course is terrible, but had the war continued, how many of those people would be fighting and killing americans? you can bet almost all of the boys, most of the men, and even women, because yes, they were being trained to fight. so, do we send in our men to be slaughtered, or do we drop bombs on military targets, which they were, even though yes there was high civilian population, but still. do you want to see hundreds of thousands of americans die, and predicted almost 1 million japanese die, or roughly 200,000 japanese, who were instantaniously whiped off the earth, which is awful, but considering how the japanese were known the kill POW's and others who did not support their cause, well, being fried by the bomb doesn't sound so bad.


1 Point      Aussie_Chick342      12 Sep 2011      General Comment
Japan was going to surrender no doubt about it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is actually been proven that the Japanese had made 3 attempts at trying to and the war on peaceful grounds through 3 seperate meets with the netrals countries of Sweden and Potugal. All 3 attempts failed due to the American Government's refusal to negotiate. Therefore denying any chance Japan had at ending the war peacefully. The Japanese emperor of the time; Emperor Hirohito, had also got involved with the negotiations for peace, and had admited to being misinformed throughout the entire Pacific War! His cousin (Prince Konoye)stated that the emperor had told him

"To secure peace at any price, notwithstanding it's severity"

this statement referes to the chance that the Japanese Emperor may have lost his throne AND honour.

Another point to back up my arguement is that a memeo which was found and published on August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, revealed that on January 20th that same year, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the American Army at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 that was the complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. The authenticity of the article was never challenged by the White House or the State Department, and for very good reason. After General MacArthur returned from Korea in 1951, his neighbor in the Waldorf Towers, former President Herbert Hoover, took the article to General MacArthur and the latter confirmed its accuracy in every detail and without qualification.

now I'm not here to say that what the Japanese did was right but think about it 200,000 CIVILIANS in a span of two days or the 108,504 American military personele people who were TRAINED to fight and unfortunately lost their lives. The entire thing about training their civilians to fight What would you have done had your Military and Navy been alread ripped to shreds and an ominous bloody invasion on their hands? I'm sorry but I don't see that as a valid arguement. Now forgive me for sounding unforgiving I do not mean to come across as such but War is never fair. And it's always going to be around it is apart of human history and unfortinately our future doesn't look to bright.

As an Australian I can say that America earned the reputation of believing that commiting such atrocities against others was okay, in order to save their country of course but you have to relise it just encourages others to do the same. Please forgive me but I feel I have to also bring up the event of 9/11 this event occured because of the reputation America has earned throughout the ENTIRE World it was a terrible event and it killed heaps of people as well but it is the exact same circumstance as what happened on August 6th 1945 in the Japanese City of Hiroshima and on August 9th 1945 to the city of Nagasaki.



-1 Point      Jessika Michael      28 Apr 2010      Stance on Question: Neutral
Well from what I have read and researched about this topic I am kinda in the middle. I dont believe that we can honestly justify any of the decisions that were made, but I also think that we can just sit here and say that they were made in the wrong. We live in America a place that is said to be the land of the free and we have the right to freedom of speech. We dont let just one person have all the control and power, we brake it up into groups and let us the people help make the decisions on how to run the country. I feel that if we are going to say that we were in the wrong for bombing the Japanese then we as a country need to take the blame and not but it all in Truman. Im sure that it was discussed with several other people about whether or not they should use the atomic bomb, it was just Truman woke up one morning and was like, "hey lets kill a bunch of Japanese people by using the atmoic bomb." Anyone that can sit there and say in my opinion is very argaont and blinded fromt the truth. I personaly feel that hey we made the choice to kill off thousands of potenitaly innocent people but would we have done if they werent innocent would we wany risk thousands of our people because we werent sure if them attacking us was just a little game of tag or something and they werent going to attack us again. Well in the end what has been done has been done and all we can do is move on from it and not sit here and arguge about if we were in the right or in the wrong. What we need to do now is study what the results where and whether our not they were affective in case we are put back in a similar situation again some time in the neat future.


-1 Point      Superfly      26 Oct 2010      Stance on Question: Agree
i don't think the A bombs should have been used and japan was on the point of breaking i heard in several documentaries japan could even put a plane in the sky most japanese people starved to death and all america had to do was agree to a few rules which the japanese made which was to return to there borders let the empreor stay on the throne etc... and that was all america had to do to end the war and at pearl harbour japan sent a declaration of war but it didmn't get to america in time and if u say it makes up for pearl habour two thousand people died and the atomic bombing on japan over 150k died and 200k later on from radiation sickness so any american wanna tell me the took the most loses


0 Points      Human      05 May 2015      General Comment
japan did a lot of terrible things to the POW including experiments, beating, etc.


-1 Point      superfly      26 Oct 2010      General Comment
tell that to the americans who belive that and if any of you think it saved lives it didn't japan still would have went to war but the empeor didn't want his contry destroyed and all of that could have been avoided if america just followed what the japanese wanted emeproer to stay on the throne return back to there oraginal boarders also the 2 nukes were completly unnessacary japan was ready to surrender by the first one many historians belive this to so if you think it saved lives then your sick and you need help


0 Points      Jeff Schlip      26 Jan 2011      Stance on Question: Mostly Agree
It was the right thing to do, as it saved hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides, however, why didn't the US Army Air Force drop 1000s of leaflets warning the citizens to leave or they would be destroyed? They could certainly have done this and greatly decreased the number of those killed, however at the time there was very little compassion for the Japaneese because of the terrible atrocieties that they had committed. Another option might have been to bomb a less populated area, and then inform the leadership in Japan that the next bomb will land in Tokyo.
It's difficult to second guess this long after the war. None of us knows for sure what we might have done in the same situation.


-1 Point      flyingotter      15 Mar 2011      General Comment
i think that the United States was trying to bomb their facilities where they were making the bombs, and machinery for war. Tokyo didn't really have those kinds of facilities, that's why the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki but good point.


0 Points      Anonymous      01 Dec 2011      Stance on Question: General Comment
all im saying is is ther really rules in a war a fight its a fight ok im nutral on this situation but if they havnt attacked us we wuldnt have attacked them mayb the decision was extreme but is the american ppl really siding its wrong becuz they consider the possibility it would happn to them i say that anythng goes in war killing is not just period but ther will always b casualties in war. so what im tryng to say is bomb was neccesarry to prevent more death than their needs to be fact it stoped the war early at that that shuld b a win win to evry1 on the fact that they warned them ON PAPER makes it more just you ppl say it was in eglish but u cant tell me they ddnt HAVE NOT 1 INTERPRETER IT WAS JUST bad that civillains had to die BUT ITS WAR!!!!! ANYTHNG COULD GO.


0 Points      ..................      02 Dec 2011      General Comment
yea on papers in the wrong place! oh yeah the papers were droped along with bombs shortly


0 Points      BN      05 Dec 2011      General Comment
Truman had 3 options:Bomb them, don't bomb them, negotiate. The Japanese people AND government were willing to surrended with the condition that the Emperor must not be touched. He was a 2500 year heir and everyone believed him to be a God. Japan tried on 3 occasions through neutral countries Sweden and Portugal to make peace and the US SoS Stettinius responded with, and I quote "show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of the matter," to Ambassador Bagge from Sweden. The stubbornness of the US government lead to the 200 000 deaths of WOMEN, CHILDREN, FATHERS, SONS, GRANDPARENTS. Not all Japanese people were Cold-Blooded Kamikaze soldiers. Many just wanted the war to end without the harm of the Emperor. And those speaking numbers saying more casualties would have came from the war continuing on, the war WOULD NOT HAVE HAD TO CONTINUE IF TRUMAN LEARNED TO COMPROMISE. All Japan wanted was the safety of Emperor Hirohito.


0 Points      Rakoto      11 Jan 2012      Stance on Question: Agree
Losers don't get to make negotiations. Japan was losing the war and did not have much ground to stand on as far as making claims. Japan was warned of the bombs that would be used against them. They knew it was coming and they still would not back down. Every Japanese citizen was under the responsibility of the Japanese government. They put the lives of their own citizens in danger when they refused to surrender under the given conditions.
I do not desire that kind of destruction on any people or nation, but if I had the option of dropping the bomb and saving thousands or millions of American lives, or sending in our troops and watching the bodies come back in caskets, I choose the bomb every time.
Also, you have to put yourself in the place of Truman and every American during that time. They most likely saw it as an enemy nation that dragged them into a huge bloody war that they weren't ready to be apart of, and now they won't back down, even when their eventual loss is inevitable. Americans were tired of the fighting, tired of watching their fathers and brother and sons die.


0 Points      Rebekka      17 Jan 2012      General Comment
...The way you say that, you act as if the Japanese DIDN'T have fathers and brothers and sons fighting in the war.

The fact of the matter is, war affects everyone. Have you ever heard that Thirty Seconds to Mars song, "This is War"? It's saying that no matter your status, no matter who you are, where you live, what side you fight for, war will always be war. Fate isn't picky, time waits for no one.

Put yourself in the place of the Japanese. You are in a war, fighting with an enemy that is literally on the other side of the planet. The English, Russians, and Chinese have built up their defences on the mainland, so that's a no-go. The Philippines are American territory, and even if you could get passed them you still have to go all the way around Africa to get to Europe. But then there's America, right next to you. And right next to him stand England, France, and Russia. You could try to attack China and go through numerous neutral territories to get to your allies Italy and Germany, but you know that neutral countries won't allow you to occupy them. There IS a reason for "neutrality".

In retrospect, it was quite the risky move for Japan. As it turned out, Pearl Harbour was nearly vacant of any military ships on the day of the bombing. Had it all gone as planned America would have been crippled for the duration of the war.

But I digress. Bombings.

Are you blind or something? Because no matter how many times people say that Japan WAS OPEN FOR NEGOTIATIONS, you keep saying, "They can't ma~aake negotiations, because they were loo~oosing~!" Yet, you continue on to point out that Americans were tired of fighting. IF THE BLOODY AMERICANS WERE TIRED OF THE BLOODY FIGHTING, WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST GO WITH THE GOTTVERDAMMT NEGOTIATIONS THAT THE JAPANESE WERE OFFERING?

Just putting that out there. ^^


0 Points      Beni      28 Feb 2012      Stance on Question: Disagree
I really disagree with the last section of your comment. Do tell us what the "government negotiations" were. The Japanese government was just a cover for the massive corruption that went on in the Japanese military. The Japanese was not to be trusted due to the Pearl Harbor incident, as that was a SURPRISE attack, since, let's face it, they could not beat us in a face-to-face combat. They tried to weaken us. Before that incident, the United States already offered middle grounds to the Japs, and what do they do? THEY ACTED LIKE BADASSES due to their HONOR.

So in the end, please TELL ME what the negotiations of the Japanese were?
"How about you give me back our god-damn oil supply, and we'll continue to occupy China?"

Yeah, ok, like those are peaceful negotiations? Are those terms the United States would stand for?

Just putting this out there. ;D


0 Points      Rebekka      20 May 2012      General Comment
Sorry for not replying sooner; my laptop exploded - literally.

I won't even try to argue that there was no corruption in the Japanese Military. Because, quite frankly, there was. The Japanese had occupied the Koreas (or, at the time, Korea) for well-near fifty years before WWII, and they invaded Chinese villages and paraded through them with severed Chinese heads on the ends of poles. If that's not blatant corruption, I don't even want to know what is.

However, it is a historical fact that the Japanese tried to surrender three times before the bombs were dropped; their only requirement was that Emperor Hideyoshi stay in power. Whether those documents ever got through to the Allies' various governments is still a mystery (though a few of my sources tell me that they did in fact arrive to America and the UK, but that Truman and Churchill disregarded the surrender while the USSR, France, and China didn't even receive them). It still stands, though, that they tried to surrender.

...I like you. You're the only one whose gone against me with a valid argument. ^^


0 Points      Black and white      15 Mar 2012      General Comment
Did you know because in the past Japan occupied Korea, most of them understand japanese and that is a huge advantage for there comercial industry. Yes it was bad when the took over happened, and some people still hold grudges but many people put the past behinded them. It is not good to be a hater.How would you know what kind of negotiations were given. The negatiations were suppost to be hold in THREE not one NEUTRAL countries.


0 Points      ME      01 Mar 2012      General Comment
Do you really have a good understanding of this? Can you really vent you anger like this? Do you know what really happened? Think about those questions, Were you there at the time if so do you know what negotiations was negotiated? What Rebekka posted above was right to me to most extent.




0 Points      DIY      14 Jan 2012      Stance on Question: Disagree
Yeah at least they tried to negotiate, instead of getting bombed at but no do they listen?


0 Points      steven      21 Jan 2012      Stance on Question: General Comment
WAR is the name we use when we kill another person, regardless of who they are, or why and if we want to kill people then that is a choice a individual makes


0 Points      GOD      02 Mar 2012      Stance on Question: Disagree
NO, WAR is when i blow ur brains out and t-bag ur dead body.