Can War Ever be "Justifiable"?

[Zeonix]

Japan was by no means weak in the time before the bombs were dropped, and "the world" wasn't in any shape to engage in another full-scale war. It's easy to sit back in our seats, nice and safe, and say dropping the a-bombs was wrong, but at the time, there weren't many options. As I said they dropped the bombs for more than one reason. Nagaski and Hiroshima weren't exactly major population centers. They were major industrial centers that, if kept intact, would have made the invasion that much harder. They were warned repeatedly and chose to ignore our warnings, possibly as a result of their patriotism and pride. The only military able to aid us in a war against Japan was Russia, and we didn't exactly want Russia in control of Japan, in addition to everything they won at the end of the European theater.

The situation was far more complex and some of you care to admit, and all consequences, both short-term and long-term, as well as the interests of America, the nation fighting Japan, were taken into consideration when determining whether or not to attack their homeland. In hindsight, it may seem barbaric but most leaders aren't prescient and don't have the benefit of knowing everything that we do at this moment in time.

 

[Dzamija]

Alright, but what I wanna know is why didn't they use ordinary bombs? You don't need a nuclear bomb to get rid of a few industrial places such as factories; the same can be done with bombs filled with uranium waste or something (talking from experience). Too many people who did nothing wrong were killed for it to be called justified.

 

[Zeonix]

1) They wanted to test their secret weapon
2) One bomb is more cost-effective than 100,000.
3) Using conventional weapons wouldn't scare Japan and Russia. Knowing that a single bomb can take out your entire army hurts your morale, and will stop you from going any further than you already have. The point was to show the Japanese and the Russians that, if we chose to, could destroy them in the blink of an eye.
4) Getting rid of a few factories isn't exactly going to stop Japan from waging war against us. We'd still have to jump our way from island to island to reach the mainland, and continue fighting from there. They probably wouldn't have surrendered until we worked our way to their capital, at the expense of hundreds of thousands of our servicemen in addition to theirs, as well as their civilian population. Instead of attacking two cities, we'd have attacked all of them. Higher casualties over a longer period of time.

That's just off the top of my head. I find it interesting that you're suggesting we should have just poured radioactive waste all over the Japanese population.

 

[Dzamija]

That's not it. It's a different kind of bomb, the waste is much 'weaker' so to speak, otherwise I'd be growing a third arm right now. But that's beside the point. The point was that using nuclear bombs was just too much. Not only did they completely destroy two cities and killed thousands of people, they also caused major pollution. Something that'll come back to haunt all of us. Also, why TWICE? Even the first bomb did nearly irreversable damage. Was it completely neccessary to nuke Nagasaki as well?

 

[Zeonix]

A single nuke obviously wasn't enough, or they would have surrendered immediately. It also let everyone know we weren't a one trick pony only able to use our trump card but one time. Your view of the event is far too clouded and doesn't really take the reality of their situation into consideration. If we were to pretend nuking Japan to keep us from having to invade was the only reason, it would have been good enough for me. I don't think you understand just how many people would have died in that campaign. Do you really believe civilians wouldn't have died if we leveled every city in Japan? Do you think casualties would have been far lower if we had two armies waging war in populated areas, firing artillery shells at each other? It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Dzamija]

A single nuke obviously wasn't enough, or they would have surrendered immediately. It also let everyone know we weren't a one trick pony only able to use our trump card but one time. Your view of the event is far too clouded and doesn't really take the reality of their situation into consideration. If we were to pretend nuking Japan to keep us from having to invade was the only reason, it would have been good enough for me. I don't think you understand just how many people would have died in that campaign. Do you really believe civilians wouldn't have died if we leveled every city in Japan? Do you think casualties would have been far lower if we had two armies waging war in populated areas, firing artillery shells at each other? It just doesn't make sense to me.

I think it wouldn't have been neccessary. Given more time, Japan would have probably surrendered. Yet you gave them 3 days.

But I understand why America acted like it did. I never said I didn't. Hell, given the same conditions, I'd probably do the same. But I would've lived to regret it.

 

[Zeonix]

3 days. It took them 3 days to give up after experiencing the most destructive man-made force ever witnessed on planet Earth. Now imagine having to fight a country with that kind of resolve in a conventional war. Chances are they didn't even believe we had a second bomb, and were hoping to mount some kind of counter-offensive, which would surely be before we could create another such bomb.

I don't envy the person who has to make those kinds of decisions.

 

[Dzamija]

Look at it this way. They didn't know for sure you had another bomb, but they weren't 100% sure you didn't either. If they were planning a counter-offensive, no doubt a part of it would be an infiltration to try to find out if there are more nuclear bombs, and if there were any found, disabling them. And there was more than one location of such bombs, I think. They certainly weren't all grouped together in one place, and the Japanese knew that. Therefore, even if they WERE to find another and disable it, they'd know that there's a big possilibity that there is another one somewhere out there. Taking these facts into consideration, I think they would've given up.

On the other hand, there were more ways to show them that you don't have just one trump card. I'm sure you're familiar with Russia's Tsar Bomba, which they tested out without harming a single person. The US could've done something similar. Merely SHOWING them that you have more than one, and that they're all aimed at them, would make them surrender without baring so many casualties.

 

[Zeonix]

I...don't know how to explain it any more clearly. Japan was only one facet of the decision to use the nuke. If we only had one nuke, why would they have to surrender? We'd be on even terms again.

"Japan's leaders had always envisioned a negotiated settlement to the war. Their pre-war planning expected a rapid expansion, consolidation, eventual conflict with the United States and then a settlement in which they were able to retain at least some of the new territory they had conquered.

There were two camps: the so-called "peace" camp, which favored a diplomatic initiative to persuade Joseph Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union, to mediate a settlement between the US, its allies and Japan; and the hard liners, who favored fighting one last "decisive" battle that would inflict so many casualties on the U.S. that they would be willing to offer more lenient terms."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

After all of the atrocities they committed, they wanted to keep at least part of what they stole, and we said **** that.

Why didn't we test nukes in the desert? We did. However, it's hard to have a secret weapon if you're showing everyone what that weapon is and what it is capable of.

All of that said, you're still forgetting about the Russian half of the equation.

 

[Dzamija]

Why didn't we test nukes in the desert? We did. However, it's hard to have a secret weapon if you're showing everyone what that weapon is and what it is capable of.

All of that said, you're still forgetting about the Russian half of the equation.

Well it wasn't so secret after you nuked a town with it. That was my point. Those tests didn't need to be secret after you showed the whole world that you're capable of killing 150.000 people and utterly destroying a town with a single bomb.

And Japan wouldn't be the only one aware that America was loaded on nukes. I'm pretty sure Russia would've been aware of the same in that situation.

 

[Zeonix]

It was used because it was no longer intended to be a secret. People were supposed to know what this weapon was capable of in a true-to-life situation, and Nagasaki and Hiroshima fit the bill. Take out our enemy, test the weaponry, show the Russians we aren't screwing around and halt their advance. We only had the two bombs. Had we detonated them both in the desert, Japan could have easily said, "Can we see that just one more time?" and we would've been **** outta luck. You could say we should have lied, but then we're right back where we started, where Japan thinks we just used up our trump card and now they can do whatever they like. Except this time we can't back up our words, and now we're back to a ground invasion, killing millions.

Seriously, if using the actual bomb in their country didn't make them surrender, why would blowing up sand make them surrender?

 

[DaRkOwNs]

And Japan wouldn't be the only one aware that America was loaded on nukes. I'm pretty sure Russia would've been aware of the same in that situation.

i may be mistaken but i thought that was one of the major points in dropping the bomb. that bomb was dropped to stop the war. not to kill people.

the tests were secret because we, ourselves, didnt know what it was capable of. the mass speculation in the government was that it would start a chain reaction and destroy the planet.

 

[Zeonix]

the tests were secret because we, ourselves, didnt know what it was capable of. the mass speculation in the government was that it would start a chain reaction and destroy the planet.

And they did it anyway?

:laff:

 

[Chakra-X]

that they were responsible for the war.

How can you say "The Civil War," I'm assuming you mean the US civil war, wasnt justified. They freed slaves, and united the country again.

Yeah war can be justified, it just depends on your frame of reference.

Among the causes of the war, were the North trying to get the South to end slavery and the South wanting to secede. The South started the war, so the war's intention was to divide the country and maintain slaver (among others).

 

[Zeonix]

The North had quite a few slaves, but because the country's industrial centers were up North, getting rid of slaves wouldn't hit them nearly as hard as the mostly agricultural South. I'd say the North instigated the war, and the South fired the first shot. As Abraham Lincoln said, if he could have reunited the country without freeing the slaves, he would have.

 

[Chakra-X]

I'd say the North instigated the war, and the South fired the first shot. As Abraham Lincoln said, if he could have reunited the country without freeing the slaves, he would have.

That's how I thought the Civil War pretty much start. The North basically pissing off the South, but I find it almost ridiculous that they resorted to trying to break up the country. That is one of the wars I believe could have been avoided. And I find it mind boggling that that war was America's bloodiest.

 

[Zeonix]

Well, if someone were to make you entire way of life obsolete, and you had absolutely no way to provide for your family and the people doing all of this to you didn't seem to care, you might be a little pissed. Neither side was willing to compromise, and so the South did what they felt was the best course of action, and what was their constitutional right: secede. I don't think most people realize it, but Abraham Lincoln was the GWB of his day. He basically took a **** all over the constitution in order do whatever deemed necessary accomplish his goals.

Could it have been avoided? Possibly, but I think we're better off because of it.

 

[J-Dude]

Well, if someone were to make you entire way of life obsolete, and you had absolutely no way to provide for your family and the people doing all of this to you didn't seem to care, you might be a little pissed. Neither side was willing to compromise, and so the South did what they felt was the best course of action, and what was their constitutional right: secede. I don't think most people realize it, but Abraham Lincoln was the GWB of his day. He basically took a **** all over the constitution in order do whatever deemed necessary accomplish his goals.

Could it have been avoided? Possibly, but I think we're better off because of it.

Well, big difference is that Bush isn't credited with the freedom of an enslaved people (unless you count Iraq, but the waters are a bit too murky to celebrate anything) and I think Lincoln was rather intelligent...Not saying Bush is an idiot, but the guy doesn't help himself by screwing up words in his speeches.

 

[Zeonix]

And he had to crap on the constitution to do it. He didn't give a hoot (teehee) about the slaves. Freeing them was simply a means to an end.

In the end, both GWB and Lincoln got exactly what they wanted, though, so kudos to them.

 

[Killface]

That's not it. It's a different kind of bomb, the waste is much 'weaker' so to speak, otherwise I'd be growing a third arm right now. But that's beside the point. The point was that using nuclear bombs was just too much. Not only did they completely destroy two cities and killed thousands of people, they also caused major pollution. Something that'll come back to haunt all of us.

Using bombs encased with radioactive material doesn't justify not using Nuclear weapons. I find it kind of wierd that your saying "The nukes were terrible, they produced tons of radioactive waste that will come to haunt us" then you suggest using radioactive bombs instead of nuclear weapons.

Either way, im all with Zeo on this one... the man knows what hes talking about more than i do.

Also, why TWICE? Even the first bomb did nearly irreversable damage. Was it completely neccessary to nuke Nagasaki as well?

If at first you don't succeed.... try again.