The atomic bomb on Japan world war 2/justified or/not justified?

kj,

Thank you so much for your perspective as I for one, gained from it. BUT, as always, and I will continue to state as long as I am alive, WE ARE NOT ANIMALS. That term should, as it relates to the "HUMAN BEING", should be stricken from our vocablulary, in all manners, shapes and functions. War is ANIMALISTIC!!! No doubt, and as long as we justify "that" as being the "animal in us" it will continue to exist and we will continue to justify atrocities until there is nothing left to justify any longer as the arena of conflict spreads like a virus and we no longer have a place to live.

William

Sorry Will but are you saying we should not justify our defence?You will have to make it clearer.

Respectfully William animals are not capable of the depravity we see inflicted by humans on each other , animals don't go to war all they do is try to survive

War is not animalistic it is "MONSTROUS" only humans are capably of that

justification ofNowar over understanding and cooperation. It is the rationalizaton and the . For every action there is an opposite but equal reaction and we don't learn from that as we first fought with fists, to clubs, to knives, to guns to bombs and now to wmd's. When will we ever truly learn. How bad does the arena have to get??????????????????????

william

---------- Post added at 10:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 AM ----------



Thank you, Alan. You are right. You threaten that "animal's" existence and he will go to war with you. We are more intelligent than the animal and "should" know better. We are hard headed and it will be our demise is we don't get our heads out of the sand and begin to cooperate and communicate so all can live in peace and harmony. It is the law of the universe and it will not put up with our "antics" much longer as it will put our lights out as it has done before and will continue to do until we finally get on the right track.

Thaniks again,
William

Xris, No. It's too late for that. What's done is done. What I am saying, had we not been so competitive, greedy, controlling, damanding, devious, afraid, defensive on both sides of the equation, we would have never had to develop an Atomic Bomb. Are we learning from our past or we doomed to repeat it. There is no such thing as a WORLD POWER. Enough ants can bring down an elephant. That's my point. War never has and never will be an answer to anything expecially now considering the immense collateral damage it will cause. What good is a war if there is no place to live. To the victor go the ruins. I hope this gives you the clarity you need.

William

As far as I can gather from the below links, Japan was defeated proir to the bombings.

Was Hiroshima Necessary?
Was the Atomic Bomb Necessary?
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Information from Answers.com
Debating the American Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb

From the above articles, I conclude "NO".

William

Lets not play politics Will,i have endevoured to obtain an answer on the value of defending yourself.Lets ask the question,is any effort to kill your enemy acceptable in defence.Im not asking for particular venues just the principle.thanks xris.

I gave you that answer. If you know otherwise, please be my guest. The question is did we have to drop the bomb and from what I have gathered, I say no. If you don't like that answer, then let's just agree to disagree.

William

PS: I wasn't there and to know anything involves research on my part and I have to look at both sides and come to a conclusion. Now if you have something else I can research, then feel free to offer it. My conclusion is not etched in stone.

Will im not making more of it than you led me to.You initial claimed that we should not justify our actions in war.From that i presumed you did not agree with reating to agression,as if we do react, we need to justify that action or it is a violent act for no reason. xris

Oh, there was a reason, just as there was a reason Kennedy was shot. When we are engaged in the bloody atrocities of war we have to justify them or we go mad. No one can handle that much blood on their hands. We have to rationalize it and in doing so we sanctify it, so to speak. In doing that we will set the stage for another one. It's that simple. Communicaton and cooperation is the answer. Ego's are a *^#($@ to deal with. Had we offered a "conditional surrender" rather than an unconditonal one, thousands of lives could have been saved and we could have proceded from there. IMO.

William

---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:10 PM ----------

Frankly, I would like to know what got them so riled in the first place. Perhaps the answer is there?

William

Into the month of July, the leaders of the imperial armed forces clung to the idea that as Allied lines of supply and communication lengthened, their own forces would do better on the homeland battlefields. But by this time Japan had virtually no oil, its cities were in ruins and its navy and naval air capability virtually non-existent. It is unclear at what point Hirohito abandoned the illusion that his armed forces remained capable of delivering at least one devastating blow to the enemy so that his diplomats could negotiate a surrender on face saving terms. But six months of intensive U.S. terror bombing of the Japanese civilian population had forced him, the Court group, and the government to take into account not only their huge losses of men and materials, but also food shortages and the growing war-weariness of the Japanese people. How could they lead and preserve their system of rule after peace returned?

That question weighed on their minds when the Potsdam Declaration arrived (July 27-28), calling on them to surrender unconditionally or face immediate destruction. Yet they rejected the four-power ultimatum, feeling as former prime minister and navy "moderate," Admiral Yonai Mitsumasa, said to his secretary on July 28, "There is no need to rush."

Domestic political considerations drove Japan's decision-makers. Ultimately, what mattered most was where each of them, and the institutions they represented, stood as a result of an unconditional surrender.

Hirohito, counting on the success of the Foreign Ministry's peace overtures to Moscow, resisted facing reality and never acted resolutely. But many months after their surrender, Hirohito, Kido, and Foreign Minister Togo Shigenori placed all blame on the military and claimed that they had been forced to reject the Potsdam terms because they feared precipitating a military coup d'etat which would have threatened their lives and brought about a worse situation than the one they confronted. They were clearly dissembling. What they had really feared was the destruction of their entire framework for rule.

After the Suzuki government rejected Potsdam, Hirohito waited to hear from Stalin, worried about defending the tokens of his legitimacy -- the three "imperial regalia" -- and lost the chance to end the war before the Soviets entered it. But some cabinet ministers and members of a cabinet advisory committee, composed largely of the leaders of big business, revisited the Potsdam Declaration, arguing that it had been a mistake to postpone acceptance of its terms. Prime Minister Suzuki, however, ignored their advice because the emperor and the army were not on board. By July, sixty-four Japanese cities had been largely or partially destroyed by conventional bombs and millions of pounds of incendiaries. There was little left to be destroyed: the crisis abroad and at home had merged.

Oh, there was a reason, just as there was a reason Kennedy was shot. When we are engaged in the bloody atrocities of war we have to justify them or we go mad. No one can handle that much blood on their hands. We have to rationalize it and in doing so we sanctify it, so to speak. In doing that we will set the stage for another one. It's that simple. Communicaton and cooperation is the answer. Ego's are a *^#($@ to deal with. Had we offered a "conditional surrender" rather than an unconditonal one, thousands of lives could have been saved and we could have proceded from there. IMO.

William

---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:10 PM ----------

Frankly, I would like to know what got them so riled in the first place. Perhaps the answer is there?

William

William the men i worked with after ww2 who had suffered under the japanese would have killed ever last japanese with their bare hands given the opportunity.We can not question men's motives when we have not experienced their pain.

That's why they say "war is hell". It truly is. It is always the end resuts of "power plays" in which one wishes to control another. World War II was the epitome of such antics. When anyone, whether it be an individual or nation, feels threatened they will either retaliate or be subdued. Was Japans act one of power, or retaliation to the pressure power imposed for it's own selfish purposes? For at the core of all power is selfishness. In lieu of power's imposing nature, most would rather be left alone and not fall under it's influence. But power is strong and it has way of controlling that which an individual or nation needs for their livelihood in which case those so oppressed will resort to those last resorts in an effort to maintain that livelihood to survive at the risk of losing it all for if they are subdued they indeed lose it all and become slaves. IMO, it is my conclusion that both Germany and Japan felt that power, overt and covert, infuence and were retaliating to maintain that ethnic purity that is so much a part of what made them Germans and Japanese and they retaliated resulting in the bloodiest event ever witness by mankind.

Once we finally understand that that the nature of all anger stems from one's attempt to control another and start cooperating with each other will we subdue that anger or it will happen again. It all boils down to death or slavery so eloquently, yet misconstrued, voice of Patrick Henry: "Give me liberty, or give me death" Talk about last resorts. Hmmm?

William

......we where fighting for our survival, for civilisation.

xris, so were they.

William

Well you've lost me Will,how were they? Their purpose for war was survival for civilisation?Their intentions was world domination and their means was by evil uncompromising war.

In all due respect, what you espouse is the popular consensus manifested by the victors, it just so happens I don't believe it. It is my belief after an enormous amount of research, I conclude both Germany and Japan were retaliating from being threatened to the degree that would destroy that which represented the purity of who they were and what they believed. I thought I was quite clear on that. You're reasoning does "wash" the consciousness at bit though justifying what we did in our retaliation. I have come to the conclusion neither Japan nor Germany threw the first stone. I will leave it at that, for now. :surrender:

william