Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Really Necessarry?

by frankiespeakin 71 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  frankiespeakin

  Link and clip:

  http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm

  HIROSHIMA:

  WAS IT NECESSARY? Part 1 of 2

  By Doug Long

  This article is copyright © 1995-2000 Doug Long. This work may be copied for non-profit use if proper credit is given to the author.

  __________________________________________________________________________________________________

  In August of 1945 nuclear weapons were exploded upon the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. Following these atomic bombings, Japan surrendered. But were the atomic bombings necessary to save Allied lives and end Japan's threat to world peace while avoiding a deadly invasion of the Japanese mainland? The following account summarizes the events that led to Japan's surrender in World War II and then considers other means of achieving Japan's surrender. The second half of this article, which also includes the bibliography, can be found in Part 2.

  For some who are accustomed to the popular beliefs about this matter, this study may be discomforting, although that is not its intent. But if we learn from past occurrences, it may make our future decision-making abilities more capable of saving the lives of our soldiers and sailors and of people on all sides.

  The Tide Turns

  As the war with Germany drew closer to the end, the Allies waged an increasingly effective war against Japan. After the fall of the Mariana Islands, including Saipan, to the U.S. in July of 1944, the impending defeat of Japan became increasingly apparent to many Allied and Japanese leaders.

  The Marianas had been a key area within Japan's defense perimeter; now Japan would be within range of bombing runs from Pacific Ocean locations that were superior to the China bases that had been used for bombing missions (Akira Iriye, Power and Culture: The Japanese-American War, 1941-1945, pg. 174; Michael Sherry, The Rise of American Air Power, pg. 176).
• 

  moshe

  Necessary? It depends on who is doing the survey. The atomic bombing of Japan was more likely the result of a chain reaction of circumstances initiated by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor- AKA- it was fated. We have a President who is going to see the culmination of the chain reaction he started in Iraq soon. It won't be pleasant for us in America, I'm afraid.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Moshe,

  Necessary? It depends on who is doing the survey. The atomic bombing of Japan was more likely the result of a chain reaction of circumstances initiated by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor- AKA- it was fated.

  You're probably right. It seems the military, the president, the americans, all wanted to get revenge for pearl harbor. And so negotiations were such that made surrender imposibble for the Japanese, that way everyone could get revenge.

  What is even more pussling is the fact that no official warning was given before the bombing with only a few days between the first bomb and the dropping of the second. Clearly they should have waited more time before dropping the second.

  In a June 18, 1945 meeting with Truman and his military advisors, Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy argued that Japan should be permitted to retain the Emperor and should be given a warning of the atomic bomb in order to bring an earlier and less deadly surrender (Walter Millis, ed., The Forrestal Diaries, pg. 70-71; Len Giovannitti and Fred Freed, The Decision To Drop the Bomb, pg. 134-136).
• 

  Gerard

  Who would have stoped them?

  You?

  The JWs?
• 

  jayhawk1

  Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Really Necessarry?

  Unfortunately, yes it was. It brought a swift end to a very bloody war.
• 

  stillajwexelder

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/29/84700/1393285/post.ashx#1393285
• 

  Warlock

  I had 5 uncles in WWII. 2 of them fought hand to hand against Japanese soldiers in the South Pacific.

  I worked with many WWII vets when I got my first job at 18 years of age, one of them having been demoted by General George S. Patton, and later fought hand to hand against Japanese soldiers in the South Pacific, like my uncles.

  This question is insulting, to say the least. What a B.S. question.

  Warlock
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Warlock,

  So because you had 5 uncles fight in ww2 and 2 with the japanese you get insulted because I ask was it necessarry to atomic bomb innocent civilians? Why would you get insulted?Is it because patriotism?
• 

  funkyderek

  Warlock:

  This question is insulting, to say the least. What a B.S. question.

  I don't understand your feelings here. It seems like a fairly reasonable question. Could the war have been ended more expediently without the deaths of over 200,000 civilians and the irradiation of large areas of land? Perhaps, on examination, the answer would be obivous, but I fail to see what's insulting about asking the question. You don't even say which answer you would give. Perhaps when your uncles fought the Japanese they found them to be such good and honourable people that the idea of vapourising quarter of a million of them is completely abhorrent to you. Or perhaps their experiences caused you to view the Japanese as subhuman so that the horrific loss of all those lives means very little to you. But you don't say. It might be more productive to give your opinion and your reasons, rather than just expressing your outrage.
• 

  yesidid

  This question is insulting, to say the least. What a B.S. question.

  I absolutely agree.

  It is insulting to the innocent Japanese victims, who are still paying, to the third generation.