why the americans dropped the bomb on japan??

One thing you have to remember is that many Japanese soldiers didn't agree with what the country was asking them to do, but if they failed to obey, they would have been killed. There is an interesting comment made by a Japanese doctor who was involved in amputations of civilians etc. He knew it was wrong and it still haunts him to this day (he is now in his 80s), but he would have been killed if he had refused. You can find this article on the BBC website.
Very much like how Hitler managed to get so many people to join the Nazi regime.
Personally, I think it was wrong to bomb Hiroshima and Nagsaki. Yes, they bombed Pearl Harbour, but 2 wrongs don't make a right.

 

because it saved a long war with japan and lots of american casualties and by dropping the bombs we didnt have to have russia involved with the war in the pacific, if the soviets were involved they would have been involved in determining the treaties afterwards and what not and we didnt want communism to spread anymore

also our president told the emperor of japan that something devastating was going to happen if he did not surrender by some deadline (i forget when) and he arrogantly refused, and it cost tens of thousands of lives before he finally did

 

I lament the loss of life like all of you do. But when you look at the tough choices war puts on a nation and its leaders, I think that we did the right thing. It would be most wonderful if we didnt have a need even for a bullet much less a nuclear weapon. But thats not the reality of it. Japan should have read the writing on the wall as Germany and the other parts of the Axis fell and swallowed their pride and surrendered. Its all too bad. Now we have yet to do as a nation hardly anything to send out messages to the world that while what we did was necessary, we want to work towards a future where these horrible weapons are not needed. We are fueling a conventional and nuclear arms race in the world, with our blind support of Israel, and to the military industrial complex. Its time to start spending money on the social good, and not the agenda of a wealthy few.

 

Plus it was learned after the bomb's dropped that they were soon going to kill all American POW's, also they were devising biological balloon bombs that floated across pacific via trade winds, one actually killed a few people in washington. Plus Japan were rutheless to the chinese, read the rape of nanking, they would fight until the bitter end those tuff bastards. Something drastic had to happen quick.

 

Yeah, and bombs were being distributed to Japanese Civilians so they could jump under tanks just like little kamikazes.

And about the people who were killed by the balloon bombs. There were over 5,000 launched with 300 being found in the US. The 6 people who died were at a church picnic in Oregon looking at a crashed balloon when it exploded.

And on a different note, the Japanese definatly planned on prolonging the war. They even had seaplanes mounted on submarines which they were sending to bomb the Panama canal to delay troops being shipped over from Europe.

 

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were military targets. Why should we feel sorry for bombing the city that was responsible for the defense of the entire southern portion of japan?

It would be like Americans complaining that norfolk got attacked. It's silly...


Also, it led to the COMPLETE defeat of Japan. We were able to come in and turn Japan into a democracy and give women the right to vote.

Additionally, We asked them NUMEROUS times to surrender unconditionally. They didn't. The blame for Hiroshima/Nagasaki is on the Japanese, NOT America.

 

i wonder if the japanese at the very outset wondered exactly what the end result of their actions would be, i mean did they see themselves at the head of a massive south east asian empire, wouldn't these people be grateful that japan had had the foresight and wisdom to know that attacking their country was the best thing to do?

with the biological weapons they were creating did they ever see themselves as ever being the lab rat? remember america wasn't really sure what was going to happen population wise, how would the body deal with a nuclear blast?

 

Its a good job the US army declared war on them first as your dad would have been surrounded quite quickly. What did he just get fed up of the japanese and decided to invade japan by himself but then they dropped the bombs and the USA declared war so he joined up with them or sumthink?

I think that most of them were thinking, 'fucking hell I wonder if I will die in this war' I know I would think that

 

I think you misread Johnny2Mad's statement. When he says D-Day he means the d-day everyone thinks is THE D-Day(June 6th, 1944). So what he meant was that his dad took part in the normandy invasion, was shipped to the pacific, and was to be part of the invasion force that was assembling.

 

While the nuclear bombings are horrible events and it's a shame they had to happen, the fact is that they did have to happen. The amount of both American, Japanese, Soviet and Chinese lifes it would've taken. Japan was no where near surrender before the atom bombs, a good deal of the military government had no interest in surrender at all, and emperor Hirihito himself who was becomming pretty open to idea was still hoping for one more Japanese victory to get more favorable peace terms. Even after we dropped 2 atomic bombs on them, there was an attempted military coup to block the emperor's radio message urging surrender.

I'd say the conventional firebombing of Dresden was more of a crime then the dropping of the atom bomb.

 

you are correct .

 

Believe me, the Germans got their revenge for Dresden...they bombed Exeter, I'm surprised they didn't go for York, as that's a very historical city too.

 

The arguments FOR dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are unavoidable...the Japanese had to be stopped, they were headed for a major bloodbath, something had to be done...

I have always wondered, however, why the USA could not have dropped first an atomic bomb in the bay, let everyone see it from the harbor. Give them 24 hours and then drop another one a few miles offshore another city. Do you see these bombs, motherfuckers? You will quit NOW or get one up your ass.

Now from what we know today about radiactivity, there still would have been disastrous consequences, but nothing like what did actually happen. If that had not been enough to bring the Japanese leadership to sanity, then the cities would have to be bombed, but why did not the USA try this option? It would seem that the sight of the bomb exploding over the ocean would be as impressive as over a city.

Hopefully what such events as these A-bombings of Japan as well as the firebombing of Dresden have taught the world is that even if you must be in a war, try like hell to avoid the "collateral damage"...don't let the urgency of war overcome your ethics. We see now governments at least pretending to be concerned about this. Since the days of massive civilian deaths in Vietnam and Afghanistan there have at least been protestations of caring from at least the Western nations, when at war.

When lunatics in the nation in question incite by some madness the attack by greater powers, then we can blame them. When the great powers in their zeal to win cease to be vigilant about collateral damage, then they are to blame.

For some reason the information about the Japanese Empire has been less well disseminated than about Nazi Germany. There is less popular knowledge regarding the incredible history of atrocities which predated by decades the attack on Pearl Harbor and in many respects paralleled what was being accomplished by the Nazis after 1932.

The USA was fighting a war of self-defense in WW2. How different from today's situation of convenient wars based on lies and connivance. Reagan gave Saddam the gas to use on the Persians but he used it on Kurds instead. You don't find this level of low dealing on the part of the USA with Japan leading up to WW2, however much we might legitimately criticize the USA's complicity with European imperialism in Asia.

 

A bomb on a japanese city didn't force a surrender. It took two cities being destroyed. Why would the harbor being bombed do any better?

p.s. reagan didnt give sadddam any gas to kill the kurds. Check again.

 

if the US didn't drop the atomic bombs on nagasaki and hiroshima, they just would have firebombed them instead... So why would they waste two perfectly functioning weapons on scare tactics when they had targets that needed destroying???

 

The Reagan Administration gave Saddam the gas to kill Iranians during the war. Saddam used it on Iranian soldiers, but also on Kurdish towns.

 

Yes and no, yes we did but what we gave was the agents to make biological weapons, but European nations gave much more. Chemical weapons wise the blame rests almost all with Europe and Asia, our major crime was supplying Iraq with the intelligence on where to use them.

 

saddam didn't do anything without asking the americans

before he invaded kuwait he asked the americans if it was ok to invade
(they said they had no opinion, which was the green light for invasion)

 

There was no green light for the invasion. I am assuming you are making this claim in regards to Ambassador Glaspie's July 25, 1990 meeting with Saddam Hussein and Tariq Aziz? If so, it should be noted that the State Department has not confirmed the accuracy of any transcripts from this meeting. There are several versions of these transcripts circulating, with some variance. The argument in the purported transcripts is the statement that Glaspie made in regards to the United States not having an opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts. (No opinion , after the US provided Iraq with intelligence on Iranian military installations)

Some have claimed that Saddam interpreted Glaspie's comments as a "green light". How somebody can speculate what Saddam interpreted is beyond me.

It should also be noted that in April 1991, Glaspie testified before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate. She said that at the July 25 meeting she had "repeatedly warned Iraqi President Saddam Hussein against using force to settle his dispute with Kuwait." She also said that Saddam had lied to her by denying he would invade Kuwait.

 

this is one source i'm sure there are many more

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html

do you think saddam would have thumbed his nose at america and invaded if the states had told saddam they would back up kuwait to the hilt if saddam invaded?

logically one would conclude saddam would never have invaded if america had said no.
as it is, it is america that does most of the invading these days or their various satellite states. its the shame the soviets aren't around to put the americans back in their box.