Property price crash if Tories win

[Andy Hunt]

but does not detract from the general principle that killing people is wrong.

Agreed. But that didn't bother the Japanese in China, or at Pearl Harbour, or in the prisoner camps.

Nope - and nobody is trying to pretend that we are in any way better than that ourselves, are they.

After all, it was the British who invented concentration camps in the first place, in South Africa during the Boer War.

We've always been pretty good at genocide, too.

And of course it's no fun dropping a nuke in the tundra to demonstrate its power - you need the real horror of what it does to living flesh and blood to really drive the message home.

[Aurora]

.

Also, we needed to test the technologies out.

This statement makes me feel sick.

Good job we had those Jap civilians to test them out on eh? After all, their lives were worth much less than Europeans or Americans.

It probably saved millions of Japanese lives as well. If the Americans had had to fight their way through Japan, city by city, to force a surrender, which would have been the alternative to using the bombs, many more Japanese, both military and civilians, would have died. It took not just one bomb, but two, to shock the Japanese profoundly enough to make them surrender. That was Japanese culture.

Correct me if I'm wrong but modern historians tend to agree that the Japanese were about to surrender anyway.

To use nuclear weapons on the Japanese public was both barbaric and probably unnecessary given the latest knowledge available.

[JonB]

Correct me if I'm wrong but modern historians tend to agree that the Japanese were about to surrender anyway.

To use nuclear weapons on the Japanese public was both barbaric and probably unnecessary given the latest knowledge available.

OK, you're wrong.
Even with the nukes they still held out and managed to keep their emperor (not an unconditional surrender, therefore)
They had plans for human landmines on landing beaches and dispersed troops fighting to the last man. The RAF was planning on moving a good chunk of our lancs to join the USAAF to bomb in preparation for landings. The US lost thousands of men taking Okinawa, and there were serious concerns that there would not be enough troops to take Japan and maintain the occupation of Germany.
The Russians also declared war on Japan just before and that still didn't shift things.

You then have the political situation where Truman had been in office for days, had not been informed of Manhattan and had to make the decision.
They did not know what we know now about radiation's full effects.
Given that conventional carpet bombing of Tokyo had killed 100,000 (similar death toll), and had no apparent effect on Japan surrendering, the logic of using the bomb was unavoidable.

That both the Japanese and Nazis had abandoned any pretence of adherence to Geneva conventions and had mass targeted civilians, the only aim you could expect of the Allied leadership was to end the war as quickly as possible. Which is what they did.

You also have to bear in mind the public mood. They had just been told that the people who they had been fighting had also built death camps, the burma railroad with the deaths of thousands, civilian prisoners were "confort women" etc. Are you seriously suggesting that they should have lost more sons when there were the means to stop the war?

Both my neighbours served in the last war. My dad lost relatives on the burma railroad. I'd suggest you have a long conversation with the people who served and find out about what they endured and lost before making judgements.

War is barbaric. Full stop.

[Aurora]

Bomber Harris would be proud of you. The history of the war in Asia as seen through the eyes of the victorious.

History, my friend, is always written by the winners.

The West were also responsible for many unspeakable atrocities.

[Totally_Baffled]

I find the argument reference the use of the bomb on Japan quite bizarre.

If the same amout of people were killed with conventional weapons, thats ok.

But because the bomb(s) were nuclear - then suddenly its an outrage.

Given the situation I would of pushed the button.

Invading Japan would of been a nightmare given the experience on the pacific islands.

Killing is very wrong - but when its down to them or you, its them everytime!!

One other thing about nukes, they have arguably stopped the big boys coming to blows since WWII (due to MAD) so if that means having them in the world then so be it.

[biffvernon]

History tends to be written by the victor.

[Filter Feeder]

Japs were looking for an exit strategy as early as 1944

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

General Curtis LeMay, who had pioneered precision bombing of Germany and Japan (and who later headed the Strategic Air Command and served as Air Force chief of staff), put it most succinctly: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war."