Ask Yourself, Would I Have Dropped Those Bombs?
@KuznVinny (768)
United States
March 30, 2016 12:56pm CST
Sometimes we can get caught up in a discussion as to whether it was appropriate to drop atomic bombs during WW2. Was the war shortened as a result of those bombs being dropped? Was the killing of all those innocents justified because of it?
Many of us will say, No! But some will says, Yes! Now let me ask, if you were in the position to grant permission to drop those two A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing not only males, but women and little children as well, would you have given the "thumbs up?"
4 people like this
4 responses
@FourWalls (86575)
• United States
30 Mar 16
Yes. In a heartbeat.
The question is a little simplified here. It makes no mention of the fact that we weren't the only nation developing nuclear weapons (in fact, depending on who you believe, Hitler was dangerously close to having The Bomb when the Allies took Berlin). The question, then, isn't just "killing those innocent civilians," but rather, "what's going to happen to our innocent civilians if they use a bomb on us?" Imperial Japan showed it had no consideration for murdering "innocent" people (a term I despise -- the only "crime" the 2,400 sailors, Marines, and soldiers killed at Pearl Harbor committed was being in the military) when they slaughtered over 300,000 Chinese civilians during the Sino-Japanaese war prior to WWII.
How many people did the dropping of The Bomb save? We thankfully don't know. But remember, the second bomb was dropped because Japan vowed to continue to fight until the last man after the first one was dropped.
1 person likes this
@DWDavis (25797)
• United States
31 Mar 16
As I have mentioned before, while tens of thousands of lives were taken by each of the bombs, the most conservative estimates show that millions more lives, lives of Japanese men, women, and children, were saved because the Allies did not have to invade the home islands to bring the war to an end. Also, the estimated casualty counts of Allied soldiers numbered in the hundreds of thousands had the invasion taken place. So, yes, knowing that it would save many times the number of lives as it would take, I would have said yes to dropping the bombs.
@DWDavis (25797)
• United States
31 Mar 16
@KuznVinny In the final clause of my closing sentence I indicated that, "I would have said yes to dropping the bombs." By that I meant that, had I been in Truman's shoes, I would have ordered them used. I apologize for not making that clear. At the time Truman made his decision a successful test of an atomic bomb had already been conducted at the Trinity Site in New Mexico.
Japan was defiant after the first bomb destroyed Hiroshima, and only after the second bomb destroyed Nagasaki (the secondary target, Kokura was the initial target), and the threat of continued a-bombing, combined with a Soviet declaration of war against the Empire, did Japan surrender.
Often ignored in this debate are the effects of the fire bombing campaigns that preceded the atomic bomb attacks. While more planes and bombs were obviously involved, the fire bombing of Tokyo in March of 1945 killed as many civilians as the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. Was the use of this conventional method any more of less moral than using the atomic bomb?
@KuznVinny (768)
• United States
31 Mar 16
That's fine. I asked the opinion question. However, you didn't exactly answer what I intended. Would you, yourself, have ordered the dropping of those bombs? Truman did, despite general misgivings it was possible it could go out of "control" in a much larger chain reaction.
1 person likes this
@KuznVinny (768)
• United States
30 Mar 16
It can't be undone. But you, if you had been empowered, might have dropped the bomb? Or not?
@KuznVinny (768)
• United States
30 Mar 16
I'm not asking if you think they should have been dropped. Rather, I'm asking if YOU would have authorized the dropping? Would you, in essence, give the go-ahead, the authorization? If you were in the driver's seat?
