LenexatoKCMO wrote:
I guess my overall point here is that there are two sides of the coin and lots of evidence and supposition to support both positions. I wouldn't say that I am 100% convinced it was the wrong decision, but I also would also say it is a mistake for our nation to blindly continue under the mantra that it was obviously the only acceptable decision. There was clearly a nationalistic effort to attempt to obliterate any second guessing of the decision for decades and that alone is enough to raise suspicions. It was one of the most significant decisions in the history of our country and Japan, so I feel it would be a tremendous mistake not to coninue applying critical analysis.
Things such as the bombing of Hiroshima will debated for years. I have read 3 books alone that deal primarily with the justification, or lack of it, of bombing Dresden (which was really a shame as it is really a beautiful city...even today). Hiroshima was an agonizing decision and I do not mean to make light of it but a lot of options were considered, such as a demonstration drop for the benefit of the Japanese. In the end, the least risky course of action was to drop the bomb on a city. The Japanese actually could have ended the war at any point had they wanted to but they had to unconditional surrender which they were apparently unwilling to do. They may have been ready to sue of for peace but the allies were not ready to accept anything less than unconditional surrender, that requirement had been set and agreed upon by all allies long before the war wound down to its final days.
I have argued in the past that it was the requirement of unconditional surrender that really should be debated rather than the events in either theater that led up to the end of the war . Having said that, it was anethema in 1945 to think that after all the suffering that we could really have left the Nazi's or the japanese milatary junta in power.
Highlander wrote:
the allies were not ready to accept anything less than unconditional surrender, that requirement had been set and agreed upon by all allies long before the war wound down to its final days.
I have argued in the past that it was the requirement of unconditional surrender that really should be debated rather than the events in either theater that led up to the end of the war . Having said that, it was anethema in 1945 to think that after all the suffering that we could really have left the Nazi's or the japanese milatary junta in power.
The requirement may have been agreed to but it was ultimately ignored anyway - so once again, its not ultimately a good justification for mass killing of civilians instead of negotated settlement.
Whoever said "war is hell" got it right. Even Sherman's march to the sea raised eyebrows in the Civil War and given man's war capacity at that time one might equate that to an a-bomb.
People make decisons all of the time based upon the information they had at the time of the decision. And afterwards they should be entitled to review that decision based upon new information, even the information that comes to light as to the consequences of that decision.
Those that seem to object to the use of the atomic bomb appear to use information that only supports their viewpoint. Yes, those that seem to support the usage appear to use only that information that supports their view. But, like instant replay, there has conclusive evidence to reverse the on-field decision and I fail to see enough on that type of evidence to reverse the call. If Japan was willing to surrender why did it not after the first bomb. Even after the second one it took a few days for the surrender so evidently Japan was not at the point of surrender at the time of the first bomb.
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
