What was your reaction to Ground Zero 1945: A Schoolboy's Story? And, based on what we've read so far, do you think it was okay for the U.S to bomb Japan?
For me, personally, I read the BBC handout "Nuclear Power: The End of the war Against Japan" and was persuaded that using nuclear weapons was a good decision and that the loss of 140,00 people was not as bad compared to the estimated number of casualties for both sides had the U.S. invaded. But then, I read the story. The images and the simple storyline brought me close to tears. The illustrations depict the immediate destruction brought on by the bombs and the pain and terror inflicted on so many innocent people.
When I was reading Ground Zero 1945: A Schoolboy's Story, I like you, was practically in tears. I was feeling pretty depressed for a long time after reading it because of the vivid pictures and the overall feel of the story. After reading the story, I tried to put myself in that little boy's shoes and it was nearly imaginable to think about/picture that. Anyway, I think that it is kind of hard to tell whether it was necessary or not to bomb these two cities, mainly because I personally don't know much about the direct relationship between America and Japan during World War II. However, based off of the information that we read about, I would say that it was not entirely "morally right" to nuclear bomb two heavily populated cities in Japan. From the sounds of it, the people living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were completely innocent and lived normal lives. I also don't know if America had targeted these cities in particular, or if they just dropped it in random places. Based off of this, I also believe that America succeeded in getting their main point across. Japan surrendered and I believe that the USSR was quite intimidated (not sure!). However, according to the BBC article, Japanese historians said that they would have surrendered without the bombs and Truman purposefully "chose to ignore" them, further proving that the bombs were not completely necessary.
ReplyDeleteI think bombing Japan was entirely wrong and I was rather unconvinced by the pro-bombing article we read. First of all, it was confusing...there were so many conflicting viewpoints that I ended up distrusting everything it said! Second, it sounded to me like the author didn't really have his facts straight, and he couldn't prove for sure that the casualties of an invasion would outnumber the casualties of the bombing. Also, like the boy said in Ground Zero, Japan's attacks had been purely governmental decisions. So how does it make sense that the US should brutally destroy 2 million civilians?? They can't prove that it would save more lives in the long run! You also have to factor in the damage it did/will do to future generations. I think what the US did was horrible and uncalled for. A different solution would be to threaten Japan with bombs, and if they did not surrender unconditionally, then drop one in an unpopulated area so the US could show off their power without hurting anyone (kind of like they did to Nagasaki, but less damaging). Or, since I'm against nuclear warfare to begin with, why couldn't they attack Japanese government directly? Dropping bombs intended to cause as much death and damage as possible, mostly to innocent civilians, isn't good war strategy - its barbarism.
ReplyDeleteMy reaction to Ground Zero 1945: A Schoolboy's Story was the same as every other time I read and see pictures (illustrated and real) of Hiroshima and Nagasaki................ That is the most possible worst way to end a war. Killing civilians should never even be considered.
ReplyDeleteThis leads me to my opinion. Short answer: NO. Our country should have never used the nuke. I do not even think we thought that much damage would happen. Every country's recipes for disaster was drastically escalating at the time from simple invasion, to air raiding cities, to the eradication of Jews, and to the uncontrolled anger driven Soviet invasion of Germany. I think the US was only okay with the bombs because of the heightened stakes of war. YES, I do think the bombs did cause less casualties than an invasion would. Invading Japan would take until 1946 or 1947 with almost all the US military gone. In the defense of Truman's decision, Tojo was being a real idiot about the bombing. His stupid ultranationalistic attitude also blinded him from realizing the nuke was a real, credible threat. Even after it happened at Hiroshima, he even let the US drop the second one. HOWEVER, if you had the US government today with post Cold War sanctions and ways of life, I think we would not have even contemplated the idea. I have always thought to myself that the guy who invented the nuke probably thought, "What have I done?..." after seeing the nuclear arms race (still in existence, India recently got nukes) and Russia's huge goo goo eyes over seeing their longtime enemy's (Japan) cities in flames and their lust for nuclear power.
Overall, I am against the decision to use the nuke by the United States. However, I completely understand the decision process in 1945. Maybe they should have launched it in a very minimally populated area first? I really do not know.
WAAAAAAIT I FORGOT!! To defend the decision in 1945 even more (I still support no nukes), the Japan bombed our civilians first with zero warning at Pearl Harbor. We even warned them more than once.
DeleteWait, but Pearl Harbor was a naval base and Japan didn't use nuclear weapons whereas the U.S bombed two well populated cities. And, the casualties at pearl harbor were a lot less than the casualties in Japan. According to Wikipedia, 2,402 Americans were killed and 1,282 were wounded. In Japan, 150,000 to 246,000+ were killed.
DeleteLindsey, if the US really wanted to just kill people wouldn't they have attacked Tokyo? Plus, Japan also bombed Honolulu, a populated city, along with the naval base.
DeleteWell I am still against using the nuke, but I was just giving the US some support. If you would have asked me what to do in 1945, I would have been completely torn.
DeleteDo you think that the U.S decided to use nuclear weapons to end the war quickly against Japan because they were already exhausted from WWII and because as Nick said, attacks or "recipes for disaster" were escalating in destructiveness so quickly? Also, don't you think that the casualties of WWII may have also influenced the decision to launch the bombs? Would the nuclear weapons be acceptable if they targeted military forces instead of they two cities?
ReplyDeleteReading all the posts above, I wanted to comment/(dis)agree.
ReplyDeleteNicole: In regards to Japan's odds of surrendering, they said that in the 60's people thought that Japan was going to surrender without the bombs, but modern Japanese historians have proved that is untrue. Japan was a militaristic culture; just look at the samurai. They promised to fight to the death, no matter the odds. And the child in the story we read was going to a military school, like all the other children. I don't think that they would have surrendered, judging from their past and culture- and this idea is supported by the Japanese Historians.
Gabbi: The US SAVED 2 million by dropping the bombs. I doubt this changes your opinion, but I thought you should know.
Nick: I think you actually made a really good point about the civilians. When two armies met on the battle field to fight, the men know that they could die. But killing innocent civilians, who had no idea that they were going to be bombed, who had no time to prepare- there is no honor in that.
As for me well, I understand where everyone is coming from- the death and destruction was unacceptable. The horrors caused by the atomic bomb was unprecedented, and the repercussions are still being felt today.
And that perhaps is why I also understand the decision to use the bombs. Nothing like this had ever happened before, and no one knew what the repercussions would be. And they did save lives- potentially 2 million Japanese civilians. So even though many civilians were affected in the bomb, it is very likely that even more would have been hurt in an invasion. In addition, the US warned Japan; Japan "forced" the second bomb to be dropped. Finally, when the same number of people (around 200,000) were killed in a fire bombing of Tokyo, no one batted an eyelash. Why is using an atomic bomb different? (I'm not being rhetorical- I really want to know what you think)
All in all I think atomic bombs = bad but it made sense why the USA used them.
Paige, this is a great question. I think we make a big deal about it because its the first time a nuclear bomb has ever been used, and we're fascinated by nuclear bombs. Fire has been around forever, but the fact that we created something that can destroy all of mankind is horrifying. Hiroshima was the first (and hopefully only!) time we can see the results of nuclear warfare with our own eyes, and thats why it gets so much attention.
DeletePaige and Nick, I agree. Just in general I do not like nuclear bombs; I think that they completely change war and frankly are just unfair. I also agree with Nick's comment on civilians. As a soldier you know you could die and truly believe in what you are fighting for. As a civilian, you could just be going about your daily life and not even share your country's belief; you could be killed just for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
ReplyDeletePaige, I agree with everything you said about the decision to use the bomb. When the firebombing happened and the same amount of people were killed, no one talked about it nearly as much as the nuclear bombing. I guess because it was just so new and powerful. I also think that people were scared because the US was the only ones with a nuclear bomb.
Japan has a long history of war and fighting to the death. I do not think that they were going to surrender. While the bombing may have saved Japanese lives I do not think that that was what the US was worried about. I think that they were more happy that it ended the war and saved the US soldiers' lives. I know it is bad to value one person's life over another, but I mean they attacked us first to begin with and we warned them about the bombs! War in general is a violent and destructive time, but I can see that this was different than before because the damage wasn't equal at all. I understand the decision made, but I am against nuclear war to begin with so I guess I am against their decision.
I think this is one of the ultimate moral questions, is it right to prevent the potential deaths of millions by ensuring the deaths of thousands? Look at it from this perspective; Japan was never going to surrender, we know that for a fact, and the type of warfare the Japanese employed took a huge toll on our troops. Without the atom bomb, we would have had to launch an invasion of the main islands in order to defeat them. This would have resulted in the deaths of millions of Japanese civilians and soldiers as well as American G.I.s. No American general would ever deem this the optimal course of action. But say someone came to you and said we can prevent half, maybe even more than half the casualties we would have incurred (not to mention not one of our soldiers would die), by dropping this bomb on the Japanese. In this situation, it really does sound more 'moral' than invading.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying that I condone the use of nuclear weapons, but this may have been a situation where it was the 'optimal course of action'.
I'm LOVING this discussion--you guys are so smart and thoughtful!!
ReplyDeleteI think one reason why the decision to use the nuclear bomb to end the war with Japan "feels wrong" to us (or many of us at least) is that the losses are so unequal. It's frightening how EASY it was for the U.S. to destroy so many lives without any real risk to American lives. Even with the fire-bombing of Tokyo, there is real risk that some of the many planes needed to drop all those bombs would be shot down. It changes the very nature of warfare when you can inflict so much damage with little to no risk for your own soldiers.
Bombing Japan was an awful way to end the war. I agree with what everyone has said above about the Ground Zero short story it really helps put into perspective how much the civilians had to suffer because of the US's choice to use an atomic bomb. This was said forever ago but I agree with Lindsey that at first the packet had persuaded me that using the atomic bomb was a good thing, but as Gabbi mentioned the author's way of presenting his argument was confusing and I got lost. I think Solly brings up a good point. The atomic bombs were devastating but if you could do something that would potentially save a lot of your own troops in the long run would you do it? If we were to take this same problem and apply it to the US now I think most of us would choose to drop a bomb on another country and potentially save the lives of many of our soldiers. Now that every country has this sort of technology (atomic and nuclear weapons) available it is scary to think what could warfare could be in the future.
ReplyDeleteSo, everyone seems to be saying that although the nuclear bomb was horrifying, the decision made in 1945 was understandable and reasonable. But, what about the long term affect (..effect?) on Japan and health issues? If Japanese people are still today having health issues due to the radiation from the atomic bomb, does that technically mean that the bomb actually killed more than 140,000 people? Instead of a quick death, the Japanese suffer a long, torturous death caused by cancer. And what about the genetic mutations caused by the radiation? Or how did the radiation affect the agriculture and water supply? Did the U.S know about the long lasting harm of radiation? If the U.S. knew more about cancer, radiation, and the health affects the bomb had at the time, do you think they still would have nuked Japan?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lindsey. The long term effects of the nuclear bombs are horrendous. I, like many of you, was beside myself when I read this boy's story. To think that in a split second, his entire future was taken away from him is heartbreaking. I think his story also shows the long term struggle so many victims faced. Americans might have forgotten about the victims of the bombings, but they are faced with the gruesome consequences every day.
ReplyDeleteI think the US opened Pandora's Box when they dropped the first nuclear bomb. It is also interesting to think that now the US is deciding who can have nuclear weapons and who can not. Part of me is glad that nuclear weapons do not fall into the hands of dangerous powers, but then I remember that we were the only country that has had the guts to use these weapons. Are we justified in choosing who may have them and who may not?
@Lindsey:
ReplyDeleteI'm going to disagree with you. I view the Nuclear bombings more as a lesson than an atrocity. I think the long term effects of the nuclear bombs are negligible compared to what might have occurred had humanity not witnessed the horrors of nuclear weaponry. Of course there would have been tests, but don't you think the Soviet Union and the United States would have been unaware of the damage they could inflict with these weapons? War between the two superpowers was largely averted because they each knew what launching their nuclear missiles would do to the world. Say they each launched their nuclear arsenals at each other. Just imagine what would happen. I would take 100,000 dead Japanese any day over the end of life on earth as we know it.
And to respond to your other question, yes I think we still would have dropped the bomb on them even if we had know about the consequences. Like I said in my other post, 100,000 dead Japanese is better than millions of dead G.I.'s.