IMO, a very political topic. With the 65th anniversary yesterday of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the 9th August, it is still a big topic of debate. Was the US right to drop the bombs? Should the US apologise? Why, after 65 years is the US only now attending? So many questions, each with, I'm sure have many different answers from readers.

We remember D-DAY, we remember V-DAY, we "mark" those days. What happened on the morning of the 6th August, should, imo be remembered and marked in the same way. Ok, so it's "covered" in the news, but not nearly enough as it should be.

What happened on those two days, 65 years ago should never be repeated.

Lets not forget.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-10888571

I'm never quite sure what to think about this. I'm always torn between 'yes' and 'no.'

The part of me that says 'yes' says that, from what I understand and if I understand it correctly, that the Japanese weren't planning on surrendering because of cultural values and may have dragged the war on as long as they were alive.

The other part of me says 'no,' it doesn't matter who you are, you do not deserve to get bombed like that.

So I'm never quite sure what to think. All that I know is that no one should ever be nuked.

Should the US apologize? Absolutely not. It was war, and a war they started.
When you make an unprovoked attack on another nation, then you ask for war without quarter. You don't get to complain when it's given.
Is it a tragedy? Certainly. And one that should never have been repeated, and never should again. But the Japanese looked on the carnage and devastation of the first strike and said, "Is that all you got?" They still wanted to fight for the sake of pride.
Ultimately, dropping those bombs ended the war a lot faster. It saved lives. And yes, likely more of ours than theirs. That's war. There is no honor or glory in it. It's about saving as many of your people's lives as you can by any means necessary. Not something you should apologize for. It's unfortunate that it usually means killing a lot of other people, but that's how it is.

Militarily speaking..I can see why it was done.
I don't know that everyone knew at the time what the long term effects could be, and I'm sure if they had I would hope they would have sought another means. People to this day are dying from leukemia and cancers from radiation. This was an incident that has been a slow killer, and the numbers continue to add up even if slowly. That's where I take issue with the event itself. To bomb military targets is all good. But to leave an effect that lingers so long it kills people not involved, well.....that's just not right.

Now, when you look at the count, and I hate calling it that, 200,000 is a pretty big number, but not nearly as huge as other wars, attacks, or genocides. Hell 50-70 million people of all nations were killed in World War 2. Thats seems a good reason to me anyhow to end things once and for all. If not for that long term effect I talked about up there, I would just see this as a successful military operation. Japan was issued an ultimatum after Germany pulled itself from Europe, and they pretty much said....uhm....screw you guys. The goal was to end the war immediately, or devastate the Japan military soooo badly, it would have no choice but to surrender.

50-70 million or 200 000?
I'm not saying it was right. but the needs of the many and all that.

And this is a great discussion topic Porks

The Japaneses dragged the US into a war they were trying to avoid if i remember correctly.
it is war and there are always going to be casualtys .should they say sorry no i don't think so
if you pick a fight and you get punched in the nose and you end up with two black eyes should
that person say sorry not at all (i no getting bombed is not the same as a punch)

hindsight is a wonderful thing knowing the long term affects now would they still
do it i don't think so
back then in the heat of battle they did what they thought was the best thing at the time

Thanks for your input guys. I'm hoping we can get a good friendly debate going about this. With people here from all corners of the world at different ages, I'm interested in your opinions.

The exact number of lives lost will never be known. Many articles list different figures.
There alot of facts that are over looked, below is an article that lists a small few of these..

Spoiler:

COMMENTARY: Hiroshima’s Consecrated Legends By Russell Vandenbroucke Every August, as the anniversaries of Hiroshima and Nagasaki approach, comments resume about American decisions at the end of World War II. Despite the passage of 65 years, heated opinions are repeated as fact and myths become immortalized as truths. Beyond distorting the historical record, wishful thinking about it leads us to repeat past mistakes in new ways against new enemies. Among the inaccuracies are these: 1) Japan was ready to fight to the end. Facts: In an intercepted cable of July 12, 1945, Emperor Hirohito revealed his decision to intervene to end the war. In Truman’s journal he characterized the message as “telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace.” Tokyo was prepared to surrender unconditionally if the monarchy would be retained, the very position the Allies accepted after Hiroshima. Five days later Truman predicted that Stalin would “be in the Jap war by August 15. Fini Japs when that comes about.” Nevertheless, he ordered the bombing of Hiroshima on Aug. 6. The U.S.S.R. entered the war on Aug. 8. Truman ordered the bombing of Nagasaki anyway. 2) Dropping the bomb was necessary to prevent an American invasion. Facts: In 1946, a U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey report based on intelligence available to the White House concluded: “certainly prior to Dec. 31, 1945 and in all probability prior to Nov. 1, 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russian had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” 3) Dropping the bomb saved lives. Facts: Stanford historian Barton Bernstein’s study of declassified documents found that the worst-case scenario by military planners was 46,000 deaths if the U.S. invaded both Kyushu and Honshu islands. Since Hiroshima, these estimates have grown exponentially as if to justify using the bomb. In notes, Truman cites 250,000 casualties (dead, wounded, missing). His published memoir raises the number to 500,000 dead. Still later, he referred to saving a million lives. In 1991, President H.W. Bush claimed that the bomb saved “millions.” Since both presidents, among countless others, ignored the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey conclusion that an invasion was unnecessary, it is no wonder average Americans do the same. All of these morbid calculations ignore the stark fact that more than 187,000 humans died at Hiroshima. 4) At the time, military and civilian leaders agreed the bomb was necessary. Fact: Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower told Secretary of War Stimson, “Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary.” Fleet Admiral William Leahy, Chief of Staff to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, wrote in his memoirs, “the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.” Among the few civilians who knew about the bomb, 155 Manhattan Project scientists signed petitions raising moral concerns about bombing Japanese cities. The report issued by Nobel physicist James Franck in June 1945 recommended a demonstration bombing on a deserted island and also anticipated creating a dangerous arms race. 5) Japanese citizens were warned in advance. Fact: They were not. Americans properly disparage countries that manipulate their own histories, whether it is Stalinist revisionism or Japanese amnesia about the forced prostitution of “comfort women.” Yet, powerful belief in American ideals and in the nobility of our motives, leads us to do the same. The result, as with Hiroshima, is a chasm between public perception and historical truth, between ideals and reality. If we had not used the bomb to end a war that was already won, we might not have had to negotiate with one “evil empire” (N. Korea) to stop developing nuclear weapons, or be anxious that another “evil empire” (Iran) is secretly developing them, while all the while supporting an unstable ally (Pakistan) that possesses them already.

Russell Vandenbroucke, professor and chair of theatre arts at the University of Louisville, is the author of “Atomic Bombers,” a play that was broadcast on public radio to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Hiroshima. This column was provided by the PeaceVoice Program of the Oregon Peace Institute.


http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/article_7ea588a2-bbe3-5f1e-9ede-68abd265b3a1.html

If he is going to utilize the "web" as his soapbox, the least he could do is link his sources ...
I'm not denying what he's saying, I'm saying his presentation leaves excessive room for doubt ...

Excellent topic porks.

I'm actually at a bit of a loss for words, so bear with me if I contradict myself or fail to maintain coherence.

While obviously extremely saddening to think of the huge loss of what was most if not all civilian life and the continuing fallout following the dropping of the bombs, I have to agree with monkey and wadey's point. If someone attacks me from behind, or even talks behind my back, I fail to see where the mercy line comes in.

Cruelty and lasting collateral damage, I do not agree with, but having never been on a battlefield, or held one or multiple lives in my hand, I can't say what I'd have done in the position to authorise the drops.

I can say sure as hell I certainly wouldn't have put two down in any case.

If the Pearl Harbor attack was what it took for the US to join the war, then I'm gonna thank the Japanese for shooting themselves and the Nazi's in the foot........with a bazooka. The US presence was in my opinion, necessary on the Western Front to have Hitler effectively burning a candle at both ends.

But to the original point, I do not agree with the dropping of the bombs, but had it not been done, the Soviets might have used one first.

If I've made little sense, invalid points, or pissed anyone off, please, go easy on me.

I think that's a fairly simple one, war evolves, the Manhattan Project gave birth to an evolution of warfare so destructive that the human race could effectively wipe itself out.