Posted on Aug 7, 2015
Should the United States apologize to Japan for dropping the atomic bomb?
37.1K
391
227
21
20
1
Yesterday was the 70th anniversary of the United States using the first atomic bomb dropping it on Japan, many news organizations and individuals recognized this historic event. A post by one of my friends caught my eye “…why Japan had apologized for its wartime atrocities repeatedly, but the people of Japan had never received an apology for the dropping of two atomic bombs.” Should the United States apologize for the use of atomic weapons that ultimately ended World War II?
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 131
Sgt (Join to see)
Absolutely not! If we had to invade the Japanese mainland, there would have been massive casualties on both sides.
(0)
(0)
Capt Tom Orlando, MSOM, PMP
This is a tough one. Have they apologized for Pearl Harbor? If so, I suppose I could entertain arguments for apologizing for the first one. Then they should apologize for making us drop the second one.
(0)
(0)
SPC George Long
If someone punches me in the mouth, what I do to them is their own fault. Very simple to understand to me.
(0)
(0)
No. it is very easy to armchair quarterback 70 years later.
In the context of 1945, the bombings were a correct military, and diplomatic strategy. The bombings most likely saved many lives, military and civilian, by concluding the war in the Pacific.
In addition, we will never know the influence that the bombings had in possibly preventing or restraining future wars and conflicts as well. The difference between the Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, from the civilian casualties resulting in the Firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, were that the atomic bombs killed and wounded in seconds, while the firebombings took hours and days.
In the context of 1945, the bombings were a correct military, and diplomatic strategy. The bombings most likely saved many lives, military and civilian, by concluding the war in the Pacific.
In addition, we will never know the influence that the bombings had in possibly preventing or restraining future wars and conflicts as well. The difference between the Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, from the civilian casualties resulting in the Firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, were that the atomic bombs killed and wounded in seconds, while the firebombings took hours and days.
(18)
(0)
SGT David Ewers
I agree with you, given the time and strategy I think it was the right thing to do. I try not to get sensitive to my friends posting but this one just got me all twisted.
(2)
(0)
SGT David Ewers
You also brought up a very good point, restraining future wars and conflicts. That was an excellent point.
(0)
(0)
Stepping back from the emotional aspect which is what apologies are about, and looking at this from strictly pragmatic aspects, who is apologizing to who?
Anyone involved in the decision to drop the weapon is likely dead, and definitely not in power. Anyone who had the weapon dropped on them, or was an "instigator" in that decision is likely dead.
It would be an empty apology, with an empty acceptance. It would be a worthless gesture, without point.
The idea of apologizing for the act of our ancestors is frankly asinine. WE did not commit those acts. We can be appalled by them, and vow not to repeat them, but we do not share the guilt in the act itself.
Our Constitution actually has references to this concept within Art 3, Section 3, Clause 2.
"The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
We don't believe in the "sins of our fathers." Our Nation does not acknowledge this concept.
Anyone involved in the decision to drop the weapon is likely dead, and definitely not in power. Anyone who had the weapon dropped on them, or was an "instigator" in that decision is likely dead.
It would be an empty apology, with an empty acceptance. It would be a worthless gesture, without point.
The idea of apologizing for the act of our ancestors is frankly asinine. WE did not commit those acts. We can be appalled by them, and vow not to repeat them, but we do not share the guilt in the act itself.
Our Constitution actually has references to this concept within Art 3, Section 3, Clause 2.
"The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
We don't believe in the "sins of our fathers." Our Nation does not acknowledge this concept.
(17)
(0)
SGT David Ewers - No...
When I was in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, providing security for the former Manhattan Project sites (where the material for the bomb dropped on Hiroshima were made), which are still active DOE nuclear weapon complex facilities, every year, around "Hiroshima Day", we would have large anti-nuclear demonstrations by people who came there from around the country. We also typically had a significant number of "counter-demonstrators", who supported our country's policies and actions. One of the things I remember most about those days was a large sign that was usually posted during the demonstrations, which said, "If there had not been a Pearl Harbor, there would not have been a Hiroshima". No apology necessary...
When I was in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, providing security for the former Manhattan Project sites (where the material for the bomb dropped on Hiroshima were made), which are still active DOE nuclear weapon complex facilities, every year, around "Hiroshima Day", we would have large anti-nuclear demonstrations by people who came there from around the country. We also typically had a significant number of "counter-demonstrators", who supported our country's policies and actions. One of the things I remember most about those days was a large sign that was usually posted during the demonstrations, which said, "If there had not been a Pearl Harbor, there would not have been a Hiroshima". No apology necessary...
(15)
(0)
Not even slightly. Even the smallest child generally knows the phrase, "..but HE/SHE started it..."
(15)
(0)
SSgt Khanh Pham
CMSgt Stephenie should not have to clarify! it is self evidence that a 5 years old response is inappropriate at age 5, it should be be any more acceptable at a national level.
(1)
(0)
CMSgt (Join to see)
CPO John Yerby - So, you were answering the original post. I thought I was missing something that you were trying to say about my post. :)
(1)
(0)
SrA John Riley
No. The apology should come from the central bankers that created the wars. All was created by the fed reserve created in 1912. We are still at war today.
(0)
(0)
Hell no!
They started it, and more than likely hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives were spared by the forced surrender after the bombs were dropped.
Japan did a lot of terrible things in the war. Some were right up there with what Nazi Germany did. While historians will debate the righteousness of using the bombs, I think history will see it the same way I do.
They started it, and more than likely hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives were spared by the forced surrender after the bombs were dropped.
Japan did a lot of terrible things in the war. Some were right up there with what Nazi Germany did. While historians will debate the righteousness of using the bombs, I think history will see it the same way I do.
(9)
(0)
SGT David Ewers
1SG (Join to see) - That's just what I did, there were things on there that I didn't know. Also looked up the lists of apologies that Japan has issued, it's a long list.
(0)
(0)
PO3 David Fries
Just in case you see it, I apologize for the down vote. It was a misclick. I agree with your opinion.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
No, we should not. They were clearly the aggressor in the Pacific. The record is clear regarding their atrocities to allied troops and civilian populations. We did what needed to be done to keep even more Japanese and Americans from dying.
The casualties to take the mainland of Japan were estimated to be over a million. As tragic as the loss of life might have been at Hiroshima and Nagasaki it was a tragedy of their own making. We likely saved hundreds of thousands by not invading Japan conventionally. Many of us may very well be here today because of that decision.
We treated them far more humanely after the war ended than they would have treated us had they won. Exhibit "A" is China. Look what they did to the Chinese after taking territory from them on the mainland of China. We helped rebuild their country, allowed them to keep their emperor, their flag and most of their culture.
The casualties to take the mainland of Japan were estimated to be over a million. As tragic as the loss of life might have been at Hiroshima and Nagasaki it was a tragedy of their own making. We likely saved hundreds of thousands by not invading Japan conventionally. Many of us may very well be here today because of that decision.
We treated them far more humanely after the war ended than they would have treated us had they won. Exhibit "A" is China. Look what they did to the Chinese after taking territory from them on the mainland of China. We helped rebuild their country, allowed them to keep their emperor, their flag and most of their culture.
(8)
(0)
Have they apologized for the attack on Pearl Harbor or any other battles the Marines fought in the Pacific?
Heck no we shouldn't apologize. The leaders of this country did what they thought was best for everyone at that time. Yeah, the atomic bomb resulted in the death of numerous civilians and left others with horrible health issues all these years later, but let's be honest with ourselves, I think if even the chance they would have done the same to us.
Combat isn't pretty. Combat is raw, dirty, and unapologetic.
Heck no we shouldn't apologize. The leaders of this country did what they thought was best for everyone at that time. Yeah, the atomic bomb resulted in the death of numerous civilians and left others with horrible health issues all these years later, but let's be honest with ourselves, I think if even the chance they would have done the same to us.
Combat isn't pretty. Combat is raw, dirty, and unapologetic.
(8)
(0)
SGT Ben Keen
SGT Jeremiah B. - I would be okay for him not apologizing too. He was doing his job. Sure, no one likes that side of combat nor should we celebrate that side of things but we should never apologize for doing what we had to.
(2)
(0)
SGT David Ewers
Yes I agree, bottom line is war is hell, there's no flowers or brownies waiting for the winner, it's not something to enter into lightly, I think you said it best! "it isn't pretty, it's raw, dirty and unapologetic".
(2)
(0)
SGT Ben Keen
SGT David Ewers - Thanks, I can't take full credit for that though, the editors of the book I'm writing gave me that one. I just added the "unapologetic" to fit into this tread.
(0)
(0)
We gave the country massive amounts of aid to rebuild after the war. Shortly after surrender, our medical people were all over those areas treating the sick. Apologies 70 years after the fact mean very little, but our actions directly afterward; the compassion we showed to a defeated enemy spoke volumes.
(6)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
MSG Floyd Williams - They were already doing that after every air raid. They executed prisoners after simple conventional bomb raids. The atom bombs didn't amp up POW killings. For the record: 8 USAAC POWs were executed after the Hiroshima bomb was dropped.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next