This topic is locked from further discussion.
That is a myth. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers would not have died. Real casualty estimates were only saying about 30,000 Americans would have died in a land invasion. Japan was already defeated. This was kept classified until the 60's, and it is still not widely known.
But I agree anyways. I'm glad we shut Japan down without sacrificing any of our own.
wtf are you talking about? the war would never continue into the 50s. How exactly can you say that?[QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="Theempire30"]If it wasn't dropped the war would of continued till the 50's. The Japanese had 8mill more ready for the invasion of Japan, and none of them would surrender.Theempire30
There were millions of Japs left and well trained in case of a Japan invasion, eventually the other Allied countries would of pulled out because of so many loses and somehow japan would of gained more Allies. The U.S would of been fighting by it self. And if it dint last till the 50's It would of taken at least 3 years to take Japan and millions of marines.
there is no way it would take an army armed with tanks, APCs, trucks, and a whole bunch of other mobile equipment to take over the japanese island[QUOTE="Theempire30"]wtf are you talking about? the war would never continue into the 50s. How exactly can you say that?[QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="Theempire30"]If it wasn't dropped the war would of continued till the 50's. The Japanese had 8mill more ready for the invasion of Japan, and none of them would surrender.quiglythegreat
There were millions of Japs left and well trained in case of a Japan invasion, eventually the other Allied countries would of pulled out because of so many loses and somehow japan would of gained more Allies. The U.S would of been fighting by it self. And if it dint last till the 50's It would of taken at least 3 years to take Japan and millions of marines.
Wait, so you're implying that the Japanese did not want to end the war and were in fact not already seeking a peace treaty?They ended the war because of fear of more A-Bombs. Else they would kept going.
[QUOTE="bacon_is_sweet"]Ah. Yes. I see. So every man, woman, and child of Japan was going to shout 'bonzai' and charge American soldiers with bamboo sticks. Okay. I get it now.You obviously know little on the old ancient belief systems of Japan. Jonestown was a select group of people, I'm talking about the views and beliefs of an entire culture. They would have done it cause thats what they believed, regardless if their a woman or child. They were hardly fundamentalists, they were ordinary citizens who had experienced and done the things I described above.quiglythegreat
Take out you're sarcastic humor and bamboo sticks and.......ya.
Wait, so they were not already seeking an end to the war before they had a clue about the bomb, right?They ended the war because of fear of more A-Bombs. Else they would kept going.
Theempire30
[QUOTE="Theempire30"]wtf are you talking about? the war would never continue into the 50s. How exactly can you say that?[QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="Theempire30"]If it wasn't dropped the war would of continued till the 50's. The Japanese had 8mill more ready for the invasion of Japan, and none of them would surrender.353535355353535
There were millions of Japs left and well trained in case of a Japan invasion, eventually the other Allied countries would of pulled out because of so many loses and somehow japan would of gained more Allies. The U.S would of been fighting by it self. And if it dint last till the 50's It would of taken at least 3 years to take Japan and millions of marines.
there is no way it would take an army armed with tanks, APCs, trucks, and a whole bunch of other mobile equipment to take over the japanese islandThey would be fighting in Japanese soil(not islands), The townspeople would hate the marines, and you also forget that the Japanese army also had all that stuff. It would of turned out to be anothe Vietnam
[QUOTE="Archon_basic"]Japan getting a slightly more favorable treaty is far more tragic than hundreds of thousands of innocents vaporized.[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Archon_basic"] While it's true that Japan was engaged in negotiations it was likely they were willing to stall and drag out the conflict in the hopes the U.S. would lose it's resolve and agree to a more favorable cease fire. portej
You make it sound like Japan was some kind of victim here, but don't forget that they attacked the U.S. first, that they invaded China and committed countless atrocities there, and that they were not willing to accept an unconditional surrender until after two atomic bombs had been dropped on them. With all of the immense loss of life and money the U.S. suffered from the war in Japan an unconditional surrender was the only course of action, and unfortunately it took two atomic bombs to obtain that. We could not afford to let Japan keep it's military and current government and risk having to fight the same war again later on. After all World Ward 2 had cost the world there had to be unconditional surrenders on the part of Germany and Japan to ensure the war was completely over and would not resurface. So don't say we should have played nice and not bombed Japan, or given them a better treaty so we could avoid using atomic weapons. The only possible justification for not using the atomic weapons was if Japan was actually close to an unconditional surrender without the use of further force, and from what I've studied on the subject the evidence seems to suggest that they were not.
Japan would have never attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor if the United States didn't place economic sanctions and embargos on Japan. The United States brought it upon themselves. Though I have to admit... the Japanese chose to mess with a country that was way out of their league both economically and militarily.
And why did the U.S. have sanctions and embargos on Japan? Once again, don't make Japan out to be the victim. Pearl Harbor was an attack in response to U.S. oil embargos, but the oil embargos were in response to Japan invading countries in Asia and allying themselves with the Nazi's. The pupose of the sanctions and embargos was to deprive Japan of the ability to carry on their invasions in Asia. They had the choice of abandoning their wars or continuing them and initiating war with the U.S., and we all know what they chose. Any way you look at it Japan was the aggressor.[QUOTE="portej"][QUOTE="comrade_sniperr"]do you agree with his decision to drop the atomic bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki?
i sure do, because the hundreds of thousands of american soldiers that would have died in the land invasion of Japan would have been worse. Also, it shortened the war (most likely) a few years.
sHaDyCuBe321
US casualties would not have been in the hundreds of thousands had the US invaded Japan by land. By 1945, the Japanese military was so hard-pressed to have a standing army in the mainland that they were forced to resort to using females to form a pseudo-citizen militia. You have to realize that most of the Japanese regular army were not in the mainland but in other places throughout the Asia-Pacific. Did the people in this citizen militia at least have firearms? Nope. Bamboo sticks. We're talking about a makeshift citizen militia consisting of malnourished, sparsely trained FEMALES with bamboo sticks up against American male soldiers who are well-fed, well-trained, and packing M1 Rifles and Thompson submachine guns. Please... don't give me BS about how "Dropping the atomic bomb would save young American lives that would otherwise be lost in a land invasion of Japan." There are military statisticians and historians that predict that had the US attacked Japan by land, American casualties would have numbered at worst in the ten thousands - 10,000s
The only reason why the US dropped the atomic bombs was because they had won the war in Europe and wanted to bring the War in the Pacific to an end quickly. However, instead of taking the long and time-consuming course of action which would not result in high casualties, they choose the quick and easy course of action that would not result in high casualties. Either way, the US would NOT suffer high casualties.
Bingo....it was not necessary.
actually this argument if anything shows that it was nessasary to save the lives of japanese who would have otherwise died attacking U.S. soilders.[QUOTE="Theempire30"]Wait, so they were not already seeking an end to the war before they had a clue about the bomb, right?They ended the war because of fear of more A-Bombs. Else they would kept going.
quiglythegreat
From the Emperor him self: "The enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan read the first paragraph.
Guys guys guys... when all is said and done, we all know the real reason behind the decision to drop the atomic bombs.
The US wanted to test the weapon on a real life human city. Testing the bomb in the middle of a desert is one thing, but testing it on real, breathing, living human beings in a real city... that is totally another. Incidentally, the first bomb they dropped was a uranium bomb, and the second bomb they dropped was a plutonium bomb...
[QUOTE="portej"][QUOTE="Archon_basic"]Japan getting a slightly more favorable treaty is far more tragic than hundreds of thousands of innocents vaporized.[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Archon_basic"] While it's true that Japan was engaged in negotiations it was likely they were willing to stall and drag out the conflict in the hopes the U.S. would lose it's resolve and agree to a more favorable cease fire. Archon_basic
You make it sound like Japan was some kind of victim here, but don't forget that they attacked the U.S. first, that they invaded China and committed countless atrocities there, and that they were not willing to accept an unconditional surrender until after two atomic bombs had been dropped on them. With all of the immense loss of life and money the U.S. suffered from the war in Japan an unconditional surrender was the only course of action, and unfortunately it took two atomic bombs to obtain that. We could not afford to let Japan keep it's military and current government and risk having to fight the same war again later on. After all World Ward 2 had cost the world there had to be unconditional surrenders on the part of Germany and Japan to ensure the war was completely over and would not resurface. So don't say we should have played nice and not bombed Japan, or given them a better treaty so we could avoid using atomic weapons. The only possible justification for not using the atomic weapons was if Japan was actually close to an unconditional surrender without the use of further force, and from what I've studied on the subject the evidence seems to suggest that they were not.
Japan would have never attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor if the United States didn't place economic sanctions and embargos on Japan. The United States brought it upon themselves. Though I have to admit... the Japanese chose to mess with a country that was way out of their league both economically and militarily.
And why did the U.S. have sanctions and embargos on Japan? Once again, don't make Japan out to be the victim. Pearl Harbor was an attack in response to U.S. oil embargos, but the oil embargos were in response to Japan invading countries in Asia and allying themselves with the Nazi's. The pupose of the sanctions and embargos was to deprive Japan of the ability to carry on their invasions in Asia. They had the choice of abandoning their wars or continuing them and initiating war with the U.S., and we all know what they chose. Any way you look at it Japan was the aggressor.Thats right on the money. I find it really hard to believe why people defend Japan after you see some of the things they did in places like China.
[QUOTE="Articuno76"][QUOTE="StarFoxCOM"]I just studied that in history last week in school and i agree i saved about 500,000 american lifes. thotoz
But how many lives were lost because of it? That's the other side of the issue.
People think an american life > a japanese or any other person's life.
People talk as if the only good way out would be for the Americans to win, the only thing "necessary" about it was for the Americans winning and getting themselves favourable terms. I don't buy for a second that this was somehow a backwards act of compassion to help save life, it was to help have American life, something which in modern times seems indefensible. If you can call the bombs necessary (and I guess you could if we were back in the 40's again) you'd still have trouble defending their use, necessary or not. The only way you can really call it necessary is if the Americans couldn't have won without it.
Guys guys guys... when all is said and done, we all know the real reason behind the decision to drop the atomic bombs.
The US wanted to test the weapon on a real life human city. Testing the bomb in the middle of a desert is one thing, but testing it on real, breathing, living human beings in a real city... that is totally another. Incidentally, the first bomb they dropped was a uranium bomb, and the second bomb they dropped was a plutonium bomb...
portej
What ever the "real" reason, it saved U.S. lives regardless.
okay, so if Japan would have been like vietnam, why was the Russian occupation not like vietnam?353535355353535
Sure the Soviets invasion of Manchuria helped bring the end of the war, but the A-Bomb was the one that really ended it. Plus I highly doubt Stalin would of kept going into Japan, he already got revenge back at Berin..pontless to go on and loss more troops.
[QUOTE="Archon_basic"][QUOTE="portej"][QUOTE="Archon_basic"]Japan getting a slightly more favorable treaty is far more tragic than hundreds of thousands of innocents vaporized.[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Archon_basic"] While it's true that Japan was engaged in negotiations it was likely they were willing to stall and drag out the conflict in the hopes the U.S. would lose it's resolve and agree to a more favorable cease fire. bacon_is_sweet
You make it sound like Japan was some kind of victim here, but don't forget that they attacked the U.S. first, that they invaded China and committed countless atrocities there, and that they were not willing to accept an unconditional surrender until after two atomic bombs had been dropped on them. With all of the immense loss of life and money the U.S. suffered from the war in Japan an unconditional surrender was the only course of action, and unfortunately it took two atomic bombs to obtain that. We could not afford to let Japan keep it's military and current government and risk having to fight the same war again later on. After all World Ward 2 had cost the world there had to be unconditional surrenders on the part of Germany and Japan to ensure the war was completely over and would not resurface. So don't say we should have played nice and not bombed Japan, or given them a better treaty so we could avoid using atomic weapons. The only possible justification for not using the atomic weapons was if Japan was actually close to an unconditional surrender without the use of further force, and from what I've studied on the subject the evidence seems to suggest that they were not.
Japan would have never attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor if the United States didn't place economic sanctions and embargos on Japan. The United States brought it upon themselves. Though I have to admit... the Japanese chose to mess with a country that was way out of their league both economically and militarily.
And why did the U.S. have sanctions and embargos on Japan? Once again, don't make Japan out to be the victim. Pearl Harbor was an attack in response to U.S. oil embargos, but the oil embargos were in response to Japan invading countries in Asia and allying themselves with the Nazi's. The pupose of the sanctions and embargos was to deprive Japan of the ability to carry on their invasions in Asia. They had the choice of abandoning their wars or continuing them and initiating war with the U.S., and we all know what they chose. Any way you look at it Japan was the aggressor.Thats right on the money. I find it really hard to believe why people defend Japan after you see some of the things they did in places like China.
I think people may simply not know much on the subject. The Japanese were just as bad if not worse than the Germans in their genocide and brutality in Europe, killing and raping women and children wherever soldiers went, bayoneting them in the head once they were done, cutting open pregnant women without reason and letting them bleed to death, comfort women were forced into prostitution servicing hundreds of men a day for years, the japanese were terrible...If they ever landed. It would have been hell on Earth if Japan didn't surrender. Every bomb would have been aimed in their direction. If the American Troops landed, they would just look straight and say "We won."do you agree with his decision to drop the atomic bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki?
i sure do, because the hundreds of thousands of american soldiers that would have died in the land invasion of Japan would have been worse. Also, it shortened the war (most likely) a few years.
comrade_sniperr
[QUOTE="portej"]Guys guys guys... when all is said and done, we all know the real reason behind the decision to drop the atomic bombs.
The US wanted to test the weapon on a real life human city. Testing the bomb in the middle of a desert is one thing, but testing it on real, breathing, living human beings in a real city... that is totally another. Incidentally, the first bomb they dropped was a uranium bomb, and the second bomb they dropped was a plutonium bomb...
bacon_is_sweet
What ever the "real" reason, it saved U.S. lives regardless.
It bothers me that you slipped the word "U.S" in there so intentionally. We aren't in the 40's anymore so try looking at things more objectively rather than being US-centric on the issue. I guess I'm lucky enough to come from neither of the countries involved.
Though one thing I have to wonder, fine they ended the war with a bomb...but why two bombs? Wasn't one enough? What argument can anyone put forward for this?
I do not agree at all with your assertion that an unconditional surrender was necessary, and let's say it was, after the first bomb was dropped, we could've at least tried to start getting that unconditional surrener.We didn't until the second bomb was dropped. You are overlooking the two main reasons aside from the war itself for the use of the bomb, which are: its costly and illegal development and keeping the USSR in check.[QUOTE="Archon_basic"]
I'm familar with the historical facts of the circumstances of the end of the Pacific conflict. But thanks anyway.
You make it sound like Japan was some kind of victim here, but don't forget that they attacked the U.S. first, that they invaded China and committed countless atrocities there, and that they were not willing to accept an unconditional surrender until after two atomic bombs had been dropped on them. With all of the immense loss of life and money the U.S. suffered from the war in Japan an unconditional surrender was the only course of action, and unfortunately it took two atomic bombs to obtain that. We could not afford to let Japan keep it's military and current government and risk having to fight the same war again later on. After all World Ward 2 had cost the world there had to be unconditional surrenders on the part of Germany and Japan to ensure the war was completely over and would not resurface. So don't say we should have played nice and not bombed Japan, or given them a better treaty so we could avoid using atomic weapons. The only possible justification for not using the atomic weapons was if Japan was actually close to an unconditional surrender without the use of further force, and from what I've studied on the subject the evidence seems to suggest that they were not.
quiglythegreat
And yes, sending a message to Stalin to back off his land and power grab in Europe may have been a factor. Also justifying the cost of developing the atomic bombs could have been a factor, though that's entirely speculation. But I think it's clear that the main and obvious reason was avoiding the imminent mainland invasion of Japan.
[QUOTE="bacon_is_sweet"][QUOTE="portej"]Guys guys guys... when all is said and done, we all know the real reason behind the decision to drop the atomic bombs.
The US wanted to test the weapon on a real life human city. Testing the bomb in the middle of a desert is one thing, but testing it on real, breathing, living human beings in a real city... that is totally another. Incidentally, the first bomb they dropped was a uranium bomb, and the second bomb they dropped was a plutonium bomb...
Articuno76
What ever the "real" reason, it saved U.S. lives regardless.
It bothers me that you slipped the word "U.S" in there so intentionally. We aren't in the 40's anymore so try looking at things more objectively rather than being US-centric on the issue. I guess I'm lucky enough to come from neither of the countries involved.
Though one thing I have to wonder, fine they ended the war with a bomb...but why two bombs? Wasn't one enough? What argument can anyone put forward for this?
Sorry if I see the lives of our troops more important then the lives of an enemy that despises us. And the Japanese wouldn't surrender after the first bomb.
[QUOTE="portej"][QUOTE="Archon_basic"]Japan getting a slightly more favorable treaty is far more tragic than hundreds of thousands of innocents vaporized.[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Archon_basic"] While it's true that Japan was engaged in negotiations it was likely they were willing to stall and drag out the conflict in the hopes the U.S. would lose it's resolve and agree to a more favorable cease fire. Archon_basic
You make it sound like Japan was some kind of victim here, but don't forget that they attacked the U.S. first, that they invaded China and committed countless atrocities there, and that they were not willing to accept an unconditional surrender until after two atomic bombs had been dropped on them. With all of the immense loss of life and money the U.S. suffered from the war in Japan an unconditional surrender was the only course of action, and unfortunately it took two atomic bombs to obtain that. We could not afford to let Japan keep it's military and current government and risk having to fight the same war again later on. After all World Ward 2 had cost the world there had to be unconditional surrenders on the part of Germany and Japan to ensure the war was completely over and would not resurface. So don't say we should have played nice and not bombed Japan, or given them a better treaty so we could avoid using atomic weapons. The only possible justification for not using the atomic weapons was if Japan was actually close to an unconditional surrender without the use of further force, and from what I've studied on the subject the evidence seems to suggest that they were not.
Japan would have never attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor if the United States didn't place economic sanctions and embargos on Japan. The United States brought it upon themselves. Though I have to admit... the Japanese chose to mess with a country that was way out of their league both economically and militarily.
And why did the U.S. have sanctions and embargos on Japan? Once again, don't make Japan out to be the victim. Pearl Harbor was an attack in response to U.S. oil embargos, but the oil embargos were in response to Japan invading countries in Asia and allying themselves with the Nazi's. The pupose of the sanctions and embargos was to deprive Japan of the ability to carry on their invasions in Asia. They had the choice of abandoning their wars or continuing them and initiating war with the U.S., and we all know what they chose. Any way you look at it Japan was the aggressor.Tell me why, exactly, it was necessary for the US to place oil embargos on Japan for their activities in Asia? Yes, Japan was expanding its territories throughout the Asia Pacific, but how does that in ANY WAY AFFECT the United States? Yes, Japan did ally itself with Nazi Germany, but was it directly harming or threatening the security of the United States? No. This is just another example in history of the United States being the World's Police Force, and intefering in the activities of other autonomous nations. Of course, it is okay when the United States expands its territory, be it through it's self-proclaimed divine "Manifest Destiny" or through imperialism in the form of the Spanish American War or Mexican American Wars. Even today, we can see the United States being the World's Police Force with its duty to democratize and "bring order" to the Middle East. The result? US soldiers lives lost unneccessarily. More hatred and resentment towards the US. More terrorist groups forming in the struggle against the United States "democratizing crusade". And in the end, nothing significant accomplished. Eventually the US will pull out, and Iraqis and Iranians will kill each other, and eventually things will restore to a natural equilibrium that would have been achieved years ago had the US only not intervened in Iraq...
[QUOTE="Articuno76"][QUOTE="bacon_is_sweet"][QUOTE="portej"]Guys guys guys... when all is said and done, we all know the real reason behind the decision to drop the atomic bombs.
The US wanted to test the weapon on a real life human city. Testing the bomb in the middle of a desert is one thing, but testing it on real, breathing, living human beings in a real city... that is totally another. Incidentally, the first bomb they dropped was a uranium bomb, and the second bomb they dropped was a plutonium bomb...
bacon_is_sweet
What ever the "real" reason, it saved U.S. lives regardless.
It bothers me that you slipped the word "U.S" in there so intentionally. We aren't in the 40's anymore so try looking at things more objectively rather than being US-centric on the issue. I guess I'm lucky enough to come from neither of the countries involved.
Though one thing I have to wonder, fine they ended the war with a bomb...but why two bombs? Wasn't one enough? What argument can anyone put forward for this?
Sorry if I see the lives of our troops more important then the lives of an enemy that despises us. And the Japanese wouldn't surrender after the first bomb.
The enemy that despises you? You know WW2 ended like...a long time ago, probably before you were even born. Looking back as an historian you shouldn't have such an obvious bias. T
he necessity of it should be judged by the value of life, American or otherwise, in fact that even paints the image of the faultless American hero somewhat (I doubt that solidiers on any side in the war were saints themselves,almost everyone thinks they are the good guys in a war). Who was the home side of the goody or the baddy doesn't really matter, it's all a point of view anyway.
If your argument was it was necessary to save American life then at the time I am sure that it was a good idea, open n shut case. But we are in 2007, we aren't asking whether it was necessary for the Americans to save themselves lives, but whether it was necessary, full stop.
Yes i agree with it, although many died as a result of it, it saved millions of Americans lives.UrbanSpartan125
Saved lives period.
[QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"]Yes i agree with it, although many died as a result of it, it saved millions of Americans lives.LJS9502_basic
Saved lives period.
I can't say I know well enough if that would have been true or not, but assuming it is, that is an argument I can get behind.
I realize your post is half joking, but I want to point out that Truman showed substantial restraint in not using atomic bombs in the Korean war, and he went to great lengths to put thier use under civilian control in this country and help stop their spread in the rest of the world. Considering all that I find it hard to belive that he used Hiroshima as a human test subject, or that he green lighted their use to justify the cost of their development (which he wasn't even aware of during most of the process, and thus had no responsibility in the matter). Truman gets slammed for using the atomic bombs on Japan, but if anyone deserves credit for the fact that atomic bombs have never been used since it's probably him.Guys guys guys... when all is said and done, we all know the real reason behind the decision to drop the atomic bombs.
The US wanted to test the weapon on a real life human city. Testing the bomb in the middle of a desert is one thing, but testing it on real, breathing, living human beings in a real city... that is totally another. Incidentally, the first bomb they dropped was a uranium bomb, and the second bomb they dropped was a plutonium bomb...
portej
[QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"]Yes i agree with it, although many died as a result of it, it saved millions of Americans lives.LJS9502_basic
Saved lives period.
In the short term, yes, in the long term, not likely. Nuclear war would be far more deadly to human existance than would conventional war.
Why is it that it's seldom heard that the bomb should have been dropped, but just not in a populated area? The goal was not to kill thousands of Japanese period, but to show them how much more advanced in weaponry we were at that time. That's why they surrendered, if I'm remembering correctlyCarlos_Santana
The point doesn't get across, although it might have with you or me, you have to consider what the Japanese Empire would've done.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"]Yes i agree with it, although many died as a result of it, it saved millions of Americans lives.tycoonmike
Saved lives period.
In the short term, yes, in the long term, not likely. Nuclear war would be far more deadly to human existance than would conventional war.
No country would dare use a nuke in this day an age.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"]Yes i agree with it, although many died as a result of it, it saved millions of Americans lives.tycoonmike
Saved lives period.
In the short term, yes, in the long term, not likely. Nuclear war would be far more deadly to human existance than would conventional war.
Who is talking about an entire nuclear war? This incident....and more lives were spared.
[QUOTE="portej"]I realize your post is half joking, but I want to point out that Truman showed substantial restraint in not using atomic bombs in the Korean war, and he went to great lengths to put thier use under civilian control in this country and help stop their spread in the rest of the world. Considering all that I find it hard to belive that he used Hiroshima as a human test subject, or that he green lighted their use to justify the cost of their development (which he wasn't even aware of during most of the process, and thus had no responsibility in the matter). Truman gets slammed for using the atomic bombs on Japan, but if anyone deserves credit for the fact that atomic bombs have never been used since it's probably him.Guys guys guys... when all is said and done, we all know the real reason behind the decision to drop the atomic bombs.
The US wanted to test the weapon on a real life human city. Testing the bomb in the middle of a desert is one thing, but testing it on real, breathing, living human beings in a real city... that is totally another. Incidentally, the first bomb they dropped was a uranium bomb, and the second bomb they dropped was a plutonium bomb...
Archon_basic
Want to know the reason why Truman didn't use atomic bombs in the Korean War? Because the US was no longer the only country to have them. The use of nuclear weapons in Korea would have had severe repurcussions, and who knows... maybe the world as we know it today might not have existed...
[QUOTE="Archon_basic"][QUOTE="portej"]I realize your post is half joking, but I want to point out that Truman showed substantial restraint in not using atomic bombs in the Korean war, and he went to great lengths to put thier use under civilian control in this country and help stop their spread in the rest of the world. Considering all that I find it hard to belive that he used Hiroshima as a human test subject, or that he green lighted their use to justify the cost of their development (which he wasn't even aware of during most of the process, and thus had no responsibility in the matter). Truman gets slammed for using the atomic bombs on Japan, but if anyone deserves credit for the fact that atomic bombs have never been used since it's probably him.Guys guys guys... when all is said and done, we all know the real reason behind the decision to drop the atomic bombs.
The US wanted to test the weapon on a real life human city. Testing the bomb in the middle of a desert is one thing, but testing it on real, breathing, living human beings in a real city... that is totally another. Incidentally, the first bomb they dropped was a uranium bomb, and the second bomb they dropped was a plutonium bomb...
portej
Want to know the reason why Truman didn't use atomic bombs in the Korean War? Because the US was no longer the only country to have them. The use of nuclear weapons in Korea would have had severe repurcussions, and who knows... maybe the world as we know it today might not have existed...
...exactly why Truman didn't use it.
[QUOTE="bacon_is_sweet"][QUOTE="Articuno76"][QUOTE="bacon_is_sweet"][QUOTE="portej"]Guys guys guys... when all is said and done, we all know the real reason behind the decision to drop the atomic bombs.
The US wanted to test the weapon on a real life human city. Testing the bomb in the middle of a desert is one thing, but testing it on real, breathing, living human beings in a real city... that is totally another. Incidentally, the first bomb they dropped was a uranium bomb, and the second bomb they dropped was a plutonium bomb...
Articuno76
What ever the "real" reason, it saved U.S. lives regardless.
It bothers me that you slipped the word "U.S" in there so intentionally. We aren't in the 40's anymore so try looking at things more objectively rather than being US-centric on the issue. I guess I'm lucky enough to come from neither of the countries involved.
Though one thing I have to wonder, fine they ended the war with a bomb...but why two bombs? Wasn't one enough? What argument can anyone put forward for this?
Sorry if I see the lives of our troops more important then the lives of an enemy that despises us. And the Japanese wouldn't surrender after the first bomb.
The enemy that despises you? You know WW2 ended like...a long time ago, probably before you were even born. Looking back as an historian you shouldn't have such an obvious bias. T
he necessity of it should be judged by the value of life, American or otherwise, in fact that even paints the image of the faultless American hero somewhat (I doubt that solidiers on any side in the war were saints themselves,almost everyone thinks they are the good guys in a war). Who was the home side of the goody or the baddy doesn't really matter, it's all a point of view anyway.
If your argument was it was necessary to save American life then at the time I am sure that it was a good idea, open n shut case. But we are in 2007, we aren't asking whether it was necessary for the Americans to save themselves lives, but whether it was necessary, full stop.
The reason it was necessary was to save lives, it was either they would lose more or we would lose more, not dropping the bomb would have resulted in the more people being drafted and the Army who was already exhausted from fighting in Europe would have to come and join the Marines and the Navy to fight the Japanese. After the first bomb was dropped the Japanese didn't respond, 2 days later we dropped another, Yet still some wanted to keep fighting us, but the Emperor stepped in, which is unheard of during wartime and he said that Japan must surrender. had we not dropped the bombs, Millions of Allies would have been killed and that even may be an understatement
Why is it that it's seldom heard that the bomb should have been dropped, but just not in a populated area? The goal was not to kill thousands of Japanese period, but to show them how much more advanced in weaponry we were at that time. That's why they surrendered, if I'm remembering correctlyCarlos_SantanaHiroshima and Nagasaki actually werent very populated, they were turned in to military cities where alot of equipment were stored. Had that many lives not have been lost the Japanese would not have surrendered, its a sad logic but that is how it had to work.
[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"]Yes i agree with it, although many died as a result of it, it saved millions of Americans lives.LJS9502_basic
Saved lives period.
In the short term, yes, in the long term, not likely. Nuclear war would be far more deadly to human existance than would conventional war.
Who is talking about an entire nuclear war? This incident....and more lives were spared.
No one, that's the whole point. In the development of a new weapon, be it an atomic bomb, a hydrogen bomb, or moving into the realm of sci-fi with particle beams and space cruisers, few people ever care about the long term effects that the weapon will have, and if anyone does care, it is usually, and ironically, the same scientists who created it, in some way, shape, manner, or form.
[QUOTE="Carlos_Santana"]Why is it that it's seldom heard that the bomb should have been dropped, but just not in a populated area? The goal was not to kill thousands of Japanese period, but to show them how much more advanced in weaponry we were at that time. That's why they surrendered, if I'm remembering correctlyUrbanSpartan125Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually werent very populated, they were turned in to military cities where alot of equipment were stored. Had that many lives not have been lost the Japanese would not have surrendered, its a sad logic but that is how it had to work.
I recall that only one of them was a military target, I want to say it was Hiroshima.
The reason it was necessary was to save lives, it was either they would lose more or we would lose more, not dropping the bomb would have resulted in the more people being drafted and the Army who was already exhausted from fighting in Europe would have to come and join the Marines and the Navy to fight the Japanese. After the first bomb was dropped the Japanese didn't respond, 2 days later we dropped another, Yet still some wanted to keep fighting us, but the Emperor stepped in, which is unheard of during wartime and he said that Japan must surrender. had we not dropped the bombs, Millions of Allies would have been killed and that even may be an understatementUrbanSpartan125
The allies are still a side, but I think I get your point, assuming you are right in your estimates, yes it makes sense. The point I was making was simply that with the benefit of hindsight we shouldn't be looking at it like "It was better for country x or y", to some extent all history is biased, but that kind of reasoning damns it to being biased before a conclusion is even drawn.
Though the earlier point made in this thread was about America simply flexxing their techincal muscle, if that was the case why the need to attack such highly populated areas? (I can see the scare factor behind it, but I wonder if it was necessary and if anyone can prove it wasn't or it was).
Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually werent very populated, they were turned in to military cities where alot of equipment were stored. Had that many lives not have been lost the Japanese would not have surrendered, its a sad logic but that is how it had to work.[QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"][QUOTE="Carlos_Santana"]Why is it that it's seldom heard that the bomb should have been dropped, but just not in a populated area? The goal was not to kill thousands of Japanese period, but to show them how much more advanced in weaponry we were at that time. That's why they surrendered, if I'm remembering correctlySajo7
I recall that only one of them was a military target, I want to say it was Hiroshima.
Military target, eh? How do you explain that 99% of casualties were civilian?
[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"]Yes i agree with it, although many died as a result of it, it saved millions of Americans lives.Sajo7
Saved lives period.
In the short term, yes, in the long term, not likely. Nuclear war would be far more deadly to human existance than would conventional war.
No country would dare use a nuke in this day an age.
You cannot assume that. Global politics change so fast that, for instance, today the United States is allied with the majority of the European Union, as well as Britain, tommorrow, the entire EU, including Britain, are our enemies, and are preparing to go to war with the US.
And don't give me any of that crap about the Geneva Convention, the Rules of War, or the United Nations. In the face of war, laws mean nothing, and the United Nations is an organization funded primarily by the US, both militarily and economically.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment