[QUOTE="cee1gee"]I wouldn't drop it either, but one might argue that guns are cowardly too and the only fair way to go is hand-to-hand combat with no armor or equipment. Everything else is cowardly. i agree guns are cowardly...but for war i say guns can be an exceptionNo i would not drop the bomb.. bombs are cowardly and gun on gun combat is the way to go...if you cant win in close quarter combat then you shouldnt fight period.
Stavrogin_
Poll: You are President Harry S. Truman, do you drop the atomic bombs on Japan?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Dropping the bomb was simply a demonstration to the Soviets. Many military leaders even came forth and said it was not a necessary course of action at that point. Unfortunately everybody buys up the excuse that "so many more lives would have been lost if there were an invasion" line than what it really was used for.
We simply wanted to show the Soviets what we could do. I'm sure saving American lives at the expense of innocent Japanese ones was part of the rationale also though.
I think of it like killing two birds with one stone. 1) With the bomb, a full scale invasion for not needed and US lives could be saved. 2) Like you said, the US could show off their nuclear arsenal to the Soviets.Dropping the bomb was simply a demonstration to the Soviets. Many military leaders even came forth and said it was not a necessary course of action at that point. Unfortunately everybody buys up the excuse that "so many more lives would have been lost if there were an invasion" line than what it really was used for.
We simply wanted to show the Soviets what we could do. I'm sure saving American lives at the expense of innocent Japanese ones was part of the rationale also though.
MirkoS77
I wouldn't have. Dropping the atomic bomb was meant to kill so many civilians that Japan would surrender. I just could never do that.
The_Gaming_Baby
Rape of Nanking - 20K to 80K Chinese women raped and murdered. 300K to 400K total civilian deaths
Estimated 4 million Chinese died in the war
Manila massacre inPhilippines estimated 100K
Sook Ching massacre in Singapore 50k-70K
Total is estimated to be 10 million when you add in all the South East Asia and allies.
You can google the massacres to get more indept information on just how cruel the Japanese were. From forcing father's to have sex with their daughters. To their famous 731 unit that used biological weapons on civilian test subjects. One case involved them taking test subjects out into freezing cold weather. Pouring water on arms and legs till they were fully frozen. Then melting the ice to see what the effects were to the body.
It's ok if you don't know about this because just about all the Japanese population of today don't know about it either. None of their war crimes are reported in their history books. To this day the Japanese people feel that they were the victims and that the United States was the agressor even though they attacked first. They tell their students that Japan was defending Asia from foriegn nations that were going to take over weak asian governments.
The Chinese hate the Japanese as can be seen in many of their modern movies. Chinese hackers have many times hacked Japanese websites and posted information about these massacres to get the word out. Japanese continue to simply ignore them.
Information is out their by reliable sources. You can go to amazon and find dozen of books on the subject.
[QUOTE="The_Gaming_Baby"]
I wouldn't have. Dropping the atomic bomb was meant to kill so many civilians that Japan would surrender. I just could never do that.
sleepingzzz
Rape of Nanking - 20K to 80K Chinese women raped and murdered. 300K to 400K total civilian deaths
Estimated 4 million Chinese died in the war
Manila massacre inPhilippines estimated 100K
Sook Ching massacre in Singapore 50k-70K
Total is estimated to be 10 million when you add in all the South East Asia and allies.
You can google the massacres to get more indept information on just how cruel the Japanese were. From forcing father's to have sex with their daughters. To their famous 731 unit that used biological weapons on civilian test subjects. One case involved them taking test subjects out into freezing cold weather. Pouring water on arms and legs till they were fully frozen. Then melting the ice to see what the effects were to the body.
It's ok if you don't know about this because just about all the Japanese population of today don't know about it either. None of their war crimes are reported in their history books. To this day the Japanese people feel that they were the victims and that the United States was the agressor even though they attacked first. They tell their students that Japan was defending Asia from foriegn nations that were going to take over weak asian governments.
The Chinese hate the Japanese as can be seen in many of their modern movies. Chinese hackers have many times hacked Japanese websites and posted information about these massacres to get the word out. Japanese continue to simply ignore them.
Information is out their by reliable sources. You can go to amazon and find dozen of books on the subject.
I just found out about Unit 731 a few months ago and I was shocked at what they did.[QUOTE="sleepingzzz"][QUOTE="The_Gaming_Baby"]
I wouldn't have. Dropping the atomic bomb was meant to kill so many civilians that Japan would surrender. I just could never do that.
JasonDarksavior
Rape of Nanking - 20K to 80K Chinese women raped and murdered. 300K to 400K total civilian deaths
Estimated 4 million Chinese died in the war
Manila massacre inPhilippines estimated 100K
Sook Ching massacre in Singapore 50k-70K
Total is estimated to be 10 million when you add in all the South East Asia and allies.
You can google the massacres to get more indept information on just how cruel the Japanese were. From forcing father's to have sex with their daughters. To their famous 731 unit that used biological weapons on civilian test subjects. One case involved them taking test subjects out into freezing cold weather. Pouring water on arms and legs till they were fully frozen. Then melting the ice to see what the effects were to the body.
It's ok if you don't know about this because just about all the Japanese population of today don't know about it either. None of their war crimes are reported in their history books. To this day the Japanese people feel that they were the victims and that the United States was the agressor even though they attacked first. They tell their students that Japan was defending Asia from foriegn nations that were going to take over weak asian governments.
The Chinese hate the Japanese as can be seen in many of their modern movies. Chinese hackers have many times hacked Japanese websites and posted information about these massacres to get the word out. Japanese continue to simply ignore them.
Information is out their by reliable sources. You can go to amazon and find dozen of books on the subject.
I just found out about Unit 731 a few months ago and I was shocked at what they did.The worst part is most of the doctors that performed surgery and amputation on test subjects got away with little more than a slap on the wrist. The few members that were inprison were all freed. Nothing happen to the units leader Shiro. He lived out his life in Japan. Justice never got served becaused they were able to work out a deal. Sick world.
I just found out about Unit 731 a few months ago and I was shocked at what they did.[QUOTE="JasonDarksavior"][QUOTE="sleepingzzz"]
Rape of Nanking - 20K to 80K Chinese women raped and murdered. 300K to 400K total civilian deaths
Estimated 4 million Chinese died in the war
Manila massacre inPhilippines estimated 100K
Sook Ching massacre in Singapore 50k-70K
Total is estimated to be 10 million when you add in all the South East Asia and allies.
You can google the massacres to get more indept information on just how cruel the Japanese were. From forcing father's to have sex with their daughters. To their famous 731 unit that used biological weapons on civilian test subjects. One case involved them taking test subjects out into freezing cold weather. Pouring water on arms and legs till they were fully frozen. Then melting the ice to see what the effects were to the body.
It's ok if you don't know about this because just about all the Japanese population of today don't know about it either. None of their war crimes are reported in their history books. To this day the Japanese people feel that they were the victims and that the United States was the agressor even though they attacked first. They tell their students that Japan was defending Asia from foriegn nations that were going to take over weak asian governments.
The Chinese hate the Japanese as can be seen in many of their modern movies. Chinese hackers have many times hacked Japanese websites and posted information about these massacres to get the word out. Japanese continue to simply ignore them.
Information is out their by reliable sources. You can go to amazon and find dozen of books on the subject.
sleepingzzz
The worst part is most of the doctors that performed surgery and amputation on test subjects got away with little more than a slap on the wrist. The few members that were inprison were all freed. Nothing happen to the units leader Shiro. He lived out his life in Japan. Justice never got served becaused they were able to work out a deal. Sick world.
Shiro probably lived the rest of his life in pain. The horrible things his unit did probably messed up his mind as well.[QUOTE="sleepingzzz"][QUOTE="JasonDarksavior"] I just found out about Unit 731 a few months ago and I was shocked at what they did.JasonDarksavior
The worst part is most of the doctors that performed surgery and amputation on test subjects got away with little more than a slap on the wrist. The few members that were inprison were all freed. Nothing happen to the units leader Shiro. He lived out his life in Japan. Justice never got served becaused they were able to work out a deal. Sick world.
Shiro probably lived the rest of his life in pain. The horrible things his unit did probably messed up his mind as well.He had to already be a mental case to do what he did in the first place. Would Hitler reflect how bad he treated the Jews if he lived? Their sick people and I highly doubt they regret anything they did.
The worst part is most of the doctors that performed surgery and amputation on test subjects got away with little more than a slap on the wrist. The few members that were inprison were all freed. Nothing happen to the units leader Shiro. He lived out his life in Japan. Justice never got served becaused they were able to work out a deal. Sick world.
sleepingzzz
Then they should have been trialed accordingly. If this argument is used to justify the atomic bombs, it appears the civilians took worse hits than the main perpetrators.
war is always cruel and many cases like that unit are everywhere from both sides, im not arguing wheater or not japan needed to be defeated, im arguing that is plain stupid if we start to nuke each other to "break our will" imagine if in every major war there was a dumb mo****** who said hey lets break their spirit and bomb them without thinking the consecuences, but i guess americans are too dumb to see it as long as it is not their nation is ok to destroy everywhere else.
[QUOTE="sleepingzzz"]
The worst part is most of the doctors that performed surgery and amputation on test subjects got away with little more than a slap on the wrist. The few members that were inprison were all freed. Nothing happen to the units leader Shiro. He lived out his life in Japan. Justice never got served becaused they were able to work out a deal. Sick world.
one_plum
Then they should have been trialed accordingly. If this argument is used to justify the atomic bombs, it appears the civilians took worse hits than the main perpetrators.
That's usually the way it always is. Civilians are the ones that always suffer the most. Happens in every war.
war is always cruel and many cases like that unit are everywhere from both sides, im not arguing wheater or not japan needed to be defeated, im arguing that is plain stupid if we start to nuke each other to "break our will" imagine if in every major war there was a dumb mo****** who said hey lets break their spirit and bomb them without thinking the consecuences, but i guess americans are too dumb to see it as long as it is not their nation is ok to destroy everywhere else.
Krelian-co
How do you know what would happen if the US didn't drop the bomb? Do you have a time machine? Do you know what the reports they were getting? Do you know what allied soliders were seeing and reporting?
Calling FDR and generals like Douglas MacArthur stupid... what are you like 10 years old? So tell me what have you done? Did you graduate from Harvard? Did you rise in the ranks to become a general? Were you able to run for office and get elected? What have you done that makes you soo much smarter than these stupid people? Tell me about your acheivements. If not then don't talk about things that you have no idea about. Espeically subjects that are impossible to know unless the past is changed.
[QUOTE="one_plum"]
Then they should have been trialed accordingly. If this argument is used to justify the atomic bombs, it appears the civilians took worse hits than the main perpetrators.
sleepingzzz
That's usually the way it always is. Civilians are the ones that always suffer the most. Happens in every war.
Of course, but most people nowadays agree that it is best to avoid civilian casualties, and I think they could have come up with a better plan to do so.
Even if the Japanese didn't surrender (they did), both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets (if I remember correctly, one had an ammo factory). Nuking them both crippled their ability to continue fighting.
As far as "we didn't really need to drop those bombs" from all of those military leaders... those statements smell a lot like damage control. "Oh... the world didn't like that we barbequed all of those people... maybe we should condemn the action, so we don't look like savages."
Point blank, if we had needed to invade Japan to stop the war, Japanese would have become a dead language. The Japanese government had gone to extreme lengths to restore a form of the Code of Bushido in their people. The would not have surrendered at all. Not only did we save American lives, we saved Japan.
Yes because if that hadn't happened Japan would not be the way it is now, No one whom I know including myself would have been born and the world would be completely different.
You could put it any way you want, but the atomic bombs were a war crime. It was the most appalling destruction of human life durring the 20th century say for the holocaust or the rape of Nanjing. What's worse, many in the government only supported it because they wanted to test the effects that it would have on human beings, or to scare off the soviets. The two cities were even spared from extensive firebombing so as to see the precise effects that the bomb would have on a city. You cannot deny that those goals are disgusting. What are my credentials? well I have been to Hiroshima and to teh atomic bomb museum and the memorial and it was truly a life changing event for me. Herein america we tend to think that the victims were killed humanely in an instant. Nothing could be farther from the truth. People had the skin torn from their bodies and were left wandering amid the destruction, drawn to the canals to quench their thirst, and drowning. It was siad that the rivers flew with corpses. Children exposed to radiation lived for a few days afterword in agony as their bodies were perverted by abnormal growths. All in all, the 100,000 civilians killed suffered the most appalling deaths, the only crime they committed was belonging to a country losing a war.
From a strategic aspect, the bombs could easily have been dropped on much less populated areas and still would have drawn the same effect from the Japanese government.
Yes. You can't be seen as a weak nation that can just be attacked with no consequences. Obviously innocent lives were lost, but Japan brought it upon themselves. Ghost_702
This is the most immoral answer that I hear from Americans tryinf to justify the atomic bombs. You could say that we brought 9/11 upon ourselves. But yet weaccuse Al Qeada of murdering 3,000 innocents when wedid the same to 100,000 and praise it as an amazing victory.The civilian population has no say in whatever actions it's government takes, especially in Imperial Japan, and accordingly is not at fault.
From a strategic aspect, the bombs could easily have been dropped on much less populated areas and still would have drawn the same effect from the Japanese government.Tokugawa77You do not show strength and resolve to end a war by bombing some empty field or rice farm... you do so by bombing places of vital importance to the enemy. Otherwise, all they say is, "Sure, they're strong... but they're soft."
Hiroshima was an army embarkation point and supply depot. Nagasaki was a manufacturer of ornance, warships, and other military equipment, as well as a vital port city. That made both of them strategic military targets.
You do not show strength and resolve to end a war by bombing some empty field or rice farm... you do so by bombing places of vital importance to the enemy. Otherwise, all they say is, "Sure, they're strong... but they're soft."[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]From a strategic aspect, the bombs could easily have been dropped on much less populated areas and still would have drawn the same effect from the Japanese government.OrkHammer007
Hiroshima was an army embarkation point and supply depot. Nagasaki was a manufacturer of ornance, warships, and other military equipment, as well as a vital port city. That made both of them strategic military targets.
If they were that vital to Japan's war effort, then why were they spared durring the fire bombings? You seem to forget that a nuclear blast is a nuclear blast. The evidence of its destructive power is pretty easy to see regardless of whether it is in a populated area. What's more, the atomic bombs were not the sole factor in Japan's surrender- the Soviets invaded Manchuria at around the same time, and the Japanese Kwantuang army suffered such a resounding defeat that military planners held no hope of holding off both Allied and Soviet troops. It is often overlooked that the majority in the Japanesegovernmnet only sought to inflict enough casualties on the allies to force an armistice in which Japan would not be forced into unconditional surrender. It was only extremists in the army that wanted to fight on to the end at all costs. In any case, any hope for this plan crumbled when the Soviets violated the nuetrality agreement and declared war on Japan, as the Japanese were logical enoughto realize that they counld not fend off both of these enemies. So they surrendurred. The atomic bombs merely were a part of the Japanese realization that theywouldnot be able to bring the allies to the table.
i dont get the people who think it would be necessary to invade japan to end the war, its an island and the country had originally no expansionism in their history. It would be easy just to ignore them and build up blockades and defence with the other countries to isolate the country until it would give up and turn normal. Its nothing crazy many wars are still frozen like the korean war also japan and russia still havent signed a peace treaty to end ww2 which makes them officially still at war.
Yes. You can't be seen as a weak nation that can just be attacked with no consequences. Obviously innocent lives were lost, but Japan brought it upon themselves. Ghost_702Who would have seen them as a weak nation? The Americans won the war in the Pacific and wouldn't that show everyone you're not to messed with.
i dont get the people who think it would be necessary to invade japan to end the war, its an island and the country had originally no expansionism in their history. It would be easy just to ignore them and build up blockades and defence with the other countries to isolate the country until it would give up and turn normal. Its nothing crazy many wars are still frozen like the korean war also japan and russia still havent signed a peace treaty to end ww2 which makes them officially still at war.
HFkami
I agree with you on principal, but the Soviets were planning an invasion of Hokaido as well. If the Soviets had been allowed to run rampant in Japan, imagine what misery they would have caused. Not to mention the fact that no one wanted to see a north and south Japan inakin to Korea.
[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]
war is always cruel and many cases like that unit are everywhere from both sides, im not arguing wheater or not japan needed to be defeated, im arguing that is plain stupid if we start to nuke each other to "break our will" imagine if in every major war there was a dumb mo****** who said hey lets break their spirit and bomb them without thinking the consecuences, but i guess americans are too dumb to see it as long as it is not their nation is ok to destroy everywhere else.
sleepingzzz
How do you know what would happen if the US didn't drop the bomb? Do you have a time machine? Do you know what the reports they were getting? Do you know what allied soliders were seeing and reporting?
Calling FDR and generals like Douglas MacArthur stupid... what are you like 10 years old? So tell me what have you done? Did you graduate from Harvard? Did you rise in the ranks to become a general? Were you able to run for office and get elected? What have you done that makes you soo much smarter than these stupid people? Tell me about your acheivements. If not then don't talk about things that you have no idea about. Espeically subjects that are impossible to know unless the past is changed.
i wouldnt drop an atomic bomb in any country, that alone makes me smarter, yes- and im sorry if you think just because they achieve general or commander status they cant be retarded, just look at george bush, ffs the "chief commander" so im sorry if i hurt your feeling, because i dont care what you think-.
No. I couldn't find a way to justify launching the single largest terrorist attack in known history. Oh, I forgot it's never terrorism when we do it. Besides, ignoring hindight, how do you gurantee that they surrender? If they don't, how many more bombings do you justify? Until the death actual death toll meets the expected death toll?
It was a disgusting act in my book. The only reason we don't call it like it is or was is because we won.
Between sinking the majority of their navy, almost all of their airforce and the consistant general bombing of factories and other areas in japan leading up to the atomic bomb use...yeah they weren't needed.
Having watched so many documentaries on WWII specially ones concentrating on the american/japanese conflict they were are the brink and were so demoralized it would have been a month with no invasion needed before japan surrendered, The government knew this they wanted to test the bombs so used it on an enemy so as to not receive flak they used them to test them the result would have happened regardless we had for the most part already obliterated all japanese military power by that time.
Yes, otherwise I wouldn't be Harry S. Truman.
Its good to see that the correct answer has the majority of votes...
Anybody saying no must realize that the cost of American AND Japanese lives would be greater.
The Japanese had a no surrender mentality they were not going to give up no matter what. It is a shame it came down to it but it had to be done sadly
Yes without a doubt, i promised to protect the US, and by dropping these bombs it saves thousands if not hundards of thousands US lives
Yes without a doubt, i promised to protect the US, and by dropping these bombs it saves thousands if not hundards of thousands US lives
James161324
At the cost of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian lives? Give me a break from this patriotic crap.
[QUOTE="sleepingzzz"]
[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]
war is always cruel and many cases like that unit are everywhere from both sides, im not arguing wheater or not japan needed to be defeated, im arguing that is plain stupid if we start to nuke each other to "break our will" imagine if in every major war there was a dumb mo****** who said hey lets break their spirit and bomb them without thinking the consecuences, but i guess americans are too dumb to see it as long as it is not their nation is ok to destroy everywhere else.
Krelian-co
How do you know what would happen if the US didn't drop the bomb? Do you have a time machine? Do you know what the reports they were getting? Do you know what allied soliders were seeing and reporting?
Calling FDR and generals like Douglas MacArthur stupid... what are you like 10 years old? So tell me what have you done? Did you graduate from Harvard? Did you rise in the ranks to become a general? Were you able to run for office and get elected? What have you done that makes you soo much smarter than these stupid people? Tell me about your acheivements. If not then don't talk about things that you have no idea about. Espeically subjects that are impossible to know unless the past is changed.
i wouldnt drop an atomic bomb in any country, that alone makes me smarter, yes- and im sorry if you think just because they achieve general or commander status they cant be retarded, just look at george bush, ffs the "chief commander" so im sorry if i hurt your feeling, because i dont care what you think-.
The point I was making that there is no way to know what would happen if they didn't drop the bomb. I also pointed out the Japanese were far from fighting an innocent war. They had already tortured, raped and killed millions throughout Asia.
The US was attacked first. Why should American soldiers risk their lives in a land invasion of Japan? Japan was the one to start the war by attacking Pearl Harbor. They are the ones that murdered their way to through China and South East Asia. Why should the US risk losing more lives against the Japanese? A war they didn't even start?
A lot of those US soldiers were drafted out of high school. Alot were 18 to 19 teenagers. Do you think they wanted to invade Japan and risk their lives? The US had already suffered heavy losses taking small islands along the way. Now suddently the Japanese are going to be weak and easy to beat while fighting to protect their homeland?
Nothing in war is ever nice. There is no fair play in war. Large amounts of civilians always die. Even in the recent Iraqi war. Hundred of thousand Iraqi civilians are said to have been killed.
[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]
[QUOTE="sleepingzzz"]
How do you know what would happen if the US didn't drop the bomb? Do you have a time machine? Do you know what the reports they were getting? Do you know what allied soliders were seeing and reporting?
Calling FDR and generals like Douglas MacArthur stupid... what are you like 10 years old? So tell me what have you done? Did you graduate from Harvard? Did you rise in the ranks to become a general? Were you able to run for office and get elected? What have you done that makes you soo much smarter than these stupid people? Tell me about your acheivements. If not then don't talk about things that you have no idea about. Espeically subjects that are impossible to know unless the past is changed.
sleepingzzz
i wouldnt drop an atomic bomb in any country, that alone makes me smarter, yes- and im sorry if you think just because they achieve general or commander status they cant be retarded, just look at george bush, ffs the "chief commander" so im sorry if i hurt your feeling, because i dont care what you think-.
The point I was making that there is no way to know what would happen if they didn't drop the bomb. I also pointed out the Japanese were far from fighting an innocent war. They had already tortured, raped and killed millions throughout Asia.
The US was attacked first. Why should American soldiers risk their lives in a land invasion of Japan? Japan was the one to start the war by attacking Pearl Harbor. They are the ones that murdered their way to through China and South East Asia. Why should the US risk losing more lives against the Japanese? A war they didn't even start?
A lot of those US soldiers were drafted out of high school. Alot were 18 to 19 teenagers. Do you think they wanted to invade Japan and risk their lives? The US had already suffered heavy losses taking small islands along the way. Now suddently the Japanese are going to be weak and easy to beat while fighting to protect their homeland?
Nothing in war is ever nice. There is no fair play in war. Large amounts of civilians always die. Even in the recent Iraqi war. Hundred of thousand Iraqi civilians are said to have been killed.
I've discussed the strategic necesity of the atomic bomb on the last page, so I will just repost it.You seem to forget that a nuclear blast is a nuclear blast. The evidence of its destructive power is pretty easy to see regardless of whether it is in a populated area. What's more, the atomic bombs were not the sole factor in Japan's surrender- the Soviets invaded Manchuria at around the same time, and the Japanese Kwantuang army suffered such a resounding defeat that military planners held no hope of holding off both Allied and Soviet troops. It is often overlooked that the majority in the Japanesegovernmnet only sought to inflict enough casualties on the allies to force an armistice in which Japan would not be forced into unconditional surrender. It was only extremists in the army that wanted to fight on to the end at all costs. In any case, any hope for this plan crumbled when the Soviets violated the nuetrality agreement and declared war on Japan, as the Japanese were logical enoughto realize that they counld not fend off both of these enemies. So they surrendurred. The atomic bombs merely were a part of the Japanese realization that theywouldnot be able to bring the allies to the table.
Thus the bombs were not intrumental in bringing about Japan's surrender. And on another note, Japan was not the agressor. For the decade leading up to World War 2, American and Japanese military planners prepared for what they believed was an inevitable war with each other. Two colonial empires can't both exist in the pacific, especially when one is regarded as "little yellow monkeys". The US was not minding its own business when Pearl Harbor was attacked, both countries were already essentially in a state of war, Japan merely struck first because they understood that that was the only possible way to get an arly upper hand on America's overwhelming industrial strength. Many times in history the US and it's allies have made "preemptive strikes" and have justified it. Well, Japan made a preemptive strike as well and we condem it as a barbaric attack. Just one of the hypocricies of American history.
[QUOTE="sleepingzzz"]
[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]
i wouldnt drop an atomic bomb in any country, that alone makes me smarter, yes- and im sorry if you think just because they achieve general or commander status they cant be retarded, just look at george bush, ffs the "chief commander" so im sorry if i hurt your feeling, because i dont care what you think-.
Tokugawa77
The point I was making that there is no way to know what would happen if they didn't drop the bomb. I also pointed out the Japanese were far from fighting an innocent war. They had already tortured, raped and killed millions throughout Asia.
The US was attacked first. Why should American soldiers risk their lives in a land invasion of Japan? Japan was the one to start the war by attacking Pearl Harbor. They are the ones that murdered their way to through China and South East Asia. Why should the US risk losing more lives against the Japanese? A war they didn't even start?
A lot of those US soldiers were drafted out of high school. Alot were 18 to 19 teenagers. Do you think they wanted to invade Japan and risk their lives? The US had already suffered heavy losses taking small islands along the way. Now suddently the Japanese are going to be weak and easy to beat while fighting to protect their homeland?
Nothing in war is ever nice. There is no fair play in war. Large amounts of civilians always die. Even in the recent Iraqi war. Hundred of thousand Iraqi civilians are said to have been killed.
I've discussed the strategic necesity of the atomic bomb on the last page, so I will just repost it.You seem to forget that a nuclear blast is a nuclear blast. The evidence of its destructive power is pretty easy to see regardless of whether it is in a populated area. What's more, the atomic bombs were not the sole factor in Japan's surrender- the Soviets invaded Manchuria at around the same time, and the Japanese Kwantuang army suffered such a resounding defeat that military planners held no hope of holding off both Allied and Soviet troops. It is often overlooked that the majority in the Japanesegovernmnet only sought to inflict enough casualties on the allies to force an armistice in which Japan would not be forced into unconditional surrender. It was only extremists in the army that wanted to fight on to the end at all costs. In any case, any hope for this plan crumbled when the Soviets violated the nuetrality agreement and declared war on Japan, as the Japanese were logical enoughto realize that they counld not fend off both of these enemies. So they surrendurred. The atomic bombs merely were a part of the Japanese realization that theywouldnot be able to bring the allies to the table.
Thus the bombs were not intrumental in bringing about Japan's surrender. And on another note, Japan was not the agressor. For the decade leading up to World War 2, American and Japanese military planners prepared for what they believed was an inevitable war with each other. Two colonial empires can't both exist in the pacific, especially when one is regarded as "little yellow monkeys". The US was not minding its own business when Pearl Harbor was attacked, both countries were already essentially in a state of war, Japan merely struck first because they understood that that was the only possible way to get an arly upper hand on America's overwhelming industrial strength. Many times in history the US and it's allies have made "preemptive strikes" and have justified it. Well, Japan made a preemptive strike as well and we condem it as a barbaric attack. Just one of the hypocricies of American history.
this sums up what ive been trying to say but you know people just love to act like they are always the victims, they always use pearl harbor as an excuse and forget anything that us was doing before that, and even so leaving the reasons behind, doesnt matter what the excuse is, using nuclear bombs on civilians is a war crime, you are not only obliterating hundreds of thousands of civilians (inoccent woman and children) but you are leaving a nuclear waste for many decades to come, whats more, it could have set a precedent where we begin to nuke each other with lame excuses.
[QUOTE="sleepingzzz"]
[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]
i wouldnt drop an atomic bomb in any country, that alone makes me smarter, yes- and im sorry if you think just because they achieve general or commander status they cant be retarded, just look at george bush, ffs the "chief commander" so im sorry if i hurt your feeling, because i dont care what you think-.
Tokugawa77
The point I was making that there is no way to know what would happen if they didn't drop the bomb. I also pointed out the Japanese were far from fighting an innocent war. They had already tortured, raped and killed millions throughout Asia.
The US was attacked first. Why should American soldiers risk their lives in a land invasion of Japan? Japan was the one to start the war by attacking Pearl Harbor. They are the ones that murdered their way to through China and South East Asia. Why should the US risk losing more lives against the Japanese? A war they didn't even start?
A lot of those US soldiers were drafted out of high school. Alot were 18 to 19 teenagers. Do you think they wanted to invade Japan and risk their lives? The US had already suffered heavy losses taking small islands along the way. Now suddently the Japanese are going to be weak and easy to beat while fighting to protect their homeland?
Nothing in war is ever nice. There is no fair play in war. Large amounts of civilians always die. Even in the recent Iraqi war. Hundred of thousand Iraqi civilians are said to have been killed.
I've discussed the strategic necesity of the atomic bomb on the last page, so I will just repost it.You seem to forget that a nuclear blast is a nuclear blast. The evidence of its destructive power is pretty easy to see regardless of whether it is in a populated area. What's more, the atomic bombs were not the sole factor in Japan's surrender- the Soviets invaded Manchuria at around the same time, and the Japanese Kwantuang army suffered such a resounding defeat that military planners held no hope of holding off both Allied and Soviet troops. It is often overlooked that the majority in the Japanesegovernmnet only sought to inflict enough casualties on the allies to force an armistice in which Japan would not be forced into unconditional surrender. It was only extremists in the army that wanted to fight on to the end at all costs. In any case, any hope for this plan crumbled when the Soviets violated the nuetrality agreement and declared war on Japan, as the Japanese were logical enoughto realize that they counld not fend off both of these enemies. So they surrendurred. The atomic bombs merely were a part of the Japanese realization that theywouldnot be able to bring the allies to the table.
Thus the bombs were not intrumental in bringing about Japan's surrender. And on another note, Japan was not the agressor. For the decade leading up to World War 2, American and Japanese military planners prepared for what they believed was an inevitable war with each other. Two colonial empires can't both exist in the pacific, especially when one is regarded as "little yellow monkeys". The US was not minding its own business when Pearl Harbor was attacked, both countries were already essentially in a state of war, Japan merely struck first because they understood that that was the only possible way to get an arly upper hand on America's overwhelming industrial strength. Many times in history the US and it's allies have made "preemptive strikes" and have justified it. Well, Japan made a preemptive strike as well and we condem it as a barbaric attack. Just one of the hypocricies of American history.
Well, I never heard of the US preparing to invade China or South East Asia with it's millitary and plans on killing millions. Yes, they were always aware of each other. It's hard to ignore when the Japanese was making a huge navy fleet and then when they start marching their armies throughout Asia.
So you think the Japanese didn't have degroagtory words for Americans? They already treated the Chinese like they were less than dogs.
As for your talks about bombing a forest in the middle of no where. How do you know that would been enough? The US didn't even know the full effectives of a nuclear blast.
The US also only had 2 nuclear warheads during this time. They estimated it would take another 6 months before they could produce another one. Of course they never said this to Japan. They told Japan they had 20 more and were going to use them unless they surrendered.
[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]
[QUOTE="sleepingzzz"]
The point I was making that there is no way to know what would happen if they didn't drop the bomb. I also pointed out the Japanese were far from fighting an innocent war. They had already tortured, raped and killed millions throughout Asia.
The US was attacked first. Why should American soldiers risk their lives in a land invasion of Japan? Japan was the one to start the war by attacking Pearl Harbor. They are the ones that murdered their way to through China and South East Asia. Why should the US risk losing more lives against the Japanese? A war they didn't even start?
A lot of those US soldiers were drafted out of high school. Alot were 18 to 19 teenagers. Do you think they wanted to invade Japan and risk their lives? The US had already suffered heavy losses taking small islands along the way. Now suddently the Japanese are going to be weak and easy to beat while fighting to protect their homeland?
Nothing in war is ever nice. There is no fair play in war. Large amounts of civilians always die. Even in the recent Iraqi war. Hundred of thousand Iraqi civilians are said to have been killed.
Krelian-co
I've discussed the strategic necesity of the atomic bomb on the last page, so I will just repost it.You seem to forget that a nuclear blast is a nuclear blast. The evidence of its destructive power is pretty easy to see regardless of whether it is in a populated area. What's more, the atomic bombs were not the sole factor in Japan's surrender- the Soviets invaded Manchuria at around the same time, and the Japanese Kwantuang army suffered such a resounding defeat that military planners held no hope of holding off both Allied and Soviet troops. It is often overlooked that the majority in the Japanesegovernmnet only sought to inflict enough casualties on the allies to force an armistice in which Japan would not be forced into unconditional surrender. It was only extremists in the army that wanted to fight on to the end at all costs. In any case, any hope for this plan crumbled when the Soviets violated the nuetrality agreement and declared war on Japan, as the Japanese were logical enoughto realize that they counld not fend off both of these enemies. So they surrendurred. The atomic bombs merely were a part of the Japanese realization that theywouldnot be able to bring the allies to the table.
Thus the bombs were not intrumental in bringing about Japan's surrender. And on another note, Japan was not the agressor. For the decade leading up to World War 2, American and Japanese military planners prepared for what they believed was an inevitable war with each other. Two colonial empires can't both exist in the pacific, especially when one is regarded as "little yellow monkeys". The US was not minding its own business when Pearl Harbor was attacked, both countries were already essentially in a state of war, Japan merely struck first because they understood that that was the only possible way to get an arly upper hand on America's overwhelming industrial strength. Many times in history the US and it's allies have made "preemptive strikes" and have justified it. Well, Japan made a preemptive strike as well and we condem it as a barbaric attack. Just one of the hypocricies of American history.
this sums up what ive been trying to say but you know people just love to act like they are always the victims, they always use pearl harbor as an excuse and forget anything that us was doing before that, and even so leaving the reasons behind, doesnt matter what the excuse is, using nuclear bombs on civilians is a war crime, you are not only obliterating hundreds of thousands of civilians (inoccent woman and children) but you are leaving a nuclear waste for many decades to come, whats more, it could have set a precedent where we begin to nuke each other with lame excuses.
That doesn't stop it from being the best option with the information they had at that point in time. You are just pointing out that's its a war crime. I never said it wasn't. I simply pointed out the Japanese did much much worst.
...using nuclear bombs on civilians is a war crime...Krelian-coAccording to who?
Well, I never heard of the US preparing to invade China or South East Asia with it's millitary and plans on killing millions. Yes, they were always aware of each other. It's hard to ignore when the Japanese was making a huge navy fleet and then when they start marching their armies throughout Asia.
So you think the Japanese didn't have degroagtory words for Americans? They already treated the Chinese like they were less than dogs.
As for your talks about bombing a forest in the middle of no where. How do you know that would been enough? The US didn't even know the full effectives of a nuclear blast.
The US also only had 2 nuclear warheads during this time. They estimated it would take another 6 months before they could produce another one. Of course they never said this to Japan. They told Japan they had 20 more and were going to use them unless they surrendered.
sleepingzzz
What is your point? Yes Japan was guilty of some of the worst crimes of the 20th century (I might go as far as to call the invasion of China genocide) but does that justify the use of nuclear weapons against its civilians, who had nothing to do with these crimes? The US stooped to their level by dropping atomic bombs, there is not other way to put it.
What does having a large military force have to do with anything? The US had a massive navy as well and controlled half of the pacific so you could use your same logic to accuse the US of being the aggressors.
A nuclear blast is a nuclear blast. It would be pretty damn easy for teh Japanese to realize that they had nothing to counter it. And yes, because the US didn't know the full affect of the bomb on human beings, it was tested on 200,000 innocent civilians. Yeah, sure sounds like the morally superior nation.
You are ignoring the fact that the bombs were not vital in bringing about Japan's surrender, however, so the justification of the bombs to end the war is a pretty weak one.
It baffles me that people think they were unneccesary. The death toll of the invasion of Japan that absolutely would have taken place was millions of Americans, and TENS of millions of Japanese. A Blockade you say? Wouldn't that lead to starvation?Japan was already dangerously low on resources. The people were already going hungry. Dragging that starvation on for millions would be more cruel if you ask me. It was morally wrong? What's morally right about conventional bombs, or guns, or knives, or rocks? The atomic bomb is no different morally from any other weapon. And really, the most powerful effect of the bomb isn't its destructive force, it's the effect it has on the mind. The firebombings of dozens of Japanese cities killed more than the atomics ever did, and Japan still did not consider surrender. It was the mental effect. One bomb destroyed one city, and even in the face of such power, most of the leaders of Japan were eager to continue the fight. It just so happened that one of the few who didn't was the Emperor of Japan, the guy they all obeyed without question. Seriously, the more you are against the use of atomic bombs, the less you know about what was going on in the Pacific Theater. Do some reading about Japan during the second Sinno Japanese war and the Pacific Theater of WWII. Find out why these bombs were necessary for the U.S. and Japan.tylergamereview
Blocade is next to impossible. Japan is huge. How would the US get a navy that size to cover all of Japan. They tried that on Cuba which is tiny and right next to the US. The only thing that happen with Cuba is the civilians suffered while Castro and his leaders live the good life.
It baffles me that people think they were unneccesary. The death toll of the invasion of Japan that absolutely would have taken place was millions of Americans, and TENS of millions of Japanese. A Blockade you say? Wouldn't that lead to starvation?Japan was already dangerously low on resources. The people were already going hungry. Dragging that starvation on for millions would be more cruel if you ask me. It was morally wrong? What's morally right about conventional bombs, or guns, or knives, or rocks? The atomic bomb is no different morally from any other weapon. And really, the most powerful effect of the bomb isn't its destructive force, it's the effect it has on the mind. The firebombings of dozens of Japanese cities killed more than the atomics ever did, and Japan still did not consider surrender. It was the mental effect. One bomb destroyed one city, and even in the face of such power, most of the leaders of Japan were eager to continue the fight. It just so happened that one of the few who didn't was the Emperor of Japan, the guy they all obeyed without question. Seriously, the more you are against the use of atomic bombs, the less you know about what was going on in the Pacific Theater. Do some reading about Japan during the second Sinno Japanese war and the Pacific Theater of WWII. Find out why these bombs were necessary for the U.S. and Japan.tylergamereview
For the record, you seem toneed to read up more on the pacific war. Hirohito had no actual control over the government, he was merely a figurehead for the people to rally around. As for your other points about the strategic necesity, I have addressed them previously. And yeah, the atomic bombs were more humane than conventional ones... except for the fact that they tore teh flesh from people's bodies and left them vommiting and growing unnatural growths all over their bodies for days to come until they finally died. Seriously, go to the damn museum in Hiroshima before you tell anyone about the humaneness of atomic boms.
[QUOTE="sleepingzzz"]
Well, I never heard of the US preparing to invade China or South East Asia with it's millitary and plans on killing millions. Yes, they were always aware of each other. It's hard to ignore when the Japanese was making a huge navy fleet and then when they start marching their armies throughout Asia.
So you think the Japanese didn't have degroagtory words for Americans? They already treated the Chinese like they were less than dogs.
As for your talks about bombing a forest in the middle of no where. How do you know that would been enough? The US didn't even know the full effectives of a nuclear blast.
The US also only had 2 nuclear warheads during this time. They estimated it would take another 6 months before they could produce another one. Of course they never said this to Japan. They told Japan they had 20 more and were going to use them unless they surrendered.
Tokugawa77
What is your point? Yes Japan was guilty of some of the worst crimes of the 20th century (I might go as far as to call the invasion of China genocide) but does that justify the use of nuclear weapons against its civilians, who had nothing to do with these crimes? The US stooped to their level by dropping atomic bombs, there is not other way to put it.
What does having a large military force have to do with anything? The US had a massive navy as well and controlled half of the pacific so you could use your same logic to accuse the US of being the aggressors.
A nuclear blast is a nuclear blast. It would be pretty damn easy for teh Japanese to realize that they had nothing to counter it. And yes, because the US didn't know the full affect of the bomb on human beings, it was tested on 200,000 innocent civilians. Yeah, sure sounds like the morally superior nation.
You are ignoring the fact that the bombs were not vital in bringing about Japan's surrender, however, so the justification of the bombs to end the war is a pretty weak one.
They only had 2 bombs. They were trying to break Japan's back as quickly as possible. They wanted to use the bombs to their greatest effect.
So in a fight to the death a guy pulls a knife and you have a gun. Do you not pull the gun because you feel that would be unfair? Do you then decide to risk your life even though the other guy charged at you with the knife first?
It's just common sense. The leaders of a country are going to do what it takes to defend their country. Yes, they need to try and be humane. But, in the end you do what it takes to save lives of your country and not the country that attacks you.
[QUOTE="tylergamereview"]It baffles me that people think they were unneccesary. The death toll of the invasion of Japan that absolutely would have taken place was millions of Americans, and TENS of millions of Japanese. A Blockade you say? Wouldn't that lead to starvation?Japan was already dangerously low on resources. The people were already going hungry. Dragging that starvation on for millions would be more cruel if you ask me. It was morally wrong? What's morally right about conventional bombs, or guns, or knives, or rocks? The atomic bomb is no different morally from any other weapon. And really, the most powerful effect of the bomb isn't its destructive force, it's the effect it has on the mind. The firebombings of dozens of Japanese cities killed more than the atomics ever did, and Japan still did not consider surrender. It was the mental effect. One bomb destroyed one city, and even in the face of such power, most of the leaders of Japan were eager to continue the fight. It just so happened that one of the few who didn't was the Emperor of Japan, the guy they all obeyed without question. Seriously, the more you are against the use of atomic bombs, the less you know about what was going on in the Pacific Theater. Do some reading about Japan during the second Sinno Japanese war and the Pacific Theater of WWII. Find out why these bombs were necessary for the U.S. and Japan.Tokugawa77
For the record, you seem toneed to read up more on the pacific war. Hirohito had no actual control over the government, he was merely a figurehead for the people to rally around. As for your other points about the strategic necesity, I have addressed them previously. And yeah, the atomic bombs were more humane than conventional ones... except for the fact that they tore teh flesh from people's bodies and left them vommiting and growing unnatural growths all over their bodies for days to come until they finally died. Seriously, go to the damn museum in Hiroshima before you tell anyone about the humaneness of atomic boms.
Don't you think your info is a bit bias? It's not like the Japanese on going to show any of the things they did. I posted before about how none of the murders they did are recorded in their history books.
Yes/Yes It was the only way to end the war without a land invasion. Around the time we dropped the bomb the USSR declared war on Japan and launched an offensive into Manchuria. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki forced Japan against a wall with no alternative except surrender.
[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]
[QUOTE="tylergamereview"]It baffles me that people think they were unneccesary. The death toll of the invasion of Japan that absolutely would have taken place was millions of Americans, and TENS of millions of Japanese. A Blockade you say? Wouldn't that lead to starvation?Japan was already dangerously low on resources. The people were already going hungry. Dragging that starvation on for millions would be more cruel if you ask me. It was morally wrong? What's morally right about conventional bombs, or guns, or knives, or rocks? The atomic bomb is no different morally from any other weapon. And really, the most powerful effect of the bomb isn't its destructive force, it's the effect it has on the mind. The firebombings of dozens of Japanese cities killed more than the atomics ever did, and Japan still did not consider surrender. It was the mental effect. One bomb destroyed one city, and even in the face of such power, most of the leaders of Japan were eager to continue the fight. It just so happened that one of the few who didn't was the Emperor of Japan, the guy they all obeyed without question. Seriously, the more you are against the use of atomic bombs, the less you know about what was going on in the Pacific Theater. Do some reading about Japan during the second Sinno Japanese war and the Pacific Theater of WWII. Find out why these bombs were necessary for the U.S. and Japan.sleepingzzz
For the record, you seem toneed to read up more on the pacific war. Hirohito had no actual control over the government, he was merely a figurehead for the people to rally around. As for your other points about the strategic necesity, I have addressed them previously. And yeah, the atomic bombs were more humane than conventional ones... except for the fact that they tore teh flesh from people's bodies and left them vommiting and growing unnatural growths all over their bodies for days to come until they finally died. Seriously, go to the damn museum in Hiroshima before you tell anyone about the humaneness of atomic boms.
Don't you think your info is a bit bias? It's not like the Japanese on going to show any of the things they did. I posted before about how none of the murders they did are recorded in their history books.
Not at all. The japanese mentallity regarding WW2 is much different from that of the US. The Japanese feel remorse for the war, and pledged to never use war as a way of obtaining what they want. Why else do you think they have no standing army? In fact there is an entire floor in the museum devoted to showing the history behind world war 2. And what did I find? a picture of the Rape of Najing. And how can facts be biased? it is a fact that the atomic bombs took a horrendous human toll, and that is all that the museum tries to make you realize.
i'm saying no, what your saying is speculation who knows what would have happen, all i know is i wouldn't have launch either bomb, sorry killing thousands of people who never even held a gun just isn't on my agenda.Its good to see that the correct answer has the majority of votes...
Anybody saying no must realize that the cost of American AND Japanese lives would be greater.
The Japanese had a no surrender mentality they were not going to give up no matter what. It is a shame it came down to it but it had to be done sadly
fueled-system
I already knew the answer to this, and it turns out that I was right. :P Also, lol @ the guy comparing the moral of rocks to atomic bombs.
[QUOTE="fueled-system"]i'm saying no, what your saying is speculation who knows what would have happen, all i know is i wouldn't have launch either bomb, sorry killing thousands of people who never even held a gun just isn't on my agenda.Its good to see that the correct answer has the majority of votes...
Anybody saying no must realize that the cost of American AND Japanese lives would be greater.
The Japanese had a no surrender mentality they were not going to give up no matter what. It is a shame it came down to it but it had to be done sadly
Chris_Williams
I love the part about your version of history where the marines invade the southern part of the Japanese mainland and we decided to drop an abomb on the invasion beach prior to sending our invasion forces in.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment