if we didn't use them.. we really wouldn't have a good understanding as to their effect ( long and short term ) on people.. so if nothing else it prevented future use.
Should the U.S. have used nuclear weapons against Japan in World War II ?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Both cities were militarily significant...and they DID warn the citizens and give them time to leave.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
I'm not sure if I believe the figures given on that, but no matter. In my mind there is a distinct difference between dropping an unstoppable weapon on a city full of civilians, instantly BBQ'ing tens of thousands of people (and many more due to radiation later on), and going in on land. When you go in on land, people have some chance to defend themselves, however small. IMO an atomic bomb is the equivalent of stabbing a couple hundred thousand civilians in the back at once. There's no chance to defend yourself there. I think people should always have a chance to face their enemies.
Back to my main point for a moment- Atomic weapons could have been used as a deterrent and a form of intimidation, rather than actually destroying cities full of civilians with them. I bet if you detonate a couple of them right off the coast of Japan, or hit one of their naval battlegroups with one, that will get them thinking.
sSubZerOo
Well thats kinda true and kinda false.. The people were expecting conventional bombs.. And when they saw just one plane on the radar and sky, they didn't think much of it..
And that means what exactly? Either way...they knew they were in the path of war.
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Conventional warfare is estimated to have more civilian casualties....sSubZerOo
I'm not sure if I believe the figures given on that, but no matter. In my mind there is a distinct difference between dropping an unstoppable weapon on a city full of civilians, instantly BBQ'ing tens of thousands of people (and many more due to radiation later on), and going in on land. When you go in on land, people have some chance to defend themselves, however small. IMO an atomic bomb is the equivalent of stabbing a couple hundred thousand civilians in the back at once. There's no chance to defend yourself there. I think people should always have a chance to face their enemies.
Back to my main point for a moment- Atomic weapons could have been used as a deterrent and a form of intimidation, rather than actually destroying cities full of civilians with them. I bet if you detonate a couple of them right off the coast of Japan, or hit one of their naval battlegroups with one, that will get them thinking.
Well they didn't have a navy when the atomic bomb was ready.. Japan was very much like the black knight in Monty Python Holy Grail.. Legless, armless still spitting curses at him but could do nothing about it..
Then use the bombs to put on a show off the coast of Japan. Use them to intimidate. I'll never believe that the government of Japan, however stubborn and old-school, wouldn't realize the significance of such a display and give in.
if we didn't use them.. we really wouldn't have a good understanding as to their affect ( long and short term ) on people.. so if nothing else it prevented future use. comp_atkins
That's a good point. I still feel that the ends cannot justify the means.
I also find it quick arrogant that we are looking back - from the safety of our couches and living rooms - and juding the actions of those locked in a life and death struggle. The world was quite a different place 60-70 yrs ago. The had lived through years of hell. Everyone had lost someone. The population did not have access to the ease of information we have today and science, medicine, technology was but a fraction of what we have. War is utter hell and those that think they can apply some form of honor, rules, or nobility to it are just kidding themselves. You want to be self-righteous, go ahead. But I find it very unfair that you're judging people that went through far more increcible difficulties and stife than what you've ever dealt with. I hope that people 100 years from now won't be so judgemental on what savages we are today.
sonicare
.. Life and death struggle? They had their anchors set on the shorelines of Japan unimpeded with high generals like Eisenhower and Chief of Staff Leah declaring that Japan was already defeated.. I am not argueing about what was done for the entire war.. This decision wasn't made by soldiers suffering for post traumatic stress disorder.. THey were made by politicians and generals in safe bunkers, offices and what not.. The "Life and death' struggle doesn't hold a grain of salt here.. This isn't about being self rightous, I am the first to say that I am certainly not that.. But yet again there were people including top men declaring that Japan was already defeated for crying out loud, and that a conventional invasion was not neccesary to begin with!.. Japan was on their back and out, a toothless monster that couldn't hurt them inless they invaded areas.. Which was not neccesary to begin with, all they had to do was blockade them with the navy.. For peopel who don't realize this, JAPAN is a island.. They depend off of imports.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
I'm not sure if I believe the figures given on that, but no matter. In my mind there is a distinct difference between dropping an unstoppable weapon on a city full of civilians, instantly BBQ'ing tens of thousands of people (and many more due to radiation later on), and going in on land. When you go in on land, people have some chance to defend themselves, however small. IMO an atomic bomb is the equivalent of stabbing a couple hundred thousand civilians in the back at once. There's no chance to defend yourself there. I think people should always have a chance to face their enemies.
Back to my main point for a moment- Atomic weapons could have been used as a deterrent and a form of intimidation, rather than actually destroying cities full of civilians with them. I bet if you detonate a couple of them right off the coast of Japan, or hit one of their naval battlegroups with one, that will get them thinking.
hartsickdiscipl
Well they didn't have a navy when the atomic bomb was ready.. Japan was very much like the black knight in Monty Python Holy Grail.. Legless, armless still spitting curses at him but could do nothing about it..
Then use the bombs to put on a show off the coast of Japan. Use them to intimidate. I'll never believe that the government of Japan, however stubborn and old-school, wouldn't realize the significance of such a display and give in.
Might have worked if we had more bombs.[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
I'm not sure if I believe the figures given on that, but no matter. In my mind there is a distinct difference between dropping an unstoppable weapon on a city full of civilians, instantly BBQ'ing tens of thousands of people (and many more due to radiation later on), and going in on land. When you go in on land, people have some chance to defend themselves, however small. IMO an atomic bomb is the equivalent of stabbing a couple hundred thousand civilians in the back at once. There's no chance to defend yourself there. I think people should always have a chance to face their enemies.
Back to my main point for a moment- Atomic weapons could have been used as a deterrent and a form of intimidation, rather than actually destroying cities full of civilians with them. I bet if you detonate a couple of them right off the coast of Japan, or hit one of their naval battlegroups with one, that will get them thinking.
hartsickdiscipl
Well they didn't have a navy when the atomic bomb was ready.. Japan was very much like the black knight in Monty Python Holy Grail.. Legless, armless still spitting curses at him but could do nothing about it..
Then use the bombs to put on a show off the coast of Japan. Use them to intimidate. I'll never believe that the government of Japan, however stubborn and old-school, wouldn't realize the significance of such a display and give in.
What you believe is immaterial. You are not in the time and place with the mindset of the Japanese people.
It's hard to say looking back, since it's nearly impossible to predict what would have happened if we hadn't used them. The most I can say is this. The decision may not have been the best one, but it was the one that most reliably ended the war, and for that I cannot really blame Truman.
[QUOTE="sonicare"]
I also find it quick arrogant that we are looking back - from the safety of our couches and living rooms - and juding the actions of those locked in a life and death struggle. The world was quite a different place 60-70 yrs ago. The had lived through years of hell. Everyone had lost someone. The population did not have access to the ease of information we have today and science, medicine, technology was but a fraction of what we have. War is utter hell and those that think they can apply some form of honor, rules, or nobility to it are just kidding themselves. You want to be self-righteous, go ahead. But I find it very unfair that you're judging people that went through far more increcible difficulties and stife than what you've ever dealt with. I hope that people 100 years from now won't be so judgemental on what savages we are today.
.. Life and death struggle? They had their anchors set on the shorelines of Japan unimpeded with high generals like Eisenhower and Chief of Staff Leah declaring that Japan was already defeated.. I am not argueing about what was done for the entire war.. This decision was made by soldiers suffering for post traumatic stress disorder.. THey were made by politicians and generals in safe bunkers, offices and what not.. The "Life and death' struggle doesn't hold a grain of salt here.. This isn't about being self rightous, I am the first to say that I am certainly not that.. But yet again there were people including top men declaring that Japan was already defeated for crying out loud, and that a conventional invasion was not neccesary to begin with!..
Yes life and death. You might be shocked to know that the allies actually had people die during the war.[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
Well they didn't have a navy when the atomic bomb was ready.. Japan was very much like the black knight in Monty Python Holy Grail.. Legless, armless still spitting curses at him but could do nothing about it..
LJS9502_basic
Then use the bombs to put on a show off the coast of Japan. Use them to intimidate. I'll never believe that the government of Japan, however stubborn and old-school, wouldn't realize the significance of such a display and give in.
What you believe is immaterial. You are not in the time and place with the mindset of the Japanese people.This whole discussion is about what we believe regarding this scenario :?. You're saying that I don't have a right to voice my opinion on the subject?
[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]if we didn't use them.. we really wouldn't have a good understanding as to their affect ( long and short term ) on people.. so if nothing else it prevented future use. hartsickdiscipl
That's a good point. I still feel that the ends cannot justify the means.
hard to say because we're not discussing this during ww2 but decades later. if they had the opportunity to potentially end the war very quickly. why not jump at that?[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
Well they didn't have a navy when the atomic bomb was ready.. Japan was very much like the black knight in Monty Python Holy Grail.. Legless, armless still spitting curses at him but could do nothing about it..
l4dak47
Then use the bombs to put on a show off the coast of Japan. Use them to intimidate. I'll never believe that the government of Japan, however stubborn and old-school, wouldn't realize the significance of such a display and give in.
Might have worked if we had more bombs.We could've made more. I tend to think that 2 of them within view of the Japanese leadership would've gotten the point across.
There were people at the time, both in positions of power as well as various political activists, journalists, ect. who voiced their opposition to the use of the atomic bombs. It's not as if it was an unanimous decision with no contemporary dissenting voices.I also find it quite arrogant that we are looking back - from the safety of our couches and living rooms - and juding the actions of those locked in a life and death struggle. The world was quite a different place 60-70 yrs ago. The had lived through years of hell. Everyone had lost someone. The population did not have access to the ease of information we have today and science, medicine, technology was but a fraction of what we have. War is utter hell and those that think they can apply some form of honor, rules, or nobility to it are just kidding themselves. You want to be self-righteous, go ahead. But I find it very unfair that you're judging people that went through far more increcible difficulties and stife than what you've ever dealt with. I hope that people 100 years from now won't be so judgemental on what savages we are today.
sonicare
What you believe is immaterial. You are not in the time and place with the mindset of the Japanese people.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
Then use the bombs to put on a show off the coast of Japan. Use them to intimidate. I'll never believe that the government of Japan, however stubborn and old-school, wouldn't realize the significance of such a display and give in.
hartsickdiscipl
This whole discussion is about what we believe regarding this scenario :?. You're saying that I don't have a right to voice my opinion on the subject?
No I'm saying what you think is immaterial to the reality. Which should be something you use to formulate your opinion.....no?[QUOTE="sonicare"]There were people at the time, both in positions of power as well as various political activists, journalists, ect. who voiced their opposition to the use of the atomic bombs. It's not as if it was an unanimous decision with no contemporary dissenting voices.Political activists and journalists aren't fighting the war though....I also find it quite arrogant that we are looking back - from the safety of our couches and living rooms - and juding the actions of those locked in a life and death struggle. The world was quite a different place 60-70 yrs ago. The had lived through years of hell. Everyone had lost someone. The population did not have access to the ease of information we have today and science, medicine, technology was but a fraction of what we have. War is utter hell and those that think they can apply some form of honor, rules, or nobility to it are just kidding themselves. You want to be self-righteous, go ahead. But I find it very unfair that you're judging people that went through far more increcible difficulties and stife than what you've ever dealt with. I hope that people 100 years from now won't be so judgemental on what savages we are today.
-Sun_Tzu-
I also find it quite arrogant that we are looking back - from the safety of our couches and living rooms - and juding the actions of those locked in a life and death struggle. The world was quite a different place 60-70 yrs ago. The had lived through years of hell. Everyone had lost someone. The population did not have access to the ease of information we have today and science, medicine, technology was but a fraction of what we have. War is utter hell and those that think they can apply some form of honor, rules, or nobility to it are just kidding themselves. You want to be self-righteous, go ahead. But I find it very unfair that you're judging people that went through far more increcible difficulties and stife than what you've ever dealt with. I hope that people 100 years from now won't be so judgemental on what savages we are today.
There were people at the time, both in positions of power as well as various political activists, journalists, ect. who voiced their opposition to the use of the atomic bombs. It's not as if it was an unanimous decision with no contemporary dissenting voices. I'm not saying it was an unanimous decision. I'm not saying it was the best decision. What I am saying, is I think it's arrogant for people today to sit back and condemn and villify the people that made that decision during a horrific time.[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="sonicare"]
I also find it quick arrogant that we are looking back - from the safety of our couches and living rooms - and juding the actions of those locked in a life and death struggle. The world was quite a different place 60-70 yrs ago. The had lived through years of hell. Everyone had lost someone. The population did not have access to the ease of information we have today and science, medicine, technology was but a fraction of what we have. War is utter hell and those that think they can apply some form of honor, rules, or nobility to it are just kidding themselves. You want to be self-righteous, go ahead. But I find it very unfair that you're judging people that went through far more increcible difficulties and stife than what you've ever dealt with. I hope that people 100 years from now won't be so judgemental on what savages we are today.
sonicare
.. Life and death struggle? They had their anchors set on the shorelines of Japan unimpeded with high generals like Eisenhower and Chief of Staff Leah declaring that Japan was already defeated.. I am not argueing about what was done for the entire war.. This decision was made by soldiers suffering for post traumatic stress disorder.. THey were made by politicians and generals in safe bunkers, offices and what not.. The "Life and death' struggle doesn't hold a grain of salt here.. This isn't about being self rightous, I am the first to say that I am certainly not that.. But yet again there were people including top men declaring that Japan was already defeated for crying out loud, and that a conventional invasion was not neccesary to begin with!..
Yes life and death. You might be shocked to know that the allies actually had people die during the war.Excuse me? Excuse me? Don't patronize me or talk in such a condecending tone... I am full well aware of this, and I never stated otherwise.. I would most defientely agree if Japan was still a real threat.. But they were not, they were contained within their island by warships and their economy were bleeding to death.. and the TOP general Eisenhower said it wasn't neccesary.. You seem to be constantly ignoring this fact.. Apparently one of the top military generals during the time pointing out that this.. This wasn't a consensus they all made, infact quite a few lofty people were agianst it... But no no YOUR RIGHT, I must clearly no nothing about this..
FURTHERmore where did I vilify these people? I didn't I merely said it was unneccesary.. That is all. I never called them monsters or what not.. EVER in any of my messages.
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"]if we didn't use them.. we really wouldn't have a good understanding as to their affect ( long and short term ) on people.. so if nothing else it prevented future use. comp_atkins
That's a good point. I still feel that the ends cannot justify the means.
hard to say because we're not discussing this during ww2 but decades later. if they had the opportunity to potentially end the war very quickly. why not jump at that?I think that using atomic weapons is cowardly and honorless. Now, the argument can be made that war is full of such actions, and it is.. But I think nuclear weapons takes it to a new level. You cross a line with these things, no matter how bad it's gotten. It's like 2 people locked in a nasty knife fight, one is nearly dead, one clearly has the upper hand. The one who is winning pulls out a 44 magnum and shoots the other guy a couple of times to finish him off. I don't like that.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="sonicare"]There were people at the time, both in positions of power as well as various political activists, journalists, ect. who voiced their opposition to the use of the atomic bombs. It's not as if it was an unanimous decision with no contemporary dissenting voices.Political activists and journalists aren't fighting the war though....I also find it quite arrogant that we are looking back - from the safety of our couches and living rooms - and juding the actions of those locked in a life and death struggle. The world was quite a different place 60-70 yrs ago. The had lived through years of hell. Everyone had lost someone. The population did not have access to the ease of information we have today and science, medicine, technology was but a fraction of what we have. War is utter hell and those that think they can apply some form of honor, rules, or nobility to it are just kidding themselves. You want to be self-righteous, go ahead. But I find it very unfair that you're judging people that went through far more increcible difficulties and stife than what you've ever dealt with. I hope that people 100 years from now won't be so judgemental on what savages we are today.
LJS9502_basic
I wasn't aware that it was made by soldiers that actually fought in the battles.. Silly me here I was thinking it was being made by generals in big battleships or politicans in office..
Soldiers are people as well. . . . . A life is a life.sonicare
I don't see it as that simple. Soldiers and civilians are very different. Soldiers sign their life away, and know what to expect. Civilians never asked for that, nor were they responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor.
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] What you believe is immaterial. You are not in the time and place with the mindset of the Japanese people.LJS9502_basic
This whole discussion is about what we believe regarding this scenario :?. You're saying that I don't have a right to voice my opinion on the subject?
No I'm saying what you think is immaterial to the reality. Which should be something you use to formulate your opinion.....no?What about the reality do you know that I don't? What gives you the right to discuss this and formulate ideas about the situation, while keeping me from doing the same? Most of what we're saying here is speculation about alternatives based on what we know from history.
It's well known that the U.S wanted a full non-negotiable surrender from the Japanese which they refused. They were already in peace talks with Russia, if the U.S had simply offered a negotiated surrender then the nukes would have been unnecessary.
I hate the fact that people are using age old ESTIMATES to calculate the loss of life in conventional warfare. The only reason this argument is somewhat valid is because it remains untested, it is entirely theoretical.
The indiscriminate killing of civilians has been adopted before not only by Hitler but by the British as well, and we cannot condemn them for this. But never before had a military force decisively annihalated an entire population. Somewhat horrificly as well, especially through radiation.
Also, the U.S had completely ruled out a show of force, why they did not visibly test the nukes in plain sight of the Japanese i do not know. It is not as though through observation the Japs might develop nukes of their own, this is a path that surely should have been taken.
The truth is, the American Government and people, as were the rest of world, were tired of war. Forseeing (somewhat incorrectly IMO) a lengthy continuation of the war they decided to take abrupt action neglecting the effects for the sake of the greater good.
Of course, you can always take the route of hardness, 'its war, get over it' or latch on to estimates that are only theoretical in being as if to exscuse an atrocity, but the damage this moral coldness and distancing causes leaves thousands affected.
Might have worked if we had more bombs.[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
Then use the bombs to put on a show off the coast of Japan. Use them to intimidate. I'll never believe that the government of Japan, however stubborn and old-school, wouldn't realize the significance of such a display and give in.
hartsickdiscipl
We could've made more. I tend to think that 2 of them within view of the Japanese leadership would've gotten the point across.
But if it didn't, we would have been royally screwed. It took us a long time to build those 2 bombs. Might it have worked? Maybe. If it didn't, we would have lost more soldiers and even more innoceont civillians would have been killed with the firebombings the U.S would have done afterwards.[QUOTE="Espada12"][QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]
Why do we have to justify use of a weapon that ended the war? The United States had a clear justification for dropping the atomic bomb.
What is the Japanese justification for the Rape of Nanking,the Bataan Death March,Unit 731, and Pearl Harbor?
sonicare
Just because one side does bad doesn't mean the other gets a free pass to do so. I'm all for doing what's necessary, if you see alot of my posts you will know I'm pro military more than anything else but what threat could japan have posed in their state?
But why put that under the microscope and ignore all the other atrocities committed during war. War is hell. People that look for rules or honor in war will find none.I don't think we are, but somethings just get more attention than others. The japanese were just as, if not more ruthless than the germans, stalin was also a ruthless leader as well, but when someone mentions WWII only hitler gets called out most of the time.
[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
.. Life and death struggle? They had their anchors set on the shorelines of Japan unimpeded with high generals like Eisenhower and Chief of Staff Leah declaring that Japan was already defeated.. I am not argueing about what was done for the entire war.. This decision was made by soldiers suffering for post traumatic stress disorder.. THey were made by politicians and generals in safe bunkers, offices and what not.. The "Life and death' struggle doesn't hold a grain of salt here.. This isn't about being self rightous, I am the first to say that I am certainly not that.. But yet again there were people including top men declaring that Japan was already defeated for crying out loud, and that a conventional invasion was not neccesary to begin with!..
Yes life and death. You might be shocked to know that the allies actually had people die during the war.Excuse me? Excuse me? Don't patronize me or talk in such a condecending tone... I am full well aware of this, and I never stated otherwise.. I would most defientely agree if Japan was still a real threat.. But they were not, they were contained within their island by warships and their economy were bleeding to death.. and the TOP general Eisenhower said it wasn't neccesary.. You seem to be constantly ignoring this fact.. Apparently one of the top military generals during the time pointing out that this.. This wasn't a consensus they all made, infact quite a few lofty people were agianst it... But no no YOUR RIGHT, I must clearly no nothing about this..
Dwight Eisenhower was the top general for the european theatre of operations.[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"][QUOTE="l4dak47"] Might have worked if we had more bombs. l4dak47
We could've made more. I tend to think that 2 of them within view of the Japanese leadership would've gotten the point across.
But if it didn't, we would have been royally screwed. It took us a long time to build those 2 bombs. Might it have worked? Maybe. If it didn't, we would have lost more soldiers and even more innoceont civillians would have been killed with the firebombings the U.S would have done afterwards.Yep so screwed.. Our navy would have been ripe for the pickings! The Japanese military would attack with infantry on row boats!
The bombs should never have been used, but the fact that the Navy needed to drop TWO before Japan surrendered leads me to believe that it was necessary. We've spent the past 70 years making sure they are never used again and trying to stop proliferation. Still, deciding which countries are allowed to have nukes seems a little hypocritical considering we're the only nation to use one in anger. wstfldYou said it your self we had to use two of them... Imagine if the invasion had occurred Japan would have never surrendered.
What? You do know those generals were part of the war as opposed to journalists and activists?:|I wasn't aware that it was made by soldiers that actually fought in the battles.. Silly me here I was thinking it was being made by generals in big battleships or politicans in office..
sSubZerOo
Yes
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="sonicare"] Yes life and death. You might be shocked to know that the allies actually had people die during the war.sonicare
Excuse me? Excuse me? Don't patronize me or talk in such a condecending tone... I am full well aware of this, and I never stated otherwise.. I would most defientely agree if Japan was still a real threat.. But they were not, they were contained within their island by warships and their economy were bleeding to death.. and the TOP general Eisenhower said it wasn't neccesary.. You seem to be constantly ignoring this fact.. Apparently one of the top military generals during the time pointing out that this.. This wasn't a consensus they all made, infact quite a few lofty people were agianst it... But no no YOUR RIGHT, I must clearly no nothing about this..
Dwight Eisenhower was the top general for the european theatre of operations.What does that have anything to do with it? I disagree furthermore your making sound like I am demonizing them.. No where did I ever say these people were evil or what not.. I said it was unneccesary.. And he isn't the only one that rejected to it..
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Both cities were militarily significant...and they DID warn the citizens and give them time to leave.
LJS9502_basic
Warned? With what? Leaflets? That's a joke.
How else do you think they could have warned them? The Japanese government wouldn't have passed on the info.:|You can't properly warn civilians about something that they've never seen. That's why you don't attack them, period.
[QUOTE="sonicare"]Soldiers are people as well. . . . . A life is a life.LikeHaterade
I don't see it as that simple. Soldiers and civilians are very different. Soldiers sign their life away, and know what to expect. Civilians never asked for that, nor were they responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Soldiers are still people. If we managed to find a way to reduce the loss of life on both sides, why should we not take it?What? You do know those generals were part of the war as opposed to journalists and activists?:|[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
I wasn't aware that it was made by soldiers that actually fought in the battles.. Silly me here I was thinking it was being made by generals in big battleships or politicans in office..
LJS9502_basic
Journalists and activists were actually in favor of the bombing.. The main people were military men who rejected it.. In the end I don't think any one is criticizing the US in claiming it was evil or what not.. Merely that was unneccesary for a multitude of reasons.
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"][QUOTE="l4dak47"] Might have worked if we had more bombs. l4dak47
We could've made more. I tend to think that 2 of them within view of the Japanese leadership would've gotten the point across.
But if it didn't, we would have been royally screwed. It took us a long time to build those 2 bombs. Might it have worked? Maybe. If it didn't, we would have lost more soldiers and even more innoceont civillians would have been killed with the firebombings the U.S would have done afterwards.Our military could've blockaded Japan if it didn't work, so no.. we wouldn't have been screwed at all.
[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
Excuse me? Excuse me? Don't patronize me or talk in such a condecending tone... I am full well aware of this, and I never stated otherwise.. I would most defientely agree if Japan was still a real threat.. But they were not, they were contained within their island by warships and their economy were bleeding to death.. and the TOP general Eisenhower said it wasn't neccesary.. You seem to be constantly ignoring this fact.. Apparently one of the top military generals during the time pointing out that this.. This wasn't a consensus they all made, infact quite a few lofty people were agianst it... But no no YOUR RIGHT, I must clearly no nothing about this..
Dwight Eisenhower was the top general for the european theatre of operations.What does that have anything to do with it? I disagree furthermore your making sound like I am demonizing them.. No where did I ever say these people were evil or what not.. I said it was unneccesary.. And he isn't the only one that rejected to it..
I'd say it has a lot to do with it. The Pacific was not his area of expertise. What did the top commander of the PTO think of the bomb? And I apologize if I misunderstood your point. I thought you were demonizing the decision. Certainly it may not have been the most ideal choice, but I don't condemn them because I wasn't there and didn't live during those times. They did what they had to do.[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="sonicare"]Soldiers are people as well. . . . . A life is a life.l4dak47
I don't see it as that simple. Soldiers and civilians are very different. Soldiers sign their life away, and know what to expect. Civilians never asked for that, nor were they responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Soldiers are still people. If we managed to find a way to reduce the loss of life on both sides, why should we not take it?There's a difference between the person who picks up a gun and the one who doesn't. A major difference.
[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="sonicare"]Soldiers are people as well. . . . . A life is a life.l4dak47
I don't see it as that simple. Soldiers and civilians are very different. Soldiers sign their life away, and know what to expect. Civilians never asked for that, nor were they responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Soldiers are still people. If we managed to find a way to reduce the loss of life on both sides, why should we not take it?We already had a solution its called navy blockade.. Japan had no navy or air force to speak of during that itme.. They had no way of harming our navy, while at the same time Japan depended off imports.. They would have given up soon enough with minimal causalities on either side.
But if it didn't, we would have been royally screwed. It took us a long time to build those 2 bombs. Might it have worked? Maybe. If it didn't, we would have lost more soldiers and even more innoceont civillians would have been killed with the firebombings the U.S would have done afterwards.[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
We could've made more. I tend to think that 2 of them within view of the Japanese leadership would've gotten the point across.
sSubZerOo
Yep so screwed.. Our navy would have been ripe for the pickings! The Japanese military would attack with infantry on row boats!
The war would've continued for a little longer and more civillains would die in the next row of firebombings. By using the nukes,we saved more lives in the end.[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="sonicare"]Soldiers are people as well. . . . . A life is a life.l4dak47
I don't see it as that simple. Soldiers and civilians are very different. Soldiers sign their life away, and know what to expect. Civilians never asked for that, nor were they responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Soldiers are still people. If we managed to find a way to reduce the loss of life on both sides, why should we not take it?At the cost of innocent lives, hell no.
Soldiers are still people. If we managed to find a way to reduce the loss of life on both sides, why should we not take it?[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]
I don't see it as that simple. Soldiers and civilians are very different. Soldiers sign their life away, and know what to expect. Civilians never asked for that, nor were they responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor.
hartsickdiscipl
There's a difference between the person who picks up a gun and the one who doesn't. A major difference.
No, there isn't. Picking up a gun doesn't make them less of a human.[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="sonicare"] Dwight Eisenhower was the top general for the european theatre of operations.sonicare
What does that have anything to do with it? I disagree furthermore your making sound like I am demonizing them.. No where did I ever say these people were evil or what not.. I said it was unneccesary.. And he isn't the only one that rejected to it..
I'd say it has a lot to do with it. The Pacific was not his area of expertise. What did the top commander of the PTO think of the bomb? And I apologize if I misunderstood your point. I thought you were demonizing the decision. Certainly it may not have been the most ideal choice, but I don't condemn them because I wasn't there and didn't live during those times. They did what they had to do.I don't condemn that it happened, I condemn the reasoning behind it.. And when it comes to Truman i would have not been the least bit surprised he wanted it partially for political reasons in display against the USSR that ever since FDR's death, Stalin was becoming extremely hostile towards Truman.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="l4dak47"] But if it didn't, we would have been royally screwed. It took us a long time to build those 2 bombs. Might it have worked? Maybe. If it didn't, we would have lost more soldiers and even more innoceont civillians would have been killed with the firebombings the U.S would have done afterwards.l4dak47
Yep so screwed.. Our navy would have been ripe for the pickings! The Japanese military would attack with infantry on row boats!
The war would've continued for a little longer and more civillains would die in the next row of firebombings. By using the nukes,we saved more lives in the end.There wouldn't have had to be any more firebombings. A blockade doesn't have to involve any offensive action.
[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]
I don't see it as that simple. Soldiers and civilians are very different. Soldiers sign their life away, and know what to expect. Civilians never asked for that, nor were they responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Soldiers are still people. If we managed to find a way to reduce the loss of life on both sides, why should we not take it?There's a difference between the person who picks up a gun and the one who doesn't. A major difference.
So you're saying that soldier's lives are less valuable than someone else. But not being drafted into an army or volunteering, that your life is more valuable?[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"][QUOTE="l4dak47"] Soldiers are still people. If we managed to find a way to reduce the loss of life on both sides, why should we not take it? l4dak47
There's a difference between the person who picks up a gun and the one who doesn't. A major difference.
No, there isn't. Picking up a gun doesn't make them less of a human.Yes, it does. When you pick up a weapon to kill another person, you become less human.
How else do you think they could have warned them? The Japanese government wouldn't have passed on the info.:|[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
Warned? With what? Leaflets? That's a joke.
hartsickdiscipl
You can't properly warn civilians about something that they've never seen. That's why you don't attack them, period.
For the second time...BOTH cities were of military importance. Period.Soldiers are still people. If we managed to find a way to reduce the loss of life on both sides, why should we not take it?[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]
I don't see it as that simple. Soldiers and civilians are very different. Soldiers sign their life away, and know what to expect. Civilians never asked for that, nor were they responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor.
LikeHaterade
At the cost of innocent lives, hell no.
You do realize by using the nukes, we saved more innocent lives in the end.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment