Do you agree with the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

novax · 06-13-2006, 12:24 PM

Do you agree with the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Question is simple. Its not about being sympathetic or not. Everyone feels bad when innocent people die.

The question is if you agree that it should of happened or not. Plain and simple. Keep in mind ethics means little in war.

IraHays · 06-13-2006, 12:28 PM

I think Japan should of been contained with a naval barracade and the bombs used on Russia.

Geography · 06-13-2006, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IraHays

I think Japan should of been contained with a naval barracade and the bombs used on Russia.

Why Russia?

IraHays · 06-13-2006, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geography

Why Russia?

Because it would of saved 50 years of hell for much of the world. Patton wanted to keep going as well as Churchill. Unfortunetly a conventional war against them was hardly a garaunteed victory at the time. Should of used the bombs. But after 5 years of war, I can see why many people were ready for it to be over with.

IceDragon · 06-13-2006, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by novax

Do you agree with the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Question is simple. Its not about being sympathetic or not. Everyone feels bad when innocent people die.

The question is if you agree that it happened or not. Plain and simple. Keep in mind ethics means little in war.

No-one deserves **** like that. I'm not certain of all the circumstances surrounding it, but that's one hel of an overkill.

I mean come on, the usual bombs and missiles worked fine, so why the f*ck do it other than to prove they could, and had the capability to do so? Even in the event that it could have potentially ended the war early and saved thousands of Allied lives, that was one cowardly way of doing it.

A & B · 06-13-2006, 12:37 PM

Can you believe it novax? I voted yes!

And I think this is a good thread btw.

Here's my reasoning why:

We're talking about WW2 here. Not an intifada, not some small conflict, not some meaningless war, this was the biggest, most costly, most total and arguably the most important war in the history of the world. When they dropped the bomb in 1945, most of Europe had been at total war for 5 years, and the US for about 3. Japan was not going to surrender, everybody knew this. The battles at Okinawa and Iwo Jima demonstrated this. A land invasion of Japan had casualties estimated at like 400,000 - 1 million Americans dead (not even wounded or total casualties). And at the least, 5 million Japanese dead (again, not wounded or total casualties).

And for years, nations had been rushing to develop the nuclear bomb. And suddenly, you find yourself in posession of that bomb. It's a war ending weapon, it's the weapon, and you're still in the most devastating war mankind has ever known... What are you supposed to do... sit on it? Should Truman have ordered hundreds of thousands of Americans to go and die instead, keeping in mind it would have cost many millions of Japanese dead as well? I don't think so.

It's not like they could have conventionally bombed Japan into surrendering like this. By the end of the war, Japan was already virtually destroyed. Something like 63 major Japanese cities were rubble, even before they dropped the nukes. It was a) invasion, or b) nukes.

But I think the reasons they dropped the bombs were 1) to make a show of force against the Soviet's approaching the Allied lines in Europe, and 2) just to end the damn war, whatever the costs.

All this talk about "revenge for Pearl Harbour"... blah blah blah... I think that has little to nothing to do with it.

kethnaab · 06-13-2006, 12:39 PM

well-stated. In the end, less people died.

A & B · 06-13-2006, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IceDragon

No-one deserves **** like that. I'm not certain of all the circumstances surrounding it, but that's one hel of an overkill.

I mean come on, the usual bombs and missiles worked fine, so why the f*ck do it other than to prove they could, and had the capability to do so? Even in the event that it could have potentially ended the war early and saved thousands of Allied lives, that was one cowardly way of doing it.

1) conventional bombs and missiles didn't "work fine". They had already reduced almost all of Japan to ruins, and there were no signs of surrendering yet.

2) It wasn't a matter of saving "thousands" of lives (Allied and Japanese), it was a matter of saving millions of lives... You should see the estimates of casualties and fatalities of the planned invasion.

IraHays · 06-13-2006, 12:51 PM

IMO it wasn't necessary to use the bombs on Japan. It goes back to Russia. We had to show we had it AND more importantly the will to use it. I'm not sure if a simple demonstration would of been enough to convince a Japan surrender, it probably would of. But the message was loud and clear to Stalin.

**TheSheepdog** · 06-13-2006, 12:52 PM

very good thread

IraHays · 06-13-2006, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IceDragon

Even in the event that it could have potentially ended the war early and saved thousands of Allied lives, that was one cowardly way of doing it.

Tell that to the "cowardly" Marines that went island hoping.

A & B · 06-13-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IraHays

IMO it wasn't necessary to use the bombs on Japan. It goes back to Russia. We had to show we had it AND more importantly the will to use it. I'm not sure if a simple demonstration would of been enough to convince a Japan surrender, it probably would of. But the message was loud and clear to Stalin.

Precisely.

I think the majority of the historical community is in partial-agreement, that the bombs were dropped to send a message to Stalin, as much as they were designed to end the war. It's also an internationally recognized concensus that these bombings saved more lives in the long run than they cost.

But they did test it first, it was called "Trinity" I think, they tested it in New Mexico I believe.

But it's not like they had enough bombs to put on "demonstrations" either. They tested Trinity, and then they had only two bombs left. It was really a gamble to drop both of the them the way they did. Had Japan not surrendered, it would have taken quite some time to produce more bombs, and they would have had to consider invasion all over again.

The bombs they dropped on Japan were the only two they had. Putting on "demonstrations" wasn't possible.

1devil · 06-13-2006, 12:58 PM

What about the fire bombing of Dresden? About 25,000- 35,000 people died in that attack. By comparison about 39,000 died in Nagaski and 66,000 in Hiroshima.

freedom fighter · 06-13-2006, 12:59 PM

Theres no way Japan deserved nuking, bearing in mind the war was
all but won, but America was weary of a land invasion and the humilating attack on Pearl harbour must have really hurt and contributed to the nuking of Japan!

IraHays · 06-13-2006, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1devil

What about the fire bombing of Dresden? About 25,000- 35,000 people died in that attack. By comparison about 39,000 died in Nagaski and 66,000 in Hiroshima.

We should stay on topic, but Dresden is a black eye on UK history.

**Nainoa** · 06-13-2006, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A & B

1) conventional bombs and missiles didn't "work fine". They had already reduced almost all of Japan to ruins, and there were no signs of surrendering yet.

2) It wasn't a matter of saving "thousands" of lives (Allied and Japanese), it was a matter of saving millions of lives... You should see the estimates of casualties and fatalities of the planned invasion.

Death Toll estimate was 200,000 Americans lives JUST TO GET TO TOKYO!

After that they could estimate what the death toll would be for an urban fight, once they finished fire bombing.

***

People have to remember that the use of the bomb wasn't just to end the war...

As A&B said in his previous post... There was a Soviet deterant element.

****

You have to understand the events leading up to it...

War was bad etc...

We defeat Germany... Allowing The Russians to take Berlin because we didn't want it to cost so many American lives... (So the precedent is already set.)

Truman goes to the Potsdam conference, where Stalin is getting ready to make a massive land grab, and there is all kinds of Evidence that Stalin wants to take EVERYTHING... Which would give the Soviets so much resources, that after 10 years of rebuilding they would be able to launch another war of conquest all their own...

While at Potsdam, Truman recieves word that the bomb is ready...

Truman is literally staring at friggin' Stalin, as Stalin Rattles his sabre, ready to turn himself in Hitler version 2.0.
At this time the Russians had in their possession more land than any other empire in the history of the world! And the means to expand it!

So what's the next step, after a semi-fruitless Postdam Conference...

Stalin goes right out and sends his Eastern Armies down into China where Japan has recalled their forces to defend the home island against the Coming American invasion...

Stalin makes the massive land grab, even though he didn't lift a goddam finger against Japan... Which is essentially sending a message to Truman. (Who at that time was seen as a weakling in Stalin Eyes, having replaced FDR only a few weeks earlier.)

Stalin's message to Truman... "Pfft... I can do what I want... What are you gonna do about it?"

Stalin was thinking he could make the big grab, because there was no way America was going to fight both the Soviets and the Japanese...

So Truman's Response, was to end the war and tell Stalin... "Back off Bitch or I'm Turning you and your whole family into extra crispy bacon!"

As a result, we get the cold war...

And Stalin came along with regards to Germany... He stopped his sabre rattling and back stabbing, and things progressed into a proper occupation.

****

In short if America hadn't dropped the bomb, we'd all be speaking Russian right now!

1devil · 06-13-2006, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IraHays

We should stay on topic, but Dresden is a black eye on UK history.

I don't think this is off topic at all. I think this is a discussion about about the morality of bombing civilian targets as a means to an end.

A & B · 06-13-2006, 01:07 PM

For some funny stories, MaCarthur wanted to drop something like 50 nukes on China during the Korean war. And there were a number of US high-ups who wanted to drop dozens on Vietnam too. Some US officials were seriously considering nuking Cuba off the face of the earth as well.

1devil · 06-13-2006, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A & B

For some funny stories, MaCarthur wanted to drop something like 50 nukes on China during the Korean war. And there were a number of US high-ups who wanted to drop dozens on Vietnam too. Some US officials were seriously considering nuking Cuba off the face of the earth as well.

That's a scary kind of funny.

A & B · 06-13-2006, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freedom fighter

Theres no way Japan deserved nuking, bearing in mind the war was
all but won, but America was weary of a land invasion and the humilating attack on Pearl harbour must have really hurt and contributed to the nuking of Japan!

Pearl Harbour had little to do with it.

And a land invasion of Japan would have kiled far more Japanese than the nukes did.

IraHays · 06-13-2006, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nainoa

In short if America hadn't dropped the bomb, we'd all be speaking Russian right now!

ha, good post. But I don't think Stalin would of made it over here. (USA) But certainly all of Europe.

Heck, invading Europe wasn't even necessary to defeat Germany, but it had to be done. The French don't like Vodka and Caviar.

**Nainoa** · 06-13-2006, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1devil

I don't think this is off topic at all. I think this is a discussion about about the morality of bombing civilian targets as a means to an end.

No it's not... This is about the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it's effect on WWII...

The nuances involved effect TENS OF MILLIONS OF LIVES, and the direct unfolding of the history of the 20th century...

It's a world turning event...

And while civilian bombing is tragic etc... When you understand the historical significance of us bombing Japan, you'll find that it's a VERY different topic all together.

Comparing the day of days described as "The Day the Earth Stood Still."
To an errant bomb going through the window of a goddam pastry shop in Berlin, is like comparing flushing a toilet and the state of the world oceans.

A & B · 06-13-2006, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1devil

What about the fire bombing of Dresden? About 25,000- 35,000 people died in that attack. By comparison about 39,000 died in Nagaski and 66,000 in Hiroshima.

The firebombing alone of Tokyo in 1945 killed about as , if not more people than Hiroshima and Nagasaki did put together, and was much more horrible. But people don't talk about this for some reason either...

IraHays · 06-13-2006, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1devil

I don't think this is off topic at all. I think this is a discussion about about the morality of bombing civilian targets as a means to an end.

bombing of civilian targets was RAF protocole, displacement of workers. They only bombed at night and carpet bombed industrial cities. The thing about Dresden is it had no military value.

Whats real scary was the relative ineffectivness of all of our bombings. A very high cost to pay in pilots and aircraft for not big results.

A & B · 06-13-2006, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nainoa

In short if America hadn't dropped the bomb, we'd all be speaking Russian right now!

Okay, well... That's a stretch.

But the tensions between the Red's and the Allies in Europe may have been a little more heated for sure.

**Nainoa** · 06-13-2006, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IraHays

ha, good post. But I don't think Stalin would of made it over here. (USA) But certainly all of Europe.

Heck, invading Europe wasn't even necessary to defeat Germany, but it had to be done. The French don't like Vodka and Caviar.

Oh not right away... They would have spent 10 years rebuilding, and cashing in all the German technology, then they would have Started their own WWIII in the late 50's and Early 60's...

Looking back at History, once the Rosenburgs handed them the Atomic Bomb plans, They wasted little time in setting it up, testing it, and then trying to incite an incident for invasion... Hence the Cuban Missle Crisis.

Or heck... Imagine... Stallin wanted all of Germany... Would then would have meant he got all the missle and Rocket Technology and we got none... That would have gone over well... Propeller driven planes fighting Migs... What fun!

We would have lost Air Superiority in friggin MINUTES!

OkiJake · 06-13-2006, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nainoa

Death Toll estimate was 200,000 Americans lives JUST TO GET TO TOKYO!

And take into account that we were taking them out at near a 10/1 ratio and they still weren't surrenduring. They didn't even surrender until we threatened to nuke Tokyo.

And surrounding them with a naval brigade, that's just funny. We had over 1500 ships surrounding Okinawa an Island that is on 67 miles long and 7 miles wide at it's Widest point most of the island is much skinnier. That still didn't stop them. They were a fierce enemy and had a different mindset back then. Hell they were killing Okinawans because they spoke a different language back them.

novax · 06-13-2006, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A & B

Can you believe it novax? I voted yes!

And I think this is a good thread btw.

Here's my reasoning why:

We're talking about WW2 here. Not an intifada, not some small conflict, not some meaningless war, this was the biggest, most costly, most total and arguably the most important war in the history of the world. When they dropped the bomb in 1945, most of Europe had been at total war for 5 years, and the US for about 3. Japan was not going to surrender, everybody knew this. The battles at Okinawa and Iwo Jima demonstrated this. A land invasion of Japan had casualties estimated at like 400,000 - 1 million Americans dead (not even wounded or total casualties). And at the least, 5 million Japanese dead (again, not wounded or total casualties).

And for years, nations had been rushing to develop the nuclear bomb. And suddenly, you find yourself in posession of that bomb. It's a war ending weapon, it's the weapon, and you're still in the most devastating war mankind has ever known... What are you supposed to do... sit on it? Should Truman have ordered hundreds of thousands of Americans to go and die instead, keeping in mind it would have cost many millions of Japanese dead as well? I don't think so.

It's not like they could have conventionally bombed Japan into surrendering like this. By the end of the war, Japan was already virtually destroyed. Something like 63 major Japanese cities were rubble, even before they dropped the nukes. It was a) invasion, or b) nukes.

But I think the reasons they dropped the bombs were 1) to make a show of force against the Soviet's approaching the Allied lines in Europe, and 2) just to end the damn war, whatever the costs.

All this talk about "revenge for Pearl Harbour"... blah blah blah... I think that has little to nothing to do with it.

This is one of the very few times I agree with you on some of the points made. Japan would have not surrendered. Asian people take pride very seriously. They can be very very stuburn...

The war would have dragged on.

freedom fighter · 06-13-2006, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A & B

Pearl Harbour had little to do with it.

And a land invasion of Japan would have kiled far more Japanese than the nukes did.

Maybe,but what would of happened if Japan didnt surrender after the second one? how many times can you do that ****?

**Nainoa** · 06-13-2006, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A & B

Okay, well... That's a stretch.

But the tensions between the Red's and the Allies in Europe may have been a little more heated for sure.

I don't think it's a stretch in the least...

Hell what do you think the Soviets were doing from 1945 to 1989?

Us having the bomb, held them back from taking the whole kit and kaboodle...

The spoils of war (In this case massive amounts of technology and resources, along with financial windfalls) would have gone to Russia, while we would have been left with the scraps from Hitlers table...

They would have taken the rest of the world... Then black balled us with economic starvation... Until we were an easy Target...

And waa-laa a socialist world.

It was there desire from day one...

And the way history turned after the bomb went off, made all the difference.