NationStates Jolt Archive

And yes I am not naive to think that civilans dont' get targeted. They probably have been in every war ever fought. But I will say that doing so is a war crime.
Not really. The main difference between the strategy of WWII and other past wars, was that civilians were deliberately targeted by both sides in WWII. The deliberate bombing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians wasn't right, but it was for the greater good. Like it was said earlier in the thread, it showed the world how devastating nuclear weapons are, which will probably avoid a nuclear war that could do much more damage.

sorry if i have spelt them wrong.
should the americans have done it it may have ended the war in the east quicker but so many died(over 80,00). Was it a vengence attack for pearl harbor should the japanise have attacked pearl harbour.should they have attacked a more remote area with the a- bombs ? :confused: :headbang:


I have recently become party to an interesting theory that states that Russia was about to enter the war against Japan, and so the Jappenese would surrender to Russia. What are the US's choices? We can either not drop the A-bomb, and let the russians occupy Japan, or drop it, and have us occupy Japan (also, everyone takes nuclear weapons a bit more seriously).

Another thing I have heard was that Hitler sent a submarine with jet plane designs, anti-aircraft gun plans, other technology, and pluitonium to Japan via going over the North Pole. They were in the middle of crossing over when the Third Reich fell. They kept going, and surrendered to the Americans, and were taken prisoner. This is true. The Jappenese also had a plan to drop a plutonium bomb over Los Angeles that would not have the explosive force of the A-bomb, but would merely irradiate the entire city. People would die of fallout. This bombing was scheduled for three days after the Jappenese surrendered. Certain military events up to then made the bombing impractical, but it came close to happening. Is it possible that the US found the U-boat with the plutonium on it, discovered that it was bound for Japan, worried about other plutonium that HAD gotten through to Japan, and dropped the A-bomb to insure that there would not be a nuclear strike against us?

I tend to belive the first one, and therefore think the US should not have dropped the A-bomb.

Ok some perspective ....more people died in the 1st firebombing of Tokyo than died in Hiroshima AND Nagaski. If you look at the US invasion of Okinawa as a small taste of what would happen in the mainland was invaded (Women threw their children from cliffs so the Marines would not EAT them. Why did they think they would be eaten? Because the GOD EMPEROR's propaganda machine said so.) Civilian casulties approched 100% in some area's. The A bomb not only ended the war but may have insured Japan's long term survival, which may have been in doubt if operation Coronet occured. I do blame the USSR for the Nagasaki bombing it was due to Soviet hopes of teritorial gains in the Kurile Islands that the deliberatly mistranslated a diplomatic communiction. (When sent the USSR was not at war with Japan and only declared war when aware of Japan's imminent surrender to the Allies that is why the communication was sent to the Soviets after the Nagasaki bomb they surrender directly to the US)
So the bomb may have saved Japan as a massive Soviet Army was gearing to invade Japan from the North.

[QUOTE=Unspeakable]Ok some perspective ....more people died in the 1st firebombing of Tokyo than died in Hiroshima AND Nagaski. [QUOTE]

And that makes it ok ? This just tells me that the firebombings were wrong as well, heh.

I seriously doubt this was the reasoning. Everything i've ever read has always said Truman's decision was based on losing more American lives vs. the Japanese, whether or not they were military or civilian.

Well naturally enemy losses would be included in that figure! It was estimated that America would suffer at least 500,000 casualties, and the Japanese several times more. It's exactly like you said, it was tabulated as American losses VS Japanese losses. So naturally they considered Japanese losses, or else what would they based their casualty ratios off of?

I don't know what you're trying to get at here.

I think they had a pretty good idea what it would do, not only to the infrastructure, but also to human life. And even if this was the case, I think
they saw what it did with the first bomb, yet decided to drop another....

It was never tested on people, only inanimate objects in the desert. In early training footage, American soldiers can be seen standing up from a ditch after an A bomb was set off, starring right at the mushroom cloud (training movies on how to survive nuclear attacks). I do not think they knew about the after effects of the A bomb.


Again, this is America claiming to have a higher moral ground after commiting atrocities. The only thing we fear is that someone will use it on us.

Please stop with the mindless, anti-American garbage. You DO realize that the rest of the world was watching, correct? And you do realize that a group of people (whom you may or may not have heard of) called the United Nations came together and (among other things) made sure that another nuclear strike would not happen?

Pray tell me how America is claiming this supposed 'moral high ground' when it is not the only nation on Earth trying to prevent the use of nuclear weapons?

No, even in war there is right and wrong. Its not as simple as do what it takes to win the war, or I was just following orders.

I disagree and so does almost every military commander or head of state given the task of winning a war. Your argument is that the number of enemy casualties was not given due consideration by the powers that decided to use the A-bomb. I can't dispute that even if I do believe the choice to use it did spare a lot more enemy civilian lives than the alternative - an invasion - would have cost.

But my basic disagreement with your position is that during a war, you do not try to minimize enemy casualties at the expense of your own - which is EXACTLY what you are advocating.

They should have used it, one, maybe two bombs. But not on populated cities, they should have targeted a Military installation. Sure, human casualties but not that many and a more unpopulated area. They didn't know about the Destructivity or the fallout yet, but still. If the Japanese would have seen an entire military base destroyed by one bomb and the threatning looking mushroom cloud and later of course the radiation fallout they would have surely Surrendered, or else the americans could have invaded japan themselves if they wanted. But that probably wouldn't worked out for the cold war that erupted later.

This is a fine line of reasoning, but in general, the US, and the West as a whole, denies the idea that attacks on civilians can be considered legitimate, no matter what the strategic gain. For example, we would have considered it illegitimate for the US to have nuked Baghdad, even if it could have been shown the war would have been shorter and less bloody.In a limited war, I can at least partially understand your reasoning. However, World War II was anything but limited. Each country that was fighting was fighting for survival. When you're facing that kind of threat, the "moral high road" takes a backseat to winning the war.

If the U.S. or another Geneva Convention signatory country fights a foe that doesn't follow the Geneva Convention, they're not bound to observe it. And if the war's going to be brutal enough, you make war with whatever means are necessary to win it. "Moral high road" be damned.

They should have used it, one, maybe two bombs. But not on populated cities, they should have targeted a Military installation. Sure, human casualties but not that many and a more unpopulated area. They didn't know about the Destructivity or the fallout yet, but still. If the Japanese would have seen an entire military base destroyed by one bomb and the threatning looking mushroom cloud and later of course the radiation fallout they would have surely Surrendered, or else the americans could have invaded japan themselves if they wanted. But that probably wouldn't worked out for the cold war that erupted later.

Why? Why does nobody read?

Hiroshima was a city of considerable military importance. It contained the 2nd Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great war-time importance because of its many and varied industries, including the production of ordinance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.

By the way, using an A bomb to take out a single military base is like using TNT to get rid of the birds nest on top of your garage.

They should have used it, one, maybe two bombs. But not on populated cities, they should have targeted a Military installation. Sure, human casualties but not that many and a more unpopulated area. They didn't know about the Destructivity or the fallout yet, but still. If the Japanese would have seen an entire military base destroyed by one bomb and the threatning looking mushroom cloud and later of course the radiation fallout they would have surely Surrendered, or else the americans could have invaded japan themselves if they wanted. But that probably wouldn't worked out for the cold war that erupted later.


Military installations are typically built near big cities. It was next to impossible to find Japanese military installations located in unpopulated areas simply because of the small size of Japan's land mass. Hiroshima is just such a city.

In a limited war, I can at least partially understand your reasoning. However, World War II was anything but limited. Each country that was fighting was fighting for survival. When you're facing that kind of threat, the "moral high road" takes a backseat to winning the war.

If the U.S. or another Geneva Convention signatory country fights a foe that doesn't follow the Geneva Convention, they're not bound to observe it. And if the war's going to be brutal enough, you make war with whatever means are necessary to win it. "Moral high road" be damned.

I agree with you completely. The point i'm trying to make is that America still tries to claim the moral high ground, and that is what I disagree with.

:) They should have used it, one, maybe two bombs. But not on populated cities, they should have targeted a Military installation. Sure, human casualties but not that many and a more unpopulated area. They didn't know about the Destructivity or the fallout yet, but still. If the Japanese would have seen an entire military base destroyed by one bomb and the threatning looking mushroom cloud and later of course the radiation fallout they would have surely Surrendered, or else the americans could have invaded japan themselves if they wanted. But that probably wouldn't worked out for the cold war that erupted later.
In fact there we're military installations and targets in both cities. True civilians were needlessly killed, but a lot of them would've been killed any way if we had invaded. Also, we warned Japan that if they didn't unconditaionlly surrender, they would face "total and utter destruction" or something like that, but in any case, they didn't agree. So we nuked the city. Three days past with them knowing the power we had and no surrender, so we did it again. The whole point of dropping the bombs was to avoid an American invasion of the Japanese mainland that would've had incredibly high casualties on both sides.

Winners set the rules. Curtis LeMay (CIC USAAC Pacific) is quotes as saying "If we loose the war we will be treid as war criminals". Were his actions right? A short war means fewer dead, I'd side with LeMay and pray I choose correctly.


[QUOTE=Unspeakable]Ok some perspective ....more people died in the 1st firebombing of Tokyo than died in Hiroshima AND Nagaski. [QUOTE]

And that makes it ok ? This just tells me that the firebombings were wrong as well, heh.

:)
In fact there we're military installations and targets in both cities. True civilians were needlessly killed, but a lot of them would've been killed any way if we had invaded. Also, we warned Japan that if they didn't unconditaionlly surrender, they would face "total and utter destruction" or something like that, but in any case, they didn't agree. So we nuked the city. Three days past with them knowing the power we had and no surrender, so we did it again. The whole point of dropping the bombs was to avoid an American invasion of the Japanese mainland that would've had incredibly high casualties on both sides.

I was under the impression we dropped leaflets in both towns warning them of an imminent attack, but maybe I'm wrong.

c)Russia has more nukes than we do, and the problem with that is not that they have more but that they don't know where half of them are... you can bet some Russians with terrorist ties would love an excuse to ship some nukes to terrorists.

Small point of contention. This is no longer true. As of 2002, the United States has approximately 10,600 nuclear weapons, while Russia has approximately 8,600 nuclear weapons. From 1978-1998, the Soviet Union/Russia had more nuclear weapons than the United States, but no longer.

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datainx.asp

Ok some perspective ....more people died in the 1st firebombing of Tokyo than died in Hiroshima AND Nagaski.

And that makes it ok ? This just tells me that the firebombings were wrong as well, heh.

Ah, the deconstructive arguement! The ultimate in futility...

Look, by that arguement, every thing done in war is wrong, as is war, as is two kids fighting in a park. No kidding. But if someone walks up to you and starts hitting you, you can either run or fight. If you run, be assured that you will get beaten on again.

Countries can't run... they MUST fight, or cease to exist.

Saying something is wrong is all well and fine. However, that's not to say that it didn't NEED to be done.

Of course they should not, it was the biggest terrorist attack on civilians. Let's say to the people that say it was OK that a 9/11 was OK to then (but to few casualties).

Of course they should not, it was the biggest terrorist attack on civilians. Let's say to the people that say it was OK that a 9/11 was OK to then (but to few casualties).
Now, the fact that you are comparing Nagasaki and Hiroshima to 9/11 only shows your ignornace. So let me give you some important infomation that shows the Differences between the events.

1) Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed during a WAR. a WAR that Japan Started with the US by Dropping bombs on Pearl Harbor (that's in Hawaii, the 50th State of America). The SNEAK ATTACK was carried out by the Japanese Military at the orders of their Government. 9/11 was a Sneak Attack carried out by the private army of a Madman named Osama Bin Lauden. This was done during PEACETIME.

2) Hiroshima and Nagasaki were industrial Cities providing the Japanese Armies with weapons and equiptment. a viable target. The WTC was a civilian property housing many offices for businesses not only in America but around the world.

3) Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit with the latest weapons develped for use during WAR. the WTC was hit with Passenger Plains with commuters who were travelling, they had no idea they were going to die.

understand now?

Now, the fact that you are comparing Nagasaki and Hiroshima to 9/11 only shows your ignornace. So let me give you some important infomation that shows the Differences between the events.

1) Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed during a WAR. a WAR that Japan Started with the US by Dropping bombs on Pearl Harbor (that's in Hawaii, the 50th State of America). The SNEAK ATTACK was carried out by the Japanese Military at the orders of their Government. 9/11 was a Sneak Attack carried out by the private army of a Madman named Osama Bin Lauden. This was done during PEACETIME.
Wow wiseguy, you found that all alone by yourself? Perhaps you are on such a levell in your village that you need to explain WWII? I'd challenge you to a duell of history wits, but I see you come unarmed.



2) Hiroshima and Nagasaki were industrial Cities providing the Japanese Armies with weapons and equiptment. a viable target. The WTC was a civilian property housing many offices for businesses not only in America but around the world.
What the crap... NYC is the biggest viable target for anyone in war with the US. Nice to know that neocons like yourself see Hiroshima as a target because it is industrial :confused: Ever compared the arms industry in NYC (opticals, radartechnology, screens aso) with the small industry in both Japanese cities that time? The WTC civilian? It was a more viable target for any nation wich mourns 10.000's of death civilians caused by the US millitary (oh yes, all "viable targets" because you say so).



3) Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit with the latest weapons develped for use during WAR. the WTC was hit with Passenger Plains with commuters who were travelling, they had no idea they were going to die.

understand now?

Ok wiseguy explain how collonel Tibbets and the other genocidarians chose their victims.... Off course they all know their victims by name and status :confused: . Guess you don't pay your drugdealer nearly enough, but I like you, you're silly.

*slaps a trademark fee on Velo*

Wow wiseguy,
{snip}
Guess you don't pay your drugdealer nearly enough, but I like you, you're silly.Since you are not supporting your silly claim about 9/11 equating Nagasaki/Hiroshima, I guess you are a troll, thus I’ll stop feeding you.

Have a nice day.

Oh, and thanks, I like being silly. :D

*slaps a trademark fee on Velo*
*says to his dog that he is smarter then Colodia*

Well put Velo!

Since you are not supporting your silly claim about 9/11 equating Nagasaki/Hiroshima, :D

Euh, reading last page, I only see your claim, Velo made a comparisson (wich you don't seem to understand).

But my basic disagreement with your position is that during a war, you do not try to minimize enemy casualties at the expense of your own - which is EXACTLY what you are advocating.
No, it's not. He is advocating that there still are rules of civility in warfare. Afterall, breaking these rules is what makes people war criminals.
And that some of these rules stand above strategic or tactical considerations, because if they didn't exist, we'd be out of a planet pretty soon. It's like game theory - as long as everyone plays by the rules, everyone is happy, once one breaks the rules, everything goes horribly wrong.

Euh, reading last page, I only see your claim, Velo made a comparisson (wich you don't seem to understand).and I showed how the two are not similar, his response was nothing but a personal attack on me.

Sure New York City has always been a target, but the thread isn't about New York City, but about dropping the A-bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. his earlier post was saying that the action was equal to the World Trade Center attack on 9/11. I pointed out how the two were different and not comparable, his reply is nothing but one long personal attack.

Of course they should not, it was the biggest terrorist attack on civilians. Let's say to the people that say it was OK that a 9/11 was OK to then (but to few casualties).

nothing to support his claim that The A-Bombs (done during war,) equates 9/11 (done during Peace time.) He made the comparison, I showed they don't equate, he replies with a personal attack.

Frankly, I was interested in how he was going to equate them, but he didn't.

Yes. They definately needed to happen.

If we hadn't have done that, millions more lives would have been lost. In Xhina, the Japanese and Chinese would continue fighting, Russia would be invading Korea and Manchuria, killing more, and the US would have invaded Japa, and enormous casualties would have been suffered on both sides.

In addition, if we hadn't have used the a-bomb, the Soviets would have percieved our position as much weaker, and they would have demanded more of us at the end of the war, AND they might have invaded western europe.

http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/top_e.html
http://www1.city.nagasaki.nagasaki.jp/na-bomb/museum/museume01.html
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/1889con.html
http://www.danzan.com/HTML/ESSAYS/meiji.html
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/1947con.html
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e641.html
http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/peacesite/indexE.html
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2125.html
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2135.html
http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/virtual/VirtualMuseum_e/visit_e/est_e/panel/A2/2209_2.htm
http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/japansurrender.htm
http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/students/bushido/bindex.html
http://www.yasukuni.or.jp/english/
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2056.html
http://www.sacred-texts.com/shi/
http://www.jinja.or.jp/english/
http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/shinto/state.html
http://www.japantimes.co.jp

These are some web pages I recommend that you all read before trying to talk about this topic. Unfortunately, the web provides only sound bites; if you would really like a good look into what was going on, the thoughts and ideals of that time in Japan, I would highly recommend you read Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan by Herbert P. Bix. He uses Japanese sources in his scholarly work, and I have found the book to be remarkable and highly relevant, especially when I get into discussion about World War II here in Japan.

After reading 19 pages of rambling flames, I have to re-state what my fiancée said after reading some of the arguments and debates on this thread, please study Japanese history/culture/philosophy, and a bit about the language, before making sweeping statements about Japan or its people.

I do not claim to be an expert, every day I live in Japan (and I’m sure the other resident gaikokujin on this board will agree with me) I am a student who learns something each day about what it means to be Japanese. However, I can also state that some of the postings here seem to be so far away from Japan that I wonder which country they are actually talking about. The debate continues of course, even in Japan this continues. Within these sites and this book, we can have many arguments about the validity of the information, translation, and how it applies and was applied to WWII and the bombs, but please take the time to education yourself about this before launching into it.

I know, expecting rationality from NationStates is silly, but I have always been somewhat of an optimist, ne?

http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/top_e.html
http://www1.city.nagasaki.nagasaki.jp/na-bomb/museum/museume01.html
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/1889con.html
http://www.danzan.com/HTML/ESSAYS/meiji.html
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/1947con.html
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e641.html
http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/peacesite/indexE.html
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2125.html
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2135.html
http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/virtual/VirtualMuseum_e/visit_e/est_e/panel/A2/2209_2.htm
http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/japansurrender.htm
http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/students/bushido/bindex.html
http://www.yasukuni.or.jp/english/
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2056.html
http://www.sacred-texts.com/shi/
http://www.jinja.or.jp/english/
http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/shinto/state.html
http://www.japantimes.co.jp

These are some web pages I recommend that you all read before trying to talk about this topic. Unfortunately, the web provides only sound bites; if you would really like a good look into what was going on, the thoughts and ideals of that time in Japan, I would highly recommend you read Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan by Herbert P. Bix. He uses Japanese sources in his scholarly work, and I have found the book to be remarkable and highly relevant, especially when I get into discussion about World War II here in Japan.

After reading 19 pages of rambling flames, I have to re-state what my fiancée said after reading some of the arguments and debates on this thread, please study Japanese history/culture/philosophy, and a bit about the language, before making sweeping statements about Japan or its people.

I do not claim to be an expert, every day I live in Japan (and I’m sure the other resident gaikokujin on this board will agree with me) I am a student who learns something each day about what it means to be Japanese. However, I can also state that some of the postings here seem to be so far away from Japan that I wonder which country they are actually talking about. The debate continues of course, even in Japan this continues. Within these sites and this book, we can have many arguments about the validity of the information, translation, and how it applies and was applied to WWII and the bombs, but please take the time to education yourself about this before launching into it.

I know, expecting rationality from NationStates is silly, but I have always been somewhat of an optimist, ne?

Thank's for the work!
Hope it will inform kids like JuNii and helps them out of their blind nationalistic regard. History and crimes can not be forgotten, specially now with the toughts on Srebrenica on my mind. (8000 death muslims by another for of terrosrisme).

Thank's for the work! Hope it will inform kids like Junii and helps them out of their unawarness.
Thanks Nervun.

Now, Velo, care to elaborate on your quote
Of course they should not, it was the biggest terrorist attack on civilians. Let's say to the people that say it was OK that a 9/11 was OK to then (but to few casualties).on how Nagasaki and Hiroshima equate 9/11 in your mind.

Thanks Nervun.

Now, Velo, care to elaborate on your quote
on how Nagasaki and Hiroshima equate 9/11 in your mind.

Well, you must be the only one that does not want to understand. Since you are a die hard fanatic of the marginal belief of the goodie of the A bombs:

Both where terrorist attacks, weather it is done by a goverment = state terrorisme, many examples in history: Dresden, Pforzheim, Coventry, Warshau, agent orange, depleted uranium in Iraq (euh where are are the WMD's?), Putin in Cheynya, aso aso) or by people not able to fight a battle with a superpôwer and seeking their style of defence.

You still seem unarmad for a dual of wits.

*Reads Velo's and JuNii's postings* :rolleyes: 頭いたい...
*Goes off to drink some tea and listen to mangled English*

*Reads Velo's and JuNii's postings* :rolleyes: 頭いたい...
*Goes off to drink some tea and listen to mangled English*

Nice debate between the two, but euh.. what are you doing here, pumping up your post account? Wow, you just gave the best example of a non post. :gundge:

Pumps his post account.

Thanks Nervun.

Now, Velo, care to elaborate on your quote
on how Nagasaki and Hiroshima equate 9/11 in your mind.

In my mind they are both warcrimes.The A bomb was dropped on two cities to kill civilians. It wasn't dropped on the military targets, it was dropped on the city centre. If the US was really interested in minimising the civilian casualties they could have easilly chosen a remote (military) target in Japan. Theres plenty of remote targets to choose from. The military targets within those cities were not the targets of the bombings, the civilians were and thats what makes it a warcrime. Eat this.

Nice debate between the two, but euh.. what are you doing here, pumping up your post account? Wow, you just gave the best example of a non post. :gundge:
*Burinku burinku burinku* What's a post account and how am I pumping it up?
In any case, my responce actually was on their two posts, if you could read Japanese... which was my most recent point anyway.

In my mind they are both warcrimes.The A bomb was dropped on two cities to kill civilians. It wasn't dropped on the military targets, it was dropped on the city centre. If the US was really interested in minimising the civilian casualties they could have easilly chosen a remote (military) target in Japan. Theres plenty of remote targets to choose from. The military targets within those cities were not the targets of the bombings, the civilians were and thats what makes it a warcrime. Eat this.
Um... have you seen maps of Hiroshima before the bombing? Seen where the military/industrial complexes were? And did you ever read WHY the actual target (not just the city, but what the bombers were aiming for) was chosen?

http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/top_e.html
http://www1.city.nagasaki.nagasaki.jp/na-bomb/museum/museume01.html
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/1889con.html
http://www.danzan.com/HTML/ESSAYS/meiji.html
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/1947con.html
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e641.html
http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/peacesite/indexE.html
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2125.html
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2135.html
http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/virtual/VirtualMuseum_e/visit_e/est_e/panel/A2/2209_2.htm
http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/japansurrender.htm
http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/students/bushido/bindex.html
http://www.yasukuni.or.jp/english/
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2056.html
http://www.sacred-texts.com/shi/
http://www.jinja.or.jp/english/
http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/shinto/state.html
http://www.japantimes.co.jp

These are some web pages I recommend that you all read before trying to talk about this topic. Unfortunately, the web provides only sound bites; if you would really like a good look into what was going on, the thoughts and ideals of that time in Japan, I would highly recommend you read Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan by Herbert P. Bix. He uses Japanese sources in his scholarly work, and I have found the book to be remarkable and highly relevant, especially when I get into discussion about World War II here in Japan.

After reading 19 pages of rambling flames, I have to re-state what my fiancée said after reading some of the arguments and debates on this thread, please study Japanese history/culture/philosophy, and a bit about the language, before making sweeping statements about Japan or its people.

I do not claim to be an expert, every day I live in Japan (and I’m sure the other resident gaikokujin on this board will agree with me) I am a student who learns something each day about what it means to be Japanese. However, I can also state that some of the postings here seem to be so far away from Japan that I wonder which country they are actually talking about. The debate continues of course, even in Japan this continues. Within these sites and this book, we can have many arguments about the validity of the information, translation, and how it applies and was applied to WWII and the bombs, but please take the time to education yourself about this before launching into it.

I know, expecting rationality from NationStates is silly, but I have always been somewhat of an optimist, ne?

the links and book is good but you have to remember that the Japan of today is not the Japan of World War Two, since that Japan came to be...well, a whole world war happened and it changed Jaanese culture forever.

Um... have you seen maps of Hiroshima before the bombing? Seen where the military/industrial complexes were? And did you ever read WHY the actual target (not just the city, but what the bombers were aiming for) was chosen?

Well, I have, guess you didn't Try to think outside of the box for a moment

Well, you must be the only one that does not want to understand. Since you are a die hard fanatic of the marginal belief of the goodie of the A bombs:

Both where terrorist attacks, weather it is done by a goverment = state terrorisme, many examples in history: Dresden, Pforzheim, Coventry, Warshau, agent orange, depleted uranium in Iraq (euh where are are the WMD's?), Putin in Cheynya, aso aso) or by people not able to fight a battle with a superpôwer and seeking their style of defence.so, your argument, is that any combat that has Civilian casualties equals terrorism. (note, Thus the Missle shot into Kuait during the Iraq War would then be a Terrorist act in your book. (it hit a Movie theater filled with civilians... nice military target). Nevermind that it was done during a war. All the Scuds fired at cities during the First Gulf War, plus all the civilians that Saddam put around his Military equiptment, then is enough to lable Iraq a terrorist state in your book since they were targeting cities and involving Citizens not directly involved in the fighting... nice. Making GW Bush's claim that Iraq is a terrorist state true. Thanks.

You are still using events done during a WAR and trying to tie it in to an event done during PEACETIME. During war, civilians will get killed, hurt and maimed. that is a sad fact and one of the horrors of WAR. However, the important thing is the lessons learned. By dropping those two bombs, the true horror of such "Wonder Weapons" became known, that information made using them in later conflicts so undesireable that it's almost impossible to use them (Cuba Missile Crisis.) Think about it. Agent Orange was considered the "next best weapon" along with other chemical weapons, however, after their use, when the effects on humans became known, they were stopped. the same with DU ammo, they are in the process of phasing them out of production. Same with Napalm, Land Mines, and other such indiscriminate weapons. Mass Bombings of WWII were replaced with "Smart Bombs" and Missles that have better accuracy.

You still seem unarmad for a dual of wits.well, I thought to keep the field even and give you a sporting chance. :D

UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY
SUMMARY REPORT
(Pacific War)

WASHINGTON, D.C.
1 JULY 1946

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
pg 26



This speaks for itself.

regards

In my mind they are both warcrimes.The A bomb was dropped on two cities to kill civilians. It wasn't dropped on the military targets, it was dropped on the city centre. If the US was really interested in minimising the civilian casualties they could have easilly chosen a remote (military) target in Japan. Theres plenty of remote targets to choose from. The military targets within those cities were not the targets of the bombings, the civilians were and thats what makes it a warcrime. Eat this.
First off... This is what I was looking for, someone to make the posistion clear. Thanks.

I believe in another Hiroshima/Nagasaki thread, it was stated that cities were choosen for the reason that it was devestating... a remote military base could be covered up by media blackout, but a city being distroyed so quickly... that was probably their version of Shock and Awe. Being that the real reasons went to the graves with those who chose those sites, we can only speculate. unless it was in their memoirs. :D

*Reads Velo's and JuNii's postings* :rolleyes: 頭いたい...
*Goes off to drink some tea and listen to mangled English*
Shouldn't that be Engrish? :D

on how Nagasaki and Hiroshima equate 9/11 in your mind.

Poor JuNii,Who said a difference resided in the killing method, ?

That is perfectly irrelevant.

The qualitative difference was between mass killing in order to achieve a legitimate military objective on the one hand and mass killing in pursuit of a moronic ideological-political objective on the other.

Shouldn't that be Engrish? :D


Hmm, a bit a loser argument. As a monolinguistic American you only can envie those people that speak 4 languages in Europe, you don't :D . When you have the courage, try debating in their languages, French, German, Dutch..they all have the respect to debate in English with you, so don't be such a retard.

the links and book is good but you have to remember that the Japan of today is not the Japan of World War Two, since that Japan came to be...well, a whole world war happened and it changed Jaanese culture forever.
Very much so, yes. But this thread is debating the Japan of WWII. But if you want, I'll be happy to debate the Japan of today with you. :)

Well, I have, guess you didn't Try to think outside of the box for a moment Are you acting as a puppet with Bushrepublican-Liars?

Any case, yes, yes I have. So let's do a small geography/history lesson on Hiroshima. Hiroshima was a military/industrial city. The city, situated on the inland sea actually has a long history of being used as a military starting point for Japan. During the Russian/Japanese war, Hisroshima actually became the capital of Japan as the Emperor Meiji relocated the Imperial Diet and himself (with general HQ) from Tokyo to that port town as that is where all the troups were leaving or coming back to. Hiroshima as a port was also where elements of the Imperial Army left Japan on way to attack China.

It was the headquaters of the 2nd Imperial Army as well as training grounds for the army and navy. Japanese cities, being what they are, are a mixture of elements. This is NOT western cities were elements are seperated, in Japan, you build wherever you damn well have room, so many elements of the Imerial forces were constructed next to civilian areas, or IN them. Inceasing the casulalty count was the fact on that day, the schools had emptied out in order to have children and the remaning adults attempt to make fire breaks and roads around these obvious military targets, which were in the middle of the city, not on the outskirts. If these children had been in their school buildings, and the civilians had been elsewhere instead of attempting to defend their city against firebombing, the casuality rate could have been lower (it's hard to say after all, but concrete buildings would have provided better shielding). However, since everything was in the middle of the city, guess where the people where, out in the open, exposed, on that day at 8:15am?

The city center was chosen as a target due to a BRIDGE! In Hiroshima, there are a number of rivers (a fact noted in Hiroshima's own kanji, 広島 ), in trying for a target that would be easily seen and reconized from the air (and high altitude), the planners settled on a rather unique bridge, one that crossed over a river, but also sent a cross section onto an island, a large T in other words. Something that could been seen and targeted easily.

But I'm sure you knew all of THAT, right?

...unless it was in their memoirs. :D
It probably was. I have yet to see anyone involved in the whole business who was actually sorry. The same stuff we get here and add a few "don't question me, I'm a veteran!".

Shouldn't that be Engrish? :D
*LOL* Sometimes, but usually my kids aren't TOO bad. Though I do get some entertaining questions, like "Are you sky?"

No they should not have done that!!! The bombs have killes and injuried so many people!! There are still wounded people there in Japan because of these bombs!!! NO!!!!

MAKE PEACE NOT WAR!!!
u are fucking stupid the bombs were weapons of peace because they ended the war, as the other people have been saying the bombs stopped the war and kept the amount of deaths much smaller than they would have been if we had invaded them, and if we had just wanted to kill them like they did to our pows in the bataan death march then we could have wiped out the japan mainland and just been done with them

THE JAPS WERE WARNED WHAT WOULD HAPPEN BUT THEY LAUGHED BECAUSE THEY DIDNT BELIEVE US! THEY WERE WARNED AND HAD THE CHANCE TO SURRENDER!

attacking pearl harbor was the only strategy they could have because as one general put it they were "awakening a sleeping giant" because they knew that the war would have to be devastating and quick if they hoped to win, because we were just too big. of course i dont like the fact that they did it.

This speaks for itself.

regards
Source please.

On a side note, data doesn't speak for itself, it just lies there, PEOPLE speak.

Very much so, yes. But this thread is debating the Japan of WWII. But if you want, I'll be happy to debate the Japan of today with you. :)

Are you acting as a puppet with Bushrepublican-Liars?? Bush who?

Any case, yes, yes I have. So let's do a small geography/history lesson on Hiroshima. Hiroshima was a military/industrial city.

Ok, I'll give you one.
It was the headquaters of the 2nd Imperial Army as well as training grounds for the army .
All outside the city near Yamamoto air school/field, at 40km from the city.
Japanese cities, being what they are, are a mixture of elements. This is NOT western cities were elements are seperated, in Japan, you build wherever you damn well have room,.
Of topic
so many elements of the Imerial forces were constructed next to civilian areas, or IN them. History Lesson: wrong, outside the city, not in.

Inceasing the casulalty count was the fact on that day, the schools had emptied out in order to have children and the remaning adults attempt to make fire breaks and roads around these obvious military targets, which were in the middle of the city, not on the outskirts. If these children had been in their school buildings, and the civilians had been elsewhere instead of attempting to defend their city against firebombing, the casuality rate could have been lower (it's hard to say after all, but concrete buildings would have provided better shielding). However, since everything was in the middle of the city, guess where the people where, out in the open, exposed, on that day at 8:15am?

The city center was chosen as a target due to a BRIDGE! In Hiroshima, there are a number of rivers (a fact noted in Hiroshima's own kanji, 広島 ), in trying for a target that would be easily seen and reconized from the air (and high altitude), the planners settled on a rather unique bridge, one that crossed over a river, but also sent a cross section onto an island, a large T in other words. Something that could been seen and targeted easily.

But I'm sure you knew all of THAT, right?

Off course kiddo, I am. BTW the city is not chosen because of it's bridge or other of your assumptions. The only purpose of the bombs was forcing the surrender of an aggression-prone military enemy, the alternative being to allow it to recover and strike again.

While it is questionable whether that required an invasion of the Japanese homelands, let us look at what the alternatives would have implied. Aside from the enormous casualties that ongoing conventional bombing would have caused, the following aspects must be considered:

a) Civilian casualties from malnutrition and disease: Obviously significant casualties would have accrued, had the war been prolonged several months, from malnutrition and disease, especially as antibiotic treatment for tuberculosis and other bacterial infections was not available to Japanese civilians at that time.

b) Japanese military casualties in bypassed areas: In the Central Pacific, many of the islands the Japanese expected the US to attack were bypassed, and the garrisons left to wither and die. Prolonging the war would have resulted in even greater suffering for these soldiers, and for any civilians unfortunate enough to be on the same islands.

c) Civilian casualties in Japanese-occupied areas, namely the savage mistreatment of civilians in Japanese-occupied China and French Indo-China. These areas were still in Japanese possession at the time of the Japanese surrender. Prolonging the war would have prolonged the agony of these civilian populations.

As we can see, there were plenty of good reasons to bring the war to an end, and to do it quickly.

Which doesn’t justify an attack on a defenseless civilian population in violation of the Hague Rules of Land Warfare, however.

And which, while it may make the bombing of Hiroshima look like the lesser of inevitable evils assuming that there would have been no other way to achieve a quick surrender, would by no means “justify” the perfectly unnecessary bombing of Nagasaki.

Source please.



It was mentioned, try reading:
UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY
SUMMARY REPORT
(Pacific War)

WASHINGTON, D.C.
1 JULY 1946

Hmm, a bit a loser argument. As a monolinguistic American you only can envie those people that speak 4 languages in Europe, you don't :D . When you have the courage, try debating in their languages, French, German, Dutch..they all have the respect to debate in English with you, so don't be such a retard.
actually ENGRISH is mangled English. usually by the Japanese... where you have such wonderful things like
"Please not to be urinating in water" actual sign in Japanese restroom.
"Baby Shitter wanted" in an add in a local paper.

other examples are here (http://www.engrish.com/)
and some pics of actual stores.
http://www.internettrash.com/users/fupobu/jackoff1.jpe

*LOL* Sometimes, but usually my kids aren't TOO bad. Though I do get some entertaining questions, like "Are you sky?"
Are you an English Teacher in Japan?

http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/top_e.html
http://www1.city.nagasaki.nagasaki.jp/na-bomb/museum/museume01.html
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/1889con.html
http://www.danzan.com/HTML/ESSAYS/meiji.html
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/1947con.html
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e641.html
http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/peacesite/indexE.html
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2125.html
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2135.html
http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/virtual/VirtualMuseum_e/visit_e/est_e/panel/A2/2209_2.htm
http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/japansurrender.htm
http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/students/bushido/bindex.html
http://www.yasukuni.or.jp/english/
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2056.html
http://www.sacred-texts.com/shi/
http://www.jinja.or.jp/english/
http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/shinto/state.html
http://www.japantimes.co.jp

These are some web pages I recommend that you all read before trying to talk about this topic. Unfortunately, the web provides only sound bites; if you would really like a good look into what was going on, the thoughts and ideals of that time in Japan, I would highly recommend you read Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan by Herbert P. Bix. He uses Japanese sources in his scholarly work, and I have found the book to be remarkable and highly relevant, especially when I get into discussion about World War II here in Japan.

After reading 19 pages of rambling flames, I have to re-state what my fiancée said after reading some of the arguments and debates on this thread, please study Japanese history/culture/philosophy, and a bit about the language, before making sweeping statements about Japan or its people.

I do not claim to be an expert, every day I live in Japan (and I’m sure the other resident gaikokujin on this board will agree with me) I am a student who learns something each day about what it means to be Japanese. However, I can also state that some of the postings here seem to be so far away from Japan that I wonder which country they are actually talking about. The debate continues of course, even in Japan this continues. Within these sites and this book, we can have many arguments about the validity of the information, translation, and how it applies and was applied to WWII and the bombs, but please take the time to education yourself about this before launching into it.

I know, expecting rationality from NationStates is silly, but I have always been somewhat of an optimist, ne?

Thanks my friend :) Keep up the good work! I'm sure this will come in handy and I cant wait to read the info in these webpages.

As for the book, I was thinking about buying it. You just gave me one more reason why I should buy it. Thanks again.

Some other interesting things:

The Commander of the Strategic Airforce - a Mr. Spaatz refused to kill "possibly 100,000" people on a simple oral order. He demanded a written one, that he got on the 25th of July. So at least he knew the extent to which this could go.

A "Target Committee" had the following targets:
1. Hiroshima (for the aforementioned reasons)
2. Kokura (the most important Japanese arsenal)
3. Niigata (very important industrial city)
4. Kyoto (industry) - General Grove wanted to bomb it, but War Minister Stimson replaced it with Nagasaki because of the many "cultural and art treasures there".

The Scientists that made the bomb made it against Germany. Many didn't want it to be used against Japan, which they at the time perceived as less wicked (and most of them had fled the Nazis anyways). A certain Dr. Franck actually wanted it to be dropped - but only on unihabited areas, like Mt Fuji.

By the 25th, only Hiroshima, Kokura and Nagasaki were still on the list. Niigata had been dropped because it wasn't large enough areawise. (!)

On the 6th then, the bomb was dropped, and Truman's reaction was: "We dropped a 20 000 ton TNT brick on their heads!" and there was a big party on the cruiser Augusta, where he was.

By the way - Eisenhower was against using the bomb against Japan, although he would've dropped it on Berlin...

Very much so, yes. But this thread is debating the Japan of WWII. But if you want, I'll be happy to debate the Japan of today with you. :)

Are you acting as a puppet with Bushrepublican-Liars?

Any case, yes, yes I have. So let's do a small geography/history lesson on Hiroshima. Hiroshima was a military/industrial city. The city, situated on the inland sea actually has a long history of being used as a military starting point for Japan. During the Russian/Japanese war, Hisroshima actually became the capital of Japan as the Emperor Meiji relocated the Imperial Diet and himself (with general HQ) from Tokyo to that port town as that is where all the troups were leaving or coming back to. Hiroshima as a port was also where elements of the Imperial Army left Japan on way to attack China.

It was the headquaters of the 2nd Imperial Army as well as training grounds for the army and navy. Japanese cities, being what they are, are a mixture of elements. This is NOT western cities were elements are seperated, in Japan, you build wherever you damn well have room, so many elements of the Imerial forces were constructed next to civilian areas, or IN them. Inceasing the casulalty count was the fact on that day, the schools had emptied out in order to have children and the remaning adults attempt to make fire breaks and roads around these obvious military targets, which were in the middle of the city, not on the outskirts. If these children had been in their school buildings, and the civilians had been elsewhere instead of attempting to defend their city against firebombing, the casuality rate could have been lower (it's hard to say after all, but concrete buildings would have provided better shielding). However, since everything was in the middle of the city, guess where the people where, out in the open, exposed, on that day at 8:15am?

The city center was chosen as a target due to a BRIDGE! In Hiroshima, there are a number of rivers (a fact noted in Hiroshima's own kanji, 広島 ), in trying for a target that would be easily seen and reconized from the air (and high altitude), the planners settled on a rather unique bridge, one that crossed over a river, but also sent a cross section onto an island, a large T in other words. Something that could been seen and targeted easily.

But I'm sure you knew all of THAT, right?

Thanks Nervun. I hope this puts things into perspective. I doubt it but Hiroshima was a legitament military target no matter how much the anti-bomb crowd tries to spin it.

A demonstration should have first been done to show the Japanese what would be used on their country if they didn't surrender. Give them a week to think about it and then if there was no answer then use it.
It is said that killing 250,000 Japanese saved many lives, but it is probably only American lives that they were thinking of..........

I have always felt the use of the A-bomb was a terrible abuse of technology, all things considered. Presuming the United States had intiated a mainland invasion of Japan, it is true that cassualties would probably have been higher, comabatant and noncombatant. But the use of a device that indiscrimanantly exterminates human life should never be brought onto the battlefield, even if it is to prevent further loss of life. The result of the invasion of Japan would've been less devastation on an emotional level to both nations. The Atom Bomb has left a shadow over both nations that unfortunately is part of the legacy of both cities. The dropping of the atom bombs were massacres. There is never an excuse for slaughter on such a large scale. I would not have supported a decision to drop the A-Bomb, ever, anywhere.

The bombings may be considered a necessity. They may even be considered an unfortunate necessity. No one has the right to say that it was a good thing.
Have no illusions. These incidents were perfect examples of statecraft, the secret dirty business of civilisation, to which none will dare admit. America did not particularly need to use the bombs, but it was still profitable, in the currency of power. Thus it was done. America got what it wanted.
There is no good in statecraft, no honour, nor even evil. They are mere fancies to warm us in the cold of the night. There is only power, politics, and unfettered desire, where deception is legitimate and ruthlessness is rewarded.
The bombings were not the ending of the war, but the ultimate expression of it. In those mushroom clouds, America purged itself of the bloodlust that Pearl Harbour had awakened, and won the whole world.
Think before you label me. The other nations are no better. I have delved into the darkness beneath the glittering towers of prosperity and found it plentiful. I can tell you stories of bloodshed, degradation and despair, of evil done in the name of good, and good in the name of evil. I can tell you of slaves called free people, and of the ruthless Lords who wore the crown of virtue and the robes of adoration. Do not seek the "good guy" in the study of history, for he never existed.
I chose to leave the deceptions behind. I walk in the cold night, in which the truth is laid bare. Every nation, every ideology, every individual seeks advancement at the expense of the other, whether they realise it or not, regardless of how they do it. When I look up, I see the stars shining bright and unfeeling, illuminating the horrible truth. This horrible truth, the human race.
Dare you walk with me?

It is said that killing 250,000 Japanese saved many lives, but it is probably only American lives that they were thinking of..........

I guess someone here forgot that CHINA was an ally against Japan? How many Chinese do you think would've been killed if we had invaded Japan? The Japanese Army on China would stop at nothing to get back to the mainland to defend it.

And yes, they were also thinking of civilian casualties too.

I have always felt the use of the A-bomb was a terrible abuse of technology, all things considered. Presuming the United States had intiated a mainland invasion of Japan, it is true that cassualties would probably have been higher, comabatant and noncombatant. But the use of a device that indiscrimanantly exterminates human life should never be brought onto the battlefield, even if it is to prevent further loss of life. The result of the invasion of Japan would've been less devastation on an emotional level to both nations. The Atom Bomb has left a shadow over both nations that unfortunately is part of the legacy of both cities. The dropping of the atom bombs were massacres. There is never an excuse for slaughter on such a large scale. I would not have supported a decision to drop the A-Bomb, ever, anywhere.

Then you condemned millions of people in an invasion of a very culturalistic nation that believes in DEATH before DISHONOR! Way to go.

Then you condemned millions of people in an invasion of a very culturalistic nation that believes in DEATH before DISHONOR! Way to go.
Well there were those types and other types. You are probably generalising, even NERVUN would have to agree.
Nonetheless, even the bushido-type people would've been in the millions, so from that light, you're right.

A demonstration should have first been done to show the Japanese what would be used on their country if they didn't surrender. Give them a week to think about it and then if there was no answer then use it.
The U.S. gave Japan plenty of warning. They warned before even Hiroshima that if they did not unconditionally surrender they would face "swift and utter destruction." They did not comply, so we nuked them. Three days passed with them knowing the power that we had and still, no surrender, so we nuked them again. True, the targets may not have been the best, but the dropping of the bombs were necessary to end the war and to dissuade any future nuclear war--now that we know the devastation we can inflict on ourselves.

Then you condemned millions of people in an invasion of a very culturalistic nation that believes in DEATH before DISHONOR! Way to go.

heh, that's my screen name, but anyway

Is death worse than the legacy of a atrocity? Despite cassualties, the lasting effects of a conventional invasion of Japan would most likely have been less agonizing than those of the A-Bomb.

Two things to remember chilluns. First The nuclear bombs dropped on Jappan were not the most destructive air-raids of WWII. Dresden in Germany caused the most casualties and two of the more successful Tokyo firebombings did more damage than either nuclear strike IIRC. Second on wether or not we had to actually bomb cities to make Jappan capitulate. I'd like to point out we had to bomb them twice. Consider the mentality of the ruling Junta in Jappan at that point in time; Your enemy who has defeated your navy and captured almost all of your holdings in asia asks you to surrender. They drop ONE single bomb that wipes out a whole city. You have no idea how many of these bombs the other side has. They ask you to surrender and you STILL say no. After a couple of days you are nuked AGAIN and then you decide to surrender. No honestly I don't think blowing up an uninhabited island would have convinced them at all.

heh, that's my screen name, but anyway

Is death worse than the legacy of a atrocity? Despite cassualties, the lasting effects of a conventional invasion of Japan would most likely have been less agonizing than those of the A-Bomb.

And what would your reaction be if you realized that we had this weapon that could've prevented your son from dying in an invasion of japan? You would be outraged.

In war, it all comes down to numbers. What number is better? A few hundred thousand in 2 bombs or a million and maybe more dead in an invasion! I know which one I would chose, do you?

...They ask you to surrender and you STILL say no...
People, please be rational.
They gave warning previously to Hiroshima. Was that accepted? No. The Japanese government was busy trying to ask for peace through the USSR, but Stalin wouldn't have any of it.
Then they dropped the bomb. The Japanese scientists still said it couldn't have been an A-Bomb, the US said it was.
Some Generals said that it didn't change anything and wanted to fight on, others wanted to surrender. While they were discussing
The US dropped the second bomb. Nothing changed. The discussion was still going, the Emperor made a decision, elements of the Military rebelled, there was a whole lot of confusion - and then they surrendered.

It's more complex than just saying "They didn't surrender" - even if you leave the culture out of it.

-snip-

What he said.

People, please be rational.
They gave warning previously to Hiroshima. Was that accepted? No. The Japanese government was busy trying to ask for peace through the USSR, but Stalin wouldn't have any of it.
Then they dropped the bomb. The Japanese scientists still said it couldn't have been an A-Bomb, the US said it was.
Some Generals said that it didn't change anything and wanted to fight on, others wanted to surrender. While they were discussing
The US dropped the second bomb. Nothing changed. The discussion was still going, the Emperor made a decision, elements of the Military rebelled, there was a whole lot of confusion - and then they surrendered.

It's more complex than just saying "They didn't surrender" - even if you leave the culture out of it.

Not to mention, we gave fair warning to both cities that destruction was on the way. It wasn't like it came as a surprise. We warned both cities before we bombed them. We dropped leaflets over both cities telling them to evacuate.

People, please be rational.
They gave warning previously to Hiroshima. Was that accepted? No. The Japanese government was busy trying to ask for peace through the USSR, but Stalin wouldn't have any of it.
Then they dropped the bomb. The Japanese scientists still said it couldn't have been an A-Bomb, the US said it was.
Some Generals said that it didn't change anything and wanted to fight on, others wanted to surrender. While they were discussing
The US dropped the second bomb. Nothing changed. The discussion was still going, the Emperor made a decision, elements of the Military rebelled, there was a whole lot of confusion - and then they surrendered.

It's more complex than just saying "They didn't surrender" - even if you leave the culture out of it.
They asked for conditional surrender. In a mixup (translation, ironically), Truman thought that he had hinted that the Emperor could stay as a figurehead if they gave up (the only condition) but the translation did not read that way. The Japanese rejected what they believed to be a document demanding unconditional surrender, with the emperor being disposed. As we all know, after the two next bombs were dropped, the emperor asked if the original surrender agreement was still valid, it was, and it was signed (although there was another attempted coup by the military to keep fighting. The last Japanese person to die officially as a result of the war was the leader of the palace guard, killed by the rebels before they were crushed). As we all know, the Emperor was allowed to keep his seat, something that the Americans were willing to agree too originally.


A waste, but just a mistake, no one's fault really.

Not to mention, we gave fair warning to both cities that destruction was on the way. It wasn't like it came as a surprise. We warned both cities before we bombed them. We dropped leaflets over both cities telling them to evacuate.
Source? I doubt this, as you don't give people fair warning of an air attack so they can set up air defenses.

And what would your reaction be if you realized that we had this weapon that could've prevented your son from dying in an invasion of japan? You would be outraged.

In war, it all comes down to numbers. What number is better? A few hundred thousand in 2 bombs or a million and maybe more dead in an invasion! I know which one I would chose, do you?

It would depend on the consquences, excluding surrender, of both nations posterity.

Bush who?
That answers THAT question, except why you were responding to a post meant for him.

Ok, I'll give you one.
All outside the city near Yamamoto air school/field, at 40km from the city.

Of topic
History Lesson: wrong, outside the city, not in.
No, on topic as I was pointing out that Japan does not orginize its cities the way the western cities do so, to assume that all military complexes were outside Hiroshima is false. And no, they were NOT outside the city. Here's what Hiroshima itself has to say on the matter:

In 1871, the First Outpost of the Kyushu Garrison was placed inside the ancient castle grounds becoming the Hiroshima Garrison in1873. This garrison was reorganized into the Fifth Division, one of six national divisions. In 1897, the division commanded four infantry regiments, a cavalry and an artillery regiment, and two battalions of engineers and transport soldiers. The Fifth Division was partially or fully deployed for the Sino-Japanese War (1894-95), the Boxer Rebellion, the Russo-Japanese War, and the dispatches to Qingdao and Siberia. They were also sent to China prior to World War II.
http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/virtual/VirtualMuseum_e/visit_e/vist_fr_e.html　-Hiroshima Peace Museum

For most of Hiroshima's modern history, military facilities were limited to the headquarters within the outer moat of the castle, the Eastern and Western Drill Grounds, the Engineering Battalion Grounds, the Eba Firing Range and the Hijiyama Army Cemetery. During the Sino-Japanese War and the Russo-Japanese War, however, the land controlled by the military nearly doubled to include such areas as the transport division's Kanawajima Factory, the Provision, Clothing and Weaponry Depots, the Ninoshima Quarantine, the Gun Regiment Fortress, the Ushita Firing Range and the Nakayama Regional Corps of Engineers Training Grounds

Ujina Harbor was designed by the prefectural governor at the time, Sadaaki Senda. Completed in1889, it was Hiroshima's first port designed for large ships.
　The Ujina Line, a military railway, was constructed soon after the onset of the Slno-Japanese War. It ran from Hiroshima Station, then the western terminal of the Sanyo Railway, to Ujina Harbor. Thus, Ujina became the departure point for troops heading off to the war in China. Later, the Army Transport Division, responsible for transport and supply of army goods, was stationed in Ujina, increasing its importance to the war effort.

With its position at the western end of the Sanyo Railway, its Eastern and Western Drill Grounds for troop assembly, and Ujina Harbor, Hiroshima was gradually transformed into a logistics base supplying the military overseas with troops, provisions, and ammunition. When the Sino-Japanese War started in July 1894 the city had already taken on the appearance of a front-line headquarters. This identity was strengthened by the presence of the Meiji Emperor, who commanded troops from his headquarters in Hiroshima's Chugoku Military District Headquarters from September15, 1894 to April 27, 1895
Hiroshima's military functions were reinforced during the Sino-Japanese War. By the start of the Russo-Japanese War in1904, the Ujina Branch of the Army Provisions Depot, an office of the Osaka Artillery Engineering Depot, and an office of the Army Clothing Department were located in Hiroshima. Following the Russo-Japanese War, the latter two offices were renamed the Hiroshima Army Ordnance Supply Depot and the Hiroshima Army Clothing Depot, respectively. One of the nation's largest canning factories was built by the Provisions Depot. In 1907, Ordnance Depot warehouses were built at the southeast base of Hijiyama Hill.

That was the Meiji era, it just got better and better during the Showa years. More here on the development of Hiroshima as a city of military importance here: http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/virtual/VirtualMuseum_e/visit_e/vist_fr_e.html

Off course kiddo, I am. BTW the city is not chosen because of it's bridge or other of your assumptions. The only purpose of the bombs was forcing the surrender of an aggression-prone military enemy, the alternative being to allow it to recover and strike again.
*sighs* I didn't say that Hiroshima was chosen as a target due to a BRIDGE, I SAID the center of Hiroshima was chosen as the drop site, out of all parts of the city, due to the damn bridge. This is in responce to the why didn't they drop only on the military stuff? argument.

While it is questionable whether that required an invasion of the Japanese homelands, let us look at what the alternatives would have implied. Aside from the enormous casualties that ongoing conventional bombing would have caused, the following aspects must be considered:

a) Civilian casualties from malnutrition and disease: Obviously significant casualties would have accrued, had the war been prolonged several months, from malnutrition and disease, especially as antibiotic treatment for tuberculosis and other bacterial infections was not available to Japanese civilians at that time.

b) Japanese military casualties in bypassed areas: In the Central Pacific, many of the islands the Japanese expected the US to attack were bypassed, and the garrisons left to wither and die. Prolonging the war would have resulted in even greater suffering for these soldiers, and for any civilians unfortunate enough to be on the same islands.

c) Civilian casualties in Japanese-occupied areas, namely the savage mistreatment of civilians in Japanese-occupied China and French Indo-China. These areas were still in Japanese possession at the time of the Japanese surrender. Prolonging the war would have prolonged the agony of these civilian populations.

As we can see, there were plenty of good reasons to bring the war to an end, and to do it quickly.
All of which has been brought up by myself and others repeatedly within this thread and others on this topic.

Which doesn’t justify an attack on a defenseless civilian population in violation of the Hague Rules of Land Warfare, however.
Besides the point that WWII blasted those rules out of the water by both sides, I have shown that Hiroshima was a military city with significant military presence and force. It was a legitimate target.

And which, while it may make the bombing of Hiroshima look like the lesser of inevitable evils assuming that there would have been no other way to achieve a quick surrender, would by no means “justify” the perfectly unnecessary bombing of Nagasaki.
That one is hard to say as the Japanese goverment was waffling at the time between the two bombings. May or may not have been justified and I don't think we will ever know the full answer till everything is unsealed.

It was mentioned, try reading:
UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY
SUMMARY REPORT
(Pacific War)

WASHINGTON, D.C.
1 JULY 1946
Cute, where did YOU get it?

Not to mention, we gave fair warning to both cities that destruction was on the way. It wasn't like it came as a surprise. We warned both cities before we bombed them. We dropped leaflets over both cities telling them to evacuate.
You did? To my knowledge, it was part of the plan not to give warning.
That was point 2 of the findings of a special "ethics" commission (which apparently slept during its time) that included Ferni and Oppenheimer...
Or am I wrong?

It would depend on the consquences, excluding surrender, of both nations posterity.
A forcible occupation of Japan would have been horrid. Much better to have the relatively cooperative occupation that we had then, god forbid, an organized resistance hiding out in the mountains, something that would have most likely continued through today if we didn't have the Emperor's help.

It would depend on the consquences, excluding surrender, of both nations posterity.

:headbang:

Thank God you will never be the leader of the United States. I suggest you read up on what the US was planning to use in an invasion of Japan.

Now would you rather sacrifice a few hundred thousand in 2 bombs or several hundred thousand to a million or more dead in an invasion?

You did? To my knowledge, it was part of the plan not to give warning.
That was point 2 of the findings of a special "ethics" commission (which apparently slept during its time) that included Ferni and Oppenheimer...
Or am I wrong?

:headbang: (again)

I was thinking of the firebombings. I had that stuck in my head when I posted gah!

A forcible occupation of Japan would have been horrid. Much better to have the relatively cooperative occupation that we had then, god forbid, an organized resistance hiding out in the mountains, something that would have most likely continued through today if we didn't have the Emperor's help.And how did the bombings prevent resistance? The Jappanese surrendered once they realized they were defeated. Most of the most extreme supporters of the Emperor accepted occupation because of his decision, or they commited suicide. Resistance was not an acceptable form of Bushido.

And how did the bombings prevent resistance? The Jappanese surrendered once they realized they were defeated. Most of the most extreme supporters of the Emperor accepted occupation because of his decision, or they commited suicide. Resistance was not an acceptable form of Bushido.

Then explain why the military junta launched a coup to oust the emperor and to keep fighting the war even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

You still haven't answered my question on numbers. Which one is more acceptable to you? Deaths of a few hundred thousand by 2 bombs or nearly a million or more by invasion?

:headbang:

Thank God you will never be the leader of the United States. I suggest you read up on what the US was planning to use in an invasion of Japan.

Now would you rather sacrifice a few hundred thousand in 2 bombs or several hundred thousand to a million or more dead in an invasion?

Assuming your questions have grown rhetorical i will spare you the agony.
My point reinforced, an invasion where both sides were given roles of attacker and protector would have been the virtuous course of action, rather than giving the role of victim to Japan, and Murderer to the United States.

And how did the bombings prevent resistance? The Jappanese surrendered once they realized they were defeated. Most of the most extreme supporters of the Emperor accepted occupation because of his decision, or they commited suicide. Resistance was not an acceptable form of Bushido.

Mostly because we had the support of the emperor. However, some of the more intelligent senior officers were just about ready to play "let's get rid of the peaceniks and play war" before the peace faction got so large as to be able to crush the army (after the two bombings). It's likely that a coup without the nuclear bombings might have worked, even possibly instilling a more favorable emperor (shock) to their cause that would have removed the possibility of the emperor ordering his troops to surrender and forcing the US to conquer every single area under Japanese occupation, including the home islands, each and every area fighting to the death. Japan would be a wasteland, say nothing of china...


And as for resistance not being an acceptable way out, you're right, it isn't, but because it isn't a way out. You do realize that Japanese officers are still having to convince some men to come out of the jungle, as they refuse to believe the war is over?

Then explain why the military junta launched a coup to oust the emperor and to keep fighting the war even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

You still haven't answered my question on numbers. Which one is more acceptable to you? Deaths of a few hundred thousand by 2 bombs or nearly a million or more by invasion?

I did answer your question, it depends on the posterity and virtue in context ot the decision. Generally less deaths would be favorable, but under circumstances where righteousness is not valued, that can change in my opinion.

:headbang: (again)

I was thinking of the firebombings. I had that stuck in my head when I posted gah!
*hands asprin bottle to Corneliu*

Assuming your questions have grown rhetorical i will spare you the agony.

How is it rhetorical? Its all about numbers. How many deaths in war are acceptable?

My point reinforced, an invasion where both sides were given roles of attacker and protector would have been the virtuous course of action, rather than giving the role of victim to Japan, and Murderer to the United States.

In that case, your answer is to condemn nearly a million or more people to death. Congratulations!

*hands asprin bottle to Corneliu*

*takes the asprin and pops them into his mouth*

In that case, your answer is to condemn nearly a million or more people to death. Congratulations!

Thank you for deciphering my response for me, though it was hardly necessary

I did answer your question, it depends on the posterity and virtue in context ot the decision. Generally less deaths would be favorable, but under circumstances where righteousness is not valued, that can change in my opinion.

So you'd advocate the shooting of women and children who'd be trying to kill American soldiers? WOW!!!

Thank God Truman didn't have you for an advisor. We'd all be in trouble.

Let's move back on topic then, shall we?

So you'd advocate the shooting of women and children who'd be trying to kill American soldiers? WOW!!!

Thank God Truman didn't have you for an advisor. We'd all be in trouble.
well Corneliu, I think we found one thing we can agree on! :D

well Corneliu, I think we found one thing we can agree on! :D

Yea apparently we have :D

*hands Achtung45 a cookie*

So you'd advocate the shooting of women and children who'd be trying to kill American soldiers? WOW!!!

Thank God Truman didn't have you for an advisor. We'd all be in trouble.

Just so you know, your sarcasm doesn't add emphasis to your points, and women and children who are shooting at soldiers loose their non-combatant status when they open fire.

Just so you know, your sarcasm doesn't add emphasis to your points, and women and children who are shooting at soldiers loose their non-combatant status when they open fire.

Way to miss the obvious and totaly missing my point that I made.

Just so you know, your sarcasm doesn't add emphasis to your points, and women and children who are shooting at soldiers loose their non-combatant status when they open fire.
What about people making munitions?

What about people making munitions?

My original arguement had nothing to do with my opinion on army policies regarding civilian cassualties and field combat conduct. I would never advocate the use of a superweapon to end a conflict, and with that,
i go to bed.

Are you an English Teacher in Japan?
Yup. And loving it for the most part. :)

Yup. And loving it for the most part. :)Kewl! :D

What he said.
;)

I'm loving it that there is more arguments over this between the non-Japanese than there is between Japan and everyone else on this topic. :p

I'm loving it that there is more arguments over this between the non-Japanese than there is between Japan and everyone else on this topic. :p
It more or less serves as a real world focus on ethics in war and the general tendency to look at things from a "We were right and they were wrong" kind of view. At least as far as I am concerned.

It more or less serves as a real world focus on ethics in war and the general tendency to look at things from a "We were right and they were wrong" kind of view. At least as far as I am concerned.
Which is a very good point actually, in all seriousness.

In being a little silly though, I have had more heated arguments on this forum about this subject, and never with anyone from Japan. Hell, the Japanese I know look at my strangely (ok, they normally do that) when I bring up the topic. ;)

;)

I'm loving it that there is more arguments over this between the non-Japanese than there is between Japan and everyone else on this topic. :p
I was told by some Japanese Visitors to Hawaii, that they never knew about Pearl Harbor (that it wasn't taught in the schools) until they came to the Arizona Memorial. One of my friends, (a frequent visitor to Japan... Very Frequent visitor) said the schools there kinda fail to teach any detail for recent History... is this true?

If it weren't for the A-bombs, this forum will be in Japanese and this thread would not exist. You'd probably be working as a sushi maker.

Nuke the J*ps! Nuke the J*ps!

I was told by some Japanese Visitors to Hawaii, that they never knew about Pearl Harbor (that it wasn't taught in the schools) until they came to the Arizona Memorial. One of my friends, (a frequent visitor to Japan... Very Frequent visitor) said the schools there kinda fail to teach any detail for recent History... is this true?

They never tell their own citizens the truth about Japanese atrocities in WWII (which could easily outwiegh the Holocaust in ferocity and brutality). In the West, a man who denies the Holocaust is a moron. In Japan, a man who ridicules claims of Japanese atrocities is considered a hero of sanity.

If it weren't for the A-bombs, this forum will be in Japanese and this thread would not exist. You'd probably be working as a sushi maker.

If it weren't for the A-Bombs, there would be no other asian countries besides Japan.

Nuke the J*ps! Nuke the J*ps!

If Japan do something very idiotic to China like the textbook and oil, you know what's gonna happen.

I was told by some Japanese Visitors to Hawaii, that they never knew about Pearl Harbor (that it wasn't taught in the schools) until they came to the Arizona Memorial. One of my friends, (a frequent visitor to Japan... Very Frequent visitor) said the schools there kinda fail to teach any detail for recent History... is this true?
Depends... depends a great deal on the book, on the teacher, and so on. In short, yes, history from WWII isn't taught very well. My fiancee was under the impression that America attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki first THEN Pearl was bombed.

It has gotten a lot better as of late, with a long was to go (my kid's book devotes about a page to China and Korea, a paragraph to Pearl, a page to the rest of the war, then two for the atomic bombings). Many Japanese I have spoken with feel that the public school system doesn't really push it and the truth comes out in Japanese universities. But the majority of the Japanese public is aware of what Japan did in the war. It's only the far right that tries hard to discount it.

Oh and Sino... those generalizations don't hold a lot of water. Many Japanese are annoyed with the actions of the far right, but they also cannot understand why China and Korea keeps interfearing in internal Japanese afairs. After all, JAPAN doesn't say anything about the errasing China performs in its own history books.

(which could easily outwiegh the Holocaust in ferocity and brutality). In the West, a man who denies the Holocaust is a moron. In Japan, a man who ridicules claims of Japanese atrocities is considered a hero of sanity.
Both counts are wrong. Many Japanese shake their heads at those who would deny what happened, but even at their worse, the Japanese did NOT kill 6 million people, nor could it be said to be more brutal or ferocity for all that was done.

In any case, a contest over who was worse is silly, both events were horrifying and beyond any context of humanity. Let us agree on that and move on instead of debating that.

Depends... depends a great deal on the book, on the teacher, and so on. In short, yes, history from WWII isn't taught very well. My fiancee was under the impression that America attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki first THEN Pearl was bombed.

It has gotten a lot better as of late, with a long was to go (my kid's book devotes about a page to China and Korea, a paragraph to Pearl, a page to the rest of the war, then two for the atomic bombings). Many Japanese I have spoken with feel that the public school system doesn't really push it and the truth comes out in Japanese universities. But the majority of the Japanese public is aware of what Japan did in the war. It's only the far right that tries hard to discount it.

Oh and Sino... those generalizations don't hold a lot of water. Many Japanese are annoyed with the actions of the far right, but they also cannot understand why China and Korea keeps interfearing in internal Japanese afairs. After all, JAPAN doesn't say anything about the errasing China performs in its own history books.
Ahh... thanks again.
then again, it could be why most people in Japan don't argue it. One it's bad laundry, I don't think the Japanese don't like to dwell on bad laundry... and two, if it wasn't taught properly, there might be no baises to have a proper argument.

Some might still believe that Pear Harbor was the result of Hiroshima/Nagasaki while others think "What happened at Pearl harbor?"

my evidenceless hypothosis aside, thanks for the info. :D

Yes we did. We warned both cities to evacuate and they didn't.


Two things though..

1. Not the easiest thing to evacuate a city.

2. If your enemy tells you to do it, honestly how likely are you to do it, sounds more like merely causing panic, or an easy way to drop forward forces via paratrooper without resistance.

Remember back then no one outside of the manhatten project dreamed of something that could do that much damage, if they were dropping bombs hide under your desk, you'll be safe.

Two things though..

1. Not the easiest thing to evacuate a city.

Like they tried :rolleyes:
2. If your enemy tells you to do it, honestly how likely are you to do it, sounds more like merely causing panic, or an easy way to drop forward forces via paratrooper without resistance.

Remember back then no one outside of the manhatten project dreamed of something that could do that much damage, if they were dropping bombs hide under your desk, you'll be safe.
Maybe if the Japanese gov't was sane enough to take our threats seriously they would've told their civilians to get out. They were the ones that convinced them American soldiers would eat their babies. Sice they were all crazy, an invasion would've been equally crazy. It sounds crazy, but the least crazy thing we could've done was drop the nukes.

No they should not have done that!!! The bombs have killes and injuried so many people!! There are still wounded people there in Japan because of these bombs!!! NO!!!!

MAKE PEACE NOT WAR!!!



I say yes. By the way that bombing did make peace, in the east anyway...

I am glad we nuked Japan. I doubt that they would have listened to a thing our diplomats said. After all, I doubt the Jap soldiers listened to the Chinese women who begged the soldiers not to rape her, or the parents who begged the Jap soldiers not to toss their 1-year old in the air and skewer him on a bayonet. Same goes for the Phillipinos.

And it is true, even after the first bomb, that they didn't surrender. It is also true, that the two cities in question were industrial centers. It is also true that the general Japanese populace would rather die then surrender.

By the way, if I remember correctly, Pearl Harbor wasn't the first time they attacked us. Apparently, one of their naval vessels fired upon a peaceful US gunboat in the Pacific in 1937.

IMO, based on what I know about the war, we would have lost between .5 and 3 million soldiers during a conventional invasion of Japan. Hell, if we did, I probably wouldn't be alive know, because my grandpa probably would have been killed. I also will guestimate that no less than 10 million, athough likely much more, would have died in an invasion. I doubt that they would have surrendered.

Also, although I have no proof that this could happen, it seems possible that the US would become so deep in debt from the war, that the government would collapse. Seeing an opportunity, I believe Stalin would basically end up taking over the world. After allwith Germany gone, Japan gone, and the US gone, the USSR would be the most powerful nation in the world. Britian and France? No problem.

BTW, to that guy, who earlier in the thread, was badmouthing the US version of English, FUCK YOU, JACKASS!!

so the killing of innocent people is a good? thing .haha this americans are full of shit.they want to present themselves as [liberators???] .but with democrasy they bring the mass murder ,genocide,....if thats freedom then wtf is dictatorship.japan would not surender in 45 but would agree with the facts and sign a ceasefire with USSR ,usa and GBR.so i think someone should post with the question what usa cities would you NUKE for agrresion in iraq..i would go for 500 MGT in new york and los angeles that would be fair lets bring some democracy to usa and show to them how it is nice to be freed from bush the tirant..

Well, you must be the only one that does not want to understand. Since you are a die hard fanatic of the marginal belief of the goodie of the A bombs:

Both where terrorist attacks, weather it is done by a goverment = state terrorisme, many examples in history: Dresden, Pforzheim, Coventry, Warshau, agent orange, depleted uranium in Iraq (euh where are are the WMD's?), Putin in Cheynya, aso aso) or by people not able to fight a battle with a superpôwer and seeking their style of defence.

You still seem unarmad for a dual of wits.

...and in all fairness to JuNii, you not only can't spell unarmEd, you also manage to screw up duEl. You seem to be unarmed in the field of basic education.

And, btw, brush up on your definition of terrorism.
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=terrorism
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Any acts by a country DURING A WAR is not coercion, it's a means to WIN THE WAR. :rolleyes:

so the killing of innocent people is a good? thing .haha this americans are full of shit.they want to present themselves as [liberators???] .but with democrasy they bring the mass murder ,genocide,....if thats freedom then wtf is dictatorship.japan would not surender in 45 but would agree with the facts and sign a ceasefire with USSR ,usa and GBR.so i think someone should post with the question what usa cities would you NUKE for agrresion in iraq..i would go for 500 MGT in new york and los angeles that would be fair lets bring some democracy to usa and show to them how it is nice to be freed from bush the tirant..

Wow.

I mean... wow.

I'm blown away.

so the killing of innocent people is a good? thing .haha this americans are full of shit.they want to present themselves as [liberators???] .but with democrasy they bring the mass murder ,genocide,....if thats freedom then wtf is dictatorship.japan would not surender in 45 but would agree with the facts and sign a ceasefire with USSR ,usa and GBR.so i think someone should post with the question what usa cities would you NUKE for agrresion in iraq..i would go for 500 MGT in new york and los angeles that would be fair lets bring some democracy to usa and show to them how it is nice to be freed from bush the tirant..

You sir are an idiot. It was either a few hundred thousand dead by 2 bombs or nearly a million or more dead in an invasion. Now which would you choose?

Also, the Japs DID surrender in 1945, in the month of August on the 14th day. However, it wasn't till September 2nd that the Formal surrender ceremonies took place aboard the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay.

You really need to learn history before you insert yourself into a history debate.

By the way, if I remember correctly, Pearl Harbor wasn't the first time they attacked us. Apparently, one of their naval vessels fired upon a peaceful US gunboat in the Pacific in 1937.

December 12, 1937, Japan bombs U.S. gunboat Panay on Yangtze River.

so the killing of innocent people is a good? thing .haha this americans are full of shit.they want to present themselves as [liberators???] .but with democrasy they bring the mass murder ,genocide,....if thats freedom then wtf is dictatorship.japan would not surender in 45 but would agree with the facts and sign a ceasefire with USSR ,usa and GBR.so i think someone should post with the question what usa cities would you NUKE for agrresion in iraq..i would go for 500 MGT in new york and los angeles that would be fair lets bring some democracy to usa and show to them how it is nice to be freed from bush the tirant..

Sometimes you just need a good laugh to start off the morning, thanks for giving me one.

so the killing of innocent people is a good? thing .haha this americans are full of shit.they want to present themselves as [liberators???] .but with democrasy they bring the mass murder ,genocide,....if thats freedom then wtf is dictatorship.japan would not surender in 45 but would agree with the facts and sign a ceasefire with USSR ,usa and GBR.so i think someone should post with the question what usa cities would you NUKE for agrresion in iraq..i would go for 500 MGT in new york and los angeles that would be fair lets bring some democracy to usa and show to them how it is nice to be freed from bush the tirant..
*laughs...the AMERICAN way...at this pathetic excuse for an argument*

In WWII there were really no "civilians" as anybody not directly fighting was involved directly or indirectly in the production of war material. They rolled bandages in schools etc.


Of course they should not, it was the biggest terrorist attack on civilians. Let's say to the people that say it was OK that a 9/11 was OK to then (but to few casualties).

Another thing you miss that in a sick way they may have saved Japan as the loss of life with an invasion would be even more catastrophic....a pragmatic solution.




and I showed how the two are not similar, his response was nothing but a personal attack on me.

Sure New York City has always been a target, but the thread isn't about New York City, but about dropping the A-bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. his earlier post was saying that the action was equal to the World Trade Center attack on 9/11. I pointed out how the two were different and not comparable, his reply is nothing but one long personal attack.



nothing to support his claim that The A-Bombs (done during war,) equates 9/11 (done during Peace time.) He made the comparison, I showed they don't equate, he replies with a personal attack.

Frankly, I was interested in how he was going to equate them, but he didn't.

Velo you are niave to equate Hiroshima and Nagasaki with 9/11 and were I you would not besmirch others knowledge of history when yours is lacking.

Of all the terrorisme (sic) you mention only Dresden would come close to being terrorism as Dresden was on nominal military value and produced little for the war effort however it was meant to be a message to the Soviets, and a test of the effectivness of napalm.


It is arguable that Hiroshima saved 10 lives for every life lost the same can't be said of 9/11. I will not argue the military value of NYC and the WTC it was a cowardly sneak attack using civilians when no war was declared.



Well, you must be the only one that does not want to understand. Since you are a die hard fanatic of the marginal belief of the goodie of the A bombs:

Both where terrorist attacks, weather it is done by a goverment = state terrorisme, many examples in history: Dresden, Pforzheim, Coventry, Warshau, agent orange, depleted uranium in Iraq (euh where are are the WMD's?), Putin in Cheynya, aso aso) or by people not able to fight a battle with a superpôwer and seeking their style of defence.

You still seem unarmad for a dual of wits.

No, it's not. He is advocating that there still are rules of civility in warfare. Afterall, breaking these rules is what makes people war criminals.
And that some of these rules stand above strategic or tactical considerations, because if they didn't exist, we'd be out of a planet pretty soon. It's like game theory - as long as everyone plays by the rules, everyone is happy, once one breaks the rules, everything goes horribly wrong.

Oh yes it is! Rules of civility are reserved for states that don't consider victory as one of their goals in a war. A country that agrees to sacrifice millions of its own soldiers to save a few hundred thousand of its enemies considers victory a lesser goal and its principles more valuable than its citizens. I personally consider such a strategy narrow minded thinking barely worthy of consideration even for ridicule.

While there might be some rules that stand above stratagy, sacrificing your own soldiers to save enemy lives should never be considered such a rule except by misanthropic visionaries who place their principles above the lives of their own people. Such unstable people are rarely fit to govern.

Wow wiseguy, you found that all alone by yourself? Perhaps you are on such a levell in your village that you need to explain WWII? I'd challenge you to a duell of history wits, but I see you come unarmed.




What the crap... NYC is the biggest viable target for anyone in war with the US. Nice to know that neocons like yourself see Hiroshima as a target because it is industrial :confused: Ever compared the arms industry in NYC (opticals, radartechnology, screens aso) with the small industry in both Japanese cities that time? The WTC civilian? It was a more viable target for any nation wich mourns 10.000's of death civilians caused by the US millitary (oh yes, all "viable targets" because you say so).





Ok wiseguy explain how collonel Tibbets and the other genocidarians chose their victims.... Off course they all know their victims by name and status :confused: . Guess you don't pay your drugdealer nearly enough, but I like you, you're silly.


Do you ever read the posts of people you argue with? There was no war with 9/11. We didn't attack the enemy first. There was no formal declaration of war. We didn't want war with them. The Japanese WANTED was with the US. Do you understand that?

Comparing 9/11 to Hiroshima is silly. I actually find it entertaining to a point.

You are only looking at a small portion of a much larger situation. The US had only 2 bombs produced at great expense they had to end the war before the Soviet Union entered the war in the East. To "waste" a bomb on a an open field would be a ridiculous waste of resources, it has been stated that only after the second bomb (fearing the US could mass produce them) convinced the last of the die hards to surrender. If Truman had not chose to drop the bombs the US would no longer just be fighting the Japanese military but the whole population, it also gave the ruling generals a way to save face because of the overwhelming devistation. The US did drop warning flyers prior to the bombing but the IJ government told the people this was propaganda.



In my mind they are both warcrimes.The A bomb was dropped on two cities to kill civilians. It wasn't dropped on the military targets, it was dropped on the city centre. If the US was really interested in minimising the civilian casualties they could have easilly chosen a remote (military) target in Japan. Theres plenty of remote targets to choose from. The military targets within those cities were not the targets of the bombings, the civilians were and thats what makes it a warcrime. Eat this.

Slightly ot ..Hey Nervun ask some of the people that were alive during WWII what they were told about the US forces especially the USMC.
I would be cool if you could post the replies.

Um... have you seen maps of Hiroshima before the bombing? Seen where the military/industrial complexes were? And did you ever read WHY the actual target (not just the city, but what the bombers were aiming for) was chosen?

and how many tens of thousand of lives would be lost between 8,8,1945 and 11,30,1945 ???



This speaks for itself.

regards

geez, what idiot can even compare
Hiroshima and Nagasaki to
9/11?
they must have a warped idea
of history and the circcumstances!

Both counts are wrong. Many Japanese shake their heads at those who would deny what happened, but even at their worse, the Japanese did NOT kill 6 million people, nor could it be said to be more brutal or ferocity for all that was done.

In any case, a contest over who was worse is silly, both events were horrifying and beyond any context of humanity. Let us agree on that and move on instead of debating that.

You're right, they didn't kill 6 million, they killed over 15 million.

it saved American lives.

so I'll say it was a good decision.

You can blame the Soviet Union as of the the Hiroshima they had not entered the war and were offically neuteral to Japan. Japan contacted the CCCP in very formal language looking for them to convey the message to the US. The Soviets took this opertunity to DELIBERATELY mistranslate the message to prolong the war long enough for them to make a grab at the Kurile Islands, after the second bomb they contacted the US directly. (There was also this silly little coup atempt too)



Bush who?



Ok, I'll give you one.
All outside the city near Yamamoto air school/field, at 40km from the city.

Of topic
History Lesson: wrong, outside the city, not in.



Off course kiddo, I am. BTW the city is not chosen because of it's bridge or other of your assumptions. The only purpose of the bombs was forcing the surrender of an aggression-prone military enemy, the alternative being to allow it to recover and strike again.

While it is questionable whether that required an invasion of the Japanese homelands, let us look at what the alternatives would have implied. Aside from the enormous casualties that ongoing conventional bombing would have caused, the following aspects must be considered:

a) Civilian casualties from malnutrition and disease: Obviously significant casualties would have accrued, had the war been prolonged several months, from malnutrition and disease, especially as antibiotic treatment for tuberculosis and other bacterial infections was not available to Japanese civilians at that time.

b) Japanese military casualties in bypassed areas: In the Central Pacific, many of the islands the Japanese expected the US to attack were bypassed, and the garrisons left to wither and die. Prolonging the war would have resulted in even greater suffering for these soldiers, and for any civilians unfortunate enough to be on the same islands.

c) Civilian casualties in Japanese-occupied areas, namely the savage mistreatment of civilians in Japanese-occupied China and French Indo-China. These areas were still in Japanese possession at the time of the Japanese surrender. Prolonging the war would have prolonged the agony of these civilian populations.

As we can see, there were plenty of good reasons to bring the war to an end, and to do it quickly.

Which doesn’t justify an attack on a defenseless civilian population in violation of the Hague Rules of Land Warfare, however.

And which, while it may make the bombing of Hiroshima look like the lesser of inevitable evils assuming that there would have been no other way to achieve a quick surrender, would by no means “justify” the perfectly unnecessary bombing of Nagasaki.

geez, what idiot can even compare
Hiroshima and Nagasaki to
9/11?
they must have a warped idea
of history and the circcumstances!

Welcome to the forums.

Probably the most accurate assesment of events yet.



The bombings may be considered a necessity. They may even be considered an unfortunate necessity. No one has the right to say that it was a good thing.
Have no illusions. These incidents were perfect examples of statecraft, the secret dirty business of civilisation, to which none will dare admit. America did not particularly need to use the bombs, but it was still profitable, in the currency of power. Thus it was done. America got what it wanted.
There is no good in statecraft, no honour, nor even evil. They are mere fancies to warm us in the cold of the night. There is only power, politics, and unfettered desire, where deception is legitimate and ruthlessness is rewarded.
The bombings were not the ending of the war, but the ultimate expression of it. In those mushroom clouds, America purged itself of the bloodlust that Pearl Harbour had awakened, and won the whole world.
Think before you label me. The other nations are no better. I have delved into the darkness beneath the glittering towers of prosperity and found it plentiful. I can tell you stories of bloodshed, degradation and despair, of evil done in the name of good, and good in the name of evil. I can tell you of slaves called free people, and of the ruthless Lords who wore the crown of virtue and the robes of adoration. Do not seek the "good guy" in the study of history, for he never existed.
I chose to leave the deceptions behind. I walk in the cold night, in which the truth is laid bare. Every nation, every ideology, every individual seeks advancement at the expense of the other, whether they realise it or not, regardless of how they do it. When I look up, I see the stars shining bright and unfeeling, illuminating the horrible truth. This horrible truth, the human race.
Dare you walk with me?

http://www.psywarrior.com/2114WWII.jpg

This is the leaflet dropped.




You did? To my knowledge, it was part of the plan not to give warning.
That was point 2 of the findings of a special "ethics" commission (which apparently slept during its time) that included Ferni and Oppenheimer...
Or am I wrong?

The Rape of Nanking was as bad as anything the Nazi's did.


Both counts are wrong. Many Japanese shake their heads at those who would deny what happened, but even at their worse, the Japanese did NOT kill 6 million people, nor could it be said to be more brutal or ferocity for all that was done.

In any case, a contest over who was worse is silly, both events were horrifying and beyond any context of humanity. Let us agree on that and move on instead of debating that.

it saved American lives.

so I'll say it was a good decision.

I'd say I agree with you.

It also saved the rest of asia too.

December 12, 1937, Japan bombs U.S. gunboat Panay on Yangtze River.

Thank you, sir.

I read the first 8 or 10 pages and the one preceeding this one, so I don't know if this has been said before, and I'm sorry for repeating if it has been said before.

Let me start out that, I am not out for nuking the world, and I think that the effects atomic/nuclear weapons bring are horrible. However, I believe that the best option (of the one's available circa-1945) was to drop BOTH bombs. Here's why:

My sources are Robert Newman's Truman and the Hiroshima Cult & The Enola Gay and the Court of History, Robert Maddox's Weapons for Victory as well as a journal article that I don't have referenced on this computer, The Last Mission:The Final Battle to World War II or something like that, journal articles from The Pacific Historical Review, and Sado Asada's(or spelled something like that, I'm at work and am having to go by memory). The last person I list is widely considered to be the foremost expert on Japanese history of WWII, and he's Japanese himself.

These men show that the Japanese, among other things, had more conditions to surrender than just the retention of the Emperor as ruler, that the USA did not drop the bomb to intimidate the USSR, and that dropping the A-bombs were actually the only available option to end the war.

Further, in my own research (I did my Senior Thesis on this topic this past school year in college), Okinawa played a major role in the decision to drop the bomb, since out of a garrison of 100-110,000 Japanese soldiers, the American invader's captured alive less than 5,000, since the rest either fought to the death or killed themselves rather than being captured.

On the Japanese surrendering before the boms, this is not true. There were instances in which Japan enquired about obtaining favorable terms to end the war, but this was carried out by either civilians or low-level government officials who carried no weight in the decision-making process. As well, the Minister of the Army added 3 additional conditions for Japanese surrender: the Japanese disarms themselves, voluntarily; no occupation by foreign troops on Japanese soil; and I just went blank on the third. Sorry about that.

I'm wondering where people got the 700,000 figure of people that died from the bombs? As far as I know, around 200,000 or less died from the actual bombs. I know that its pretty unreliable to put an exact figure on the number of people that have died from the radiation after the bombs, but I very highly doubt that around 500,000 people have died in the past 60 years. If someone could enlighten me, or provide a link, I would like to check that out.

I think a lot of people are injecting today's views of the past into the past. Remember people, a lot of what we know now was not known then, such as the radiation the bombs would have, as well as our knowledge of what has happened since the bombs have been dropped.

One last major point. Using "Ultra" intercepts, American/Allied intelligence estimated that the Japanese had around 150,000 to 300,000 soldiers of lower skill defending the island of Kyushu, the island that would have been invaded had the American invasion taken place. Using intelligence and documents obtained only after the war, it was discovered to what could be described as shock by American commanders that the Japanese could have reinforced Kyushu by up to 700,000 troops, a good portion battleharded from fighting in China. The Japanese also knew EXACTLY where the American's were going to land, and prepared accordingly by stacking most of their troops there as well as close to 10,000 kamikaze planes, ships, and people. In other words, the invasion forces could have been blown out of the water before they even got to shore. There's something to consider when talking about casualties.

Thank you, sir.

No problem :)

http://www.psywarrior.com/2114WWII.jpg

This is the leaflet dropped.

The Leaflet u linked to was dropped over various Jappanese cities AFTER the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Not before and not over the city itself

Rules of civility are reserved for states that don't consider victory as one of their goals in a war.....
I disagree. It is exactly that kind of thinking that leads to torture, chemical attacks, terror bombings and gas chambers.
Do you think the Nazis killed millions just because they were brutal butchers? They had a very detailed and well worked-out ideology in which Jews and Bolsheviks and all the rest of them were endangering the lives of their soldiers and their civilians.
So in order to save their country, they built the camps.
It's bound to repeat itself if you throw principles overbord in order to achieve "victory" - and being a democracy doesn't exclude you from being a war criminal if you break the rules.

The Leaflet u linked to was dropped over various Jappanese cities AFTER the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Not before and not over the city itself
Aha!
Because I know for a fact that this commission found it unnecessary to give prior warning, I just wasn't sure whether that was warning to the Government or warning to the Population.
And considering the frame of mind of the time, it is likely that the US leadership (and many still on this thread apparently) didn't make that distinction.

Here's the thing:

1. Back then, we didn't know what the bomb would really do to a city. We also had littler understanding of radiation poisoning.

2. 150 thousand w/ nuking, millions of Americans with American surrender, or millions on both sides with invasion. Which death toll would you want?

3. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both military targets. The Us was going to bomb city #3, but Japan surrendered and the bombing was called off.

4. If we didn't nuke Japan, the Soviets would have invaded and Japan would be communist right now.

5. Hindsight is 20/20.

they didnt have to bomb a big city if they had shown them the power of the bomb it would have been anuth to scar them to surrender or they could have used them in the main military ports.
Accurate - if you live in FANTACY LAND!
You have to remember it took TWO bombs to get their attention. They saw the first one - shit their pants - then KEPT FIGHTING! Only after the second one were they able to convince their 'god' emperor to surrender - and even then it was not an easily won debate among the many participants on both sides!
Yes, it should have been done. Regrettably. It is obvious from their response to the first bomb that an illustration alone would have earned nothing.

-snip-
Read the thread, all right?

Read the thread, all right?
he is... that post was much earlier. so he's catching up.
Probably got passonate with all the viewpoints being bandied about.

he is...
That's okay then. I thought it was the very first post...

That's okay then. I thought it was the very first post...
whoops... you're right... Thought that quote looked familiar... oh well, guess he's just putting in his two cents. :)

Another thing you miss that in a sick way they may have saved Japan as the loss of life with an invasion would be even more catastrophic....a pragmatic solution.

Sir, you are an idiot, try reading the thread before jumping in. :confused:

Sir, you are an idiot, try reading the thread before jumping in. :confused:

He has and he's right. The casualties in an invasion would've been catastrophic. Try reading some history before commenting.

Sir, you are an idiot, try reading the thread before jumping in. :confused:

Try following your own advice here.

I disagree. It is exactly that kind of thinking that leads to torture, chemical attacks, terror bombings and gas chambers.
Do you think the Nazis killed millions just because they were brutal butchers? They had a very detailed and well worked-out ideology in which Jews and Bolsheviks and all the rest of them were endangering the lives of their soldiers and their civilians.
So in order to save their country, they built the camps.
It's bound to repeat itself if you throw principles overbord in order to achieve "victory" - and being a democracy doesn't exclude you from being a war criminal if you break the rules.

You're trying to compare apples to oranges. Forget about torture - that qualifies as a rule that should be followed. I never said anything about torture and you know it.

My argument is that adopting a strategy to save < 700,000 enemy citizens that by all accounts of accurate intelligence predicts will kill more than a million of your own soldiers is narrow minded idealogical thinking that focuses strictly on intent without considering results. It is noble to want to save those civilians (though intelligence says that even more civilians would have to die for your strategy to work). It is insane to ignore the cost in lives of your own people to adopt the strategy required to do so.

He has and he's right. The casualties in an invasion would've been catastrophic. Try reading some history before commenting.
Lok who is talking :D

Try following your own advice here.

Euh, regarding your info/opinion, it is clear that you have the advantage of being handicapted in the knowledge of history. Better read the thread a bit.

We should not have used the bomb. Mostly because we had no idea what kind of long term effects it would have. We wanted to end the war quickly & made a quick & raqther rash choice without knowing the full concequences. Japan still suffers because of it today. Plus it set the tone for the cold war & started an arms race.

Lok who is talking :D

I study history! Unlike you, I'm accurate in what I have been saying here.

So care to tell me what option you pick if you had the choice of nearly a million or more dead in an invasion and a few hundred thousand in 2 bombs. Which would you choose?

Euh, regarding your info/opinion, it is clear that you have the advantage of being handicapted in the knowledge of history. Better read the thread a bit.

Ok. Its clear your not understanding this issue at all. Please save yourself some dignity and leave.

Botswombata']We should not have used the bomb. Mostly because we had no idea what kind of long term effects it would have. We wanted to end the war quickly & made a quick & raqther rash choice without knowing the full concequences. Japan still suffers because of it today. Plus it set the tone for the cold war & started an arms race.

So you would rather have nearly a million or more die in an invasion instead of a few hundred thousand in 2 bombs?

As for the cold war, it was due to Hiroshima and Nagasaki that we continue to prevent nuclear war.

I study history! Unlike you, I'm accurate in what I have been saying here. ?
You're a liar and you know it:
First you try debating saying you are a metereologist.
Now, unlike me (mastersdegree in history, specialisation, medievisme), you try to bluff you're way out with once again another diploma. ]wonders how many you allready invented here and what will come next.
Like said before, you are a kid with lots of time and immagination before his computer with one degree: nation states.

Done with it.


So care to tell me what option you pick if you had the choice of nearly a million or more dead in an invasion and a few hundred thousand in 2 bombs. Which would you choose?

The half a million is your imagination.
My opinion is well documeneted and argued in the thread, you might have forgotten your own reactions.
You must be spending days before the screen, poor thing.

Euh, regarding your info/opinion, it is clear that you have the advantage of being handicapted in the knowledge of history. Better read the thread a bit.

Borrowing a quote that fits here - Your response demonstrates a level of ineptitude that borders on the imbecilic.

I've read your posts. You have the written verbal skills of a kindergardener, you mispell one word in five, your grammatical elocutive skills lead me to believe (hopefully in your case) that English is not your first language. If that is the case, I apologize and I obviously forgive your sophomoric communication skills.

But what I can't ignore is your penchant to skip over other people's posts before you post your own. You don't read other people's posts. You don 't counter arguments people make against your statements.

Also, you accuse me of being handicapped in history which makes you a hypocrite.

A lot of what you've posted here is inaccurate, leading me to believe that you either made most of it up or you believed someone that filled your head with a lot of half truths.

You're a liar and you know it:
First you try debating saying you are a metereologist.
Now, unlike me (mastersdegree in history, specialisation, medievisme), you try to bluff you're way out whit once again another diploma.
Like said before, you are a kid with lots of time before his computer with one degree: nation states.

Done with it.


The half a million is your imagination.
My opinion is well documeneted and argued in the thread, you might have forgotten your own reactions.
You must be spending days before the screen, poor thing.
I dunno velo, mostly all of your posts are personnal attacks on the poster with snide comments on the side. very little content, and even less information.

others try for a debate/conversation, you just flame.

You're a liar and you know it:
First you try debating saying you are a metereologist.
Now, unlike me (mastersdegree in history, specialisation, medievisme), you try to bluff you're way out whit once again another diploma.
Like said before, you are a kid with lots of time before his computer with one degree: nation states.

1. I was studying to be a meteorologist. I had to give it up because I couldn't do calculus. That's life. I still do a shift at the Campus Weather Service while school is in session. I can give you the phone number too.

2. I switched my major to Political Science as well as bumping up my minor in history to a major in history. I have the paperwork to prove that too. It is called my DARS!

3. Your the damn liar. If you truly had a masters in History you wouldn't be getting your damn ass kicked in this thread. I happened to have studied the Pacific Theater in depth. I can't get enough information on it because I enjoy studying the campaigns and what both sides did to try and win it.

4. I never said I had a diploma. I said I was STUDYING IT! I guess you failed your reading comprehension test.

5. Back to your degree, I ask for my money back because apparently you never learned it.

Done with it.

Good. Now maybe we can actually get back to discussing the facts instead of the shit you've spouted.

So care to tell me what option you pick if you had the choice of nearly a million or more dead in an invasion and a few hundred thousand in 2 bombs. Which would you choose?

The half a million is your imagination.
My opinion is well documeneted and argued in the thread, you might have forgotten your own reactions.
You must be spending days before the screen, poor thing.

NO it isn't my imagination. Your opinions are shit because they are not accurate. The numbers are accurate. Nearly a million or more people would've died if we had invaded. That does not include the Chinese people who the Japanese Army would've killed in order to get back to Japan to defend her from our invasion.

You really want to entangle me in World War II history, bring it on.

I dunno velo, mostly all of your posts are personnal attacks on the poster with snide comments on the side. very little content, and even less information.

others try for a debate/conversation, you just flame.



Agreed. This line kills me...

velo: Now, unlike me (mastersdegree in history, specialisation, medievisme), you try to bluff you're way out with once again another diploma. ]

Now if he earned this degree in a foreign country where English is not the primary language spoken, I will owe him an apology.

But if such is NOT the case, I can't be convinced that anyone with his grammatical skill has a masters degree in ANYTHING except truth stretching and BS'ing.

He'd make a great salesman though.

So you would rather have nearly a million or more die in an invasion instead of a few hundred thousand in 2 bombs?

As for the cold war, it was due to Hiroshima and Nagasaki that we continue to prevent nuclear war.

Your numbers here are dead wrong. 200,00 is the amount of people who died in the blasts & shockwaves. Many Many more have died because of fall out & radiation.

Also, we have no idea what could have transpired without the nukes. Saying that millions would have died is propaganda not factual info because it NEVER happened.

It also still does not excuse using a weapon we had no idea what the long term effect would be.

Millions is a very overblown considering the condition of the Japanese army navy & air force by the time Hiroshima & Nagasaki occured.
Esp when you consider the size of the russian army going in.
Plus there would be less long term suffering. Less radiation poising, cancer Tumors birth defects etc...etc...etc......

I may well be an idiot, but you sir are a pompous ass. I have read the thread, with an especially keen intrest in illogical babble you spew forth. Had the US not dropped the atomic bombs in August 1945 and instead continued with operation Coronet there is ever indication the Japan would have fought a "scorched earth" defense. If the resistance on Okinawa was an indicator 100,000 US casualties (not just KIA) in the primary invasion alone and 1.5 to 2.0 million overall , Japan losses would (if keeping ratios from previous battles) would be on the order of 20 MILLION Japanese men killed not counting for civilian casualties. The Kurile Islands and perhaps northern Japan would have been behind the Iron Curtain changing the balance of power in the East and giving the Soviets a warm water port on the Pacific. The Korean War, Chinese Revolution, Vietnam and the Cold War would all be radically effected. The nation of Japan would be divided like Korea and because the Cold War would be effected perhaps unlike Germany and like Korea never to be reunified ...but I'm an idiot.

Sir, you are an idiot, try reading the thread before jumping in. :confused:

Ever noticed the coincidence of the group posts of Corneliu, JuNii, Unspeakabla and Nerion? Those trolls must be the same person, the coincidence for having an allien in the White House is higher then seeing them as different posters. It is the same in all threads, just check a bit and you'll see ;) .

It is amazing how well he deflects raional argument and raw data with intelectual dishonesty, even when he is busted once again and traped in his own dam lies.

Your numbers here are dead wrong. 200,00 is the amount of people who died in the blasts & shockwaves. Many Many more have died because of fall out & radiation.

Also, we have no idea what could have transpired without the nukes. Saying that millions would have died is propaganda not factual info because it NEVER happened.

It also still does not excuse using a weapon we had no idea what the long term effect would be.

Millions is a very overblown considering the condition of the Japanese army navy & air force by the time Hiroshima & Nagasaki occured.
Esp when you consider the size of the russian army going in.
Plus there would be less long term suffering. Less radiation poising, cancer Tumors birth defects etc...etc...etc......

Actually, I suggest you read up on how precisely the US was planning on invading the Japanese mainland. Everything from these same nuclear devices to Chemical weapons were being discussed. No the numbers aren't overblown.

Its nice to know though that you don't care about the million people that are going to get killed in an invasion though.

There's no intellingent discourse in this thread.

http://www.crystalinks.com/beamtransporter.jpg

Ever noticed the coincidence of the group posts of Corneliu, JuNii, Unspeakabla and Nerion? Those trolls must be the same person, the coincidence for having an allien in the White House is higher then seeing them as different posters. It is the same in all threads, just check a bit and you'll see ;) .

It is amazing how well he deflects raional argument and raw data with intelectual dishonesty, even when he is busted once again and traped in his own dam lies.

I don't know about Corneliu or JuNii, but I am challenging you now to point out a single lie that I've posted.

And as far as us three being the same person - all you have to do is have a moderator trace our IP addresses back from our posts.

What probably seems strange to you is that three people could agree to disagree with you ;-)

Ever noticed the coincidence of the group posts of Corneliu, JuNii, Unspeakabla and Nerion? Those trolls must be the same person, the coincidence for having an allien in the White House is higher then seeing them as different posters. It is the same in all threads, just check a bit and you'll see ;) .

:confused: I can tell you that we are not the same person. I don't even know JuNii or Unspeakabla or Nerion. And you sir are the troll with a post like this.

It is amazing how well he deflects raional argument and raw data with intelectual dishonesty, even when he is busted once again and traped in his own dam lies.

As opposed to this post that does nothing but show the level of intellect you have? We aren't using intelectual dishonesty here. We are actually using the plans of the invasion that the US laid out to show why the bombings were necessary. You and Velo are the ones using intelectual dishonesty.

Ever noticed the coincidence of the group posts of Corneliu, JuNii, Unspeakabla and Nerion? Those trolls must be the same person, the coincidence for having an allien in the White House is higher then seeing them as different posters. It is the same in all threads, just check a bit and you'll see ;) .

It is amazing how well he deflects raional argument and raw data with intelectual dishonesty, even when he is busted once again and traped in his own dam lies.

Just a curious thought here - I welcome the mods checking my IP address as I am sure would Unspeakable, Corneliu and JuNii.

I noticed you mispelled a few words here Via Ferrata. That being pointed out, I'd ALSO like YOUR IP address checked against velo's. Because what you suggested in jest may actually be the case with you.

[QUOTE=Corneliu

As opposed to this post that does nothing but show the level of intellect you have? We aren't using intelectual dishonesty here. We are actually using the plans of the invasion that the US laid out to show why the bombings were necessary. You and Velo are the ones using intelectual dishonesty.[/QUOTE]

You still are dishonest because you never answered the following facts that where mentioned by other posters then you and your puppets (btw, what a coincidence that they did not move after my discoverey).

Conventional bombing WAS in fact doing its job nicely. Much of Japanese industry was destroyed and the ability for Japan to take the war to the US was completely destroyed. Aircraft was minimal which allowed the US bombers to travel ANYWHERE in Japan and bomb it with impunity. The land army was a shadow of itself and didn't affect the Bombers one iota. Even flak was minimal. Continued pressure from the bombers was most definitely an option. The naval blockade was also achieving its aims. Japan couldn't even fish in her fishing lanes without having her boats attacked. No food or goods were getting in or out. Full stop. When the Japanese civilians started dropping like flies with starvation the Japanese would have quickened their surrender, which they were making plans to do anyway.

I may well be an idiot, but you sir are a pompous ass. I have read the thread, with an especially keen intrest in illogical babble you spew forth. Had the US not dropped the atomic bombs in August 1945 and instead continued with operation Coronet there is ever indication the Japan would have fought a "scorched earth" defense. If the resistance on Okinawa was an indicator 100,000 US casualties (not just KIA) in the primary invasion alone and 1.5 to 2.0 million overall , Japan losses would (if keeping ratios from previous battles) would be on the order of 20 MILLION Japanese men killed not counting for civilian casualties. The Kurile Islands and perhaps northern Japan would have been behind the Iron Curtain changing the balance of power in the East and giving the Soviets a warm water port on the Pacific. The Korean War, Chinese Revolution, Vietnam and the Cold War would all be radically effected. The nation of Japan would be divided like Korea and because the Cold War would be effected perhaps unlike Germany and like Korea never to be reunified ...but I'm an idiot.

The Japanese threw everything & the kitchen sink into defending Okinawa. They would not have a unifying force to maintain that kind of defense throuout the rest of Japan. Your figures are way over inflated. Your telling me that a world war that produced 61 million deaths would produce 20 million more from a military force who was on it's last leg anyway. Is that what your trying to tell us?

I noticed you mispelled a few words here Via Ferrata.

Well that is more then normal, it is not my mothertongue. Want to continue in German, French,Italian or even Dutch? We'll see then who is prepared to talk another language.

Well you must admit that is strange for a person on this side of the Ocean to see that even when it is night (not now) for you guys, that you are allways on the same moment in the same discussion. But I believe you on your word.

:confused: I can tell you that we are not the same person. I don't even know JuNii or Unspeakabla or Nerion. And you sir are the troll with a post like this.



As opposed to this post that does nothing but show the level of intellect you have? We aren't using intelectual dishonesty here. We are actually using the plans of the invasion that the US laid out to show why the bombings were necessary. You and Velo are the ones using intelectual dishonesty.

Via Ferrata and Velo are the same person. This guy is a flame troll.

Via Ferrata and Velo are the same person. This guy is a flame troll.

Like said before, it is not because I made the constatation that I would use the same tactic as you troll.

Actually, I suggest you read up on how precisely the US was planning on invading the Japanese mainland. Everything from these same nuclear devices to Chemical weapons were being discussed. No the numbers aren't overblown.

Its nice to know though that you don't care about the million people that are going to get killed in an invasion though.

It's nice to know you don't care about children who had nothing to do with this being born without limbs. With MS. With low bone Marrow, with Lukemia and the list goes on all because their parent & grandparents were radiated.

You still fail to see the big picture.

And I do care about millions dying. I just don't see that actually happening. again I think your figures are wack & you still the source of your opnion.

If you can prove millions give me a shred of real evidence to back it up.
You have nothing that isn't theroy.

Like said before, it is not because I made the constatation that I would use the same tactic as you troll.

I'm not using different ID's to pretend I am 2 different people. You ARE.

Yes and the war would have last 18 to 24 months longer. There also would have catastophic Chinese casulties (in the Rape of Nanking is any indicator) the Soviets weren't against Japan for the long haul and once their territorial goals were met may well have not pressed further. Any nation that ENCOURAGED woman to throw their children in to the sea to avoid the USMC would stop at nothing to defend their home. Look at Stalingrad and Lenningrad to see what an invasion of Japan would be like.




The Japanese threw everything & the kitchen sink into defending Okinawa. They would not have a unifying force to maintain that kind of defense throuout the rest of Japan. Your figures are way over inflated. Your telling me that a world war that produced 61 million deaths would produce 20 million more from a military force who was on it's last leg anyway. Is that what your trying to tell us?

I'm not using different ID's to pretend I am 2 different people. You ARE.

Because YOU use 4 identities, you must not think that the rest of us is.Specially when you have the same IP adress.

Hmm I am going to the party of 14 july now (national day for the so hated French by you, does that makes me French?

Bye, get a life

Because YOU use 4 identities, you must not think that the rest of us is.Specially when you have the same IP adress.

LMAO!!!!!!! We don't have the same IP address. This is priceless!!! Ok - if you know what "OUR" IP address(es) is/are - care to share that info? Since you are making the claim that we 4 are the same person?

Also, before you make the same demand of me, I have a moderator checking YOUR IDs and your posts. The mods already know we 4 are NOT the same person.

I'm not using different ID's to pretend I am 2 different people. You ARE.

Because YOU use 4 identities, you must not think that the rest of us is.Specially when you have the same IP adress.

Perhaps you two could stop with the flaming and focus on the topic of the thread?

Anyway seeing how there has been a lot of discussion on the bombs, perhaps we could switch to what if you think that there are any other alternatives might have been used?

Hey guys just tossing out some info in case you didnt know, I currently live in japan and speak a little japanese.

1. Hiroshima was choosen because it was thought not to have any prisoner of war camps

2. the usa choose not to warn the civilians before they dropped the bomb to see acurate results from tests and kill rates

3. Japan killed more people in nanking in china than the a bombs did in japan raping killing torturing litterly hundreds of thousands.

4. It is considered extremely cowardly to surrender to your enemies in japan, death is preferable

5. The a bombs were horrible, i have seen the actuall flesh of victims in museums here, but japan would have never surrendered without them being dropped.

6. At the time the emperor was considered a direct link to god, kind of like a pharoah. People did what they were told, citizens really had no choice, every waking hour they were told what to do.

So its my humble opinion that the a bomb situation could have been avoided but at the time was the right choice, though they should have done it at sea not directly over the downtown area. As a show of force other ways should have been used to give them warning. But also the nuclear bombs should never be used again. I suggest going to the museum in Hiroshima if you ever have the chance, very sad but worth it .
thanks

Perhaps you two should stop with the thread jacking and focus on the topic of the thread?

Anyway seeing how there has been a lot of discussion on the bombs, perhaps we could switch to what if you think that there are any other alternatives might have been used?


I apologize for that. He made the accusation of me and I noticed the accusor mispelled a lot of words and it occurred to me that he was doing exactly what he was accusing of us of doing.

I'll stop here. I reported his flamebaits and my suspicions to the moderators and I am done with it. Again, I am sorry for apparently hijacking the thread.

It's nice to know you don't care about children who had nothing to do with this being born without limbs. With MS. With low bone Marrow, with Lukemia and the list goes on all because their parent & grandparents were radiated.

You still fail to see the big picture.

Actually, no! I see the big picture just fine. I also know of the untold deaths that would've happened if we hadn't dropped the 2 bombs. You also don't realize the fact that Japan would've fought and fought and fought. Sorry but the bombs were the only way to end it.

And I do care about millions dying. I just don't see that actually happening. again I think your figures are wack & you still the source of your opnion.

Excuse me for having an understanding of Japanese culture of the World War II era. The Military Junta wanted to keep on fighting. They even tried a coup to keep the war going on. My numbers aren't wacked because of the weapons we were going to use. I suggest you start reading up on how we planned on invading Japan.

If you can prove millions give me a shred of real evidence to back it up.
You have nothing that isn't theroy.

The Invasion plan proved just how many casualties we were going to take as well as those of the Japanese Populace. The number of Chinese killed couldn't be calculated. More than one race was at stake here. I'm sorry that you can't see the big picture but the fact remains the same. If we invaded, it was going to be a bloodbath on both sides. It'll make the fighting in Russia seem tame by comparison. Women and Children would kill themselves with explosives in order to kill us. Would you like to see that happen?

Anyway seeing how there has been a lot of discussion on the bombs, perhaps we could switch to what if you think that there are any other alternatives might have been used?

Sorry about that but the guy was hijaking the thread, I posted this as a response before he started his flaming and insults (without an answer of course :confused: ):

Conventional bombing WAS in fact doing its job nicely. Much of Japanese industry was destroyed and the ability for Japan to take the war to the US was completely destroyed. Aircraft was minimal which allowed the US bombers to travel ANYWHERE in Japan and bomb it with impunity. The land army was a shadow of itself and didn't affect the Bombers one iota. Even flak was minimal. Continued pressure from the bombers was most definitely an option. The naval blockade was also achieving its aims. Japan couldn't even fish in her fishing lanes without having her boats attacked. No food or goods were getting in or out. Full stop. When the Japanese civilians started dropping like flies with starvation the Japanese would have quickened their surrender, which they were making plans to do anyway.

Sorry about that but the guy was hijaking the thread, I posted this as a response before he started his flaming and insults (without an answer of course :confused: ):

Conventional bombing WAS in fact doing its job nicely. Much of Japanese industry was destroyed and the ability for Japan to take the war to the US was completely destroyed. Aircraft was minimal which allowed the US bombers to travel ANYWHERE in Japan and bomb it with impunity. The land army was a shadow of itself and didn't affect the Bombers one iota. Even flak was minimal. Continued pressure from the bombers was most definitely an option. The naval blockade was also achieving its aims. Japan couldn't even fish in her fishing lanes without having her boats attacked. No food or goods were getting in or out. Full stop. When the Japanese civilians started dropping like flies with starvation the Japanese would have quickened their surrender, which they were making plans to do anyway.


The Japanese army had over 5.2 million men, making it arguably the largest army in the history of the world. While the army itself wasn't a direct threat to bombers, the Japanese army was spread over Japan, a lot of islands and a good part of China's urban areas making it hard to bomb.

And bombing Japan with impunity? You made that up!! LOL!!!

Japan still had a significant air force, even near the end of the war.

But the real reason for the A-bombs was the belief that the Japanese people would fight us to the last woman and child. They proved that at Okinawa.

I apologize for that. He made the accusation of me and I noticed the accusor mispelled a lot of words and it occurred to me that he was doing exactly what he was accusing of us of doing.

I'll stop here. I reported his flamebaits and my suspicions to the moderators and I am done with it. Again, I am sorry for apparently hijacking the thread.I too apologize. It kinda started with Velo and me when Velo compared Hiroshima/Nagasaki to 9/11 and started the personal attacks when asked to explain further.

back to the topic
Hey guys just tossing out some info in case you didnt know, I currently live in japan and speak a little japanese.

1. Hiroshima was choosen because it was thought not to have any prisoner of war campsI didn't know this, but why would they drop a Bomb of such power (even if going only by test results) on a POW camp (that would be holding American POW's) that really doesn't make sense.


2. the usa choose not to warn the civilians before they dropped the bomb to see acurate results from tests and kill ratesbut then that would require them knowing How many people live in Hiroshima/Nagasaki. While it's possible they are using estimates, I kinda agree that they wouldn't give warnings because Bombers can easily be shot down by fighters.

5. The a bombs were horrible, i have seen the actuall flesh of victims in museums here, but japan would have never surrendered without them being dropped. I agree with this.

6. At the time the emperor was considered a direct link to god, kind of like a pharoah. People did what they were told, citizens really had no choice, every waking hour they were told what to do. not really, they obeyd the Emperor because he was the leader and close to Kami. but remember, there were officers who tried to assinate him when they learned that he was planning to surrender.

So its my humble opinion that the a bomb situation could have been avoided but at the time was the right choice, though they should have done it at sea not directly over the downtown area. As a show of force other ways should have been used to give them warning. But also the nuclear bombs should never be used again. I suggest going to the museum in Hiroshima if you ever have the chance, very sad but worth it .
thanksagreed.

I too apologize. It kinda started with Velo and me when Velo compared Hiroshima/Nagasaki to 9/11 and started the personal attacks when asked to explain further.

back to the topic
I didn't know this, but why would they drop a Bomb of such power (even if going only by test results) on a POW camp (that would be holding American POW's) that really doesn't make sense.


but then that would require them knowing How many people live in Hiroshima/Nagasaki. While it's possible they are using estimates, I kinda agree that they wouldn't give warnings because Bombers can easily be shot down by fighters.

I agree with this.

not really, they obeyd the Emperor because he was the leader and close to Kami. but remember, there were officers who tried to assinate him when they learned that he was planning to surrender.

agreed.


I agree with you as well.

Conventional bombing WAS in fact doing its job nicely. Much of Japanese industry was destroyed and the ability for Japan to take the war to the US was completely destroyed. Aircraft was minimal which allowed the US bombers to travel ANYWHERE in Japan and bomb it with impunity. The land army was a shadow of itself and didn't affect the Bombers one iota. Even flak was minimal. Continued pressure from the bombers was most definitely an option. The naval blockade was also achieving its aims. Japan couldn't even fish in her fishing lanes without having her boats attacked. No food or goods were getting in or out. Full stop. When the Japanese civilians started dropping like flies with starvation the Japanese would have quickened their surrender, which they were making plans to do anyway.

And the Firebombings, as you were outlining here, killed FAR MORE PEOPLE than the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also, we were warning the inhabitants of those cities that were about to be firebombed to evacuate.

Interesting isn't it? We killed more people in conventional bomb drops than we did with both atomic bombs combined. This is a fact.

Look at Stalingrad magnify that by 100 and that would have been the land war on the home islands. The Germans had control of the sky in Stalingrad but did that reduce casulties?



Sorry about that but the guy was hijaking the thread, I posted this as a response before he started his flaming and insults (without an answer of course :confused: ):

Conventional bombing WAS in fact doing its job nicely. Much of Japanese industry was destroyed and the ability for Japan to take the war to the US was completely destroyed. Aircraft was minimal which allowed the US bombers to travel ANYWHERE in Japan and bomb it with impunity. The land army was a shadow of itself and didn't affect the Bombers one iota. Even flak was minimal. Continued pressure from the bombers was most definitely an option. The naval blockade was also achieving its aims. Japan couldn't even fish in her fishing lanes without having her boats attacked. No food or goods were getting in or out. Full stop. When the Japanese civilians started dropping like flies with starvation the Japanese would have quickened their surrender, which they were making plans to do anyway.

in response, to the prisoner of war question, the usa suspected other target cities of having pow camps, and as for hiroshima they were almost sure it did not have any pow camps, also the weather was good on the day they decided to bomb, near perfect conditions as opposed to other targets.

as for the emporer question, they were raised from birth to obey the chain of command, yes the military has always interffered with the rulers of any country. but for the commoners to disobey the emporer would be unthinkable worse then any other crime

sorry about spelling mistakes but I am using a japanese keyboard

in response, to the prisoner of war question, the usa suspected other target cities of having pow camps, and as for hiroshima they were almost sure it did not have any pow camps, also the weather was good on the day they decided to bomb, near perfect conditions as opposed to other targets.

as for the emporer question, they were raised from birth to obey the chain of command, yes the military has always interffered with the rulers of any country. but for the commoners to disobey the emporer would be unthinkable worse then any other crime

sorry about spelling mistakes but I am using a japanese keyboard

Your input regarding the culture helps a lot.

oh yes I forgot the populations of target cities were well known, also target cities were off limit too conventional bombing, as well because they wanted to see exactaly what would happen to a city in near perfect order, kyoto was a possible target site. which it is still got most of its original temples left because conventional bombers werent allowed in to possible a bomb sites.

Your input regarding the culture helps a lot.

Agreed. It does help alot.

in response, to the prisoner of war question, the usa suspected other target cities of having pow camps, and as for hiroshima they were almost sure it did not have any pow camps, also the weather was good on the day they decided to bomb, near perfect conditions as opposed to other targets. ahh... misunderstood... sorry.

as for the emporer question, they were raised from birth to obey the chain of command, yes the military has always interffered with the rulers of any country. but for the commoners to disobey the emporer would be unthinkable worse then any other crime

sorry about spelling mistakes but I am using a japanese keyboard
No worries... I'm a bad speller to, so I don't count that for anything.

thanks guys, its almost 5 am here and I have to go to work soon (stupid me cant sleep) any questions before I go?

thanks guys, its almost 5 am here and I have to go to work soon (stupid me cant sleep) any questions before I go?

What type of work do you do in Japan?

I suggest you start reading up on how we planned on invading Japan.


quit with the I suggest you start reading line.
I've read a lot about WWII.
I've also read about some of the projections your spraking of. They were inflated at the time they were made. We had better tatics thaen what those reports suggested as well. It seems to me like it was all justification to just drop the bombs.

A. To see what they could do on a populace
&
B. End the war that the US could not afford to continue.

And still you belittle the lasting effect the radiation has had on those two areas of Japan.

Hell people as far as China are thought to have had some ill effects due to the radation spike.

Interesting isn't it? We killed more people in conventional bomb drops than we did with both atomic bombs combined. This is a fact.

Nothing new,kowed by about each one) but that does not answer my post. I said that it was working (and all the rest), btw, the aftermath of the bombs showed more deaths then just the people died in the explosion, you must be aware of that to.

About the Japanese airforce in summer 1945, same problem as in Germany but even worse when it comes to oil, trained pilots, ammo, resources. Thinking that Japan would be a bigger Okinawa was a assumption, could be true or not. Killing all those citizens a fact. Even a fishing ship could not go out then. Because Japan depended largely for their proteins on fish instead of cattle like in EU or US, starvation was near to.

One question I have, that I have never seen brought up, much less answered, is why America decided to actually attack targets with the Atomic bombs, rather than use the first to demonstrate on a non-populated area, or even the ocean, rather than attacking cities. Wouldn't a successful atomic bomb drop near Tokyo clearly demonstrated to Japan that America now possessed the ability to completely annihilate them at will? Why was it necessary to actually kill citizens? The Japanese government had never shown any tendency to be swayed or moved by civilian causalties; their policy of home defense was to incite the citizenry to fight (in contradiction of all modern conventions of warfare). I firmly believe that it was the Japanese high command's belief that either A) they themselves, and the emperor, were now in grave physical peril and B) Japan itself might be annihilated as a country that forced their surrender.

Couldn't the same result had been achieved by an attack on a non-military target? Even-- as culturally insensitive as I know this is, for some Japanese of the time would far rather die than see it happen-- a drop on Mount Fuji?

English teacher, like most foreign people here,

quit with the I suggest you start reading line.
I've read a lot about WWII.

So have I! Have you read what the invasion plans for the home islands entail though?

I've also read about some of the projections your spraking of. They were inflated at the time they were made. We had better tatics thaen what those reports suggested as well. It seems to me like it was all justification to just drop the bombs.

And I assume you have proof that these numbers are inflated somehow? You do realize that their women were being trained with bamboo spears right? You do realize that they were prepared to strap kids with bombs and roll them under our tanks right? You do realize that nuclear bombs and chemical weapons was being batted around for use in an invasion of Japan right?

So I have to ask you for proof that the numbers were inflated.

A. To see what they could do on a populace
&
B. End the war that the US could not afford to continue.

Oh we could afford to continue it but the fact is that Japan was beaten, we knew and they knew it though they didn't want to admit it. They didn't capitulate when the war was going badly and they didn't capitulate after Hiroshima either. They didn't even capitulate after Nagasaki till 5 days later and inbetween August 9 and August 14th, there was an attempted coup. If that coup succeeded, the war would've lasted longer. And the only reason why Japan surrendered was because the Emperor himself forced it.

And still you belittle the lasting effect the radiation has had on those two areas of Japan.

Hell people as far as China are thought to have had some ill effects due to the radation spike.

It is either that or invade with unacceptable casualties. I would've made the same decision Truman made. Drop the bombs and end the war sooner instead of invading Japan and dragging it out.

the TRUTH of the matter is that having atomic bombs dropped on them was THE BEST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED TO JAPAN IN THEIR ENTIRE HISTORY.

Most people are quick to point to the use of nuclear weapons in war by the United States as some kind of 'proof' that the USA is evil - but it was war, a war that HAD to be won.
Attempting to analyze the situation of sixty years ago with the mores of today is foolhardy at best.

In the absence of atomic weaponry, the United States had drawn up an invasion plan of the southernmost main island Shikoku 'Operation Coronet', to be carried out June 1st 1946.
It was to take at least 6 months of constant American buildup on Okinawa to get the requisite landing craft, troop ships, and air-support carriers to launch the assault. TWICE the manpower of D-Day was planned for. Once Shikoku was conquered, there was to be another amphibious assault, this time near the Isu Peninsula (which forms the eastern half of Tokyo Bay). From there, the final assault would stretch across the Kanto Plain in a last direct attack on Tokyo.

Now, the Japanese would not idly stand by as the Americans defiled their land by their presence. As witnessed on Okinawa, ordinary citizens took up sharpened sticks (some freely, some forced at gunpoint by the Kempetai) and attacked the Americans. After being mowed down, the Japanese (after being told by their government that Americans were killer demons, and rapists) committed suicide by the hundreds by throwing their children off cliffs, and jumping afterwards. This would have been writ on a VASTER scale had there been an American invasion of the Home Islands.

In addition, Americans were estimated to have had to suffer 1 million casualties.
Do you really believe, for _one_ second, that if the Americans had lost that many soldiers, that we would have been so GENEROUS as to rebuild their country with the Marshall Plan?? NO. We would have kept the Japans as a territory, a burned-out husk of a semi-feudal state.

Lastly, recall that the Soviet Union declared war on Japan after the tide had turned irrevocably against the Japanese. The Russians were smarting after their defeat during the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, and wanted revenge (and more territory). So, you would have had a similar situation to that of Germany, or better yet, Korea. A Northern, communist Japan, and a Southern, capitalist Japan, with a divided Tokyo, like Berlin.

So, let us consider the Japan that could have been - millions upon millions dead, and with no access to natural resources (e.g. oil), they would have reverted to a pre-industrial state. Large portions of their territory would be claimed, if not outright annexed by the Soviets, and they would have suffered Communist enslavement as Germany did for 45 years and North Korea does to this day.

And the Japan of today - 110 million strong, highly educated, the highest longevity rates of humankind, a prosperous and well-respected economic powerhouse, and lastly a people so convinced of the horrors of war that their Constitution forbids it...

So which was better, killing 145,000 people with two bombs, or killing an entire society through years of napalm, bayonets, and suicide?

One question I have, that I have never seen brought up, much less answered, is why America decided to actually attack targets with the Atomic bombs, rather than use the first to demonstrate on a non-populated area, or even the ocean, rather than attacking cities.

Because it wouldn't have worked!

Wouldn't a successful atomic bomb drop near Tokyo clearly demonstrated to Japan that America now possessed the ability to completely annihilate them at will?

No it wouldn't have.

Why was it necessary to actually kill citizens? The Japanese government had never shown any tendency to be swayed or moved by civilian causalties; their policy of home defense was to incite the citizenry to fight (in contradiction of all modern conventions of warfare). I firmly believe that it was the Japanese high command's belief that either A) they themselves, and the emperor, were now in grave physical peril and B) Japan itself might be annihilated as a country that forced their surrender.

They were already in grave peril during the firebombing campaigns. They didn't capitulate there either and Tokyo was hard hit by the B-29s.

Couldn't the same result had been achieved by an attack on a non-military target? Even-- as culturally insensitive as I know this is, for some Japanese of the time would far rather die than see it happen-- a drop on Mount Fuji?

No! The same result wouldn't have happened. Why? Because of how History actually happened. They didn't capitulate after Hiroshima. And it wasn't till 5 days after Nagasaki did they finally capitulate.

Nothing new,kowed by about each one) but that does not answer my post. I said that it was working (and all the rest), btw, the aftermath of the bombs showed more deaths then just the people died in the explosion, you must be aware of that to.

About the Japanese airforce in summer 1945, same problem as in Germany but even worse when it comes to oil, trained pilots, ammo, resources. Thinking that Japan would be a bigger Okinawa was a assumption, could be true or not. Killing all those citizens a fact. Even a fishing ship could not go out then. Because Japan depended largely for their proteins on fish instead of cattle like in EU or US, starvation was near to.

One question I have, that I have never seen brought up, much less answered, is why America decided to actually attack targets with the Atomic bombs, rather than use the first to demonstrate on a non-populated area, or even the ocean, rather than attacking cities. Wouldn't a successful atomic bomb drop near Tokyo clearly demonstrated to Japan that America now possessed the ability to completely annihilate them at will? Why was it necessary to actually kill citizens? The Japanese government had never shown any tendency to be swayed or moved by civilian causalties; their policy of home defense was to incite the citizenry to fight (in contradiction of all modern conventions of warfare). I firmly believe that it was the Japanese high command's belief that either A) they themselves, and the emperor, were now in grave physical peril and B) Japan itself might be annihilated as a country that forced their surrender.

Couldn't the same result had been achieved by an attack on a non-military target? Even-- as culturally insensitive as I know this is, for some Japanese of the time would far rather die than see it happen-- a drop on Mount Fuji?


With all due respect, that's been mentioned. The argument being since they didn't surrender after the first bomb was dropped on a city, why would they do so if we bombed a mountain? Remember that it took a few days before the Japanese realized we'd hit them with a nuclear weapon. All kinds of crazy ideas were jostled around including that we'd dropped a huge cluster of cargo crates full of magnesium powder.

Imagine how long it would have taken them to examine Mount Fuji or some spread of ocean to determine that something other than a large cluster of bombs had hit it.

Interesting isn't it? We killed more people in conventional bomb drops than we did with both atomic bombs combined. This is a fact.

Of course more people were killed with conventional weapons than Atomic bombs. The ones droped on Japan were what? 5-6 kilotons? I think more than 10,000 500lb bombs were droped on Japan. As for should they have been droped directly on the cities? I think no. droping them off the coast where they could have been seen and caused a nice Tsunami would have been just as effective in my opinion. Even if you do not agree with that and say that the first one had to be dropped, I can understand. However, the second was definetly not required as the Japanese were slow at communicating their intentions. The main reason why Pearl Harbour was seen as such a great tragedy is that the Japenese ambasador was a slow typer and could not get the decleration of war to the President on time (which to my understanding was supposed to be 2 or 3 hours before the attack occured)

And as for the people who view the United States as the great savior of the world, there are people who view the US as a very selfish nation, now do not get me wrong here I am extremly grateful for the US's contribution and help in both WWI and WWII but you need to look at it from another perspective. The US did not enter into WWI untill it was all but won 3 years into the conflict.

As for WWII it started on
1 September 1939, Roosovelt signed the lend-lease act to help the allies out 11 March 1941 well over a year after conflict first broke out,
7 July 1941 US occupies Iceland,
7 December 1941 Japan attacks Pearl Harbour US and Japan at War
11 December 1941 US declare war on Germany AFTER the Germans declare war on US

This leads us to question if it was not for the Japanese, when would the US help out the rest of the world.

As for internment camps we are all guilty, both Canada and the US rounded up all of our citizens on the west coast of Japenese decent, threw them into camps and sold off all of their belongings and buisnesses. Britain was the first nation to commit genocide (back after the battle of the Boyne when the Jews ran out of money to lend to the government) Not to say that what the Germans were not bad, just to say we cannot act holier than thou over all this.

Im from vancouver, yes that true japanese were rounded up and put in camps also canada helped develop the a bomb, which I did know before coming here

Well we won't get out of this. Everyone has his circular opinion and history hapened like it is. That is allways the problem with every "what if question".

Most, I myself, but with big doubts, because of the "what if", do suscribe the Okinawa and fire bombing facts/and following opinions, but when I see the bigger picture of politics, homefront needed succes for invested money, the Russian question, the state of Japans military and economy and the alternatives that have not been used, I only can see a crime against civilians (fire bombing of Tokyo and many others in WWII from both sides might have been worse but it does not change the fact).

And now, I really must go to that firework with the French neighbours. (oops the enemy).
Regards

sorry did not know before coming here, it is interesting to see other peoples perspective on this, you guys seem well informed.

ok really tired now had fun reading your posts,

cheers

sorry did not know before coming here, it is interesting to see other peoples perspective on this, you guys seem well informed.

We do try Swagh.

Well we won't get out of this. Everyone has his circular opinion and history hapened like it is. That is allways the problem with every "what if question".

Most, I myself, but with big doubts, because of the "what if", do suscribe the Okinawa and fire bombing facts/and following opinions, but when I see the bigger picture of politics, homefront needed succes for invested money, the Russian question, the state of Japans military and economy and the alternatives that have not been used, I only can see a crime against civilians (fire bombing of Tokyo and many others in WWII from both sides might have been worse but it does not change the fact).

And now, I really must go to that firework with the French neighbours. (oops the enemy).
Regards

Happy Bastille Day. I hope you enjoy it.

And I apologize for my remark about the mispelled words - I didn't know English was a second language for you.

The reason there was no "demonstration drop" was simple ....not enough fissionable material. The Germans, Soviets and others were all working on the A-bomb and none but the US could produce enough to make a weapon. The US made 3 one was detonated at Trinity the other 2 were secretly shipped across the Pacific. The US wasn't even 100% sure the 1st bomb would would work as it was a differnt bomb than the one tested (one was U238 the other Pl239 I think) the second bomb was the duplicate to the Trinity bomb. The 1st bomb was actually ready late 43 or early 44 but the choice was made to not use them until they had more than one. I think the Uranium bomb came 1st and the Plutonium bomb was developed in parallel. The second bomb although causing less damage and casulties was "the clincher" for many of the pro war Japanese holdouts think that not only did we have an antomic bomb but the ability to mass produce them. When in fact if the Japanese did not surrender the next bomb was 3 to 6 months off.




Nothing new,kowed by about each one) but that does not answer my post. I said that it was working (and all the rest), btw, the aftermath of the bombs showed more deaths then just the people died in the explosion, you must be aware of that to.

About the Japanese airforce in summer 1945, same problem as in Germany but even worse when it comes to oil, trained pilots, ammo, resources. Thinking that Japan would be a bigger Okinawa was a assumption, could be true or not. Killing all those citizens a fact. Even a fishing ship could not go out then. Because Japan depended largely for their proteins on fish instead of cattle like in EU or US, starvation was near to.

One question I have, that I have never seen brought up, much less answered, is why America decided to actually attack targets with the Atomic bombs, rather than use the first to demonstrate on a non-populated area, or even the ocean, rather than attacking cities. Wouldn't a successful atomic bomb drop near Tokyo clearly demonstrated to Japan that America now possessed the ability to completely annihilate them at will? Why was it necessary to actually kill citizens? The Japanese government had never shown any tendency to be swayed or moved by civilian causalties; their policy of home defense was to incite the citizenry to fight (in contradiction of all modern conventions of warfare). I firmly believe that it was the Japanese high command's belief that either A) they themselves, and the emperor, were now in grave physical peril and B) Japan itself might be annihilated as a country that forced their surrender.

Couldn't the same result had been achieved by an attack on a non-military target? Even-- as culturally insensitive as I know this is, for some Japanese of the time would far rather die than see it happen-- a drop on Mount Fuji?

It is noble to want to save those civilians (though intelligence says that even more civilians would have to die for your strategy to work). It is insane to ignore the cost in lives of your own people to adopt the strategy required to do so.
Essentially the rule for torture is the same though. You can make short-term profit from torturing someone, but you end up with less in the long term.
Same here - you can gain lives (your own and civilian) now, but you set a precedent that it is okay to kill thousands in order not to kill even more. In this case, that intelligence may be accurate (there is debate about that apparently), but who's saying that will be the case next time around?

And can you compare the lives of the "enemy" civilian population, who just happen to live there, with the lives of your own soldiers, who afterall signed up to go there and fight and maybe even die for their country?
Just generally I would say if you can save the lives of the local population by sacrificing some of your own soldiers, then that should be done.

It's the thread that would not die, probably due to the upcoming 60th.

Two points though:

1. A great majority of Japan's population was already starving. Starvation NEVER effects those in command (look at Iraq during the santions or North Korea now), they always get food and they don't seem to care too much if everyone else is starving. So a naval blockade would have worked, at a much higher cost to the Japanese population. As it was, the situation when the American occupation force landed was particuarly grave. General MacAuthur (SCAP) is famously said to have made his first request to Washington to be "Send me food, or by God, send me bullets!"

2. As for a demonstration... putting aside whether or not the Japanese high command would have been impressed enough to have stopped the war, there's a small problem with a demonstration. You in the middle of a very deadly, very long war with high casualties on each side. Your enemy has made it clear that ONLY unconditional surender would be accepted, and following the news, you know that means you are likely to be captured and killed, or tried and killed, as your former allies were. Would you REALLY accept a nice invatation from said enemy to come by and see a new superweapon that they have just devleoped?

Personally I think that this thread has reached a pointless level. We have debated the same topics and points over and over again, and no one has bothered to point out the really obvious point about the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that they should never happen again.

That is the opinion, from what I understand (the coverage of the 60th is starting to heat up over here), of the majority of the Japanese. It happened, it cannot be changed or helped that it happened. It might even have been a good thing that it did happen as to have stopped the war, but there is no reason to argue which country is right and which is wrong in this regard. That is pointless. What we SHOULD be working on is making sure that the Doomsday Clock in Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum never reaches zero.

Never, ever again. No more Hiroshimas, no more Nagasakis.

That is Japan's opinion on the matter.

English teacher, like most foreign people here,
Heh... welcome to NationStates. Are you on JET and where are you?
And I can understand your frustration with Japanese keyboards, it's why my spelling is off so many times too. ;)

Personally I think that this thread has reached a pointless level. We have debated the same topics and points over and over again, and no one has bothered to point out the really obvious point about the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that they should never happen again.

That is the opinion, from what I understand (the coverage of the 60th is starting to heat up over here), of the majority of the Japanese. It happened, it cannot be changed or helped that it happened. It might even have been a good thing that it did happen as to have stopped the war, but there is no reason to argue which country is right and which is wrong in this regard. That is pointless. What we SHOULD be working on is making sure that the Doomsday Clock in Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum never reaches zero.

Never, ever again. No more Hiroshimas, no more Nagasakis.

That is Japan's opinion on the matter.one of my eariler post was of that opinion. 116 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9234124&postcount=116) and there were several others who also shared that sentiment. Better the horrors made public and be used to hold back (cannot insure) the next use of such weapons than the alternative.

Even I don't want to see nukes used ever again. It is why they have never been used again. THe horrors were way to much for anyone to bear. Let us pray that the next major war, doesn't resort to nukes.

*Snip*Thank you, at least that much I think we can all agree on.

Im from vancouver, yes that true japanese were rounded up and put in camps also canada helped develop the a bomb, which I did know before coming here

Sorry for the jumping in, but I think that you guys were not the only ones. I allways learned that the Uranium came from the non ocupied Belgian colony (then) of Congo. Seems to me that getting Uranium there and the know-how of those Belgian scientist to handle it was important to.
BTW I am interested to know how Canada (great allies,allways the first to help, still thanking you guys for both wars) was involved in that nuclear program, it is a gap in my mind that you can fill with your facts (speaking about your saying of Canada helping to develop the bomb) (Hope you guys did not)

*Flanders fields where the pupies grow*

1) Even though the atomic bombs dropped caused mass deaths, a d-day like invasion on Japan would have caused even more deaths.

2) We wouldn't be talking about the A-Bomb droppings if Japan hadn't attacked us since we were neutral in the conflict.

3) If there were no such things as war and everybody was peaceful, the world would be totally different right now. There would have been no American revolution, there would have been no Britain to emerge and colonize countries. There would be no guns because China invented them for defence, thus, no bomb technology. We would all be native indian type peoples migrating about Asia and Africa.

4) If Japan had never brought the United States into the war, there would be no jews alive on Earth, all of Asia, Africa, Australia and Europe would be under Nazi control, thus leading to the fall of Northern and Southern America (a.k.a. bye bye US, Canada + Mexico.)

5) Kind of pointless, but we would have no video games with guns and such in them, which would make this game sort of LAME!

Sorry for the jumping in, but I think that you guys were not the only ones.
The people involved were from all over the world (like Enrico Ferni from Italy, and wasn't Oppenheimer originally from Germany...well others were anyways), but the project was an American one. I'm not sure how much of their progress they would've been willing to hand out to their Allies...

Yes.

All the points I would have made have already been noted, elaborated on, and made stale, so I'll just tack on my opinion.

Yes.

All the points I would have made have already been noted, elaborated on, and made stale, so I'll just tack on my opinion.

Wich is?
Welcome at NS :p

Warning: some images may be a little graphic.

http://www.nesa.org.uk/html/unlocking_a_deadly_secret.htm

I don't know if somebody has already mentioned this, but I just came across this site while doing some research. Just scroll down a little past half way down the page to the heading: "Plans to take the germ war to the US homeland"

-snip-
Is that the business with the germ warfare unit and the attempt to drop germ bombs on the US?
Never worked out, but the Americans were happy to take all the research (which was done in a spurious manner to say the least) and use it in Korea...

Yes. In Russia many say no. In Germany we have lost to many. And Americans do it for there people that not to many died. Soviet Union has been Stupid to take whit many people like this words-were can't go 100 people will go 1000 if not 1000 then 10000. Yes Russia has fight like a tiger but America fight whit brain's. And if the American dident done this how many would died from the Americans?

Warning: some images may be a little graphic.

http://www.nesa.org.uk/html/unlocking_a_deadly_secret.htm

I don't know if somebody has already mentioned this, but I just came across this site while doing some research. Just scroll down a little past half way down the page to the heading: "Plans to take the germ war to the US homeland"

Here is more pics on Japanese actrocities in China:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-04/22/content_2864250.htm
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-04/22/content_2864347.htm

Here is more pics on Japanese actrocities in China...
Your point being? Inciting hatred? Justifying the killing of civilians with "they did it to us!"?
Think about it. What are you trying to do?

Is that the business with the germ warfare unit and the attempt to drop germ bombs on the US?
Never worked out, but the Americans were happy to take all the research (which was done in a spurious manner to say the least) and use it in Korea...

True, mobs are scary.

And mind you, both the Germans and the Japanese had nuke programs if I'm not mistaken. And the U.S. government knew about it. Killing of civies is never preferred but they would have killed ours just as they killed countless civies in asia.

Your point being? Inciting hatred? Justifying the killing of civilians with "they did it to us!"?
Think about it. What are you trying to do?

No. But I think just about everybody has seen the mushroom cloud over Nagasaki or Hiroshima and the after effects, but, I think few have seen the actions carried out by the Japanese in China. Its only fair. :D

They definitely should have done it. It saved the most lives in the end, and Japan wasn't planning on surrendering after they dropped the first bomb on Hiroshima.

No they should not have done that!!! The bombs have killes and injuried so many people!! There are still wounded people there in Japan because of these bombs!!! NO!!!!

MAKE PEACE NOT WAR!!!


Make pease not war...in the middle of a WORLD WAR? Okay. Now if the United States had NOT gone to war all of Europe and Asia and Africa would not be controled by the likes of Josef Stalin (responsible for the deaths of over 19 million people) and Adolph Hitler (responsible for about half as many).

And to say if they had gained power millions more would have been executed.

Now putting that aside...

Everyone here is failing to take in the bigger picture. Allied Bombings of Axis controlled cities in Europe GREATLY outnumbered the casualities that were a result of the A-Bombs being dropped in Japan. In fact the combined conventional bombings of mainland Japan killed some 500,000 people.

Bombing civilian targets became a very popular tactic in WW2 by BOTH sides. The only way the British were able to keep the Axis at bay was pounding the crap out of Axis cities. Have you ever seen the pictures where you see fleets of bombers dumping hundreds of bombs on cities? Thousands of people died in those attacks. HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS.

The United States had spent the last few years fighting on nearly every contienent in the world. Thousands of casualities. The brutality of the Japanese was FAR WORSE than the brutality of the Axis (a fact not often shared). American soldiers were regularly locked in caves and then rock blasted to seal it off...hundreds of American soldiers died in the darkness of the caves from either parts of the cave collapsing on them, disease, thirst, or starvation. Hundreds were in Japanese prison camps being tortured. The Japanese were VICIOUS, INHUMANE, and BRUTAL.

A fight against mainland Japan would have left the countryside DEVESTATED. Far more people would have died. You can't play the "what if game" or the "statistics" game. I've heard people say "Well they figured they would have won the war in two more months anyway."...well funny thing is with war...things happen. Those two months could have been easily turned into two years with the right variables.


But anyway back on point...more people died in conventional bombings of Japanese cities and European cities by allied bombers than were ever killed by the A-bombs. The Japanese would not have surrendered and it is likely far more many people would have died.

Somewhat besides the point, I think Truman was an honest guy. Especially with the sign on his desk that read: "The buck stops here."
I dont think he would have ordered such actions without warrant.

Everyone here is failing to take in the bigger picture. Allied Bombings of Axis controlled cities in Europe GREATLY outnumbered the casualities that were a result of the A-Bombs being dropped in Japan. In fact the combined conventional bombings of mainland Japan killed some 500,000 people.

Indeed. In fact, it was not that the bomb was nuclear - it was that a SINGLE bomber, dropping a SINGLE bomb could cause so much devestation that the Japanese agreed to the surrender. The firebombing of many German cities outweighed the devestation of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are only in the history books because of the nuclear fallout thereafter. The massive destruction would have occurred either way. It is a widely accepted fact that the Japanese civilian population was being called to fight to defend against a mainland invasion.

Essentially the rule for torture is the same though. You can make short-term profit from torturing someone, but you end up with less in the long term.
Same here - you can gain lives (your own and civilian) now, but you set a precedent that it is okay to kill thousands in order not to kill even more. In this case, that intelligence may be accurate (there is debate about that apparently), but who's saying that will be the case next time around?

And can you compare the lives of the "enemy" civilian population, who just happen to live there, with the lives of your own soldiers, who afterall signed up to go there and fight and maybe even die for their country?
Just generally I would say if you can save the lives of the local population by sacrificing some of your own soldiers, then that should be done.


Yes I can. Because all countries in that war had been bombing each other the whole war through. The rules which you speak of were defined by the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention forbade torture. They did NOT forbid bombing. Since the Geneva Convention articles were used as the authoritative source for the Neuremberg war crimes trials, your argument is essentially moot since the Geneva Convention (and hence, the world) did not recognize bombing as a war crime.

And sacrificing over a million of your own soldiers to save a couple hundred thousand enemy civilians - that might not be a war crime, but your own people would probably string you up after the war when they realized their sons had been sacrificed for a psychotic leader's sociopathic principles.

It's the thread that would not die, probably due to the upcoming 60th.

Two points though:

1. A great majority of Japan's population was already starving. Starvation NEVER effects those in command (look at Iraq during the santions or North Korea now), they always get food and they don't seem to care too much if everyone else is starving. So a naval blockade would have worked, at a much higher cost to the Japanese population. As it was, the situation when the American occupation force landed was particuarly grave. General MacAuthur (SCAP) is famously said to have made his first request to Washington to be "Send me food, or by God, send me bullets!"

2. As for a demonstration... putting aside whether or not the Japanese high command would have been impressed enough to have stopped the war, there's a small problem with a demonstration. You in the middle of a very deadly, very long war with high casualties on each side. Your enemy has made it clear that ONLY unconditional surender would be accepted, and following the news, you know that means you are likely to be captured and killed, or tried and killed, as your former allies were. Would you REALLY accept a nice invatation from said enemy to come by and see a new superweapon that they have just devleoped?

Personally I think that this thread has reached a pointless level. We have debated the same topics and points over and over again, and no one has bothered to point out the really obvious point about the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that they should never happen again.

That is the opinion, from what I understand (the coverage of the 60th is starting to heat up over here), of the majority of the Japanese. It happened, it cannot be changed or helped that it happened. It might even have been a good thing that it did happen as to have stopped the war, but there is no reason to argue which country is right and which is wrong in this regard. That is pointless. What we SHOULD be working on is making sure that the Doomsday Clock in Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum never reaches zero.

Never, ever again. No more Hiroshimas, no more Nagasakis.

That is Japan's opinion on the matter.


Heh... welcome to NationStates. Are you on JET and where are you?
And I can understand your frustration with Japanese keyboards, it's why my spelling is off so many times too. ;)


I agree that it should never happen again.

Your point being? Inciting hatred? Justifying the killing of civilians with "they did it to us!"?
Think about it. What are you trying to do?

So basically, you could care less about the Chinese who were brutally slaughtered by the Japanese invaders? Great. I lost what little respect I have for you.

-snip-
One of these days I'm gonna start a thread about Game Theory about this...

It's not about the "law" that is the Geneva Convention, it is about the general ethics of a bombing campaign on civilians. We don't have a statute saying that terror bombings are wrong, although I would want one. In order to make it easier to comprehend what I'm saying (sometimes I have troubles getting my argument across properly...) torture came up.

As for what the population at home thinks about how the war is fought...that is really not the business of the military to think about.

So basically, you could care less about the Chinese who were brutally slaughtered by the Japanese invaders? Great. I lost what little respect I have for you.
You misunderstood.
This particular post had no argument, no text, no point of view. He wasn't using the pictures (which are indeed horrible) for any purpose at all.
So I asked the valid question: What is your point if it isn't just to stir hatred for the Japanese?

To show how cruel and evil the Japanese were. You can't let a country just plow through an entire continent, killing everyone they come across.

To show how cruel and evil the Japanese were. You can't let a country just plow through an entire continent, killing everyone they come across.
Why didn't he say so?
It's not like that is a particularly weel-constructed argument, and it really is nothing new either, but at least it would've given the pictures a purpose.

Your point being? Inciting hatred? Justifying the killing of civilians with "they did it to us!"?
Think about it. What are you trying to do?

IDIOT!!!

About 100,000 Japanese people are killed by 2 A-bombs compare to 9.13 million Chinese people killed by the Japanese army!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

-snip-
Goodness me...

I know! Read my posts - I know a little bit about this.

But, and listen to me carefully, does that justify killing even more people?

The bombs have brought NOT ONE dead Chinese person back to live. Neither have they stopped a Chinese civilian from being killed. The war ended, and it would have ended for China anyways, Bombs or not, thanks to the Russians.

IDIOT!!!

At least 100,000 Japanese people are killed by 2 A-bombs compare to 9.13 million Chinese people killed by the Japanese army!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki


One massacre does not justify another. Silliest argument I've heard in months.

Revenge is never an excuse.

One massacre does not justify another. Silliest argument I've heard in months.

Revenge is never an excuse.

So basically, if America was invaded, and 50 million people were killed, you wouldn't want us to do anything? I hope you're the first one to die. I really do. Your lack of compassion for our general populace is incredible.

The point is: YOU CAN'T LET A COUNTRY GO AROUND AND PILLAGE HALF THE WORLD! If you think it is wrong to attack a country for attacking your country's ally, then by that logic it is also wrong to have laws against insert >crime here<.

So, theoretically speaking, if some crazy dude with a knife comes in to my house and starts randomly killing my family members, and I shoot him, after he tried to kill me, I'm as bad as him?

You seriously need to seek mental help.

Seriously

If the two A-bombs weren't dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki

There would be no such thing as China, Korea, Vietnam, etc...

You (Chikyota) seriously need to seek mental help.
haha! Oooo Burn!!! :D

If you think it is wrong to attack a country for attacking your country's ally, then by that logic it is also wrong to have laws against insert >crime here<.
Who's saying that? I didn't say there shouldn't have been a war, I'm saying there was no need to engage in terror bombings of enemy civilians. Neither in Japan, nor in Germany, nor in Vietnam or anywhere else.

If the two A-bombs weren't dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki there would be no such thing as China, Korea, Vietnam, etc...
Sorry, but that's incorrect. The war was lost for Japan, Bombs or not.

The bombings were certainly horrible. Most notably during World War Two: Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. Yet, consider the consequences of invading a nation that still has industrial capacity and a will to fight. More lives would have been lost.

One of these days I'm gonna start a thread about Game Theory about this...

It's not about the "law" that is the Geneva Convention, it is about the general ethics of a bombing campaign on civilians. We don't have a statute saying that terror bombings are wrong, although I would want one. In order to make it easier to comprehend what I'm saying (sometimes I have troubles getting my argument across properly...) torture came up.


You're welcome to propose that the international community recognize aerial bombing as a crime against humanity. While you might feel strongly about that, my personal opinion is that it would garner little, if any acceptance worldwide except possibly by countries without the capability to wage that kind of warfare.

As for what the population at home thinks about how the war is fought...that is really not the business of the military to think about.



Now this is priceless. You are saying that the opinions and desires of your own country do not matter in a war, but that the opinions and desires of OTHER countries DO matter. That is insane! Sacrifice your army to save the enemy (even though it's been shown the enemy would die anyway).

Also, the decision to drop the bomb or invade was NOT for the military to make. The civil leader made that call. Yes he is the supreme commander of the military but he is NOT a soldier.

With that said, what kind of leader (military or otherwise) makes decisions for his country with the belief that the needs of his own country take second fiddle to the needs of other countries and his enemies?

I say this again - after such a war, the military and civilian leaders who sent their soldiers off to be senselessly slaughtered to support a strategy that was doomed to failure from the start would be tried for treason. It's a strategy that focuses on intent with NO regard for results.

If you were the leader of the US during World War II, your intelligence engine told you that over a million of your soldiers would be killed in the invasion as well as millions of civilians. As the US leader you tasked this intelligence engine with gathering this information for you to help with the decision whether or not to drop the bomb. As that leader no one expected you to know EVERYTHING. That is why you have advisors. All of your advisors told you the invasion would have been an incalculable disaster based on the information you ordered them to collect.

And yet you are the leader that orders his general to send a million of your young men to the slaughter because of a grand vision you had where your definition of right and wrong forgives the decision to kill 4 million people (1 million of your soldiers + 3 million civilians who would be killed fighting you in the invasion) instead of 500,000 or so enemy civilians and soldiers.

This thread will not die, will it? :p

Now this is priceless. You are saying that the opinions and desires of your own country do not matter in a war, but that the opinions and desires of OTHER countries DO matter. That is insane! Sacrifice your army to save the enemy (even though it's been shown the enemy would die anyway).
You misread me here. Of course their opinions and desires should matter when it comes to why the war is started, and even the goals of the war.
But when it comes to the actual, tactical military decisions, then I think that even a single thought about public opinion at home is wasted.
A code of ethics, primarily about saving the lives of civilians of no matter what nation, should be their secondary concern, right after achieving the objective.
It must be said that in my opinion, the bombings (be they nuclear or phosphorus) did nothing to achieve a shortening or end of the war.

With that said, what kind of leader (military or otherwise) makes decisions for his country with the belief that the needs of his own country take second fiddle to the needs of other countries and his enemies?
They don't have to. You can still put your own concerns over those of others. BUT there should be an overriding concern for the ethics of taking any decision, especially in the military. Civilians are not "enemies".

I say this again - after such a war, the military and civilian leaders who sent their soldiers off to be senselessly slaughtered to support a strategy that was doomed to failure from the start would be tried for treason. It's a strategy that focuses on intent with NO regard for results.
If the laws of that country demand it, then so it shall be. Sometimes a greater "moral" (for lack of a better word) takes precedence over your own life.


If you were the leader of the US during World War II, your intelligence engine told you that over a million of your soldiers would be killed in the invasion as well as millions of civilians. As the US leader you tasked this intelligence engine with gathering this information for you to help with the decision whether or not to drop the bomb. As that leader no one expected you to know EVERYTHING. That is why you have advisors. All of your advisors told you the invasion would have been an incalculable disaster based on the information you ordered them to collect.

And yet you are the leader that orders his general to send a million of your young men to the slaughter because of a grand vision you had where your definition of right and wrong forgives the decision to kill 4 million people (1 million of your soldiers + 3 million civilians who would be killed fighting you in the invasion) instead of 500,000 or so enemy civilians and soldiers.
I am talking about the bombing campaign in general, not about the A-Bombs in particular. In this case, I would have argued for the bombs to be dropped in an unpopulated area.
The general rule I would go for is that at all times, in any decision you make, your primary concern should be for the civilians who happen to live on the battlefield. In the case of the A-Bomb, it is very likely that more civilians would have been killed in an invasion than in the bombings, but that is the primary concern.
How many of my soldiers die should take second place, as long as I can still achieve my objective. Those men signed up for war, they have gone there to kill and be killed. The civilians have not.

I think that my nation takes precedence over their nation in anywar. If civilians must die so be it. They are responsible for their civilians. Victories should not be sacrificed for lives that do not belong to our nation or allied nations. I am not a pacifist, I also tend to see war as a time for ruthlessness, an army should be without mercy and should be cruel if it is useful. Other nations should learn to fear the army of your own nation. "All is fair in love and war" especially war.