NationStates Jolt Archive

60 years ago, Little Boy, a Uranium-based nuclear warhead flattened the city of Hiroshima, instantly killing 70,000 people, and another 70,000 over time. Three days later, Fat Man descended on Nagasaki, killing another hundred thousand. Even after Truman promised that the nuclear bombings would not end until Japan's unconditional surrender, a coup was nearly successful by military generals after Japan's leaders announced they could no longer fight the Americans.

The order to drop the bomb was one of the hardest decisions ever made by any leader. Military estimates were that an absolute minimum of 100,000 US soldiers would die in an invasion of the Japanese mainland, with 500,000-1,000,000 total US casualties. In addition, 10,000,000-15,000,000 Japanese casualties were expected by ground forces, naval bombardments, and aerial bombings.

So, while I understand that nuclear weapons are a terror of war and this was a difficult choice, I believe it was the right one. Many others do not agree. I don’t know what reasoning they have, but it seems to be a common feeling.

What do you all think?

We should've let the Russians take Japan. They wouldn't even notice another million casualties.

There's a fair amount of evidence that says that the bomb over Nagasaki might have been unnecessary. After the USSR declared war on Japan on August 8th (one day before Nagasaki), the Japanese were eager to surrender to the Americans as opposed to the Russians.

But, you'll have people in here arguing that both were necessary, and you'll have people arguing that neither were necessary, and none of them will consider evidence that doesn't suit their position. It will descend into a flamefest when the no-bomb people start calling Americans butchers and murderers, and the bomb people will reply by saying America saved the world from speaking German. It should be fun.

There's a fair amount of evidence that says that the bomb over Nagasaki might have been unnecessary. After the USSR declared war on Japan on August 8th (one day before Nagasaki), the Japanese were eager to surrender to the Americans as opposed to the Russians.

But, you'll have people in here arguing that both were necessary, and you'll have people arguing that neither were necessary, and none of them will consider evidence that doesn't suit their position. It will descend into a flamefest when the no-bomb people start calling Americans butchers and murderers, and the bomb people will reply by saying America saved the world from speaking German. It should be fun.
Then I'm probably one of the few that agree with you.

I agree they would have preferred to surrender to the US rather than the USSR (as did the US - they didn't want any more territories to fall into Soviet hands), but what I doubt was whether they would have surrendered to the threat of an invasion at all. Leading up to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, men, women, and children took to arms with everything from rifles to meat knives. This is what also leads me to believe that the dropping of at least one bomb was necessary.

Though, it has been said that Japan attempted to surrender directly after Hiroshima through the Soviet government because their own communications were inoperable. Then, as the argument goes, the USSR either didn't transmit the surrender to the US or the US didn't listen. I don't personally believe this story has any weight to it as Japan waited until August 15 to announce their surrender to the US.

It was a necessity.
1. It scared the world into knowing the devastation they can create.
2. It saved thousands of lives. The japanese would have fought to the death. Citizens were taught how to make weapons.
3. An off-shore demo would have poisoned a major japanese food supply: fish.

I think it was the right decision, and given the facts as I understand them I would have done the same. Fortunately I wasn't the one to make the decision.

while it was necessary to drop the bombs, what is important is the decisions after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

that no other Atomic/Nuclear weapon was and will be used against another human being.

While we may remember the Alamo, or Pearl Harber, or the WTC... we also must remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

while it was necessary to drop the bombs, what is important is the decisions after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

that no other Atomic/Nuclear weapon was and will be used against another human being.

While we may remember the Alamo, or Pearl Harber, or the WTC... we also must remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This is true. If the world had not witnessed the destruction wrought by the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then they might have been more willing to use them in the future (such as the Cuban missile crisis), with much more dire consequences.

An invasion would have killed tens of thousands of more, while a blockade would have killed millions, considering the 45-46 period was a bad rice year and, with the majority of their railroads cut, the people would have starved to death.

There is very little evidence that the Japanese wanted to surrender after Hiroshima, and the fact is they did not. There was also no guarantee that they would have surrendered after Nagasaki. For all the destructive power of the bombs, they were really no more destructive than the firebombing of the cities that the Japanese had already endured.

If you read up on Operations Olympic and Operation Coronet, which were the code names for the planned invasions of the home islands, it really becomes very apparent that using the bombs was a necessity. The invasions would have caused very heavy casualties, mostly for the Japanese, but surely enough for the Allies to make the rest of the Pacific War seem like a cakewalk.

And if the invasions failed, and there still was no surrender, the home islands would likely have been blockaded and Japan would be starved into submission. Also not a good alternative.

Finally, if you were Truman, how would you explain to American mothers, that there was a chance you could have ended the war 6-months ago, and Johnny really didn't need to die trying to take Tokyo, but that you thought using the bombs wouldn't be "Humane"? Impossible. Once the bombs were built, it was a political necessity that they be used.

And better that they be used to end a war, than to start one.

I would rather kill the enemy than have the enemy kill us. Sorry people had to die, but war is about death and destruction.

This crime is disgusting and unjustifyable. It would have been diffrent if they bombed a millatary base or something but this was just a city of civillians, by todays standards this is pure terrorism. Think about if it had been done to America, what would you be saying now?

I would rather kill the enemy than have the enemy kill us. Sorry people had to die, but war is about death and destruction.
They were not the enemy!! they were ordinary people, many of who may have been against the war.

This crime is disgusting and unjustifyable. It would have been diffrent if they bombed a millatary base or something but this was just a city of civillians, by todays standards this is pure terrorism. Think about if it had been done to America, what would you be saying now?honestly... if WWII seen the end of the war with two atomic bombs droped on our continent?

my comment would still be the same. as long as no other bombs were dropped after that; the lesson was learned by all.

honestly... if WWII seen the end of the war with two atomic bombs droped on our continent?

my comment would still be the same. as long as no other bombs were dropped after that; the lesson was learned by all.
so you dont mind sacraficing millions of innocent lives to end a war?

so you dont mind sacraficing millions of innocent lives to end a war?

Rather than let the war continue and let how many innocents die?

They were not the enemy!! they were ordinary people, many of who may have been against the war.

Japan was not the enemy? They didn't vow to fight to the very end?

Same position as always, if I put myself back then, I cannot think of another war to end the war that would not have caused more deaths than the bombs, not to mention lasted longer. I'm sorry that we had to, I wish there had been another way, but the world should be more focused on making sure that it never happens again.

Japan was not the enemy? They didn't vow to fight to the very end?
The Japanese army was, the civillians wernt. there is a differance. What if now, Iraqi's r whoever went to America and started killing civillians there because they were the "enemy", i doubt most the people in those bombings cared too much about the war, they wer just attending work etc.

There's a fair amount of evidence that says that the bomb over Nagasaki might have been unnecessary. After the USSR declared war on Japan on August 8th (one day before Nagasaki), the Japanese were eager to surrender to the Americans as opposed to the Russians.

But, you'll have people in here arguing that both were necessary, and you'll have people arguing that neither were necessary, and none of them will consider evidence that doesn't suit their position. It will descend into a flamefest when the no-bomb people start calling Americans butchers and murderers, and the bomb people will reply by saying America saved the world from speaking German. It should be fun.

I've seen that argument before and I have a few issues with it. Basically I find it dificult to beleive that Jappan was more afraid of a military force that was practically exhausted and on the other side of the continent than they were of the one that had beaten them across asia and was currently attacking them with a new bomb that leveled cities. That is the US was a clear and prexent danger at the time of surrender and the USSR was a possible if unlikely future threat.

Same position as always, if I put myself back then, I cannot think of another war to end the war that would not have caused more deaths than the bombs, not to mention lasted longer. I'm sorry that we had to, I wish there had been another way, but the world should be more focused on making sure that it never happens again.
Many many wars have ended without the use of atomic bombs...

so you dont mind sacraficing millions of innocent lives to end a war?thousands of lives...that is how much lives Hiroshima and Nagasaki took. if one of Today's bombs were used, then yes the numbers would've been in the millions.

the firebombings that were going on in Japan took much more lives yet they were still fighting.

the bombings of london and germany took more lives than Hiroshima and Nagasaki yet the war still raged on.

Had Hiroshima and Nagasaki not happened, do you know what today's world would be like?

There would be no Nuclear Watchdog. and that means...

the first bomb to be dropped outside of WWII would've been in the Kilotons.. that means the Atomic bomb dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a firecracker compared to today's weaponry.

more countries would have nuclear weapons, thus the first bomb to be dropped would've sparked off the Nuclear War, and perhaps the Nuclear winter that everyone fears.

so is that what you want? the near extinction of the human race?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki gave the world a grave but very important lession. And I'm glad it was learned with as few examples than what would've occured should the lesson be taught a decade later.

Many many wars have ended without the use of atomic bombs...and how many lives ended up being lost?

bet you not as much as the total loss of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

A lesson that didnt need to be learned. Scientists knew the effect of it. People are still suffering today from it. Thousands died from the blast, but the numbers dead from radiation is uncountable.

I honestly can't believe people are justifying this.

yes let make shure that it wont happen agen.and as american i am a shamd to be so on these day for the world it has craeted since then.so to the japanese i am sorry.my it never happen agen :(

The Japanese army was, the civillians wernt. there is a differance. What if now, Iraqi's r whoever went to America and started killing civillians there because they were the "enemy", i doubt most the people in those bombings cared too much about the war, they wer just attending work etc.wrong. Japan's citizenery would fight to the end. same as if it were Japan invading the US.

remember the propoganda that was being spread on both sides. The Japanese didn't call us "foriegn DEVILS" just cuz it sounded nice. To the Japanese at that time, Americans were Devils.

I've seen that argument before and I have a few issues with it. Basically I find it dificult to beleive that Jappan was more afraid of a military force that was practically exhausted and on the other side of the continent than they were of the one that had beaten them across asia and was currently attacking them with a new bomb that leveled cities. That is the US was a clear and prexent danger at the time of surrender and the USSR was a possible if unlikely future threat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_August_Storm

Operation August Storm. Three fronts of the Red Army, totalling 1.5 million soldiers, 5000 tanks, 37,000 pieces of artillery, and 4300 aircraft invaded Manchuria and Korea on August 8th, between the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. They caught the Japanese forces completely off guard and by the surrender on August 15th the Soviets had captured most of Manchuria and had begun plans for amphibious landings in Korea, Sakhalin, and the Kuril Islands.

At any rate, the Japanese were afraid of surrendering to the Soviet Union, not fighting them. They much prefered to be occupied by the relatively benign US than the USSR.

Many many wars have ended without the use of atomic bombs...
Many wars have indeed ended without the use of atomic weapondry. But I would invite you to consider a few points.

WWII was the first modern war, as such it caused devistation and a much, MUCH higher casulty rate than previous wars, including WWI, the older ideas of how to stop a war didn't seem to hold as much water, after WWII the threat of MAD at least has made military and civilan leaders more willing to delcare peace on each other to avoid that fate.

However, my main point is that I cannot think of a way that would have ended the Pacific War without causing even MORE deaths or taking a lot longer than the bombs. And in this more deaths, I do not mean just American or Alied lives, but Japanese lives. If we had to have invaded, a large portion of the Japanese population would have died, either from directly oposing the invasion or from acidental fire and so on. If we had just tried to starve the Japanese into submission, even MORE Japanese would have died. As with North Korea, do you really think the Japanese Imperial Military would have starved first, or the adverage Japanese?

wrong. Japan's citizenery would fight to the end. same as if it were Japan invading the US.

remember the propoganda that was being spread on both sides. The Japanese didn't call us "foriegn DEVILS" just cuz it sounded nice. To the Japanese at that time, Americans were Devils.
Do you honestly believe that everyone in Japan thought the same?? of course not. The Al'Qeada think the same thing bout America's attitude towards muslims now.

A lesson that didnt need to be learned. Scientists knew the effect of it. People are still suffering today from it. Thousands died from the blast, but the numbers dead from radiation is uncountable.

I honestly can't believe people are justifying this.no they didn't. remember the old slogan on surviving a nuclear blast?
"Drop and tuck" think the scientists back then really understood the effects of radiation if that was their solution when there was a nuclear blast?

and I would rather concentrate on the lesson of those bombs being dropped than argue on why they shouldn't be dropped as if history can be changed. really, it was done. yet people still argue as if the two bombs are still waiting deployment.

I'm not justifying it, but neither am I denying that it happened. America has learned from that lesson, did you? Apparently not since you want the first nuclear weapon to be used to be in the Killotonne range. After all, even now, Chemecial/Biological weapons are being banned AFTER they are used on the battlefield. not before. before, the data is all controlled and the situations modelled specifically for the test. but once it's used in combat, and the true data comes in, then they are banned. so if Hiroshima and Nagasaki did NOT happen, then you can bet your butt that more countries would have Nuclear weapons and thus the terrorists would have access to them as well.

Do you honestly believe that everyone in Japan thought the same?? of course not. The Al'Qeada think the same thing bout America's attitude towards muslims now.

I am curious. What do you believe the correct course of action should have been to secure the surrender of Japan?

A lesson that didnt need to be learned. Scientists knew the effect of it. People are still suffering today from it. Thousands died from the blast, but the numbers dead from radiation is uncountable.
No, the scientists did NOT fully know or understand the effects of the atomic bomb, the radiation came as a shock to them as well as everyone else.

The count is, 242,437 by the way.

Do you honestly believe that everyone in Japan thought the same?? of course not. The Al'Qeada think the same thing bout America's attitude towards muslims now.in Japan, the Emperor's word is law. if the Emperor says fight, they fought. to use your Al'queda analogy... It's like OBL or some other cleric saying "Kill Americans and you will be serviced by 74 virgins in the afterlife." or "Kill Americans and your family will receive money for you duty." I really don't see that many suicide bombers going "you know, it's kinda stupid to strap a bomb on yourself and blow yourself up to get only 1 or 2 Americans"

I am curious. What do you believe the correct course of action should have been to secure the surrender of Japan?
well the typical course of action is that 2 armies fight untill one army surrenders, i fail to see why Japan was such an acception that a war between 2 armies couldnt be fought.

I know people are probably gonna prove me wrong now, but i think that America started the use of "dirty tactics" in that bombing.

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were industrial and supply centers that contributed to the war effort, which made them viable military targets Spasticks. There were no "smart bombs" back then where the US military could just destroy all the factories without killing anyone, and if it wasn't with a nuke then the cities would've been firebombed just like Tokyo, with just as many casualties.

well the typical course of action is that 2 armies fight untill one army surrenders, i fail to see why Japan was such an acception that a war between 2 armies couldnt be fought.
Except it wouldn't just be two armies, but large groups of Japanese civilians, women and children, running up armed with spears or carrying explosives to either blow up in a large group of American soldiers or dive under a tank to attack the weaker underbelly armor. Millions would've died in an invasion or blockade.

I know people are probably gonna prove me wrong now, but i think that America started the use of "dirty tactics" in that bombing.
"Dirty tactics"? Since when has attacking your opponent's war-making efforts become a "dirty tactic"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_August_Storm

Operation August Storm. Three fronts of the Red Army, totalling 1.5 million soldiers, 5000 tanks, 37,000 pieces of artillery, and 4300 aircraft invaded Manchuria and Korea on August 8th, between the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. They caught the Japanese forces completely off guard and by the surrender on August 15th the Soviets had captured most of Manchuria and had begun plans for amphibious landings in Korea, Sakhalin, and the Kuril Islands.

At any rate, the Japanese were afraid of surrendering to the Soviet Union, not fighting them. They much prefered to be occupied by the relatively benign US than the USSR.
A chunk of macnchuria? And they were afraid that the soviets were then going to invade the home islands? Your own sourse points out that after August storm there was'nt the basic economic support to continue the offensive. Besides the fact that they hasd no bloody navy which is handy thing to have about if you intend to invade an island. Let's just ignore the fact that rather than occupying a few recent conquests poorly defended that the US had managed to take everything else the Jappanesse occupied from Manilla to Iwo Jima. But they were afraid of the Soviets right?

well the typical course of action is that 2 armies fight untill one army surrenders, i fail to see why Japan was such an acception that a war between 2 armies couldnt be fought.

I know people are probably gonna prove me wrong now, but i think that America started the use of "dirty tactics" in that bombing.

Where would the two armies fight? Japan was more or less completely contained in the Home Islands. Their refusal to surrender despite repeated bombings showed that only complete defeat of Japanese forces would bring about an end of the war. This complete defeat could only take place on the Home Islands themselves. How many civilians do you think might have died if war was brought to the cities and towns of Japan itself?

Armies do not meet on isolated battlefields far from civliian populations. War hasn't been like that for centuries. Many, many more civilians would have died if a long, protracted war was fought all across Japan.

ok, im seriously outnumbered here, im requesting backup in this arguement! Seriously, i recognise the arguement for it but i just think it wasnt nessacary, it never is. And i accuse you people (sorry bout this) of having double standards towards america. Not just here but in the threads about China, you seem to think you are supierior to any other nation and your lives are more valuable. (seriously dont mean that as an insult to yous)

Where would the two armies fight? Japan was more or less completely contained in the Home Islands. Their refusal to surrender despite repeated bombings showed that only complete defeat of Japanese forces would bring about an end of the war. This complete defeat could only take place on the Home Islands themselves. How many civilians do you think might have died if war was brought to the cities and towns of Japan itself?

Armies do not meet on isolated battlefields far from civliian populations. War hasn't been like that for centuries. Many, many more civilians would have died if a long, protracted war was fought all across Japan.
Actually, war was like that before WW2, remeber the trench wars of WW1??

well the typical course of action is that 2 armies fight untill one army surrenders, i fail to see why Japan was such an acception that a war between 2 armies couldnt be fought.

I know people are probably gonna prove me wrong now, but i think that America started the use of "dirty tactics" in that bombing.which would've lead to more deaths and disfigurements than the two bombings together. and as the Japanese loose troops, they would be recruiting younger and younger soldiers untill you have American Troops gunning down kids...

so you support a menthod that would be more violent, more costly and would not only prolong the war but may mean the destruction of Japan as a nation.

and you call the dropping of the bombs "Dirty Tactics"

A chunk of macnchuria? And they were afraid that the soviets were then going to invade the home islands? Your own sourse points out that after August storm there was'nt the basic economic support to continue the offensive. Besides the fact that they hasd no bloody navy which is handy thing to have about if you intend to invade an island. Let's just ignore the fact that rather than occupying a few recent conquests poorly defended that the US had managed to take everything else the Jappanesse occupied from Manilla to Iwo Jima. But they were afraid of the Soviets right?

My own sources say that August Storm didn't have the basic economic support to finish the conquest of Korea before September 8th. Learn to read.

" Its naval forces contained 12 major surface combatants, 78 submarines, numerous amphibious craft, and the Amur river flotilla, consisting of gunboats and numerous small craft."

The US has managed to take the Philippines and various Pacific Islands over the course of four years. The Soviet Union had conquered all of Manchuria in the span of a week. The Soviet Union was in a much better strategic position to commit to an invasion of Japan, and were known as much less accomodating occupiers than the USA. Yes, they were afraid of the USSR. They much prefered occupation by the US than the USSR.

and you call the dropping of the bombs "Dirty Tactics"
No i call dropping nukes on civillians dirty tactics, don't you?

Actually, war was like that before WW2, remeber the trench wars of WW1??

You mean World War I when an estimated 25-55 million civilians died?

You mean World War I when an estimated 25-55 million civilians died?
I mean WW1, when 2 armies fought between 2 trenches and took ground. Im just saying it hasnt been centuaries since too armies fought head to head

The Japanese army was, the civillians wernt. there is a differance. What if now, Iraqi's r whoever went to America and started killing civillians there because they were the "enemy", i doubt most the people in those bombings cared too much about the war, they wer just attending work etc.

I can tell by this and your previouse post that you cut class the day that history was taught . You are very ill informned and ignorant on the subject at hand yet that wont stop you from posting ... :p What a maroon.... :D
wake up and read a book or something... :D

Actually, war was like that before WW2, remeber the trench wars of WW1??

Trench warfare destroyed entire cities (what do you think happened to those towns caught between and around the trenches?!? The artillery shells and bombs magically missed them?) and entire generations of men. It would be far more destructive then either atomic bombing combined.

No i call dropping nukes on civillians dirty tactics, don't you? not when it's a viable military target. ones that were feeding the Japanese war machine. and ones that were not housing the Government.

and you still haven't answerd my other questions. The bomb had to be dropped, if not then, surly now, so do you want to have the KILOTONNE bomb dropped that would spark the last war of mankind? or would you rather what history did and not have the fabled Nuclear War?

1) tens of thousands dead
2) hundred of Trillions dead

Choose between the two.

No i call dropping nukes on civillians dirty tactics, don't you?

As I've already explained, both cities were viable military targets, as they were major military supply and industrial centres.

The monday morning quarter backs can debate endlessly about the need to drop the bomb . By western standards Japan was devastated they had no oil hardly enough food to subsist and starvation was a problem no natural resources , no more navy . hardly a city had not been bombed and tokyo was a burned crispy hulk of wasteland . The US could have stayed off shore and lobbed shells and continued to bomb the rubble till WHEN ?
Japan WAS NOT A DEFEATED NATION . They knew the war was lost when the first b 29 s appeared over their Island and their navy was destroyed in the Phillipines . It took hitler till the Russians were at his friggin cellar door entrabce to kill himself and for Germany to admit defeat . BUT ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU EXPECT A NATION WILLING TO TURN PLANES INTO SUICIDE BOMBERS TO SURRENDER ? Are you friggin NUTS ? They refused to surrender unconditionaly they were given chances but THOSE IN POWER the people who could end the war WOULD NOT YEILD .
The people of Japan were prepared to litter the island with their bodies . Anyone who has studied the war in the Pacific should know this . You cannot take a small slice of history ...a small period ...and base your opinion on it you must look at the whole picture .
The US had already fought for years at great sacrifice and was looking at a casualty toll of anything from 500,000 to more than a million DEAD . To take Japan in an invasion . Do you think that after ever inch of Japan sufferred the same type and worse fighting as Iwo and Okinowa that the people of Japan and the people of the US would have come to the same type of understanding as they did after the A bomb ? If you do you are a delusional fool and are only looking to shape your opinion based on a preconcieved notion of what you think should have happened . And what about the Russians ? What would it have cost to get them out of Japan ? and what about the soldiers and the sailors in the feild that had fought for years and wanted to go home . They had to stay in for the most part till the war was over or until they died or were so screwed up they had to be sent home . And how about the cost to keep an army as large as the US feilded active and in preperation for an invasion and a blockade if Japan wouldnt surrender after what how many months or years of blockade and bombardment ? How many Japenese would have died during that time ?
Do you guys think about anything or just read crap and say " this looks good I'll go with this one " ? The US had invested trillions in a weapon to end a horrible war what would the people of the US had done to the fool who did not use it to end the war and stop the slaughter of American Marines sailors soldiers and airmen ? Do you really think Truman or any other american president was not answerable to the people ? The bombs risked only the crews of two friggin planes to end the war . Not hundreds of thousands of US service men . IT was well worth the cost and the results . It saved millions of lives of both Japenes and American and British and even friggin Russians . It saved a situation like Korea and Berlin from Japan . It saved Japan to become the nation it is today because of the insight of Gen McArthur and his treatment of a former enemy . None if it would have happened after a bloodbath of an invasion and bloody conquring . Or a protracted and horrible seige and bombardment .

These are the same idiots that insisted that air forces alone could win wars . And Leahy is just saying we could have won without the bomb ...hell WE WERE winning any fool knows that...except the Japenese did not share his opinion . And guess what........ they count . Almost defeated...it would have only took a few hundred more thousand casualties to be totaly defeated ..in case you have not looked this fact up thats how you win if the other side wont surrender . Alot of these articles have the benifit of what we found out to be true after the war about both the bombs and the conditions in Japan . They are not based on what we knew or understood at the time and even those that claim to be still suffer from the authors bias from what was discovered after the fact .

Quote:
And here is a very concise article about why the bombing was not (strategically) necessary:http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm
Quote:
And so from November 1944 onward, Japan was the subject of numerous large-scale B-29 non-nuclear bombing raids (Robert Butow, Japan's Decision To Surrender, pg. 41). When Air Force chief General Hap Arnold asked in June 1945 when the war was going to end, the commander of the B-29 raids, General Curtis LeMay, told him September or October 1945, because by then they would have run out of industrial targets to bomb (Sherry, pg. 300 & 410(143n)).

While Japan was being bombarded from the sky, a Naval blockade was strangling Japan's ability to import oil and other vital materials and its ability to produce war materials (Barton Bernstein, ed., The Atomic Bomb, pg. 54). Admiral William Leahy, the Chief of Staff to President Roosevelt and then to President Truman, wrote, "By the beginning of September [1944], Japan was almost completely defeated through a practically complete sea and air blockade." (William Leahy, I Was There,


Let me know what you find in your " very consise article " that answers the questions I pose above . When you make a decision that " its wrong to drop Atomic bombs " and then go in search of reasons to justify your opinion you get articles like that . Its called bias . I prefer objectivity . I prefer to see both sides ....hell all twenty one sides of the argument .

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA...Strategy-M.html
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA...pageNum-29.html
http://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/42...csi9810001.html
http://www.mikekemble.com/ww2/downfall.html
http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/invade.htm
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/giangrec.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/nuclear_02.shtml
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/dr06.htm
http://www.mbe.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm
http://www.instadv.ucsb.edu/pa/display.aspx?pkey=1297
http://members.aol.com/dalecoz/WW2_1297.htm
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistl...large/index.php
http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academ...webquests/wwii/
http://www.dannen.com/decision/
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/hamby.htm
http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomic.htm

read it..... all sides of the argument are in there . I have about 33 more but these should do . I have read them all .

You mean World War I when an estimated 25-55 million civilians died?
I mean WW1, when 2 armies fought between 2 trenches and took ground. Im just saying it hasnt been centuaries since too armies fought head to headyes, he would rather that body count than what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I can tell by this and your previouse post that you cut class the day that history was taught . You are very ill informned and ignorant on the subject at hand yet that wont stop you from posting ... :p What a maroon.... :D
wake up and read a book or something... :D
no need to start insulting here. Im just tying to find a way to tell yous that Nukes are NEVER justifiable. Japan is no exception.
One more thing people sem to think the Japanese population were brainwashed by the emperor, they thought the exact same thing bout America, a country where, if im not mistaken, children pledge allegiance to the flag everyday. But i will stop posting now on this now as yous will obviuosly not accept anything else then what is drilled into your heads as a child

and you still haven't answerd my other questions. The bomb had to be dropped, if not then, surly now, so do you want to have the KILOTONNE bomb dropped that would spark the last war of mankind? or would you rather what history did and not have the fabled Nuclear War?


Actually the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was already at 13 kilotons, or the same as droping 13,000 tons of TNT. Modern nukes are in the megatons, or millions of tons of TNT.

One more thing people sem to think the Japanese population were brainwashed by the emperor, they thought the exact same thing bout America, a country where, if im not mistaken, children pledge allegiance to the flag everyday. But i will stop posting now on this now as yous will obviuosly not accept anything else then what is drilled into your heads as a child
WTF!! Saying a pledge to serve your country is so far from teaching children to strap bombs to their chests and run under armored vehicles to blow them up, I'm starting to think you're insane.

no need to start insulting here. Im just tying to find a way to tell yous that Nukes are NEVER justifiable. Japan is no exception.
One more thing people sem to think the Japanese population were brainwashed by the emperor, they thought the exact same thing bout America, a country where, if im not mistaken, children pledge allegiance to the flag everyday. But i will stop posting now on this now as yous will obviuosly not accept anything else then what is drilled into your heads as a childsame can be said of you.

after all, you still haven't answered my question.

so let's make it easier.

why do you say "NUKES ARE NEVER JUSTIFIABLE?"
Don't say "I should know" I want you to post your reasons.

and I'll bet you the reasons you will state will be from data from HIROSHIMA and NAGASAKI!

Can you prove the use of NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE NEVER JUSTIFIABLE without using any data collected from HIROSHIMA and NAGASAKI?

bet you can't. why? it was the data collected and shown to the world that best shown the true horrors of a nuclear war. the Sacrifice that both Japan and America made with those two actions help prevent any further use of such bombs.

Actually the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was already at 13 kilotons, or the same as droping 13,000 tons of TNT. Modern nukes are in the megatons, or millions of tons of TNT. ah... my mistake. I did mean Killo and Mega... but brain freeze... thanks for the correction.

well, you just answered your own question and your right . If you are trying to justify it by saying "we learned something from it" as in trial and error, it was unneeded, do you not think that scientist would have discovered the effects anyway without testing it on a city full of people

well, you just answered your own question and your right . If you are trying to justify it by saying "we learned something from it" as in trial and error, it was unneeded, do you not think that scientist would have discovered the effects anyway without testing it on a city full of people

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were specifically chosen because they hadn't been bombed before, so that the scientists could see just how destructive the bombs really were.

not when it's a viable military target. ones that were feeding the Japanese war machine. and ones that were not housing the Government.

and you still haven't answerd my other questions. The bomb had to be dropped, if not then, surly now, so do you want to have the KILOTONNE bomb dropped that would spark the last war of mankind? or would you rather what history did and not have the fabled Nuclear War?

1) tens of thousands dead
2) hundred of Trillions dead

Choose between the two.

I think you're off by a factor of about ten thousand there...there's only 6.7 billion people alive right now.
But secondary to that, and a bit of a counter-argument to those who say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented nuclear war in the future...

There are still tens of thousands of active and reserve nuclear warheads around the world ready to be launched at a moment's notice. One fatal mistake, one missile accidentally leaving its silo, one warhead detonating underground, hell, even one crazy leader taking power in a 1st-world nation (it could happen, see Hitler or Stalin) and the world could still be plunged into nuclear war. So really, the only way to prevent future devastation is to disarm totally now. Which I've advocated for some time, since nukes, especially multi-megaton city destroyers, are really useless in modern warfare. Added advantage of disarmament: no nukes means no chance of "the terrorists" (that term is beginning to annoy me for some reason. Seems overly general) getting nukes. So disarm now, and everyone's happy.

I apologize for the thread hijack there, but I got going and couldn't stop...

WTF!! Saying a pledge to serve your country is so far from teaching children to strap bombs to their chests and run under armored vehicles to blow them up, I'm starting to think you're insane.
Ok, it was an extreme example, but my point is true and every other country in the world sees it too, America does brainwash thier children with propaganda, im not talking the same league as Nazi's r anything by anymeans, but do you not think its strange that you always are convinced that you are right. Before you say anything, im not saying EVERYONE in America is brainwashed into fighting for thier coutry. I dont know why im bothering to say this its not as if your going to accept my opinion as anything other than "anti american bullshit". Im not anti american by the way.

I think you're off by a factor of about ten thousand there...there's only 6.7 billion people alive right now.
But secondary to that, and a bit of a counter-argument to those who say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented nuclear war in the future...Didn't have the census numbers on hand... so I stand corrected. however, as for why Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented Nuclear War? simple. Until used, the potential destructive power of the Atomic bomb was only speculative. sure we tested on some abandond towns/test site, but to get real data, real people were needed. After the bombs were dropped, scientists from all over the world shared that data and now, no one disputes the lasting harm and poison that is a Nuclear weapon.
There are still tens of thousands of active and reserve nuclear warheads around the world ready to be launched at a moment's notice. One fatal mistake, one missile accidentally leaving its silo, one warhead detonating underground, hell, even one crazy leader taking power in a 1st-world nation (it could happen, see Hitler or Stalin) and the world could still be plunged into nuclear war. So really, the only way to prevent future devastation is to disarm totally now. Which I've advocated for some time, since nukes, especially multi-megaton city destroyers, are really useless in modern warfare. Added advantage of disarmament: no nukes means no chance of "the terrorists" (that term is beginning to annoy me for some reason. Seems overly general) getting nukes. So disarm now, and everyone's happy.While I would also like to see total disarmament, I know it won't happen. why? because it's really MAD that keeps everyone from really pushing the button. As for one crazy leader taking power... you know that won't happen in the US. the levels of security needed to launch means that they won't be launched without a) a whole lot of approval b) first strike by another power.
besides, the fact that there are so few nations out there with nuclear power means that they are keeping tight control over them. so that much harder for terrorists to get their hands on em.

it's when it's "lost on the way to destruction" or all nations are getting Nuclear weapons is when Terrorists can get their mitts on em, or at least get the means to make em because no one is really watching.

I apologize for the thread hijack there, but I got going and couldn't stop...no problem. at least you presented your side with a bit of civility.

Ok, it was an extreme example, but my point is true and every other country in the world sees it too, America does brainwash thier children with propaganda, im not talking the same league as Nazi's r anything by anymeans, but do you not think its strange that you always are convinced that you are right. Before you say anything, im not saying EVERYONE in America is brainwashed into fighting for thier coutry. I dont know why im bothering to say this its not as if your going to accept my opinion as anything other than "anti american bullshit". Im not anti american by the way.the Pledge is no longer mandatory, in fact few schools still say them voluntarily. so how is the brain washing commencing?

and I believe America is alway right in the same fashion that everyone else believes America is always wrong. In other words, I don't. however, instead of argung wether or not we SHOULD'VE dropped the bomb, I'ld rather argue the fact that after that, NO OTHER nuclear bombs were used. and that is something much better to know than woulda/coulda/shoulda arguments.

oh, I don't know about anyone else, But I NEVER considered you Anti-American. NEVER.

America dropped the bombs for purely military reasons - to prevent US losses and to bring about the surrender of the Japanese government which started a war with us. The invasion of the Home Islands would have cost many more lives on both sides than were the bombs dropped.

It was a very simple decision. Dropping the bombs saved the lives of up to one million American GI's. Would you not do the same if you swore an oath to protect the American people?

"Estimates of Allied casualties ranged from 250,000 to a million with much greater losses to the Japanese. To repel invaders, Japan had a veteran army of some two million ready, an army that had already shown its ferocity and fanaticism in combat. Some 8,000 military aircraft were available that could be used for devastating Kamikaze (suicide) attacks on U.S. ships. The draft had been extended to include men from age 15 to 60 and women from 17 to 45, adding millions of civilians ready to defend their homeland to the death, with sharpened sticks if necessary.

Experience throughout the Pacific war had shown that Japanese combat casualties had run from five to 20 times those suffered by the Allies, particularly in the battles of the Philippines and Okinawa. Whatever the predicted Allied losses, the potential Japanese military and civilian casualties would have been staggering. Whether Japan would have surrendered prior to invasion without the use of the atomic bombs is a question that can never be answered. Using the history and projections available to him, President Truman made the grave decision to use the atomic bomb in an effort to end the war quickly, thus avoiding a costly invasion."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/ops/combat.htm

I dont understand how people defend NOT dropping the bombs. We saved thousands maybe millions of lives by dropping the bombs. Would you have wanted more people to have died? That is the bottom line. We saved more people by dropping the bombs than were killed in the bombs....WAY MORE.

Ok, it was an extreme example, but my point is true and every other country in the world sees it too, America does brainwash thier children with propaganda, im not talking the same league as Nazi's r anything by anymeans, but do you not think its strange that you always are convinced that you are right. Before you say anything, im not saying EVERYONE in America is brainwashed into fighting for thier coutry.
You used a flawed example in a very stupid way; saying the Pledge isn't even manditory these days, and yet the vast majority of the Japanese in 1945 believed that the Emperor was God, Americans would butcher them ruthlessly if they were caught and they believed that sending children armed with sticks to fight the GIs was better then surrender.

I dont know why im bothering to say this its not as if your going to accept my opinion as anything other than "anti american bullshit". Im not anti american by the way.
Nice presumption on your part, I won't accept your argument because I'm "brainwashed" too :rolleyes: I dont' accept your argument because it is flawed, involves wishful thinking and doesn't take in all of the factors that went into the atomic bombings.

Do you honestly believe that everyone in Japan thought the same?? of course not. The Al'Qeada think the same thing bout America's attitude towards muslims now.

Apparentl you don't know the Jap culture at the time. The answer is yes they did. They were ready to fight to the death.

As for today. Today marks the 60th year of the horror of the atomic bomb. Though I support of its dropping do to the fact that an invasion would be worse, it was still horrifying.

It also saved the world a nuclear holocost because we all saw the horror of the atomic bomb when Hiroshima and Nagasaki went up in an atomic ball of fire.

well the typical course of action is that 2 armies fight untill one army surrenders, i fail to see why Japan was such an acception that a war between 2 armies couldnt be fought.

I know people are probably gonna prove me wrong now, but i think that America started the use of "dirty tactics" in that bombing.

Both armies did fight and the Jap army was driven out of the pacific back to the Japanese homelands. Would you like to invade the home islands knowing full well that the enemy won't surrender?

ok, im seriously outnumbered here, im requesting backup in this arguement! Seriously, i recognise the arguement for it but i just think it wasnt nessacary, it never is.=

But its necessary for over a million civilians to die in an invasion? Did you know that the US Army was planning using POISON GAS in bombs, morters, and artillery shells? Do you know what the projected civil death rate was going to be? ABOUT 5 MILLION PEOPLE!

Actually, war was like that before WW2, remeber the trench wars of WW1??

I remember trench warfare in the Civil War too!

No i call dropping nukes on civillians dirty tactics, don't you?

Nope. I call it a legitament use of a bomb to end a war with the least amount of military and civilian casualties. Don't you?

no need to start insulting here. Im just tying to find a way to tell yous that Nukes are NEVER justifiable. Japan is no exception.

See's 5,000,000 dead by US gas attacks (if there were really going to be used. No one knows but the plans did call for it)

One more thing people sem to think the Japanese population were brainwashed by the emperor, they thought the exact same thing bout America, a country where, if im not mistaken, children pledge allegiance to the flag everyday.

Difference between pledging allegience to a flag and blindly following an emporer into the abyss. A BIG difference actually.

But i will stop posting now on this now as yous will obviuosly not accept anything else then what is drilled into your heads as a child

Sorry but history is history. You cannot refute history. Unless it is revisionist history then you can refute :D

Nope. I call it a legitament use of a bomb to end a war with the least amount of military and civilian casualties. Don't you?
And again, they could have dropped it in many other places.

We've gone through plenty of reasons why Hiroshima was chosen not too long ago, but we neglected to say that Hiroshima was also fairly undamaged still. It was essentially an experiment, to see how much damage a nuke would do.

Ok, it was an extreme example, but my point is true and every other country in the world sees it too, America does brainwash thier children with propaganda, im not talking the same league as Nazi's r anything by anymeans, but do you not think its strange that you always are convinced that you are right.

Is it just me or does he seem to lack a grasp of history?

Before you say anything, im not saying EVERYONE in America is brainwashed into fighting for thier coutry. I dont know why im bothering to say this its not as if your going to accept my opinion as anything other than "anti american bullshit". Im not anti american by the way.

No one is brainwashed to serve in the military. You join on your own accord.

Difference between pledging allegience to a flag and blindly following an emporer into the abyss. A BIG difference actually.
Actually, it is the same thing. Whether it's a person or an abstract construct, people still follow it blindly.

the Pledge is no longer mandatory, in fact few schools still say them voluntarily. so how is the brain washing commencing?

Actually its state law to say the pledge or have the national anthem played everyday here in PA at the elementary, middle, and high school levels.

And again, they could have dropped it in many other places.

Like where?

We've gone through plenty of reasons why Hiroshima was chosen not too long ago, but we neglected to say that Hiroshima was also fairly undamaged still. It was essentially an experiment, to see how much damage a nuke would do.

And it was a pure legitament target as well. Notice what was near the target zone? That's right a MILITARY BARRACKS. Not to mention it had industry and was home to a military HQ!

Actually, it is the same thing. Whether it's a person or an abstract construct, people still follow it blindly.

I'll do what is best for the country. Not what some leader tells me to do.

Like where?
Mount Fuji for example. Numerous scientists who had halped build the bomb suggested it.

Mount Fuji for example. Numerous scientists who had halped build the bomb suggested it.

It wouldn't have done a damn thing and the military knew it. Japan wouldn't surrender. Hell they barely surrendered after the 2nd one and that was AFTER an attempted coup due to the Emperor telling his generals that it was over. They tried to overthrow him to keep the war going.

Actually, it is the same thing. Whether it's a person or an abstract construct, people still follow it blindly.
In the pledge of allegiance, Americans are taught to uncondintionally love their country and homeland, if not the government. Most people see no problem with this, and there are far more nationalistic peoples than Americans.
In old Japan, people were taught blindly to be the playthings of the emperor. If the emperor wants you to die or use your body as a human shield, then you do so immediately without question.

There is a BIG difference between these two devotions.

There is a BIG difference between these two devotions.
I do see a problem with it.
It's the exact same thing as happened in Germany in WW2. The pledge of allegiance binds people to do what they wouldn't do otherwise.

It wouldn't have done a damn thing and the military knew it. Japan wouldn't surrender. Hell they barely surrendered after the 2nd one and that was AFTER an attempted coup due to the Emperor telling his generals that it was over. They tried to overthrow him to keep the war going.
I'm aware of it. I'm also aware that they never would've dared to actually "Overthrow" the Emperor. They were doing it for Him.
Do you know that various high generals actually committed Harakiri because they were forced to disagree with the Emperor's opinion?

I'm aware of it. I'm also aware that they never would've dared to actually "Overthrow" the Emperor. They were doing it for Him.

Huh Dude, they did try to overthrow the emperor! It didn't succeed thanks to the palace guards.

Do you know that various high generals actually committed Harakiri because they were forced to disagree with the Emperor's opinion?

Yep and some of that was after the attempted Coup attempt because they wanted to keep the war going.

And again, they could have dropped it in many other places.

We've gone through plenty of reasons why Hiroshima was chosen not too long ago, but we neglected to say that Hiroshima was also fairly undamaged still. It was essentially an experiment, to see how much damage a nuke would do.

The two targets were chosen from a list of seventeen candidates. The second target was to be Kokura, not Nagasaki. Due to heavy cloud cover the bomber was directed to the alternate target, Nagasaki.

There were no doubt many factors involved in selecting targets. It is very likely that the shock effect of destroying major cities was one consideration. Dropping the bomb on Mount Fuji or the sea would not have offered much in that area.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/ops/combat.htm

The two targets were chosen from a list of seventeen candidates. The second target was to be Kokura, not Nagasaki. Due to heavy cloud cover the bomber was directed to the alternate target, Nagasaki.

And a damn good thing it wasn't on Kokura. We would've killed Allied POWs that were there.

It is very likely that the shock effect of destroying major cities was one consideration. Dropping the bomb on Mount Fuji or the sea would not have offered much in that area.
It seems like you don't appreciate the significance of Mt Fuji to Japanese culture.

I do see a problem with it.
It's the exact same thing as happened in Germany in WW2. The pledge of allegiance binds people to do what they wouldn't do otherwise.
Not really, the pledge of allegiance did not make me, or anyone, a bloodthirsty patriot. It was more of a daily chore every morning in elementary school we were forced to recite when we were still half asleep. Patriotism in the US, and most countries, is pretty laid back. There are these quaint little patriotic rituals we do in grade school that we look back on fondly but is definitely not going to be some advanced hypnosis technique that "binds people to do what they wouldn't do otherwise." That is a pretty ridiculous and laughable exaggeration on your part.

The pledge of allegiance and other half-assed patriotic initiatives here in the US are totally different from the millenia-old nationalism of Japan which permeated religion, home, school, and all aspects of life. Americans and modern Japanese develop healthy affection for their nations from simply going through life and cherishing home and hearth, but Japanese back in restoration Japan were instilled with unthinking, militaristic, and racist nationalism from birth. This indoctrination was beyond systematic; blind devotion to the emperor was so ingrained in the culture meant that giving one's life to the emperor seemed totally natural and self-motivated without too much prodding from the authorities.

This crime is disgusting and unjustifyable. It would have been diffrent if they bombed a millatary base or something but this was just a city of civillians, by todays standards this is pure terrorism. Think about if it had been done to America, what would you be saying now?


How many times does this need to be said?

Hiroshima was the headquarters of the 2nd Army, and the staging area for the defense of southern Japan. Quite the military target if you ask me.

-snip-
If you're not taking your pledge seriously, then that's okay.
Both the Japanese and the Germans (as well as millions of people in other nations) did, and put orders and "what's best for their country" before their own moral and ethical ideals.
Problem is that no individual can tell what's best for their country, individuals can only tell what is right for themselves (usually, but that's another matter).
Individual considerations must therefore take precedence above "patriotism" in any guise.

If you're not taking your pledge seriously, then that's okay.
Both the Japanese and the Germans (as well as millions of people in other nations) did, and put orders and "what's best for their country" before their own moral and ethical ideals.

I take the pledge seriously but I'm not brainwashed.

no need to start insulting here. Im just tying to find a way to tell yous that Nukes are NEVER justifiable. Japan is no exception.
One more thing people sem to think the Japanese population were brainwashed by the emperor, they thought the exact same thing bout America, a country where, if im not mistaken, children pledge allegiance to the flag everyday. But i will stop posting now on this now as yous will obviuosly not accept anything else then what is drilled into your heads as a child


Ever heard of the Battle of Okinawa?

Women flung their children and themselves off of cliffs because they were told by their leaders that the Marines were coming to eat their children. They also told the Japanese civilians that in order to become a Marine, you had to kill your own mother. Men were picking up rifles and blowing their brains out for fear of capture by the Marines.

Seeing as the Battle of Okinawa's casualties were mostly civilian suicides, I'd say that they took their leaders words quite seriously.

It seems like you don't appreciate the significance of Mt Fuji to Japanese culture.

To the contrary, I am suggesting that the physical effect of the bomb on the mountain would be far less dramatic, in the destructive sense, than on a densely populated area. I suspect the psychological effects were considered and cities were chosen for that reason.

If you're not taking your pledge seriously, then that's okay.
Both the Japanese and the Germans (as well as millions of people in other nations) did, and put orders and "what's best for their country" before their own moral and ethical ideals.
Problem is that no individual can tell what's best for their country, individuals can only tell what is right for themselves (usually, but that's another matter).
Individual considerations must therefore take precedence above "patriotism" in any guise.
I do take the pledge seriously. Except for the under God part, since I don't believe in God. But I like this country, American culture, and I have enough idealism in me to hope that me and other Americans should take the pledge to heart and strive for "liberty and justice for all" in our country. The act of saying the pledge is not as important to me, especially at 8 AM in the morning everyday as a drowsy 9 year old, but the values the pledge promotes are, and my devotion to the USA is completely different from some Japanese kamikaze's suicidal devotion to his emperor.

I also disagree with your overwhelming emphasis on individual considerations, because some individuals fuck up society by fulfilling their own desires like theft and murder... I'd rather the country and the society be a nice place to live for everyone, so we definitely need a balance between individual good and greater good.

I do take the pledge seriously. Except for the under God part, since I don't believe in God. But I like this country, American culture, and I have enough idealism in me to hope that me and other Americans should take the pledge to heart and strive for "liberty and justice for all" in our country. The act of saying the pledge is not as important to me, especially at 8 AM in the morning everyday as a drowsy 9 year old, but the values the pledge promotes are, and my devotion to the USA is completely different from some Japanese kamikaze's suicidal devotion to his emperor.

*claps*

Well said Trilateral Commission Well said. I agree with everything you said (though I do take the under God part seriously to but I am a christian). Keep up the good work my friend.

I also disagree with your overwhelming emphasis on individual considerations, because some individuals fuck up society by fulfilling their own desires like theft and murder... I'd rather the country and the society be a nice place to live for everyone, so we definitely need a balance between individual good and greater good.

Again well said.

To the contrary, I am suggesting that the physical effect of the bomb on the mountain would be far less dramatic, in the destructive sense, than on a densely populated area. I suspect the psychological effects were considered and cities were chosen for that reason.
:confused:
The mountain you say wouldn't have been damaged as much as the city? Fair enough, but it would've been a big boom, and the entire Japanese leadership could've seen it with their own eyes.
They had no idea what happened in Hiroshima until days later, so it was hardly effective in that area.

And then you say that bombing the cities wasn't as bad as bombing the mountain would've been?

...and my devotion to the USA is completely different from some Japanese kamikaze's suicidal devotion to his emperor.
You're kidding yourself. How is it different?

I also disagree with your overwhelming emphasis on individual considerations, because some individuals fuck up society by fulfilling their own desires like theft and murder... I'd rather the country and the society be a nice place to live for everyone, so we definitely need a balance between individual good and greater good.
As I said, that is another debate. ;)

:confused:
The mountain you say wouldn't have been damaged as much as the city? Fair enough, but it would've been a big boom, and the entire Japanese leadership could've seen it with their own eyes.
They had no idea what happened in Hiroshima until days later, so it was hardly effective in that area.

And then you say that bombing the cities wasn't as bad as bombing the mountain would've been?

You said we could have bombed in other places than where we did, I agree. There were reasons for why we narrowed the list down to 2 out of 17 possibles.

I am simply suggesting that one of the reasons (in addition to miltary value, etc.) may have been to maximize the psychological effect of the devastating damage. I'm speculating, but it makes sense it would be a consideration. It matters little since the deed is done.

Do you have an opinion on why we didn't bomb Mt. Fuji, the sea, or lesser military targets? Do you have information why the two targets were selected out of a country full of them?

You're kidding yourself. How is it different?

It is different in degrees of fervor. The average WWII Japanese soldier was so blindly patriotic and racist he will rape and kill innocent enemy civilians on the principle that they, like animals, were not born Japanese, who will tell friendly civilians to kill themselves rather than surrender, and who will themselves cut out their own guts rather than surrender. It is unrealistic for you to describe the world in such black-and-white with everyone being either a fascist-nationalist or a perfect individualist. There are different degrees of patriotism, and I am comfortable with the balance I've found between my dedication and love for my country and my own resistance to certain ideas that many would deem prerequisite for being a "true" patriotic American.

Do you have an opinion on why we didn't bomb Mt. Fuji, the sea, or lesser military targets? Do you have information why the two targets were selected out of a country full of them?
I do.
But I also think that a lot of revenge thinking, a lot of dehumanisation, a lot of LeMay-type thinking got into it.
There may have been military targets in those cities, but they were hardly going to win the war for Japan.
When you've been fighting the yellow hordes for a few years, and Phospor-bombing their civilians, then what do a few 100,000 more matter, hey?

As I said, the town was primarily selected because it was still intact, rather than most other military targets, and not a single second was spent thinking about how many might die.

There are different degrees of patriotism, and I am comfortable with the balance I've found between my dedication and love for my country and my own resistance to certain ideas that many would deem prerequisite for being a "true" patriotic American.
I'm afraid many Americans are not quite as enlightened as you are. If ordered (and sometimes (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/15/marine.probe/index.html) if they aren't.), all too many of your guys are just as ready to do bad things as the average Japanese soldier was.
I'm not disputing that horrible things happened at the hands of the Japanese, but I don't agree that that was normal for an Imperial soldier to do.

And the idea of killing yourself, as you know very well, is a Japanese cultural thing and has nothing to do with Nationalism.

As I said, the town was primarily selected because it was still intact, rather than most other military targets, and not a single second was spent thinking about how many might die.
A little off track maybe, but why do you care about how many thousands of Japanese died if you say you only think of yourself? Or perhaps you are simply objectively stating, as a neutral fact, that "not a single second was spent thinking about how many might die" without condemning those who dropped the bomb.

A little off track maybe, but why do you care about how many thousands of Japanese died if you say you only think of yourself? Or perhaps you are simply objectively stating, as a neutral fact, that "not a single second was spent thinking about how many might die" without condemning those who dropped the bomb.
Important fact on the side:
I'm not an individualist. I portrayed myself a little different here, but if you check many of my posts, you'll find out more about me.
I think there are ethics (mainly rooted in Game Theory) that are universal, and I believe the Allies crossed those lines almost from Day One.

I am however vehemently against pretty much all types of nationalism, or patriotism. It leads people to make stupid decisions, it inhibits the process of making your own opinion, and it lowers the threshold for committing rather bad things.

I do.
But I also think that a lot of revenge thinking, a lot of dehumanisation, a lot of LeMay-type thinking got into it.
There may have been military targets in those cities, but they were hardly going to win the war for Japan.
When you've been fighting the yellow hordes for a few years, and Phospor-bombing their civilians, then what do a few 100,000 more matter, hey?

As I said, the town was primarily selected because it was still intact, rather than most other military targets, and not a single second was spent thinking about how many might die.

Hiroshima was an industrial area with a number of military installations, Nagasaki was a major port with shipbuilding and marine repair facilities. That's my theory.

I agree that civilian casualties were not a primary consideration, though we could have gone out of our way to target them specifically had we chosen. This was not the time of surgical strikes, nor the weapon to do it with. In any event, I believe the strikes were intended to force the Japanese to capitulate as quickly as possible. It was a war we wanted to end as quickly as possible.

May I respectfully ask all on this thread to PLEASE study up more on Japanese culture before and during WWII and after as well as the bombing itself and the reasons for the choice of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I would highly recomend starting with the Hiroshima Peace Museum, whos exhibits are online and accesable in English. There are also a number of relavant and well writen books on this time period as well, both Japanese (translated) and English scources.

Please do so.

And the idea of killing yourself, as you know very well, is a Japanese cultural thing and has nothing to do with Nationalism.
In old Japanese culture there were many legitimate reasons for killing yourself, one of which was giving your life up for the sake of your lord/family/country/other symbol of authority you identify with. Since for quite some while the government had been pushing the emperor-nation (neither was separable in State Shinto ideology) as the main "fetish" for the people's worship, it was natural that nationalist fervor, in the act of kamikaze or avoiding national dishonor by refusing to surrender, would be the immediate cause of the soldiers' crazy actions. Of course the acceptability and even elevated status of suicide in Japanese culture could be considered the proximate cause. This is all a bit overanalyzing the psychology of Japanse suicides in WWII but as you can see it is easily shown that extreme nationalism drove the society to do these things.


I think there are ethics (mainly rooted in Game Theory) that are universal, and I believe the Allies crossed those lines almost from Day One.
I agree that terrible atrocities were committed by Allies, although I am convinced that the final outcome was generally favorable. Destruction of Nazis and Japanese imperialists was a completely positive outcome although certain territorial reorganizations were problematic. Furthermore not all Allies were complicit in targetting enemy civilians... for example I can't think of any war crimes against enemy noncombatants that Greece or Yugoslavia could have committed since they fought the war on their own turf. China also did not have many war crimes to its name partly due to its poor technology (the intent among Chinese to blindly lash out against Japan, including civilians, was definitely there). The Allies were not a monolithic, nuke-throwing, Dresden-bombing, perfectly coordinated collective but instead many nations with different situations. Some commanders and some Allied nations did lots of unsavory things but other nations were undoubtedly the victims of Axis aggression and it is difficult for us to determine exactly how these Allies would have been liberated if the more aggressive Allies didn't act as they did with the knowledge that they had.

Important fact on the side:
I'm not an individualist. I portrayed myself a little different here, but if you check many of my posts, you'll find out more about me.
I think there are ethics (mainly rooted in Game Theory) that are universal, and I believe the Allies crossed those lines almost from Day One.

And the Axis crossed it from day zero. Shit happens in war, you know that, at least we (the allies) weren't playing genocide, like the Japanese (China) and the Germans (Jews) were.

-snip-
Since the Emperor more or less represented the Nation as a whole, a Japanese person would do what was culturally acceptable, blindly.
The same thing goes for an American, just that their blind following may take a different external appearance because they have a different culture.

By "Allies" in this case I mainly meant the USSR, UK and US. Although you could find plenty of things both Greek and Yugoslavian partisans did that were decidedly below the belt, whether against military or civilian personell, or people perceived to be collaborateurs.

And the Axis crossed it from day zero. Shit happens in war, you know that, at least we (the allies) weren't playing genocide, like the Japanese (China) and the Germans (Jews) were.
Good on you. You can be as bad as you like, as long as there is someone who's even worse than you.

Good on you. You can be as bad as you like, as long as there is someone who's even worse than you.
Eh, if it's between 10,000 of them, and a million of someone else, I'd take the 10,000 any day. An invasion of Japan (the entire endgame was one tragic farce, to say the least, but I won't get into that) would have killed millions, on both sides. The bombs were the lesser of two evils.

Since the Emperor more or less represented the Nation as a whole, a Japanese person would do what was culturally acceptable, blindly.

Correct

The same thing goes for an American, just that their blind following may take a different external appearance because they have a different culture.

Incorrect!

Incorrect!
Why? Is this now an argument about the average American being smarter than the average Japanese?

Why? Is this now an argument about the average American being smarter than the average Japanese?

Nope not at all.

Nope not at all.
Good.

Since the Emperor more or less represented the Nation as a whole, a Japanese person would do what was culturally acceptable, blindly.
The same thing goes for an American, just that their blind following may take a different external appearance because they have a different culture.
Bullshit. American civilians, much less the military, are not expected to commit suicide for the benefit of their Living God the President in order to save their honor, nor would any truely sane person ask kids to fight against armed soldiers with only sharp pointy objects or tell them to strap a bomb on thier backs and run under a tank. Japanese nationalism was a whole order of magnitude higher then any flag-waving, Pledge-saying patriotism can hope to match.

Bullshit.
Read the post. The external manifestation depends on culture, that's all.
Patriotic Americans can be all too ready to "give their life for their country", and occasionally they might just shoot a "terrorist".
There is no conceptual difference.

My country, right or wrong, anyone?

My country, right or wrong, anyone?
Welcome back.
You do know more about Japanese culture than we do, but you seldomly actually tell us where we're wrong. So what am I to do?

Welcome back.
You do know more about Japanese culture than we do, but you seldomly actually tell us where we're wrong. So what am I to do?

I can say it! Say that the bombings were a good thing and that millions of Chinese and Japanese lives were saved as was a couple hundred thousand Coalition Lives since the invasion was going to be done by British, Australian, Canadian, and American Troops.

I'm off to bed now. Good night.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
-The Pledge of Allegiance of the United States of America

Well, by reading this pledge that you so daringly compare to brainwashed Japanese prepared to mutilate and fight with sharp sticks to the bloody death, I do believe there is no comparison. By reading this pledge, I see an oath of loyalty to a nation run by the people, that stands for the virtues of liberty and justice.

So, do tell how Japanese raised to believe that their leader was a god and would follow his every order, no matter how many were killed, compares to a simple oath to the virtues of liberty and justice for all? Because I, as the others who have responded, just don't get it.

Now you are comparing Allied forces to Nazis and WWII-era Japanese. I'm sorry, but what actions of genocide did Britain commit while they were being bombed daily by the Luftwaffe? What about the French forces under German occupation? What about the Polish? And what did the United States do that makes them on par with people who slaughter entire towns (the Massacre of Nanking)? Did they ship people to deathcamps where they were literally made to dig their own graves before being shot in the face or gassed, if not just incinerated in an oven (Holocaust)? What POWs did the Allies conduct sick experiments on, such as cutting the fetus out of a still-alive, conscious woman, or documenting the pressure at which a man's eyes explode from their skull (SS, Unit 731)?


In regards to the bombings, look at the numbers. All figures established by the US during planning for an invasion.

With invasion of Japanese homeland
100,000 minimum US soldiers dead
500,000-1,000,000 US casualties
5,000,000 minimum Japanese dead
10,000,000-15,000,000 Japanese casualties

With the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
0 US soldiers dead
0 US casualties
240,000 Japanese dead

Seems like a simple enough option to me.

-snip-
I'm not going to say that killing 240,000 people is a good thing, no matter what the circumstances.
Good Night.

Well, by reading this pledge that you so daringly compare to brainwashed Japanese prepared to mutilate and fight with sharp sticks to the bloody death, I do believe there is no comparison.
1) I'm sure NERVUN would agree when I say that it is unlikely that even the majority of civilians would have fought, after so many years of war.
It was the same in Germany. They tried to get them to fight the Allies, but the people had enough of war.
2) Again, you seem to overlook my point. You swear allegiance to something abstract that can, and will, be used to justify doing anything. Whether it is the Emperor that tells you to kill that guy, or whether it is best to help "liberty and justice", you end up killing the guy nonetheless.

Because I, as the others who have responded, just don't get it.
See above.

a) Now you are comparing Allied forces to Nazis and WWII-era Japanese.
b) And what did the United States do that makes them on par with people who slaughter entire towns (the Massacre of Nanking)?
a) Guess what? I'm allowed to. My family was subjected to Allied war crimes themselves. We were bombed, and my great aunt was raped by Soviet soldiers. But then again, there is always a difference between the Americans and the Soviets, isn't there?
As I said, just because the other side did something wrong most certainly doesn't excuse misbehaving yourself.

b) What about...Hiroshima? You slaughtered the town. I don't care about the reasons, because the Japanese had their own reasons to rape Nanking, and those would've sounded just as rational to them as your reasons do to you. And guess what, one of those reasons may very well be invoking the pledge of allegiance.

Welcome back.
You do know more about Japanese culture than we do, but you seldomly actually tell us where we're wrong. So what am I to do?
Well, if you wanted me to write a book length posting on Japanese culture and the war...

The point I am trying to make however, is that both sides of this debate do not seem to have a good grasp of Japanese culture (and I am not an expert by any strech of the imgination, I have studied, but just to find out I need to study more). We go around and around on this issue though with all sides invoking the notion that they KNOW how the Japanese would have reacted.

Some examples include Japanese surrendering. On one side you have those who state that Japan would have never surrendered and their civilians would have fought due to revearing the Showa Emperor as a god. This statement is an over generalzation that doesn't quite get the situation on the Japanese main islands at the time. Faith in the emperor was almost absolute, but the notion of his godhead is difficult because the words actually used would be decended from the kami, kami being Japanese for gods; however, the Native American (or Druid for your neck of the woods ;) ) notion of sprits would be far closer than the Western idea of a godhead.

Was the emperor considered a god, yes, but he was also considered human. But Japanese culture also revears the emperor, even now (you should see what its like when he comes into a town), and the state Shinto being pushed by the goverment at the time allowed for generations to grow up being told that obendiance to the emperor is what it means to be Japanese.

And even THOSE ideals are centuries old and have a long confused history in Japan.

And then yes, many Japanese were convinced that the Americans would commit unspeakable acts were they to ever land in Japan (the history for THAT also goes back a century and a half). After the war was over, many familes sent their daughters into the hills, or scared their faces in an effort to protect their daughters from being raped by American troops, something they knew would happen. Children were also sent off to prevent them from being eaten by American troops (The iorny being that when Americans landed, they were sure they would face nothing but waves of kamikaze attacks, both sides stared at each other very, very nerviously for a long time and waited for the other side to start being the monsters they had been fighting for so long).

However, as it was pointed out, they committed suicide instead of surrendering during Okinawa, but no one has brought up that some of those who did, were forced to by Imperial troops.

So yes, they were tired of the war, but it is very hard to say what would have happened if Japan had to have been invaded. What I wrote up above is a summary and honestly, not a good one. There is just so much invloved in this, there really is, including Japanese reactions to the bombing and the surrender.

Which is why I said that honestly, if you really are interested, I can recomend a number of books for you to help understand just what was going on at that time.

I'm not going to say that killing 240,000 people is a good thing, no matter what the circumstances.
Good Night.
Then you are lying to yourself and spouting crap to try and get around the fact that of the two options, only ONE was viable, only ONE made sense, and only ONE would spare millions of lives. And that one was chosen. If you can’t understand that, then you are simply unable to count. Tell me, how would YOU have ended the war?


1) I'm sure NERVUN would agree when I say that it is unlikely that even the majority of civilians would have fought, after so many years of war.
It was the same in Germany. They tried to get them to fight the Allies, but the people had enough of war.
2) Again, you seem to overlook my point. You swear allegiance to something abstract that can, and will, be used to justify doing anything. Whether it is the Emperor that tells you to kill that guy, or whether it is best to help "liberty and justice", you end up killing the guy nonetheless.
It was not just likely, it was expected. It was seen first hand by people who saw Japan prepare for what they believed an inevitable invasion by either the USSR or the US. As stated earlier, men, women, and children took up arms with everything from rifles to meat knives. They were told that they would die at the hands of the enemy through the most extreme torture if they were ever occupied. They were told to fight by who they believed to be a god. They were ready to die. And I’m sorry, but I distinctly recall Hitler Youth, kids at ages 15 and 16, shooting down incoming Soviet Soldiers in the Battle of Berlin. And these people were nowhere near as devoted as the Japanese – they were led by a man, not a god, and their culture did not demand death over dishonor.

As I thought I made clear, a US citizen swears allegiance to the virtues of justice and liberty. And maybe in where ever you come from, allegiance to one’s nation means the obligation to obey and carry out slaughter. Take a look at how many US citizens are so dead against what is going on today in Iraq! As stated in another thread, LESS THAN FORTY PERCENT of the population are for what is happening. And that is because the country they swear allegiance to gives them that CHOICE. A CHOICE the Japanese never knew. And the ability to choose for oneself and believe you want is what the United States is about, dating back to its original creators. And this is what makes the US, and ALL democratic nations, different.


a) Guess what? I'm allowed to. My family was subjected to Allied war crimes themselves. We were bombed, and my great aunt was raped by Soviet soldiers. But then again, there is always a difference between the Americans and the Soviets, isn't there?
As I said, just because the other side did something wrong most certainly doesn't excuse misbehaving yourself.
Being bombed is no war crime. That is a natural part of war, and has been since explosives were first concocted and a method of delivery was invented. As for your aunt, a terrible thing indeed. Though, if you read my post, I do not believe I mentioned the Soviet Union. Stalin is generally considered the number-two asshole of all time, right after Hitler, and for good reason. I believe that goes without saying. But even his warcrimes during the war were third-rate compared to the Nazi’s and Japanese’s. Now, can you tell me any comparisons to what I did say instead of putting words in my mouth?


b) What about...Hiroshima? You slaughtered the town. I don't care about the reasons, because the Japanese had their own reasons to rape Nanking, and those would've sounded just as rational to them as your reasons do to you. And guess what, one of those reasons may very well be invoking the pledge of allegiance.
Again, a comparison made between two things that are not comparable. The reasons are EVERYTHING, and if you refuse to acknowledge them, then you refuse history, and that is what this debate is all about.

The reason why the Japanese slaughtered the town of Nanking was because Chinese soldiers had been surrounded and took to the city as civilians for refuge. The Japanese shrugged and decided to teach the Chinese a lesson – that they would not be safe as the hands of Japan. They rounded up men, women, and children, and killed them on the spot or took them as POWs to perform such atrocities as those I cited from Unit 731.

The United States, as already established more times than I could count, nuked the city of Hiroshima because it was a production city housing soldiers. If it hadn’t been a nuke, it would have been the same conventional bombings that had leveled Tokyo – except one made the Japanese surrender, and the other, as already proven by the cities that were destroyed by conventional bombs, would not have. Once again, look at the numbers and tell me what your choice would have been.

Children were also sent off to prevent them from being eaten by American troops (The iorny being that when Americans landed, they were sure they would face nothing but waves of kamikaze attacks, both sides stared at each other very, very nerviously for a long time and waited for the other side to start being the monsters they had been fighting for so long).
I value your additions, as you have indeed brought the most here in terms of the Japanese culture. But when during the invasions of Guadalcanal, the Philippines, Marianas, Aleutian Islands, Indonesia, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa did this happen exactly? The Japanese fought until there were no Japanese able to fight.


So yes, they were tired of the war, but it is very hard to say what would have happened if Japan had to have been invaded. What I wrote up above is a summary and honestly, not a good one. There is just so much invloved in this, there really is, including Japanese reactions to the bombing and the surrender.
I agree they were tired of war. But I think the best example of how prepared they were to fight is that an unconditional surrender came on August 15 - one day short of a full week after the second of two nukes had been dropped on Japan and Soviet soldiers began an all-out assault on Japanese territory. And even then, a coup was nearly successful by military leaders in order to continue the war effort. Propaganda was at a crazed level, such as one notable event where soldiers were told that wearing white clothes would protect them from any more nuclear attacks.

I value your additions, as you have indeed brought the most here in terms of the Japanese culture. But when during the invasions of Guadalcanal, the Philippines, Marianas, Aleutian Islands, Indonesia, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa did this happen exactly? The Japanese fought until there were no Japanese able to fight.
Sorry, I should have been more clear on the timeline, this was after the surrender of Japan and the start of the alied occupation of Japan. Many of the staff of SCAP office noted how very few women and children were seen right after the start of the occupation and this persisted for about 6 months to a year before the bulk of the familes were finally called back from the mountains of Japan. And Japanese troops would surrender, just not in the numbers that would be expected and they would fight longer after an alied troop would have given up.

I agree they were tired of war. But I think the best example of how prepared they were to fight is that an unconditional surrender came on August 15 - one day short of a full week after the second of two nukes had been dropped on Japan and Soviet soldiers began an all-out assault on Japanese territory. And even then, a coup was nearly successful by military leaders in order to continue the war effort. Propaganda was at a crazed level, such as one notable event where soldiers were told that wearing white clothes would protect them from any more nuclear attacks.
That was the military high command, which was and is seperate from the general population. That population was what I was speculating on, and that population is the one we will never know if they would have fight or not. My own conclcusion is that a sizeable majority WOULD have fought, even with the bamboo spears they were given, but the whole of the nation would not have. What the actual ratio would have been we will never, thankfully, know.

http://www.nydailynews.com/08-05-2005/news/story/334533p-285839c.html

We fail to realize sometimes what the actual survivors think of the atomic bomb.

This should put aside plenty of arguements for those who read through it..especially the part of a 13 year old girl being trained to fight with sharpened bamboo sticks incase of invasion..

Then you are lying to yourself and spouting crap to try and get around the fact that of the two options, only ONE was viable, only ONE made sense, and only ONE would spare millions of lives. And that one was chosen. If you can’t understand that, then you are simply unable to count. Tell me, how would YOU have ended the war?
Actually, it merely means this:
There is the concept of a "sunk cost". A sunk cost is something you gave up in the past and that cannot have any bearing whatsoever on your decision.
So when you decided to gamble, and you lost your money, then your odds haven't changed. It makes no sense to make a decision based on what money you previously lost/won.

Same here. What happened previously is irrelevant. The decision must be made as much in a vacuum as possible. Even then one can still argue that it was better to drop the bombs. I however think that there were much better things to do.
The Nukes could have been demonstrated without sacrificing 240,000 innocent people. As I have said, if you had nuked Mt Fuji, that would have been a clear sign for the Japanese Leadership, who I assume had their headquarters somewhere close to the mountain. It also would have been more immediate than the sudden information black-out, after which it took ages for the Japanese to actually find out what happened. Hardly an effective demonstration.

It was not just likely, it was expected. It was seen first hand by people who saw Japan prepare for what they believed an inevitable invasion by either the USSR or the US. As stated earlier, men, women, and children took up arms with everything from rifles to meat knives. They were told that they would die at the hands of the enemy through the most extreme torture if they were ever occupied.
Indeed. But as you have heard from NERVUN, that is a generalisation, and you can't be serious if you say that every man, woman and child would have fought you.

They were told to fight by who they believed to be a god. They were ready to die. And I’m sorry, but I distinctly recall Hitler Youth, kids at ages 15 and 16, shooting down incoming Soviet Soldiers in the Battle of Berlin. And these people were nowhere near as devoted as the Japanese – they were led by a man, not a god, and their culture did not demand death over dishonor.
HJ units were not civilians though. They were trained military personell, and recruited along with the VS.
I was talking about the Werwolf Units.

As I thought I made clear, a US citizen swears allegiance to the virtues of justice and liberty.
You're assuming that justice and liberty are not just empty words. I think that the vast majority of people in the US have no idea what liberty and justice really are, since they don't know what it would be like without them.
The way these words are used these days, especially by your PotUS, suggest that in almost Newspeak Fashion the actual meaning is being extracted and replaced.

Being bombed is no war crime. That is a natural part of war, and has been since explosives were first concocted and a method of delivery was invented.
Easy for you to say. Terror Bombings are directed against Non-Combatants, and that makes them a war crime in my book. That there are still people who excuse these things is a disgusting joke.

Now, can you tell me any comparisons to what I did say instead of putting words in my mouth?
You mean something like genocide? No, not to my knowledge. Only the Soviets did that. But Terror Bombings, shooting of everyone who wore a SS Uniform (or something close to it) and the like qualify IMHO.

Again, a comparison made between two things that are not comparable. The reasons are EVERYTHING, and if you refuse to acknowledge them, then you refuse history, and that is what this debate is all about.
See above. You either kill 240,000 people or you don't. That's all that you need to decide.
They could have said: "These casualities are not acceptable" and then thought of something else. They couldn't be bothered.

The reason why the Japanese slaughtered the town of Nanking was because Chinese soldiers had been surrounded and took to the city as civilians for refuge.
I'm not excusing things now...but the Japanese had their reasons for Nanking too.
Just weeks before they had been fighting in Shanghai, losing about 200,000 men in urban combat. For them it may very well have been a reasoning of "them rather than us".
And besides, actually the Chinese army had been preventing the civilians from fleeing, so only the government officials got out. Then suddenly the Chinese changed their plan, but there weren't enough boats to evacuate all their soldiers, so some of them may have hidden in civilian guise.

Once again, look at the numbers and tell me what your choice would have been.
As I said, my choice would have been to dropped it somewhere were they would see the damage it would do, but where it wouldn't kill all these innocent people.

You all seem to dabble in history, current events, and politics. Would any of you like to help me set up a forum that dabbles in these areas?

I'm not excusing things now...but the Japanese had their reasons for Nanking too.
Just weeks before they had been fighting in Shanghai, losing about 200,000 men in urban combat. For them it may very well have been a reasoning of "them rather than us".
And besides, actually the Chinese army had been preventing the civilians from fleeing, so only the government officials got out. Then suddenly the Chinese changed their plan, but there weren't enough boats to evacuate all their soldiers, so some of them may have hidden in civilian guise.

Its okay to call terror bombing a war crime, and say its a joke to defend the position..but you fail to realize you're making a justification of a war crime. So some soldiers hid in civilian clothes(this isnt even confirmed), this makes it understandable? So the Japanese lost 200,000 troops at Shanghai(this number seems too high and I'll check it later for accuracy), that makes it okay for Nanking?

If so, then by your logic, Iwo Jima and Okinawa green light the use of tactics to strike back at both civilians and the military. Seeing as how two of the most entire battles of the entire war were in the Pacific and cost the US greatly in both of them...am I right?

I'm not going to say that killing 240,000 people is a good thing, no matter what the circumstances.
Good Night.

Then what about 5,000,000 dead if we did use chemical weapons on the Japanese?

You all seem to dabble in history, current events, and politics. Would any of you like to help me set up a forum that dabbles in these areas?

I won't mind it.

You all seem to dabble in history, current events, and politics. Would any of you like to help me set up a forum that dabbles in these areas?

il give it a go

The atomic bomb had been invented.

Imagine what might have happened if Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not been the first cities upon which it had been used. Imagine that the horrible power of those weapons had not been demonstrated and because of that, nations and the U.N. had not been so terrified of the possibility of a nuclear war(especially once the russians created it and the cold war started in full force) that numerous other countries and even private groups obtained nuclear weapons before the first one was detonated over a population(like maybe New York, Paris or Havana). Suppose that by the time the genie was out of the bottle, there were ten times as many bottles with genies in them.

Not only did the atomic bombs put a definitive unarguable stop to WW2, but the United States and the rest of the world witnessed just how final a nuclear war would be. Witnessed it early.

The atomic bomb had been invented.

Imagine what might have happened if Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not been the first cities upon which it had been used. Imagine that the horrible power of those weapons had not been demonstrated and because of that, nations and the U.N. had not been so terrified of the possibility of a nuclear war(especially once the russians created it and the cold war started in full force) that numerous other countries and even private groups obtained nuclear weapons before the first one was detonated over a population(like maybe New York, Paris or Havana). Suppose that by the time the genie was out of the bottle, there were ten times as many bottles with genies in them.

Not only did the atomic bombs put a definitive unarguable stop to WW2, but the United States and the rest of the world witnessed just how final a nuclear war would be. Witnessed it early.

A serious post from you Lunatic Goofballs? I never thought I see the day :D

Nice post Lunatic :)

A serious post from you Lunatic Goofballs? I never thought I see the day :D

Nice post Lunatic :)

I like to keep people guessing. ;)

I think that if the U.S. is so quick to justify its use of nuclear weapons then they should have no problem with nukes being used on them. :upyours:

I think that if the U.S. is so quick to justify its use of nuclear weapons then they should have no problem with nukes being used on them. :upyours:

Take a history lesson Europe and Eurasia.

Also, if someone tries to nuke us, they'll be heated up several hundered thousand degrees. And we'll only do that if someone decides to nuke us first. So what would the justification for nuking the United States?

Nuking someone in the 21st century is relatively simple..merely smuggle a nuclear suitecase bomb (they do exist all the major world powers have some :) about 5 were released from an ex-soviet stock pile :eek: )

and then detonate...vwalla, no matter how many anti-missile systems countries like the U.S, Japan, ..even germany, and britain have..you can't beet old fashioned smuggling....these things only have about a 80 kiloton yeild (?...is that right? maybe it was 21) but its still efective..

You can get all kinds of theories of why the bomb was dropped like that it was simply a warning to the Soviets not to mess with us or they'll get bombed to. Who knows? I don't know the minute details if the hundreds of thousand of casualties is accurate if Japan was invaded or if a blocade was impractical. I DO know that although the civilian casualties at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrendous, it really isn't any different from the firebombing of Dresden or using conventional weapons to turn a city into ruins. Many civilians died in WWII and simply using civilian casualties with the dropping of the bomb just doesn't work given the realities of the "total war" being fought at the time.

I think that if the U.S. is so quick to justify its use of nuclear weapons then they should have no problem with nukes being used on them. :upyours:Ahhh... here is one person who didn't learn the lesson of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. :(

The atomic bomb had been invented.

Imagine what might have happened if Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not been the first cities upon which it had been used. Imagine that the horrible power of those weapons had not been demonstrated and because of that, nations and the U.N. had not been so terrified of the possibility of a nuclear war(especially once the russians created it and the cold war started in full force) that numerous other countries and even private groups obtained nuclear weapons before the first one was detonated over a population(like maybe New York, Paris or Havana). Suppose that by the time the genie was out of the bottle, there were ten times as many bottles with genies in them.

Not only did the atomic bombs put a definitive unarguable stop to WW2, but the United States and the rest of the world witnessed just how final a nuclear war would be. Witnessed it early.what I've been saying for the longest time. hope they listen to you better than they did me.

Actually, it merely means this:
There is the concept of a "sunk cost"...Same here. What happened previously is irrelevant. The decision must be made as much in a vacuum as possible. Even then one can still argue that it was better to drop the bombs. I however think that there were much better things to do.
The Nukes could have been demonstrated without sacrificing 240,000 innocent people. As I have said, if you had nuked Mt Fuji, that would have been a clear sign for the Japanese Leadership, who I assume had their headquarters somewhere close to the mountain. It also would have been more immediate than the sudden information black-out, after which it took ages for the Japanese to actually find out what happened. Hardly an effective demonstration.
You call it "sunk coast", I call it horseshit. Two choices, and one was chosen. Ages? It took about a day for the emperor to find out an entire city had been destroyed by one bomb. If it had taken "ages", then how is it that in under a week the Japanese knew to surrender on August 15? Meanwhile, if Fugi had been nuked, it is a mountain. Wonderful, you've just spent a warhead on nuking a volcano, with no military or production targets, and with the enemy having no gauge of how destructive nuclear weapons really are. And the Japanese leadership was going to meet in what was left of Tokyo, which is why they feared the dropping of the bomb there.
Indeed. But as you have heard from NERVUN, that is a generalisation, and you can't be serious if you say that every man, woman and child would have fought you.
Look at the article someone just posted.
http://www.nydailynews.com/08-05-20...3p-285839c.html
Thirteen year old girl, trained to fight with a sharpened bamboo stick. If not all would fight an invader, then most would have. And bamboo sticks against Garands, Carbines, Thompsons, flamethrowers, and Springfield snipers? That would have been a slaughter.
HJ units were not civilians though. They were trained military personell, and recruited along with the VS.
I was talking about the Werwolf Units.
How trained they were, at that point in the war, is debatable. But I am showing that the generals and soldiers would not admit defeat even after all of Germany had been crushed and Soviet soldiers were walking into the Reichstag. Meanwhile the Japanese had a figure that they were told by their culture was their leader, and that he was to be obeyed no matter the costs.
You're assuming that justice and liberty are not just empty words. I think that the vast majority of people in the US have no idea what liberty and justice really are, since they don't know what it would be like without them.
The way these words are used these days, especially by your PotUS, suggest that in almost Newspeak Fashion the actual meaning is being extracted and replaced.
Justice and liberty are not hollow, because through liberty the people have the ability to dissent from the government. The Japanese did not. Period.
Easy for you to say. Terror Bombings are directed against Non-Combatants, and that makes them a war crime in my book. That there are still people who excuse these things is a disgusting joke.
And what terror bombings did the Allies commit? I think what you need to realize is that back in the early 1940s there were no such thing as smart bombs. Bombers would find what they thought to be their target, and try as best they could to blow it up. When did Allied forces purposely attack civilian areas for the purpose of killing those civilians? Now, if you want to compare that to the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain...
You mean something like genocide? No, not to my knowledge. Only the Soviets did that. But Terror Bombings, shooting of everyone who wore a SS Uniform (or something close to it) and the like qualify IMHO.
Shooting of everyone...in a SS uniform...so? They are soldiers fighting in a war, the "Defense Squad" of Hitler, infamous for more reasons than I could count. Now, had they removed their uniforms and fled into the nearest town, which was then massacred by Allied forces (as the Japanese did in Nanking), then that might mean something. The so-called "terror bombings" have already been mentioned above.
See above. You either kill 240,000 people or you don't. That's all that you need to decide.
They could have said: "These casualities are not acceptable" and then thought of something else. They couldn't be bothered.
Thought of something? You sound like they could have ended the war on a whim, sitting back in an easy chair sipping bourbon and smoking a pipe. If you can't see that one of the two options was the better one, then you need to go back to gradeshcool and learn how to count.
I'm not excusing things now...but the Japanese had their reasons for Nanking too.
Just weeks before they had been fighting in Shanghai, losing about 200,000 men in urban combat. For them it may very well have been a reasoning of "them rather than us".

And besides, actually the Chinese army had been preventing the civilians from fleeing, so only the government officials got out. Then suddenly the Chinese changed their plan, but there weren't enough boats to evacuate all their soldiers, so some of them may have hidden in civilian guise.
So they take heavy casualties in a battle, and now they can murder Chinese civilians at will? Wow, that makes a lot of sense to me. You know, why didn't the US just carpet nuke Japan even after their surrender just because Iwo Jima and Okinawa were a pain in the ass to take?
As I said, my choice would have been to dropped it somewhere were they would see the damage it would do, but where it wouldn't kill all these innocent people.
Like where? Where would they have been able to see it, and gauge the destruction for themselves and know that it wasn't just US propaganda? Where could it have been done that Japanese propaganda would not have been able to cover it up? Maybe we should have done it off the coast since it seems benign enough - that way we could have polluted their water supply and radiated the fish they relied on for food. Nuke a dormant volcano on Fuji and hope they realize just how powerful it is, even though it took two destroyed cities to make them surrender, both of which of great naval, ground military, and economic importance. I doubt a mountain that could barely be seen from Tokyo would make that great a difference.

Another thing regarding Mt. Fuji.

Its a VOLCANO! Care to imagine what a Nuclear Bomb would do to a volcano? Not something I want to picture.

Another thing regarding Mt. Fuji.

Its a VOLCANO! Care to imagine what a Nuclear Bomb would do to a volcano? Not something I want to picture.
Would sure be an interesting science experiment, though :)

Would sure be an interesting science experiment, though :)hmmm...what would be the odds that if the hypothetical results occured if Mt. Fuji was bombed, that America would be called EcoTerrorists for erupting an extremely large Volcano and causing probably more deaths than dropping the bomb on two cities...

hmmm...what would be the odds that if the hypothetical results occured if Mt. Fuji was bombed, that America would be called EcoTerrorists for erupting an extremely large Volcano and causing probably more deaths than dropping the bomb on two cities...

Considering it is a dorment Volcano too. Yes it would be an interesting experiment. Hopefully the volcano doesn't blow.

Its okay to call terror bombing a war crime, and say its a joke to defend the position..but you fail to realize you're making a justification of a war crime. So some soldiers hid in civilian clothes(this isnt even confirmed), this makes it understandable? So the Japanese lost 200,000 troops at Shanghai(this number seems too high and I'll check it later for accuracy), that makes it okay for Nanking?

If so, then by your logic, Iwo Jima and Okinawa green light the use of tactics to strike back at both civilians and the military. Seeing as how two of the most entire battles of the entire war were in the Pacific and cost the US greatly in both of them...am I right?
No. Please don't misinterpret me like that.
I'm saying that both events are disgusting. But I'm saying that you can make up arguments for either. Both killed roughly the same number of people, both were to avoid one's own casualties. On those two counts there is a similarity.

Then what about 5,000,000 dead if we did use chemical weapons on the Japanese?
:confused:
That would obviously have been even worse, had it been feasible on such a scale.

You call it "sunk coast", I call it horseshit. Two choices, and one was chosen. Ages? It took about a day for the emperor to find out an entire city had been destroyed by one bomb. If it had taken "ages", then how is it that in under a week the Japanese knew to surrender on August 15? Meanwhile, if Fugi had been nuked, it is a mountain. Wonderful, you've just spent a warhead on nuking a volcano, with no military or production targets, and with the enemy having no gauge of how destructive nuclear weapons really are. And the Japanese leadership was going to meet in what was left of Tokyo, which is why they feared the dropping of the bomb there.
The advisors of the Emperor insisted that a nuclear bomb wasn't feasible even after the bomb was dropped. They had no idea what it was, and there was no confirmation until ages (as in "a relatively long time") that it hadn't been a regular raid.
Don't you think a nuke would have left a big hole in the mountain? A hole that everyone could see on a nice spring morning? From the Imperial HQ maybe?

Look at the article someone just posted.
http://www.nydailynews.com/08-05-20...3p-285839c.html
Thirteen year old girl, trained to fight with a sharpened bamboo stick. If not all would fight an invader, then most would have. And bamboo sticks against Garands, Carbines, Thompsons, flamethrowers, and Springfield snipers? That would have been a slaughter.
And again, I'm telling you that these are exceptions, not the rule.

How trained they were, at that point in the war, is debatable. But I am showing that the generals and soldiers would not admit defeat even after all of Germany had been crushed and Soviet soldiers were walking into the Reichstag. Meanwhile the Japanese had a figure that they were told by their culture was their leader, and that he was to be obeyed no matter the costs.
You know what HJ training entailed? There are armies that were trained less.
The civilians did admit defeat. They hung up white curtains when they could, although they risked being shot by the few remaining fanatic units.
I refuse to generalise. The Japanese were no more eager to get killed than the Germans were. They had been told that the Americans were monsters. The same goes for the Soviets in Germany. Nonetheless, after six years of war, they didn't resist anymore.
And the Germans also had this one person cult, the idea of obeying at any cost. Just as strong as the Emperor (who wasn't doing much leading anyways, it was the Generals who were giving those orders) cult was in Japan.

Justice and liberty are not hollow, because through liberty the people have the ability to dissent from the government.
Unless they are being told that dissent is against liberty...
Tell me: How can anyone be against Liberty?

When did Allied forces purposely attack civilian areas for the purpose of killing those civilians?
You need to educate yourself.
"There are no innocent civilians, so it doesn't bother me so much to be killing innocent bystanders." - Curtis LeMay.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/dresden/harris.html
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0995d.asp

Shooting of everyone...in a SS uniform...so?
Note: Shooting after they had surrendered = War Crime.

Thought of something? You sound like they could have ended the war on a whim, sitting back in an easy chair sipping bourbon and smoking a pipe. If you can't see that one of the two options was the better one, then you need to go back to gradeshcool and learn how to count.
The war was already over my friend. Japan had lost its last carriers and battleships. The Soviets were taking over Korea. Japan could do nothing but wait for the end.
There was no need for an unconditional surrender, a simple peace treaty would have done it. The only people who were still being killed were Japanese people (majority civilians) killed by the Bombings. There was no pressure for time, other than the shortages of food in Japan maybe.

So they take heavy casualties in a battle, and now they can murder Chinese civilians at will? Wow, that makes a lot of sense to me. You know, why didn't the US just carpet nuke Japan even after their surrender just because Iwo Jima and Okinawa were a pain in the ass to take?
Because the war was over by then. Note that that was exactly what the US Tactic for an invasion was: They expected heavy resistance and urban combat, so they prepared for an all out assault, material superiority and shelling/bombing wherever they could find something. Why do you think they estimated those millions of Japanese deaths? I've even had people here justify the nukes with "one less city to worry about".

Like where? Where would they have been able to see it, and gauge the destruction for themselves and know that it wasn't just US propaganda? Where could it have been done that Japanese propaganda would not have been able to cover it up?
It doesn't matter what the population thinks when it comes to decision making in this situation. If the Generals could have seen it for themselves, especially in the form of a big crater on Mt Fuji, then that would have mattered a lot more than just another city bombed.

:confused:
That would obviously have been even worse, had it been feasible on such a scale.

Oh it was feasible Leonstein. The use of Gas was written into the war plans, including how it was going to be delivered.

It doesn't matter what the population thinks when it comes to decision making in this situation. If the Generals could have seen it for themselves, especially in the form of a big crater on Mt Fuji, then that would have mattered a lot more than just another city bombed.

And then the Volcano would erupt and you'd have a bigger mess to worry about than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Oh it was feasible Leonstein. The use of Gas was written into the war plans, including how it was going to be delivered.
As in a tactical measure? Well in that case it obviously was possible.
But I would just like to say: I think an invasion would probably have been worse than the bombings, not because of the Japanese doing something stupid, but because of the Americans thinking the Japanese would.
But I don't think that this was a zero-sum game, in which you could only choose either one or the other.

And then the Volcano would erupt and you'd have a bigger mess to worry about than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I don't know how possible that is. The nukes weren't that big, and presumably you wouldn't have dropped it into the crater, but into the flank, as far as that is possible.

I don't know how possible that is. The nukes weren't that big, and presumably you wouldn't have dropped it into the crater, but into the flank, as far as that is possible.it still wouldn't make the impression (pardon the pun) it would have. I believe the two atomic bombs were air burst. they actually detonated above the city, not on impact.

go to the testing sites, do you see craters around? I think not. even the one they tested in the US, Almagotto (or something like that)

and an explosion on the Mountain side can be explained away as a new weapon that Japan was testing to calm the populace. but a city dissapearing is very difficult to hide. especially one that was feeding the Japanese Military machine.

now back to your MT. FUJI demostration. Had that happened and succeeded, the true effects of radiation would NOT be known and thus there won't be any restraint on the next war to use Nuclear Weapons. IS that what you want? People to feel good about using Nuclear Weapons? The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were in the KiloTons, the next weapon would've been in the MEGATONS and the devistation much more severe.

As in a tactical measure? Well in that case it obviously was possible.
But I would just like to say: I think an invasion would probably have been worse than the bombings, not because of the Japanese doing something stupid, but because of the Americans thinking the Japanese would.
But I don't think that this was a zero-sum game, in which you could only choose either one or the other.

All the US had to do was look towards Okinawa and you can estimate your casualties from there. Okinawa was one of the bloodiest engagements of the whole damn war.

I don't know how possible that is. The nukes weren't that big, and presumably you wouldn't have dropped it into the crater, but into the flank, as far as that is possible.

The ground will still shake from the explosion. If it shakes hard enough, it'll allow magma to come to the surface and you could have a devestating eruption. *shudders* Not something I want to drop on a dormant volcano.

now back to your MT. FUJI demostration. Had that happened and succeeded, the true effects of radiation would NOT be known and thus there won't be any restraint on the next war to use Nuclear Weapons. IS that what you want? People to feel good about using Nuclear Weapons? The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were in the KiloTons, the next weapon would've been in the MEGATONS and the devistation much more severe.
Good Point, but it wasn't exactly like the US was interested in what happened to those exposed to radiation until later.
And again, any case in which a nuke would be used against civilians would be just as wrong as this one, no matter what happened before, or what we know about radiation.

All the US had to do was look towards Okinawa and you can estimate your casualties from there. Okinawa was one of the bloodiest engagements of the whole damn war.
Define "bloodiest".

Define "bloodiest".

Americans lost over 72,000 casualties during that battle, twice the number of Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal combined. Over 100,000 Japanese soldiers were either killed or took their own lives rather then surrender, along with 150,00 Okinawans, a third of the island's population.

Define "bloodiest".

America:
18,900+ killed,
38,000 wounded + 33,096 non combat wounded,
763 planes shot down

Japan:
76,000+ soldiers killed and
27,000 soldiers civilians killed,
7,455 surrendered/captured (2,300 japanese),
100,000+ civilians killed

Good Point, but it wasn't exactly like the US was interested in what happened to those exposed to radiation until later.
And again, any case in which a nuke would be used against civilians would be just as wrong as this one, no matter what happened before, or what we know about radiation.so you are saying that you would rather hundreds of thousands dying instead of the thousands that died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

the bomb would've been dropped. and had the true horror not shown, there would be no Nuclear Watchdog, no restrain on coutries building such weapons. so more countries would have them. then the next time they're used, other countries would retaliate... is that what you want?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed the real power of Nuclear weapons. and with their sacrifice, no other nuclear weapons were used. Period. thus the best way to honor their memory is not fussing about weather or not the bombs should have been dropped, but the fact that no other Nuclear Bombs were dropped.

Kursk:
Germans
200,510 dead, wounded, and captured
500 tanks
200 aircraft
Soviets
860,370 dead, wounded, and captured
1,500 tanks
1,000 aircraft

Stalingrad:
Germans
850,000 military
Soviets
750,000 to 1.5 million military
40,000 to 150,000 civilian (some estimates are higher)

Operation August Storm:
Soviets
(Soviet estimate)
8,219 KIA,
22,264 WIA;
(Japanese estimate)
20,000+ KIA
50,000+ WIA
Japanese
(Soviet estimate)
83,737 KIA
594,000 POWs;
(Japanese estimate)
21,000 KIA
? POWs

It may have been big in Pacific Standards, but it certainly wasn't "the whole damn war". You need to put these things into perspective.

Kursk:
Germans
200,510 dead, wounded, and captured
500 tanks
200 aircraft
Soviets
860,370 dead, wounded, and captured
1,500 tanks
1,000 aircraft

Stalingrad:
Germans
850,000 military
Soviets
750,000 to 1.5 million military
40,000 to 150,000 civilian (some estimates are higher)

Not surprising by how the Easter Front in Europe was runned. Yes I already knew how destructive this was so your not convincing me of anything.

Operation August Storm:
Soviets
(Soviet estimate)
8,219 KIA,
22,264 WIA;
(Japanese estimate)
20,000+ KIA
50,000+ WIA
Japanese
(Soviet estimate)
83,737 KIA
594,000 POWs;
(Japanese estimate)
21,000 KIA
? POWs

Pretty much accurate.

It may have been big in Pacific Standards, but it certainly wasn't "the whole damn war". You need to put these things into perspective.

I did!

the bomb would've been dropped. and had the true horror not shown, there would be no Nuclear Watchdog, no restrain on coutries building such weapons. so more countries would have them. then the next time they're used, other countries would retaliate... is that what you want?
If you use the "ethics" that I have been trying to put forward this whole time, then there wouldn't be a need for any of these things.

The idea that the Americans didn't know what dropping a huge bomb on people would do to them is laughable really. They built the thing and they tested it, I doubt they could have been naive enough to not get the message.

If you use the "ethics" that I have been trying to put forward this whole time, then there wouldn't be a need for any of these things.

War comes down to numbers.

The idea that the Americans didn't know what dropping a huge bomb on people would do to them is laughable really. They built the thing and they tested it, I doubt they could have been naive enough to not get the message.

Not the radiation and what precisely it would do to a city. That they didn't know. Even they were stunned at the destruction wrought at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I did!
Let's just say that the Americans are for whatever reasons particularly "squeemish" (for lack of better a word) when it comes to their casualties. And that's why they are particularly likely to kill civilians to prevent their "boys" from getting shot.
True, the other powers would probably have done the same thing, but that doesn't excuse it either. Especially with today's America proclaiming itself such a force of good in the world.

I believe there hasn't been an apology either, has there?

Let's just say that the Americans are for whatever reasons particularly "squeemish" (for lack of better a word) when it comes to their casualties.

In today's day an age, your right. However, I'm not the one to run at the first sign of trouble.

And that's why they are particularly likely to kill civilians to prevent their "boys" from getting shot.

Only if we have too. Not by choice.

True, the other powers would probably have done the same thing, but that doesn't excuse it either. Especially with today's America proclaiming itself such a force of good in the world.

And we are.

I believe there hasn't been an apology either, has there?

Why should we apologize?

Not the radiation and what precisely it would do to a city. That they didn't know. Even they were stunned at the destruction wrought at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The Politicians maybe. Possibly even the guys from the military.
But not the scientists, who knew very well about radiation, but who were left out of the loop as soon as they had finished the bomb (except Oppenheimer, who seemed to be a bit of madman).

The Politicians maybe. Possibly even the guys from the military.
But not the scientists, who knew very well about radiation, but who were left out of the loop as soon as they had finished the bomb (except Oppenheimer, who seemed to be a bit of madman).

No the scientists didn't know that much about the radiation either.

Why should we apologize?
Killing 240,000 innocent people may have something to do with it...

Killing 240,000 innocent people may have something to do with it...

Where's our apology for starting the war in the first place? Where's our apology for the mistreatment of Prisoners?

They haven't apologized to us yet and I'll be damned if I'm going to let the Government apologized for something that was 100% legitament.

No the scientists didn't know that much about the radiation either.
"Pierre worked with his wife Marie Curie in isolating polonium and radium. They were the first to use the term 'radioactivity', and were pioneers in its study. Their work, including Marie's celebrated doctoral work, made use of a sensitive piezoelectric electrometer constructed by Pierre and his brother Jacques.

Pierre and one of his students made the first discovery of nuclear energy, by identifying the continuous emission of heat from radium particles. He also investigated the radiation emissions of radioactive substances, and through the use of magnetic fields was able to show that some of the emissions were positively charged, some were negative and some were neutral. These correspond to alpha, beta and gamma radiation."

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1896USA1.html
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1905USA1.html

"Pierre worked with his wife Marie Curie in isolating polonium and radium. They were the first to use the term 'radioactivity', and were pioneers in its study. Their work, including Marie's celebrated doctoral work, made use of a sensitive piezoelectric electrometer constructed by Pierre and his brother Jacques.

Pierre and one of his students made the first discovery of nuclear energy, by identifying the continuous emission of heat from radium particles. He also investigated the radiation emissions of radioactive substances, and through the use of magnetic fields was able to show that some of the emissions were positively charged, some were negative and some were neutral. These correspond to alpha, beta and gamma radiation."

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1896USA1.html
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1905USA1.html

They know about Radiation dude but not what the effects will be during an atomic bomb explosion.

If you use the "ethics" that I have been trying to put forward this whole time, then there wouldn't be a need for any of these things.Unfortunately, your Ethics are baised on the information gotten from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. thus you are using circular reasoning.

The idea that the Americans didn't know what dropping a huge bomb on people would do to them is laughable really. They built the thing and they tested it, I doubt they could have been naive enough to not get the message.
1) they tested it on mock towns, deserted towns, not on inhabited towns. so they only viewed the A-Bomb as a bigger and more powerful explosive and the results of those mock towns were the same as Carpet bombing from B-52's so to the Generals it was better because you send fewer planes and drop only one bomb instead of hundreds.

2) they build the Bomb during a war... and guess what, the Germans and Russians were also bulding such bombs. think they would've delayed using it to test it more? I think not.

3) the results of Prolonged Exposure to Radiation was not known... Do you know when the results of radiation exposure to humans became known? When the two A Bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Where's our apology for starting the war in the first place? Where's our apology for the mistreatment of Prisoners?

They haven't apologized to us yet and I'll be damned if I'm going to let the Government apologized for something that was 100% legitament.
And here we have it: A prime example of Revisionism.
A Japanese textbook couldn't have done it better.

And here we have it: A prime example of Revisionism.
A Japanese textbook couldn't have done it better.

Whose revising what?

They launched an attack on Pearl Harbor with NO DECLARATION OF WAR (that is a known fact) at 7:55 AM Hawaiian time (another Known Fact)

They mistreated our Prisoners and did not, REPEAT NOT, give them protection under the Geneva Conventions (Another Fact)

So the only revisionist person here is YOU!

The Politicians maybe. Possibly even the guys from the military.
But not the scientists, who knew very well about radiation, but who were left out of the loop as soon as they had finished the bomb (except Oppenheimer, who seemed to be a bit of madman).wait... wait... wait...

so you admit that the Government didn't know about Radiation... you admit that POSSIBLY the military didn't know about the Radiation... but the Scientists knew...

Who runs your Country and and your military? the Government and the military? or the scientists?

and how did the scientists know about prolonged Human Exposure to Radiation and it's effects? Where did they get the data from? they certainly didn't test it on Humans, so where did these scientists get the data from?

Two nukes: 224,000 Dead
Invasion: 2-5 Million Dead.

Cold hard unfogiving numbers, thats what it came down to. a little thing about Nuclear Weapons, the devices dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ranged betwen 13-25Kilotons and are (as yet) the only Nuclear Devices to ever be used in combat. had they not been used, we might have seen Nukes in the range of 8-25Megatons being used

Note : Bravo (First H bomb test), was 25 Megatons, it scorded the island and made several others uninhabital..the USSR, Detonated the first and only 100Megaton Nuclear Bomb,

Unfortunately, your Ethics are baised on the information gotten from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. thus you are using circular reasoning.
No, my ethics are based on Game Theory, and on the good old "Golden Rule".

"For the actual test, the plutonium core nuclear weapon, nicknamed the gadget, was hoisted on the top of a 20-metre steel tower for detonation — the height would give a better indication of what the weapon would be like when dropped from an airplane, as detonation in the air would maximize the amount of energy applied directly to the target (as it expanded in a spherical shape), and would kick up the least nuclear fallout."
So they did know.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/trin-rad.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Trinity_crater.jpg = what would have been on the side of Mt Fuji.

So the only revisionist person here is YOU!
I agree with you that these things happened. I'm not revising anything.

But you try to argue that it was a good idea to kill all these people, because the US Leadership lacked the creativity, or the will, to think of a better solution.

I agree with you that these things happened. I'm not revising anything.

But you try to argue that it was a good idea to kill all these people, because the US Leadership lacked the creativity, or the will, to think of a better solution.

The only other solution was I-N-V-A-S-I-O-N! And I already told you that 5,000,000 would die to Gas alone if it was ever used. To me, I'd take the 240,000 dead.

War comes down to numbers. What plan would give you a victory but not at a high cost. In this case, it was the Atomic Bomb. It saved millions of Chinese, Japanes, and hundreds of thousands of coalition lives.

I agree with you that these things happened. I'm not revising anything.

But you try to argue that it was a good idea to kill all these people, because the US Leadership lacked the creativity, or the will, to think of a better solution.

But what was the better solution? Even at the end of WWII, the US and USSR were getting hostile, and the civil war in China was reaching its critical stage. We couldn't waste the manpower, equipment, or money on invading Japan when we needed to end the fight to reposition against our new enemy.

The whole dealing with quotes and such really annoys me, so I'll just go paragraph by paragraph. Please excuse my inherent laziness that comes at this hour :)

Using your belief that Japan would not believe that there was any atomic bomb even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and even after Truman told them and the world, then how would bombing an uninhabited mountain do any good? If disappearing cities didn't make them believe, then a small crater on a distant mountain would?

I believe, as evidenced by the 13 year old girl ready to fight to the death with a bamboo stick, that those who would not fight were the exception.

I know the civilians did want peace, but I meant in the case of Germany, the leaders and military. I am trying to illustrate that Japan not only had such leaders and military, but had people on top of that ready to defend against invasion.

Hey, believe what you want about liberty in the US, but it doesn't sound like you have visited America too often. You can get a good idea about the dissent right here on these forums. US bashing, done by US citizens, is all too common to the point where it seems to be an irregularity when a US citizen supports their own government.

Those two articles were pretty interesting reads. I knew there was bombing in densely populated areas, but those describe it is much better detail (although I question the objectivity - Future of Freedom and Bible Researcher?). But their intent was not to murder civilians, but to disable the enemy's capacity of war. Your quote from LeMay, while rather cold and heartless, shows that civilians were bystanders and not the target of bombings.

Shooting people who surrender was common on both sides, because of the situations in which this often happened. An enemy encampment or trench would be surrounded and they'd come out wanting to surrender, only to be shot by soldiers who didn't understand what they were saying and merely saw the enemy as the enemy. Officers and SS were almost always shot on sight because of their uniforms that made them stand out as a good and important target. This was so commonplace that it is documented in many writings from soldiers on both sides. Now, if they have already been captured and are POWs, then I do not advocate it. But please provide proof stating that this was the case.

It was over, except their military tried their best to fight off invasions across the islands and factories continued to churn out ordinance and equipment. Unconditional surrender had been the rule for years by that point, and was laid in stone by the Potsdam Declaration. And after all that had happened, a mere white peace and return to status quo would not be acceptable. Even then, the US allowed the Japan a few exceptions, most notably their emperor.

Another city bombed conventionally doesn't mean much. Thousands of bombs were dropped on Tokyo over a long period of time. But one big bomb that did the same amount of damage in the time it took for the nuclear fireball to expand - now that was something to be afraid of. I agree, part of the reason why it was done was so the US could not only flex its muscles (most especially in front of the Soviets), but to see what kind of damage it would do to a modern city. From the damage much was learned that would help prevent it from ever being a viable military option in future conflicts during the Cold War. But in the end, it saved more Japanese than it killed, not to mention American soldiers.

In regards to radiation, they knew about it - but they did not really know its full effect on people. They might have known it would be damaging, but not to the extent of what it really was. This is evidenced by a US nuclear test done where soldiers entrenched themselves while a nuke was exploded further ahead. The idea was to train them in avoiding the shockwave that would pass over the trench, then have the soldiers move in to capture the nuked territory. They, of course, developed radiation sickness. This was one of the first times that all the effects of radiation on people were seen firsthand by US scientists and doctors. Such a test was never conducted again, and extreme measures were taken to protect those who prepared and gauged the results of tests.

We're going in circles now. I already mentioned just one single alternative - I expect a group of dozens and dozens of officials to do better.
But they couldn't be fagged, and in the peak of hipocrisy, they checked up on a family living close to the Trinity-Site because they didn't want them to get too much radiation.
Apparently didn't matter so much when it's little yellow people.

But what was the better solution? Even at the end of WWII, the US and USSR were getting hostile, and the civil war in China was reaching its critical stage. We couldn't waste the manpower, equipment, or money on invading Japan when we needed to end the fight to reposition against our new enemy.
You know, that brings up an intesting thought.

What if the US did invade Japan? All the assets and materials and manpower that would have been consumed would have been very costly to the US. Perhaps costly enough that they would have ended up a second-rate power like what most of Europe had become, and the only true superpower remaining would be the USSR. The US would probably not had the assets required to bring about the Marshall Plan or Truman Doctrine, and most of the Eastern Hemisphere would eventually fall under the Iron Curtain uncontested.

Now that would seriously make a great novel right there.

The only other solution was I-N-V-A-S-I-O-N!... In this case, it was the Atomic Bomb. It saved millions of Chinese, Japanes, and hundreds of thousands of coalition lives.
Please. There were plenty of options out there. Including, shall we say, actually dropping the unconditional surrender clause and getting them to accept defeat? My god, there's a novel idea that likely would have worked more than a year before the bombs were dropped. If the leadership's intention was to save lives, they would have done just that.

Please. There were plenty of options out there. Including, shall we say, actually dropping the unconditional surrender clause and getting them to accept defeat?

Sorry but the only proper way to end a war is with unconditional surrender. You also have to remember something that the War in the Pacific was a personal matter and war without total and Unconditional Surrender was unacceptable.

You know, that brings up an intesting thought.

What if the US did invade Japan? All the assets and materials and manpower that would have been consumed would have been very costly to the US. Perhaps costly enough that they would have ended up a second-rate power like what most of Europe had become, and the only true superpower remaining would be the USSR. The US would probably not had the assets required to bring about the Marshall Plan or Truman Doctrine, and most of the Eastern Hemisphere would eventually fall under the Iron Curtain uncontested.

Now that would seriously make a great novel right there.

Well, that would be extremely interesting. The Chinese civil war was prolonged by huge quantities of US military aid, all of which was surplus; that wouldn't exist if we invaded Japan.

The US wouldn't be able to afford the Marshall plan, resulting in Communism extending probably to France, with the US military presence confined to Spain, Italy, and England.

The USSR would be able to outspend us in military aid, and the devastation to the US military could result in a preemptive strike against newly occupied Japan.

This is definitely novel territory, here. :cool:

Please. There were plenty of options out there. Including, shall we say, actually dropping the unconditional surrender clause and getting them to accept defeat? My god, there's a novel idea that likely would have worked more than a year before the bombs were dropped. If the leadership's intention was to save lives, they would have done just that.

The leadership's intention wasn't to save lives. It ws to keep them in power as long as possible. The emperor was a figurehead, used to keep up the fight while a military junta kept the war going as long as they possibly could. Conditional surrender would have meant them rebuilding their military, and keeping the regime in power; imagine if we had allowed conditional surrender for Germany and they kept the Nazis in power. This would have likely meant another war in the 50's, allowing the USSR to muscle in to Korea and Europe while our army is occupied.

No, my ethics are based on Game Theory, and on the good old "Golden Rule".

"For the actual test, the plutonium core nuclear weapon, nicknamed the gadget, was hoisted on the top of a 20-metre steel tower for detonation — the height would give a better indication of what the weapon would be like when dropped from an airplane, as detonation in the air would maximize the amount of energy applied directly to the target (as it expanded in a spherical shape), and would kick up the least nuclear fallout."
So they did know.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/trin-rad.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Trinity_crater.jpg = what would have been on the side of Mt Fuji. two points.
1, your first link to the dannen.com site... you sure you linked to the right spot. I see nothing in there about the effects of Prolonged exposure to Radiation on Humans.

they found a family and went to check up on them, but as the report states,

12. The monitors all took considerable risks knowingly and many have received exposures of considerable amounts, i.e. 8r total. This is safe within a considerable margin. They should not be exposed to more radiation within the next month.bolding is mine. So we know NOW that this was wrong. but back then that was the projected results.

16. Details indicating blast, heat, and other effects cannot be worked out until the area around the crater "cools down". It is this officer's opinion, however, that lethal or severe casualties would occur in exposed personnel up to two miles from a variety or combination of causes, ie., blast, heat, ultraviolet and missiles. again, the damage is from the bast itself not from the prolonged exposure. so Yes, this document does prove that they didn't know the truth about the effects of Radiation on Humans.

and your pic, so a crater appears on one side of the mountain (and hopefully, not set of the volcano)... the Government can easily explain that away as testing of their weapon. And we KNOW this NOW, the radiaion would be then concentrated on one side. thus exposure and fallout would be wider and farther because of atmospheric conditions. condemming more people to slow and tortorous death. again, Is that the reality you want? something worse that what actually happened?

Conditional surrender would have meant them rebuilding their military, and keeping the regime in power.

Essentially the only major condition they were seeking was that no harm come to the Emporer- a condition that was satisfied even after unconditional surrender. So with that in mind, it seems that the war went on pointlessly for nearly a year. Had they decided to meet that one condition, it is entirely feasible that the same outcome- a disarmed and occupied Japan- could have come about with far less deaths and no atomic weapons.

If disappearing cities didn't make them believe, then a small crater on a distant mountain would?
It's a visible thing. It is obvious that that would have been a single bomb, and it is clearly visible to anyone in the Tokyo-Yokohama area, including the leadership.
What happened in Hiroshima wasn't.

I am trying to illustrate that Japan not only had such leaders and military, but had people on top of that ready to defend against invasion.
So did Germany, but in neither case was it the huge number you seem to think.

Hey, believe what you want about liberty in the US, but it doesn't sound like you have visited America too often. You can get a good idea about the dissent right here on these forums. US bashing, done by US citizens, is all too common to the point where it seems to be an irregularity when a US citizen supports their own government.
But also see how these dissenters aren't taken seriously, and even moreso how much popular media cracks down on dissent, Fox News most notably.
And not a single person seemed to question that bombing Afghanistani civilians and militias was a good response to planes being crashed into buildings. It's these important things that you won't find any serious dissent.

Those two articles were pretty interesting reads. I knew there was bombing in densely populated areas, but those describe it is much better detail (although I question the objectivity - Future of Freedom and Bible Researcher?). But their intent was not to murder civilians, but to disable the enemy's capacity of war. Your quote from LeMay, while rather cold and heartless, shows that civilians were bystanders and not the target of bombings.
Well, you could go ahead and describe how Coventry and London were important military targets, but I'll cut to the chase.
The idea was to demoralise the "enemy" population by killing them and by detsroying their houses and cities.

Shooting people who surrender was common on both sides, because of the situations in which this often happened.
That doesn't excuse anything though.

An enemy encampment or trench would be surrounded and they'd come out wanting to surrender, only to be shot by soldiers who didn't understand what they were saying and merely saw the enemy as the enemy. Officers and SS were almost always shot on sight because of their uniforms that made them stand out as a good and important target.
Once they throw away their gun and raise their hands, they are no longer military targets, no matter what the language. If those soldiers can't take the finger of the trigger, they need to be trained better.

Now, if they have already been captured and are POWs, then I do not advocate it. But please provide proof stating that this was the case.
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/DachauLiberation/SoldiersKilled.html
A proper trial would have done it.

And after all that had happened, a mere white peace and return to status quo would not be acceptable.
Why?

But one big bomb that did the same amount of damage in the time it took for the nuclear fireball to expand - now that was something to be afraid of.
But how where the Japanese supposed to know? If the disorganisation in Japan was anywhere close to what had been happening in Germany, then they wouldn't have heard anything.

From the damage much was learned that would help prevent it from ever being a viable military option in future conflicts during the Cold War.
And Nuclear Bombings remained the main threat against the Soviets until they developed their own bomb. And even now, nuclear preemptive strikes are still on the US agenda, including against China.

This was one of the first times that all the effects of radiation on people were seen firsthand by US scientists and doctors. Such a test was never conducted again, and extreme measures were taken to protect those who prepared and gauged the results of tests.
So obviously they didn't learn anything from Hiroshima.

Essentially the only major condition they were seeking was that no harm come to the Emporer- a condition that was satisfied even after unconditional surrender. So with that in mind, it seems that the war went on pointlessly for nearly a year. Had they decided to meet that one condition, it is entirely feasible that the same outcome- a disarmed and occupied Japan- could have come about with far less deaths and no atomic weapons.

We can't really know for sure; however, Japan would have likely fallen back under the command of the junta if we hadn't forced our surrender terms (most notably the limits on defense spending) and established an occupation government until the country was suitably transitioned to democracy.

-snip-
Do you have any stats on how many people died because of long-term exposure?
At any rate they did know about what happened if you were exposed to the one-off radiation of the blast, and they still went along with it.

Mayor of Hiroshima: Horrrr what the fuck was that!

"Dirty tactics"? Since when has attacking your opponent's war-making efforts become a "dirty tactic"?

It seems quite silly that nuclear weapons were used to blow up factories and dockyards. They were used to 1) force Japan to surrender under threat of more nuclear attacks, and 2) display to the world the might of America's "weapon of mass desctruction". Everywhere else in Japan, industrial centers were attacked with conventional bombs ( also, cities were bombed with anti-personnel and incindiary bombs to create karger civilian casualties), and it worked quite well. But, if you look at records, Hyroshima and Nagisaki (sp?) were saved from terror bombing so that the desctructive force of the Atomic Bomb could be properly demonstrated (without the need of a re-do :rolleyes: ). It had nothing to do with crippling industry.

It was a muscle flex.

It seems quite silly that nuclear weapons were used to blow up factories and dockyards. They were used to 1) force Japan to surrender under threat of more nuclear attacks, and 2) display to the world the might of America's "weapon of mass desctruction". Everywhere else in Japan, industrial centers were attacked with conventional bombs ( also, cities were bombed with anti-personnel and incindiary bombs to create karger civilian casualties), and it worked quite well. But, if you look at records, Hyroshima and Nagisaki (sp?) were saved from terror bombing so that the desctructive force of the Atomic Bomb could be properly demonstrated (without the need of a re-do :rolleyes: ). It had nothing to do with crippling industry.

It was a muscle flex.

And by using the bombs we saved millions of lives that would've been lost in an invasion of the home islands. Ever thought of that?

Please. There were plenty of options out there. Including, shall we say, actually dropping the unconditional surrender clause and getting them to accept defeat? My god, there's a novel idea that likely would have worked more than a year before the bombs were dropped. If the leadership's intention was to save lives, they would have done just that.didn't they do that before with Germany? after the Kaiser was defeated?

what did Germany do after it rebuilt itself... what did they do? oh yesss... they Kicked off WWII!

maybe that's why we demanded Unconditional Surrender... to prevent a second attack/war with Japan.

didn't they do that before with Germany? after the Kaiser was defeated?

what did Germany do after it rebuilt itself... what did they do? oh yesss... they Kicked off WWII!

maybe that's why we demanded Unconditional Surrender... to prevent a second attack/war with Japan.

You are rocking a lot of assumptions there. The main point, which I stated a few posts down, is that there was only one condition that the Japanese government was seeking, ensurement the Emporer would not be harmed. And that was met even after unconditional surrender. Meaning that nearly a full year of fighting may have been pointless if the US had accepted a conditional surrender with that.

And by using the bombs we saved millions of lives that would've been lost in an invasion of the home islands. Ever thought of that?

Suprisingly, I have. But, if I may be so bold, where did i insinuate that that was not a reason?Actually, I insinuated that it was a reason. I believe it is point one: "to force japan to surrender under threat of more nuclear attacks"(which saved, as you pointed out, millions of lives). All i'm saying is that saving lives was not the only reason that the decision was made. Showing off the Atom Bombs power was one of the reasons. They showed a program on the bombing of Hyroshima on the 'History Channel' called "Hyroshima: 60 years later". You should watch it, it's quite informative (and entertaining for history buffs, such as myself). Examine the entire post before you respond to it (i think that's a chinese proverb, if i'm not mistaken ;) ).

You are rocking a lot of assumptions there. The main point, which I stated a few posts down, is that there was only one condition that the Japanese government was seeking, ensurement the Emporer would not be harmed. And that was met even after unconditional surrender. Meaning that nearly a full year of fighting may have been pointless if the US had accepted a conditional surrender with that.really? I thought they wanted the Emperor to remain in power. the US wanted the power taken away from the Emperor.

could be wrong tho.

and yeah, the Germany thing was rather rash... I apologize for that.

and yeah, the Germany thing was rather rash... I apologize for that.

No worries mate. :)

No worries mate. :)you know... the more I think about it...

after all, that is why they split Berlin and Germany... Nah, won't Hijack this tread with speculation. :D

I do wonder tho... why the arguments about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

THEY Happened. can't change that. what should be important is the fact that it won't happen again.

THEY Happened. can't change that. what should be important is the fact that it won't happen again.

To that effect, I agree completely. We now know just how destructive nuclear weapons are. Let's hope people learn from the past and never try to use one again.

The advantage of 20/20 hindsight it seems... but let us look at it from the perspective of the United States in 1945. Once must remember that beyond the air war in Europe and comparitively small scale island conflicts in the Pacific, American casualties had been on the whole fairly light considering the number of men under arms by 1944. These losses began to steadily mount with first the campaign on mainland Italy in the last quarter of 1943 and beginning of 1944, but primarily soared after D-Day. The 11-month campaign in Northwest Europe saw the United States and Great Britain engaged a large and mounting percentage of the Wehrmacht in open combat, much of which was attritional warfare and provided a very long stream of death notices back to families in the US and UK until Germany surrendered in May of 1945. In early 1945 in the Pacific, the horrendus losses at Iwo Jima and Okinawa for the United States made headlines as well, not to even mention the campaign on land in the Phillipines. An invasion of Japan would mean that the war was becoming progressively more costly in lives, it had to end, and victory had to be achieved by the means available. To assume the Soviet Union was feared to be planning an invasion of mainland Japan discounts the very considerable logistics needed to launch a massive assault via sea, which the Red Navy most likely did not have...one of the main problems delaying Overlord for so long was the shortage in Landing craft which had to be manufactured at a furious pace... the invasion would have fallen to the Americans, had say a hundred thousand American boys died taking Japan, how would Truman answer the outrage that would come if it came to light that a weapon which could have won or aided the war effort was withheld out of pity for the Japanese?

Which comes to point 2: The contention that Japan was considering surrender on conditional terms does not deflect the fact that the Japanese did not heed the Potsdam warning to surrender unconditionally, or be destroyed...they chose to continue resistance, thus the available weapons were used. Japan throughout the war had not given any indication of a willingness to negociate...further reinforced that the large garrisons on Iwo Jima and Okinawa had just months previously fought to literally the last man at a terrible price. Imagine the result of an invasion of Japan, which MUST have come despite the submarine campaign, even starving resistance might well have continued, and had the war dragged on to say 1946-47 with no invasion, the populace of the allied nations would likely lose the drive that had propelled them for so many years. Also, Japanese mistreatment of Allied prisoners of war was coming to light, enraging the soldiers and civilians of the allied nations, and continually demonstrating the Japanese lack of mercy for those that fell into their hands....for a nation which gave no mercy, how could they hold the expectation of any? It was a dirty war, a filthy war, it had to end in some fashion. One must also take into account the fact that the Atomic Bomb did not hold the stigma it does now when multiple nations possess it and it is feared as a potential for world destruction. In 1945, it was just another hugely destructive weapon in the arsenal of democracy, with some unpleasant after-effects....which other weapons such as mustard gas (though not used in World War II) also had... To those in government and at the front, the perspective would not be what we hold now, as in this harbringer of the end of the world, but more as a terrible weapon, but still, a bomb...capable of destroying a city much like the fire-bomb raids that had already been used...just with one plane instead of hundreds...when looking at this and reflecting on the decisions made...can we really blame them for acting as they did? Indeed, even knowing what you know now, would you have acted differently?

The complete destruction of an entire city during one morning is not evidence of a weapon of mass destruction?

Ok, let me phrase it this way. Germany – civilians take to what is left of their homes. Japan – civilians take up rifles, pitchforks, meat knives, and bamboo sticks, distributing them to children and elders (a draft was already assigned for men around 15-60 and women around 18-45). Simple enough comparison.

They aren’t taken seriously because a lot of the rants are so extremist. But as you have seen, the majority of the people across the entire country outrightly disagree with what is happening in Iraq. Fox News is deemed to be extreme in the other direction, siding with Republicans (which happens to be the party in power – if a Democrat was in the White House, then they would be complaining), and is pretty much the only news station that can be considered to be conservative. CNN is slightly leftist. As for Afghanistan, the people chose to back it as they choose not to with Iraq.

Hard to demoralize the enemy into defeat if they’re dead…

They are actually trained well when that happens. Since when is a soldier trained to hesitate in shooting an enemy? Soldiers are taught that hesitation = dead. Example from right in your article: "Patton cautioned the men to watch out for dirty tricks when it seemed a group of enemy soldiers wanted to surrender. A favorite tactic, the general said, was for a small group to suddenly drop their weapons and raise their hands or wave a white flag. When unsuspecting Americans moved into the open to take the enemy prisoner, the 'surrendering' troops would hit the dirt and their comrades, lying in wait, would spring up and mow down the exposed Americans. Patton warned the Thunderbirds to be on their guard for this sort of treachery and to show no mercy if the Germans or Italians attempted this trick. His words would have fateful repercussions." All in all though, the reports there all note that killed soldiers may have attempted to escape, or moved when orders were to fire if they started towards the gunner. Whether it is all true or not, I can’t be sure. But in the end, I have to say I can not even force myself to give them much sympathy.

Why? The time for appeasement ended in the early morning of September 1, 1939 as German troops and Panzer tanks stormed across the Polish border and Japanese bombers killed 2,000 US soldiers December 7, 1941 in Pearl Harbor. To allow them to flourish once more under such a regime and risk them repeating what they did following the Great War would be absolutely ridiculous. After all they had costed and killed, anything short of unconditional surrender would simply be a defeat for both sides.

It wasn’t like it had been in Germany. Their mainland territories were still intact and their government and military leaders present.
Preemptive strikes are on no “agenda”, they are one of a million various plans drawn up for various scenarios. Such a scenario where this would be a viable option would mean nuclear war is inevitable anyway.

US scientists and doctors were not next door when the bombs were dropped, and were not able to document and study the findings. By the time aid was sent and soldiers occupied the country, nearly all those inflicted with radioactive poisoning were already dead. What was gathered from Hiroshima was the effect on urban areas that would never have even been fathomed beforehand. This means that tight control over nuclear warheads and more research into them would be done to see what else could be discovered, and also to prevent their proliferation.

Sorry mate, but I almost didn't pick up that this was meant for me. You might have to use quotes.

The complete destruction of an entire city during one morning is not evidence of a weapon of mass destruction?
Obviously it is. But the result was no different from the normal bombings, and they had no idea that it was only one bomb for some time, especially since the state scientists told them (the Generals) it couldn't have been a nuke.

Ok, let me phrase it this way. Germany – civilians take to what is left of their homes. Japan – civilians take up rifles, pitchforks, meat knives, and bamboo sticks, distributing them to children and elders (a draft was already assigned for men around 15-60 and women around 18-45). Simple enough comparison.
What about the Volkssturm? Or the Home Guard in Britain? Sure they were distributed, but the vast majority didn't intend to use them.

They aren’t taken seriously because a lot of the rants are so extremist. But as you have seen, the majority of the people across the entire country outrightly disagree with what is happening in Iraq. Fox News is deemed to be extreme in the other direction, siding with Republicans (which happens to be the party in power – if a Democrat was in the White House, then they would be complaining), and is pretty much the only news station that can be considered to be conservative. CNN is slightly leftist. As for Afghanistan, the people chose to back it as they choose not to with Iraq.
Actually, from my point of view all US news stations are right-wing. I've never seen any evidence that CNN is leftist.
And you don't think the Bush speeches about "Terrorists hate Freedom" mean anything? They can't hate Freedom, they can only hate a form of Government that offers Freedom, so in other words Bush is equalising your form of Government with the Universal Concept of Freedom.
Which makes it basically devoid of any meaning at all.

Hard to demoralize the enemy into defeat if they’re dead…
The idea is to demoralise those that are left.

They are actually trained well when that happens. Since when is a soldier trained to hesitate in shooting an enemy?...
The Picture shows Soldiers with their hands up standing against the wall, facing what looks like a firing squad. What they wrote in their reports is quite frankly irrelevant bullshit.
Patton was a maniac. He thought it was okay to kill whoever got into his way, he advocated tactics that cost his own men's lives as well, and he was generally mentally unstable. I wouldn't believe a thing the guy might say.

Why?...After all they had costed and killed, anything short of unconditional surrender would simply be a defeat for both sides.
I disagree. The emperor was getting sick of his Generals himself, I don't think they would've stayed in power once the war was over. They had lied to the Emperor time after time, and he was not amused.

It wasn’t like it had been in Germany. Their mainland territories were still intact and their government and military leaders present.
I can't imagine much of their communication still working properly, but I would appreciate any links that suggest otherwise.

Preemptive strikes are on no “agenda”, they are one of a million various plans drawn up for various scenarios. Such a scenario where this would be a viable option would mean nuclear war is inevitable anyway.
They are.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3221conplan_8022.html

US scientists and doctors were not next door when the bombs were dropped, and were not able to document and study the findings...
Well at least Wilfried Burchett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfred_Burchett) and George Weller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Weller) knew what was going on.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/050806/48/5zmh4.html

Sorry mate, but I almost didn't pick up that this was meant for me. You might have to use quotes.
Ok, I’ll put this one in quotes then.

Obviously it is. But the result was no different from the normal bombings, and they had no idea that it was only one bomb for some time, especially since the state scientists told them (the Generals) it couldn't have been a nuke.
It took quote a while to destroy Tokyo and other such cities through conventional bombings. How could they believe that an entire city was destroyed in less than a day this way? Read an article I will paste below and you'll see that people outside the city that heard of its destruction knew it couldn't be an airstrike or normal bombing. And if it took so long for them to realize what had happened, then why surrender 6 days after Nagasaki after holding out for so long in the face of non-stop conventional bombings?

What about the Volkssturm? Or the Home Guard in Britain? Sure they were distributed, but the vast majority didn't intend to use them.
Having a militia is different from prepubescent women taking to arms. How can you be certain the vast majority did not intend to use them? They had been trained by their parents to kill if they were invaded, and pretty much all of the cultural background points to the vast majority doing so.

Actually, from my point of view all US news stations are right-wing. I've never seen any evidence that CNN is leftist.
And you don't think the Bush speeches about "Terrorists hate Freedom" mean anything? They can't hate Freedom, they can only hate a form of Government that offers Freedom, so in other words Bush is equalising your form of Government with the Universal Concept of Freedom.
Which makes it basically devoid of any meaning at all.
Well, I don’t know then. Maybe you are just very liberal (I don’t mean that as an insult) or your own local news stations are. It is generally accepted that FoxNews is conservative to the point of being biased, whereas the other stations are more to the left. As for written news, any major newspaper nowadays seems to be borderline left extremist.

As for Bush, maybe it is just the hour, but I don't quite understand what you mean by "equalising your form of Government with the Universal Concept of Freedom." He means freedom as in democracy, as in the freedoms your country has, that your former country has, that the US has.

The idea is to demoralise those that are left.
But this is a totalitarian nation. The people don’t have any say in if their government continues to wage war or not. And Hitler did not really care much about the lives of the German people.

The Picture shows Soldiers with their hands up standing against the wall, facing what looks like a firing squad. What they wrote in their reports is quite frankly irrelevant bullshit.
Patton was a maniac. He thought it was okay to kill whoever got into his way, he advocated tactics that cost his own men's lives as well, and he was generally mentally unstable. I wouldn't believe a thing the guy might say.
So, how would you like them to stand? Slouched down with their hands deep in their pockets suspiciously? And maybe there shouldn’t be any guns trained on them. That way they can just take their chances assaulting the soldiers or making a run for it.

As for Patton, he was one who believed in the motto of Speed, Surprise, and Violence of Action. His personal doctrine was that a decent plan executed now with speed is better than a perfect plan executed tomorrow with caution. But whether you or I believe him is irrelevant – his own soldiers would have. If not through his huge reputation at the time, then by the fact that he was their superior officer.

I disagree. The emperor was getting sick of his Generals himself, I don't think they would've stayed in power once the war was over. They had lied to the Emperor time after time, and he was not amused.
Lying to the Emperor? I doubt many would have dared it, and I don’t know of any situations in which a general flat-out lied to him. But to just hand over a bunch of concessions after so much had been endured because of a war they provoked, that would not have been a victory. Plus, with the Japanese were able to return to status quo, they would have been sufficiently pummeled that the Soviets would have had little trouble slaughtering the rest of them. And then democracy would have had no foothold in the entire continent.

I can't imagine much of their communication still working properly, but I would appreciate any links that suggest otherwise.
You’re right, they didn’t. That was the first clue to what had happened. Then pilots were sent to survey the damage. A few hours later came Truman’s declaration of what had happened.
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/at/atomic_bombings_of_hiroshima_and_nagasaki.htm (point of interest labeled “Japanese Realization of the Bombing”)
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/hiro/hiroshimaframe.html (Point of interested under “President Truman’s Announcement”

They are.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3221conplan_8022.html
I must say, by reading some of the other articles on the site, it is quite biased. I’m surprised they haven’t started making direct comparisons of Bush and Cheney to Hitler and Himmler, but I guess they want to maintain their journalistic integrity.

Now, there is a difference between using miniature tactical warheads and a mutually assured destruction routine of Minutemen ICBMS Trident IIIs from nuclear submarines and air bursters from B2s. If you meant the former in the cases of ground combat or aerial bombardment of small targets meaning mininukes, then it sure seems evident that Bush is pushing for this, and has been for some time. Though I have no idea how they will work that into modern warfare without every nation getting even more pissed at the US. If you meant MAD, then I stand by what I said as it being a final plan when all-out nuclear war is inevitable.

Well at least Wilfried Burchett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfred_Burchett) and George Weller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Weller) knew what was going on.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/050806/48/5zmh4.html
Well, yes and no. Journalists there knew something was wrong, and they believed it came from the atomic bomb, but they didn’t know anything for sure. Remember, these were journalists, not nuclear scientists or doctors.

Burchett wasn’t one that was trusted by many, especially as he was a big proponent of Communism. And of course, at that time, being labeled a Communist was akin to excommunication in the Middle Ages. So, much of what he said was simply labeled as propaganda.

The calculation in dropping the atomic bombs was how to save Allied lives. I hate war, but when you're forced into it the way the US was in 1941, you don't have a choice but to execute it until a settlement can be reached, unfortunately, you have to value your own people above the enemy's. War is hell. The Japanese rolled the dice when they bombed Pearl Harbor, and they came up snake eyes.

They had been trained by their parents to kill if they were invaded, and pretty much all of the cultural background points to the vast majority doing so.
I guess it's best we ask NERVUN, or anyone else in Japan about that. I say one thing, you say the other, and neither knows who's right.

As for Bush, maybe it is just the hour, but I don't quite understand what you mean by "equalising your form of Government with the Universal Concept of Freedom." He means freedom as in democracy, as in the freedoms your country has, that your former country has, that the US has.
Your type of Democracy is not at all the only way to enjoy Freedom. The idea that because someone doesn't like your system they hate feedom and liberty is ridiculous. If you can't see anything wrong with that, then you have already misunderstood what it means to be free.

But this is a totalitarian nation. The people don’t have any say in if their government continues to wage war or not. And Hitler did not really care much about the lives of the German people.
Yes, but that was the plan at any rate. Whether bombing in Britain or bombing in Germany, and by the way, the military success of the raids is doubtful.
This is a pretty unbiased summary, although I still don't think that it places enough value on civilian lives.
http://www.historic-battles.com/Articles/can_the_allies_strategic_bombing.htm

So, how would you like them to stand? Slouched down with their hands deep in their pockets suspiciously? And maybe there shouldn’t be any guns trained on them. That way they can just take their chances assaulting the soldiers or making a run for it.
I would like them to live and see the end of the day, which these guys apparently didn't.

Lying to the Emperor? I doubt many would have dared it, and I don’t know of any situations in which a general flat-out lied to him.
They continously lied to him about the military situation, and he later did show himslef to be quite disappointed. Apart from the constant promises that japan would win the war.

You’re right, they didn’t. That was the first clue to what had happened. Then pilots were sent to survey the damage. A few hours later came Truman’s declaration of what had happened.
Agreed. Assuming that they believed Truman (who seemingly returned quickly enough from his party when he heard that 240,000 civilians had been evaporated), they knew. Doubts would have remained in some heads though, and I still think that dropping the bomb somewhere else would have been a better demonstration.

I must say, by reading some of the other articles on the site, it is quite biased. I’m surprised they haven’t started making direct comparisons of Bush and Cheney to Hitler and Himmler, but I guess they want to maintain their journalistic integrity.
Do I need to get the relevant documents from the US DoD? They are there.

Now, there is a difference between using miniature tactical warheads and a mutually assured destruction routine of Minutemen ICBMS Trident IIIs from nuclear submarines and air bursters from B2s. If you meant the former in the cases of ground combat or aerial bombardment of small targets meaning mininukes, then it sure seems evident that Bush is pushing for this, and has been for some time. Though I have no idea how they will work that into modern warfare without every nation getting even more pissed at the US. If you meant MAD, then I stand by what I said as it being a final plan when all-out nuclear war is inevitable.
Nuke is nuke, and as I said, we'd have to check the actual plans, as far as they're open to the public.

Burchett wasn’t one that was trusted by many, especially as he was a big proponent of Communism. And of course, at that time, being labeled a Communist was akin to excommunication in the Middle Ages. So, much of what he said was simply labeled as propaganda.
Note that the Communism business really only started a year or two later.

The advantage of 20/20 hindsight it seems... but let us look at it from the perspective of the United States in 1945. Once must remember that beyond the air war in Europe and comparitively small scale island conflicts in the Pacific, American casualties had been on the whole fairly light considering the number of men under arms by 1944. These losses began to steadily mount with first the campaign on mainland Italy in the last quarter of 1943 and beginning of 1944, but primarily soared after D-Day. The 11-month campaign in Northwest Europe saw the United States and Great Britain engaged a large and mounting percentage of the Wehrmacht in open combat, much of which was attritional warfare and provided a very long stream of death notices back to families in the US and UK until Germany surrendered in May of 1945. In early 1945 in the Pacific, the horrendus losses at Iwo Jima and Okinawa for the United States made headlines as well, not to even mention the campaign on land in the Phillipines. An invasion of Japan would mean that the war was becoming progressively more costly in lives, it had to end, and victory had to be achieved by the means available. To assume the Soviet Union was feared to be planning an invasion of mainland Japan discounts the very considerable logistics needed to launch a massive assault via sea, which the Red Navy most likely did not have...one of the main problems delaying Overlord for so long was the shortage in Landing craft which had to be manufactured at a furious pace... the invasion would have fallen to the Americans, had say a hundred thousand American boys died taking Japan, how would Truman answer the outrage that would come if it came to light that a weapon which could have won or aided the war effort was withheld out of pity for the Japanese?

Which comes to point 2: The contention that Japan was considering surrender on conditional terms does not deflect the fact that the Japanese did not heed the Potsdam warning to surrender unconditionally, or be destroyed...they chose to continue resistance, thus the available weapons were used. Japan throughout the war had not given any indication of a willingness to negociate...further reinforced that the large garrisons on Iwo Jima and Okinawa had just months previously fought to literally the last man at a terrible price. Imagine the result of an invasion of Japan, which MUST have come despite the submarine campaign, even starving resistance might well have continued, and had the war dragged on to say 1946-47 with no invasion, the populace of the allied nations would likely lose the drive that had propelled them for so many years. Also, Japanese mistreatment of Allied prisoners of war was coming to light, enraging the soldiers and civilians of the allied nations, and continually demonstrating the Japanese lack of mercy for those that fell into their hands....for a nation which gave no mercy, how could they hold the expectation of any? It was a dirty war, a filthy war, it had to end in some fashion. One must also take into account the fact that the Atomic Bomb did not hold the stigma it does now when multiple nations possess it and it is feared as a potential for world destruction. In 1945, it was just another hugely destructive weapon in the arsenal of democracy, with some unpleasant after-effects....which other weapons such as mustard gas (though not used in World War II) also had... To those in government and at the front, the perspective would not be what we hold now, as in this harbringer of the end of the world, but more as a terrible weapon, but still, a bomb...capable of destroying a city much like the fire-bomb raids that had already been used...just with one plane instead of hundreds...when looking at this and reflecting on the decisions made...can we really blame them for acting as they did? Indeed, even knowing what you know now, would you have acted differently?

any opinions on my arguement?

I guess it's best we ask NERVUN, or anyone else in Japan about that. I say one thing, you say the other, and neither knows who's right.
Fine. But accepted fact is that they were, and all evidence that has been brought forth so far has supported this point.

Your type of Democracy is not at all the only way to enjoy Freedom. The idea that because someone doesn't like your system they hate feedom and liberty is ridiculous. If you can't see anything wrong with that, then you have already misunderstood what it means to be free.
What is another way to enjoy freedom? Anarchy? Living in the woods naked? You are fixed on fundamentalists not “liking” the democratic system of government, and thus not liking freedom as a byproduct. It is the other way around, and I think it takes a tad bit more than dislike to justify running into groups of people with a bomb strapped to their chests.

Yes, but that was the plan at any rate. Whether bombing in Britain or bombing in Germany, and by the way, the military success of the raids is doubtful.
This is a pretty unbiased summary, although I still don't think that it places enough value on civilian lives.
http://www.historic-battles.com/Articles/can_the_allies_strategic_bombing.htm
It doesn’t say a whole lot about civilians in it except in its conclusion. But according to the article, the campaign was composed of strategic bombings, not terror raids, but because of the piss-poor accuracy of RAF bombers they had to adopt a new doctrine of area bombing. It states that during the campaign, bombs could land up to 5 miles away from the intended target. So, while many civilians were killed and lost their homes, it doesn’t state that such things were the direct intentions of Bomber Command.

I would like them to live and see the end of the day, which these guys apparently didn't.
You didn’t answer my question. Would you prefer that they have their hands suspiciously in their pockets, be able to talk among themselves, and have no weapons trained on them? Hell, why not just leave them there alone, I’m sure they could be trusted to stay there without incident, right?


They continously lied to him about the military situation, and he later did show himslef to be quite disappointed. Apart from the constant promises that japan would win the war.
This sounds very possible, but I think the time in which they did so would have had to be very early on. After the losses began to pile, the people knew of it (how else would they know to prepare of a possible invasion?) But the culture surrounding their honor would probably prohibit the generals from saying, “Yeah, we’re so screwed.” Hence the attempted coup by a group of them, and hara-kiri by others.

Agreed. Assuming that they believed Truman (who seemingly returned quickly enough from his party when he heard that 240,000 civilians had been evaporated), they knew. Doubts would have remained in some heads though, and I still think that dropping the bomb somewhere else would have been a better demonstration.
Well, I can see where you want to try to avoid as many casualties as possible, but at the time, only three atomic bombs had been produced. The first was detonated in New Mexico for the Trinity test, and the next two at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Production of more was very possible, but would have taken some time. This was probably why the second bomb was dropped so soon – to give the illusion, along with Truman’s words “Japan will experience a destruction raining from the sky unlike any other”, (or something to that extent), that the US had a massive number of these bombs ready to be dropped at will. But the two that were left after the test had to be used in a way to ensure the war would end.

Do I need to get the relevant documents from the US DoD? They are there.
Please find me such a piece of information where the US is willing to attack China with a series of strategic nuclear warheads without nuclear war being inevitable.

Nuke is nuke, and as I said, we'd have to check the actual plans, as far as they're open to the public.
Whoa, now that is looking at things a bit too simply. A 3 KT tactical device fired from a shoulder launcher and superheated to fusion by a laser without the use of fission (and the radiation it produces) is very different from a 25 MT ICBM engulfing a major city in a fireball, spreading radiation to whatever direction the wind blows. The former is one of the projects that has been brought to light and reported by CNN and other sources.

Note that the Communism business really only started a year or two later.
At the time, as he had no experience or knowledge in such a field, much of what he was saying would not be understood to be the problem we all know it is today. And after he became an outspoken Communist, that would just solidify objections against him Also, the article states that his writings appeared September 5 of 1945 and, “After World War II, he spoke out against atomic weapons and against banning the Communist Party.” This is a pretty wide time span, especially since the Japanese surrendered on the USS Missouri three days before his article came out.