Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Ponce de Leon
Caliph
Lonce De Peon
Joined: 11-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2967
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Atomic Japan Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 18:58 |
A very hard debate. But in my eyes there is only one answer. That it was absoutely neccessary for the United States to nuke Japan because the loss of life would have been too great if a full scale invasion ensued.
|
|
Lmprs
Arch Duke
Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 19:18 |
You mean, Americans cared about Japanese lives? Yeah, right...
|
|
Omnipotence
Baron
Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 494
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 19:22 |
Yes, a nuke would have been able to bring the war to a close a lot earlier than a full scaled invasion. But did they have to drop it on a city? Why can't they just drop it, say... , in the ocean nxt to Hiroshim/Nagasaki where everybody can see?
|
|
Lmprs
Arch Duke
Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 20:04 |
Guys, you must be joking.
Do I understand it correctly?
You actually mean by nuking two Japanese cities;
● Causing tens of thousands instant deaths...
● Causing genetical mutations...
● Causing unrecoverable damages, incurable diseases...
United States was merciful?
|
|
Emperor Barbarossa
Caliph
Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 20:33 |
Originally posted by Feanor
Guys, you must be joking.
Do I understand it correctly?
You actually mean by nuking two Japanese cities;
● Causing tens of thousands instant deaths...
● Causing genetical mutations...
● Causing unrecoverable damages, incurable diseases...
United States was merciful?
|
Or how about hundreds of thousands of deaths on both sides?
|
|
|
Red Russian
Samurai
Joined: 23-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 131
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 20:45 |
Hundreds of thounsands of deaths? Now thats just Unrealistic..............try MILLIONS of deaths! The US aniticpated Hundreds on thounsands Just on D-day in Japan!
Edited by Red Russian - 27-Jul-2006 at 20:46
|
|
|
Lmprs
Arch Duke
Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 21:41 |
How about dropping the bomb on the ocean or an inhabited location?
Since Germany had surrendered before, Japan would have no reason to keep fighting.
See it? No casualty at all.
|
|
red clay
Administrator
Tomato Master Emeritus
Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 21:54 |
Originally posted by Feanor
Guys, you must be joking.
Do I understand it correctly?
You actually mean by nuking two Japanese cities;
● Causing tens of thousands instant deaths...
● Causing genetical mutations...
● Causing unrecoverable damages, incurable diseases...
United States was merciful?
|
First, you must realize, 60 years ago racism was a major factor in a lot of the decisions made. Racism was rampant on both sides . Secondly the general staff had done several studies and had come to the conclusion that a full scale invasion would cost the lives of one million GIs and 5 million Japanese. So, yes in their minds they were being merciful, In their minds at that time. In truth they were only concerned with the American lives.
There were two camps in the decision to drop the bomb, one group wanted to drop it on an uninhabited island as a demonstration of power. The other wanted it dropped on a city for two reasons, one, for punishment. We had been at peace and attacked without warning, a large portion of the population did not want that ignored.
Two, we did not know the full effects of the bomb on the population of a large city, and they wanted to find out. In part, they did not really know what incredible power they were dealing with. Please understand, I am not attempting to justify what happened, just giving you the truth as I know it. It isn't anything that I am proud of, I do however understand the conditions it happened under. The people who fought in the war for the most part, didn't have a problem with it, the attitude, even long after the war was very commonly," No Pearl Harbor, No Hiroshima, simple as that".
Edited by red clay - 27-Jul-2006 at 21:57
|
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
|
|
Gundamor
Colonel
Joined: 21-Jun-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 568
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 22:11 |
It wasnt needed to beat Japan. However it was needed to:
a)Bring the war to quicker end
b)Test and justify the expense of the manhatten project, which apperantly cost an incredible amount of money.
c)Revenge for Pearl Harbour
b)Deter the Soviet Union where relations were already spining off the wheels.
The Japanese were about to surrender. One of the big sticking points was the allies couldnt guarentee the emperor would remain on the throne. Truman had refused this. He then dropped 2 bombs then turned around and accepted the surrender. And the Emperor remained.
|
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"
|
|
Red Russian
Samurai
Joined: 23-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 131
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 22:12 |
You know how much one of those bombs probaly cost? A LOT! Now why would they jsut drop it in the Ocean? Would it even Explode in the ocean? Beacuse isn't it a Detonate on Impact bomb?
Don't say japan had no reason to fight, they were perparing to fight to the last man. they were training Civilians to trhough grenades and use swords! It was about honor for them.
|
|
|
Gundamor
Colonel
Joined: 21-Jun-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 568
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 22:29 |
Originally posted by Red Russian
You know how much one of those bombs probaly cost? A LOT! Now why would they jsut drop it in the Ocean? Would it even Explode in the ocean? Beacuse isn't it a Detonate on Impact bomb?
Don't say japan had no reason to fight, they were perparing to fight to the last man. they were training Civilians to trhough grenades and use swords! It was about honor for them. |
Actually the Japanese were preparing to surrender. The incendiary bombing campaign took a much larger toll then a couple atomic bombs. For instance on a one night bombing mission of Tokyo it burned out 16 square miles of the city killing more then 83,000 people and destroying 267,000 buildings. They would of bombed Japan into the stone age but they didnt have time as they had to end it quickly and get ready for the next war.
|
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"
|
|
Pendragon
Immortal Guard
Joined: 05-Jun-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 06:26 |
No - I believe that nothing can ever justify the mass murder of so many innocent civillians, many of whom no longer supported the war at this time.
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki also opened the door for many of todays policies of civillain-bombing, just look at Lebanon now.
|
|
yan.
Consul
Joined: 15-Apr-2005
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 352
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 06:53 |
Originally posted by Red Russian
You know how much one of those bombs probaly cost? A LOT! Now why would they jsut drop it in the Ocean? Would it even Explode in the ocean? Beacuse isn't it a Detonate on Impact bomb?
|
No, it had to detonate above ground to maximize the effect.
|
|
Lmprs
Arch Duke
Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 07:08 |
I don't think Americans were that guilty. Japanese started the war in a sneaky way after all.
But don't try to justify Hiroshima or Nagasaki please.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 07:10 |
How about Japan just not launch a campaign of terror and crimes against
humanity for a decade and a half resulting in the losses of tens of
millions? They took a risk in starting a war, they lost and got what
was coming to them. When you go to war you do so knowing that your
status as an aggressor gives your enemy legitimacy to do whatever the
consider necessary to defeat you, including destroying the lives and
infrastructure of your people. I am just glad it was our side that had
the bombs, instead of those barbaric maniacs who initiated the war in
the Pacific.
|
|
rider
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 07:39 |
Actually, by having it explode in water, they would have caused a meteor effect, a tsunami... that could have been more dangerous when they would have calculated the correct ditances and the explosion must be with a second on the right time. But it is possible and the effects would be destructive (for geologs: impressive).
Ah, the US was acting as an killer then as it is now. Time makes no changes. I wonder how a normal today's Japanese acts when you ask about him of the Bombing. That would be impressive.
Too bad the Germans couldn't make the bomb earlier. They had one mistake in calculations and that equaled in a hundred times larger need of uranium than actually was necesary.
|
|
pogy366
Janissary
Joined: 01-Mar-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 09:13 |
... the debate over whether the use of atomic weapons against Japan was justified can be bounced back and forth for a long, long time.
Personally, i believe that the reality of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are so totally blurred from the minds of Americans and our history books that its shameful. The U.S. is the only country to have detonated two atomic weapons on another country. Period.
You don't have to go very long without finding some measure of horror that occurred during WWII. But just because one country visits a horror on another, it's completely justified that they receive an equal (or greater) amount of pain and suffering?
It saddens me to think of the U.S. losses at Pearl Harbor. But it strikes me a bit deeper to see an image of a tricycle, burned and warped from atomic fire and realize that the little boy that was riding it was vaporized. Killed because he was a small boy living in a city that was targeted as a prime location.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are footnotes in American history books. It's a #%&@# travesty. Generations of kids are raised with "and then we dropped 'the bomb' and we won the war".
This country left an indelible scar on Japan's social fabric, and either ignores it completely or flatly says "well, they &%$@# deserved it." Japan is unable to just pass it off as something that happened in 1945. It affected their culture. So why should the U.S. deserve to toss off its responsibility to these events so easily? Selfishness? Racism?
How do innocent civillians deserve to die like that, live through the horror of those days or see their country's children born with horrible problems due to the fallout?
It's the callousness that the U.S. treats Hiroshima and Nagasaki that gets to me.
No, i didn't live in those days. i didn't experience Pearl Harbor, Okinawa, Saipan or Guadalcanal and i didn't have to endure what the American forces saw in the South Pacific day after day. So i don't see it from their point of view.
i have the benefit of being separated to the point where all i see is people and lives destroyed. And see the memory of those people tossed aside as easily as a McDonald's wrapper and their horrible deaths justified through racism and ignorance.
It'd be different if we learned from what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and used what we learned to develop an understanding for other people. And pass that on to future generations.
But the only thing that has been passed on is "$%&@ 'em, they deserved it".
|
"Better to be a geek than an idiot. "
|
|
Emperor Barbarossa
Caliph
Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 10:09 |
Originally posted by Red Russian
Hundreds of thounsands of deaths? Now thats just Unrealistic..............try MILLIONS of deaths! The US aniticpated Hundreds on thounsands Just on D-day in Japan!
|
I know, I really meant millions, but the user said "thousands" and it would be more accurate to say "hundreds of thousands", besides, 1.5 million deaths is still hundreds of thousands.
|
|
|
babyblue
Chieftain
Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1174
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 13:08 |
those who have not had their capital city's inhabitants massacred are more likely to be more forgiving of the Japanese.
|
|
|
red clay
Administrator
Tomato Master Emeritus
Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 19:19 |
Originally posted by babyblue
those who have not had their capital city's inhabitants massacred are more likely to be more forgiving of the Japanese. |
Good point, and while we are feeling sorry for the Japanese, why don't we also hear from, The Koreans, Filipinos, Indonesians, the survivors of Bataan and Coreggidor, and survivors from Singapore as well. I have heard this discussion a hundred times. What happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was indeed horrible, I would never attempt to justify it, however it all comes back to the same thing. The Japanese created the events that ended with the Bomb. They had every intention of gaining control of the entire Pacific basin anyway they could. The Japanese Army murdered twenty times the number of civilians that died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that may be a conservative figure. They set the stage for total war and no one else.
Edited by red clay - 28-Jul-2006 at 19:20
|
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
|
|