Print Page | Close Window

Atomic Japan

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Modern Warfare
Forum Discription: Military history and miltary science from the ''Cold War'' era onward.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13621
Printed Date: 28-Mar-2024 at 13:41
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Atomic Japan
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Subject: Atomic Japan
Date 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.



Replies:
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 19:18
You mean, Americans cared about Japanese lives? Yeah, right...



-------------


Posted By: Omnipotence
Date 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?


Posted By: Lmprs
Date 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?



-------------


Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date 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?


-------------



Posted By: Red Russian
Date 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!
    

-------------


Posted By: Lmprs
Date 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.



-------------


Posted By: red clay
Date 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". 
 
 
 
        


-------------
"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.


Posted By: Gundamor
Date 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"


Posted By: Red Russian
Date 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.

-------------


Posted By: Gundamor
Date 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"


Posted By: Pendragon
Date 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.
 
 


Posted By: yan.
Date 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.
 


Posted By: Lmprs
Date 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.



-------------


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date 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.

-------------


Posted By: rider
Date 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.


-------------


Posted By: pogy366
Date 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. "


Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date 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.


-------------



Posted By: babyblue
Date 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.

-------------


Posted By: red clay
Date 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.
 
 


-------------
"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.


Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2006 at 12:31
Originally posted by Omnipotence

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?
 
Because that would have made us look weak, and we also had only enough atomic material for both of the nukes we did drop on Japan.  We had to make sure that they had the maximum effect or risk prolonging the war needlessly.  Many Japanese didn't even think we had enough atomic material for two bombs and after Hiroshima said that they had little to worry about.
 
On an abstract level, I feel the essence of war is to win through inflicting maximum violence against your opponent at every possible moment.  Anything which helps further the cause of victory is completely justified.


-------------
Member of IAEA


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2006 at 13:22
I doubt that there was only Uranium for two bombs. The required amount could be mined in 50-60 hours. The amount is quite small. I don't remember it unfortunately.
 
But why does the US have to control the Pacific?
Can't it accept the fact that she is not the best and most magnificent?
Why does the US have to control anything else besides the US?


-------------


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2006 at 14:36
Originally posted by rider

I doubt that there was only Uranium for two bombs. The required amount could be mined in 50-60 hours. The amount is quite small. I don't remember it unfortunately.
 
But why does the US have to control the Pacific?
Can't it accept the fact that she is not the best and most magnificent?
Why does the US have to control anything else besides the US?
 
 
rider-  The amount of actual uranium metal that can be derived from ore is about 1/500th of the total amout. In other words if you want 1lb of uranium you must have 500 lbs ore.  The 1lb of uranium that you have is u238, which is useless for fission. In order to have an A bomb you need u235 which must be refined from u238. U238 has u235 at about 1 to 19 ratio. The trick is to separate the 235 from 238, a slow process even now, but in 1942-43 it was painfully slow and required a massive processing plant, all of which was experimental at best. [Oak ridge was the first of it's kind] It took 6 months just to refine enough U235 for the Trinity test.
 
 
Being anti American is the "In thing " right now, it's always been a popular hobbie, However, if your going to bitch and moan about the US at least Know what the hell your talking about.  One more thing my young friend, wishing the Nazis had developed the bomb first is the kind of suit that doesn't fit well on anyone, especially someone who is intelligent and informed, or claims to be so.  
 


-------------
"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.


Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2006 at 16:03
Originally posted by red clay


rider-  The amount of actual uranium metal that can be derived from ore is about 1/500th of the total amout. In other words if you want 1lb of uranium you must have 500 lbs ore.  The 1lb of uranium that you have is u238, which is useless for fission. In order to have an A bomb you need u235 which must be refined from u238. U238 has u235 at about 1 to 19 ratio. The trick is to separate the 235 from 238, a slow process even now, but in 1942-43 it was painfully slow and required a massive processing plant, all of which was experimental at best. [Oak ridge was the first of it's kind] It took 6 months just to refine enough U235 for the Trinity test.


Both bombs were also not the same type. If you wanted to make another plutonium bomb thats even more time added on.
    

-------------
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2006 at 17:04
Originally posted by Gundamor

Originally posted by red clay


rider-  The amount of actual uranium metal that can be derived from ore is about 1/500th of the total amount. In other words if you want 1lb of uranium you must have 500 lbs ore.  The 1lb of uranium that you have is u238, which is useless for fission. In order to have an A bomb you need u235 which must be refined from u238. U238 has u235 at about 1 to 19 ratio. The trick is to separate the 235 from 238, a slow process even now, but in 1942-43 it was painfully slow and required a massive processing plant, all of which was experimental at best. [Oak ridge was the first of it's kind] It took 6 months just to refine enough U235 for the Trinity test.


Both bombs were also not the same type. If you wanted to make another plutonium bomb thats even more time added on.
    
 
Good point, fat man was a plutonium device. Today plutonium is available in quantity as a result of the many reactors working worldwide, but just to give you an idea of what it took to produce plutonium for two bombs and the incredible undertaking the whole process was, some statistics follow-
 
Uranium enrichment was done at Oak Ridge Tenn. the production of plutonium took place at the Hanford Facility in Wash. state.
Hanford works total area- 586 square miles

The Hanford Engineer Works (HEW) broke ground in March 1943, and immediately launched a massive construction project. Before the end of the war in August 1945, the HEW Built 554 buildings (in addition to building living quarters and the City of Richland), including:

  • Three reactors (100-B, 100-D, and 100-F),
  • Three 250 meter long plutonium processing canyons (200-T, 200-B, and 200-U),
  • 64 underground high-level waste storage tanks,
  • Many uranium fuel fabrication facilities (300 area),
  • 386 miles (621 km) of roads,
  • 158 miles (254 km) of railway,
  • 50 miles (80 km) of electrical transmission lines,
  • Four electrical substations,
  • Hundreds of miles of fencing.

The Hanford Engineer Works used 780,000 cubic yards (600,000 m³) of concrete and 40,000 tons of structural steel and consumed US$230 million dollars between 1943 and 1946.

They had less than 2 years two construct and produce.  And also make it up as they went as this had never been done before.
 
 
 


-------------
"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.


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2006 at 18:24

Interesting. I hate it when my history channel lies... Besides, it seems that they didn't need Uranium for the second bomb. They had bombed it with Plutonium.

I am not anti-American, I am just for the Japanese. I didn't say the Germans had to get the bomb first, I just mentioned that thanks to a small mistake (well, not small actually) the bomb couldn't be finished. [=Source: History Channel]
 


-------------


Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2006 at 21:10
Originally posted by rider

Interesting. I hate it when my history channel lies... Besides, it seems that they didn't need Uranium for the second bomb. They had bombed it with Plutonium.




Well they usually use Uranium using nuclear reactors to make plutonium. One process use to be something like this 238U --> 239U --> 239Np --> 239Pu   

-------------
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"


Posted By: Qin Dynasty
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2006 at 23:29
Japan had already decided to surrender, it was not the nuke made she do the decision. Militarily speaking,  the bomb was unnecessary. That's it.


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 03:01
Well, but the extraction of plutionium is much faster.

-------------


Posted By: bagelofdoom
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 04:02

The bomb was, I believe, necessary for a number of reasons both military and otherwise.  The first is the most commonly used, but I will say it again: the bombing convinced the High command to end the war.  In order to end the war, the Japanese Cabinet would have to vote for surrender unanimously.  A simple majority would have been unlikely with this cabinet, as it was comprised mostly of militarists.  They believed that by drawing out the war, they could dictate more favorable terms.  Essentially, they had decided to make it as hard as possible for the US in the hope that they would just give up and go home.  Many countries had successfully fought wars which essentially consisted of waiting until the other guy got fed up with fighting.  It worked for us Americans during our revolution.  They had no reason to surrender yet.  That was logical prior to the bombs: with conventional munitions, you can’t really do all that much damage.  Think about it, it wasn’t the bombing campaigns that brought down Germany, despite events like Dresden, it was the soldiers marching into their cities.  The bombs convinced even the militarists that the US didn’t need to fight a war on their terms, that the US could simply bombard Japan into rubble without fighting a war that they could drag into an elongated struggle. 

 

Secondly, the bomb allowed a clean end to the war.  The American occupation had no resistance to contend with because, as I said above, the Japanese people, and the Japanese high command had no incentive to resist.  There was not an insurgency in post war Japan.  This allowed the humanitarian projects (such as the massive distribution of food that Macarthur ordered) to go off relatively easily.  That food distribution saved millions of lives.  This also allowed the new Japanese constitution to be brought out into daylight.  The original plan for the revised Japanese constitution was exactly that, a slightly revised version of the Meiji constitution, which as we know had led to a militarized constitutional monarchy.  Macarthur saw this plan and literally threw it out.  He had his staff write a new one, and this constitution was among the most liberal ever set in place for a nation state.  Remember that whole flap about the equal rights amendment here in the US a while ago?  That was written into the original Japanese constitution.  This constitution, the one that has resulted in a democratic and prosperous Japan was really only implementable at the end of a gun, and the only gun that could possibly be big enough to force a national bureaucracy to change was nuclear. 

 

Thirdly, the speedy end of the war saved hundreds of thousands of lives.  Even those who believe that the A-bombs were unnecessary say only that Japan would have surrendered by November or December.  At the rate that civilians were dying on the mainland and in concentration camps (200,000 a month (check wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki)) the Japanese would have killed at least 600,000 more people.  That is more than died in the bombings.  This estimate also includes the assumption that the US would have continued bombing Japan.  This would have undoubtedly included Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the only difference being thousands of incendiary weapons as opposed to one nuclear one. 

 

Fourthly, the dropping of A-Bombs on Japan ended the era of total war.  The era had begun back during the American civil war, when Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan laid waste to vast swaths of the south.  It had continued up through WWII with the massive bombings of civilians in order to stop their war machines.  After the pictures of what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki got out, there was no longer any public support for bombing civilians.  Before that, there had been loads of it.  Look at what happened with the bombings in Vietnam.  There was an uproar.  Look at today, whenever there is a bombing raid in Iraq, we hear about how many civilians were killed.  During WWII, those numbers would have been newsworthy only with a couple of zeros added to the end, and they would not have been mourned.  It is my firm belief that without the bombings of Japan, without the horrors that they allowed the world to see, the concept of simply laying waste to entire cities would be far more commonplace today. 

 

In conclusion, I think that the bombings saved American and Japanese lives then, due to the fact that there wasn’t an invasion, saved even more lives by ending the killing by the Japanese Army on the mainland and in the POW cages, and then saved lives later, by ending an era of unrestricted war on civilians.  It took an act that was morally wrong to a vast and public degree to show the wrongness of many lesser degrees.

 

Wow, I kinda wrote a lot.  Sorry for making all of you read my unedited ramblings. 



Posted By: clement207
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2006 at 20:57
I am from singapore and I say the bomb was necesary if there is no bomb my country could still be under the stupid japs.
No offence I am just speaking the truth.
But besides the bomb drop on 2 of their smallest and weakest and less industralised city.
They even lied in theirn mailto:#@%$ - #@%$ history books saying they liberated the others south east asia countires.
That is a damn lie trying to brainwash their civilian about the truth of the war


-------------


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 23:39
I'm not sure the bomb was necessary to save lives at all. Certainly not Japanese lives. The Japanese rulers had offered a conditional surrender many times but that was refused by the US.

The US had also offered total ceasefire upon unconditional surrender but that was refused by the Japanese.  U.S. wanted unconditional surrender which the Japanese did not agree to. I'm pretty sure the atomic bombs were just dropped to shock the entire world into submission as well as the Japanese. 

Also the Japanese may have wanted to hold out at all costs for 90 more days because by that time their first batch of 6,000 jet fighters would be ready to fly and could easily have beat back the allies out of east asia. They were also rumored they had a Germ Warfare and dirty nuke plan that was about 2 or 3 months away from hatching as well.


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 23:41
Originally posted by clement207

I am from singapore and I say the bomb was necesary if there is no bomb my country could still be under the stupid japs.
No offence I am just speaking the truth.
But besides the bomb drop on 2 of their smallest and weakest and less industralised city.
They even lied in theirn mailto:#@%$ - #@%$ history books saying they liberated the others south east asia countires.
That is a damn lie trying to brainwash their civilian about the truth of the war


Well isn't it a fact that they "liberated" Asian countries from European colonial powers? Wasn't that part of their strategy."asia for the asians" or something like that. I don't see what the lie is. They replaced the european colonisers with asian colonisers so where is the lie?


Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 01:48
a five year old Japanese girl is not guilty for anything.anyone encourages a-bombs are nothing but bloodthirsty killers.

-------------
A wizard is never late,nor he is early he arrives exactly when he means to :) ( Gandalf the White in the Third Age of History Empire Of Istari )


Posted By: bagelofdoom
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 06:06
Originally posted by maqsad


Also the Japanese may have wanted to hold out at all costs for 90 more days because by that time their first batch of 6,000 jet fighters would be ready to fly and could easily have beat back the allies out of east asia. They were also rumored they had a Germ Warfare and dirty nuke plan that was about 2 or 3 months away from hatching as well.


If that were true, it would be the greatest argument in favor of dropping the bomb that I have ever read.  As you can see, the arguments on the necessity of the A-Bomb's use go one of three ways.  One (that to which I ascribe): that the bomb was necessary because the war would have gone on long enough that the casualties from the bomb were acceptable in comparison.  Two: that the war would not have gone on long enough for the casualties from the A-Bombs to be acceptable.  Three: that the use of such weapons is inherantly immoral and that they should never have been used at all.  This argument generally ends up using the same arguments as the second for a number of reasons.  6000 jet fighters would undeniably have prolonged the war, thereby increasing casualties in both armies and in mainland Asia, where both civilians and soldiers were dying.  If casualties there would have increased dramatically, those who stand by argument number one would have a greater justification. 

As I said above, if it were true, it would be a powerful arguement.  Unfortunately, it is not.  The Japanese airforce was is horrible condition at the end of the war, and their industry was in no way capable of producing 6000 planes within a 90 day timespan, let alone giving them ammunition and fuel.  Also, the only Japanese jet plane had only one prototype.  It had made one flight.

Check it out for yourself:

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




Posted By: bagelofdoom
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 06:13
Originally posted by Batu

a five year old Japanese girl is not guilty for anything.anyone encourages a-bombs are nothing but bloodthirsty killers.


And what is the 5 year old Chinese girl who was not killed by the Japanese soldiers guilty of that she should have died in her place?  Or the drafted American and Japanese soldiers that would have died in the invasion? 

Saying that some are more deserving of life than others simply because the method of death is abhorrent is wrong.  The A-Bomb was a tragedy, but in killing a large number of people, it prevented the deaths of at least as many.

I say that anyone who believes allowing the deaths of at least half a million simply to save 300,000 is morally justified is a bloodthirsty killer. 


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 22:48
Originally posted by bagelofdoom


If that were true, it would be the greatest argument in favor of dropping the bomb that I have ever read.  As you can see, the arguments on the necessity of the A-Bomb's use go one of three ways.  One (that to which I ascribe): that the bomb was necessary because the war would have gone on long enough that the casualties from the bomb were acceptable in comparison.  Two: that the war would not have gone on long enough for the casualties from the A-Bombs to be acceptable.  Three: that the use of such weapons is inherantly immoral and that they should never have been used at all.  This argument generally ends up using the same arguments as the second for a number of reasons.  6000 jet fighters would undeniably have prolonged the war, thereby increasing casualties in both armies and in mainland Asia, where both civilians and soldiers were dying.  If casualties there would have increased dramatically, those who stand by argument number one would have a greater justification. 

As I said above, if it were true, it would be a powerful arguement.  Unfortunately, it is not.  The Japanese airforce was is horrible condition at the end of the war, and their industry was in no way capable of producing 6000 planes within a 90 day timespan, let alone giving them ammunition and fuel.  Also, the only Japanese jet plane had only one prototype.  It had made one flight.

Check it out for yourself:

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




I am going by a documentary I saw called "Secret Axis Aircraft of WW2" or some similar title which included the German batplane or stealth bomber and I recall clearly that the plan was to have a virtual air armada of thousands of these planes on the Island of Japan to deflect an invasion.

I don't really see how this is a strong argument to drop the bomb since the Japanese had been offering conditional surrenders months and months. Yes from the point of view of billionaire American and European bankers and industrialists that was a great reason to drop the bomb because it meant total control and recolonization of pacific SE asia without a chance of Japan getting a  piece of the pie.  But saving lives? Come on please!

I don't believe the primary reason the U.S. entered the war was to "save lives" at all. It was just for expansion of power and preventing Japan from becoming the new Asian superpower. If you look at history you see that the Japanese kicked out the french and british and became the new colonizers in SE Asia, also they built up manchuria as one of their favorite economic colonies as well. I speculate this is why the U.S. sent the flying tigers to China to provoke and pressure the Japanese. The U.S. wanted to prevent Japan from becomming the top dog in Asia. It had nothing to do with saving lives and everything to do with sacrificing lives in exchange for power and wealth. Thats what most wars of expansion are about. Pearl Harbor was just a domestic catalyst.

The undeniable fact that the nukes saved american lives by stopping american deaths right after their use distorts the whole 5 year picture. Its not false that they saved american lives at the expense of Japanese civilians but its an exagerration to say that their use was necessary and that their use was only to save lives. They were used to show off power and dominance to an extent too. The saving lives part was more of an excuse and less of a reason than is conventionally recounted I believe.




Posted By: bagelofdoom
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 23:58


I am going by a documentary I saw called "Secret Axis Aircraft of WW2" or some similar title which included the German batplane or stealth bomber and I recall clearly that the plan was to have a virtual air armada of thousands of these planes on the Island of Japan to deflect an invasion.

I would say that although that may have been their plan, unless they had massive underground production facilities that have not been found in the 60 years since the war ended, the plan would have fallen through. 

I don't really see how this is a strong argument to drop the bomb since the Japanese had been offering conditional surrenders months and months. Yes from the point of view of billionaire American and European bankers and industrialists that was a great reason to drop the bomb because it meant total control and recolonization of pacific SE asia without a chance of Japan getting a  piece of the pie.  But saving lives? Come on please!

Civilians on the mainland under Japanese control were dying at a rate of 200,000 per month.  That means that unless the Japanese would have offered unconditional surrender within one to two months of the time that the bomb was dropped anyway the bomb's net impact was positive. 

 

Do you think that a conditional surrender would have done that?  The Japanese wouldn’t have given up anything for quite some time while conducting negotiations, and eventually, would have ended up with a significant portion of the land that they conquered anyway.  The killing of civilians wouldn’t end as a result of a conditional surrender. 


I don't believe the primary reason the
U.S. entered the war was to "save lives" at all.

Neither do I and if you recall, I never said that.  I know that war kills people, and unless FDR was tripping on some kind of superdrug, he knew that too. 

It was just for expansion of power and preventing Japan from becoming the new Asian superpower. If you look at history you see that the Japanese kicked out the french and british and became the new colonizers in SE Asia, also they built up manchuria as one of their favorite economic colonies as well. I speculate this is why the U.S. sent the flying tigers to China to provoke and pressure the Japanese. The U.S. wanted to prevent Japan from becomming the top dog in Asia.

That is true.  The US had a vested interest in seeing Japan not become the dominant power in Asia because then they would be a threat to us.  They did become the dominant power for several years, and they most certainly were a threat. 

It had nothing to do with saving lives and everything to do with sacrificing lives in exchange for power and wealth. Thats what most wars of expansion are about.

I would argue that the Japanese were the ones fighting an expansionist war.  The Americans were at that time trying to get out of the Philippines . They were training an army there when the Japanese attacked.  In the end, after WWII and after giving the Philippines their independence (less than a year after the war was over), America had significantly less land than it started out with.  America fought the war for its own interests, but I believe that those interests coincided with what was morally right: stopping the killing by the brutal Japanese forces. 

Pearl Harbor was just a domestic catalyst.
I would agree with that as well, although without an attack, it is unlikely that FDR could have gotten the populace behind a war.

The undeniable fact that the nukes saved american lives by stopping american deaths right after their use distorts the whole 5 year picture. Its not false that they saved american lives at the expense of Japanese civilians but its an exagerration to say that their use was necessary and that their use was only to save lives. They were used to show off power and dominance to an extent too. The saving lives part was more of an excuse and less of a reason than is conventionally recounted I believe.

Firstly, the bombs didn’t just save American lives, they saved the lives of civilians on the mainland of Asia in Korea and China as well.  Secondly, if I said that the primary purpose of the Atomic bombs was to save lives, I misrepresented myself.  The primary purpose was to force the surrender of a belligerent power through total war.  The fact that they saved lives is secondary.  To paraphrase a lawyer in some movie I saw once: the intentions of the US in dropping the bomb are not on trial here.  The question that was asked was whether or not they were necessary.  It is a question that requires we look back and exercise our hindsight.  I will maintain that they were necessary because they saved lives.  I don’t care what Truman’s intentions were.  He could have done it because he liked the sight of the mushroom clouds, and until someone convinces me that Japan was about to surrender, I will believe that the bombs had a net positive impact in terms of casualties and were necessary.



Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2006 at 02:21
In India there is a proverb amongst shephards, one who has the stick will control the buffalos. History is written by the victor, who will always find new ways & means to destroy. their are very few communities which will have ethics for fighting.

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn


Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2006 at 06:19
I totally agree that japanese made many war crimes.But i think that nuclear attacks are also some kind of war crime.You said that every life is equal and nobody deserve to die.Then why US revenged the deaths of 3000 americans in Pearl Harbour by killing ten of thousands japanese with bombing og Hiroshima and Nagasagi.This is not fair.Every country in WW 2 made war crimes including US,USSR ,germany and japan.I dont know if GB and France did such a things and i really doubt.But to claim that you are civilized,democratic and humane during the war is absolutely unacceptable.

-------------


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2006 at 10:29
Indeed! And I agree! But if we were all in that position, how would we react! I mean, come on, lets' think about this- The world has been in total war for around 5 years, Japan is the only Axis country that has not surrendered. I am not justifying it NOW, but I am saying that in sheer desperation THEN, attitudes would have been different.

-------------


Posted By: perikles
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2006 at 10:32
Japan was almost ready to retreat. And why USA through two. I believe only one was enough.


-------------
Samos national guard.

260 days left.


Posted By: rock strongo
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2006 at 13:41
Hi,
 
I don't think it was necessary to drop the bomb.  The US could continue to carpet bomb strategic resources like food and water and Japan probably would have caved in.
 
They had their chance though, they were given the old surrender now or you'll be sorry ultimatum and they decided to test the you'll be sorry part.
 
Japan got nuked and surrendered after the second bomb, since one wasn't enough to convince them, and the US reached its undeniable height as a military power.
 
The US was the only nuclear power on the planet then and I'm sure that helped the Russians to decide to ruin only half of Europe..


-------------
Alcohol and night swimming, its a winning combination.


Posted By: bagelofdoom
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2006 at 16:10
Originally posted by rock strongo

Hi,
 
I don't think it was necessary to drop the bomb.  The US could continue to carpet bomb strategic resources like food and water and Japan probably would have caved in.


The nuclear weapons weren't really all that much more destructive than the carpet bombing.  The firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than the atomic bombing of Nagasaki.  The nukes simply had a bigger shock effect. 


Posted By: bagelofdoom
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2006 at 16:23
Originally posted by Desimir

I totally agree that japanese made many war crimes.But i think that nuclear attacks are also some kind of war crime.You said that every life is equal and nobody deserve to die.Then why US revenged the deaths of 3000 americans in Pearl Harbour by killing ten of thousands japanese with bombing og Hiroshima and Nagasagi.This is not fair.Every country in WW 2 made war crimes including US,USSR ,germany and japan.I dont know if GB and France did such a things and i really doubt.But to claim that you are civilized,democratic and humane during the war is absolutely unacceptable.


It can be argued that nobody deserves to die, but sometimes death is necessary.  War defies black and white moral reasoning.  Thats why the question for this topic wasn't: "is killing civillians morally acceptable?"  The answer would almost always be a resounding "no."  The question (to me at least) was asking whether or not a horrific act was necessary to end the war more quickly. 

I did not claim any of those things you seem to believe that I do.  I know that there were war crimes (and yes England committed a few of them I'm sure, France maybe, maybe not, they went out of the war very quickly).  But by the laws of the time, the bombing of defended cities wasn't a war crime.  It was not civilized or humane, but it wasn't a warcrime.


Posted By: Maljkovic
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 07:25
Few things I'd like to deal with:

The bombing of Pearl Harbour was done without a declaration of war. But in fact, the plan was for the Japaneese embasy in Washington to declare war by telegram 5 minutes before the attack starts. However, to keep the attack in at most secercy, they assainged an intelligence officer with telegraphing the declaration instead of trained telegraf staff, and the declaration came two hours after the attack. And another thing no one seems to remember is that that a US destroyer sunk a Jap sub one day prior to the attack, no war then either Besides, the men at Pearl Harbour were soldiers who knew they could die. Inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not.

The claim that the bombs convinced the High command that the war could not be won is a bold face lie. Why? Because it apparentlly took the High command one month to figure out that A bombs were dangerous-they were droped begining of August, Japan surendered beging of September. Another evidence the bombs had no effect on the reasoning of the High command were the transcripts of their meetings with the emperor after they dropped. They weren't worried what so ever. They knew the Americans didn't have enough bombs to destroy all Japaneese cities and simply dismissed the A bombs as a decision making factor.

Another coincedence (not!) is that the drop date was a few days prior to the date the Red Army set for the attack on Manchuria. After the attack, no more A bombs, even though the Americans still had one or two.

The real factors that brought down Japan was the destruction of their merchant marine only few days prior to the surrender, which meant total breakdown of communications between main Japneese islands. And also the fact that after the Red Army railroaded Manchuria, Japan was cut off from the critical resources needed for the war.

But the thing that really bugs me is the ignorance surrounding Japaneese society at that time. I keep hearing about "old samurai tradition" when in fact, for 80 years before WWII Japan had been adopting the western way of life. Samurai traditions had been considered to be old-fashioned, even out-dated in Japaneese society by the late 1920-s, when the Japaneese army takes over control and adopts a fascist-like militairy goverment. Even in this, they only followed the example of the west, where fascism at the time was not uncommon and was in fact a legitimate political option! The calling of the militants for "restoration of the old ways" was no different then say "restoration of the Roman Empire" or "Restoring the Aryan race to it's former glory"; It was only a bit more effective, like the Japaneese people are to this very day (electronics ).

The bombs were never intended to save lives, or quicken the end of the war, but to establish the US as the ruler of the world for generations to come. Alas, it lasted only 'till 1953. and the Soviet A-bomb test.


Posted By: bagelofdoom
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 10:38

Originally posted by Maljkovic

Few things I'd like to deal with:

The bombing of Pearl Harbour was done without a declaration of war. But in fact, the plan was for the Japaneese embasy in Washington to declare war by telegram 5 minutes before the attack starts. However, to keep the attack in at most secercy, they assainged an intelligence officer with telegraphing the declaration instead of trained telegraf staff, and the declaration came two hours after the attack. And another thing no one seems to remember is that that a US destroyer sunk a Jap sub one day prior to the attack, no war then either Besides, the men at Pearl Harbour were soldiers who knew they could die. Inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not.

The claim that the bombs convinced the High command that the war could not be won is a bold face lie. Why? Because it apparentlly took the High command one month to figure out that A bombs were dangerous-they were droped begining of August, Japan surendered beging of September. Another evidence the bombs had no effect on the reasoning of the High command were the transcripts of their meetings with the emperor after they dropped. They weren't worried what so ever. They knew the Americans didn't have enough bombs to destroy all Japaneese cities and simply dismissed the A bombs as a decision making factor.

Another coincedence (not!) is that the drop date was a few days prior to the date the Red Army set for the attack on Manchuria. After the attack, no more A bombs, even though the Americans still had one or two.

The real factors that brought down Japan was the destruction of their merchant marine only few days prior to the surrender, which meant total breakdown of communications between main Japneese islands. And also the fact that after the Red Army railroaded Manchuria, Japan was cut off from the critical resources needed for the war.

But the thing that really bugs me is the ignorance surrounding Japaneese society at that time. I keep hearing about "old samurai tradition" when in fact, for 80 years before WWII Japan had been adopting the western way of life. Samurai traditions had been considered to be old-fashioned, even out-dated in Japaneese society by the late 1920-s, when the Japaneese army takes over control and adopts a fascist-like militairy goverment. Even in this, they only followed the example of the west, where fascism at the time was not uncommon and was in fact a legitimate political option! The calling of the militants for "restoration of the old ways" was no different then say "restoration of the Roman Empire" or "Restoring the Aryan race to it's former glory"; It was only a bit more effective, like the Japaneese people are to this very day (electronics ).

The bombs were never intended to save lives, or quicken the end of the war, but to establish the US as the ruler of the world for generations to come. Alas, it lasted only 'till 1953. and the Soviet A-bomb test.


Firstly, the idea that the use of the atomic bombs was revenge for Pearl Harbor is simply foolish.  The bombs were used as the logical extension of the strategic bombing campaign that had been ongoing up until that point. 

Secondly, the Japanese submarine that was sunk by a US destroyer was destroyed inside US waters, that trespass was in itself Casus Belli, or just cause for war. 

Thirdly, the Japanese transmitted their surrender (here is a link to a Magic translation:http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/64b.pdf) on August 10th, 1 day after the bombing of Nagasaki.  This surrender wasnot immediately accepted because it contained the following clause: "with the understanding that the said declaration (Potsdam) does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of his Majesty as a sovereign ruler."  The US replied that his majesty would be subject to the "Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers."  The Japanese Cabinet deadlocked, and on the 14th there was an attempted military coup.   The coup failed and the Emperor went on the air to say that he accepted the allied terms.  The Japanese response was recieved on August 14th.  I think that there is a rather clear connection between the atomic bombs and the surrender. 

As for the old samurai traditions, I really don't know all that much about Japanese culture at the time.  I know that there was a lingering contempt for prisoners that caused the Bataan death march and suchlike, but II don't know that much beyond that. 

As I said before, I believe that the bombs saved lives, and as a result of that, I don't really care what the intentions of the US government were in dropping them. 

I would recommend that you take a look at this website.  It is a collection of primary source documents that is rather astounding.  http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm">http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm



Posted By: rock strongo
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2006 at 13:22
How did the Japanese know how many bombs the Americans had?  Did they have a ninja in the capitol building? I've never heard that the Japanese simply dismissed the A-bombs.  Where have you read that?

-------------
Alcohol and night swimming, its a winning combination.


Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2006 at 14:00
Originally posted by Constantine XI

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.
 
A very Allied point of view...Fascist Japan was not angel, with Nanking Massacre etc. used many brutal ways..But clearly that doesn't justify the nuking action...
 
And for Pearl Harbour, it is more logical to begin a war in a beneficial surprise rather than losing the advantage of surprise element with an ordinary DoW..
 
Let's say Japan was still not determined to give up...Why a second nuke then?Wasn't the first one enough?


-------------
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli


Posted By: bagelofdoom
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2006 at 17:05
Originally posted by Constantine XI

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.


Originally posted by Kapikulu

A very Allied point of view...Fascist Japan was not angel, with Nanking Massacre etc. used many brutal ways..But clearly that doesn't justify the nuking action...
 
And for Pearl Harbour, it is more logical to begin a war in a beneficial surprise rather than losing the advantage of surprise element with an ordinary DoW..
 
Let's say Japan was still not determined to give up...Why a second nuke then?Wasn't the first one enough?
[/QUOTE]


No, the actions of Imperial Japan are what justify the bomb, although they do so indirectly.  The reason that the bomb was necessary (at least to me) was that it prevented large numbers of civilians (200,000 a month from what I have read) from dying under Japanese control.  If The Japanese had not been so barbaric in their occupations, there would not have been as much of a justification for dropping the bomb as fewer civilians would have been saved as a result (perhaps even fewer than were actually killed by the bombs). 

Surprise is a logical way to begin a war, shock and awe and all.  However, Japan screwed up.  They meant to declare war about 5 minutes before hitting PH; however, they didn't allow for enough time for decoding and as a result, their declaration of war got to Washington just in time to be seen as insulting.  Rubbing salt in the wound, albiet accidentally, didn't help them much when the time for US bombing came around. 

As for the necessity of the second nuke, I cannot be sure.  No one can.  There may have been a decision in favor of surrender relatively quickly, or maybe they would have concluded that we only had one bomb and kept on fighting.  However, what we do know for sure is that it was the day after the bombing of Nagasaki that the Japanese transmitted their acceptance of the terms of Potsdam.  In my opinion, the second bomb showed that the attack was not just a fluke and convinced Japan that we were serious about their unconditional surrender. 

edit: I can't seem to get the quote system working right.  I'm not sure what the problem is.  Hopefully people can tell my thoughts from those of the two that I quote.Mod edit for quoting


-------------


Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2006 at 22:17

Remove Constantine XI from the quote section on the top of the page when editing and just show it like you are answering to my quote Wink



-------------
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli


Posted By: Toluy
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2006 at 09:46
Originally posted by maqsad

Originally posted by clement207

I am from singapore and I say the bomb was necesary if there is no bomb my country could still be under the stupid japs.
No offence I am just speaking the truth.
But besides the bomb drop on 2 of their smallest and weakest and less industralised city.
They even lied in theirn mailto:#@%$ - #@%$ history books saying they liberated the others south east asia countires.
That is a damn lie trying to brainwash their civilian about the truth of the war


Well isn't it a fact that they "liberated" Asian countries from European colonial powers? Wasn't that part of their strategy."asia for the asians" or something like that. I don't see what the lie is. They replaced the european colonisers with asian colonisers so where is the lie?
 
I don't think so. In fact Japanese enslaved some Asians more than Europeans did.
Even if you consider this slavery as so called liberate, I would say what significance dose this 'liberation' have to native Southeast Asians. Coloniser is coloniser forevermore.
The last but not least, what is the difference between 'asia for the asians'  and 'earth for human beings'?


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2006 at 13:25
Interesting views here.


Posted By: Siege Tower
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2006 at 14:50
i felt that part of the plan was to stop the expansion of "red power" in the region, as we know, japan neighbours with soviet and china( you know what i mean), so if allies were ready to launch an attack in Japan's homeland, soviet and probably china will be the first to attack, and eventually will demand their share of the land. atomic bomb was obviously was the fastest way and the cheapest way of wining the war.

-------------




Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 28-Dec-2006 at 00:30
Originally posted by Ponce de Leon

A very hard debate.
 
Hard for who?  They can do it whenever they want, any rich nuclear country can develop the weapons if they really wanted to.  Japan has over 55 nuclear reactors.  Bulgaria, Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc.
 


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 28-Dec-2006 at 09:02
Originally posted by Siege Tower

i felt that part of the plan was to stop the expansion of "red power" in the region, as we know, japan neighbours with soviet and china( you know what i mean), so if allies were ready to launch an attack in Japan's homeland, soviet and probably china will be the first to attack, and eventually will demand their share of the land. atomic bomb was obviously was the fastest way and the cheapest way of wining the war.




The use of the A bomb was very definately done to make the Soviets take notice. However, Fast and cheap it wasn't. To make the bomb in todays dollars, would have cost 100+ billion. The cost at the time was so great it was nearly impossible to not use it.
    

-------------
"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.


Posted By: konstantinius
Date Posted: 28-Dec-2006 at 19:04
I am not sure that even the US knew what kind of weapon they had just come up with. It is indicative that no one (prior to the first test ofthe bomb) knew what was going to happen. One of the main scientists (I forget whom), involved in the project, developed this elaborate theory to show how the detonation was going to set up a chain reaction and burn up all the oxygen in the atmosphere. In short, this was new technology with unpredictable effects. I think even the US military was surprised at the destruction in Hiroshima. Of course this didn't prevent them from making the second bomb even stronger.
The bombing was not necessary. Japan would have surrendered eventually, even wihtout the much-feared (US expected 1,000,000 casualties) invasion of the home islands: a massive, 24/7 carpet bombing of Japan by US and Russian air fleets for months on end would have brought the desired effect. However, how can you tell generals not to play with their new "toys"? The naivete with which US entered the nuclear age, is exemplified by those photos from the 50's where both civilians and military personnel are watching the nuclear mushroom go up from a "safe" distance wearing just dark goggles. Half of these people are already dead from radiation poisoning. With such callous insensitivity and ignorance, you think they would care about Jap civilians? To the US, this was just another bad ass bomb that could end the war faster. "Nuclear winter" and holocaust were not in the picture yet. Thankfully for all, everyone realised quickly what the real implications are.  

-------------
" I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so."


Posted By: Siege Tower
Date Posted: 28-Dec-2006 at 20:51
well, talking about better strategy, the allies could just leave Japan and not do anything, eventually they will run out of oil and other resources to support the industries and the war. in a few years, food will be a problem. it would the best stretegy.


-------------




Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 28-Dec-2006 at 22:30
My dad is with us over the Holidays, I have read some of this to him. He was in the Amphibs in the Pacific Theater and can speak from experience. " We were angry, angry at having our lives interupted, angry at risking our lives, and mainly, angry at an enemy who was already totaly defeated but refused to give up and continued to kill us, or try to, even though we had totally destroyed every element of their war machine,and the outcome was inevitable. We[the entire country] just wanted it over.
If you were to ask anyone who lived through that era how they felt at that time, and they were being honest, they would all say about the same".   Red Clay Sr. PO 1st class US LST 758
    

-------------
"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.


Posted By: Dan Carkner
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2006 at 08:54
Perhaps, but you could say after september 11 that americans were "angry, angry at afganistan" -- that doesn't make their policy above criticism.  The anger was manipulated to achive the policy.


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2006 at 09:43
Originally posted by Dan Carkner

Perhaps, but you could say after september 11 that americans were "angry, angry at afganistan" -- that doesn't make their policy above criticism.  The anger was manipulated to achive the policy.



You can't even begin to compare the two events, and we are talking about 60 years ago. Different times, different perceptions.
    

-------------
"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.


Posted By: The_Jackal_God
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2006 at 20:23
funny that Nanking massacre, some say genocide, only gets mentioned once, after two pages.

sure, ask the Japanese what they think about dropping the bombs, but then go ask the Chinese too, and the Koreans, and Filipinos. Why did their little children have to killed and their women be raped by the expansionist Japanese.

US expansionism - try the expansion of self-rule and democracy, yes hand in hand with our capitalism. capitalism, a game the Americans didn't invent, just something we excel at, like football. :)


Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2006 at 21:00
Originally posted by The_Jackal_God

funny that Nanking massacre, some say genocide, only gets mentioned once, after two pages.

sure, ask the Japanese what they think about dropping the bombs, but then go ask the Chinese too, and the Koreans, and Filipinos. Why did their little children have to killed and their women be raped by the expansionist Japanese.

 
A barbaric deed cannot be justified with the existence of another barbaric deed.


-------------
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli


Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2006 at 22:32
Originally posted by Kapikulu

Originally posted by The_Jackal_God

funny that Nanking massacre, some say genocide, only gets mentioned once, after two pages.

sure, ask the Japanese what they think about dropping the bombs, but then go ask the Chinese too, and the Koreans, and Filipinos. Why did their little children have to killed and their women be raped by the expansionist Japanese.

 
A barbaric deed cannot be justified with the existence of another barbaric deed.


Maybe not, but the Japanese brought it upon themselves.


Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2006 at 22:38

Then, once more, why was the second nuke thrown?



-------------
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli


Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2006 at 22:49
Originally posted by Kapikulu

Then, once more, why was the second nuke thrown?



Because Japan didn't surrender after the first. Japan was still going to fight, the second convinced the the Emperor to end the war.


Posted By: bagelofdoom
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2006 at 00:25
Originally posted by Kapikulu

A barbaric deed cannot be justified with the existence of another barbaric deed.



Sure it can.  If the barbaric deed being justified stopped greater barbarism, that is a reasonable justification.  If the deed which is being justified is less barbaric than the deeds to which it is putting an end, it is fully justified.  To argue otherwise is to argue that all violence is unjustifiable. 

Lets say I were a serial murderer, say, that I killed babies.  Now, say that you were able to stop this act by killing me, and only by killing me, and by killing me save a cute little baby that I was dangling over a pond full of sharks; would that not be justified?  Would you not have the right to feel that your act of barbarism, pushing me into a pond full of sharks, was justified in order to save that baby, and all of the other ones which I might have killed in the future? 

As fun as pacifist platitudes are to say, they really don't bear up to any reasonable person's sense of morality. 


Posted By: bagelofdoom
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2006 at 00:38
Originally posted by konstantinius

Japan would have surrendered eventually, even wihtout the much-feared (US expected 1,000,000 casualties) invasion of the home islands: a massive, 24/7 carpet bombing of Japan by US and Russian air fleets for months on end would have brought the desired effect.


OK, so let me get this straight:  The atomic bomb wasn't necessary because the US and Russia could have accomplished the exact same thing with high explosives and firebombs.  Now, laying aside the fact that the atomic bombings almost certainly entailed fewer Japanese civilian casualties than a further stream of carpet bombings (remember that the firebombing of Tokyo in March of 1945 caused as many deaths as Nagasaki), and the fact that the deaths from the oncoming famine would have numbered in the millions (the famine was only stopped by Douglas Macarthur's distribution of foodstuffs as part of the occupation), and the fact that if Russia had bombed Japan they would have wanted to occupy part of it (one must only look at the differences between North and South Korea to imagine how this might have turned out for Japan's citizens and neighbors) that is still a bad idea simply because it would have meant that the atrocities in mainland Asia would have continued. 

Do you believe that the massive loss of life that further conventional warfare would have entailed is offset by the mere fact that the weapons used to end the war were nuclear? 


Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2006 at 01:19
Originally posted by bagelofdoom



Sure it can.  If the barbaric deed being justified stopped greater barbarism, that is a reasonable justification. 
 
 
I truly wonder what more amount of greater barbarism Imperial Japan could have made if there haven't been nuclear bombs! So, for the US theses, heroic US command came and saved millions of people from the dead Japanese Empire's slaughter!
 
I believe, the US, who was able to find and kill Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto in his helicopter, was able to bomb and destroy the Imperial Palace of Japan among with the Emperor, as well, if that was what they wanted to do..
 
Maybe, it was a show of power,ha?An ultimatum to the world about the strengths and capabilities of US...

 
 
Originally posted by bagelofdoom



As fun as pacifist platitudes are to say, they really don't bear up to any reasonable person's sense of morality. 
 
If reason is killing more people, destroying cities, and spreading radiation, and beginning a nuclear race, I deny this kind of a corrupted reason.


-------------
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli


Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2006 at 01:44
Originally posted by Kapikulu

Originally posted by bagelofdoom




 
 
[QUOTE=bagelofdoom]

As fun as pacifist platitudes are to say, they really don't bear up to any reasonable person's sense of morality. 
 
If reason is killing more people, destroying cities, and spreading radiation, and beginning a nuclear race, I deny this kind of a corrupted reason.

Angry

That was not the reason! The reason was to force the Japs into surrendering! An invasion of the Japanese mainland would have cost hundreds of thousands of lives, if not millions! Have you ever heard of Okinawa? The civilians jumped of f**king cliffs because the Japanese told them the Americans were monsters who would do horrible things to them! Now magnify what happened to Okinawa thousands of times, throughout the entire country of Japan! MILLIONS WOULD HAVE DIED! The Japanese were training their entire population to fight to the last man, woman, and child! Why is that so hard to understand?!


A full scale invasion would have cost millions of lives period. The two atomic bombs caused what, about 200,000 dead? A large number yes, but nothing compared to MILLIONS. I'd say that dropping the bombs were a good thing.

Sorry if this post rambled a bit, I'm sick of people saying dropping the bombs were unjustified. The dropping of the bombs, while lamentable, was, and still is, justified.


Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2006 at 02:15
Respecting your view, I still stand behind my own view.As I previously said, it would be done in any other way...Bombardment of Imperial Palace, an official diplomatic touch with the Japs coming with a heavy ultimatum of dropping the second bomb, etc. etc...Many ways for it.
 
As Soviet invasion was launched in Manchuria and blockade have been put over Japan, after some time; in fact several weeks, Japan would be forced and ready to surrender, even though their culture includes to fight till the last man, and respect to the emperor to death.
 
Hirohito, the man who governed the Japanese politics till late 80s, was not that blind to believe a victory would come from the sky.
 
In fact, any reasoning comes insufficient to me against barbarism and violence of such a scale. That shall be where a state reached her top in those areas.


-------------
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli


Posted By: bagelofdoom
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2006 at 02:46
Originally posted by Kapikulu

Originally posted by bagelofdoom



Sure it can.  If the barbaric deed being justified stopped greater barbarism, that is a reasonable justification. 
 
 
I truly wonder what more amount of greater barbarism Imperial Japan could have made if there haven't been nuclear bombs! So, for the US theses, heroic US command came and saved millions of people from the dead Japanese Empire's slaughter!
 
I believe, the US, who was able to find and kill Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto in his helicopter, was able to bomb and destroy the Imperial Palace of Japan among with the Emperor, as well, if that was what they wanted to do..
 
Maybe, it was a show of power,ha?An ultimatum to the world about the strengths and capabilities of US...

 
 
Originally posted by bagelofdoom



As fun as pacifist platitudes are to say, they really don't bear up to any reasonable person's sense of morality. 
 
If reason is killing more people, destroying cities, and spreading radiation, and beginning a nuclear race, I deny this kind of a corrupted reason.


You may deny my reasoning, but you show it rather clearly in your post.  You advocate an alternative to the use of nuclear weapons.  Your sense of moral reasoning says that bombing Hirohito's palace, and no doubt killing hundreds of people, among them innocent women and children, would be a superior way of ending the war.  What else could that be called other than barbaric?  You are saying that the lesser barbarism could be justified if it stopped the war.  You also disagree with the pacifistic nonsense, you simply feel that the atomic bombing was too great of a barbarism. 

As for your specific arguments:
In "The end of the imperial Japanese Empire" Richard B Frank argues that several hundred thousand civilians were dying each month on the Asian mainland, extend that out over the several more months required for Japan to decide to surrender, the month or two more for negotiations, add in the deaths of the famine that the Japanese high commands insistence on war material production would have combined with the blockade to bring about, and you have far more people than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 

As for the US' ability to assassinate the Emperor, I'm sure that they could, I am also sure that doing so would have caused very little actual policy change (remember there was an attempted coup when the emperor finally did attempt to impose peace the day after Nagasaki), and would have even further inflamed the Japanese populace, making the eventual occupation much harder. 

Did the bombing send an ultimatum to Russia?  Yes, it did.  However, the two bombings also sent a much more important ultimatum to Hirohito, an ultimatum that ended the war the next day. 


Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2006 at 03:43
hey´who said that nobody dies in the war? people die in war thousands of bullets kill thousands of people a a-bomb kills thousands the war is over
 
 merry new year everyone


-------------
A wizard is never late,nor he is early he arrives exactly when he means to :) ( Gandalf the White in the Third Age of History Empire Of Istari )


Posted By: Dan Carkner
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2006 at 08:50
I think people would be singing a different tune about morality if it was their family still poisoned by radiation.  I suspect that many of the most hawkish americans would be pleading ignorance/leniency if *their* country's crimes were actually going to be punished in some way..


Posted By: Dream208
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2006 at 09:28

True, different backgrounds will put things in different perspective.

What if it was China who dropped the bomb? Would it still be an despicable act?
 
To my humble opinion, none of us really has the right to judge this decision if we did not personally lived through the era.
 
We can not speak of the morality of war unless we or our families experienced the sufferings it had costed.
 
Who is we to condamn a Chinese veteran who cheered the nuking of Japan because his entire family was massacred during the Japanese invasion between 1937~1945?
 
Who is we to condamn a American solider who supported the fire bombing of Tokyo because his life was interupted by the war which Japan started?
 
Of course, my background have prevented me to feel pity for those "innocent" Japanese citizens.
 
But I also believe it is ignorant for us who did not live through the horror of the second World War to judge this event.


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 31-Dec-2006 at 09:48
Originally posted by Adalwolf

[QUOTE=Kapikulu][QUOTE=bagelofdoom] 
Now magnify what happened to Okinawa thousands of times, throughout the entire country of Japan! MILLIONS WOULD HAVE DIED! The Japanese were training their entire population to fight to the last man, woman, and child! Why is that so hard to understand?!

A full scale invasion would have cost millions of lives period.
 
I agree fundamentaly.  In the end the Bombs saved lives and suffering, but not exponentially so.
   
The Japanese  national suicide vow was complex.  Only a corps of fanatical junior military officers truly favored it.  The senior leadership did not.  Instead they favored a Tennozan or decisive battle.  A Japanese strategic victory in the Tennozan  would then lead to a negotiated cease fire with the allies.    The sea battle of Leyte was intended to be the Tennozan  When that did not work, the Tennozan concept was shifted to Okinawa.   The next planned Tennozan was scheduled for Kyushu.
 
Also, the willigness of millions of Japanese to commit national suicide was slowly eroding.  Okinawa did see civilian mass suicides.  But unlike Saipan,  most Okinawan civilians did not commit suicide.  More importantly, Okinawa saw the first mass surrender of Japanese military personnel (both Japanese and Okinawan).   A tour of the Tokyo fire raid areas by the Imperial motorcade was also met with open civilian disrespect and hostility.  
 
My guess is that Japan would have collpased after the Kyushu landings.  


Posted By: Ikki
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 17:14
Originally posted by Cryptic

Originally posted by Adalwolf

[QUOTE=Kapikulu][QUOTE=bagelofdoom] 
Now magnify what happened to Okinawa thousands of times, throughout the entire country of Japan! MILLIONS WOULD HAVE DIED! The Japanese were training their entire population to fight to the last man, woman, and child! Why is that so hard to understand?!

A full scale invasion would have cost millions of lives period.
 
I agree fundamentaly.  In the end the Bombs saved lives and suffering, but not exponentially so.
   
The Japanese  national suicide vow was complex.  Only a corps of fanatical junior military officers truly favored it.  The senior leadership did not.  Instead they favored a Tennozan or decisive battle.  A Japanese strategic victory in the Tennozan  would then lead to a negotiated cease fire with the allies.    The sea battle of Leyte was intended to be the Tennozan  When that did not work, the Tennozan concept was shifted to Okinawa.   The next planned Tennozan was scheduled for Kyushu.
 
Also, the willigness of millions of Japanese to commit national suicide was slowly eroding.  Okinawa did see civilian mass suicides.  But unlike Saipan,  most Okinawan civilians did not commit suicide.  More importantly, Okinawa saw the first mass surrender of Japanese military personnel (both Japanese and Okinawan).   A tour of the Tokyo fire raid areas by the Imperial motorcade was also met with open civilian disrespect and hostility.  
 
My guess is that Japan would have collpased after the Kyushu landings.  


Clap Totally agree with your example about Okinawa, a fact very few times counted by the pronukes. Three points i should change, in my opinion, first Japan was just totally colapsed in the summer of 1945, second the japanese was negotiating the peace, so was only a question of time the surrender, that mean, the victory was assured and specially when the soviet was going into the asiatic war.


-------------


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 22:47
Originally posted by Ikki

 
Three points i should change, in my opinion, first Japan was just totally colapsed in the summer of 1945, second the japanese was negotiating the peace, so was only a question of time the surrender, that mean, the victory was assured and specially when the soviet was going into the asiatic war.
 
I agree that Japan was totally collapsed.  But the Japanese military leadership in favor of one more Tennozan did not  know it.  My guess is without the nukes, they would have wanted one try at a decisive victory on Kyushu.
 
Also, Japan was negotiating, but with too many conditions.   The terms given to the Japanese were the same as Nazi Germany (Unconditional surrender).  The "hawks" in the Japanese govewrnment wanted many conditions.  Most of these were not acceptable the the USA including 1. War Criminals are tried by Japanese courts 2. Japan keeps core Imperial territories (Taiwan and Korea) 3.  Japanese military units are disarmed by Japanese Authorities.  4. No military occuaption of Japan 
 
In the end, the allies had just a few choices:
- Blockade and starve Japan into surrender.  This still kills perhaps a million civilians and could lead to Soviet occupation of Japan
- Land on Kyushu.  Japan then collapses, but hundreds of thousands of civilians still die
-  Nuke them and then force a surrender with fewer terms. 
 
In the end Japan surrendered with technically only one condition (Emperor keeps throne).  In addition, U.S. President Truman strongly stated that  Japan's continued existance as a sovereign people was guaranteed and that the Emperor would not have to sign the surrender document.       
Originally posted by Kapikulu

 
As Soviet invasion was launched in Manchuria and blockade have been put over Japan, after some time; in fact several weeks, Japan would be forced and ready to surrender,
 
I think it would have taken 3 to months, not weeks to starve out the determined Japanese.  In the meantime, there would have been famine in Japan (the rice harvest had failed and winter was approaching) and thousands of U.S.  sailors would have been killed by Kamikaze attacks.
 
 


Posted By: DesertHistorian
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 21:22
Even though it was not known by the United States at the time, Japan was also very close in their Atomic bomb program. So close in fact that they detonated a prototype 1 or 2 days before the U.S. bombed Hiroshima, on a small island off the coast of what is now North Korea. They had at least enough materials left to produce another bomb which they planned to detonate in the middle of the U.S. fleet during the invasion in the hopes it would so severely damage the fleet and kill the most of the invasion force that the U.S. would agree to a cease fire and sign an agreement to end the war, leaving Japan to itself.
This information has only be de-classified in the last 10 years, and there was a documentary about it on the History channel titled "Japan's Atomic Bomb".
It is also forgotten that Japan still had many troops in Korea and China that could have been re-called to fortify the main islands, making an invasion even more difficult and costing even more lives.
Japan had also a well established biological warfare unit in Korea that has developed small pox, bubonic plague, and anthrax weapons which had already been used on the Chinese, and they could have used them as well on an invasion force inflicting a very high death rate.
In order to end the war, the U.S. had to drop the atomic bombs, or there would have been even more deaths and carnage than the bombs caused.


Originally posted by Cryptic

Originally posted by Ikki

 Three points i should change, in my opinion, first Japan was just totally colapsed in the summer of 1945, second the japanese was negotiating the peace, so was only a question of time the surrender, that mean, the victory was assured and specially when the soviet was going into the asiatic war.

 

I agree that Japan was totally collapsed.  But the Japanese military leadership in favor of one more Tennozan did not  know it.  My guess is without the nukes, they would have wanted one try at a decisive victory on Kyushu.

 

Also, Japan was negotiating, but with too many conditions.   The terms given to the Japanese were the same as Nazi Germany (Unconditional surrender).  The "hawks" in the Japanese govewrnment wanted many conditions.  Most of these were not acceptable the the USA including 1. War Criminals are tried by Japanese courts 2. Japan keeps core Imperial territories (Taiwan and Korea) 3.  Japanese military units are disarmed by Japanese Authorities.  4. No military occuaption of Japan 

 

In the end, the allies had just a few choices:

- Blockade and starve Japan into surrender.  This still kills perhaps a million civilians and could lead to Soviet occupation of Japan

- Land on Kyushu.  Japan then collapses, but hundreds of thousands of civilians still die

-  Nuke them and then force a surrender with fewer terms. 

 

In the end Japan surrendered with technically only one condition (Emperor keeps throne).  In addition, U.S. President Truman strongly stated that  Japan's continued existance as a sovereign people was guaranteed and that the Emperor would not have to sign the surrender document.       

Originally posted by Kapikulu

 
As Soviet invasion was launched in Manchuria and blockade have been put over Japan, after some time; in fact several weeks, Japan would be forced and ready to surrender,
 

I think it would have taken 3 to months, not weeks to starve out the determined Japanese.  In the meantime, there would have been famine in Japan (the rice harvest had failed and winter was approaching) and thousands of U.S.  sailors would have been killed by Kamikaze attacks.

 

 

    


Posted By: konstantinius
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2007 at 18:23
Originally posted by bagelofdoom

Originally posted by konstantinius

Japan would have surrendered eventually, even wihtout the much-feared (US expected 1,000,000 casualties) invasion of the home islands: a massive, 24/7 carpet bombing of Japan by US and Russian air fleets for months on end would have brought the desired effect.


OK, so let me get this straight:  The atomic bomb wasn't necessary because the US and Russia could have accomplished the exact same thing with high explosives and firebombs.  Now, laying aside the fact that the atomic bombings almost certainly entailed fewer Japanese civilian casualties than a further stream of carpet bombings (remember that the firebombing of Tokyo in March of 1945 caused as many deaths as Nagasaki), and the fact that the deaths from the oncoming famine would have numbered in the millions (the famine was only stopped by Douglas Macarthur's distribution of foodstuffs as part of the occupation), and the fact that if Russia had bombed Japan they would have wanted to occupy part of it (one must only look at the differences between North and South Korea to imagine how this might have turned out for Japan's citizens and neighbors) that is still a bad idea simply because it would have meant that the atrocities in mainland Asia would have continued. 

Do you believe that the massive loss of life that further conventional warfare would have entailed is offset by the mere fact that the weapons used to end the war were nuclear? 


No, I don't believe that. I'm just saying that nuking Japan twice to end the war wasn't neseccary.


-------------
" I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so."


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2007 at 13:54
Originally posted by Dan Carkner

I think people would be singing a different tune about morality if it was their family still poisoned by radiation.  I suspect that many of the most hawkish americans would be pleading ignorance/leniency if *their* country's crimes were actually going to be punished in some way..




You are either deluded, ignorant of history, or both. Or you think that adopting such an absurd stance somehow makes you look "cool".



    
    

-------------
"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.


Posted By: Pero
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 22:37
50-100 000 people died instantly when a bomb was dropped on a Hiroshima.  Whatever America says that there was no other way is bull.
I know Japan was very cruel during ww2, but what gives them (USA) the right to kill everything in their path.    

-------------
Um caruje, Snaga klade valja


Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 22:41
If the US wanted to kill everything in our path we would have nuked Tokyo. 

-------------
Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail.
     Edward Abbey


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 22:46
Originally posted by Pero

50-100 000 people died instantly when a bomb was dropped on a Hiroshima.  Whatever America says that there was no other way is bull.
I know Japan was very cruel during ww2, but what gives them (USA) the right to kill everything in their path.    
 
 
 
While your asking questions, you might ask the Chinese what right they think the Japanese had to slaughter 250,000 in Nanking alone.
 
 


-------------
"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.


Posted By: Pero
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2007 at 00:05
Originally posted by Adalwolf

If the US wanted to kill everything in our path we would have nuked Tokyo. 


They bombed tokyo before that with bombers.  Around 80 000 people were killed.
But that is beside the point.  USA wanted to try out the nuclear bomb and that was perfect opportunity.
In japan even today people are being born deformed.


-------------
Um caruje, Snaga klade valja


Posted By: Pero
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2007 at 00:07
Originally posted by red clay

 
 
While your asking questions, you might ask the Chinese what right they think the Japanese had to slaughter 250,000 in Nanking alone.
 
 


I didnt say what japan did was to be forgiven.  But that doesnt give the right for someone else to kill Innocent people by completely destroying their city. And killing everything in it.


-------------
Um caruje, Snaga klade valja


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2007 at 08:38
For all. Given that alot of diverse opinions raise varied emotional responses, let's keep from making things personal.  :)

-------------


Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2007 at 15:27
Originally posted by Pero

Originally posted by Adalwolf

If the US wanted to kill everything in our path we would have nuked Tokyo. 


They bombed tokyo before that with bombers.  Around 80 000 people were killed.
But that is beside the point.  USA wanted to try out the nuclear bomb and that was perfect opportunity.
In japan even today people are being born deformed.


Well, the Japs shouldn't have bombed Pearl Harbor.

I'm still convinced dropping the bombs saved lives in the end, especially the lives of American serviceman, but also the lives of Japanese civilians.


-------------
Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail.
     Edward Abbey


Posted By: Pero
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2007 at 02:49
what about the nuclear fallout.  I did say before that what japan did in ww2 was to forgive. 
But when dropping nuclear bomb, radiation stays there for around 10 000 years. 
Just before the end of the war, Russia declared war on japan, and china was on their side (pretty much the whole rest of the world).  The war would end soon anyway.  If they wanted to try the nuclear weapon they could bomb some military targets (where the massive japan army is located), not the civilian city.


-------------
Um caruje, Snaga klade valja


Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2007 at 03:00
Originally posted by Pero

what about the nuclear fallout.  I did say before that what japan did in ww2 was to forgive. 
But when dropping nuclear bomb, radiation stays there for around 10 000 years. 
Just before the end of the war, Russia declared war on japan, and china was on their side (pretty much the whole rest of the world).  The war would end soon anyway.  If they wanted to try the nuclear weapon they could bomb some military targets (where the massive japan army is located), not the civilian city.


Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate targets. I forget which, but I think one was a major port, and the other was a manufacturing center (is this correct?). I don't even know if people knew there was going to be nuclear fall-out when the bombs were dropped. Even if they did, the Japanese deserved ito be bombed after what they did at Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and especially Nanking.


-------------
Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail.
     Edward Abbey


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2007 at 09:50
Originally posted by Adalwolf

Originally posted by Pero

what about the nuclear fallout.  I did say before that what japan did in ww2 was to forgive. 
But when dropping nuclear bomb, radiation stays there for around 10 000 years. 
Just before the end of the war, Russia declared war on japan, and china was on their side (pretty much the whole rest of the world).  The war would end soon anyway.  If they wanted to try the nuclear weapon they could bomb some military targets (where the massive japan army is located), not the civilian city.


Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate targets. I forget which, but I think one was a major port, and the other was a manufacturing center (is this correct?). I don't even know if people knew there was going to be nuclear fall-out when the bombs were dropped. Even if they did, the Japanese deserved ito be bombed after what they did at Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and especially Nanking.
 
 
 
Nagasaki was, I believe, the base or headquarters of, the Japanese 3rd Army.  Both cities were taken off the target list for conventional bombing, to be used for A bomb.
They in fact, had little knowledge of, or appreciation for the incredible power they were dealing with.  Remember, prior to 1941, fission was just theory, and even a lot of that did not yet exist.
I have always found it interesting how some are so willing to forgive Japan for causing a conflict that killed 20-30 million people, unleashed total warfare on millions more, deliberately attacked the US, which was a largely isolationist country at the time but when the monster they created turned on them, it's the US that's the bad guys.Confused
 


-------------
"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.


Posted By: Pero
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2007 at 19:27
Did i say i was to forgive the japan for what they did.
Of course not.  But what us did with A bombs is wrong.  They knew what they were dealing with after the trinity test. 


-------------
Um caruje, Snaga klade valja


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2007 at 23:08
Originally posted by Pero

Did i say i was to forgive the japan for what they did.
Of course not.  But what us did with A bombs is wrong.  They knew what they were dealing with after the trinity test. 
 
 
 
 
They knew it worked,  that it cost [in todays dollars] 200 Billion to build,  that it could bring the war to an immediate halt and it would scare the crap out of the Soviets.  At the time thats all anyone really needed or wanted to know.
As for the scientific realities, no, they only knew that it would blow the crap out of everything within a square mile, the full effects of the fallout and radiation weren't yet known or fully appreciated.
 
 


-------------
"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.


Posted By: omshanti
Date Posted: 15-Jan-2007 at 00:34
Originally posted by Adalwolf


the Japanese deserved ito be bombed after what they did at Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and especially Nanking.

No , the Japanese civilians did not deserve to be killed. Let me ask you a question. Do you Adalwolf an American civilian deserve to be killed because of what America did and is still doing to so many countries? What you are saying gives the right to so many people in the world to kill you. Is that what you mean?

Originally posted by Kapikulu

A barbaric deed cannot be justified with the existence of another barbaric deed.

I completely agree with you Kapikulu.

Originally posted by Dan Carkner

I think people would be singing a different tune about morality if it was their family still poisoned by radiation.  I suspect that many of the most hawkish americans would be pleading ignorance/leniency if *their* country's crimes were actually going to be punished in some way..

How very true Dan Carkner.


Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 15-Jan-2007 at 09:07
Bin Laden attacked the twin towers to avenge for the Vietnam,god those Americans deserved it :)

-------------
A wizard is never late,nor he is early he arrives exactly when he means to :) ( Gandalf the White in the Third Age of History Empire Of Istari )


Posted By: Dream208
Date Posted: 15-Jan-2007 at 20:50
Originally posted by omshanti

Originally posted by Adalwolf


the Japanese deserved ito be bombed after what they did at Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and especially Nanking.

No , the Japanese civilians did not deserve to be killed. Let me ask you a question. Do you Adalwolf an American civilian deserve to be killed because of what America did and is still doing to so many countries? What you are saying gives the right to so many people in the world to kill you. Is that what you mean?

Originally posted by Kapikulu

A barbaric deed cannot be justified with the existence of another barbaric deed.

I completely agree with you Kapikulu.

Originally posted by Dan Carkner

I think people would be singing a different tune about morality if it was their family still poisoned by radiation.  I suspect that many of the most hawkish americans would be pleading ignorance/leniency if *their* country's crimes were actually going to be punished in some way..

How very true Dan Carkner.
 
 
I believed quit a lot of "innocent" Japanese civilians back then were legitimated military targets. They supported the war, and they were guilty of sufferings their nation caused to others.
 
And yes, I also believed some "terrorist" attacks were justified in this logic. A cannon maker in the rear is as guilty as the cannoner in the front-line.   


Posted By: omshanti
Date Posted: 15-Jan-2007 at 22:55
Dream208, how can you call a child ''a canon maker in the rear'' ? Perhaps a politician can be called the ''canon maker in the rear'' but not civilians.
Do Chinese civilians deserve to be killed because of this (read below) ?

Tibet
In Tibet, hundreds of Tibetans have been incarcerated for peacefully expressing their political and religious beliefs. Conditions in prisons are reported to be dismal, with numerous accounts of torture and ill-treatment. In particular, PRC law enforcement officials have perpetrated violent acts against Tibetan women in detention centers and prisons. Buddhist nuns and lay women have been subject to torture or violent, degrading and inhuman treatment, including assault, rape and sexual abuse. In June 1994, one Tibetan nun died while in custody, reportedly as a result of a beating by guards. PRC authorities also have severely restricted religious practice; out of the 6,000 Buddhist monasteries that were destroyed by the PRC since its 1949 invasion of Tibet, only a few hundred have been rebuilt.
PRC policies, including population transfers of hundreds of thousands of Chinese into Tibet, threaten to make Tibetans a minority in their own land and to destroy Tibetans' distinct national, religious and cultural identity.



Using your own logic, I am sure that to justify what the Japanese did in Nanking, I can find many cruel things China has done in the past , but that is not rght, is it? What the Japanese did in Nanking can not be justified regardless of what the chinese had done before that. This apllies to any other instances such as the atomic bombs dropped on Japan.

Name a single country/nation in the world that has done absolutely nothing cruel.

What I am trying to say is by that logic of ''Japanese people desrved to be killed because of what they did here'' ''American people dserved to be killed because of what they did there'' ...etc, all the people in the world would deserve to be killed some way or another and there would be no end to the violence.
Let me quote Mahatma Ghandi again. An eye to an eye makes the whole world blind.


Posted By: Dream208
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2007 at 00:22
Yes, Tibetan people do have right to attack or even hate the Chinese citizens, given to the crime PRC committeed 40~50 years ago (Tough I wonder if ROC would do the same thing if they were defeated).
 
Chinese have never be aggressor toward Japan in their long relationship (unless you argued that Mongel Yuan was Chinese). Japan, on the other hand, have attempted to invade both China and Korea various time before (luckily, most Chinese dynasties were strong enough to deter Japanese).
 
So, there is no way could Japanese justify Nanking or other autrocity in China.
 
Do not bring out little Children as shield of adult's crimes. A child's death during the war is adult's burden to carry, especially when the said adult is the one who started the war.
 
When Japanese government decided to launch full out invasion to China at July 1937, they already forfeit the fates of children of Hiroshima and Nakasaki of 1945.
 
 
Chinese crimes would pay to those who deserve our apologies, but not Japanese Empire who committed Nanking.


Posted By: omshanti
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2007 at 03:05
Calm down, Dream208. Now that I have brought China in to the discussion you are being unable to read objectively.

1, We were discussing about a third country revenging instead of the actual victims.

2, I did not bring up children as shields, but only pointed out the fact that attacking civilians also means killing children.

3, I never justified what the Japanese did in China but only pointed out that if we use your own logic, every violent act in the world can be justified one way or another and there would be no end to the violence. I believe that a violent act can not be justified no matter what reason lies behind it.

4, What I was trying to say in my post was not ''who did this'' and ''who didn't do that'' between China and Japan, nor ''who has the right to revenge'' and '' who doesn't''. The whole point of my post which you seem to have missed was this (read the quote below).
Originally posted by omshanti

Name a single country/nation in the world that has done absolutely nothing cruel.

What I am trying to say is by that logic of ''Japanese people desrved to be killed because of what they did here'' ''American people dserved to be killed because of what they did there'' ...etc, all the people in the world would deserve to be killed some way or another and there would be no end to the violence.
Let me quote Mahatma Ghandi again. An eye to an eye makes the whole world blind.


Now, you are free to believe in your own logic of rights for revenge and continue arguing what the Japanese did and what the Chinese didn't , but please understand that this was not the point of my post.

Regarding your logic of revenge, my opinion is that people who have had unfair or cruel things done to them have every right to be angry towards the aggressors but they also have the choice whether to control the anger and stand above it or to be controlled by the anger and sink in to blindness. Nobody can take this choice from us humans.







Posted By: perikles
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2007 at 08:27
if USA wanted to show their power and threatens Japan why they drop 2?
This is a war crime. Isn't strange that USA has involved in so many wars and never has been accussed or punished for crimes against humans?
So leave the crap aside. USA wanted  to test the NUk and defeat for ever Japan.  No respect for human rights. If they want to destroy Japanese army why they through the nuk in two cities?
 
In that way I can't understand why USA is different from Nazi? Whatever nazi did to Europeans USA did to JApan. 


-------------
Samos national guard.

260 days left.



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com