Page 13 of 20 FirstFirst ...
3
11
12
13
14
15
... LastLast
  1. #241
    The Lightbringer KingHorse's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in KY, USA
    Posts
    3,742
    Logic for you:

    We dropped the first bomb, and asked again for a surrender. The response was, essentially, "Eh, we'll think about it." They didn't respond again for three days. Does that sound like a people who were willing to admit defeat? Does that sound like it would have been possible to invade through conventional means without loss of live far exceeding what the bombs brought? This was a people too proud to admit defeat when it was obvious to them and the rest of the world. They had three days after the first bomb to surrender. They didn't.

    So we dropped another. That was enough.

    The answer:
    We dropped the first one to try to end the war. We dropped the second one because the first one didn't impress the Japanese enough.
    I don't argue to be right, I argue to be proven wrong. Because I'm aware that the collective intelligence of the community likely has more to offer to me by enlightening me, than I do to an individual by "winning" an argument with them.
    Quote Originally Posted by belfpala View Post
    I don't always wear tennis shoes, but when I do, I speak Russian. In French.

  2. #242
    Deleted
    One of the other reasons was that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki werent touched by the firebombing runs that the US did before dropping the atomic bombs.

    They wanted to drop the bombs on cities that werent already being firebombed for maxomum psychological and "tactical" damage, as they were both major islands in the Chukogu/Honshu region and a sizeable force was based on one of them (forget which one). Not to mention the weather on the day Hiroshama was bombed was pretty perfect for it.

    Nagasaki was mostly done to reinforce the fear that the Japanese would have felt after the Hiroshima bombing. It could have been possible that the Military council passed off the Hiroshima bombing as a natural disaster and hence kept Japan fighting, the Nagasaki bomb was mostly to bring the point home, that it WAS a bomb and the US had the far superior power. I.e. Surrender now or we'll bomb Tokyo next.

    Oh yeah, now that I recall, one of the councillors for the Japan War council actually denied the damage done to Hiroshima was from an Atomic weapon. He flatly refused to believe the US had these things, until they bombed Nagasaki.

  3. #243
    Warchief Lansworthy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Relocating from Sera to Skyrim.
    Posts
    2,065
    I don't know..

    Maybe it was a DON'T FUCK WITH US AGAIN OR WE'LL BLOW THE FUCK OUT OF TOKYO
    >>This is where I'd put a witty quote for my Signature<<
    IF I HAD ONE

  4. #244
    Stood in the Fire Riff's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Sussex, UK
    Posts
    423
    Would it surprise you to know that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the ONLY times nuclear weapons have been deployed offensively. Ever. From that day to this.

    The world has seen what these weapons can do and that has made everyone very careful, so careful in fact they have not been used again - and I'm not sure anyone in this world has the balls or heart to press the button. Countries may step up to each other, but nobody wants to be that guy.

  5. #245
    Herald of the Titans Theodon's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2,870
    Instead of looking at the reasons behind dropping the bomb, people should be looking at what caused the war in the first place. If America forced Japan in to war through crippling Japans economy then the acts after that fact aren't really justified if you forced the war in the first place, from my point of view.

    You also have some facts going back further than that; Japan was currently engaged in aggressive expansion against China, occupying areas of Indo-China after the second world war when the Nazis pulled out. The trade embargo that triggered the war was done in protest to this expansion by Japan.

    Going back 10 or so years again; Most of the world was in an economic shithole, which Japan managed to pull themselves out of ahead of the other countries, so they started to build up their military forces. They required larger amounts of iron and ores from China and Malaya specifically. The only military force back then that could stand against them was the American navy, as they had the biggest in the world back then. Japan ended up spending 70% of their budget on their military. Russia whooped them through superiority in the field of tanks and heavy artillery.

    They invaded China for oil, as their economy was heavily based on petroleum fueling industrial growth. Rationing was introduced into Japan in 1938 in order to support the China campaign and the national debt spiraled as the government borrowed more and more to sustain enormous defense expenditures. due to their industrial growth being fuelled by petroleum (no pun intended) the trade embargo America placed upon them really hit them hard.

    The leadership of the country back then seemed to have dug themselves in to a hole, and the only way out for them was to take from their neighbors. Perhaps America realized just what nuking industrial areas would do to Japan, considering it was this industry built by war, for war, that moved things along. Sadly, it's not the army that build those forces, but civilians.

    So what caused the war? what caused things to lead to 2 nukes killing many, many people? A small group of people known as a government wanting more shit. Human nature really.

    http://www.buzzle.com/articles/why-d...rl-harbor.html
    http://www.emayzine.com/lectures/JAP1930.html
    Last edited by Theodon; 2011-11-28 at 02:43 PM.

  6. #246
    Stood in the Fire Lastblow's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    481
    guys its alright what happened is the past im sure japan made some questionable decisions to all that matters is we are friends and they send anime and manga over here.

    Dr.Pepper is made from fairy tears. Pokemon IGN: Josh FC: 0662-4407-8552

  7. #247
    Quote Originally Posted by The Ogdru Jahad View Post
    Millions have not died because of the radiation, and millions never will from cancers etc. Operation Downfall had estimates of 3 MILLION casualties? Can you wrap your mind around that number? Neither can I. I'd say tops 750k people died/were affected by the bombs. A large number, but a necessary sacrifice that saved millions.

    ---------- Post added 2011-11-28 at 06:55 AM ----------



    I recommend you read up on "the rape of nanking" and the "bataan death march". While I love the Japanese today. Back then they were a horrific bloodthirsty people. THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK AGAINST THE JAPANESE. Just merely stating the fact that they committed some of the worst atrocities I've ever read about.
    Most countries have a dirt / blood on their hands, just look at what happened to the Native Americans. It really is silly to go back and forth pointing out all the crimes each contry has commited.

    What I don't like is when people try to justify those atrocities.

    The mass murder of civilians can never be justified in my eyes, no matter which country is responsible or the method used.

  8. #248
    Some day those of you who call the bombings unnecessary will hopefully attend college and actually learn about what would most likely have happened if the bombs were not dropped. Google would also help.

    Facts are, Japan would most likely have not surrendered if the bombs hadn't been dropped. Far more people would have died in a ground invasion of Japan. The Japanese people were ready to fight the Americans to death and were completely prepared for Americas ground invasion. The Americans had to make it seem like they could continue such devastating attacks without ever attempting the ground invasion. The Americans had to convince the Japanese people that such a war would be completely hopeless for Japan.

    Again, in the end, many more people would have died in a ground invasion. Many more cities would have been destroyed in sieges. Many more civilians would have died. It was am extremely tough decision, I'm sure, but it was the right one in the big picture of keeping casualties to a minimum on both sides.

  9. #249
    Quote Originally Posted by Purlina View Post
    Most countries have a dirt / blood on their hands, just look at what happened to the Native Americans. It really is silly to go back and forth pointing out all the crimes each contry has commited.

    What I don't like is when people try to justify those atrocities.

    The mass murder of civilians can never be justified in my eyes, no matter which country is responsible or the method used.
    see this is my point exactly... think all the atrocities are bad instead of seeing one atrocity as horrible while another was good or just a necessary evil >_> Its just rationalizing and cognitive dissonance

  10. #250
    Merely a Setback Sunseeker's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    27,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Cattaclysmic View Post
    see this is my point exactly... think all the atrocities are bad instead of seeing one atrocity as horrible while another was good or just a necessary evil >_> Its just rationalizing and cognitive dissonance
    "good" and "necessary" are not the same. One is a moral judgement. The other is a strategic one.

    If A achieved B and therefore C was achieved, then A was a "necessary" or at least strategically sound move.

    If A was a bad thing but brought about a good thing which led to an even better thing, that's a personal judgement call.

    "good" and "bad" aren't rationalizing, they're moralizing.
    Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.

    Just, be kind.

  11. #251
    Quote Originally Posted by smrund View Post
    If A was a bad thing but brought about a good thing which led to an even better thing, that's a personal judgement call.
    I would say that A would still be "bad" despite whatever "good" it creates / causes

    But yes good, and bad is subjective and based on ones code of morality

    In my case I consider mass murder of civilians bad, and doubt that there will ever a situation where it is justifiable. (In my eyes)
    Last edited by Purlina; 2011-11-28 at 06:35 PM.

  12. #252
    The U.S. knew that Russia was gearing up for a full scale land invasion of Japan. There is absolutely no ethical reason the United States couldn't wait two weeks to see what effect this would have on the Japanese government. The U.S. government knew that they would lose their chance to show their weapon off if Japan surrendered, which was definitely a possibility. You can blather on all day about the possible casualty figures of a U.S. land invasion (which were grotesquely overestimated anyway), but the reality is that dropping the bombs AFTER seeing if the threat of Russia would cause a surrender would have had the same effect. There is absolutely NO excuse for not allowing that possibility to exhaust itself first. The slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people is not truly justifiable as even a last resort, but to rush it when there are other options is pure evil, no matter how you spin it.

  13. #253
    Merely a Setback Sunseeker's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    27,080
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    The U.S. knew that Russia was gearing up for a full scale land invasion of Japan. There is absolutely no ethical reason the United States couldn't wait two weeks to see what effect this would have on the Japanese government. The U.S. government knew that they would lose their chance to show their weapon off if Japan surrendered, which was definitely a possibility. You can blather on all day about the possible casualty figures of a U.S. land invasion (which were grotesquely overestimated anyway), but the reality is that dropping the bombs AFTER seeing if the threat of Russia would cause a surrender would have had the same effect. There is absolutely NO excuse for not allowing that possibility to exhaust itself first. The slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people is not truly justifiable as even a last resort, but to rush it when there are other options is pure evil, no matter how you spin it.
    Why do people keep bringing ethics into this? This is moralizing, it's an irrational judgement call based on personal opinion.

    The US wanted a speedy end to the war and therefore needed an unconditional surrender from Japan. They dropped a nuclear bomb, checked how Japan reacted and given the results were promising but not what they wanted, they dropped another a few days later. Japan surrendered unconditionally.

    Did A(the bombing) achieve B(the unconditional surrender)? Yes. Did B achieve C(the end the war)? Yes.
    Therefore the bombing was effective.

    We could debate the morality of the bombing till the cows come home, but suggesting that it was a less effective because you disagreed with the methods is a very poor line of reasoning.
    Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.

    Just, be kind.

  14. #254
    The American government didn't plan and execute the destruction of those cities becuase they wanted to annihilate people. They did it becuase Japan was becoming increasingly aggresive and could potentionally launch missiles them selfs to destroy American cities. They had to show them that they had the means to cause the nation great harm. After the first bomb they still didn't surrender, after the second one they did. America just wanted to show them that the Japanese empire was the underdog in that particular case. The bombs were not used to kill people, becuase obviously they would've sent them to a more popuated area. They simply had to do what they did.

    Also, the title shouldn't be "why Hiroshima or Nagasaki", it should be "Why Hiroshima and Nagasaki" as both of them actually got bombed. I thought every school in the developed world teached this. Do they not?

  15. #255
    Merely a Setback Sunseeker's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    27,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Senathor View Post
    The American government didn't plan and execute the destruction of those cities becuase they wanted to annihilate people. They did it becuase Japan was becoming increasingly aggresive and could potentionally launch missiles them selfs to destroy American cities. They had to show them that they had the means to cause the nation great harm. After the first bomb they still didn't surrender, after the second one they did. America just wanted to show them that the Japanese empire was the underdog in that particular case. The bombs were not used to kill people, becuase obviously they would've sent them to a more popuated area. They simply had to do what they did.

    Also, the title shouldn't be "why Hiroshima or Nagasaki", it should be "Why Hiroshima and Nagasaki" as both of them actually got bombed. I thought every school in the developed world teached this. Do they not?
    LOLWHUT.

    Japan, or ANY nation for that matter didn't have "missiles" that could reach across the ocean. Not to mention, NOBODY had nuclear weapons at the time EXCEPT America. The technology for ICBMs wasn't even developed until after WWII when many ex-Nazi scientists came to work for the major powers in the world.
    Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.

    Just, be kind.

  16. #256
    Quote Originally Posted by smrund View Post
    Why do people keep bringing ethics into this? This is moralizing, it's an irrational judgement call based on personal opinion.

    The US wanted a speedy end to the war and therefore needed an unconditional surrender from Japan. They dropped a nuclear bomb, checked how Japan reacted and given the results were promising but not what they wanted, they dropped another a few days later. Japan surrendered unconditionally.

    Did A(the bombing) achieve B(the unconditional surrender)? Yes. Did B achieve C(the end the war)? Yes.
    Therefore the bombing was effective.

    We could debate the morality of the bombing till the cows come home, but suggesting that it was a less effective because you disagreed with the methods is a very poor line of reasoning.
    I didn't question it's effectiveness. I questioned it's necessity.

  17. #257
    Quote Originally Posted by smrund View Post
    Why do people keep bringing ethics into this? This is moralizing, it's an irrational judgement call based on personal opinion.

    The US wanted a speedy end to the war and therefore needed an unconditional surrender from Japan. They dropped a nuclear bomb, checked how Japan reacted and given the results were promising but not what they wanted, they dropped another a few days later. Japan surrendered unconditionally.

    Did A(the bombing) achieve B(the unconditional surrender)? Yes. Did B achieve C(the end the war)? Yes.
    Therefore the bombing was effective.

    We could debate the morality of the bombing till the cows come home, but suggesting that it was a less effective because you disagreed with the methods is a very poor line of reasoning.
    If we are only talking about logic then yes, it was a logical way for the US to end the war with minimum casualties on their end.

    But then again suicide bombings / gorilla warfare / terror tactics is also logical when your country's army is vastly outnumbered & outgunned.
    Last edited by Purlina; 2011-11-28 at 07:12 PM.

  18. #258
    Merely a Setback Sunseeker's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    27,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Purlina View Post
    If we are only talking about logic then yes, it was a logical way for the US to end the war with minimum casualties on their end.

    But then again suicide bombings / gorilla warfare is also logical when your country's army is vastly outnumbered & outgunned.
    Sure, and they were highly effective when the USA was having it's revolution. Though I think in the long run, suicide attacks largely targeted at the civilian populace are counterproductive. It may erode support for your enemy, but it is unlikely to engender your enemy's allies(whom you are targeting) to become your friends, at least not friends who won't stab you in the back first chance they get.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    I didn't question it's effectiveness. I questioned it's necessity.
    Your statement questioned it's rationale on the basis that we should have seen how an invading Russian army would have dealt with things. I think we'd seen how well invading Russians worked in Eastern Europe at the fall of Germany(which was significantly before the fall of Japan). We KNEW what would happen if the USSR invaded Japan. Many words in your post question it's efficacy as a tactic though a moral lens.
    Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.

    Just, be kind.

  19. #259
    Quote Originally Posted by smrund View Post
    Sure, and they were highly effective when the USA was having it's revolution. Though I think in the long run, suicide attacks largely targeted at the civilian populace are counterproductive. It may erode support for your enemy, but it is unlikely to engender your enemy's allies(whom you are targeting) to become your friends, at least not friends who won't stab you in the back first chance they get.
    9/11 was wildly successful based on bin Laden's stated goals.

    Your statement questioned it's rationale on the basis that we should have seen how an invading Russian army would have dealt with things. I think we'd seen how well invading Russians worked in Eastern Europe at the fall of Germany(which was significantly before the fall of Japan). We KNEW what would happen if the USSR invaded Japan. Many words in your post question it's efficacy as a tactic though a moral lens.
    That's not what I said. I said they should have waited to see if the imminent threat of Russian land invasion would have caused a surrender, which it likely would have.

  20. #260
    Quote Originally Posted by smrund View Post
    Sure, and they were highly effective when the USA was having it's revolution. Though I think in the long run, suicide attacks largely targeted at the civilian populace are counterproductive. It may erode support for your enemy, but it is unlikely to engender your enemy's allies(whom you are targeting) to become your friends, at least not friends who won't stab you in the back first chance they get.
    I was also referring to the kamikaze attacks which several people seemed to have an issue with

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •