Because they were industrial cities and bombing them would cripple the japanese.
Because they were industrial cities and bombing them would cripple the japanese.
We had an operation plan that had estimated casualties on ALL SIDES upwards of 3 million. The bombs had about 300k casualties...as sick as it sounds...we saved lives dropping the bombs. The operation planned involved an amphibious assault where the allied powers would send in ground troops...a shit ton of them...allied and japanese lives would be lost in the millions. I'd say the bombs were a good idea...
Last edited by The Ogdru Jahad; 2011-11-28 at 11:56 AM.
The mere fact that they used the bomb in Hiroshima, and then they repeated the act to Nagasaki, makes all people involved in the decision of those actions war criminals, they should be arrested and executed in public together with the nazis that also had the same fate and quite rightfully.
It is not a bash against US.
There were also huge bombings during the WWII that flatened entire cities as well from both sides.
This though, was a fatal blow against civilians, with the knowledge that even the few survivors and their unborn children will suffer for the remaining of their lives.
The bastards that decided this should get executed, but as many other bastards they were considered war heroes.
May their disgraced remains rott in hell.
---------- Post added 2011-11-28 at 06:55 AM ----------
Last edited by The Ogdru Jahad; 2011-11-28 at 11:55 AM.
Last edited by achaeon; 2011-11-28 at 12:03 PM.
Every single citizen was willing to die for the cause if USA was going to invade Japan.
Every Japanese citizen would have taken a gun to shoot back, citizen is keyword here.
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." -Paul Krugman
I could think of a very likely scenario where the Japanse people ceased to excist, but before that we would have gone through a Vietnam-like war.
Yea, it was horrible, but in the greater picture, personally i think the Abombs were the best solution.
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.
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.
War is war.
War is not nice.
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.
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
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.
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.
Last edited by Theodon; 2011-11-28 at 02:43 PM.
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.
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.