from what i know both targets were highly industrial, yet thats just discovery channel so could be wrong
from what i know both targets were highly industrial, yet thats just discovery channel so could be wrong
I'm not sure why people assume the only other choice was a land invasion. The war was already basically over, and Japan's navy and air forces were crippled. The US could have blockaded the islands and more or less starved out a surrender, or do the unthinkable and let Japan surrender with a condition (since that condition was immunity for the emperor). Or alternately, dropping the bomb in a lightly populated area or a military target to demonstrate it's power without massacring civilians.
Point is, there numerous options. It wasn't a binary choice.
it wouldnt have been just soldiers fighting soldiers though, while having to destroy two whole cities was terrible, imagine how many more cities would have been destroyed in a ground invasion. granted, im not anywhere near an expert in WW2 history, but im fairly certain that just about every major German city was razed nearly to the ground, and from what i understand the Japanese would have provided an even more dedicated and fierce defense.
The whole point of nuking Japan was to send the USSR a message, an isolated military target wouldn't have done that. As far as war crimes go, the US would've been guilty, had we lost the war, for firebombing most Japanese cities. We killed over 100,000 Japanese civilians in one night when we firebombed Tokyo!(more than both nukes combined) And we did this to a long list of cities in Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo
wonder how it felt for the japanese who were sad that it was a cloudy day but later found out said clouds saved their lives
So in other words. you mess with the bull you get the horns. they had it coming
They wanted to show off their new toy to the Soviets and bombing a random army base in the middle of nowhere wouldn't do that. Also we have killed more people via firebombing Tokyo/Dresden.
how can people sit here and get mad at USA for that
JAPAN ATTACKED THE US FIRST
You dont want to get bombed then dont start shit? Crazy concept I know
It was a strange and dangerous time where a lot of innocent people died. The truth of it is simply that attacking civilians was the most efficient way of doing things. Those cities also having industrial significance was a bonus. That being said I don't fault American leadership for their choice, specifically because it was a strange and dangerous time.
Both cities had miltairy importance. Japan was in a state of total war, they mobilized everything for their wartime effort. It would be harder to find a city of significant size that was not of militairy relevance.
The object was to force a surrender through a display of extreme brutality. But, the history books are written by the one that wins. So it wont ever be seen as a war crime. Not officially atleast.
And such acts of militairy brutality continue today, but its our side so its okay. Or did you really think half the world hates the West enough to die fighting us, just because they are jalous of our fancy cars and macdonalds?
While this is true, there is a little thing called Apprporiate Force when returning in kind.
The US dropping the bomb is the schoolyard equivilent of a bully (Japan) punching you in the gut, so you (USA) come back with a baseball bat and break both his legs, both his arms, and give him a skull fracture. Sure, all is fair in love and war, as the saying goes, but massive overkill is still massive overkill.
Last edited by Surfd; 2011-11-28 at 12:07 AM.
Interesting
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html Seems to disagree with your numbers there. By quite a LARGE margin i might add. You claim that the Firebombing of Tokyo killed more then both Atomic bombs combined. Yet this guy seems to think that Both Bombs killed at least TWICE as many people as the Tokyo Firebombing when added together. Not to mention that Firebombing does not Irradiate the countryside.
It is also worth noting (see article above), that the American Government KNEW that the Japanese Government actually wanted to end the war BEFORE they dropped the bombs. So ask yourself: Why drop the bombs when the enemy is already seeking means of ending the war?
Last edited by Surfd; 2011-11-28 at 12:13 AM.
What wasn't mentioned yet is another simple, but decisive fact.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki both were huge cities, we already got that several times.
Both were of military importance, got that aswell.
Both happened to have "good" weather conditions so that the devastation could be obvious.
Both were important, yet they lacked the major institutions that could later on publish and spread the news of the attack. All of these were already mentioned, but what is new is the fact, which was important for US government, that both cities lacked US war prisoners. In most major cities throughout Japan they held US soldiers captive, which the government obviously didn't want to blow up if not absolutely necessarry.
So many factors played their part when it came to a decision and some could just consider it a culmination of bad luck.