Page 2 of 20 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
12
... LastLast
  1. #21
    from what i know both targets were highly industrial, yet thats just discovery channel so could be wrong

  2. #22
    Warchief
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Under your bridge, stomping your trollz!
    Posts
    2,009
    Quote Originally Posted by Toho View Post
    this is a purely historical discussion and no US bashing thread.

    the question is why did US bomb these two cities and not somewhere else? the Japanese still had about 2 million infantry on the mainland so instead of nuking 2 cities why didn't the US nuke army bases or important military ports?
    Google searches are easier then hoping someone on these forums actually knows anything about it. I did 2 Google searches and came up with all the info you could possibly want on this topic. I would link them, but then I would be reaffirming your laziness.

    Mod Warning: If you don't think a topic is worth discussing, you're free not to.
    Don't try to derail the thread with "Just google it."


    Edit: I don't mean to derail anything. I don't see the OPs post as a discussion starter, I see it as "Tell me this stuff I could have Googled for myself". I mean, asking why we bombed 2 specific targets when we could have bombed military bases is or the assumed locations of hundreds of thousands of troops is simply someone assuming we had the location of said bases and military personnel. So that alone is started a discussion based on assumed information that has no basis in historical fact. I am simply saying that you can't start a historical discussion based on assumptions instead of historical fact when a simple Google search will hand you all the Historical facts you need.
    Last edited by RAWRF; 2011-11-27 at 11:53 PM.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Baene View Post
    So you don't believe in a bomb that maybe killed few thousand and destroyed cities but it would be totally ok to send in over 1million usa troops onto mainland japan where civilians were told to fight risk 250,000 lives and god knows how many japanese lives but nope that bomb was totally not nessecary.
    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.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Linaver View Post
    Soldiers fighting soldiers is not the same as civillians getting vaporised in a mushroom cloud.
    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.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Maharishi View Post
    I certainly think they should have hit hard military targets rather than cities at first. While no one claiming that war crimes were committed, the intentional targeting of civilian targets is not something i can endorse.
    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

  6. #26
    The Insane Cattaclysmic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Århus
    Posts
    17,905
    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

  7. #27

    the bull

    So in other words. you mess with the bull you get the horns. they had it coming

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Linaver View Post
    Soldiers fighting soldiers is not the same as civillians getting vaporised in a mushroom cloud with no warning or true purpose.
    Both were large cities with some military importance. Neither was irreplacable to the military. There were picked because the casualties would be devastating so they would stand a chance of scaring Japan into surrender.

    USA are assholes for dropping the bomb. They had their reasoning and rationalle that allowed them to carry through with it. It was a gray decision where thousands of families were killed. Nobody in the states thought about that, the whole population cheered it as another military victory. Oh well, history is written by the victors.
    less people were killed by the atomic bombs then were killed when we firebombed Tokyo.

  9. #29
    Scarab Lord Noobadin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,023
    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.

  10. #30
    What people dont relize is that if the japan or germany woulda made the bombs they woulda dropped 100s all over the world
    Quote Originally Posted by Linaver View Post
    Soldiers fighting soldiers is not the same as civillians getting vaporised in a mushroom cloud with no warning or true purpose.
    Both were large cities with some military importance. Neither was irreplacable to the military. There were picked because the casualties would be devastating so they would stand a chance of scaring Japan into surrender.

    USA are assholes for dropping the bomb. They had their reasoning and rationalle that allowed them to carry through with it. It was a gray decision where thousands of families were killed. Nobody in the states thought about that, the whole population cheered it as another military victory. Oh well, history is written by the victors.

  11. #31
    The Insane Cattaclysmic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Århus
    Posts
    17,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Yirrah View Post
    Mmhm...I suppose we have to look at it in light of the time the decision was made in, but even so, I am also morally disturbed by the decision. Let us hope that no such decision will be made again.
    harming civilians to scare the country... sounds... familiar...

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Buttfear View Post
    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
    beat me to it

  13. #33
    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

  14. #34
    The Insane Cattaclysmic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Århus
    Posts
    17,905
    Quote Originally Posted by chiliwarrior View Post
    So in other words. you mess with the bull you get the horns. they had it coming
    appearently noone objects to this, but if i were to point out that the US had Pearl Habor coming stemmed from the US basically forced Japan to either trade with them or be killed then all hell breaks loose

  15. #35
    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.
    If Goku's power level increases at the same rate till the end of DBGT as it does till the end of the Frieza saga, as a SS4 Goku would have a PL of roughly 939 Quinoctogintillion. For reference that is a 260 digit number. A PL of 14,600 is required to destroy an earth sized planet. There are about 2 nonillion earths worth of mass in the universe. That means SS4 Goku can destroy the universe about 32 Octosexagintillion times over. There's a reason they made Goku a god at the end of GT.

  16. #36
    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?

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by terrahero View Post
    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?
    war is a brutal thing and in some cases you have 2 break a peoples will 2 fight and make sure they know that they are a beaten people. in these cases it saves more lives then it costs because it keeps then from starting another war 20 years later

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Jibjabb View Post
    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
    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.

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Speaknoevil View Post
    If all of humanity could let go of their hate and work to better the world, instead of trying to force their way of life on their surroundings, we could get much further in our given lifetimes.
    This is just a bunch of hippy talk.

    A world where the majority of people are without hate and distrust will be a easy target for the minority who are still distrusting and hateful.

    That's not idyllic, that's just being far too gullible and naive.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Buttfear View Post
    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
    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.

Posting Permissions

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