Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
13
... LastLast
  1. #41
    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.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by logintime View Post
    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.
    So let me ask you this: you said "starved out a surrender". If strictly speaking the same amount of people had starved as had died in the bomb is that morally acceptable to you? Not to mention a blockade of that nature would've taken a very long time. Probably a year, I'd say at least 6 months, of starving those precious civilians you were just so angry that got blown up in a country of millions. Not to mention the whole time you're being harassed by the Japanese as well as having to do continuous conventional and firebombing strikes(much much more deadly then the nukes but people just sensationalize the bang of the nukes as opposed to real tragedy because it's easy) to maintain this blockade. Point is your own plans violate your own moral code. If you're disgusted by the nukes then starving an entire country into submission and dropping a bomb on people just less of them should be equally morally abhorrent to you. The only acceptable alternative would have been a purely, or as close as you can get to it, military target with minimal civilian casualties.


    Also Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both industrial centers and by the precedent set in WWII legitimate military targets. Hiroshima being the location of a major Japanese army HQ in charge of the defense of southern japan and the Warship Yamato was built near there in Kure with the forced Korean labor as well as the materials being shipped in from Hiroshima. Nagasaki was one of the largest sea ports in Japan and was a huge huge industrial base for the production of war material with Misubishi producing over 10,000 Zero fighters here during the war. All countries in the war attacked civilian populations and the means of production, that doesn't excuse this but if you want a little lesson in war atrocities ask China what it thinks about Japan. War sucks and is inherently immoral. We just like to fool ourselves into thinking we're waging a "Fair" or "just" war as "humanely"(lol) possible. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilian cities full of military targets. Targeting them effectively took out the industrial base of Japan to wage any kind of war. Knowing what we know now I'd hope we wouldn't make the same choice to use the nuke, however knowing what we know now I'd like to think the Japanese would've been smarter and saved a lot of lives by surrendering so America didn't have to consider the bomb or any other potential measure to pacify them all of which would have resulted in a profound loss of life. Japan tried to call America's bluff, only problem was America wasn't bluffing when they said they had a bomb that could level cities.
    Last edited by shimerra; 2011-11-28 at 12:11 AM.
    “Logic: The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding.”
    "Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others."
    Ambrose Bierce
    The Bird of Hermes Is My Name, Eating My Wings To Make Me Tame.

  3. #43
    The Insane Cattaclysmic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Århus
    Posts
    17,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Hardstyler01 View Post
    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.
    most minorities have a reason for being distrusting and hateful, most often the majority looking down upon them because they are a minority, remove the that hate and distrust and they lose the reason to be hating and distrusting

  4. #44
    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
    The Japanese government attacked the US first. The citizens did not.

    As everyone else has said, it was to scare Japan into surrendering, and to cripple the industries providing for the military.

  5. #45
    It was a terrible atrocity. A heinous warcrime of which Hitler would've been proud had things gone the other way... And no amount of rationalizing will make it okay. The logic used here is no different from the logic used by Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda. The only difference being that the US had a much better PR wing to handle the fallout (no pun intended), and the order of magnitude of the crime is far far worse than anything carried out by Al Qaeda.

  6. #46
    High Overlord Shadowmeld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    198
    Quote Originally Posted by Surfd View Post
    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.
    This is a good point, but I don't know that your analogies are quite right. What you are saying, is that if a bully punches you and it hurts, you should punch him back so it hurts more? I feel like this would only piss the bully off. The goal was not to make the bully mad, it was to make the bully cry (without killing him, mind you) to force respect.

    While it was a harsh decision and I would argue that there may have been other options, hindsight is always 20/20. This was the safest option to keep the people of America safe. Who is to say the war would not have gone on to kill more than the 2 atomic bombs killed? War's a really hard thing; and the fact that the Japanese people did not necessarily even support the war makes it that much harder. But even still, from what I know the bombs ended the war, and in that saved lives. There's no way to tell how many.

    To be more on topic, I believe as others have stated on why these two locations for the bombing: to show what kind of force we had in possession.

    EDIT:
    Quote Originally Posted by xsistor View Post
    It was a terrible atrocity. A heinous warcrime of which Hitler would've been proud had things gone the other way... And no amount of rationalizing will make it okay. The logic used here is no different from the logic used by Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda. The only difference being that the US had a much better PR wing to handle the fallout (no pun intended), and the order of magnitude of the crime is far far worse than anything carried out by Al Qaeda.
    What was the initial purpose of Al Qaeda, and what was the purpose of the bombs? If you take an honest look, I believe one was to start a war and the other was to end one.
    Last edited by Shadowmeld; 2011-11-28 at 12:25 AM.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by xsistor View Post
    It was a terrible atrocity. A heinous warcrime of which Hitler would've been proud had things gone the other way... And no amount of rationalizing will make it okay. The logic used here is no different from the logic used by Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda. The only difference being that the US had a much better PR wing to handle the fallout (no pun intended), and the order of magnitude of the crime is far far worse than anything carried out by Al Qaeda.
    Nonsense. Those cities were selected primarily because of their military and industrial output. Cities like Kyoto, which had rich cultural heritage, museums and art were intentionally left off the list. The decision to carry out the bombings was not an easy one, but it was decided that it would be better to 'shock' the Japanese into surrender; demonstrating that they could not win the war. The only other option was a continuation of an incredibly bloody and costly combat in the Pacific, which would have killed more than the atomic bombs on BOTH sides.

    Terrible? Yes. Worse than the alternative? No.

    WWII was war of a magnitude that the modern mind can barely comprehend. As a descendant of someone who lived through the Tokyo fire-bombings, I still agree with Truman's decision -- and so does she.

  8. #48
    Warchief
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Under your bridge, stomping your trollz!
    Posts
    2,009
    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
    I agree with you. I cannot feel bad for casualties inflicted on a people who condoned aerial suicide bombing. If you have that little respect for the lives of your own countrymen then so do I.

  9. #49
    Pit Lord BoomChickn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Some place
    Posts
    2,427
    Quote Originally Posted by Surfd View Post
    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.
    Well for the record the US got japan to surrender by bluffing that they had a 3rd bomb (They did build 3, but one was a test), so US just barely forced a surrender. I wouldn't call that overkill.

    As to civilian casualties, complete obliteration by a couple bombs was the best course of action on terms of war. Considering Japan's distance (We did have all the surrounding islands by that time, but losses would still have to be replenished all the way from the US), the fact it was a chain of islands (Seaborne invasions were a bitch in that time...), and how Japan had the whole code of honor so that surrender was not an option, the bombs probably would have had the least casualties for both sides.
    Quote Originally Posted by Henry Ford
    Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably why few engage in it.
    This explains a lot.

  10. #50
    The Insane Cattaclysmic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Århus
    Posts
    17,844
    Quote Originally Posted by RAWRF View Post
    I agree with you. I cannot feel bad for casualties inflicted on a people who condoned aerial suicide bombing. If you have that little respect for the lives of your own countrymen then so do I.
    i believe they chose to do it themselves... they would always have the option of flying back, but did so rather than being captured because they considered being captured a dishonor
    and japan has a long history of honor related ritual suicide

    ---------- Post added 2011-11-28 at 01:26 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by BoomChickn View Post
    Well for the record the US got japan to surrender by bluffing that they had a 3rd bomb (They did build 3, but one was a test), so US just barely forced a surrender. I wouldn't call that overkill.

    As to civilian casualties, complete obliteration by a couple bombs was the best course of action on terms of war. Considering Japan's distance (We did have all the surrounding islands by that time, but losses would still have to be replenished all the way from the US), the fact it was a chain of islands (Seaborne invasions were a bitch in that time...), and how Japan had the whole code of honor so that surrender was not an option, the bombs probably would have had the least casualties for both sides.
    one would think that dropping one bomb just off the coast with a message saying: surrender or the next will be further inland would suffice...

  11. #51
    Meaningless considering how much collateral damage was done.
    Umm.... no its not. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets. If they were interested purely in civilian causalities they would have hit Tokyo or Edo.

    The goal of the bombing was to A) Hit military targets that would be a high priority in forcing a surrender, and to B) scare the shit out of the Japanese.

  12. #52
    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
    I bet you live in USA

    Proves what they teach you in school. US imposed embargo on Japanese trade + USA economy was in bad state ( soon it would be 1929 all over again ). So USA decided to join the war in Europe but citizen were against it ( by a huge margin ). Before attack many many many top military advisors informed that attack in immanent but no one seemed to care. Then after the attack pro war raise to 80%.

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Umm.... no its not. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets. If they were interested purely in civilian causalities they would have hit Tokyo or Edo.
    As mentioned before, Tokyo had been firebombed. Edo IS Tokyo. And Kyoto was considered for bombing.

    The goal of the bombing was to A) Hit military targets that would be a high priority in forcing a surrender, and to B) scare the shit out of the Japanese.
    No, the goal was to show enough utter devastation to force a surrender. Military targets never quite entered the equation.

  14. #54
    Warchief
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Under your bridge, stomping your trollz!
    Posts
    2,009
    Quote Originally Posted by Cattaclysmic View Post
    i believe they chose to do it themselves... they would always have the option of flying back, but did so rather than being captured because they considered being captured a dishonor
    and japan has a long history of honor related ritual suicide
    Actually you're wrong. If you read up on the bombing of pearl harbor and their military tactics in that time it wasn't an "option" it was an order. They were ordered to do this and they thought it was an "honor to die for their emperor" so they did it without hesitation. It's sickening.

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by logintime View Post
    No, the goal was to show enough utter devastation to force a surrender. Military targets never quite entered the equation.
    Nonsense. The original list of targets were chosen entirely as military targets and then narrowed down.

    Nagasaki was a major port city. Hiroshima had a huge number of factories producing military hardware. They were military targets.

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryphon View Post
    At that point in time, a large majority of the American people supported the total annihilation of the Japanese, to the extent of genocide.
    Sounds familiar. Just like they want to kill every society they don't understand or can't control to this day.

    Next to Germany, the US has the most innocent blood on their hands, not bad for a country only a couple of centuries old.

  17. #57
    Warchief
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Under your bridge, stomping your trollz!
    Posts
    2,009
    Quote Originally Posted by markos82 View Post
    I bet you live in USA

    Proves what they teach you in school. US imposed embargo on Japanese trade + USA economy was in bad state ( soon it would be 1929 all over again ). So USA decided to join the war in Europe but citizen were against it ( by a huge margin ). Before attack many many many top military advisors informed that attack in immanent but no one seemed to care. Then after the attack pro war raise to 80%.
    I bet you're not in the USA. Shows what they teach you in school. See, I can do that too.

  18. #58
    i think they were industrial centers OP
    Isnt 10% of infinite still infinite?

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by BoomChickn View Post
    Well for the record the US got japan to surrender by bluffing that they had a 3rd bomb (They did build 3, but one was a test), so US just barely forced a surrender. I wouldn't call that overkill.

    As to civilian casualties, complete obliteration by a couple bombs was the best course of action on terms of war. Considering Japan's distance (We did have all the surrounding islands by that time, but losses would still have to be replenished all the way from the US), the fact it was a chain of islands (Seaborne invasions were a bitch in that time...), and how Japan had the whole code of honor so that surrender was not an option, the bombs probably would have had the least casualties for both sides.
    I will post this again, with a relivant quote:
    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

    The Atomic bombs were dropped on Aug 6 and Aug 9.

    To quote from the Article:
    It was only after the war that the American public learned about Japan's efforts to bring the conflict to an end. Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan, for example, was obliged by wartime censorship to withhold for seven months one of the most important stories of the war.

    In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)

    This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

    * Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
    * Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
    * Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
    * Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
    * Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
    * Surrender of designated war criminals.

    Is this memorandum authentic? It was supposedly leaked to Trohan by Admiral William D. Leahy, presidential Chief of Staff. (See: M. Rothbard in A. Goddard, ed., Harry Elmer Barnes: Learned Crusader [1968], pp. 327f.) Historian Harry Elmer Barnes has related (in "Hiroshima: Assault on a Beaten Foe," National Review, May 10, 1958):

    The authenticity of the Trohan article was never challenged by the White House or the State Department, and for very good reason. After General MacArthur returned from Korea in 1951, his neighbor in the Waldorf Towers, former President Herbert Hoover, took the Trohan article to General MacArthur and the latter confirmed its accuracy in every detail and without qualification.
    The Americans did not Bomb Japan into Surrender. High Level Japanese Officials had already been attempting to initiate a surrender since as early as JANUARY. If the americans had been willing to actually negotiate a peace with Japan, instead of adamantly insisting on a pretty much Unilateral Unconditional and Complete surrender, they could have ended the war as much as 8 months early.

  20. #60
    Legendary! Tierbook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Charleston SC
    Posts
    6,833
    There were only 2 ways that war was ending a massive sea invasion that would have dwarfed even normandy or dropping some bombs on the enemy fewer people by far died from the bombs than they would have from the invasion. Also as far as starving out the enemy goes they would just be angry at us while after the nukes we forced them into unconditional surrender under threat of the 3rd. When the loser doesnt get unconditional surrender you get what happened in WW1-WW2 to Germany the germans were angry at other countries for beating them and the russians allowed the Germans to train on thier soil so they could build an army. The European countries then sat back and watched Hitler take over some smaller countries till he finally attacked Poland starting WW2. With America pretty much taking over Japan in WW2 there was really no threat of this because they were so scared of us nukeing them.

Posting Permissions

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