57 years ago today the US killed 10's of thousands of civilians

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: rahvin
On August 6th, 1945 the US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshama Japan in an attempt to end WWII. May history never repeat itself.

Didn't read the thread but.... Why are people constantly remembering the Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but no-one seems to shed one tear for Dresden and firebombings of just about all japaese cities. Why does only Hiroshima and Nagasaki deserve attention? There were other cities that also faced complete destruction during the war.

Because people think it's more horrible to be killed by an atomic bomb than by a firestorm.



Propaganda has made nuclear weapons so terrible, people think if you accidently light one off, it will not only kill everyone on earth, but it will blow out all the stars, too.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: 308nato
3/09/1945 85,000 plus killed in a firebombing of Tokyo

2/13and14/1945 135,000 killed in firebombing of Dresden

500,000 civilians killed in Japan from all raids combined.

57 years ago MILLIONS of people were killed in WWII. I see no relevance in pointing to any specific attack as being any different than another.

The aggressor nations of the conflict should be bowing their heads in shame today. It sure as hell isn't going to be me.

Exactly! A-bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible events, but it's not like they were only terrible things. people cry for Nagasaki and Hiroshima, yet no-one remember the equally awful firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo (not to mention all the other cities in Japan. US Air Force were actually running out of targets because all japanese cities were practically destroyed (with exception to Hiroshima and Nagasaki since they were "saved" for the a-bombs).

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: rahvin
On August 6th, 1945 the US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshama Japan in an attempt to end WWII. May history never repeat itself.

Didn't read the thread but.... Why are people constantly remembering the Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but no-one seems to shed one tear for Dresden and firebombings of just about all japaese cities. Why does only Hiroshima and Nagasaki deserve attention? There were other cities that also faced complete destruction during the war.

and the firebombing of Tokyo

it just shows that people on ATOT can argue about everything

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: OmegaNauce
that ended a war tha probably saved millions of lives. I hope we dont have to us it again, but I am glad we did.

Haha u really belief that - the war was pretty much over anyway. Which millions did it save?? Man this bomb (and the other one) was the second worst thing this time spawned right after the KZs. The sole reason for dropping the bombs was to show the USSR to better keep quiet.

Nuclear bombs of whatever type are pure evil, and whoever thinks of using them is either completely brainless or evil.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
I wonder why they dropped it in the cities where they could kill the maximum number of civilians, instead of on military targets?

I guess its a good way to tell the Soviets to back off, I just don't buy the "it saved millions of american lives" argument.

They did drop it on millitary institutions. It just happens that the millitary structures happend to be in cities and when dropping bombs of that size you end up with lots of additional damage. You should also keep in mind they DID NOT target the largest cities. Tokyo was the largest and was specifically exlcuded from the list of targets.

Tokyo was for all intents and purposes wiped off the map. it was firebombed to the ground. What's the point of dropping an a-bomb on a big pile of ruins?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: OmegaNauce
that ended a war tha probably saved millions of lives. I hope we dont have to us it again, but I am glad we did.

Haha u really belief that - the war was pretty much over anyway. Which millions did it save?? Man this bomb (and the other one) was the second worst thing this time spawned right after the KZs. The sole reason for dropping the bombs was to show the USSR to better keep quiet.

Obviously you're completely clueless when it comes to history. The estimates were 1 million Americans, and 3 million Japanese dead were we to invade mainland Japan.

All one has to do is learn how the Japanese fought on Okinawa to get just a taste of what the fighting would have been like on Mainland Japan. They had figured out exactly where we were going to invade, and were quite prepared for us. It would have been a bloodbath. And as I pointed out before, thanks to your country's failure to abide by the treaty of Versailles, a diplomatic solution was unthinkable.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Full military blockade around the island would force them to surrender. No country can remain isolated for so long....not even the US of A.The war would drag on but it definitely would be more humane than an atom bomb and you could have avioded a nuclear arms race.

SO millions starving to death and dying of desiese is more humane than a hundered thousand dying because of those bombs? I don't think so. How many millions died during the siege of Leningrad (St Petersburg)?

During the 2.5 years that Leningrad was surrounded, Soviets lost about 1,250,000 civilians and soldiers in the city.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: kenleung
dropping of the atomic bomb is a political move against soviets, telling them to back off from putting everything under their control. Containment wasn't introduced then but i'd say that's the best word to describe that.

aug 6 1945, a-bomb dropped on hiroshima
aug 8 1945, soviets invade manchuria
aug 9 1945, 2nd a-bomb (plutonium i believe) detonated on nagasaki

the bomb used in nagasaki is 10 kilotons more powerful than the one on hiroshima (i believe), the bomb missed the original designated spot by 2 miles so the 2nd bombing wasn't a way to tell the japanese "surrender now or we'll nuke every inch of your islands" but instead telling the soviets "back off commies we'll come after ya with our nukes"

Not really. It was decided in the Teheran conference (if I remember correctly) that after certain time has passed from the surrender of Germany (it was decided to handle Germany first, then Japan), Soviets would start their attack against the Japanese. And Soviets did just that. The Allied knew all along that Soviets will attack. They even knew the time of the attack, down to few days. It was all agreed upon earlier.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: kamiam<brTHE AMERICANS DROPPED LEAFLETS ON BOTH CITIES PROIR TO THE ATTACK WARNING OF THE DEVASTATION COMING WHICH WAS IGNORED BY THE POPULATION

Might be. But US Air Force also did that during the earlier fire-bombings. and in many cases after the leaflets were dropped, there was no attack. So the leaflets lost their efffectiveness. It's the "Boy who cried wolf" thingy.

 

[Linflas]

It is so damned depressing to see what my generation, raised by the people that sacrificed, fought, and won WWII, have done to the teaching of history. Like we have in so many other areas we managed to destroy the teachings of classic Western Civilization, sacrificed on the alter of revisionist history and political correctness.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Every man, woman and child in Japan was being trained to fight to the death.

Hello, it's an island . . . and it's home. While I would never feign acceptance of children in combat, do you think American men would not fight to the death if a foreign power invaded? Mothers on slave ships threw children overboard. Some people jumped from the WTC. Desperation can make the unthinkable seem quite reasonable . . . to some.

There was, for all intents and purposed, no noncombatants in 1945 Japan.

What militant garbage! It is incumbent upon thinking (and loving) people to protect the world from you and your ilk that share the "Klan of the CaveBear" mentality. Just b/c a 10 year-old can hold a spear doesn't make him responsible for the ability to kill. In 1945 most Japanese knew nothing more than the propaganda spewed by the leadership . . . much the same in Nazi Germany. Landing on Honshu and mowing down rice farmers is just as illogical as bombing doctors in Dresden or carpenters in Freiburg (Black Forest). Even if your warped sense of morality can justify killing those civilians . . . how can you ponder maiming and killing their children?

You are espousing the same heinous drivel as Al-Qaeda, old-school IRA, far right Likud, Hamas, and like minded groups (OK Likud is a stretch but some are flaming on the fringe). Personally, I think there's nothing honorable or just about most warfare but damn at least keep the pretense that some boundaries should not be crossed.

A diplomatic solution after our experience with Germany and the treaty of Versailles was unthinkable,

Well at least you've identified your problem . . . lack of imagination.

An invasion was going to happen, had we not dropped the bombs.

For the sake of argument could you ponder that an invasion and bombing were not the only two options? If that's beyong your ability how about this one . . . drop ONE bomb . . . give Japan a week or a month to ponder continued resistance. Here's another . . . what exactly was so unacceptable about conditional surrender? Let the emperor save face; who cares as long as Japanese hegemony comes to an end.

Blockading an island of fanatics is fruitless. Look what it's done to Cuba.

Your analogy is illogical. If I don't like your fanaticism I have a myriad of choices. Ignore you, try to keep you from leaving your island, forbid you from entering my ports and encouraging others to do the same. I could pick one or all. Cuba probably has no more per capita fanatics than the US. Most people go about their business trying to provide for themselves and their families. A task made more difficult by the fanatic in power (granted his fanaticism allowed him to seize power by popular revolt against a corrupt albeit US-friendly government) and a hypocritical neighbor that thinks stifling dissent is unacceptable in Cuba but deserving of MFNS for China. And if you ever feel the urge to crack a history book . . . technically the blockade of Cuba (and cool JFK) was quite effective. Describing current US policy towards Cuba as a blockade is terminology used by Castro not the US government.

Next time you try to over think this, ask a WWII veteran what he was thinking as they were gearing up to invade Japan.

Again you resort to curious logic. I have great respect for WWII veterans and the millions of others who died protecting the world from despots. But I don't think Truman consulted the rank-and-file before deciding to drop MULTIPLE nukes on civilians. Go to the archives and read the bombing orders. Read Truman's public and private missives. Read the Franck Report. Read the Bard Memorandum. Read the Szilard Petition. I can't speak for any veteran but I can speak for myself. If my commander-in-chief (my God that's GWB) gave me the false dichotomy of likely death in battle or having my life spared by wanton destruction of civilian centers (I would try to educate him, first) but the only option I could live with would be the former.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Every man, woman and child in Japan was being trained to fight to the death.

Hello, it's an island . . . and it's home. While I would never feign acceptance of children in combat, do you think American men would not fight to the death if a foreign power invaded? Mothers on slave ships threw children overboard. Some people jumped from the WTC. Desperation can make the unthinkable seem quite reasonable . . . to some.

There was, for all intents and purposed, no noncombatants in 1945 Japan.

What militant garbage! It is incumbent upon thinking (and loving) people to protect the world from you and your ilk that share the "Klan of the CaveBear" mentality. Just b/c a 10 year-old can hold a spear doesn't make him responsible for the ability to kill. In 1945 most Japanese knew nothing more than the propaganda spewed by the leadership . . . much the same in Nazi Germany. Landing on Honshu and mowing down rice farmers is just as illogical as bombing doctors in Dresden or carpenters in Freiburg (Black Forest). Even if your warped sense of morality can justify killing those civilians . . . how can you ponder maiming and killing their children?

You are espousing the same heinous drivel as Al-Qaeda, old-school IRA, far right Likud, Hamas, and like minded groups (OK Likud is a stretch but some are flaming on the fringe). Personally, I think there's nothing honorable or just about most warfare but damn at least keep the pretense that some boundaries should not be crossed.

A diplomatic solution after our experience with Germany and the treaty of Versailles was unthinkable,

Well at least you've identified your problem . . . lack of imagination.

An invasion was going to happen, had we not dropped the bombs.

For the sake of argument could you ponder that an invasion and bombing were not the only two options? If that's beyong your ability how about this one . . . drop ONE bomb . . . give Japan a week or a month to ponder continued resistance. Here's another . . . what exactly was so unacceptable about conditional surrender? Let the emperor save face; who cares as long as Japanese hegemony comes to an end.

Blockading an island of fanatics is fruitless. Look what it's done to Cuba.

Your analogy is illogical. If I don't like your fanaticism I have a myriad of choices. Ignore you, try to keep you from leaving your island, forbid you from entering my ports and encouraging others to do the same. I could pick one or all. Cuba probably has no more per capita fanatics than the US. Most people go about their business trying to provide for themselves and their families. A task made more difficult by the fanatic in power (granted his fanaticism allowed him to seize power by popular revolt against a corrupt albeit US-friendly government) and a hypocritical neighbor that thinks stifling dissent is unacceptable in Cuba but deserving of MFNS for China. And if you ever feel the urge to crack a history book . . . technically the blockade of Cuba (and cool JFK) was quite effective. Describing current US policy towards Cuba as a blockade is terminology used by Castro not the US government.

Next time you try to over think this, ask a WWII veteran what he was thinking as they were gearing up to invade Japan.

Again you resort to curious logic. I have great respect for WWII veterans and the millions of others who died protecting the world from despots. But I don't think Truman consulted the rank-and-file before deciding to drop MULTIPLE nukes on civilians. Go to the archives and read the bombing orders. Read Truman's public and private missives. Read the Franck Report. Read the Bard Memorandum. Read the Szilard Petition. I can't speak for any veteran but I can speak for myself. If my commander-in-chief (my God that's GWB) gave me the false dichotomy of likely death in battle or having my life spared by wanton destruction of civilian centers (I would try to educate him, first) but the only option I could live with would be the former.

You're up early. It is obvious from reading any of the real history that Truman did not understand the power he possesed. Very few people did and they were not listened to. Truman had two objectives, end the war quickly with the unconditional surrender of Japan. The projected casualties were a consideration when dropping the bombs. The unconditional surrender was the only acceptable ending after Pearl Harbor. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were legit military targets. They were heavy industry cities and contributed mightily to the war effort. There was also time between the bombs for them to surrender. Yes there were multiple way to go but it is easy to be critical 60 years later. The dropping of the bombs may have in fact saved millions of lives by showing us their destructive power when we had two of them instead of 2000. Anyone who orders the use of another one would have to be purely insane.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

It is so damned depressing to see what my generation, raised by the people that sacrificed, fought, and won WWII, have done to the teaching of history. Like we have in so many other areas we managed to destroy the teachings of classic Western Civilization, sacrificed on the alter of revisionist history and political correctness.

I assume you mean Baby Boom? What exactly is classic Western Civ and which teachings have been destroyed?

Homer, Plato, Chaucer, Machiavelli, Shakespeare, Milton, Brothers Grimm, Stowe, Dickens, Tolstoy, Twain, Conrad, Kipling have lost little of their luster.

Now St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Newton, Freud, Bible authors (inspired word of God?), Hippocrates, Galen, Copernicus, Descartes, Locke, some writers of the Declaration of Independence/Constitution, Adam Smith, Marx, Carroll, and Freud (he's so FOS he deserves to be mentioned twice) seem a touch tarnished b/c they were all somewhat FOS. At least the previous authors intended to write fiction.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: OmegaNauce
that ended a war tha probably saved millions of lives. I hope we dont have to us it again, but I am glad we did.

Haha u really belief that - the war was pretty much over anyway. Which millions did it save?? Man this bomb (and the other one) was the second worst thing this time spawned right after the KZs. The sole reason for dropping the bombs was to show the USSR to better keep quiet.

Obviously you're completely clueless when it comes to history. The estimates were 1 million Americans, and 3 million Japanese dead were we to invade mainland Japan.

All one has to do is learn how the Japanese fought on Okinawa to get just a taste of what the fighting would have been like on Mainland Japan. They had figured out exactly where we were going to invade, and were quite prepared for us. It would have been a bloodbath. And as I pointed out before, thanks to your country's failure to abide by the treaty of Versailles, a diplomatic solution was unthinkable.

Yes u are right I dont know much about the pacific theatre, and after reading my post again, it was pretty dumb. But my opinion on nuclear weapons stands uncorrected. For me, nothing can justify the use of nuclear weapons. The post was born out of disbelief of so many ppl on this board advocating the use of nuclear weapons and war in general. (just to reach your goals and make other "independent" countries behave how YOU want them to behave and to exert your power in order to control resources - nowadays.) Actually attending US History in Highschool (Ky) scrared the s*$& out of me. There were a few ppl in my class that responded to every war the US fought after WWII : "Why didnt we nuke them" - talk about sick

 

[jjones]

For me, nothing can justify the use of nuclear weapons.

Good thing Harry Truman wasn't you.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

You're up early. It is obvious from reading any of the real history that Truman did not understand the power he possesed. Very few people did and they were not listened to.

I haven't gone to sleep yet. Aren't you glad formal work requirements still do not exist for physicians. I can stay up for days and then care for your loved ones . . .

Per norm, Dave, solid perspective. It is a stretch to treat Truman as if he comprehended the absolute impact of those weapons. But he did understand their relative power and that it would grab attention far beyond the radioactive fallout. My impression is that he understood the great potential for destruction. And as the leader he is ultimately responsible for authorizing "measured" actions. The order basically endorses nuclear warfare at the discretion of the military. One weapon I would disagree with but I can understand in context. More than one clearly does not have 'humanitarian' goals in mind.

Truman had two objectives, end the war quickly with the unconditional surrender of Japan. The projected casualties were a consideration when dropping the bombs. The unconditional surrender was the only acceptable ending after Pearl Harbor.

Projected casualties in civilians centers should never be a goal of warfare. I will defer to a certain extent that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had value as military targets. But clearly those bombs were not detonated at altitude for the purpose of taking out military targets . . .

7. Psychological Factors in Target Selection

A. It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.

B. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value.

8. Use Against "Military" Objectives

A. It was agreed that for the initial use of the weapon any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb.

I will listen to any retort but those two points sound like "drop it where we can kill a whole lot of people and destroy their stuff (military or not)". Let's face it . . . if Atta and his minions destroyed the WTC but only killed themselves we would be pissed long after it was rebuilt. But the wounds from the murder of moms at work, kids at daycare, and tourists shopping may never heal.

The unconditional surrender was the only acceptable ending after Pearl Harbor.

OK Dave, you and I both know that Pearl Harbor was unprovoked but it was only a matter of time before we would have been mixing it up with the Hirohito klan.

There was also time between the bombs for them to surrender.

On September 11th, how long did it take GWB to "look" like he knew what was going on? Now Rudy . . . he took the bull by the horns but he was at ground zero. The technical leader was heading in the opposite direction. For all intensive purposes it took several days for the head of state to seem in control and capable of making siginificant decisions (short of scramble air support). Now instead of killing three thousand in several hours in three discrete locations . . . kill tens of thousands instantly with a novel weapon capable of leveling much of a city 6 decades ago. A few days . . . give me a break. You hit on the head when you said those with the knowledge where not heard (with the exception of Oppenheimer) while those with the power didn't want to listen or worse yet wanted the devastation to send a message. Szilard and others knew nukes were appropriate demos but should never actually be used against people and that even demonstation might provoke an arms race. Naturally, the military brass (Groves) started to look for ways to silence him.

The dropping of the bombs may have in fact saved millions of lives by showing us their destructive power when we had two of them instead of 2000. Anyone who orders the use of another one would have to be purely insane.

I wish I could answer with same certainty as the pro-nukem crowd. I hope Truman's actions saved millions of Japanese and Americans from a protracted and deadly conflict. And assuming our policy was constrained to unconditional surrender then it is very possible you are right. I still cannot fathom using two. I'm trained in self defense. If I can protect myself or someone else by immobilizing or striking you once I will. But that's when all other options have been exhausted. If I have to do it more than once I know I've fvcked up. But if my goal is more complex than self-defense (protecting my manhood, looking cool, teaching you a lesson, or you really pissed me off) my response is much harder to control. Hence, the ultimate outcome is more difficult to predict. The "millions of lives saved" requires a specific chain of events to take place unabated by rational minds or changes in circumstances. It's one of the few cases I can easily identify where people cling so feverishly to the absolute WORST CASE SCENARIO.

But yeah, it would take a madman (I'm not sexist . . . the giver of life would never use nukes . . . Thatcher is not a woman) to use them. But OUR government has contingency plans for them . . . including first strike. I include spent fuel "Bunker Busters" and other tactical weapons as crimes against humanity. NMD will never work well enough (it has to work perfectly to be worth the expense) without using nukes +/- EMP to destroy inbound warheads. I know Space Command has thought about it and if I was a betting person I would wager the USA will be the first country to put nuclear weapons in space. Hollywood makes us out to be the savior "Space Cowboys" protecting the world from careless Russians or crazed Serbians "The Peacekeeper". And GWB wants to protect us from a country that can't feed its people or make a sub that doesn't sink (North Korea), a country led by a despot with more pictures of himself on public display than weapons of mass destruction (Iraq), and a country that actually supports the US-backed leader of Afghanistan but is still accused by the US of destabilizing the government (Iran).

Mark my words . . . once you commit to a goal . . . "unconditional surrender of Japan" or "regime change in Iraq" and the pressure builds to make something happen; all options are considered. Unfortunately, nobody likes the best option. They almost always like the most expedient one. What would be more impressive than dropping some tactical nukes into Saddam's suspected caches of weapons and facilities effectively destroying his stockpiles and future capability? At least that's the BS we'll hear to justify irradiating the desert.

 

[jjones]

BTW, for you armchair quarterbacks and historical revisionists, what makes Hiroshima and Nagasaki any more horrific than the bombings of Dresden, Hamburg and Tokyo? What makes you think that conventional bombs would have been any less destructive or less in use to end the war? Conventional bombing managed to do very comparable killing, would not have been any less destructive and, with a prolongation of the war, it is most likely that many more civilians would have been killed in such bombings than what Fat Man and Little Boy accomplished.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Good thing Harry Truman wasn't you.

Yeah, if he was there would be a lot more people in Nagasaki and real big hole outside Hiroshima, Kyoto, or Okinawa.

Some things I learned in medical school:
1) Never trust a naked baby.
2) Standing to the side doesn't mean he can't hit you - he will just make a bigger arc with the stream . . .
3) Just b/c he just pissed on you doesn't mean he won't do it again two minutes from now . . .

If Truman was a pediatrician and not a Missouri farmer turned VP thrust into the seat of power in April '45 without receiving a single briefing on development of the bomb or troubles with our "ally" USSR he just might have known . . .

1) Even the fanatical, ruthless, merciless, savage Japanese are intelligent enough to understand their limits.
2) Allied forces to the West, South, and East of Japan means there's no safe place . . .
3) The first one was a demonstration . . . free for everybody . . . the next one is going to cost you.

Truman was a good president certainly superior to all late 20th with the exception of Nixon and JFK. I just disagree with his decision. And for all that clamour "it saved lives" you don't KNOW that anymore than I can PROVE my theory that other options would have produced a better long term outcome. What we do know is it was a horrible event that wasn't NECESSARY but was SUFFICIENT to bring about the Japanese surrender. The next 5 decades would see a tremendous proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and conflicts throughout the globe between various protectorates of the US and USSR. We WON the Cold War on the strenght of a better credit line. And we enter the 21st century with thousands of pounds of material sufficent to kill all terrestial life by chemical or nuclear means. Our most pressing security threat is a guy afraid to come out in public on his birthday.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

An invasion was going to happen, had we not dropped the bombs.

For the sake of argument could you ponder that an invasion and bombing were not the only two options? If that's beyong your ability how about this one . . . drop ONE bomb . . . give Japan a week or a month to ponder continued resistance. Here's another . . . what exactly was so unacceptable about conditional surrender? Let the emperor save face; who cares as long as Japanese hegemony comes to an end.

Japan's version of 'conditional surrender' involved them keeping most of the territory they'd conquered; it certainly involved much more than 'letting the emperor save face.' Also, it would not have ended Japanese hegemony in the region, as long as the Japanese gov't continued to be controlled by the military. The military had become so powerful that even the emperor was uncertain if all the generals/admirals would follow his command to surrender. The emperor's own writings, and those of his personal aide, reflect an outright fear of the Japanese military leadership. While it is true that the Japanese were making small overtures for peace terms prior to the dropping of the bombs, these overtures were made secretly by certain civilian factions within the Japanese gov't, without the military's knowledge (the civilians leaders were afraid of being assassinated), and hence never carried the weight of an 'official' gov't action. Additionally, the Japanese peace offers involved unacceptable terms (see above) and were made to Britian and the US via the Russians (who were not officially at war with Japan until Aug. 1945), who certainly were in no hurry to aid Japan in a peaceful resolution of the Pacific War.

Awaiting your next version of revisionist history . . . .

 

[jjones]

Yeah, if he was there would be a lot more people in Nagasaki and real big hole outside Hiroshima, Kyoto, or Okinawa.

You make that assumption. I, on the other hand, think that conventional bombing practices in use during the war, and there was already precedent set, would have killed many more.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
And for all that clamour "it saved lives" you don't KNOW that anymore than I can PROVE my theory that other options would have produced a better long term outcome. What we do know is it was a horrible event that wasn't NECESSARY but was SUFFICIENT to bring about the Japanese surrender.

The bombs weren't 'necessary' to bring about surrender? And your proof of that last statement is what?

YOU may not know that the bombs saved lives, but I'm pretty confident of the accuracy of that conclusion. See my prior post about the impending famine if the Japanese population hadn't received emergency food aid from the US in the winter of 1945, after the surrender. As I've said before, I consider 'Downfall' by Richard Frank to be one of the definitive works on this subject. Here's a column which quotes from Frank's book and summarizes some of the conclusions.

Downfall

 

[glenn1]

Now St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Newton, Freud, Bible authors (inspired word of God?), Hippocrates, Galen, Copernicus, Descartes, Locke, some writers of the Declaration of Independence/Constitution, Adam Smith, Marx, Carroll, and Freud (he's so FOS he deserves to be mentioned twice) seem a touch tarnished b/c they were all somewhat FOS. At least the previous authors intended to write fiction.

Pretty interesting list you have there. Care to elaborate why you believe they are full of sh!t? And while you're at it, can you give some examples of Western Civilization thinking who you believe are not FOS, and would serve as better models of what you believe to be positive exemplars of Western thought (if you believe there are any)?

3) The first one was a demonstration . . . free for everybody . . . the next one is going to cost you.

Just to make sure i'm not misunderstanding or misrepresenting your position, you think it proper and appropriate that we dropped the first atomic bomb, but just have issues with the location of the drop and/or the short time lag between the drop of the first and second?

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Of course BaliBabyDoc could have done it better than Truman! That's why he is currently the President of the United States and not some schmuck spouting BS on ATOT. Oh wait.

 

[Desslok]

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: OmegaNauce that ended a war tha probably saved millions of lives. I hope we dont have to us it again, but I am glad we did.

Haha u really belief that - the war was pretty much over anyway. Which millions did it save?? Man this bomb (and the other one) was the second worst thing this time spawned right after the KZs. The sole reason for dropping the bombs was to show the USSR to better keep quiet.

Obviously you're completely clueless when it comes to history. The estimates were 1 million Americans, and 3 million Japanese dead were we to invade mainland Japan. All one has to do is learn how the Japanese fought on Okinawa to get just a taste of what the fighting would have been like on Mainland Japan. They had figured out exactly where we were going to invade, and were quite prepared for us. It would have been a bloodbath. And as I pointed out before, thanks to your country's failure to abide by the treaty of Versailles, a diplomatic solution was unthinkable.

Yes u are right I dont know much about the pacific theatre, and after reading my post again, it was pretty dumb. But my opinion on nuclear weapons stands uncorrected. For me, nothing can justify the use of nuclear weapons. The post was born out of disbelief of so many ppl on this board advocating the use of nuclear weapons and war in general. (just to reach your goals and make other "independent" countries behave how YOU want them to behave and to exert your power in order to control resources - nowadays.) Actually attending US History in Highschool (Ky) scrared the s*$& out of me. There were a few ppl in my class that responded to every war the US fought after WWII : "Why didnt we nuke them" - talk about sick

If you don't know much about a topic then why are you even posting?

"Nothing can justify the use of nuclear weapons"?? Have you read what the Japanese were doing in WWII? Does the Bataan Death march mean anything to you? What about the rape of Nanking? The slaughter of the Chinese? They brought this on themsevles.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: rahvin
On August 6th, 1945 the US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshama Japan in an attempt to end WWII. May history never repeat itself.

Didn't read the thread but.... Why are people constantly remembering the Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but no-one seems to shed one tear for Dresden and firebombings of just about all japaese cities. Why does only Hiroshima and Nagasaki deserve attention? There were other cities that also faced complete destruction during the war.

Maybe its because u can inhabit an area that was firebombed pretty much right after the flames are put out. And maybe because we should never forget what nuclear weapons are capable of not only in terms of mechanical devastation but affecting generations and depending on type of bomb, area, climatic conditions and technicla installations (Nuclear Power Plants) wasting land for years, decades, millenia...

Maybe that could be a reason.

But maybe it is because the still exsistant arsenals of weapons capable of destroying the whole planet several times.

Well, this doesnt make the firebombings any better - trust me I am living in the testing city for the firebombings - I heard this was a pretty city once and the center of art deco in Germany - let me tell u, except for the few old parts, its pretty ugly unless u are into concrete-box architecture.... Actually most cities in Germany are fairly ugly. Well, u get what u called for - so no complaining.... But sometimes when I walk though cities like Dresden I get really angry at my grandparents.