How the hell could we nuke Japan?!

d1abolic

Banned
Sep 21, 2001
2,228
1
0
I was just reading a post about it in another thread of mine, and it sounds horrible. How the hell would we do something like that? Aren't we supposed to be the good guys? The terrorists kill 3000 people in our financial district and we call them animals. What about us? We killed over 100,000 civillians in Japan. Schools, kindergartens, hospitals... women, children. These waren't military targest. What the hell?

<< As many know, atomic bombs have been used only twice in warfare. The
first and foremost blast site of the atomic bomb is Hiroshima. A Uranium
bomb (which weighed in at over 4 & 1/2 tons) nicknamed "Little Boy" was
dropped on Hiroshima August 6th, 1945. The Aioi Bridge, one of 81 bridges
connecting the seven-branched delta of the Ota River, was the aiming point of
the bomb. Ground Zero was set at 1,980 feet. At 0815 hours, the bomb was
dropped from the Enola Gay. It missed by only 800 feet. At 0816 hours, in
the flash of an instant, 66,000 people were killed and 69,000 people were
injured by a 10 kiloton atomic explosion.

On August 9th 1945, Nagasaki fell to the same treatment as Hiroshima.
Only this time, a Plutonium bomb nicknamed "Fat Man" was dropped on the city.
Even though the "Fat Man" missed by over a mile and a half, it still leveled
nearly half the city. Nagasaki's population dropped in one split-second from
422,000 to 383,000. 39,000 were killed, over 25,000 were injured. That
blast was less than 10 kilotons as well. Estimates from physicists who have
studied each atomic explosion state that the bombs that were used had utilized
only 1/10th of 1 percent of their respective explosive capabilities.
>>

 

Alex

Diamond Member
Oct 26, 1999
6,995
0
0
the US had to nuke somebody for ppl to cower in fear at the power they could unleash

hell it worked didn't it?
rolleye.gif


i admit maybe eisenhower (or whover -> /me is to late and too drunk to think straight) could have tried trash-talking or something ??? :confused:
 

GasX

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
29,033
6
81
The short answer: To save lives

Japan was not going to surrender and a land invasion of mainland Japan would have been necessary. Many more lives would have been lost that way. Regarding the targeting of civilians, Japan was competing head to head with Germany in terms of commiting war crimes. My uncle died in a Jap POW camp and I am fairly certain he wasn't treated so well (understatement). Ever hear of the rape of Nanking? Bataan Death March? etc...

War is hell. The point is to kill the other guy. Keep that in mind
 
Aug 10, 2001
10,420
2
0
If there had been a land invasion, the estimates of the number of U.S. soldiers that would have been killed was as high as 4 million. And the estimates of the number of Japanese that would have been killed was in the tens of millions. That was the reason.
 

MacBaine

Banned
Aug 23, 2001
9,999
0
0
We didn't start the war, we wanted to end it. They were given a warning that they would face "Complete and utter destruction" if they did not surrender immediately. Even after the first bomb was dropped, and we told them to surrender or we'd do it again, they refused. If we had not dropped the bombs, we would have had to invade Japan, which would have cost thousands more lives on BOTH SIDES, because the Japanese citizens were conditioned to fight to the death for thier country. IMHO, the citizens of Japan were as much a threat as the soldiers.
 

Capn

Platinum Member
Jun 27, 2000
2,716
0
0
If I remember correctly more people died in the fire-bombing of Dresden. War is hell, nice things don't happen. A mainland invasion of Japan? I don't even want to think about it.

Since those times we've now decided nukes are evil, but that wasn't the same idea back then. Historical Revisionism isn't cool at all.
 

Ameesh

Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
23,686
0
0


<< The short answer: To save lives

Japan was not going to surrender and a land invasion of mainland Japan would have been necessary. Many more lives would have been lost that way. Regarding the targeting of civilians, Japan was competing head to head with Germany in terms of commiting war crimes. My uncle died in a Jap POW camp and I am fairly certain he wasn't treated so well (understatement). Ever hear of the rape of Nanking? Bataan Death March? etc...

War is hell. The point is to kill the other guy. Keep that in mind
>>





Japan would have surrenderded if we dropped the bomb on an island where women and children didnt live, if we had said to all our enemies "Pleease direct your attention to this unihabited island, we would like to show you what will happen to you if you continue to fvck with us.... boom."


"the save lives" excuse, is a poor deplorable one to excuse the fact that we commited the ultimate act of horror in the world.
 

Omegachi

Diamond Member
Mar 27, 2001
3,922
0
76
do you know how many people the japanese killed during that time? millions of americans, koreans and the chinese. they think they are bad ass and invaded their homelands. so we have to stop them by stopping them, by any mean nescessary.
 
Aug 10, 2001
10,420
2
0
Even my peacenik ethics professor a couple weeks ago said that he thought that the action was justified because many more people would have died if there had been a land invasion.
 
Aug 10, 2001
10,420
2
0


<< Japan would have surrenderded if we dropped the bomb on an island where women and children didnt live, if we had said to all our enemies "Pleease direct your attention to this unihabited island, we would like to show you what will happen to you if you continue to fvck with us.... boom."


"the save lives" excuse, is a poor implorable one to excuse the fact that we commited the ultimate act of horror in the world.
>>


Your understanding of the Japanese empire in the 1930's and 1940's is very poor.
 

Entity

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
10,090
0
0


<< "the save lives" excuse, is a poor implorable one to excuse the fact that we commited the ultimate act of horror in the world. >>


I believe you mean deplorable.

The problem with questioning historical ethics is this: we don't know how many people would have died. Truman admitted after the bombing (long after) that the original estimates of death of soldiers - upwards of a million - may have been overestimated. At the time, we did have Russia beginning to add support to our fight in Okinawa, since they were no longer entirely focused on Germany; however, it is realistically impossible to go back and say "what if."

The bombing of Japan was an atrocity, but very well may have been a necessary one.

Rob
 

Ameesh

Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
23,686
0
0


<< If I remember correctly more people died in the fire-bombing of Dresden. War is hell, nice things don't happen. A mainland invasion of Japan? I don't even want to think about it.

Since those times we've now decided nukes are evil, but that wasn't the same idea back then. Historical Revisionism isn't cool at all.
>>



dresden is a good comparison, britains only method of fighting back was to use heavy bombers but they choose to bomb civilian targets not military ones. i'm not sure about the deth tolls buit they definelty didnt see the fallout that japan saw.
 

RGN

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2000
6,623
6
81


<<


Japan would have surrenderded if we dropped the bomb on an island where women and children didnt live, if we had said to all our enemies "Pleease direct your attention to this unihabited island, we would like to show you what will happen to you if you continue to fvck with us.... boom."


"the save lives" excuse, is a poor implorable one to excuse the fact that we commited the ultimate act of horror in the world.
>>





No, I don't think so. They had to be hit where it hurt, thier own people and industry.
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
Japan would have surrenderded if we dropped the bomb on an island where women and children didnt live, if we had said to all our enemies "Pleease direct your attention to this unihabited island, we would like to show you what will happen to you if you continue to fvck with us.... boom."


"the save lives" excuse, is a poor implorable one to excuse the fact that we commited the ultimate act of horror in the world.




Well they sure as hell didnt surrender even AFTER we killed (from above statistics) 66,000 of them in hiroshima. What makes you think they would have surrendered beforehand if we didnt kill ANYONE? Thats retarded logic. They had three days to surrender after hiroshima!
 

soccerbud34

Senior member
Nov 15, 2001
747
0
0


<<

<< The short answer: To save lives

Japan was not going to surrender and a land invasion of mainland Japan would have been necessary. Many more lives would have been lost that way. Regarding the targeting of civilians, Japan was competing head to head with Germany in terms of commiting war crimes. My uncle died in a Jap POW camp and I am fairly certain he wasn't treated so well (understatement). Ever hear of the rape of Nanking? Bataan Death March? etc...

War is hell. The point is to kill the other guy. Keep that in mind
>>





Japan would have surrenderded if we dropped the bomb on an island where women and children didnt live, if we had said to all our enemies "Pleease direct your attention to this unihabited island, we would like to show you what will happen to you if you continue to fvck with us.... boom."


"the save lives" excuse, is a poor implorable one to excuse the fact that we commited the ultimate act of horror in the world.
>>



The problem was that the U.S. only had two working nukes at that time. The U.S. did not want to risk the chance of dropping a dud over a uninhabitated island somewhere in Japan and have the Japanese military laughing their (_|_)'s. Furthermore, bear in mind that, the Japanese refused to surrender after seeing the effects of the first atomic bomb.
 

GasX

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
29,033
6
81


<< Japan would have surrenderded if we dropped the bomb on an island where women and children didnt live, if we had said to all our enemies "Pleease direct your attention to this unihabited island, we would like to show you what will happen to you if you continue to fvck with us.... boom." >>



Really? You mean that? You think so? You sure?

Remember, we dropped two. They could have surrendered after the first. The 2 bombs were probably the most demoralizing event in the history of war. Imagine knowing your enemy has the power to annihilate you and that you can't stop them.

<shudder>
 
Aug 10, 2001
10,420
2
0
I've read that some military officials didn't even want to surrender after the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. But thank god they did!
 

fatalbert

Platinum Member
Aug 1, 2001
2,956
0
0


<<

<< If I remember correctly more people died in the fire-bombing of Dresden. War is hell, nice things don't happen. A mainland invasion of Japan? I don't even want to think about it.

Since those times we've now decided nukes are evil, but that wasn't the same idea back then. Historical Revisionism isn't cool at all.
>>



dresden is a good comparison, britains only method of fighting back was to use heavy bombers but they choose to bomb civilian targets not military ones. i'm not sure about the deth tolls buit they definelty didnt see the fallout that japan saw.
>>




actually I recently did a paper on Dresden

the final death toll was over 100,000.

they didn't target civillians, they did the area bombing technique. This meant they dropped their bombs, w/the carpet bombing technique. The ostensible goal was to destroy the German economy and their ability to make war. One category that they measured was Man Hours lost. From de-housing and other methods. So while civillians weren't the target, they didn't cry when they hit them either.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
the save lives" excuse, is a poor deplorable one to excuse the fact that we commited the ultimate act of horror in the world.

Ignorant answer. Compared to the holocaust of the Jews or the Stalinist purges that killed millions the dropping of the nuclear bombs in not even comparable.

Go study some history before making asinine statements like that.
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0


<< the save lives" excuse, is a poor deplorable one to excuse the fact that we commited the ultimate act of horror in the world.

Ignorant answer. Compared to the holocaust of the Jews or the Stalinist purges that killed millions the dropping of the nuclear bombs in not even comparable.

Go study some history before making asinine statements like that.
>>




Good point, stalin eliminated an estimated 7-20 million, and the nazi's toasted six million jews.
 

GermyBoy

Banned
Jun 5, 2001
3,524
0
0
To save lives...LOL!!

The Japanese aren't running the world now the way they wanted to, but they sure as heck are in terms of working hard and getting new technologies out faster than anyone else!!
 

d1abolic

Banned
Sep 21, 2001
2,228
1
0


<< "the save lives" excuse, is a poor deplorable one to excuse the fact that we commited the ultimate act of horror in the world >>

I completely agree. I am sick and tired of hearing this excuse. The bomb could have been dropped elsewhere to demonstrate it's power. So what if they didn't surrender after the first city was bombed? Do you think the US government had any way of knowing that? Any reasonable person would expect Japan to surrender after seeing the effects of the bomb on an island. So why did they decide to nuke a city instead? Hell, if they nuked an island and Japan didn't give up, they could nuke their military headquarters or something. Not a city!

And who cares what war crimes the Japanese government commited. Tell me where it says that innocent civillians deserve to die for their government's crimes? If you want to walk down that road, the US doesn't have a spotless record either. Do you think that OUR civillians deserved to die on 9/11 because of that? Or does your way of thinking only apply to the Japs?