In retrospect, should we have nuked the Japanese

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
yes, same reason everybody else here will give and has given in the past in a million messages on the same topic on a million message boards
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,463
4,530
136
Originally posted by: Skoorb
yes, same reason everybody else here will give and has given in the past in a million messages on the same topic on a million message boards





:thumbsup:
 

klah

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2002
7,070
1
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
yes, same reason everybody else here will give and has given in the past in a million messages on the same topic on a million message boards

 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Probably not, because we nuked them to force an absolute surrender which never happened anyways. We accepted the same peace that they had been willing to accept before.

Another viewpoint I've heard is that the real reason the japan surrendered is because the USSR entered the war, and they perfered to be ruled by us over the russians.


On the other hand if not for the use in japan they might have/probably would have been used elsewhere.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
yes, same reason everybody else here will give and has given in the past in a million messages on the same topic on a million message boards

 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
Why didn't we nuke their massed japanese army on the southern japanese islands? We were about to fight the bloodiest battle ever, we had to do something or risk 10s or 100s of thousands of casualities on both sides. I repeat my question though, why did we NOT nuke the massed japanese army on the southern japanese islands? Can you imagine the expression on the emporer's face when he is told he has no army, they were destroyed with a single bomb?
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: judasmachine
Why didn't we nuke their massed army on the southern islands? We were about to fight the bloodiest battle ever, we had to do something or risk 10s or 100s of thousands of casualities on both sides. I repeat my question though, why did we NOT nuke the massed japanese army on the southern islands?

[tinfoilhot]because hiroshima and nagasaki were mostly untouched by bombing campaigns and made good test sites so the real effects could be seen and analyzed[/tinfoilhat]
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: judasmachine
Why didn't we nuke their massed army on the southern islands? We were about to fight the bloodiest battle ever, we had to do something or risk 10s or 100s of thousands of casualities on both sides. I repeat my question though, why did we NOT nuke the massed japanese army on the southern islands?

[tinfoilhot]because hiroshima and nagasaki were mostly untouched by bombing campaigns and made good test sites so the real effects could be seen and analyzed[/tinfoilhat]

HUH????

That is your answer to the mans simple and honest question?
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,303
15
81
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: judasmachine
Why didn't we nuke their massed army on the southern islands? We were about to fight the bloodiest battle ever, we had to do something or risk 10s or 100s of thousands of casualities on both sides. I repeat my question though, why did we NOT nuke the massed japanese army on the southern islands?

[tinfoilhot]because hiroshima and nagasaki were mostly untouched by bombing campaigns and made good test sites so the real effects could be seen and analyzed[/tinfoilhat]

More like because both cities were industrial centers, and their destruction would impact the japanese war effort far more than using against the japanese troops?
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: judasmachine
Why didn't we nuke their massed army on the southern islands? We were about to fight the bloodiest battle ever, we had to do something or risk 10s or 100s of thousands of casualities on both sides. I repeat my question though, why did we NOT nuke the massed japanese army on the southern islands?

[tinfoilhot]because hiroshima and nagasaki were mostly untouched by bombing campaigns and made good test sites so the real effects could be seen and analyzed[/tinfoilhat]

HUH????

That is your answer to the mans simple and honest question?

Thank you dahunan. And mike it was a simple question. The Japanese army was massed on their southern islands, awaiting what they thought was imminent invasion by US Marines. There were 100s of thousands of troops, and it would have been the bloodiest battle we've ever fought, not to mention anyone else for that matter. It is my belief that we used the nuke to prevent this battle which I think is fair enough given the circumstances. I wasn't asking out of some conspiracy nut theory, this question just popped in my head when I was watching a film in my history class some years back and has kind of haunted me when I think of this subject. Your explaination may or may not be accurate, I just wish to go on record that I meant this as a simple honest question.
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
Originally posted by: judasmachine
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: judasmachine
Why didn't we nuke their massed army on the southern islands? We were about to fight the bloodiest battle ever, we had to do something or risk 10s or 100s of thousands of casualities on both sides. I repeat my question though, why did we NOT nuke the massed japanese army on the southern islands?

[tinfoilhot]because hiroshima and nagasaki were mostly untouched by bombing campaigns and made good test sites so the real effects could be seen and analyzed[/tinfoilhat]

HUH????

That is your answer to the mans simple and honest question?

Thank you dahunan. And mike it was a simple question. The Japanese army was massed on their southern islands, awaiting what they thought was imminent invasion by US Marines. There were 100s of thousands of troops, and it would have been the bloodiest battle we've ever fought, not to mention anyone else for that matter. It is my belief that we used the nuke to prevent this battle which I think is fair enough given the circumstances. I wasn't asking out of some conspiracy nut theory, this question just popped in my head when I was watching a film in my history class some years back and has kind of haunted me when I think of this subject. Your explaination may or may not be accurate, I just wish to go on record that I meant this as a simple honest question.

No clue if this is why or not, just a thought. If there were that large of a concentration of Japanese forces there how feasible would a bombing mission have been?
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
Originally posted by: UglyCasanova
Originally posted by: judasmachine
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: judasmachine
Why didn't we nuke their massed army on the southern islands? We were about to fight the bloodiest battle ever, we had to do something or risk 10s or 100s of thousands of casualities on both sides. I repeat my question though, why did we NOT nuke the massed japanese army on the southern islands?

[tinfoilhot]because hiroshima and nagasaki were mostly untouched by bombing campaigns and made good test sites so the real effects could be seen and analyzed[/tinfoilhat]

HUH????

That is your answer to the mans simple and honest question?

Thank you dahunan. And mike it was a simple question. The Japanese army was massed on their southern islands, awaiting what they thought was imminent invasion by US Marines. There were 100s of thousands of troops, and it would have been the bloodiest battle we've ever fought, not to mention anyone else for that matter. It is my belief that we used the nuke to prevent this battle which I think is fair enough given the circumstances. I wasn't asking out of some conspiracy nut theory, this question just popped in my head when I was watching a film in my history class some years back and has kind of haunted me when I think of this subject. Your explaination may or may not be accurate, I just wish to go on record that I meant this as a simple honest question.

No clue if this is why or not, just a thought. If there were that large of a concentration of Japanese forces there how feasible would a bombing mission have been?

True to a point. We knew enough to know that this one bomb, and later a second would have wiped out any large concentration of anything. But we'll never really know as we can't go back in time and stand in on the oval office conversations. I just hope they took this one question into consideration and used a damn good arguement to shoot it down. To me it seems obvious, but they had differant perspectives, motives, and sensibilities.

 

HalosPuma

Banned
Jul 11, 2004
498
0
0
Most definately YES. In fact, the more important question to ask is why are we not nuking Fallujah, Tehran, and Pyongang right now?

Back in the 1940's America had brass balls. I feared that the pussification of America by the liberals had destroyed our will to defend ourselves, but Nov 2nd re-affirmed our resolve and in short time we will be nuking the other Axis of Evil countries and win the War on Terror.
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Most definately YES. In fact, the more important question to ask is why are we not nuking Fallujah, Tehran, and Pyongang right now?

Back in the 1940's America had brass balls. I feared that the pussification of America by the liberals had destroyed our will to defend ourselves, but Nov 2nd re-affirmed our resolve and in short time we will be nuking the other Axis of Evil countries and win the War on Terror.

Are you serious? This is the attitude that would have nuked Moscow, damning us all to slow cancerous deaths, well the ones that weren't wiped out in a millionth of a second.

 

HalosPuma

Banned
Jul 11, 2004
498
0
0
Deadly serious. Here is last week's article regarding Iran's nuclear developments

Only two days before the election, the Iranian parliament voted to resume nuclear-enrichment activities, with some members chanting, "Death to America."

When will all of America realize that you cannot negotiate with these people. They are not like the Soviets - they want all of the Western Civilization destroyed. We must destroy them like we did the Japs in WWII. If not, the War on Terror will go on for many years, possibly decades.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Fallujah, Tehran, and Pyongyang.. Aren't there anymore place we can nuke.. Damn.. this sounds like fun...

Do you speak any Arabic Languages? Have you heard with your own ears the "Death to America" chants???
 

HalosPuma

Banned
Jul 11, 2004
498
0
0
Originally posted by: dahunan
Fallujah, Tehran, and Pyongyang.. Aren't there anymore place we can nuke..

Damascas. And if the House of Saud falls, Riyadh. We'll let Israel take care of Palestine.
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Deadly serious. Here is last week's article regarding Iran's nuclear developments

Only two days before the election, the Iranian parliament voted to resume nuclear-enrichment activities, with some members chanting, "Death to America."

When will all of America realize that you cannot negotiate with these people. They are not like the Soviets - they want all of the Western Civilization destroyed. We must destroy them like we did the Japs in WWII. If not, the War on Terror will go on for many years, possibly decades.

Well opening Pandora's Box still doesn't seem like a good thing to me. I'm too tired to argue this right now. Halos, good night and sleep well, and to be honest, I'm glad you don't have your finger on the trigger.

 

B00ne

Platinum Member
May 21, 2001
2,168
1
0
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: judasmachine
Why didn't we nuke their massed army on the southern islands? We were about to fight the bloodiest battle ever, we had to do something or risk 10s or 100s of thousands of casualities on both sides. I repeat my question though, why did we NOT nuke the massed japanese army on the southern islands?

[tinfoilhot]because hiroshima and nagasaki were mostly untouched by bombing campaigns and made good test sites so the real effects could be seen and analyzed[/tinfoilhat]

More like because both cities were industrial centers, and their destruction would impact the japanese war effort far more than using against the japanese troops?

Bombs in WWII were not necessarily dropped to impair industrila production but to kill, scare and intimidate the civilian population. or how do u explain that every single (inner) city has been bombed while leaving crucial war industries intact.
 

Kibbo

Platinum Member
Jul 13, 2004
2,847
0
0
I used to believe that no, it wasn't worth it.

Until I read some civilian casualty statistics. Germany suffered casualties in the millions, Japan suffered them in the hundreds of thousands. It could be argued that using the bomb saved Japanese lives.

I don't know enough about it to be sure, but it is an interesting idea.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Before anyone answers this question, they need to read about the campaign for Okinawa which ended mere weeks before the bombs were dropped on the mainland. With over 250,000 dead among Japanese troops, Okinawan civilians, and American troops, the campaign was a vision into the future for what was awaiting Allied forces on the bigger islands. The effects of such a momentous slaughter on the mainland would have been devastating to Japan, to the United States, and ultimately to the world because the Japanese economic powerhouse might never have happaned.

The one million US casualities figure which is commonly cited for a mainland invasion probably roughly translates to FIVE million plus Japanese casualties at an absolute bare minimum. Even faced with the inevitable, the Japanese were prepared to continue fighting.

Nuking the troop concentrations would do little to affect the central government because military casualties are acceptable to the Japanese -- every soldier in the military was willing to die for the Emperor and considered it an honor to do so. The elimination of a couple cities is more tangible.
 

Forsythe

Platinum Member
May 2, 2004
2,825
0
0
You bombed japan because you were showing your power to the commies. I thought that was common knowledge.

And using nukes today? Are you stupid?
 

TheGameIs21

Golden Member
Apr 23, 2001
1,329
0
0
I am honestly concerned with the lack of knowledge about this subject posted so far...

The massed army and pending battle is only a part of why the U.S. Nuked. I know that in the 80's, I wasn't told this in School but Japan began to use a very ingenious method to deliver bombs that in the beginning wasn't very productive but it proved it could be done. Not only did Japan attack Perl Harbor, they also attached bombs to balloons and placed the balloons into the Jetstream. That jetstream carried the balloons to the U.S. and dropped their payload mostly over the mid west in unpopulated areas as they learned how to time the release. As they continued, they became more and more accurate and Japan planned on using Chemical and Biological Warfare with the balloons delivering the payload.

The list of why we nuked are many but the 3 key ones are:

1. Pending LARGE battle.
2. inevitable Chem/bio attack
3. Not wanting to prolong war