Poll - Atomic weapons in World War II

[Pacfanweb]

1. It is wrong to apply what we now know today to second-guess the leaders 60 years ago.

2. We absolutely saved lives in Japan by using the atom bomb.....American AND Japanese. Anyone who would claim differently has not one clue what he/she is talking about.

The Japs were arming their women and children with bamboo spears, teaching them how to fight, and they had a huge assload of troops and equipment on the mainland. They would not have given up had we invaded. It would have made Tarawa and Iwo Jima look like a ball game in comparison.

3. If we could have nuked Germany to save lots of casualties, damn right we would have and should have done it.
It was war. In war, if you have the chance to kill the enemy without killing many of your own, you do it.

4. People get all bothered about the US using a nuke on Japan. Why? Because they are applying what we know about nukes today to yesteryear's weapon.
The a-bomb that hit Hiroshima was certainly powerful, but it was a mere firecracker compared to today's nuclear weapons.

More people were killed in the fire bombing of Tokyo than by either bomb, both of which targeted military/industrial areas.

For some reason, people think it's worse that one plane/bomb caused as much damage/death as did many planes in the Tokyo raid.
Why? The people are just as dead, regardless.

 

[jjones]

A nuke probably would have been a blessing to Germany considering the amount of conventional bombing we did there instead.

 

[Analog]

The use of atomic weapons in Japan was simply not necessary, this was proven on the History Channel. The Japs were ready to surrender anyway, since the Russians were closing in on the West for the 6 months preceeding VJ day, but they didn't because the US insisted that the Emperor of Japan step down. We ended up nuking CIVILIANS, not military (a sad thing) - to do 2 things, get the Japs to surrender, and to let the Russians know how powerful we were, and keep them out of Japan. Turns out, the Japs surrendered, and we LET the emperor stay as a figure-head - something that could have been done 6 months prior, without the horrendous use of NUKEs. I simply cannot buy the argument that it saved lives, as we ended up killing civilians for no real reason (based on the outcome).

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: yellowfiero
The Japs were ready to surrender

im sorry, but this statement is laughable....

show me any instance throughout world war 2 where japanese soldiers readily surrendered. what makes you think they will start surrendering when it comes to defending their home island? :roll: i find that statement very very hard to believe.

 

[LordMorpheus]

Originally posted by: yllus
Absolutely, if it would have brought the war to an earlier end like it did with Japan.

by the time the atom bomb was working, germany was already defeated.

Maybe at the start of the war, but not at the end when it was already almost over.

Japan was different, they were nuts about fighting to the last 12 year old kid, but the germans gave up when Hitler died.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus

Originally posted by: yllus
Absolutely, if it would have brought the war to an earlier end like it did with Japan.

the germans gave up when Hitler died.

not the SS!

 

[lobadobadingdong]

I agree with nuking the japs in that theater, they where in a better defensive position that Germany, and most of the Japanese agreed with the emperors decesions (at least that's what is conveyed on the history channel), where in Germany, many of the inhabitants of Germany opposed the war (although they didn't openly oppose of it for fear of the SS)

Oddly it wasn't that much different for Iraq in reguards to the people, the way I understand it the people of Iraq didn't want their current political regeme in power, but couldn't say so without fear of persecution (or execution)...Of course that doesn't really justify us being over there, as a whole I'd like to see the free'd people of Iraq get into a more stable political, and independant position.

 

[silverpig]

No. And I'd have dropped the first nuke in Japan just off of Tokyo harbour. Make sure it doesn't do much if any damage, but make sure everyone could see it.

Japan was nuked so the Soviets couldn't get in there and claim influence as well. We'd have had ourselves a North and South Japan along with the Koreas and East/West Germany.

 

[grrl]

Originally posted by: silverpig
No. And I'd have dropped the first nuke in Japan just off of Tokyo harbour. Make sure it doesn't do much if any damage, but make sure everyone could see it.

Japan was nuked so the Soviets couldn't get in there and claim influence as well. We'd have had ourselves a North and South Japan along with the Koreas and East/West Germany.

That wasn't done because it was felt providing a demonstration would suggest to the Japanese we were getting tired, that we were losing our will to fight. Considering their fighting spirit, that may not have been a wrong assumption.


Also, practically from the start of the Manhattan Project, it was assumed Japan would be the target. Racism was certainly part of the reason atomic bombs were used on Japan.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: grrl

Also, practically from the start of the Manhattan Project, it was assumed Japan would be the target. Racism was certainly part of the reason atomic bombs were used on Japan.

Racism? How about payback-is-a-bitchism?

Not everything is racially motivated and the Manhattan project was started because of fears that Germany was developing a bomb too. The original assumption was that we needed one to counter theirs. Only later on when it was discovered that their nuke program sucked was the target switched to Japan. We nuked Japan instead of Germany for the primary reason that it was the best way to save AMERICAN lives. The secondary reason is that the American public still wanted Japan to pay. Germany wasn't involved in Pearl Harbor and in 1945 that wound was still fresh. They didn't get nuked because they were of a different race, they got nuked because they were our enemy who HAPPENED to be a different race.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: yellowfiero
The use of atomic weapons in Japan was simply not necessary, this was proven on the History Channel. The Japs were ready to surrender anyway, since the Russians were closing in on the West for the 6 months preceeding VJ day, but they didn't because the US insisted that the Emperor of Japan step down. We ended up nuking CIVILIANS, not military (a sad thing) - to do 2 things, get the Japs to surrender, and to let the Russians know how powerful we were, and keep them out of Japan. Turns out, the Japs surrendered, and we LET the emperor stay as a figure-head - something that could have been done 6 months prior, without the horrendous use of NUKEs. I simply cannot buy the argument that it saved lives, as we ended up killing civilians for no real reason (based on the outcome).

Ah, but the fact is, the Japanese surrender, in that case would not have been unconditional. At the end of the day, had Japan not truly and completely been defeated (and humbled) there was the distinct possibility of another war in the pacific in the future. A war that is not decided by a clear victory on one side or the other is an invitation to another war. This was especially clear to the leadership at the end of WWII, having just suffered through a war created by the indecision at the end of WWI.

 

[gflores]

The question I ask is, why were two nukes dropped on Japan and not just one? We could've easily threatened with another one if they didn't surrender.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: notfred
Japan is an island. Fallout from bombs in Japan will not drift to France, Poland, the Netherlands, Denmark, and many other nations we were allied with.

Back then, I don't think they would have cared if the timing worked out. When they dropped the first one on Japan they weren't even completely sure if the reaction would cease instead of consuming the entire Earth. Now THAT'S making a hard call!

No, when they exploded "Trinity" in the SW US they werent sure if it would consume the Earth. When they dropped on Hiroshima, they werent sure if the fuse would detonate the bomb. The last test of the fuse a couple days before the bomb was dropped, the fuse failed to work, IIRC.

 

[lobadobadingdong]

Originally posted by: gflores
The question I ask is, why were two nukes dropped on Japan and not just one? We could've easily threatened with another one if they didn't surrender.

we did, they didn't.

 

[Analog]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: yellowfiero
The Japs were ready to surrender

im sorry, but this statement is laughable....

show me any instance throughout world war 2 where japanese soldiers readily surrendered. what makes you think they will start surrendering when it comes to defending their home island? :roll: i find that statement very very hard to believe.

Think what you want, the Japs made overtures to surrender 6 months earlier (through diplomatic channels) but the US insisted on the emperor stepping down. In the end, he didn't, and we let him stay so that the Russians would be turned back before they invaded Japan proper. This was all made clear in the History channel special on that topic.

 

[Triumph]

no because that might've killed my dad and then i wouldn't be here to answer this question.

Also, how exactly would you carry it out without doing harm to those it wasn't intended for? Japan is a somewhat isolated island, and it had no Allied troops on the land. Europe was teaming with Allied forces everywhere, plus the close proximity of all of the countries. I don't think it'd be a very good idea, you'd have radiation sickness spreading into 3 or 4 other countries.

 

[OulOat]

Originally posted by: yellowfiero
The use of atomic weapons in Japan was simply not necessary, this was proven on the History Channel. The Japs were ready to surrender anyway, since the Russians were closing in on the West for the 6 months preceeding VJ day, but they didn't because the US insisted that the Emperor of Japan step down. We ended up nuking CIVILIANS, not military (a sad thing) - to do 2 things, get the Japs to surrender, and to let the Russians know how powerful we were, and keep them out of Japan. Turns out, the Japs surrendered, and we LET the emperor stay as a figure-head - something that could have been done 6 months prior, without the horrendous use of NUKEs. I simply cannot buy the argument that it saved lives, as we ended up killing civilians for no real reason (based on the outcome).

Umm, history note: everyone was killing civilians. The Japanese was especially guilty of this. You are applying modern rules of combat on an era that didn't care about civilian death tolls. Plus, it is really easy to look back and say, hey, the Japanese was about to surrender anyways. You have the luxury of knowing what both sides were thinking; past commanders didn't.

On another note. I guarantee you that all the other Asians that suffered under Japan's rule had absolutely no problems with the Japanese getting nuke. Revenge is sweet.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: lobadobadingdong

Originally posted by: gflores
The question I ask is, why were two nukes dropped on Japan and not just one? We could've easily threatened with another one if they didn't surrender.

we did, they didn't.

Correct, they had 2 full days to surrender and yet didn't do so. Any sensible country looking for peace would have thrown in the towel after Hiroshima. In fact, there's more to the story and it's not 100% sure that even the Nagasaki bomb caused the final surrender. Japan was looking for a way out without resorting to unconditional surrender. They were hoping to salvage some face and get away light. The hope was that they could use Russia as an intermediary to encourage the US to accept something other than their utter defeat. At the time, Japan and Russia had a neutrality pact and Russia was the only country powerful enough to help them that didn't hate their guts. That hope was lost on (drumroll) August 9th when Russia invaded Japanese-held Manchuria. What else happened on August 9th? Yep, you guessed it, the same day we bombed Nagasaki. Many historians debate whether it was the Nagasaki bomb that truly forced the Japs to accept unconditional surrender or whether it was the sudden realiation that Russia would not be willing to help them.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Triumph
I don't think it'd be a very good idea, you'd have radiation sickness spreading into 3 or 4 other countries.

for the third time, you would know about radiation sickness back then, so that shouldnt affect your descision.

 

[OulOat]

Originally posted by: gflores
The question I ask is, why were two nukes dropped on Japan and not just one? We could've easily threatened with another one if they didn't surrender.

Um, Little Boy was dropped first. They refused to surrender. Then we dropped Fat Man.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: PhasmatisNox

Originally posted by: Tylanner
Nuke white people?

We'd be severely tainted still today...

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: yellowfiero
The use of atomic weapons in Japan was simply not necessary, this was proven on the History Channel. The Japs were ready to surrender anyway, since the Russians were closing in on the West for the 6 months preceeding VJ day, but they didn't because the US insisted that the Emperor of Japan step down. We ended up nuking CIVILIANS, not military (a sad thing) - to do 2 things, get the Japs to surrender, and to let the Russians know how powerful we were, and keep them out of Japan. Turns out, the Japs surrendered, and we LET the emperor stay as a figure-head - something that could have been done 6 months prior, without the horrendous use of NUKEs. I simply cannot buy the argument that it saved lives, as we ended up killing civilians for no real reason (based on the outcome).

1. Revisionist history. Again, you can't go back today and assemble all the info that we know NOW, and assume that Truman had all of it and a clear grasp of the big picture that we have the luxury of looking back on. He didn't.
2. We nuked MILITARY and INDUSTRIAL areas, in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Look it up, they were legit military targets. Yes, there were civilians nearby, as with nearly all the Jap military bases on the mainland. Plus, who the hell do you think builds guns, planes, bombs, ships, etc? Soldiers?
3. We could not have let the Japs surrender 6 months earlier...they wouldn't have done it. Anyone who says so now is simply changing history to suit their own views.
4. You can't buy the FACT that the bomb saved lives? What do you think would have happened if we had to invade? We'd have killed more Japs than the bomb did, plus we'd have lost more soldiers than the bomb killed.
Anyone who says different is either an idiot or simply doesn't know what they're talking about. Hell, the Japs killed more citizens during the Rape of Nanking than both bombs together did. Don't talk to me about killing citizens. There were no citizens during WWII.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Triumph
I don't think it'd be a very good idea, you'd have radiation sickness spreading into 3 or 4 other countries.

for the third time, you would know about radiation sickness back then, so that shouldnt affect your descision.

disregarding the fact that i didn't read the thread, your statement makes no sense. i WOULD know about it so it WOULDN'T affect my decision?

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: yellowfiero

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: yellowfiero
The Japs were ready to surrender

im sorry, but this statement is laughable....

show me any instance throughout world war 2 where japanese soldiers readily surrendered. what makes you think they will start surrendering when it comes to defending their home island? :roll: i find that statement very very hard to believe.

Think what you want, the Japs made overtures to surrender 6 months earlier (through diplomatic channels) but the US insisted on the emperor stepping down. In the end, he didn't, and we let him stay so that the Russians would be turned back before they invaded Japan proper. This was all made clear in the History channel special on that topic.

And if the History channel says it, it must be true, huh? Don't you think that historians today might have access to just a wee bit more info from all the warring nations than our leaders did 60 years ago?
Plus, the Russians couldn't have invaded Japan anyway. Whose navy do you think had the whole island blockaded? The Russians had basically no navy.
Either the History channel has something completely wrong, or you simply didn't understand what they said. I'd say it's most likey the latter.

 

[jagec]

The bomb wasn't available in time to save lives in Germany...the war was practically over by the time the bomb was ready.

I would have dropped the first bomb on Japan, but not the second. The second was just payback for Pearl Harbor.