Poll - Atomic weapons in World War II

[Pacfanweb]

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.

Our leaders wouldn't have known about radiation sickness back then, at least nowhere near like we know now. A few scientists may have had an idea, but again, this is applying the facts that we know today to the past, when these facts weren't really available.

By this line of reasoning, I guess Pearl Harbor could have been avoided, and we should have already stopped building battleships and cruisers altogether, since it had already been proven that planes could sink a battleship.

Then again, many admirals still believed even after Pearl Harbor that planes were no match for a battleship that was in the open sea, at full readiness, ready to fight back.
Why? Because until the Prince of Wales and Repulse were sunk at sea, it had never been done.
The ships sunk by planes at Taranto and Pearl Harbor were at anchor, and not a full combat readiness.

Same with us dropping the bombs on Japan. Nobody had any idea about how bad the aftermath could be, because it had never been done. We still didn't really know the true effects until several weeks later, when we were on the ground there and could inspect the aftermath.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

The REAL question is - was Nagasaki really necessary?

 

[GoingUp]

Germans actually would surrender rather than fight to the death like the japanese. Plus Germany held such a wide area of Europe. Would you have nuked german troops in other countries?

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
The REAL question is - was Nagasaki really necessary?

Yes, it was. The Japs wouldn't surrender after Hiroshima. They had 2 days. They were warned. Period, end of story.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Germans actually would surrender rather than fight to the death like the japanese. Plus Germany held such a wide area of Europe. Would you have nuked german troops in other countries?

By the time we had the bomb, the Germans were't in many other places than Germany. The other countries they were in were cut off, isolated from Germany herself.
And remember, these bombs weren't the megaton, city busters that we have today. They'd flatten about a square mile or so.
A good 1000-bomber raid would do that anyway.

 

[grrl]

Originally posted by: 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.

No, not everything is racially motivated, but your 'observation' is a bit simplistic. Even after the US realized the Germans couldn't make a bomb, they didn't consider using it against them. The TRUTH is it would not have gone down well with the US public - partly because of the greater anger towards Japan, compounded by and base on the racism that always existed in the US towards Asians and the war in the Pacific.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: 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?

i made an error, that first "would" = wouldnt

other than that it makes perfect sense . if you were making this descision 60+ years ago, how in the world would you know about radiation sickness? you can see the future?

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
The REAL question is - was Nagasaki really necessary?

Yes, it was. The Japs wouldn't surrender after Hiroshima. They had 2 days. They were warned. Period, end of story.

Do you realize how short a time 2 days is for a large government to consider the evidence, make a decision, and communicate it to their enemies?

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
The REAL question is - was Nagasaki really necessary?

the REAL question is- why did japan refuse to surrender after hiroshima?

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: grrl
No, not everything is racially motivated, but your 'observation' is a bit simplistic. Even after the US realized the Germans couldn't make a bomb, they didn't consider using it against them. The TRUTH is it would not have gone down well with the US public - partly because of the greater anger towards Japan, compounded by and base on the racism that always existed in the US towards Asians and the war in the Pacific.

This is total BS. We didn't consider using the bomb in Germany, because they had already surrendered by the time it was ready!!

It would have gone down just fine with the US public. Hitler was widely considered a monster by the US public.
There may have been more rage against Japan, but it wasn't racially motivated, it was motivated by Pearl Harbor, plus many other things, like the Bataan Death March, etc, etc.

Bottom line is though, the bomb simply wasn't ready in time to use it on Germany, or we likely would have done so.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: grrl

Originally posted by: 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.

No, not everything is racially motivated, but your 'observation' is a bit simplistic. Even after the US realized the Germans couldn't make a bomb, they didn't consider using it against them. The TRUTH is it would not have gone down well with the US public - partly because of the greater anger towards Japan, compounded by and base on the racism that always existed in the US towards Asians and the war in the Pacific.

ROFLMAO!! Simplistic? You want simplistic look in the mirror and go read your history books. Yeah, we hated Japs more than Germans and we had good reason to. But try to get a clue about why we used the bomb on Japan and not Germany. We could not invade Japan without sacrificing hundreds of thousands of AMERICAN lives and likely far more Japanese lives. We EASILY had Germany beaten at that time, the bomb WAS NOT NEEDED. Let me repeat that a few more times since you can't quite grasp that simple concept. WE DID NOT NEED THE BOMB AGAINST GERMANY. They were defeated and we had bases nearby, so there was no need to establish a beachhead. To take out Japan with conventional weapons would have wasted more lives than the bomb took. What part of that is failing to register with you?

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: grrl

Originally posted by: 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.

No, not everything is racially motivated, but your 'observation' is a bit simplistic. Even after the US realized the Germans couldn't make a bomb, they didn't consider using it against them. The TRUTH is it would not have gone down well with the US public - partly because of the greater anger towards Japan, compounded by and base on the racism that always existed in the US towards Asians and the war in the Pacific.

But try to get a clue about why we used the bomb on Japan and not Germany.

some people have thick skulls...just give up

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
The REAL question is - was Nagasaki really necessary?

Yes, it was. The Japs wouldn't surrender after Hiroshima. They had 2 days. They were warned. Period, end of story.

Do you realize how short a time 2 days is for a large government to consider the evidence, make a decision, and communicate it to their enemies?

No, 2 days was plenty. The government wasn't that big.
The Japs knew how much damage had been done, and some government officials wanted to surrender.
The military, however, refused. They wanted to fight to the death, in one final, "glorious" battle, while defending their homeland.
And the military was who controlled things, so there you go.

 

[LtPage1]

good thread idea.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Well over 50 million were killed in WWII.

If we had the nuke in 1943 or 1944 ... and got hitler back then, it would have probably saved at least 20 million lives.

Of course that's just my theory. We'll never really know for sure.

 

[StageLeft]

Yes, back then nukes were good fun and not particularly powerful (compared to now). I think that the use of nukes back in wwii has helped entrench in humanity a detestation for nuclear war, and I'm not sure we'd be so against it if we didn't have first hand experience of how quickly it can end lives.

 

[grrl]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: grrl

Originally posted by: 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.

No, not everything is racially motivated, but your 'observation' is a bit simplistic. Even after the US realized the Germans couldn't make a bomb, they didn't consider using it against them. The TRUTH is it would not have gone down well with the US public - partly because of the greater anger towards Japan, compounded by and base on the racism that always existed in the US towards Asians and the war in the Pacific.

ROFLMAO!! Simplistic? You want simplistic look in the mirror and go read your history books. Yeah, we hated Japs more than Germans and we had good reason to. But try to get a clue about why we used the bomb on Japan and not Germany. We could not invade Japan without sacrificing hundreds of thousands of AMERICAN lives and likely far more Japanese lives. We EASILY had Germany beaten at that time, the bomb WAS NOT NEEDED. Let me repeat that a few more times since you can't quite grasp that simple concept. WE DID NOT NEED THE BOMB AGAINST GERMANY. They were defeated and we had bases nearby, so there was no need to establish a beachhead. To take out Japan with conventional weapons would have wasted more lives than the bomb took. What part of that is failing to register with you?

I don't know what is more amusing, your jejune prose, poor reading skills or knee jerk reaction to any suggestion that there was a racial component, GagHalfrunt. There were at least a dozen reasons the bomb was dropped at all, and even more why it was dropped on Japan - and not all of them were strategic, tactical or 'timely' in nature. The racial component was real. It's fact and undeniable history. It certainly doesn't explain it all, but it wasn't a minor influence either.

The US military didn't suddenly start thinking about places to bomb after the first bomb was tested. Certain cities in Japan were set aside from the onset of the bombing campaign in the event that the bomb was used. No cities in Europe were set aside for that purpose. That's because Europe was to be considered a target only if the Germans had the bomb.

 

[TitanDiddly]

Originally posted by: 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.

Thought it was vice versa?