the hiroshima pictures

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

This entire thread would be self evidence of that.

For anyone thinking our course of action in WW2 was wrong, immoral, evil, etc, they carry an ideology that is going to bring us a great deal of suffering when we allow the current war to turn nuclear.

There?s no one in Washington willing to do what is necessary, out of fear that our population wouldn?t tolerate it. They?re correct, however, we?ve lost the will to survive.

I guess I haven't read the WHOLE thread and I misinterpreted your meaning. Call me defensive, but I'm fairly liberal but I have absoulutely no problem with using the nuke in WW2. It was a REAL war then.

Times have changed since the use of that nuke and we are no longer the only country in the world with that weapon, so I guess I'm a pussy in the sense that I don't think use of the nuke by anyone is an acceptable option anymore. So far, the concept of MAD has worked.... but now we live in a world where someone, somewhere is going to justify it's use and we need to work together as a world to prevent that otherwise we are ALL lost.

 

[rchiu]

For those that oppose the use of atomic bombs, other than saying how horrible it was, what would you have done that could have caused less casualties on either side?

 

[BoomerD]

They SHOULD have dropped 2 into Tokyo, at least one into Kyoto, and some of the other major cities as well...After the attacks on Pearl Harbor, the cruel and inhumane way the Japanese treated POW's, and all the savagery they showed the worls, (china, vietnam, etc) it woule have been warranted.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: rchiu
For those that oppose the use of atomic bombs, other than saying how horrible it was, what would you have done that could have caused less casualties on either side?

They were utterly and completely beaten. A naval blockage should have been implemented, and leaflets dropped weekly telling the Japanese populace to bring a new government and surrender to the table before the blockade would be lifted.

Invasion had no reward other than revenge and political positioning. The country had been reduced from a global menace to a shattered husk of a people not even able to float a single ship upon the waters, nor keep a plane against the mighty US air superiority.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: rchiu
For those that oppose the use of atomic bombs, other than saying how horrible it was, what would you have done that could have caused less casualties on either side?

They were utterly and completely beaten. A naval blockage should have been implemented, and leaflets dropped weekly telling the Japanese populace to bring a new government and surrender to the table before the blockade would be lifted.

Invasion had no reward other than revenge and political positioning. The country had been reduced from a global menace to a shattered husk of a people not even able to float a single ship upon the waters, nor keep a plane against the mighty US air superiority.

Are you familiar with the Japanese culture, specifically at that period of time? We are talking about people who used kamikaze as well as fought to the last men in every single battle. Have you heard of any Japanes general surrender themselves in any battle when they were utterly defeated with no hope of winning?

Also Japan has been a self-contained island nation for over a thousand year, you think some leaflets and naval blockage is gonna drive them to surrender?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: rchiu
For those that oppose the use of atomic bombs, other than saying how horrible it was, what would you have done that could have caused less casualties on either side?

They were utterly and completely beaten. A naval blockage should have been implemented, and leaflets dropped weekly telling the Japanese populace to bring a new government and surrender to the table before the blockade would be lifted.

Invasion had no reward other than revenge and political positioning. The country had been reduced from a global menace to a shattered husk of a people not even able to float a single ship upon the waters, nor keep a plane against the mighty US air superiority.

Are you familiar with the Japanese culture, specifically at that period of time? We are talking about people who used kamikaze as well as fought to the last men in every single battle. Have you heard of any Japanes general surrender themselves in any battle when they were utterly defeated with no hope of winning?

Also Japan has been a self-contained island nation for over a thousand year, you think some leaflets and naval blockage is gonna drive them to surrender?

Even if it didn't result in immediate surrender, they are no longer a threat. Also, I am a voracious student of Japanese culture, and I don't think the Bushido code held all that much influence outside of the military itself. I believe that after facing the very real and undeniable fact of their military's complete and utter defeat, that the population at large would begin to reject the imperial government. The emperor himself was already in support of ending the war, but many fanatics stood in the way of peace.

In the end, I don't think it particularly horrible compared to the millions of other horrific deaths in WW2, but I do think it was somewhat unnecessary. It probably had more to do with scaring Stalin than with Japan directly. I bet that detonating repeated atomic blasts in Tokyo harbor would have sufficed to scare the population into utter despair and submission, instead of deliberately murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians in two blasts, without even waiting long enough to gauge the socio-political results of the first.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: rchiu
For those that oppose the use of atomic bombs, other than saying how horrible it was, what would you have done that could have caused less casualties on either side?

They were utterly and completely beaten. A naval blockage should have been implemented, and leaflets dropped weekly telling the Japanese populace to bring a new government and surrender to the table before the blockade would be lifted.

Invasion had no reward other than revenge and political positioning. The country had been reduced from a global menace to a shattered husk of a people not even able to float a single ship upon the waters, nor keep a plane against the mighty US air superiority.

Are you familiar with the Japanese culture, specifically at that period of time? We are talking about people who used kamikaze as well as fought to the last men in every single battle. Have you heard of any Japanes general surrender themselves in any battle when they were utterly defeated with no hope of winning?

Also Japan has been a self-contained island nation for over a thousand year, you think some leaflets and naval blockage is gonna drive them to surrender?

Even if it didn't result in immediate surrender, they are no longer a threat. Also, I am a voracious student of Japanese culture, and I don't think the Bushido code held all that much influence outside of the military itself. I believe that after facing the very real and undeniable fact of their military's complete and utter defeat, that the population at large would begin to reject the imperial government. The emperor himself was already in support of ending the war, but many fanatics stood in the way of peace.

In the end, I don't think it particularly horrible compared to the millions of other horrific deaths in WW2, but I do think it was somewhat unnecessary. It probably had more to do with scaring Stalin than with Japan directly. I bet that detonating repeated atomic blasts in Tokyo harbor would have sufficed to scare the population into utter despair and submission, instead of deliberately murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians in two blasts, without even waiting long enough to gauge the socio-political results of the first.

What you are painting is a blockade where thousands maybe millions die of starvation. Obviously we also need to continue the gutting of the infrastructure of the country so it cant continue to wage war. This means constant bombing of their cities which also adds to the death toll.

 

[palehorse]

I wish I were alive to see an American populace with the patience and tenacity to take on a consumate evil and actually *gasp* follow it through to victory... ahh, how sweet that would be!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Czar
Can we agree that dropping an atomic bomb on two civilian cities is bad?

just like firebombing civilian cities is bad
just like enslaving neighboring countries is bad

asking those people to thank their killers is arrogance to the max

No we cannot all agree...sorry...just doesn`t hold water!!

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I wish I were alive to see an American population with the patience and tenacity to take on a cosumate evil and actually follow through to victory... ahh, how sweet that would be!

What cosumate evil would you like taken on sir?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: Aimster
IMO killing hundreds of thousands of civilians to save the lives of soldiers is wrong.

soldiers have a job so let them do it.
do not play God and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians so the soldier death count is low.

Of course those days are over. Otherwise we would have nuked Vietnam.

Read some history books. Japan was arming the civilian population in the event of a mainland invasion. Iwo Jima was a precursor to the invasion of the Japanese mainland. 24,000 U.S. casualties in one month. Or how about Okinawa where 100,000+ Japanese were killed.

Japan was also in the midst of a major food crisis verging on famine. ---link please!!

If the war had gone on another few months millions more Japanese would have died. One of the first things the US occupation forces did was import massive amounts of foodstuffs to prevent the popluation from starving to death.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: lyssword
The tragic thing is, Japan's emperor was ready to give up before nukes went off, but he was held hostage by his own military generals.

Thats not true at all.....

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I wish I were alive to see an American population with the patience and tenacity to take on a cosumate evil and actually follow through to victory... ahh, how sweet that would be!

What cosumate evil would you like taken on sir?

gee, i dunno... Fanatical Islam perhaps?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: lyssword
The tragic thing is, Japan's emperor was ready to give up before nukes went off, but he was held hostage by his own military generals.

Thats not true at all.....

I saw a history channel special with interviews with a Japanese soldier telling that exact story. With Japanese imperial documents to back it up!

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Even if it didn't result in immediate surrender, they are no longer a threat. Also, I am a voracious student of Japanese culture, and I don't think the Bushido code held all that much influence outside of the military itself. I believe that after facing the very real and undeniable fact of their military's complete and utter defeat, that the population at large would begin to reject the imperial government. The emperor himself was already in support of ending the war, but many fanatics stood in the way of peace.

In the end, I don't think it particularly horrible compared to the millions of other horrific deaths in WW2, but I do think it was somewhat unnecessary. It probably had more to do with scaring Stalin than with Japan directly. I bet that detonating repeated atomic blasts in Tokyo harbor would have sufficed to scare the population into utter despair and submission, instead of deliberately murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians in two blasts, without even waiting long enough to gauge the socio-political results of the first.

Do you think the detonating repeated atomic blast that does nothing is gonna be more effective than the tokyo firebombing that killed in excess of 100,000 people?

Japan started the war and killed millions as a result. They had the military strengh to fight a war against the US, China and the rest of the Asian countries. If the US didn't continue to press on and simply rely on naval blockage, what's the guarantee that Japan wouldn't regain the military strenght, and made future ally invasion into Japan much more difficult. Or are you suggesting that US and Ally should just let all the war criminal in Japan continue to lead their government without being held responsible for starting such a horrendeous war?

By the way, there were still over a million men in Japanese military by the end of the war defending Japan mainland. How are you going to ensure the complete and utter defeat of that force without invading Japan?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Even if it didn't result in immediate surrender, they are no longer a threat. Also, I am a voracious student of Japanese culture, and I don't think the Bushido code held all that much influence outside of the military itself. I believe that after facing the very real and undeniable fact of their military's complete and utter defeat, that the population at large would begin to reject the imperial government. The emperor himself was already in support of ending the war, but many fanatics stood in the way of peace.

In the end, I don't think it particularly horrible compared to the millions of other horrific deaths in WW2, but I do think it was somewhat unnecessary. It probably had more to do with scaring Stalin than with Japan directly. I bet that detonating repeated atomic blasts in Tokyo harbor would have sufficed to scare the population into utter despair and submission, instead of deliberately murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians in two blasts, without even waiting long enough to gauge the socio-political results of the first.

Do you think the detonating repeated atomic blast that does nothing is gonna be more effective than the tokyo firebombing that killed in excess of 100,000 people?

Japan started the war and killed millions as a result. They had the military strengh to fight a war against the US, China and the rest of the Asian countries. If the US didn't continue to press on and simply rely on naval blockage, what's the guarantee that they wouldn't regain the military strenght, and made any further invasion into Japan much more difficult. Or are you suggesting that US and Ally should just let all the war criminal in Japan continue to lead their government without being held responsible for starting such a horrendeous war?

By the way, there were still over a million men in Japanese military by the end of the war defending Japan mainland. How are you going to ensure the complete and utter defeat of that force without invading Japan?

Who cares about invading the Japanese mainland? They were utterly defeated, and nothing was going to change that. If anything, a resurgent China would have scarcely put up with any Japanese sabre rattling in the forseeable future. They probably would have taken over the blockade themselves before 1950.

As far as regaining military strength, the physical ingredients for combat in WW2 were men, food, steel, and oil. An isolated Japan had access to only one of these. It is laughable to think that they could threaten a gunboat, let alone a navy, which would be the minimum paradigm necessary to overcome in order to menace other entities.

As far as Japanese war criminals, they were unfortunatley let of the hook more often than not, and the surrender was far from the proclaimed 'unconditional' one that was heralded. Hirohito walked, end of story.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: lyssword
The tragic thing is, Japan's emperor was ready to give up before nukes went off, but he was held hostage by his own military generals.

Thats not true at all.....

I saw a history channel special with interviews with a Japanese soldier telling that exact story. With Japanese imperial documents to back it up!

Also .. check this out : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito#Last_days_of_the_war

"On June 22, Hirohito met his ministers, saying "I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts be made to implement them." The attempt to negotiate a peace via the Soviet Union came to nothing. There was always the threat that extremists would carry out a coup or foment other violence. The Allies were determined not to settle for anything short of unconditional surrender, and as late as July 1945 the Japanese government council, the Big Six, considered that option and recommended one to three conditions, beginning with a guarantee of the emperor's continued position in Japanese society."

Pretty damn clear if you ask me.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: lyssword
The tragic thing is, Japan's emperor was ready to give up before nukes went off, but he was held hostage by his own military generals.

Thats not true at all.....

I saw a history channel special with interviews with a Japanese soldier telling that exact story. With Japanese imperial documents to back it up!

Even if that were true, the people to blame are those military generals. American is only doing the inevitable which is using any mean necessary to force a unconditional surrender. Those Japanese who fought against the surrender was one brining destruction to their own country, if it wasn't the atomic bomb, it would have been a full scale invasion that killed millions more.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Even if it didn't result in immediate surrender, they are no longer a threat. Also, I am a voracious student of Japanese culture, and I don't think the Bushido code held all that much influence outside of the military itself. I believe that after facing the very real and undeniable fact of their military's complete and utter defeat, that the population at large would begin to reject the imperial government. The emperor himself was already in support of ending the war, but many fanatics stood in the way of peace.

In the end, I don't think it particularly horrible compared to the millions of other horrific deaths in WW2, but I do think it was somewhat unnecessary. It probably had more to do with scaring Stalin than with Japan directly. I bet that detonating repeated atomic blasts in Tokyo harbor would have sufficed to scare the population into utter despair and submission, instead of deliberately murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians in two blasts, without even waiting long enough to gauge the socio-political results of the first.

Do you think the detonating repeated atomic blast that does nothing is gonna be more effective than the tokyo firebombing that killed in excess of 100,000 people?

Japan started the war and killed millions as a result. They had the military strengh to fight a war against the US, China and the rest of the Asian countries. If the US didn't continue to press on and simply rely on naval blockage, what's the guarantee that they wouldn't regain the military strenght, and made any further invasion into Japan much more difficult. Or are you suggesting that US and Ally should just let all the war criminal in Japan continue to lead their government without being held responsible for starting such a horrendeous war?

By the way, there were still over a million men in Japanese military by the end of the war defending Japan mainland. How are you going to ensure the complete and utter defeat of that force without invading Japan?

Who cares about invading the Japanese mainland? They were utterly defeated, and nothing was going to change that. If anything, a resurgent China would have scarcely put up with any Japanese sabre rattling in the forseeable future. They probably would have taken over the blockade themselves before 1950.

As far as regaining military strength, the physical ingredients for combat in WW2 were men, food, steel, and oil. An isolated Japan had access to only one of these. It is laughable to think that they could threaten a gunboat, let alone a navy, which would be the minimum paradigm necessary to overcome in order to menace other entities.

As far as Japanese war criminals, they were unfortunatley let of the hook more often than not, and the surrender was far from the proclaimed 'unconditional' one that was heralded. Hirohito walked, end of story.

We werent interested in blockading the japanese. We wanted them to surrender period. Blockading, prolonging the war for months or years while starving people out in Japan would be counter productive and more inhumane than getting the war ended.


China was still fighting their civil war and would until 1950 so they werent going to join the fun.

 

[DasFox]

I lived in Saipan for 5 years, which is 3 miles away from Tinian island, where the Enola Gay took off from. I use to study aviation at the time, and I use to practice flying over Tinian, and I've flown over the old airstrip which is still there to this day.

Saipan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saipan

Tinian:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinian

ALOHA

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Who cares about invading the Japanese mainland? They were utterly defeated, and nothing was going to change that. If anything, a resurgent China would have scarcely put up with any Japanese sabre rattling in the forseeable future. They probably would have taken over the blockade themselves before 1950.

As far as regaining military strength, the physical ingredients for combat in WW2 were men, food, steel, and oil. An isolated Japan had access to only one of these. It is laughable to think that they could threaten a gunboat, let alone a navy, which would be the minimum paradigm necessary to overcome in order to menace other entities.

As far as Japanese war criminals, they were unfortunatley let of the hook more often than not, and the surrender was far from the proclaimed 'unconditional' one that was heralded. Hirohito walked, end of story.

Who cares? The Chinese with millions killed cares, the hundreds of thousand American soldier's died as a result of Japanese invasion cares, the Korean and the rest of Asian suffered as Japanese invasion cares.

Japan may not be able to become a world power with a naval blockage, but they can surely survive and recover from the war all without any help from outside world. Without Ally invasion, those Japanese warmongers can rebuild their strenght and at least ensure their mainland is properly defended and continue to stay in power. So again, are you telling everyone that warcriminals like Hideki Tojo should just stay in power? And it's okay to let a country who started a war, killing millions and millions to walk away without being brought to justice?

 

[DasFox]

Oh forget to mention I lived in Japan for one year and I've been to Hiroshima.

I've been to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial and have seen it all, plus the Genbaku Dome.

ALOHA

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: Aimster
IMO killing hundreds of thousands of civilians to save the lives of soldiers is wrong.

soldiers have a job so let them do it.
do not play God and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians so the soldier death count is low.

Of course those days are over. Otherwise we would have nuked Vietnam.

Read some history books. Japan was arming the civilian population in the event of a mainland invasion. Iwo Jima was a precursor to the invasion of the Japanese mainland. 24,000 U.S. casualties in one month. Or how about Okinawa where 100,000+ Japanese were killed.

Japan was also in the midst of a major food crisis verging on famine. ---link please!!

If the war had gone on another few months millions more Japanese would have died. One of the first things the US occupation forces did was import massive amounts of foodstuffs to prevent the popluation from starving to death.

There is little about it online, it is usually a just a footnote.

Books that examine the war, particularly the end, have much more material on it. The book 'Downfall' which is exclusively about the closing months of the Japanese empire has very detailed information about the state of Japan drawn from both Japnese and US period records.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Even if it didn't result in immediate surrender, they are no longer a threat. Also, I am a voracious student of Japanese culture, and I don't think the Bushido code held all that much influence outside of the military itself. I believe that after facing the very real and undeniable fact of their military's complete and utter defeat, that the population at large would begin to reject the imperial government. The emperor himself was already in support of ending the war, but many fanatics stood in the way of peace.

In the end, I don't think it particularly horrible compared to the millions of other horrific deaths in WW2, but I do think it was somewhat unnecessary. It probably had more to do with scaring Stalin than with Japan directly. I bet that detonating repeated atomic blasts in Tokyo harbor would have sufficed to scare the population into utter despair and submission, instead of deliberately murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians in two blasts, without even waiting long enough to gauge the socio-political results of the first.

Do you think the detonating repeated atomic blast that does nothing is gonna be more effective than the tokyo firebombing that killed in excess of 100,000 people?

Japan started the war and killed millions as a result. They had the military strengh to fight a war against the US, China and the rest of the Asian countries. If the US didn't continue to press on and simply rely on naval blockage, what's the guarantee that they wouldn't regain the military strenght, and made any further invasion into Japan much more difficult. Or are you suggesting that US and Ally should just let all the war criminal in Japan continue to lead their government without being held responsible for starting such a horrendeous war?

By the way, there were still over a million men in Japanese military by the end of the war defending Japan mainland. How are you going to ensure the complete and utter defeat of that force without invading Japan?

Who cares about invading the Japanese mainland? They were utterly defeated, and nothing was going to change that. If anything, a resurgent China would have scarcely put up with any Japanese sabre rattling in the forseeable future. They probably would have taken over the blockade themselves before 1950.

As far as regaining military strength, the physical ingredients for combat in WW2 were men, food, steel, and oil. An isolated Japan had access to only one of these. It is laughable to think that they could threaten a gunboat, let alone a navy, which would be the minimum paradigm necessary to overcome in order to menace other entities.

As far as Japanese war criminals, they were unfortunatley let of the hook more often than not, and the surrender was far from the proclaimed 'unconditional' one that was heralded. Hirohito walked, end of story.

We werent interested in blockading the japanese. We wanted them to surrender period. Blockading, prolonging the war for months or years while starving people out in Japan would be counter productive and more inhumane than getting the war ended.


China was still fighting their civil war and would until 1950 so they werent going to join the fun.

On the starvation issue, I believe that Japan was still agriculturally self-sufficient enough to avoid that fate at that point in time. Rationing would have been a starting point, but it's not like Iraq where there was no agriculture to speak of on a national level. In the 40s, many Japanese were farmers.

Regarding China, yes, and this is admittedly arguable either way, but I think that a potential Japanese threat would have certainly warranted their undivided attention, given that the Japanese had left millions of dead over the preceding decade.

 

[DasFox]

Oh WOW the You Tube Video shows the paintings that the people drew, oh man I went to that museum and saw all those drawings. There is one there with a mother hunched of her child covering to protect her from the blast is probably the most memorable one, anyone could ever look at.

I'll never forget those.

ALOHA