the hiroshima pictures

[yosuke188]

Originally posted by: intogamer

Originally posted by: yosuke188

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: yosuke188
My question is why did the US drop 2 atomic bombs? Or why did they have to drop it on such a densely populated city? Didn't they say that the bridge was a tactical point or something when it really wasn't?

Now I might be a little biased here, but I still can't understand why the US had to kill that many people to make a point.

Two bombs and Japan was out of the war. The point of war was to win.
Better them getting bombed than us.

Yah, but do you think 3 days were enough to fully comprehend the damage done by a nuclear bomb? Why couldn't they just wait a little to see if Japan would surrender?

The only reason Japan surrendered is because of the two nukes

Why do would they surrender if we didn't do anything???

Maybe I didn't make my question clear enough... I was asking why not 1 instead of 2. Wasn't the destruction of a whole city enough?

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: acole1

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: acole1

Originally posted by: Aimster
Face it ... we nuked Japan because

We got tired of the very long war. We didn't want to do a naval blockade. Nobody would feel as if we won by doing that. People at home wouldn't be cheering.

We wanted to send our boys home and we wanted to say "in your face bitches" and have the U.S citizens dance on the streets and celebrate. Remember, we hated the Japs. They were pigs to us back then.

Plus we got an amazing new weapon. We wanted to test that bad boy out.

Show the world that nobody better mess with the U.S again.

The nuking of Japan was all for political reasons. It was not to save lives.

Wow, glad you are sooo enlightened to the thoughts of world leaders 60 years ago. If only we were so gifted as you!

:disgust: Oh look, another pacifist nutjob who twists the truth to make his point.

Go back to P&N. Or maybe this is news...
***HEADLINE***
Professors for years have been wrong about why we nuked Japan! Aimster KNOWS ALL!!!

You obviously cannot add any educational or factual information to your post other than pure crap.

I see your post totally put my beliefs to shame. I give up. You win genius one.

Maybe you all do not go to P&N because you cannot have a nice debate. All you do is mock and insult.

If you noticed the people who are actually debating with me are providing their own beliefs filled with fact. They are not making worthless immature uneducated post that simply have no substance to them.

You have no fact!! It is pure opinion and speculation. No one knows what the actual reason was! It is all speculation. Just some speculate more accurate and reasonable than others.

Stop thinking you have figured out the real and secret reason that no one else was smart enough to figure out.

If you haven?t realized it already, you are making yourself look like a total idiot.

I already pointed out that Japan was not a threat to the U.S and they had ZERO means of attacking the U.S. Their navy was pretty much destroyed. What were they going to attack the U.S with?

try to prove me wrong on that.

A naval blockade of military "dual use items" would have prevented Japan from getting the means of obtaining new warships to attack us. Not to mention their economy was badly damaged.

Try to prove me wrong on that.

Speculation?
What was happening during the 1940s in the U.S.
Racism. Racism. I repeat more Racism.
"JAPS" were not looked at as being "decent" human beings in the U.S. We hated them with a passion.
Forget the Japanese, Black people in the U.S during this time were not even allowed certain rights. What makes you think that the people who were running our country during a time of racism gave a damn about the people of Japan?

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: yosuke188

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: yosuke188
My question is why did the US drop 2 atomic bombs? Or why did they have to drop it on such a densely populated city? Didn't they say that the bridge was a tactical point or something when it really wasn't?

Now I might be a little biased here, but I still can't understand why the US had to kill that many people to make a point.

Two bombs and Japan was out of the war. The point of war was to win.
Better them getting bombed than us.

Yah, but do you think 3 days were enough to fully comprehend the damage done by a nuclear bomb? Why couldn't they just wait a little to see if Japan would surrender?

I completely agree, waiting 3 days before dropping another one was cold. Could this country make a decision to surrender or go to war in three days?
I hate to agree with Aimster on anything but he does make some good points.
You can make some good arguments for dropping the first bomb, but dropping another so soon was wrong imho.
This was a tremendous new weapon no one had seen before-and it takes some time for the human mind to adjust to this new reality.
Why not drop the bomb on an unpopulated island or a strictly military location to send them a message? Dropping the second on a civilian target was cold.

I read an article somewhere about how the military was going to drop the bomb on Kyoto, the ancient capital of Japan, with all of the ancient shrines, gardens and such, but that the US ambassador to Japan, talked them out of destroying such a beautiful place.
The people of Kyoto and Japan owe that man a debt of gratitude.
OK, bring the flames.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: acole1

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: acole1

Originally posted by: Aimster
Face it ... we nuked Japan because

We got tired of the very long war. We didn't want to do a naval blockade. Nobody would feel as if we won by doing that. People at home wouldn't be cheering.

We wanted to send our boys home and we wanted to say "in your face bitches" and have the U.S citizens dance on the streets and celebrate. Remember, we hated the Japs. They were pigs to us back then.

Plus we got an amazing new weapon. We wanted to test that bad boy out.

Show the world that nobody better mess with the U.S again.

The nuking of Japan was all for political reasons. It was not to save lives.

Wow, glad you are sooo enlightened to the thoughts of world leaders 60 years ago. If only we were so gifted as you!

:disgust: Oh look, another pacifist nutjob who twists the truth to make his point.

Go back to P&N. Or maybe this is news...
***HEADLINE***
Professors for years have been wrong about why we nuked Japan! Aimster KNOWS ALL!!!

You obviously cannot add any educational or factual information to your post other than pure crap.

I see your post totally put my beliefs to shame. I give up. You win genius one.

Maybe you all do not go to P&N because you cannot have a nice debate. All you do is mock and insult.

If you noticed the people who are actually debating with me are providing their own beliefs filled with fact. They are not making worthless immature uneducated post that simply have no substance to them.

You have no fact!! It is pure opinion and speculation. No one knows what the actual reason was! It is all speculation. Just some speculate more accurate and reasonable than others.

Stop thinking you have figured out the real and secret reason that no one else was smart enough to figure out.

If you haven?t realized it already, you are making yourself look like a total idiot.

I already pointed out that Japan was not a threat to the U.S and they had ZERO means of attacking the U.S. Their navy was pretty much destroyed. What were they going to attack the U.S with?

try to prove me wrong on that.

A naval blockade of military "dual use items" would have prevented Japan from getting the means of obtaining new warships to attack us. Not to mention their economy was badly damaged.

Try to prove me wrong on that.

Speculation?
What was happening during the 1940s in the U.S.
Racism. Racism. I repeat more Racism.
"JAPS" were not looked at as being "decent" human beings in the U.S. We hated them with a passion.
Forget the Japanese, Black people in the U.S during this time were not even allowed certain rights. What makes you think that the people who were running our country during a time of racism gave a damn about the people of Japan?

No, you need to prove us wrong. You have no clue about history except what your I Hate America friends have told you. You do not fight a war and win by making a successful thrust and then waiting. Japan had no plans to surrender. Japan was working on heavy water. And if you forgot, Japan killed over 2000 people in a surprise raid while negotiating a peace treaty to prevent a war in the Pacific. There was a reason to hate them.

 

[grrl]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Face it ... we nuked Japan because

We got tired of the very long war. We didn't want to do a naval blockade. Nobody would feel as if we won by doing that. People at home wouldn't be cheering.

We wanted to send our boys home and we wanted to say "in your face bitches" and have the U.S citizens dance on the streets and celebrate. Remember, we hated the Japs. They were pigs to us back then.

Plus we got an amazing new weapon. We wanted to test that bad boy out.

Show the world that nobody better mess with the U.S again.

The nuking of Japan was all for political reasons. It was not to save lives.

Aimster, your ignorance is truly appalling.

Yes the US was tired of the long war. Germany had fallen, but the US was now faced with redeploying a million men from Europe to the Pacific to invade the home islands. Are you suggesting it would have been nobler to fight 'man to man' instead of using all of the weapons we had on hand? If so, I'm sure you would have volunteered to be first off the landing craft.

Blockades take time and you ignore the fact that the Japanese army was IN OTHER PARTS OF ASIA fighting the British and Chinese. The blockade would have done little to quickly end that fighting.

What do you base your assertion that the US public had some desire to see Japan surrender or fail in a certain manner? Or demanded some jejune "in your face" act of superiority? That's just nonsense. FDR is the one who held out for unconditional surrender, the average Joe probably didn't care one way or the other. And the US public certainly didn't know about the atomic bomb.

You are right about politics, but only in that it was PART of the decision. The Manhattan Project was incredibly expensive and that cost had to be justified to Congress. The US was also increasingly worried about Soviet encroachment in Europe and August 8th (IIRC) was also the date for the Russians to invade Manchuria. It was therefore hoped the atomic bomb would - to use a stupid neologism - 'shock and awe' the Russians into better behavior and/or a willingness to compromise on spheres of influence. However, you are completely wrong when you say it wasn't used to save lives. That argument is so specious it's barely worth debunking. In war the job is to make the enemy suffer losses, you don't wantonly incur them yourself.

There is a debate about whether we could have avoided using the bombs, that if we had employed certain diplomatic channels or waited a little longer after Hiroshima for the Japanese to surrender, but there may be no simple answer to that inquiry. Many diverse interests and viewpoints had to be considered in making the decision - and by a president who had only learned of the bomb after FDR's death.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: acole1

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: acole1

Originally posted by: Aimster
Face it ... we nuked Japan because

We got tired of the very long war. We didn't want to do a naval blockade. Nobody would feel as if we won by doing that. People at home wouldn't be cheering.

We wanted to send our boys home and we wanted to say "in your face bitches" and have the U.S citizens dance on the streets and celebrate. Remember, we hated the Japs. They were pigs to us back then.

Plus we got an amazing new weapon. We wanted to test that bad boy out.

Show the world that nobody better mess with the U.S again.

The nuking of Japan was all for political reasons. It was not to save lives.

Wow, glad you are sooo enlightened to the thoughts of world leaders 60 years ago. If only we were so gifted as you!

:disgust: Oh look, another pacifist nutjob who twists the truth to make his point.

Go back to P&N. Or maybe this is news...
***HEADLINE***
Professors for years have been wrong about why we nuked Japan! Aimster KNOWS ALL!!!

You obviously cannot add any educational or factual information to your post other than pure crap.

I see your post totally put my beliefs to shame. I give up. You win genius one.

Maybe you all do not go to P&N because you cannot have a nice debate. All you do is mock and insult.

If you noticed the people who are actually debating with me are providing their own beliefs filled with fact. They are not making worthless immature uneducated post that simply have no substance to them.

You have no fact!! It is pure opinion and speculation. No one knows what the actual reason was! It is all speculation. Just some speculate more accurate and reasonable than others.

Stop thinking you have figured out the real and secret reason that no one else was smart enough to figure out.

If you haven?t realized it already, you are making yourself look like a total idiot.

I already pointed out that Japan was not a threat to the U.S and they had ZERO means of attacking the U.S. Their navy was pretty much destroyed. What were they going to attack the U.S with?

try to prove me wrong on that.

A naval blockade of military "dual use items" would have prevented Japan from getting the means of obtaining new warships to attack us. Not to mention their economy was badly damaged.

Try to prove me wrong on that.

Speculation?
What was happening during the 1940s in the U.S.
Racism. Racism. I repeat more Racism.
"JAPS" were not looked at as being "decent" human beings in the U.S. We hated them with a passion.
Forget the Japanese, Black people in the U.S during this time were not even allowed certain rights. What makes you think that the people who were running our country during a time of racism gave a damn about the people of Japan?

No, you need to prove us wrong. You have no clue about history except what your I Hate America friends have told you. You do not fight a war and win by making a successful thrust and then waiting. Japan had no plans to surrender. Japan was working on heavy water. And if you forgot, Japan killed over 2000 people in a surprise raid while negotiating a peace treaty to prevent a war in the Pacific. There was a reason to hate them.

LOL,

You lack common sense.

Why did they have to surrender? They were stuck on an Island.

Heavy Water ... OMG NO. Close your eyes. Now picture a heavy water plant in Japan. Now picture a U.S bomber over it. Now picture it dropping a bomb.

Problem solved in regard to the heavy water plant.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: grrl

Originally posted by: Aimster
Face it ... we nuked Japan because

We got tired of the very long war. We didn't want to do a naval blockade. Nobody would feel as if we won by doing that. People at home wouldn't be cheering.

We wanted to send our boys home and we wanted to say "in your face bitches" and have the U.S citizens dance on the streets and celebrate. Remember, we hated the Japs. They were pigs to us back then.

Plus we got an amazing new weapon. We wanted to test that bad boy out.

Show the world that nobody better mess with the U.S again.

The nuking of Japan was all for political reasons. It was not to save lives.

Aimster, your ignorance is truly appalling.

Yes the US was tired of the long war. Germany had fallen, but the US was now faced with redeploying a million men from Europe to the Pacific to invade the home islands. Are you suggesting it would have been nobler to fight 'man to man' instead of using all of the weapons we had on hand? If so, I'm sure you would have volunteered to be first off the landing craft.

Blockades take time and you ignore the fact that the Japanese army was IN OTHER PARTS OF ASIA fighting the British and Chinese. The blockade would have done little to quickly end that fighting.

What do you base your assertion that the US public had some desire to see Japan surrender or fail in a certain manner? Or demanded some jejune "in your face" act of superiority? That's just nonsense. FDR is the one who held out for unconditional surrender, the average Joe probably didn't care one way or the other. And the US public certainly didn't know about the atomic bomb.

You are right about politics, but only in that it was PART of the decision. The Manhattan Project was incredibly expensive and that cost had to be justified to Congress. The US was also increasingly worried about Soviet encroachment in Europe and August 8th (IIRC) was also the date for the Russians to invade Manchuria. It was therefore hoped the atomic bomb would - to use a stupid neologism - 'shock and awe' the Russians into better behavior and/or a willingness to compromise on spheres of influence. However, you are completely wrong when you say it wasn't used to save lives. That argument is so specious it's barely worth debunking. In war the job is to make the enemy suffer losses, you don't wantonly incur them yourself.

There is a debate about whether we could have avoided using the bombs, that if we had employed certain diplomatic channels or waited a little longer after Hiroshima for the Japanese to surrender, but there may be no simple answer to that inquiry. Many diverse interests and viewpoints had to be considered in making the decision - and by a president who had only learned of the bomb after FDR's death.

Do you lack reading comprehension skills?

I said Japan had no means of attacking the U.S.
Asia is nowhere near the U.S. I do not give a damn about a fight in Asia that the Japanese were losing.

How do you think the Japanese got resupplied? How do you think they got food? How do you think they got clothing, letters from loved ones? How do you think they got anything from Japan? By BOAT.

 

[randay]

aimster, you should just quit now.

 

[Aimster]

Im sorry there is nothing to quit

Nobody here has proved the Japanese had any means to attack the U.S

Their navy was DESTROYED.

LOL.

Rather than admit that the Japanese had no means to attack the U.S, you all like to make excuses for killing hundreds of thousands of people.

Wonderful.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Im sorry there is nothing to quit

Nobody here has proved the Japanese had any means to attack the U.S

Their navy was DESTROYED.

LOL.

Rather than admit that the Japanese had no means to attack the U.S, you all like to make excuses for killing hundreds of thousands of people.

Wonderful.

You're right, just 47 more to go. Go man GO!

 

[grrl]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Do you lack reading comprehension skills?

I said Japan had no means of attacking the U.S.
Asia is nowhere near the U.S. I do not give a damn about a fight in Asia that the Japanese were losing.

How do you think the Japanese got resupplied? How do you think they got food? How do you think they got clothing, letters from loved ones? How do you think they got anything from Japan? By BOAT.

I reading quite well, albeit slowly, but you obviously lack critical thinking skills. By your logic after Midway when there was no chance of the Japanese threatening US waters anymore (except with submarines) we should have waited out the war because they were no longer a threat TO THE US. But you cavalierly disregard our responsibility to the Asians who were under Japanese occupation and/or at war with them. Nations don't collapse in a matter of days when under blockade. Nor do armies. The Japanese could have continued to fight for a while because they had stockpiles and not all of their supplies came from the home islands.

 

[Nik]

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

Not having the foresight to realize that NOT dropping the bomb would result in far greater deaths is ignorant to the max!

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Im sorry there is nothing to quit

Nobody here has proved the Japanese had any means to attack the U.S

Their navy was DESTROYED.

LOL.

Rather than admit that the Japanese had no means to attack the U.S, you all like to make excuses for killing hundreds of thousands of people.

Wonderful.

The Japs had already attacked the US. Remember Pearl Harbor? How about the Philipines? Guam? Midway? Port Moresby? Dutch Harbor?

What the hell were we supposed to do...beat the Japs back to Japan, and since their navy was destroyed, then go "Well, that's it, they have no navy, they're no threat anymore"???

Then I suppose you'd say we should just declare that the end of the war, ignore all their war atrocities, and go home because remember, "they don't have a navy now, they can't attack us".

Right. Let's not make them surrender, let's leave the same people in power, and they'll just rebuild and become a threat again.

Brilliant idea. Aimster for Secretary of State. :roll: :disgust:

 

[Pacfanweb]

I guess by Aimster's reasoning (if you can even call it reasoning), the US shouldn't have gone after the Taliban after 9/11, because the terrorists who attacked the WTC and Pentagon were dead and the planes destroyed, therefore they couldn't attack the US again. :roll:

 

[uhohs]

wow, aimster really is trying for the title of stupidest troll

/me golfclaps

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: grrl

Originally posted by: Aimster

Do you lack reading comprehension skills?

I said Japan had no means of attacking the U.S.
Asia is nowhere near the U.S. I do not give a damn about a fight in Asia that the Japanese were losing.

How do you think the Japanese got resupplied? How do you think they got food? How do you think they got clothing, letters from loved ones? How do you think they got anything from Japan? By BOAT.

I reading quite well, albeit slowly, but you obviously lack critical thinking skills. By your logic after Midway when there was no chance of the Japanese threatening US waters anymore (except with submarines) we should have waited out the war because they were no longer a threat TO THE US. But you cavalierly disregard our responsibility to the Asians who were under Japanese occupation and/or at war with them. Nations don't collapse in a matter of days when under blockade. Nor do armies. The Japanese could have continued to fight for a while because they had stockpiles and not all of their supplies came from the home islands.

So now the argument has shifted from "it saved thousands of American lives" to we bombed Japan to help China?

Wonderful.

It takes years to build up a navy again. Navy ships are visible. You cannot hide a Navy. All the U.S had to do was send aircraft and bomb the warships before they even had a chance to go anywhere.

A blockade would have slowed down the economy of Japan. It would have seen no growth or negative growth. They would have had no means to trade. The U.S has a massive Navy presence in the waters near Japan.

 

[Dumac]

Well, its ok, because the Japanese have no souls.



(Southpark reference...psp..heaven vs hell....)

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Aimster
Im sorry there is nothing to quit

Nobody here has proved the Japanese had any means to attack the U.S

Their navy was DESTROYED.

LOL.

Rather than admit that the Japanese had no means to attack the U.S, you all like to make excuses for killing hundreds of thousands of people.

Wonderful.

The Japs had already attacked the US. Remember Pearl Harbor? How about the Philipines? Guam? Midway? Port Moresby? Dutch Harbor?

What the hell were we supposed to do...beat the Japs back to Japan, and since their navy was destroyed, then go "Well, that's it, they have no navy, they're no threat anymore"???

Then I suppose you'd say we should just declare that the end of the war, ignore all their war atrocities, and go home because remember, "they don't have a navy now, they can't attack us".

Right. Let's not make them surrender, let's leave the same people in power, and they'll just rebuild and become a threat again.

Brilliant idea. Aimster for Secretary of State. :roll: :disgust:

How were they going to rebuild?

Use common sense. If their military was destroyed and they live on an Island all the U.S had to do was use a naval blockade.

Of course that takes up too much time and a lot of resources so lets just kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. Much easier that way.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: grrl

Originally posted by: Aimster

Do you lack reading comprehension skills?

I said Japan had no means of attacking the U.S.
Asia is nowhere near the U.S. I do not give a damn about a fight in Asia that the Japanese were losing.

How do you think the Japanese got resupplied? How do you think they got food? How do you think they got clothing, letters from loved ones? How do you think they got anything from Japan? By BOAT.

I reading quite well, albeit slowly, but you obviously lack critical thinking skills. By your logic after Midway when there was no chance of the Japanese threatening US waters anymore (except with submarines) we should have waited out the war because they were no longer a threat TO THE US. But you cavalierly disregard our responsibility to the Asians who were under Japanese occupation and/or at war with them. Nations don't collapse in a matter of days when under blockade. Nor do armies. The Japanese could have continued to fight for a while because they had stockpiles and not all of their supplies came from the home islands.

So now the argument has shifted from "it saved thousands of American lives" to we bombed Japan to help China?

Wonderful.

It takes years to build up a navy again. Navy ships are visible. You cannot hide a Navy. All the U.S had to do was send aircraft and bomb the warships before they even had a chance to go anywhere.

A blockade would have slowed down the economy of Japan. It would have seen no growth or negative growth. They would have had no means to trade. The U.S has a massive Navy presence in the waters near Japan.

So we just should have kept the largest fleet in the history of the world on active duty in the Pacific, so it could occasionally go over and bomb the latest ship the Japs attempted to build?
In the meantime, while Secretary of State Aimster's blockade was in effect, Japan would have lost more people to starvation and disease than if we A-bombed 5 cities, and much more suffering would have taken place.
Brilliant idea.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Aimster
Im sorry there is nothing to quit

Nobody here has proved the Japanese had any means to attack the U.S

Their navy was DESTROYED.

LOL.

Rather than admit that the Japanese had no means to attack the U.S, you all like to make excuses for killing hundreds of thousands of people.

Wonderful.

The Japs had already attacked the US. Remember Pearl Harbor? How about the Philipines? Guam? Midway? Port Moresby? Dutch Harbor?

What the hell were we supposed to do...beat the Japs back to Japan, and since their navy was destroyed, then go "Well, that's it, they have no navy, they're no threat anymore"???

Then I suppose you'd say we should just declare that the end of the war, ignore all their war atrocities, and go home because remember, "they don't have a navy now, they can't attack us".

Right. Let's not make them surrender, let's leave the same people in power, and they'll just rebuild and become a threat again.

Brilliant idea. Aimster for Secretary of State. :roll: :disgust:

How were they going to rebuild?

Use common sense. If their military was destroyed and they live on an Island all the U.S had to do was use a naval blockade.

Of course that takes up too much time and a lot of resources so lets just kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. Much easier that way.

The Japanese military was NOT destroyed. They had more than a million soldiers left on the mainland.

edit: BTW, your blockade would probably still be going on today if we decided to do it.

Sorry, but the Japanese attacked us, and that's why we kicked their asses all the way back to the homeland.
If they had surrendered, we wouldn't have dropped the bombs, plain and simple.

But, you also cannot logically apply today's values to a war 60 years ago, either.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: Aimster
So now the argument has shifted from "it saved thousands of American lives" to we bombed Japan to help China?

Wonderful.

It takes years to build up a navy again. Navy ships are visible. You cannot hide a Navy. All the U.S had to do was send aircraft and bomb the warships before they even had a chance to go anywhere.

A blockade would have slowed down the economy of Japan. It would have seen no growth or negative growth. They would have had no means to trade. The U.S has a massive Navy presence in the waters near Japan.

You are just an armchair general without the military training. Works great in retrospect. And we should have pushed an all out offensive and won the Vietnam War. We could have prevented the casualties at the Battle of (fill in the blank) if we had moved our troops to (fill in the location).

Show us the documented intelligence that they had when they made the decision to drop the bombs that showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that a blockade would have been effective at winning the war. Where is that link to this wonderful archive?

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: grrl

Originally posted by: Aimster

Do you lack reading comprehension skills?

I said Japan had no means of attacking the U.S.
Asia is nowhere near the U.S. I do not give a damn about a fight in Asia that the Japanese were losing.

How do you think the Japanese got resupplied? How do you think they got food? How do you think they got clothing, letters from loved ones? How do you think they got anything from Japan? By BOAT.

I reading quite well, albeit slowly, but you obviously lack critical thinking skills. By your logic after Midway when there was no chance of the Japanese threatening US waters anymore (except with submarines) we should have waited out the war because they were no longer a threat TO THE US. But you cavalierly disregard our responsibility to the Asians who were under Japanese occupation and/or at war with them. Nations don't collapse in a matter of days when under blockade. Nor do armies. The Japanese could have continued to fight for a while because they had stockpiles and not all of their supplies came from the home islands.

So now the argument has shifted from "it saved thousands of American lives" to we bombed Japan to help China?

Wonderful.

It takes years to build up a navy again. Navy ships are visible. You cannot hide a Navy. All the U.S had to do was send aircraft and bomb the warships before they even had a chance to go anywhere.

A blockade would have slowed down the economy of Japan. It would have seen no growth or negative growth. They would have had no means to trade. The U.S has a massive Navy presence in the waters near Japan.

So we just should have kept the largest fleet in the history of the world on active duty in the Pacific, so it could occasionally go over and bomb the latest ship the Japs attempted to build?
In the meantime, while Secretary of State Aimster's blockade was in effect, Japan would have lost more people to starvation and disease than if we A-bombed 5 cities, and much more suffering would have taken place.
Brilliant idea.

A) we could have easily have allowed food to have been shipped into Japan. We didn't have to stop every single shipment into Japan.

B) who said we needed all of the Navy? It doesn't take much to attack a ship that is being built or a shipyard for that matter. I believe it takes a bomber ... maybe two ....

 

[grrl]

Originally posted by: Aimster

So now the argument has shifted from "it saved thousands of American lives" to we bombed Japan to help China?

Wonderful.

It takes years to build up a navy again. Navy ships are visible. You cannot hide a Navy. All the U.S had to do was send aircraft and bomb the warships before they even had a chance to go anywhere.

A blockade would have slowed down the economy of Japan. It would have seen no growth or negative growth. They would have had no means to trade. The U.S has a massive Navy presence in the waters near Japan.

The argument hasn't shifted except for in your mind. Are you pretending any action, much less a military one, has only ONE explanation and motivation? To put it in simple terms your blinkered mind might be able to understand - We dropped the bombs to end the war as soon as possible and for the benefit of everyone who was fighting the Japanese.

Your blather about Japan's navy is completely pointless. First off, we didn't fight them to just protect ourselves, we did it to DEFEAT them so they would no longer be a threat to others as well. Blockades alone don't defeat nations, and certainly not quickly. Do you really think that solution would have been the best because if you do, you are saying a Japanese life is worth more than any Malaysian, Korean, Chinese or Burmese life that would have been lost while the US waited for Japan to slowly starve itself into submission.

 

[DAWeinG]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: grrl

Originally posted by: Aimster

Do you lack reading comprehension skills?

I said Japan had no means of attacking the U.S.
Asia is nowhere near the U.S. I do not give a damn about a fight in Asia that the Japanese were losing.

How do you think the Japanese got resupplied? How do you think they got food? How do you think they got clothing, letters from loved ones? How do you think they got anything from Japan? By BOAT.

I reading quite well, albeit slowly, but you obviously lack critical thinking skills. By your logic after Midway when there was no chance of the Japanese threatening US waters anymore (except with submarines) we should have waited out the war because they were no longer a threat TO THE US. But you cavalierly disregard our responsibility to the Asians who were under Japanese occupation and/or at war with them. Nations don't collapse in a matter of days when under blockade. Nor do armies. The Japanese could have continued to fight for a while because they had stockpiles and not all of their supplies came from the home islands.

So now the argument has shifted from "it saved thousands of American lives" to we bombed Japan to help China?

Wonderful.

It takes years to build up a navy again. Navy ships are visible. You cannot hide a Navy. All the U.S had to do was send aircraft and bomb the warships before they even had a chance to go anywhere.

A blockade would have slowed down the economy of Japan. It would have seen no growth or negative growth. They would have had no means to trade. The U.S has a massive Navy presence in the waters near Japan.

So we just should have kept the largest fleet in the history of the world on active duty in the Pacific, so it could occasionally go over and bomb the latest ship the Japs attempted to build?
In the meantime, while Secretary of State Aimster's blockade was in effect, Japan would have lost more people to starvation and disease than if we A-bombed 5 cities, and much more suffering would have taken place.
Brilliant idea.

A) we could have easily have allowed food to have been shipped into Japan. We didn't have to stop every single shipment into Japan.

B) who said we needed all of the Navy? It doesn't take much to attack a ship that is being built or a shipyard for that matter. I believe it takes a bomber ... maybe two ....

Why would you want to prolong the war even longer?

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: grrl

Originally posted by: Aimster

Do you lack reading comprehension skills?

I said Japan had no means of attacking the U.S.
Asia is nowhere near the U.S. I do not give a damn about a fight in Asia that the Japanese were losing.

How do you think the Japanese got resupplied? How do you think they got food? How do you think they got clothing, letters from loved ones? How do you think they got anything from Japan? By BOAT.

I reading quite well, albeit slowly, but you obviously lack critical thinking skills. By your logic after Midway when there was no chance of the Japanese threatening US waters anymore (except with submarines) we should have waited out the war because they were no longer a threat TO THE US. But you cavalierly disregard our responsibility to the Asians who were under Japanese occupation and/or at war with them. Nations don't collapse in a matter of days when under blockade. Nor do armies. The Japanese could have continued to fight for a while because they had stockpiles and not all of their supplies came from the home islands.

So now the argument has shifted from "it saved thousands of American lives" to we bombed Japan to help China?

Wonderful.

It takes years to build up a navy again. Navy ships are visible. You cannot hide a Navy. All the U.S had to do was send aircraft and bomb the warships before they even had a chance to go anywhere.

A blockade would have slowed down the economy of Japan. It would have seen no growth or negative growth. They would have had no means to trade. The U.S has a massive Navy presence in the waters near Japan.

So we just should have kept the largest fleet in the history of the world on active duty in the Pacific, so it could occasionally go over and bomb the latest ship the Japs attempted to build?
In the meantime, while Secretary of State Aimster's blockade was in effect, Japan would have lost more people to starvation and disease than if we A-bombed 5 cities, and much more suffering would have taken place.
Brilliant idea.

A) we could have easily have allowed food to have been shipped into Japan. We didn't have to stop every single shipment into Japan.

B) who said we needed all of the Navy? It doesn't take much to attack a ship that is being built or a shipyard for that matter. I believe it takes a bomber ... maybe two ....

So we just let food in, but keep them from having a military? And how long do you propose to do that?
Who do you think they are going to feed with the food you allow in....the civilians, or the military?

Totally idiotic idea. Japan attacked us and others, they lost, and they deserved to lose and lose control of their country.
Wouldn't have been long under your plan that Russia struck up an alliance with Japan and started helping them rearm, just to piss the USA off.

This line of thought is beyond ridiculous. We did the right thing, based on the info available at the time.

Try being Harry Truman and telling all the people who lost their sons in the Pacific war that we were just going to stop, not invade, and just let food through.
You have no idea the logistics involved keeping enough ships and aircraft in the area to enforce a blockade of that magnitude.