the hiroshima pictures

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: spikespiegal
Maybe someday they can apologize to China for what they did as well, along with thank the U.S. for rebuilding their country into what eventually became one of the most prosperous and peacfully industrial complexes on the planet.

IIRC, Japan did formally apologize in the 80's or 90's for their actions. I remember the news of it, just not when.

 

[MrDingleDangle]

Originally posted by: drum

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: MrDingleDangle

Originally posted by: Aimster
Im an idiot because I suggested an option to save hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives?

Yea that makes me an idiot.

The use of an atomic weapon is barbaric. I don't care how you look at it.

again, how long would u plan to have this blockade? for the rest of time? we all know how good it is when there is no communication... just look how well North Korea is doing!

No I would have kept attacking Japan from the air until the regime surrendered.

It wouldnt have hurt to try now would it have?

finally we agree :laugh: thats just what we did!

lol exactly...so Aimster says what we should have done, is what we did...hmmmm...except doing it for longer, even though that was killing more Japanese then the Nukes did

 

[drum]

oh, and MrDingle please fix your sig.

 

[Aimster]

I never said we should have stopped attacking Japan.

All I suggested was we block their means to import/export and we continue to bomb everything that is loyal to the regime inside Japan.

The Japanese army in China would have eventually collapsed. A lot of Chinese sites claim they were winning the resistance towards the end, but maybe this is just their pride talking.

I don't think bombing military sites and industrial sites would have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. We should have went after their power and water too. Make the life of the Japanese hell. without killing them. Force them to want an end to it all.

Eventually the Japanese would have realized they suck at life and would have surrendered.

& if they didn't I would have detonated a nuclear bomb in some area where not a lot of people would have been killed (not a major city). I then would have dropped leaflets over Japan saying if they didnt surrender their beloved capital was next (bluffing).

That would have been my plan. Call me an idiot for it all you like.

 

[everman]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: MrDingleDangle

Originally posted by: Aimster
Im an idiot because I suggested an option to save hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives?

Yea that makes me an idiot.

The use of an atomic weapon is barbaric. I don't care how you look at it.

again, how long would u plan to have this blockade? for the rest of time? we all know how good it is when there is no communication... just look how well North Korea is doing!

No I would have kept attacking Japan from the air until the regime surrendered.

It wouldnt have hurt to try now would it have?

Conventional bombs killed more people in mainland Japan than the nukes did. If we went this route we probably would have killed more than the nukes did but over a longer period of time. It would have hurt a lot to try that.

 

[MrDingleDangle]

Originally posted by: drum
oh, and MrDingle please fix your sig.

HAHA cleveland...thats pretty funny.

 

[MrDingleDangle]

Originally posted by: Aimster
I never said we should have stopped attacking Japan.

All I suggested was we block their means to import/export and we continue to bomb everything that is loyal to the regime inside Japan.

The Japanese army in China would have eventually collapsed. A lot of Chinese sites claim they were winning the resistance towards the end, but maybe this is just their pride talking.

I don't think bombing military sites and industrial sites would have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. We should have went after their power and water too. Make the life of the Japanese hell. without killing them. Force them to want an end to it all.

Eventually the Japanese would have realized they suck at life and would have surrendered.

& if they didn't I would have detonated a nuclear bomb in some area where not a lot of people would have been killed (not a major city). I then would have dropped leaflets over Japan saying if they didnt surrender their beloved capital was next (bluffing).

That would have been my plan. Call me an idiot for it all you like.

Correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that everything was built into the cities, we didnt have the precision bombing we do now, not that it seems to precise now either.

also I think you underestimate the mindset of the Japanese military and leaders

 

[Rogodin2]

We had destoyed the Japanese Naval force and they were requesting a surrender BEFORE we dropped the atomic bombs.

The fire bombing leveled any civilian moral to support the war-Truman dropped them for reasons other than killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Our nation has destroyed more children than any other on this planet-so please don't use invalid logic to justify other countries' genocide.

Rogo

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: MrDingleDangle

Originally posted by: Aimster
That would have been my plan. Call me an idiot for it all you like.

Correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that everything was built into the cities, we didnt have the precision bombing we do now, not that it seems to precise now either.

also I think you underestimate the mindset of the Japanese military and leaders

That is the flaw many make when thinking that the emperor was just a king and not understanding that he was a god on earth. Their god.

 

[drum]

Originally posted by: Rogodin2
We had destoyed the Japanese Naval force and they were requesting a surrender BEFORE we dropped the atomic bombs.

The fire bombing leveled any civilian moral to support the war-Truman dropped them for reasons other than killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Our nation has destroyed more children than any other on this planet-so please don't use invalid logic to justify other countries' genocide.

Rogo

i thought i smelled gasoline

 

[ntdz]

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.

IMO you're dead wrong. A soldier's life is no less valuable than a civilian's. You'd rather let millions of soldiers die than kill ~300,000 civilians of your enemy who obviously started the war? The war was over, the outcome was not in doubt, and they wouldn't surrender...

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Im an idiot because I suggested an option to save hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives?

Yea that makes me an idiot.

The use of an atomic weapon is barbaric. I don't care how you look at it.

More lives were saved by the use of the bomb than by invading or a years-long blockade.

Use of the bomb was no more barbaric than the use of thousands of conventional bombs.

Only difference was it only took one, instead of many.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: MrDingleDangle

Originally posted by: Aimster
Im an idiot because I suggested an option to save hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives?

Yea that makes me an idiot.

The use of an atomic weapon is barbaric. I don't care how you look at it.

again, how long would u plan to have this blockade? for the rest of time? we all know how good it is when there is no communication... just look how well North Korea is doing!

No I would have kept attacking Japan from the air until the regime surrendered.

It wouldnt have hurt to try now would it have?

That's exactly what we did. Glad you finally realized we did the right thing.

 

[d3n]

Originally posted by: spikespiegal

Do you lack reading comprehension skills?

You must have either slept through history class, or served on a Greenpeace boat smoking a lot of grass.

The second bomb dropped on Japan will forever be argued by historians if it was necessary or not, but the first should not be subject to speculation.

Your idea of containment of Japan was stupid because it sure the hell didn't work on Germany after WWI, so get a clue. Plus, isolating and starving dug in Japanese infantry during the Island hopping campaign at the end of the Pacific war only had limited tactical results because Japanese troops would fight to death even while starving.

One of the many arguements made by U.S. military brass to Truman advocating the use of a nuclear bomb would be the overwhelming psychological effect of such destruction would shock the Japanese into surrender -vs- fighting to every last women and child. Gee, looks like they were right, so you can stuff your history revisionism. The Japanese are still traumatized today - good. Maybe someday they can apologize to China for what they did as well, along with thank the U.S. for rebuilding their country into what eventually became one of the most prosperous and peacfully industrial complexes on the planet.

True points here. The second bomb was encouraged by military brass because it was a diffrent design than the first one. They wanted to see if it worked. Also, I think that the greatest reason for the first and second bomb was a demonstration to the Russians. Truman recognized before WWII was over that the Russians would have serious ambitions. This was to put them in their place so to speak.

It was difficult for the Navy to sustain a long term blockade of the Japanese coast, even that late in the war. Surface ships were enduring ferocious kamikaze attacks by the hour, night and day. Hundreds of sailors were dying per day from this. Submarines were a little more immune from those attacks and one of the more effective means of strangling the shipping lanes, they accounted for about 50% of the Japanese shipping losses if I remember correctly. Still, it would be long and protracted and due to Japanese pride and the fact that the military leadership in Japan shielded the emperor from such things hundreds of thousands would have still died from starvation or fire bombing I would guess.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Rogodin2
We had destoyed the Japanese Naval force and they were requesting a surrender BEFORE we dropped the atomic bombs.

The fire bombing leveled any civilian moral to support the war-Truman dropped them for reasons other than killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Our nation has destroyed more children than any other on this planet-so please don't use invalid logic to justify other countries' genocide.

Rogo

Totally wrong, on all counts. We were demanding unconditional surrender. That is not what they would agree to prior to the bombs.
We still let their war-criminal emperor stay in power, which was total bull.

The public had no control over the military.

Even after the bombs, the military wanted to fight to the last man, woman, and child.

And I don't hardly think our nation has destroyed more children then any other, so forget that.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: drum

Originally posted by: Rogodin2
We had destoyed the Japanese Naval force and they were requesting a surrender BEFORE we dropped the atomic bombs.

The fire bombing leveled any civilian moral to support the war-Truman dropped them for reasons other than killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Our nation has destroyed more children than any other on this planet-so please don't use invalid logic to justify other countries' genocide.

Rogo

i thought i smelled gasoline

Damn, sure is...and I fell for it.

 

[kumanchu]

doesn't this make the recent debates in Japan discussing the possibility of going nuclear more interesting?

 

[judasmachine]

No matter your politics and the potential devestation of an invasion of the main Japanese islands, you have to realize the terrible effects of these weapons, and understand the deterrant. We need to stop proliferation, and we must never forget the reality of using these weapons. I'm not saying anyone is evil for using them, all I am saying is that if we do not find alternative resolutions for our conflicts, this is our future

 

[Calin]

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.

Check the body count while freeing islands like Okinawa (the japanese body count). The deads were in the tens of thousands:
"There were about 100,000 Japanese soldiers killed and 7,000 captured."
(wikipedia, Battle of Okinawa).
It is easy to expect there will be much many victims in an invasion (japanese victims, I am not talking about americans) - as such, the atom bombs really reduced the number of casualties.
And civilians versus soldiers? A land war would conscript every civilian, and (as there were samurai women), the dead would be young and old, women and children.
Not to mention strategical bombing would do more and more victims.

Trading twice a hundred thousand dead japanese (killed by atomic bombs) for maybe ten times as many dead in a conventional war seemed like a good tradeoff in itself (not mentioning the american losses)

 

[bluemax]

You guys are totally missing the whole point here! The video NEVER ONCE mentioned anything about America, short of the plane that dropped the bomb. The whole video was about the horror of the event itself.

And THAT's the crux! There have been terrible deaths on earth due to war, but it seems less severe because we're almost.... used to them. Shot - stabbed - crushed under bombed rubble - dismembered by land mines.... You're not wrapping your head around how truly awful a nuclear attack IS (and that's the goal of the video and memorial!) I mean... changes in air pressure during the explosion causing a river to shoot spouts of water up into the air, eyes popping from their sockets, intestines rupturing from their stomachs.... hundreds of thousands of horrible burn victims (like the woman whose skin was loosely hanging/peeling from her body like something out of the Fallout RPG... this stuff doesn't happen in conventional warfare!!

You don't get that picture from: Drop bomb. 35,000 people died. The end.

This is an important memorial - one that all nuclear nations should be WELL aware of. It makes the movie "The Day After" seem more like a trip to Disneyland! They should remake that movie with today's special effects - and not hold anything back (oh we can't show THAT! It's too gross/scary...)

Pity that those who would cheer (and fire their guns in the air) over 9/11 would only rejoice in the hideous suffering of "pigs and monkeys" that are their enemies.



Nope. Atomic warfare is horrible stuff - far worse than most simpletons think of... and I didn't even factor in fallout and radiation poisoning...... terrible, terrible ways to die.

 

[bluemax]

look at that... "The Thread Killer" strikes again! mwahahaaa!!

 

[iskim86]

Originally posted by: Omegachi

Text

interesting videos about the hiroshima atom bombing 🙁

yeah, that's what they get for bombing pearl harbor and waking the sleeping giant.

****** them

 

[iskim86]

oh yeah, don't foirget the nanjing massacre, korean war, russo-jap war, sino-jap war, and those psycho samurai ninjas ripping their own guts out. kill 'em all.

 

[Horus]

Originally posted by: DaWhim

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.

think it over, if the US troops landed in japan, there would be much more civilians loss than both atom bombs combined. japanese should be thankful for the atom boms.

Are you fvcking stupid? Thankful for atomic weapons?

A U.S. invasion of Japan would cost many thousands of military losses...not HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of civilian casualties in two attacks!

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Horus

Originally posted by: DaWhim

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.

think it over, if the US troops landed in japan, there would be much more civilians loss than both atom bombs combined. japanese should be thankful for the atom boms.

Are you fvcking stupid? Thankful for atomic weapons?

A U.S. invasion of Japan would cost many thousands of military losses...not HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of civilian casualties in two attacks!

Uh, any protracted fight on the Japanese Mainland -- along with scorched earth policies that the civilians were told to implement -- wouldn't have tolled just many thousands. It would have approached the millions once your factor in military losses from both sides AND civilians. In fact, I feel very confident in saying that the civilian loss alone would have been higher.

Japan's economy and recovery would have been delayed for much longer, and it is unlikely they would have recovered as quickly. The use of the atomics bombs in Japan was a decision that was made due to many different factors. One of the main ones was quickly ending the war and minimizing damage to the entire country and populace.