The Japanese started the war, they knew the might of the enemy they decided to attack. They paid a dear price. The Japanese were not so worried about attacking Pearl Harbor or sending thousands of balloons with bombs intended to set fires into the U.S.
The Japanese started the war, they knew the might of the enemy they decided to attack. They paid a dear price. The Japanese were not so worried about attacking Pearl Harbor or sending thousands of balloons with bombs intended to set fires into the U.S.
War sucks. People die. Thats the reality of it. You know this (if you have 1/2 a brain). Quit crying about it already.
Originally posted by: SonnyDaze
You make no sense freak.
Edit: And you're a douche.
You just lack the ability to add any educational information to your post.
I do not care about your opinions on my post. Either you add something that has meaning and substance to it or stfu.
The atomic bombs saved lives.......the Japanese military was obsessed in their code of Bushido and would have fought even with no hope of winning. Just think about all the suicide attacks they did during WW2.....that was one of their strategies.....running their planes into Allied ships.
Lets not forget that they committed some of the worst atrocities during the war. The rape of Nanking was a horrible and tragic event..........something they have refused to apologize for long after the war has been over. The Bataan death march is another famous display of how the Japanese treated Allied forces. Judging by their suicidal tactics and horrible atrocities, the Allied forces know they wouldn't just surrender until they were wiped out.
Lets not forget that they committed some of the worst atrocities during the war. The rape of Nanking was a horrible and tragic event..........something they have refused to apologize for long after the war has been over. The Bataan death march is another famous display of how the Japanese treated Allied forces. Judging by their suicidal tactics and horrible atrocities, the Allied forces know they wouldn't just surrender until they were wiped out.
So let me get this straight.... according to your post Soldier's lives < civilian lives
Is this correct??
piss off because I dont value the life of your father over thousands of dead Japanese?
I think not. I am not your father's son to care about him over anyone.
Human life is human life.
No life is greater than any other life.
Soldier's jobs are to fight other soldiers who are fighting them.
Their jobs are not to kill civilians to avoid fighting other soldiers.
It is easy to give orders behind a desk.
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 66,714
- 15,116
- 146
Admiral Yamamoto is reputed to have said: ""I fear that all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant, and filled him with a terrible resolve." That is also claimed to be a fabrication, that he never actually said that, but is instead a "Hollywood fiction"...I don't know one way or the other, but if so, he was more right than he could have imagined...
You really should read up on your history on the Japanese military........they would not have surrendered if we would have launched a traditional assault into mainland Japan. They were obsessed in their code of Bushido.....suicide was a glorious way to die and rest assured many of the civilians would have done so.
What were they going to do?
Japan is an island.
Was their navy not weakened? Was their economy not destroyed?
It was not like the Japanese were going to swim to the U.S and suicide bomb us.
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 53,888
- 48,668
- 136
1) The cities contained legitimate military/industrial targets.
2) They would have been hit with conventional and incendiary weapons eventually anyway which experience had shown could be even more devastating/deadly.
3) The Japanese were the agressors in the war and their government was still unwilling to come to terms the US could accept. The entire Japanese stratagy for the war, right to the end, was to force the US to a major decisive (conventional) battle that would hopefully push us to the negotiating table. The atomic bombings finally removed the last of this delusion.
4) It was the duty of the US political and military commanders to consider the lives of their servicemen when they posessed a weapon (produced at enormous expense) that could prevent hundreds of thousands of US casulties.
Given that my own father was born in 1948 and my grandfather was slated to go in on Operation Olympic, I can understand where he is coming from.
Then they rebuild and fight again another day. When Saddam invaded Kuwait we were progressing so far and fast into Iraq that we were more than capable of eliminating Saddam........but we yielded in the midst of political pressure. Much like Vietnam as well......if we would have committed to that war with all of our capability it would be an entirely different war.
Those fighting for Democracy > Those fighting and LIVING for tyranny, opression, and atrocious acts committed against other civilians.
Help me understand this & correct me where I am wrong.
Japan attacked the U.S. Japan's military might was weakened.
U.S wanted the Japanese to surrender, but the Japanese refused.
Japan was incapable of attacking the U.S because their military might was weakened.
As a result of the Japanese not surrendering, we nuked them.
Now let's compare this situation:
Iraq was a military might in the early 1990s. Iraq's military might was weakened
U.S wanted the Iraqis to surrender, but the Iraqis refused (U.S told Iraq that the regime must resign. Saddam had to step down).
Iraq was incapable of attacking the U.S or anyone else because their military might was weakened.
As a result of the Iraqis not surrendering, we nuked them.
So would it have been justified to have nuked Iraq to save 3,000 soldier's lives?
Japan attacked the U.S. Japan's military might was weakened.
U.S wanted the Japanese to surrender, but the Japanese refused.
Japan was incapable of attacking the U.S because their military might was weakened.
As a result of the Japanese not surrendering, we nuked them.
Now let's compare this situation:
Iraq was a military might in the early 1990s. Iraq's military might was weakened
U.S wanted the Iraqis to surrender, but the Iraqis refused (U.S told Iraq that the regime must resign. Saddam had to step down).
Iraq was incapable of attacking the U.S or anyone else because their military might was weakened.
As a result of the Iraqis not surrendering, we nuked them.
So would it have been justified to have nuked Iraq to save 3,000 soldier's lives?
They still posed a threat.......are you saying we just forget everything that happened and sing kumbaya? That's ridiculous.........we may have beaten them back but if you don't eliminate the threat they will come back to bite you later on. And the Japanese showed they were more than willing to go to extremes to kill as many Allied forces as they could......even civilians as the rape of Nanking is evidence to.
How were they a threat?
Their navy would have been reduced to zero. correct me if I am wrong, but their navy was pretty much destroyed before the bombs were dropped.
They are an Island. All we had to do was surround that Island and make sure nothing was to have come in or out.
Without a Navy Japan posed no threat. With the U.S in control of Japan's waters, Japan would have been incapable of building a navy.
There's an interesting twist to it in that Japan was looking to surrender, just not unconditionally (the terms were basically the same as the ones they accepted in Aug, with the exception that the Emperor remain). They were allegedly trying to negotiate a peace through a couple of neutral countries (Sweden, Soviets, and a couple others) for a couple of months before the Potsdam ultimatum was issued and the US allegedly knew about it from the neutral countries and cracked codes.
Aimster,
Google Sino-Japanese War, then study for a month.
The insane head had to be chopped off for the terrible body to surrender.
You are just as pig headed here as you are over at P&N
...Galvanized
Google Sino-Japanese War, then study for a month.
The insane head had to be chopped off for the terrible body to surrender.
You are just as pig headed here as you are over at P&N
...Galvanized
We could have allowed food imports
We did basically the same thing to Iraq after their military was embarrased and destroyed.
Iraq had a million man army. They had all the fancy toys from mother Russia.
When their military was destroyed we basically patrolled their skies and we made sure they got no weapons or any tools that could help them build their own weapons. I remember Iraq purchased 500,000 Playstation 2 systems and the world was reacting saying they could be used as "dual-use" for weapons.
Iraq still got imports of food, electronics, etc. Their economy was just crap because we sanctioned them.
Originally posted by: GalvanizedYankee
Aimster,
Google Sino-Japanese War, then study for a month.
The insane head had to be chopped off for the terrible body to surrender.
You are just as pig headed here as you are over at P&N
...Galvanized
You are missing the point
Japan was not a threat to anyone if they had no Navy.
What difference does it make if their people wanted to surrender or not? They are on an Island.
So why would they surrender? The blockade would only make them surrender if we blocked crucial food stuffs from getting to them......and the deaths from starvation would outnumber the deaths from the atomic bomb because it would take A LOT to get them to surrender since their military believed in old fashioned military codes and surrender was out of the question. They told the Japanese that an atomic bomb would be dropped on more and more cities until they surrendered.....it was a bluff but one they couldn't help but accept after seeing the devastation caused by it. It was perhaps the only method to get them to realize they had to surrender.
Japan still had a million man strong army on mainland Asia wrecking havoc on China and controlling large swaths of South Asia. They couldn't wait to take out the Chinese and turning their attention to the US.
It was so stupid for Japan to start a two-front war.
It was so stupid for Japan to start a two-front war.
We could go back and forth on this forever..........they decided to drop the atomic bombs after weighing all possible options. It saved lives....it was the one method they decided would end the war while inflicting the least amount of casualties in the long run.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter