the hiroshima pictures

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: 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?

So do you agree we nuked the Japanese because we were simply tired of fighting a war and just wanted to get it over with?

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: grrl

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.

This pinhead isn't even saying that. He proposes allowing food past the blockade, but just food...no raw materials, etc, needed to build a navy.
And then he proposes that we simply wait around indefinitely and occasionally destroy any new naval construction they happen to begin.
Right...that's a really good way to win the war.

 

[uhohs]

that was one of the reasons.
prolonged war means more deaths ON BOTH SIDES.

naval blockade of a nation the size of japan while their large army was still controlling much of asia would be the stupidest military decision ever.

but conveniently enough aimster ignores the long list of valid points posted in this thread.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Aimster

So do you agree we nuked the Japanese because we were simply tired of fighting a war and just wanted to get it over with?

No, we were going to win the war one way or another. Whether by invasion or by bombing.

The nuking actually cost both sides, particularly the Americans, less lives than invading would have.
This really isn't even disputable.

And yes, nuking the Japs did bring a quicker end to the war. We had no way of knowing that it would at the time, but in hindsight, yes it did.

Quicker, and there were more people, Japanese and American, alive after the surrender as a result.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: 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.

Who cares who they feed? The point is they will have no means of attacking the U.S or anyone else without their ships.

& my ideas are not "idiotic". We did the exact same thing with Iraq. We sanctioned them and only allowed in certain items.

I never said we had to stop attacking Japan. We could have kept air campaigns over Iraq if we saw anything that could have posed as a threat to the rest of the world. We did the exact same thing inside Iraq.

I have imagined being the President at the time. He wanted the people of the U.S to have something to cheer over. That is why they never did what I think morally would have been the right thing to do. He did it because he wanted the people to go to the streets with the news that the Japanese surrendered.

Having a navy blockade would have left the citizens of the U.S mad and upset. They wanted the Japanese to get on their knees and tell us they lost. They wanted the whole world to know it too,

 

[Pacfanweb]

What the hell gets people so worked up about the A-bombing of Japan? The fire-bombing of Tokyo killed more people than either A-bomb did.

Were those people any less dead than the ones killed by the nuke? Or is it somehow not as bad, since it took many planes and many bombs to kill them?

 

[DAWeinG]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: 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?

So do you agree we nuked the Japanese because we were simply tired of fighting a war and just wanted to get it over with?

The possibility and potential of sparing any other lives that would have resulted if we had not... The bombs got their attention pretty quickly...

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: uhohs
that was one of the reasons.
prolonged war means more deaths ON BOTH SIDES.

naval blockade of a nation the size of japan while their large army was still controlling much of asia would be the stupidest military decision ever.

but conveniently enough aimster ignores the long list of valid points posted in this thread.

& that posed a threat to the U.S how?
We didn't go after Japan because of their activities inside Asia.
& we didn't risk U.S lives over Japanese troops inside Asia either.

The whole point of attacking Japan was because they wanted a war and we gave them a war. They punched us and we punched back.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Who cares who they feed? The point is they will have no means of attacking the U.S or anyone else without their ships.

& my ideas are not "idiotic". We did the exact same thing with Iraq. We sanctioned them and only allowed in certain items.

I never said we had to stop attacking Japan. We could have kept air campaigns over Iraq if we saw anything that could have posed as a threat to the rest of the world. We did the exact same thing inside Iraq.

I have imagined being the President at the time. He wanted the people of the U.S to have something to cheer over. That is why they never did what I think morally would have been the right thing to do. He did it because he wanted the people to go to the streets with the news that the Japanese surrendered.

Having a navy blockade would have left the citizens of the U.S mad and upset. They wanted the Japanese to get on their knees and tell us they lost. They wanted the whole world to know it too,

Yes, your ideas are idiotic....and this post proves it even more.

Who cares who they feed with the food you would allow through the blockade? How stupid is this? It's obvious that they would feed and take care of the military first.
So you would have millions of civilians starving and dying. Great idea there....I'm sure that's much better than less than 100k dying instantly in an explosion and it ending soon after....yep, let's have years of suffering.

Not to mention years of the US having to fund a fleet and airforce to keep Japan from building another navy, and all the dollars and manpower that would entail.

Truman didn't want to just give the public something to "cheer for"....HE WANTED THE DAMN WAR THAT THE JAPS STARTED TO BE OVER.
That's it.

And I'm sure plenty of people wanted the Japs to "get on their knees and tell us they lost". I would have been one of them, probably.

Who's to say that was wrong?

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
What the hell gets people so worked up about the A-bombing of Japan? The fire-bombing of Tokyo killed more people than either A-bomb did.

Were those people any less dead than the ones killed by the nuke? Or is it somehow not as bad, since it took many planes and many bombs to kill them?

The same reason that people get worked up about air crashes while 1000 times more people die in car crashes. The scale and ferocity trigger a different emotional response.

 

[drum]

Guess what? The bombs were dropped. People died.
But continue your pointless deba errr trolling.

Eventually you will win and history will be rewritten.

It really is unfortunate we didn't have someone with more foresight in charge at the time. I'm sure not dropping the bombs was never remotely considered.
that was the purpose of our being in the war afterall, we were falling behind in the number of deaths caused and we certainly couldn't have that.

It is really easy for you to sit here, 60 years later, with time to consider every option and say they were senseless fools to drop the bomb seeing as no repercussions are felt as a result.
I hope you're proud of yourself.

 

[MrDingleDangle]

lol...blockade and just let food in, thats classic

When do we stop this? Just wait around for years while everyone in Japan just hates us more and more because we won't let them off the island? Why would they ever surrender if they have all the food they need and can live on the island without us attacking?

How do you change a country without setting foot in the country?


should we do this in every war? How about Germany, just don't let anyone in or out of Germany?

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
What the hell gets people so worked up about the A-bombing of Japan? The fire-bombing of Tokyo killed more people than either A-bomb did.

Were those people any less dead than the ones killed by the nuke? Or is it somehow not as bad, since it took many planes and many bombs to kill them?

The same reason that people get worked up about air crashes while 1000 times more people die in car crashes. The scale and ferocity trigger a different emotional response.

Probably true, but I think a lot of it is, people don't realize how small the A-bombs were back then compared to what we have now.
They envision the US dropping city-busting megaton bombs, not Fat Man and Little Boy.

Heck, today's MOAB is almost as big as those two were, TNT-wise, but nobody whines about them because they aren't "nuclear".

 

[MrDingleDangle]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
What the hell gets people so worked up about the A-bombing of Japan? The fire-bombing of Tokyo killed more people than either A-bomb did.

Agreed, but this thread its just aimster that is getting people worked up

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: MrDingleDangle
lol...blockade and just let food in, thats classic

When do we stop this? Just wait around for years while everyone in Japan just hates us more and more because we won't let them off the island? Why would they ever surrender if they have all the food they need and can live on the island without us attacking?

How do you change a country without setting foot in the country?


should we do this in every war? How about Germany, just don't let anyone in or out of Germany?

By Jove, I think you have it. That is the solution to Darfur too. Let's just blockade it and starve the genocidal bastards out.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: MrDingleDangle

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
What the hell gets people so worked up about the A-bombing of Japan? The fire-bombing of Tokyo killed more people than either A-bomb did.

Agreed, but this thread its just aimster that is getting people worked up

You're right. He's either really an idiot, or he just plays one on ATOT.

 

[lyssword]

Originally posted by: 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?

There was a delay in communications (due to Japanese military holding the emperor hostage) and basically Japanese bureacracy, from what I understand. Remember back then they didn't have satelite/internet etc..

Its good to ask questions, but to assume (and flame/troll others)everything on very little information, like Aimster, is just stupid. Research more on the topic and maybe you will understand how and why and when/where this happened. Thank you.

 

[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.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: uhohs
that was one of the reasons.
prolonged war means more deaths ON BOTH SIDES.

naval blockade of a nation the size of japan while their large army was still controlling much of asia would be the stupidest military decision ever.

but conveniently enough aimster ignores the long list of valid points posted in this thread.

& that posed a threat to the U.S how?
We didn't go after Japan because of their activities inside Asia.
& we didn't risk U.S lives over Japanese troops inside Asia either.

The whole point of attacking Japan was because they wanted a war and we gave them a war. They punched us and we punched back.

Actually, you are quite wrong. The US and Britain blockaded oil from reaching Japan. It still arrived, but it was limited from Malaysia. Japan did not like that interference as it hurt their military machines efforts to take over mainland Asia. We did go after Japan with a blockade originally. That is part of why we were negotiating with the Japanese in 1941. Japan was attacking crown colonies of Britain, who was our allie, even though we had not committed to fighting with them against either Germany or Japan. Considering their indiscriminate assaults on about everything in the eastern Pacific, they were a threat to any country or interests there.

 

[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!

 

[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?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Originally posted by: Aimster
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.

Agreed. All we had to do is dedicate a small team of death knight's to use far sight on Japan's coasts and voila, enemy sighted!

 

[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.

 

[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!

 

[MrDingleDangle]

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?

oh that would have obviously worked, considering we had already destroyed so many of their cities and killed so many civilians by fire bombing cities and it had no effect

so would u just suggest more firebombing (killing more people then the nukes did)? or should we just drop small bombs every once in a while? how about just shooting off fireworks every once in a while, they would have gotten so sick of it that they would surrender!

we didnt send the nukes ast the first bombs to Japan. We killed a lot more people before the Nukes were sent and Japan refused to surrender