[quote]NateN wrote:
I’m no expert on WWII, but from what I’ve learned, if we dropped the bomb on a remote base, I’m guessing Japan would not have surrendered. You say no Japanese military leader in their right mind would continue the war effort? Aren’t these the same guys who killed themselves because of the shame? The Japanese, to put it mildly, did not like the idea of being conquered.
[/quote]
I see what you are saying, the Japanese do take honor and war very seriously and personally… but think of the damage an atomic bomb causes. We’ve all seen videos of the mushroom clouds rising and the aftermath(no life anywhere).
Up till then, power and destruction like that had never been imagined or concieved. If the U.S. had bombed one or even multiple Japanese island military bases, those island would have been annihilated. No trees, no life, no military base. If the U.S. did that and threatened more, how could the Japanese continue to fight? Hell, all the U.S. would have to do is drop one on any resisting group of Japanese military and there wouldn’t be a fight, the battle would be over.
You don’t witness the massive destruction that an atomic bomb can cause and continue to fight, taking a chance at having multiple cities destroyed. No matter how much dedication and honor the Japanese military had, they wouldn’t sentence their civilians to death like that.
The U.S. jumped the gun choosing a civilian target. I don’t care if it was to end the war. Killing civilians, especially on that massive a scale, is never right and is never justified.
[quote]OneEye wrote:
Another thing to remember is that those two cities weren’t chosen at random. They were huge industrial centers. You take out a nation’s industry, and you severely reduce their ability to produce weapons. This crippled the Japanese war machine far more than bombing a military base would have. Civilians were making the weapons that the military used, just like in America.[/quote]
I see your point, but do you really think they surrendered because they lost 2 major industrial cities, or because they lost 250,000 people in a matter of minutes? They knew that the U.S. could do that again any time they wanted to, so they had no hope.
If the U.S. had bombed a military base as opposed to a city, the Japanese would have surrendered so that force wouldn’t be unleashed in other locations, no because they lost 1 of many bases.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Yeah XcelticX, Japan was pretty horrible read ‘The Rape of Nanking’ by Iris Chang, for some perspective. The Japanese at that time were beyond brutal and extremely racist!
The only way to break their will was with the bomb. An assault on the Japanese mainland would have had horrific casualties for not only Japanese but sickening amounts of Americans as well. In the end it was the best alternative.[/quote]
Oh yea I totally agree with you guys that the Japanese were horrible as was Italy and Germany,
but that in no way excuses annihilating a city full of civilians.
Up till then, power and destruction like that had never been imagined or concieved. If the U.S. had bombed one or even multiple Japanese island military bases, those island would have been annihilated. No trees, no life, no military base. If the U.S. did that and threatened more, how could the Japanese continue to fight? Hell, all the U.S. would have to do is drop one on any resisting group of Japanese military and there wouldn’t be a fight, the battle would be over.[/quote]
Do you realize it took TWO BOMBS on major cities to make the Japanese surrender.
What do you think one of even a few bombs on remote Japanese island bases make them do?
[quote]superiorathlete wrote:
Do you realize it took TWO BOMBS on major cities to make the Japanese surrender.
What do you think one of even a few bombs on remote Japanese island bases make them do?
[/quote]
Do you honestly think that if the U.S. had only dropped one bomb that the Japanese would have continued the hopeless fight? What would be the point in continuing a war with a country that has bombs capable of obliterating entire cities? That would be suicidal, they would have absolutely no hope of winning at all.
the japanese view their emporer as direct descendents of god. they have strong wills. Something absolutly drastic was needed, and something drastic was done. I am certain bombing a deserted island would not have done this. They needed to change the will of the people, not the minds of the leaders.
and the sweet part Oppenheimer was talking about was SCIENCE. it can be pretty sweet to do something no one else has for the first time.
[quote]XCelticX wrote:
OneEye wrote:
Another thing to remember is that those two cities weren’t chosen at random. They were huge industrial centers. You take out a nation’s industry, and you severely reduce their ability to produce weapons. This crippled the Japanese war machine far more than bombing a military base would have. Civilians were making the weapons that the military used, just like in America.
I see your point, but do you really think they surrendered because they lost 2 major industrial cities, or because they lost 250,000 people in a matter of minutes? They knew that the U.S. could do that again any time they wanted to, so they had no hope.
If the U.S. had bombed a military base as opposed to a city, the Japanese would have surrendered so that force wouldn’t be unleashed in other locations, no because they lost 1 of many bases.
[/quote]
Perhaps they surrendered because they lost lots of people, but that isn’t likely. We’re talking about the people who sent suicide bombers. They viewed life as expendable. It’s more likely that they surrendered because their ability to make war was nearly paralyzed.
Besides, my point wasn’t about why the Japanese surrendered. It was about why America chose those two cities over a military base.
I don’t know about anyone else, but the sight of a mushroom cloud gives me a chubby. I like breaking things, and if you see a mushroom cloud, some shit has been broke.
The science behind the splitting of the atom is also “technically sweet”, so I can see what Oppenheimer was talking about.
Celtic, please don’t tell me that you are going to go on a bitchfest about something that happened 60 years ago and something you don’t understand.
The dropping of the A-bombs was less about Japan and WWII then about Russia and the just-starting Cold War. You see, Russia had set a date (Aug 8?) that they would enter the Pacific War against Japan after Nazi Germany was defeated. On Aug. 6, just days before Russia was to enter the Pacific War, Truman gave the go-ahead to drop the first bomb on Hiroshima. Emperor Hirotio had actually tried (trough both a premier and personally) to end the War after Tokyo was firebomed in March (80,000 civilian deaths) but simply couldn’t due to the fact that the Japanese military had focably gained control of his government.
Truman knew that if Russia entered the war against Japan they would then have a right to the post-war spoils and consequently spread communism into eastern Asia. This was unnaceptable. Stalin had already gobbled up every little country on his way to Germany and stoutly refused to split eastern Germany (or Berlin) as previously agreed apon.
Japans’ war mongerers who were in charge refused to surrender after the dropping of the first A-bomb, despite another 80,000+ civilian deaths. Russia was now fast approaching Japan (this is why N. Korea became communist) so Truman had no other choice but drop the second A-bomb on Nagasaki which caused over 100,000 civilian deaths. Finally, the Emperor convinced the militants to conceed to surrender. (I should note that at that time the U.S. only had 2 A-bombs)
Thus, dropping the A-bombs accomplished the following:
1)Prevented horrendous U.S. casualties during a Japanese mainland assult.
2)Justified the $2 billion spent on the Manhattan Project (an absolutely astronomical sum at that time)
3)Contained Soviet expantionism in Asia.
Elevated the U.S. in the post-war world climate. The U.S. was now the only “nuclear power.” and
5)Gave the U.S. a distinct advantage in the Cold War which, in reality, had already begun during the closing year of WWII.
I have not dicussed the ethical issues involved. I just wanted to get everyone on the same page as to the “why’s” of dropping the bombs.
[quote]Massif wrote:
3. Celtic, please don’t tell me that you are going to go on a bitchfest about something that happened 60 years ago and something you don’t understand.[/quote]
LOL oh great and wise massif, please lend your knowledge…
Yea right. Tell me EXACTLY how I don’t understand what happened.
As a side note of why those two cities were chosen over any other target is because the U.S. military wanted to guage the results of the bombs on previously un-damaged targets. I beleive the military made a list of 8 possible cities that they could drop the bombs on (Hiroshima and Nagasaki being two of these). The criteria being that they had to be major industrial cities with large populations that have not been targeted for any previous bombings.
The only reason that these two cities were chosen over the others was simply a matter of their good weather on the drop days.
[quote]OneEye wrote:
Perhaps they surrendered because they lost lots of people, but that isn’t likely. We’re talking about the people who sent suicide bombers. They viewed life as expendable. It’s more likely that they surrendered because their ability to make war was nearly paralyzed.
Besides, my point wasn’t about why the Japanese surrendered. It was about why America chose those two cities over a military base.[/quote]
Well, there’s a big difference between loosing 1 soldier at a time in kamikazee attacks and loosing 250,000 in seconds. The Japanese WOULD NOT be willing to expend that many lives, regardless of their zeal, and if America showed that it had the power to do that without actually doing it, Japan would have backed down. They weren’t that suicidal, you know that.
And their ability to make war was definately not paralyzed. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were major providers for the war effort, but they were still only 2 of many. Not to mention the fact that their military still had plenty of supplies - ammo, ships, soldiers, planes, bombs - to last a while. They could have continued war for a little while after losing Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but what would be the point if America had atomic bombs?
Do you honestly think that if the U.S. had only dropped one bomb that the Japanese would have continued the hopeless fight? What would be the point in continuing a war with a country that has bombs capable of obliterating entire cities? That would be suicidal, they would have absolutely no hope of winning at all.
[/quote]
I just can’t let this one pass. They DID refuse to surrender after the first bomb. They were told to surrender unconditionally or a city would be destroyed. When it was, they still refused. Thus, the second bomb. Centrally located targets were vital to ensure the Imperial Govt. could not just deny it happened. Psychological impact, you see. Remember, atomic bombs only impress YOU because you already KNOW what they can do.
As for invading instead, think about the Battle of Iwo Jima, and meditate on this koan- “It is not a soldier’s job to die for his country, but to make the other poor slob die for his.”
Soldier, you sound like you do know alot about this, but you got basic facts such as the number of people killed in Hiroshima wrong by about 120,000 lives. That leads me to question your sources… but I don’t know for sure of course wether or not you are wrong, as I have never studied the war.
[quote]XCelticX wrote:
EVERY nation involved in the war commited war crimes. We may not know of every single one(although I’m sure it wouldn’t be hard to find plenty of first hand accounts of U.S. war atrocities during WW2)
Seriously man, you should make an attempt to not sound like the roid raging egotistical ass you are. People like you give weightlifters a bad name.[/quote]
Prove it. This isn’t the school playground, asswipe. You have to have proof to be believed. You have none. You are spouting opinion - you even admitted as much.
Your opinion is bullshit. Unless you have something better than “they did it and everyone knows it” - I must call you out for the fucking full of shit liar that you are.
Why don’t you haul your fat ass to Japan if you feel so strongly about our transgressions against them. I’m sure they’d love to have you.