Japan: drop the bombs or not ?????

[namvet]

Should the atomic bombs have been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Attempts to answer the moral questions raised by the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are rooted in a cold-blooded mathematical equation of war.

The rationale is simple: You kill a lot of people now, hoping to save even more lives later.

An estimated 140,000 people were killed at Hiroshima and another 74,000 at Nagasaki. Would an Allied invasion of Japan have been more bloody?

Many factors cloud any calculation:

The battle for the outlying Japanese island of Okinawa a few months earlier killed at least 12,400 Americans, between 100,000 and 127,000 Japanese soldiers and between 70,000 to 80,000 civilians.

About 3,000 kamikaze suicide plane missions were flown at Okinawa, and only a handful of Japanese soldiers surrendered.

More people were killed in the battle for the small island than the combined toll of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What would have happened if Kyushu - the westernmost of Japan's four main islands - was invaded in November 1945 as planned?

Or if the Allies went ahead with plans to invade the main island of Honshu in March 1946?

The Allies estimated between 63,000 to 250,000 of their men would be killed or wounded in the battle for Kyushu - depending on which historian provides the figures. Japanese casualties were expected to be much greater."


As one might expect, the few surviving crew members of the B-29s bombers Enola Gay and Bock’s Car are interviewed each August by reporters from around the world, who invariably ask them the same question with mind-numbing familiarity: “Do you have any regrets?”

In response to this question, Lt. Col. Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the Enola Gay, recently issued this statement:

"In the past 60 years since Hiroshima, I have received many letters from people all over the world. The vast majority have expressed gratitude (that we) were able to deliver the bombs that ended the war. Over the years, thousands of former soldiers and military family members have expressed a particularly touching and personal gratitude suggesting that they might not be alive today had it been necessary to resort to an invasion of the Japanese home islands to end the fighting.

I have been thanked as well by Japanese veterans and civilians who would have been expected to carry out suicidal defense of their homelands. Combined with the efforts of all Americans and our allies, we were able to stop the killing. It is a sentiment upon which the surviving crewmen are unanimous."

"To try to comprehend the human costs of Japan’s rampage across the Pacific, one should consider that the generally accepted casualty figures for the Hiroshima attack include at least 100,000 people killed outright by the blast and fire that destroyed the city. Thus, if we are to quantify the loss of life across Asia due to Japanese aggression in terms of Hiroshima, then the minimum number of Hiroshimas inflicted by Japan onto its neighbors, including China, Korea, Indochina, Burma, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines and the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) is at least one hundred. Beginning in 1931 with the invasion of Manchuria, Japan unleashed wave after wave of death and destruction on her Asian neighbors, the rough equivalent on one Hiroshima per month for more than 14 years."

link (link)

thinker (thinker)

I think it was the right call. they were far from finished. 5,000 died in the Kamikaze attacks off Okinawa alone.
do you use or hold back your best weapon???? consider this:
he decides NOT to use the bombs. how many US serviceman die in the invasion. ive heard ests as high as a million. so. we invade. the war ends. the grieving families find out Truman had a 'magic weapon' that could have saved their loved ones. how do they react???? ill tell you. they want a rope around Trumans neck !!!!
ive heard Japan is still waiting for an official apology for the US
but thats just my opinion.

so what do you think????
Should the atomic bombs have been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?


http://www.sun-inet.or.jp/~ja2tko/image.b29.museum/b29.1.hikoucyuu.jpg

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Photos/Nagasaki/images/NG30.jpg

[Gaffer]

An absolute YES where I'm concerned.

[manu1959]

the point of war is to win.......so yes drop the bomb....

[namvet]

some foreigner on another board posted these (these) for shock & awe. he said if these were Americans it would bother me. I said yes. but better them than us.........

[Pale Rider]

the point of war is to win.......so yes drop the bomb....

I wish we'd apply that same logic in Iraq.

[Sitarro]

If the Japanese had possession of the same weapon, would they have used it? I know Germany would have and I would bet Japan would have also.

Yes, it is regrettable for such a weapon to be used but I don't think we had a choice, it was a just decision.

[manu1959]

I wish we'd apply that same logic in Iraq.

can't....not at war with iraq....

[Mr. P]

YES. and I vote to do unto others before they do unto you...Iran come to mind.

[namvet]

Japan was trying to build a bomb just like the Nazi's. as the noose tightened on Germany they sold off what they had to Japan. so they attempted to build one. but time ran out. to get the tech info and 1,235 pounds of uranium oxide to japan it had to go by submarine.
Japan's A-Bomb Project: One of War's 'What Ifs' link (link)


i9SLOl1SeOI

KhH7Vhx1khI

AOsYoZJ7m-4

1Okq6SFIx4c

[actsnoblemartin]

we bombed them because we didnt want to sacrifice 500,000-1,000,000 people

So, I say... it was the right thing to do.


Should the atomic bombs have been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Attempts to answer the moral questions raised by the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are rooted in a cold-blooded mathematical equation of war.

The rationale is simple: You kill a lot of people now, hoping to save even more lives later.

An estimated 140,000 people were killed at Hiroshima and another 74,000 at Nagasaki. Would an Allied invasion of Japan have been more bloody?

Many factors cloud any calculation:

The battle for the outlying Japanese island of Okinawa a few months earlier killed at least 12,400 Americans, between 100,000 and 127,000 Japanese soldiers and between 70,000 to 80,000 civilians.

About 3,000 kamikaze suicide plane missions were flown at Okinawa, and only a handful of Japanese soldiers surrendered.

More people were killed in the battle for the small island than the combined toll of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What would have happened if Kyushu - the westernmost of Japan's four main islands - was invaded in November 1945 as planned?

Or if the Allies went ahead with plans to invade the main island of Honshu in March 1946?

The Allies estimated between 63,000 to 250,000 of their men would be killed or wounded in the battle for Kyushu - depending on which historian provides the figures. Japanese casualties were expected to be much greater."


As one might expect, the few surviving crew members of the B-29s bombers Enola Gay and Bock’s Car are interviewed each August by reporters from around the world, who invariably ask them the same question with mind-numbing familiarity: “Do you have any regrets?”

In response to this question, Lt. Col. Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the Enola Gay, recently issued this statement:

"In the past 60 years since Hiroshima, I have received many letters from people all over the world. The vast majority have expressed gratitude (that we) were able to deliver the bombs that ended the war. Over the years, thousands of former soldiers and military family members have expressed a particularly touching and personal gratitude suggesting that they might not be alive today had it been necessary to resort to an invasion of the Japanese home islands to end the fighting.

I have been thanked as well by Japanese veterans and civilians who would have been expected to carry out suicidal defense of their homelands. Combined with the efforts of all Americans and our allies, we were able to stop the killing. It is a sentiment upon which the surviving crewmen are unanimous."

"To try to comprehend the human costs of Japan’s rampage across the Pacific, one should consider that the generally accepted casualty figures for the Hiroshima attack include at least 100,000 people killed outright by the blast and fire that destroyed the city. Thus, if we are to quantify the loss of life across Asia due to Japanese aggression in terms of Hiroshima, then the minimum number of Hiroshimas inflicted by Japan onto its neighbors, including China, Korea, Indochina, Burma, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines and the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) is at least one hundred. Beginning in 1931 with the invasion of Manchuria, Japan unleashed wave after wave of death and destruction on her Asian neighbors, the rough equivalent on one Hiroshima per month for more than 14 years."

link (link)

thinker (thinker)

I think it was the right call. they were far from finished. 5,000 died in the Kamikaze attacks off Okinawa alone.
do you use or hold back your best weapon???? consider this:
he decides NOT to use the bombs. how many US serviceman die in the invasion. ive heard ests as high as a million. so. we invade. the war ends. the grieving families find out Truman had a 'magic weapon' that could have saved their loved ones. how do they react???? ill tell you. they want a rope around Trumans neck !!!!
ive heard Japan is still waiting for an official apology for the US
but thats just my opinion.

so what do you think????
Should the atomic bombs have been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?


http://www.sun-inet.or.jp/~ja2tko/image.b29.museum/b29.1.hikoucyuu.jpg

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Photos/Nagasaki/images/NG30.jpg

[My Winter Storm]

Guess I have to be different and say that I don't think the bomb should have been dropped. I am well aware that people would have died eithor way, but I have a problem with innocent people being killed. I think there could have been a better way to end the war instead of resorting to violence, but I do know I am in the minority here.

[actsnoblemartin]

I respect you sharon, but what do you think war is, patty cakes, and bakers men? :coffee:


Guess I have to be different and say that I don't think the bomb should have been dropped. I am well aware that people would have died eithor way, but I have a problem with innocent people being killed. I think there could have been a better way to end the war instead of resorting to violence, but I do know I am in the minority here.

[Gaffer]

Guess I have to be different and say that I don't think the bomb should have been dropped. I am well aware that people would have died eithor way, but I have a problem with innocent people being killed. I think there could have been a better way to end the war instead of resorting to violence, but I do know I am in the minority here.

Actually more people died in the fire bombing of Tokyo then from the nukes. And such bombings would have taken place all over Japan had we needed to keep going up to an invasion. The fact that we could now do, with one bomb, what it took hundreds of planes to do, finally made the Japanese leaders sit up and take notice.

[PostmodernProphet]

Should the atomic bombs have been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?



if we had truly understood the power of those atomic weapons, I believe we would have dropped them somewhere uninhabited, and then asked the Japanese leaders to contemplate the effects of using them on Hiroshima.....

[red states rule]

Japn could have surrendered after the first bomb was dropped. They decided not to

Jappan started the war - the US finished it

[namvet]

it was a fight to the death. our race vs theirs if you will. had they acquired the bomb before us its a certainty they would have used it for their survival. their were Negotiations under way to end it. but our terms were unconditional surrender as decreed by FDR after dec 7. the Q has always been Japan was finished. all we had to do was wait around for the white flag to go up. but the war was being run by the Army. who was determined to fight any invasion right down on the beach's. the Emperor was a symbol of hatred. and we wanted him to swing for starting the war. not true. he was a puppet. a symbol. but after the bombs it was he who surrendered. we allowed him to stay on the throne. so technically it was a conditional surrender. enter the Russians. at potsdam Stalin agreed to declare war on Japan. but he wanted a piece of the action right at the end. seizing the northern end of Japan. you can guess at the politics involved here.
there was opposition to using it. big shots like Marshall and Eisenhower were against it. the very scientists who built it petitioned Truman not to use it. they even considered a demo of the bomb to a Japanese delegation on a remote island. but if the bomb failed it would encourage Japan to fight on.

[red states rule]

Pres Truman summed it up by saying he could not look into the eyes of a mother/father who lost a son in the invasion of Japan knowing he could have ended the war by using the bomb

[namvet]

Pres Truman summed it up by saying he could not look into the eyes of a mother/father who lost a son in the invasion of Japan knowing he could have ended the war by using the bomb

thats right. and he could have faced impeachment.............

[red states rule]

thats right. and he could have faced impeachment.............

I don't know about that, but he had the balls to make the right call

[namvet]

scientists petition Truman NOT to drop the bomb

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/documents/B04_03-03_01.jpg


leaflets dropped on the Japanese warning them to evacuate their cities (translated)


http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/documents/B04_06-02_01.jpg

[red states rule]

Pres Truman made the right call. He knew the enemy had to be beaten in such a way they would never think about starting another war with the US

Unlike todays Dems, Trumen was going to win the war no mater what had to be done

[namvet]

the components of the bomb were delivered to the island of Tinian by the heavy cruiser Indianapolis. running at top speed from sanfran to the island she broke all speed records. but after delivering the bomb she meet her fate on the way to leyte for gunnery exercises. At a few minutes past midnight on July 30 two Japanese torpedoes tore into her side, igniting an explosion that broke the ship in two. It took only twelve minutes for the ship to dip her bow, roll to starboard and slip beneath the sea. Of her crew of 1,196, an estimated 900 survived the explosion. and only 317 survived. in one of the biggest shark attacks on record. - but the worst was yet to come.
loss of the Indy (loss of the Indy)
the enloa gay crew wrote many messages on that bomb. most were obsene. but one said "Greetings to the Emperor from the men of the Indianapolis,"


http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/n80000/n86911.jpg

[Roomy]

A case can be made for both sides of the argument, a more relevant question would be, Should we nuke, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc?

[CockySOB]

The fastest way to end a conflict is to utterly decimate your opponent both by eliminating their military forces, and by breaking the will of the opponent's civilian population to even consider continuing or re-establishing the conflict.

So in response to the OP, "Hell yes!"

[Roomy]

Which muslim country should we obliterate?

[namvet]

A case can be made for both sides of the argument, a more relevant question would be, Should we nuke, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc?

might wanna consider getting all military and civilians out of that region first. also have to consider the radiation cloud and which way is it going to blow???? and who its going to settle on???? pay backs could be hell to pay here

[Roomy]

might wanna consider getting all military and civilians out of that region first. also have to consider the radiation cloud and which way is it going to blow???? and who its going to settle on???? pay backs could be hell to pay here

All things considered and best scenario in place, which country will it be?

[namvet]

All things considered and best scenario in place, which country will it be?

none i hope. considering thermal nuke war can end the world.

[gabosaurus]

This thread again?
First of all, Dropping the bombs on Japan were totally justified. Considering that Truman warned the Japanese high command of the consequences of not surrendering.
The potential cost of Operation Overlord, the invasion of the islands of Japan, was estimated at 1 million American lives and 20-30 million Japanese lives.
The death total of the bombs dropped on Japanese was a fraction of the deaths caused by the firebombing of Tokyo. And several German cities as well.

Anyone who advocates using nuclear weapons in the current era is a total fucking idiot. No sane person could possibly be that clueless.
If the U.S. drops a nuclear weapon anyplace in the Middle East, there would be an immediate retaliation. Most likely from Pakistan or Libya. The Saudis and their brethren would destroy Israel and demolish their oil fields.
The world as we know it would cease to exist.
If you want to know what life would be like, check out the movie "Threads." It is incredibly realistic.

If you believe anyone could "win" a nuclear war, you are dumber than a dog's butt.

[Dilloduck]

This thread again?
First of all, Dropping the bombs on Japan were totally justified. Considering that Truman warned the Japanese high command of the consequences of not surrendering.
The potential cost of Operation Overlord, the invasion of the islands of Japan, was estimated at 1 million American lives and 20-30 million Japanese lives.
The death total of the bombs dropped on Japanese was a fraction of the deaths caused by the firebombing of Tokyo. And several German cities as well.

Anyone who advocates using nuclear weapons in the current era is a total fucking idiot. No sane person could possibly be that clueless.
If the U.S. drops a nuclear weapon anyplace in the Middle East, there would be an immediate retaliation. Most likely from Pakistan or Libya. The Saudis and their brethren would destroy Israel and demolish their oil fields.
The world as we know it would cease to exist.
If you want to know what life would be like, check out the movie "Threads." It is incredibly realistic.

If you believe anyone could "win" a nuclear war, you are dumber than a dog's butt.

psssssssssst---Operation Overlord was D-day.

[namvet]

Japan's war crimes - ill issue a graphic warning here. does this looks and sound familiar ?????



unit 731

bAp8bSdE5MQ

[jimnyc]

Hell yeah, while the loss of life is regrettable, I think the dropping of the bomb was a stellar decision. I said they should have used some large bombs in Iraq from the beginning, inspect to ensure they had WMD's, and then get the fuck out. I'm bet there are many that are glad I never had the honor of pursuing a military career!

[My Winter Storm]

I respect you sharon, but what do you think war is, patty cakes, and bakers men? :coffee:

Yeah yeah, war is about violence, which I am against. Like I said, there could have been other ways to end the war. The Us could have invaded Japan. Sure, lots of American soldiers would have died, but at least they would have died honourably, and isn't that what war is about? Soldiers go to war top serve their countries, and they die patriots, protecting their country. They don't take the easy way out, as I see it.

Oh well.

[avatar4321]

Yeah yeah, war is about violence, which I am against. Like I said, there could have been other ways to end the war. The Us could have invaded Japan. Sure, lots of American soldiers would have died, but at least they would have died honourably, and isn't that what war is about? Soldiers go to war top serve their countries, and they die patriots, protecting their country. They don't take the easy way out, as I see it.

Oh well.

War isnt about dying for your country. Its about making the other guy die for his.

[namvet]

Yeah yeah, war is about violence, which I am against. Like I said, there could have been other ways to end the war. The Us could have invaded Japan. Sure, lots of American soldiers would have died, but at least they would have died honourably, and isn't that what war is about? Soldiers go to war top serve their countries, and they die patriots, protecting their country. They don't take the easy way out, as I see it.

Oh well.

if your relative(s) die in this invasion and you find out later they could have been saved how would you feel?????

[Gaffer]

Yeah yeah, war is about violence, which I am against. Like I said, there could have been other ways to end the war. The Us could have invaded Japan. Sure, lots of American soldiers would have died, but at least they would have died honourably, and isn't that what war is about? Soldiers go to war top serve their countries, and they die patriots, protecting their country. They don't take the easy way out, as I see it.

Oh well.

What exactly is the easy way out? Soldiers go to war because their country is at war. They are people just like you. with hopes and dreams and plans for the future. You have an option to blow something away from a distance or have to go in suffer casualties, believe me you take the blow away option. There is no "fair" in war. You destroy the enemy any way you can. With the least amount of effort on your part and the least casualties.

[Mr. P]

Yeah yeah, war is about violence, which I am against. Like I said, there could have been other ways to end the war. The Us could have invaded Japan. Sure, lots of American soldiers would have died, but at least they would have died honourably, and isn't that what war is about? Soldiers go to war top serve their countries, and they die patriots, protecting their country. They don't take the easy way out, as I see it.

Oh well.

But they didn't an won the war without what would have been an extremely high loss of life on both sides. Seems like they made the right choice to me.