Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Topic Started: Aug 15 2007, 08:27 AM (1,544 Views)
Kira
Member Avatar
Hate me, do it and do it again.
ihateguitarists
Aug 15 2007, 03:56 PM
I don't beleive that there were NO other options. They attacked us at Pearl Harbor, but the casualties were almost all military personnel. We killed over one hundred thousand innocent people. I don't see any justification.

Word.
Posted Image
The human whose name is written in this notebook shall die.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
working_class_hero
Member Avatar
Captain ASR
ihateguitarists
Aug 15 2007, 12:56 PM
I don't beleive that there were NO other options. They attacked us at Pearl Harbor, but the casualties were almost all military personnel. We killed over one hundred thousand innocent people. I don't see any justification.

I agree, it was a stupid decision..it did end the war, but it could have done better, in a more efficient manner
someday monkey won't play piano song, play piano song

---
Facebook
Last.fm

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fraser
Member Avatar
There be no shelter here
The bombings at Hiroshima and Nagaski saved several times more people than it killed. The Allies were planning to invade Japan, an attack that would lead to the deaths of 5 million+ Japanese and 1 million+ Allied troops.



Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ihateguitarists
Member Avatar
v_v
I think it was Einstein who argued this point: Do you think that if Germany had had the bombs before we did and dropped them on two American cities, killing that many people, yet still lost the war, that we would let them off, those in control of this decision, because they were trying to save lives? No. They would be charged with war crimes and hanged.

And also, those people killed would have been troops. You said it yourself. They would have been troops. That is, men with guns. Not women walking their children to or from school. Not grandmothers and babies.

And that's not to mention, there's evidence to suggest that Japan was already ready to surrender, and were all ready for the war to be over!

Let me take a direct quote from The United States Strategic Bombing Survey
Summary Report, which can be found here.

<!--QuoteBegin-United States Strategic Bombing Survey
Summary Report+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (United States Strategic Bombing Survey
Summary Report)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.[/QUOTE]

And I'll draw one more quote, this time from William Leahy. This quote and others can be found here.

William Leahy
 

The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fraser
Member Avatar
There be no shelter here
Japan would've never surrended without some kind of massive, crushing blow against them. They considered surrener to be the worst thing they could do...


Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ihateguitarists
Member Avatar
v_v
Linkteen
Aug 15 2007, 01:17 PM
Japan would've never surrended without some kind of massive, crushing blow against them. They considered surrener to be the worst thing they could do...

<!--QuoteBegin-United States Strategic Bombing Survey
Summary Report+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (United States Strategic Bombing Survey
Summary Report)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.[/QUOTE]

Guess you didn't read my post.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ihateguitarists
Member Avatar
v_v
I don't think I'd ever support the instant death of 300,000 people or the making of 9,000,000 people homeless.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ihateguitarists
Member Avatar
v_v
But, hey, I'm no expert.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fraser
Member Avatar
There be no shelter here
Ah, so you'd rather support the destruction of the whole country via invasion?


Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ihateguitarists
Member Avatar
v_v
You've not read my post! They were ready to surrender! Weren't they already suing for peace?

Yes they were. Let's take another quote:

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz
 
The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.


EDIT: Directed at Linkteen v_v
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fraser
Member Avatar
There be no shelter here
Oh, and Sean, the fact that the Japanese would've surrended without an invasion is irrelavant. The Allies would've invaded anyway (to make sure that Japan could never be a serious military power ever again), it was either the atomic bombs or a full fledged invasion.


Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ihateguitarists
Member Avatar
v_v
Linkteen
Aug 15 2007, 01:31 PM
Oh, and Sean, the fact that the Japanese would've surrended without an invasion is irrelavant. The Allies would've invaded anyway, it was either the atomic bombs or a full fledged invasion.

Why would we have invaded them after they surrendered? :huh:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fraser
Member Avatar
There be no shelter here
No, I'm saying that EVEN THOUGH the Japanes would've surrendered without an invasion, while the Japanese were making up their minds, the Allies would've invaded anyway.


Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ihateguitarists
Member Avatar
v_v
Right, and we invade a country leaning towards surrender anyway, so...why would it take five million Japanese soldiers dead before they surrendered if they were leaning that way anyway? Wouldn't they surrender shortly after the invasion if they were contemplating it anyway?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fraser
Member Avatar
There be no shelter here
Yes, they would have. My point is that in the short time from the start of the non-existant invasion to the Japanese surrender, many, many lives would be lost. Probably about double what happened at Hiroshima and Nagaski. They wouldn't be killing soliders. Sure, lots of troops on both sides would die, but the vast majority of those 5 million casualties would've been civilians. They would be firebombing Japan and smashing the country with artillery, armor and troops.


Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The News Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply