| 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: |
| The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 15 2007, 08:27 AM (1,543 Views) | |
| ihateguitarists | Aug 15 2007, 01:56 PM Post #31 |
![]()
v_v
|
It wouldn't be a vast majority though. If we look at the causalities of most wars, the death of troops far outnumber the death of civilians. And like I said, I think that a country contemplating surrender in the first place would have surrendered before the causalities of civilians reached even one hundred thousand. I highly doubt that it would take a country who had already sued for peace in the first place five million troops to raise a white flag. You'll never convince me that the atomic bombs were dropped as a means to save lives. You'll never convince me of that. Now, you could convince me that we dropped the bomb as means to end the war as we were exhausting our resources, but I don't think that we had Japanese lives in mind when we intentionally killed three hundred thousand innocent civilians. You know, like otlset said (or at least this is what I think he was saying): Back then, with the information available, and with what our leaders were thinking, perhaps this was the only visible route out. But we can look back now, with the facts, and easily say, this was a mistake. Had they known what we know now, I don't think they would have dropped the bomb. |
![]() |
|
| Fraser | Aug 15 2007, 02:03 PM Post #32 |
![]()
There be no shelter here
|
In World War Two, fifty-five percent of the casualties were civilians. Fifty percent were Allied civilians and a mere five percent were Axis civilians. It's hard to feel sorry for the Japanese when the Russians nearly 12 million civilians. |
| |
![]() |
|
| ihateguitarists | Aug 15 2007, 02:07 PM Post #33 |
![]()
v_v
|
This doesn't say anything about Japan surrendering. I'll just repost a portion of my last post.
|
![]() |
|
| Fraser | Aug 15 2007, 02:11 PM Post #34 |
![]()
There be no shelter here
|
Five million is a colossal number. The Japanese didn't have nearly that amount of troops, they had a fraction. Nearly all of those projected five million deaths would've been civilian, whether you agree or not. Besides, you underestimate the power of the Americans in 1945- they could've (and would've, most likely) killed half a million Japanese people in a month or so, which is how roughly how long it would've taken for the stubborn Japanese people to accept surrender and organize an armistice. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Kira | Aug 15 2007, 02:18 PM Post #35 |
![]()
Hate me, do it and do it again.
|
I like to eat pie and bombs, but mustard tastes like shit. |
![]() The human whose name is written in this notebook shall die. | |
![]() |
|
| ihateguitarists | Aug 15 2007, 02:18 PM Post #36 |
![]()
v_v
|
I don't get how you continue to bring up how stubborn the Japanese were. I've shown you repeatedly that the Japanese had A.) Already sued for peace and B.) were leaning towards a surrender anyway. If they were stubborn, as you say they were, then I don't think they would have sued for peace or consider surrender as they were. And I don't think it takes as long as you'd think for a country to surrender. After the bombings, Japan surrendered in less than a week. |
![]() |
|
| Fraser | Aug 15 2007, 02:21 PM Post #37 |
![]()
There be no shelter here
|
Japanese people are known for their stuborness is all. Also, I think that if the Americans invaded, the Japanese may have just "fought to the death" with their mortal enemy, much like the Germans and Russians did at Stalingrad. |
| |
![]() |
|
| ihateguitarists | Aug 15 2007, 02:26 PM Post #38 |
![]()
v_v
|
Well you've gotta have more than your racial stereotypes to back that conclusion up. Also, is it justified that thousands have died after the attack and after the war was over from radiation exposure? There deaths all the way up 'till the early '90s related to the bombings. That's despicable, innocent people dying fifty years later. |
![]() |
|
| Fraser | Aug 15 2007, 02:32 PM Post #39 |
![]()
There be no shelter here
|
Okay, so by your post, people dying fifty years after the fact is worse than several times more than the Hiroshima casualties dying in 1945-46 (could've stretched into the next year, but I doubt it). Also, the Japanese didn't even consider surrender until nearly two years after the war was truly lost (about mid 1943 the Japanese lost their chance of winning). They didn't even CONSIDER surrender or a cease fire or anything until two years later. Does that not prove their willingness to their cause? (or in other cases, their stuborness in continuing a war they couldn't win). |
| |
![]() |
|
| ihateguitarists | Aug 15 2007, 02:37 PM Post #40 |
![]()
v_v
|
Even it took until '45 for The Japanese to consider surrender, they still had sued for peace and considered surrender before the bombs were dropped. And it's that fact that leads me to believe that other means of surrender could have been reached. Robert Lewis, the co-pilot of the plane that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, is recorded as saying "My God, what have we done?". I've always thought that it was widely accepted that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mistakes, but I guess this is not the case. |
![]() |
|
| Fraser | Aug 15 2007, 02:42 PM Post #41 |
![]()
There be no shelter here
|
It was a mistake, sure. The whole bloody war was a mistake. |
| |
![]() |
|
| lee | Aug 15 2007, 05:30 PM Post #42 |
![]()
Elmore James
|
The japanese where suing for peace sure, but it was an unconditional surrender that was the goal. Anything less would have been a failure. "the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland" If the japanese where not a stubborn people it would not have taken two atomic bombs for the surrender to have happened. |
![]() We'll see. | |
![]() |
|
| ihateguitarists | Aug 15 2007, 09:42 PM Post #43 |
![]()
v_v
|
First of all, lee, what the fuck? And secondly, v_v What exactly were the conditions? I don't see how an unconditional surrender is the only way. I don't believe there are actually people, who aren't old-timey biggots, who are justifying this. |
![]() |
|
| Fraser | Aug 15 2007, 10:54 PM Post #44 |
![]()
There be no shelter here
|
I'm not justifying it, I'm saying that without the bombings, the Allies would've invaded Japan, causing several times more deaths than the Hiroshima/Nagaski casualties. Besides, the Allies didn't want a negotiated peace, they wanted unconditonal surrender. |
| |
![]() |
|
| ihateguitarists | Aug 15 2007, 11:00 PM Post #45 |
![]()
v_v
|
I know, and I don't see why. Wouldn't a negotiated peace spare more lives anyway? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The News Room · Next Topic » |













6:12 AM Jul 11