Started By
Message
re: Can we all agree that Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Posted on 9/16/14 at 3:56 am to Vols&Shaft83
Posted on 9/16/14 at 3:56 am to Vols&Shaft83
Was it necessary? No. We were going to win that war one way or another. Did it expedite the process? Absolutely. Do I think we should have used it? Yes.
I think it saved hundreds of thousands of US lives and millions of Japanese lives. The entire country would have fought us till the last person
I think it saved hundreds of thousands of US lives and millions of Japanese lives. The entire country would have fought us till the last person
0
Posted on 9/16/14 at 7:32 pm to Patton
I ran into a weird problem. When I first started I found 21194 posts from you but your total by your name only says 18988. I ended up doing this three times and I still can't explain it. Anyhow, here are your graphs.
You're a real bastard for posting on so many boards.
You're a real bastard for posting on so many boards.
Posted on 9/16/14 at 7:59 pm to Vols&Shaft83
Tokyo was the original target. They were saved by a lingering cloud cover. Had "Little Boy" or "Fat Man" been dropped on that city, the death count would have far exceeded Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
While the explosions immediately killed tens of thousands, resulting fires were major contributors to the total casualties. In super-dense and gigantic Tokyo the number of casualties is inestimable.
Were we justified in ending the war this way? Absolutely. The Japanese had brutalized the entire Asian region and the U. S. was now in their crosshairs.
Because we were basically alone in the battle with Japan, one of the most powerful militaries to ever take to the air, sea and land, we would have lost several hundred thousand troops in an invasion of that country.
That is if we invaded quickly. If we had given the Japanese any time to regroup after our Pacific campaign, I don't think we would have beaten them.
While the explosions immediately killed tens of thousands, resulting fires were major contributors to the total casualties. In super-dense and gigantic Tokyo the number of casualties is inestimable.
Were we justified in ending the war this way? Absolutely. The Japanese had brutalized the entire Asian region and the U. S. was now in their crosshairs.
Because we were basically alone in the battle with Japan, one of the most powerful militaries to ever take to the air, sea and land, we would have lost several hundred thousand troops in an invasion of that country.
That is if we invaded quickly. If we had given the Japanese any time to regroup after our Pacific campaign, I don't think we would have beaten them.
Posted on 9/16/14 at 8:07 pm to Vols&Shaft83
On this one, I agree completely
Posted on 9/16/14 at 8:12 pm to Kentucker
I don't believe Tokyo was ever considered. We chose those targets strategically. Killing 75% of an entire country's population was not the goal. The two targets were medium sized cities... 50-80K people
Posted on 9/16/14 at 8:25 pm to plazadweller
You are correct. LINK
I confused Tokyo with Kokura.
Makes sense.
quote:
The U.S. decided to drop the bombs onto military industrial targets and centers that had significant military utility such as ports and airfields. Nagasaki was actually a secondary target, being a major port. Inclement weather kept the Bockscar from dropping the second atomic bomb on Kokura.
I confused Tokyo with Kokura.
quote:
The U.S. likely did not target Tokyo for the atomic bomb strikes as it was the seat of the Emperor and the location of much of the high ranking military officers. These are precisely the people you do not want to kill if you want to negotiate a surrender, as they are the people you would be negotiating with.
Makes sense.
quote:
From the notes of the first Target Committee meeting (spring 1945): Tokyo is a possibility but it is now practically all bombed and burned out and is practically rubble with only the palace grounds left standing. Consideration is only possible here.
Posted on 9/16/14 at 10:19 pm to Vols&Shaft83
Millions of lives? No. Thousands potentially, yes. Japan was losing the war badly by the time the bombs were dropped, and we could have finished them off by conventional means. This, however, would have cost us many more lives and the Pacific war would have gone on longer. It's important to know that Japan's air force had been decimated by late 1944, and we were moving north toward the islands.
Posted on 9/16/14 at 11:19 pm to KSGamecock
quote:
They were racist war crimes.
It's only a war crime if you lose the war.
Posted on 9/16/14 at 11:40 pm to Vols&Shaft83
It was terrible and I don't blame any Japanese who still harbor resentment over it, but I also totally understand the realities of the situation we were in and as stomach turning as it would have been for me to do it I would have made the same call if I were POTUS in that moment.
Posted on 9/16/14 at 11:44 pm to JasoNdaTiger
quote:
It's only a war crime if you lose the war.
If we had lost the war, you can be absolutely certain that they would be viewed as war crimes.
There were many more that were committed but were never looked at -- especially from the Russians. But hey, whatever helps people sleep at night.
Posted on 9/17/14 at 12:56 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
It's always about race with you people
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News