I was just going to post this.
Couldn't they of just dropped it close enough to the Japanese to make them realise how close they came to getting stuffed?
Little Boy dropped 64 years ago, today.
- Thread starter cheets64
- Start date
I was just going to post this.
Couldn't they of just dropped it close enough to the Japanese to make them realise how close they came to getting stuffed?
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 11,742
- Location
- Northern Ireland
Far worse things happened in WW2.
Dropping it on a city is mre likely to make the civilian population go against the war effort if they think they might end up in a fiery inferno the next day.
Besides they didn't have enough nuclear material to muck about and take chances, they had to go for the most bang for their buck as it were. Dumping it on a city achieves that.
Dropping it on a city is mre likely to make the civilian population go against the war effort if they think they might end up in a fiery inferno the next day.
Besides they didn't have enough nuclear material to muck about and take chances, they had to go for the most bang for their buck as it were. Dumping it on a city achieves that.
Last edited:
1) There were many military targets within Hiroshima, including factories making chemical and biological weapons.
2) Many people living there worked in the nearby factories supplying the war
3) In TOTAL WAR, there are no civilians. Everyone in the country was in someway working for the country and hence supporting the war. Be it just farmers or fishermen supplying food etc. The idea of civilians makes little sense in War on such a scale.
4) Reduce moral and war support within the general populace
5) Demonstrate that the Allies are willing to drop such weapons on cities in the future unless there is a full surrender (If they dropped it out at sea then the Japenese may have believed the US would not drop any possible future bombs on populated areas).
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 2,211
Yes it does. It's context is EXACTLY what makes it less horrible.
And yes, dropping it onto a military target wouldn't have shocked the Japanese into surrendering as much as dropping on civilians did. They may still have surrendered, but we needed to be sure they would with the least amount of bombs dropped.
If we'd have dropped it onto a military target and they didn't surrender, then we'd have ended up dropping another onto a civilian target anyway, I'm guessing.
Last edited:
Nope it is only bomb survivors at higher risk. Both Hiroshima and Nagaskai are pretty much at background radiation. Due to being air burst bombs and the radioactive material that did eventually fall was away from the citys. IIRC towards the northwest,
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 41,485
- Location
- Cornwall
Awesome weapon. Stopped the war in the pacific and saved millions of lives.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 8,706
- Location
- Nottingham
Whether the war would have run on and on and the Japanese not surrendered ... who can say now really; for instance for all the people saying that Japan would not have surrendered see here for a contrasting view. I'm not going to say whether this is correct or not, or whether I think that dropping the bombs was correct or not.
I will say that the Museum in the Memorial Park in Hiroshima is a very good place to go and is well worth a visit. It also seemed to try very hard not to be biased either way on the fault side of the events.
I will say that the Museum in the Memorial Park in Hiroshima is a very good place to go and is well worth a visit. It also seemed to try very hard not to be biased either way on the fault side of the events.
My grandad spent most of his wartime efforts in a japanese POW camp.
Whilst that in itself ruined his life in many ways, if the bomb had not been dropped I doubt I'd have been here today to type this.
Despite that side of my family historically being quite anti japan I like the place and was one of the nicest places I've been to.
Whilst that in itself ruined his life in many ways, if the bomb had not been dropped I doubt I'd have been here today to type this.
Despite that side of my family historically being quite anti japan I like the place and was one of the nicest places I've been to.
I cant dissagree with any of that, but evil is evil. And dropping a bomb that kills over 100,000 in any situation is just pure evil.
My response was for someone asking if it was a 'necessary evil'. I believe it wasnt.
It won the war, but the price was far too high.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 2,211
But lower than the alternative. Lesser of two evils.
Associate
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 12
- Location
- ingerlund
Going on memory the US armys Chief of Staff estimated a minimum of 100,000 casualties to take Japan. Japanese casualties both military and civilian were estimated into the millions.
Dropping the nukes were the only option.
Dropping the nukes were the only option.
The war with Germany was over before they were dropped.
The Japanese would have fought until there 1 was man left in their country because they are that sort of race. The war against them probably would have gone on for 10-15 years longer if they hadn't been nuked.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 2,211
Not really. 1 year more, maybe 2 at a stretch. We would have mounted a Operation Overlord style rush.
yes
people go on about the poor people who have had to live with radiation poisoning but they dont mention the lifes ruined by the japanese camps
my mates grandad spent his life after the war in and out of mental hospitals and then eventually killed himself. why ? because of the things he had seen and had had done to him in the camp
It really is horrible what happened in those camps, but Military != Civillian, no matter how much you try and tar them with the same brush.
I totaly support the use of the little boy bomb, it saved many more lives than it killed. I am agaisnt the decision to use the fat man bomb though. From what I remember about the 2 bombs being dropped, the only reason the Japanese didnt give up after the first bomb was that all lines of communication were destroyed, those in charge had no clue what happened at hiroshima at first other than all communication was lost. If they gave the Japanese more time to figure out what happened and make a decision, they would have most likely given up without the need of a 2nd bomb.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
thats right... it has pretty much deterred any nation from starting ww3 as of yet... not bad considering we had 2x world wars within 21 years of each other prior to the bomb being dropped...
the jpn are the enemy. in ANY world war you have to put the value of your own troops ahead of your enemy. if you dont then you cannot do your job properly.
what price can you put on winning a war?
what difference would it have made if they had just incendiary bombed the place.... Dresden style?
when you have superior firepower, you'd be a noob to push all your units forward piecemeal...you wouldnt you go for the big spectacular attack, wipeout as many as possible, take as few casualties as possible... like the army does in modern campaigns, Iraq, Afgan etc,