Think of all the pow's that were saved by ending the war as soon as possible.
Little Boy dropped 64 years ago, today.
- Thread starter cheets64
- Start date
Think of all the pow's that were saved by ending the war as soon as possible.
That still puts it into the "necessary evil" category though. And to be honest the fact that they had to drop both bombs would suggest that Japan wasn't really on the brink of surrender after all.
I'm pretty sure Japan was already defeated. They had talked with the Americans about surrendering, in fact, they were prepared to give a total surrender. Their only condition was that the Emperor of Japan be retained.
The Americans wanted to test an atomic bomb, simple as that. There was no need to drop one bomb let alone a second and then they come out with the greatest cover up "we did it to save thousands of allied lives" genius.
The Americans wanted to test an atomic bomb, simple as that. There was no need to drop one bomb let alone a second and then they come out with the greatest cover up "we did it to save thousands of allied lives" genius.
Totally unrealistic and un-obtainable vision.
rogue states are never going to get rid of them and the other rogue states are never going to stop trying to obtain them.
So at least for the foreseeable future it is simply not possible and hence we should keep a nuclear deterrent.
Might not of had anywhere to go, but they were still well defended and would have fought till he death.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,979
- Location
- Way up High.
was there anything of miltary value at Nagasaki or Hiroshima. Main HQ or anything.
Given that they had already tested the bomb and knew it to work, its interesting to know what test they wanted to carry out over Japan.
That blast and heat killed people and knocked over buildings ? Really ?
The Japanese certainly did not talk direct to the Americans, only to the Soviets with the probable intention of retaining the parts of China still under their control. Indeed they publically rejected the Potsdam Declaration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
You think that if these weapons weren't used the cold war wouldn't have been so... uneventful? It's a fairly logical conclusion that the cold war wouldn't have been so cold if these weapons weren't used in Japan, not bottom talking.
Actually, had the war ended without any nuclear bombs being dropped, the awesome power wouldn't have been seen, no one would have known the USA had them, in all likelyhood it was largely the very event of the bomb going off that led most of the other superpowers into their programs to create them in the first place. Frankly without that bomb going off, Russia wouldn't have been as powerful as they were during the cold war in terms of, they wouldn't have been so advanced in their nuclear weaps program and frankly the collapse was coming anyway there so realistically the cold war would most likely have never happened.
A chain of events, it was the bomb being used and announced publically that sped up the investment and manpower in the Russian program.
As for if it stopped the war, many many people including military leaders of the time think/know Japan were days/weeks from surrendering so it didn't stop anything.
It was a terrible act but if you have to look at things on a scale there were more people tortured to death in total in concentration camps. Most of those that died in the bomb didn't know what happened, most of those in concentration camps spent months dieing in pain before being burned alive but much more slowly. In terms of numbers, pain, torture, suffering, its no where near other things.
How about people swapping kids with their neighbours so if people come through their village they won't be forced to rape their own kids, but their neighbours. THen being cut up by machete's, the bomb despite the large number in one very short space of time doesn't rank close to the biggest attrocities on the planet.
As for the targets they go for, Total war, what BS. Its an excuse to make people feel better, everyone in the UK was supporting the war effort yet we are disgusted by the idea of enemys targetting civilian targets, think of terrorism which is mostly aimed at civilians and how we react to that. We should have really targetted anything but a large city, the scale of destruction was apparent, if it was down over farmland killing a handful the same message would be sent.
Modern wars and terrorism is not a full on war. Do people really throw there hands up in disgust about the nazis targeting citys. Massive strategic error in our favor. I wouldn't call it wrong though.
Just the same we we went for dams and carpet bombed areas./citys. In world wars. The country is not called a war machine for nothing.
Thought the exact same thing. Oops!
If it was as vital a place as mentioned then why wasn't it attacked already?
Does this mean that the nuclear strikes were well planned, rather than a last resort to save lives?
Does this mean that the nuclear strikes were well planned, rather than a last resort to save lives?
like all operation it was well planned. They killed two birds with one stone. There is no doubt they wanted to see real world results. But just because of that does not mean it wasn't a valid target or necessary.
It's probably already been mentioned but the Rape of Nanking by the Japanese in 1937 had a much higher casuality rate!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
So the first bomb lead to the end of the war and Japan surrenders and saved a lot of lives according to many in this thread.
Was the dropping of the second nuke justified?
Was the dropping of the second nuke justified?
Where does that number come from? The war in Europe had been won, and the Japanese were tentatively sueing for peace. Due to this the bombs were quickly stuck on a ship and sent over to an island in the Pacific for dropping on Japan.
The bombs were of two different types, two different competing designs, where it was decided to monitor the outcome of the two different designs (almost certainly to see which was better). Even after a lot of disagreement between the generals as to whether it was actually needed it was eventually decided to go ahead.
So those 200,000 Japanese can be happy in the knowledge that they were incinerated, not to put an early end to the war (although admittedly it did shorten the war, perhaps by a few weeks, and more to the point far more favourably for the Americans, as the Japanese couldn't really ask for any consessions after that), but as a science experiment, to see which bomb design was better...
As for those believing the Japanese attacked the Americans for no real reason in particular... As usual it all comes down to Americans fiddling, and oil...
they surrendered 6 days after Nagasaki according to wikipedia
Yes, if it even saved one American life it was worth it imo. War is hell.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 13,035
You cant justify an act of war with another act of war.
People die in wars for just and unjust reasons.
Civilian life is a harsh reality of any war....
And saying there have been no proper wars since ww2.... Thats rubbish, any military conflict can be as bad as any other. Tell the armed forces in iraq/afghanistan that they arent in a proper war anyway, how many people have to die for a war to become a real war
People die in wars for just and unjust reasons.
Civilian life is a harsh reality of any war....
And saying there have been no proper wars since ww2.... Thats rubbish, any military conflict can be as bad as any other. Tell the armed forces in iraq/afghanistan that they arent in a proper war anyway, how many people have to die for a war to become a real war