or is it just an excuse? could have starved them out
Last crew member of Enola Gay dies aged 93
- Thread starter Von Smallhausen
- Start date
or is it just an excuse? could have starved them out
Which could have easily killed more people than the method they chose to use?
A huge shock tends to have much more of an affect than a long drawn out siege.
Especially as Japan could likely have continued to produce enough food to make that siege a very very long one, in which typically the young, the infirm and elderly would have suffered the most from lack of proper nutrition (and would have affected the entire population probably for a generation*).
So it would come down to a long lingering death for mainly the very young and elderly across the entire country, or a generally quicker death for a larger mix of people via the atom bomb, but a smaller overall death toll.
*IIRC after WW2 one of the reasons the "young super hero" theme became so common in Japanese popular culture was because the quality and variety of food and thus nutrition improved, and those children born towards the end of the war, and after it were growing up considerably taller than their parents, where as if we'd tried starving them out the chances are not only would that generation have been more likely to die in childhood, but would have been less healthy generally.
I don't see why the general populace should loathe actions that took place nearly 70 years ago that did not personally affect them.
The US had a problem with the bombs.
They only had enough material to make three.
1 Uranium bomb, Two Plutonium ones.
They were confident that the uranium one would work (Though it still might have failed to detonate for any number of reasons)
They were not confident that the Plutonium one would work, hence the Trinity test. Even after that, they could not be certain that the second plutonium bomb would work.
It would have taken 6 months to make material for additional bombs!
So, You have three "Bullets" in your gun! any or all of which might turn out to be blanks!
So How do you use them to intimidate an enemy with maximum effect???
(Clearly any attempt at a "Demonstration" is completely out of the question! Nevertheless, people who haven't really thought about it still continue to suggest this as a suitable alternative strategy n these sorts of discussions)
They only had enough material to make three.
1 Uranium bomb, Two Plutonium ones.
They were confident that the uranium one would work (Though it still might have failed to detonate for any number of reasons)
They were not confident that the Plutonium one would work, hence the Trinity test. Even after that, they could not be certain that the second plutonium bomb would work.
It would have taken 6 months to make material for additional bombs!
So, You have three "Bullets" in your gun! any or all of which might turn out to be blanks!
So How do you use them to intimidate an enemy with maximum effect???
(Clearly any attempt at a "Demonstration" is completely out of the question! Nevertheless, people who haven't really thought about it still continue to suggest this as a suitable alternative strategy n these sorts of discussions)
If I went into work and was asked to nuke 140,000 innocent people I'd say no.
I don't really think "Just doing his job" comes into this one.
You can't go to war with the intent of saving the innocent population then go and drop two nukes on it. Just like Germany, most of the Japanese population likely had no idea what was going on.
I don't really think "Just doing his job" comes into this one.
You can't go to war with the intent of saving the innocent population then go and drop two nukes on it. Just like Germany, most of the Japanese population likely had no idea what was going on.
There is probably a separation here.
He probably regretted killing all the people, but didn't regret the act of dropping the bomb because A) he was ordered to and B) it can easily be argued that is helped end the war and saved more lives than it cost (you might not agree, but many people do).
As an analogy a train is running along a track filled with hundred of people but the track is damaged a head. There is a side branch the train can be diverted to but a car has broken down and the train would crash in to killing the 3 people in the car.
It is morally justifiable without regret to divert the train to save the most live. You might regret killing the people in the car but don't regret the act of diverting the train.
If he honestly believed that dropping the bomb saved lives (which is very easy to believe) then he may not have any regrets.
Also, do the RAF pilots regret fire bombing Dresden, including schools and hospitals? Or did they believe they were helping to change the course of history and win the war?
You are lucky enough to live in different times.
The Japanese committed plenty of their own war crimes, at even bigger scales.
If you went to work and was asked to kill 140000 to save 240000 would you not do it?
It was his job war is no picnic it involves killing people.
They didn't go to war to save an innocent population they went to war because Japan attacked Pearl Harbour and declared war on them.
Exactly, I can't imagine the Chinese left in Nanking shedding too many tears.
Yep still plenty of hate in China for the Japanese.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,355
pretty interesting, i do recall hearing about the Japanese still glorifying the kamikaze pilots of ww2, now as much as they deserve to be remembered glorifying mass suicide is hardly a golden moment in a nations history.
although did not America pour a lot of money into japan after ww2 in the same vein that they poured money into Germany to make it a rich country that wouldn't be interested in war again? in both cases it seems to have worked quite well given the world as it stands today.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,345
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
Do we live in different times. The Israelis think killing 20 civilains to attack 1 hostile is a valid attack. USA and UK supply arms to enable Israel to continue that strategy
The main thing about the nukes, was the target a major asset to the Japanese army, navy, airforce.
If it was totally civilian then it was cruel and pointless waste to kill. If it was an industrial area supplying and enabling the war to continue then I would argue it was nessecery action.
I believe it was done only after warnings but Japan of course did not believe or know the weapon they faced was undefeatable and unparalleled
Another recent death in my mind was the last Japanese soldier to surrender ww2 and he stopped fighting (and killing civilians) in the 1970's
A mainland invasion would have occured otherwise and dragged on for another year at least
A mainland invasion would have occured otherwise and dragged on for another year at least
It came full circle as Japan is a major prop to USA fiscal policy and owns trillions of their debt
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,355
you have a valid point there
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 810
- Location
- Carlow, Ireland
An impossible thing to carry on your conscience. All I could do is try and forget lest it overwhelm me. RIP anyway.
The Japanese savaged their way through up to 50 million Chinese lives over 9 years, plus over a million Vietnamese, so an average of over 15k per day...at the top end of Japanese dead in the two bombings humanity is in net profit if the war ended 17 days sooner...this is entirely putting to one side the human disaster that an invasion would have brought.
Cold hard fact beats bleeding heart emotion, God bless every single person involved in the attacks and the whole Manhattan project.
Cold hard fact beats bleeding heart emotion, God bless every single person involved in the attacks and the whole Manhattan project.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 1,233
- Location
- In front of my monitor
He was given an order and he carried it out. Its what he signed up for and swore to do. In this case the order was horrendous but as others have said if not him then someone else. I guarantee though that the memory of that day stayed with him (as It should have done!)
RIP old fella.
RIP old fella.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2002
- Posts
- 2,951
Two good posts which give a bit context as to why it actually happened instead of "omg murder of innocent civilians".