Lets drop the BOMB ! Or maybe not ?

[ledhed]

Here's the problem; Its up to you to decide if 100,000 of your countrymen live or die. This wont take into account wounded or just plain made crazy. You are the leader. And you can be very sure, that if you decide not to drop an atomic bomb on the country you are at war with , at least 100,000 of your friends nieghbors and countrymen, along with some dorks, nerds and others to be named later , that you do not care for, will certanly be dead as can be. you cant be 100% sure that only one bomb will do it, you may need more , but at the time you only have two, but no one else knows and you 'aint tellin. Now no one has ever dropped one before and you have no clue what will actually happen, because you only blew one up as a test , and although it made a REALLY big bang and impressed the crap outta everyone, you can't be shure of the affects of radiation and some of your scientist still think you may set the atmosphere on fire because of an uncontrollable chain reaction..but they are in the minority, and the last one didn't.
Its rough being the fearless leader but thats why we chose you ! And thats why we pay you the big bucks and send all the interns over. And don't forget the resturants...GREAT tables.
So what do you do ...??
A). BOMB THE BASTARDS INTO THE STONE AGE !
B).NO I CANT ITS IMMORAL ! LET THE 100,000 DIE ! ITS A SACRIFICE I"M PREPARED TO MAKE ! ( hey it ain't me I'M to valuable ..and besides ..this is all hypothetical right ? no one needs to REALLY die ).
So in all seriousness what do you do ??

 

[SS69]

what the hell does any of that mean? by the way you dont spell sure with an "h"

 

[ledhed]

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[Party for GT4]

This is due to the thread America: Are we to arrogant, where some people made the shocking, incredible and frankly preposterous suggestion that the atom bombs dropped on Japan were rather unneccessary and were wrong.
Of course, they were talking out their ass, weren't they?
BTW ledhed, you missed out how many innocent people the bomb would kill. Add that in and I might be prepared to say what I would do.

 

[Party for GT4]

This is due to the thread "America: Are we too arrogant", where some people made the shocking, incredible and frankly preposterous suggestion that the atom bombs dropped on Japan were rather unneccessary and were morally wrong.
Of course, they were talking out their ass, weren't they?
BTW ledhed, you missed out how many innocent people the bomb would kill. Add that in and I might be prepared to say what I would do.

 

[ledhed]

Like the people that origionally dropped it you just don't know . It could be 30 to 80,000 Enemy civilians along with military. Thats another problem because if you put it in the context of WW2 , sad to say civillian deaths didn't seem to mean more than just a faster way to end the conflict. They where the enemy along with there leaders. WW2 was TOTAL war with not much distinction between enemy civilians and soldiers on any side when it came to bombing.

 

[wellyrn]

We get the atomic bomb and i can watch DVDs in my car? Thanks technology!

 

[Solid Fro]

BTW ledhed, you missed out how many innocent people the bomb would kill.

And how many innocent people did the Japanese kill when they attacked Pearl Harbor?

According to Party for GT4, the Japanese killing of innocent people was just, but America's isn't. The Nazi's Blitzkrieg, killing of thousands of innocent British civilians, was just too. But, America's isn't.

I love your logic.

The two nuclear bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki single handily brought the Pacific Theater of WWII to an end, when Imperial Japan surrendered to the US. The US was ready for an all out invasion of mainland Japan, due to it's successful Island Hopping campaign. If it wasn't for those two bombs, the US would had invaded, and more lives would had been lost on both sides.

 

[Party for GT4]

You fool!
I have never made ANY comment about Pearl Harbor. Of course it was wrong. Of course it was a sick, mindless act of unnacceptable violence. And I feel that the Nazi's Blitzkrieg was appalling too. As was Britain decimation of Dresden, killing thousands of innocent Germans as well as Nazi soldiers. I will criticise any country, whoever it is, if they massacre innocent civilians.
But that wasn't included in this thread until you mentioned it.

I don't see why you constantly accuse me of having Anti-American views. My views are ANTI-WAR. I hate war of any sort. I hate murder and violence. That's why I don't agree with the atom bomb. That's why I don't agree with any bomb.

 

[Solid Fro]

Nope, you never said anything about Pearl Harbor. I used it as a comparison. The Japanese attacked us, we attack them back. You complained about the US using nuclear weapons and condemn it, but you never said the reason why the US used them.

The two bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented more murder and violence. That alone would justify using it.

 

[Arwin]

Like the people that origionally dropped it you just don't know . It could be 30 to 80,000 Enemy civilians along with military. Thats another problem because if you put it in the context of WW2 , sad to say civillian deaths didn't seem to mean more than just a faster way to end the conflict. They where the enemy along with there leaders. WW2 was TOTAL war with not much distinction between enemy civilians and soldiers on any side when it came to bombing.

Estimates are generally between 100.000-300.000 dead - that's about as exact as they can be. What you shouldn't however forget is that radiation stays around rather long, and pollutes an area with cancer inducing radition for a longer time. This article seems to give a fairly neutral overview of the issues playing a part: http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/7906/790607.pdf

However, in the context of WWII it's definitely a difficult issue. The U.S. wanted to prevent the ground war in Japan as well as show the world it's Atomic Bomb was ready and working. Germany did the exact same thing to short-cut their campaign against Holland - we had a very good ground defense, with strategic deployment of flooding certain areas that could have slowed down the German campaign considerably, but we had very little air-defense, and the Germans just flew over our ground defense, bombed Rotterdam killing roughly 40.000 in one raid, and we surrendered after I think a full 7 days of War.

Also, not nearly as much was known about the long term effects of this bomb - although then again the terrible effect of radiation was. The real question is if the conditions of the conditional surrender Japan had offered were worth the lives of so many innocents, how close Japan was to surrendering unconditionally and if that for instance could have been achieved with the threat of the ground war, without actually having to fight it. Also, could the bomb have been used in this process by perhaps destroying a smaller, less civilian target and then used as a threat to kill more.

Decisions aren't always true or false, right or wrong, unfortunately - there are many shades inbetween.

 

[87chevy]

Nice post Arwin. If you look at this issue as best you can like you lived in that time, it's not black or white. Innocents died on all sides. I will say this, i believe the second bomb was dropped for one reason: Pearl Harbor. I think after the first bomb Japan could have been convinced that it was in their best interest to surrender through other means.

 

[Famine]

And how many innocent people did the Japanese kill when they attacked Pearl Harbor?

I've no idea.

Thing is, Japan opened hostilities by attacking a military target, with some civilian casualties. The USA closed them by attacking civilian targets with some military casualties. Which action was more justified? Don't ask me.


Now, don't rewrite or interpret my - or anyone else's - words to make it look as if we're America-haters. It's very clear to me and anyone else reading that Party for GT4 didn't say "the Japanese killing of innocent people was just, but America's isn't. The Nazi's Blitzkrieg, killing of thousands of innocent British civilians, was just too. But, America's isn't.", but you decided that he did. Then said "I love your logic :roll:" when in fact you were just making stuff up. It's exceedingly annoying and most unconstructive - and at worst libellous. You cannot go around making up what people have said when they haven't.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

BTW ledhed, you missed out how many innocent people the bomb would kill. Add that in and I might be prepared to say what I would do.

He also left out the notion that if the bomb didnt fall, the 100,000 of your neighbors who would eventually die would most certainly kill over 1,000,000 of the enemy in ground combat. So, technically we're doing the enemy a favor (if you chose to drop the bomb) by wiping out a few tens of thousands in seconds rather than millions over time.

 

[ledhed]

what I was trying to do was put you in the position of making the decision to drop the bomb or not. Also try to remember what the people of the US where feeling at the time ,after the attack on pearl harbor the Bataan death march, the killing of captired air men by public beheadings, the suicide bombers and air craft, the complete fanatism of the Japenese soldier. you can only assume how long they would have held out. You can however make an educated guess as to how many casualties on both sides that the invasion of Japan would have entailed.
also remember that although the Japenese had more reason and by western standards a valid reason to declare war, the declaration came AFTER the attack. And also remember that by commiting your country to war against others you take the chance you may lose and have to pay an unknown and possibly horrific price , especially if in the conduct of the war you deliberatly butcher both prisoners and civilians as the Japanese did. I'm sure the people of Manila did not shed many tears over the bombings, those that where left anyway.
nor did the pitifull few American prisoners that survived the horror that was captivity under the Japanese.

 

[87chevy]

^ good post, with good points. I think too many people keep looking at this issue with hind-sight. You can, but it doesn't work. Sometimes you have to look at the times something took place. If you would just read ledhed's original post for what it was, then respond to it as he asked, there wouldn't be all this confusion and arguing.

 

[keeno_uk]

The two bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented more murder and violence. That alone would justify using it.

So your telling me that these 2 bombs that killed millions of people and radiated the surrounding areas which basically screwed up the evironment for thousands of years and not to mention the constant suffering for the surrounding people who were mutated and diformed from the radiation who suffered throughout the remainders of there lives was better then an invasion of land, were If anything the most casulties would be military and few civilian.

IMO dropping an atomic bomb is the worst thing u can ever do in any situation. I would willingly let a hundred thousand people die if it saves one hundred million lives.

 

[Danoff]

The two bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented more murder and violence. That alone would justify using it.

I don't think the ends justifies the means. We were justified in using it by the way the war started.

 

[ledhed]

Keeno your whole post is ignorant and ill informed. The bombs at the very worst Killed 200,000 to 250,000 people . Both bombs in both citys. and if you have not noticed both citys have been occupied so the thousand years must have gone very fast. So you say you would let a hundred thousand people die to save a million . Thats the same decision the US government made when they droped the two bombs to end the war.
Just out of curiosity where did you learn history ?

 

[ledhed]

The monday morning quarter backs can debate endlessly about the need to drop the bomb . By western standards Japan was devastated they had no oil hardly enough food to subsist and starvation was a problem no natural resources , no more navy . hardly a city had not been bombed and tokyo was a burned crispy hulk of wasteland . The US could have stayed off shore and lobbed shells and continued to bomb the rubble till WHEN ?
Japan WAS NOT A DEFEATED NATION . They knew the war was lost when the first b 29 s appeared over their Island and their navy was destroyed in the Phillipines . It took hitler till the Russians were at his friggin cellar door entrabce to kill himself and for Germany to admit defeat . BUT ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU EXPECT A NATION WILLING TO TURN PLANES INTO SUICIDE BOMBERS TO SURRENDER ? Are you friggin NUTS ? They refused to surrender unconditionaly they were given chances but THOSE IN POWER the people who could end the war WOULD NOT YEILD .
The people of Japan were prepared to litter the island with their bodies . Anyone who has studied the war in the Pacific should know this . You cannot take a small slice of history ...a small period ...and base your opinion on it you must look at the whole picture .
The US had already fought for years at great sacrifice and was looking at a casualty toll of anything from 500,000 to more than a million DEAD . To take Japan in an invasion . Do you think that after ever inch of Japan sufferred the same type and worse fighting as Iwo and Okinowa that the people of Japan and the people of the US would have come to the same type of understanding as they did after the A bomb ? If you do you are a delusional fool and are only looking to shape your opinion based on a preconcieved notion of what you think should have happened . And what about the Russians ? What would it have cost to get them out of Japan ? and what about the soldiers and the sailors in the feild that had fought for years and wanted to go home . They had to stay in for the most part till the war was over or until they died or were so screwed up they had to be sent home . And how about the cost to keep an army as large as the US feilded active and in preperation for an invasion and a blockade if Japan wouldnt surrender after what how many months or years of blockade and bombardment ? How many Japenese would have died during that time ?
Do you guys think about anything or just read crap and say " this looks good I'll go with this one " ? The US had invested trillions in a weapon to end a horrible war what would the people of the US had done to the fool who did not use it to end the war and stop the slaughter of American Marines sailors soldiers and airmen ? Do you really think Truman or any other american president was not answerable to the people ? The bombs risked only the crews of two friggin planes to end the war . Not hundreds of thousands of US service men . IT was well worth the cost and the results . It saved millions of lives of both Japenes and American and British and even friggin Russians . It saved a situation like Korea and Berlin from Japan . It saved Japan to become the nation it is today because of the insight of Gen McArthur and his treatment of a former enemy . None if it would have happened after a bloodbath of an invasion and bloody conquring . Or a protracted and horrible seige and bombardment .

These are the same idiots that insisted that air forces alone could win wars . And Leahy is just saying we could have won without the bomb ...hell WE WERE winning any fool knows that...except the Japenese did not share his opinion . And guess what........ they count . Almost defeated...it would have only took a few hundred more thousand casualties to be totaly defeated ..in case you have not looked this fact up thats how you win if the other side wont surrender . Alot of these articles have the benifit of what we found out to be true after the war about both the bombs and the conditions in Japan . They are not based on what we knew or understood at the time and even those that claim to be still suffer from the authors bias from what was discovered after the fact .

Quote:
And here is a very concise article about why the bombing was not (strategically) necessary:http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm
Quote:
And so from November 1944 onward, Japan was the subject of numerous large-scale B-29 non-nuclear bombing raids (Robert Butow, Japan's Decision To Surrender, pg. 41). When Air Force chief General Hap Arnold asked in June 1945 when the war was going to end, the commander of the B-29 raids, General Curtis LeMay, told him September or October 1945, because by then they would have run out of industrial targets to bomb (Sherry, pg. 300 & 410(143n)).

While Japan was being bombarded from the sky, a Naval blockade was strangling Japan's ability to import oil and other vital materials and its ability to produce war materials (Barton Bernstein, ed., The Atomic Bomb, pg. 54). Admiral William Leahy, the Chief of Staff to President Roosevelt and then to President Truman, wrote, "By the beginning of September [1944], Japan was almost completely defeated through a practically complete sea and air blockade." (William Leahy, I Was There,


Let me know what you find in your " very consise article " that answers the questions I pose above . When you make a decision that " its wrong to drop Atomic bombs " and then go in search of reasons to justify your opinion you get articles like that . Its called bias . I prefer objectivity . I prefer to see both sides ....hell all twenty one sides of the argument .

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA...Strategy-M.html
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA...pageNum-29.html
http://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/42...csi9810001.html
http://www.mikekemble.com/ww2/downfall.html
http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/invade.htm
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/giangrec.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/nuclear_02.shtml
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/dr06.htm
http://www.mbe.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm
http://www.instadv.ucsb.edu/pa/display.aspx?pkey=1297
http://members.aol.com/dalecoz/WW2_1297.htm
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistl...large/index.php
http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academ...webquests/wwii/
http://www.dannen.com/decision/
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/hamby.htm
http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomic.htm

read it..... all sides of the argument are in there . I have about 33 more but these should do . I have read them all .


Transferred from the london bombing thread . This subject comes up at the oddest times .

 

[Solid Fro]

Transferred from the london bombing thread . This subject comes up at the oddest times .

People like to spin away from a discussion they cannot win.

 

[vladimir]

i am sorry but the first post is already pretty weak...

one the one hand you constantly claim the 100.000 fellow countrymen that will surely be saved, at least 100.000. 100.000 here, 100.000 there, 100.000².
on the other hand you have the most powerful bomb ever, but surely you don't really know whats going to happen. it might blow up some sheds, a little bang, some might be injured.

thats already utterly biased and not worth a second glance.

as for the rest of the discussion, doug-long.com is an excellent website. if one of you guys has done more research and read more books on this issue than this guy, i am going to give you a chance, but until then there is only opinions and propaganda and that is worthless.

was the invasion even needed? japan was already as good as defeated and conventional bombs brought everything down. instead of an invasion they could have just cut it off.
killing a lot of civilians was the only thing the bomb was actually good for. it was in fact terrorism, since the aim was to spread fear and establish the US as a superpower and to send a message to the sowjet union.

besides, from a moral standpoint the one who drops this bomb on civilians looses the war.
and again you are very biased. on the one hand you have the evil hitler, who killed civilians and started to drop bombs on civilians, but on the other hand this bomb was dropped on civilians in order to save people! how wicked is that?
if i said hitler dropped bombs on civilians in order to save his soldiers, you would probably declare me as crazy...

just because someone starts an attack, everything is suddenly justified?
saying the bomb was justified because the japanese attacked pearl habour is like saying its justified to chop your head of because you punched me in my stomach.

 

[ledhed]

thats already utterly biased and not worth a second glance.

explain that .

as for the rest of the discussion, doug-long.com is an excellent website. if one of you guys has done more research and read more books on this issue than this guy, i am going to give you a chance, but until then there is only opinions and propaganda and that is worthless

How does the amount of books read become a qualification ? Why do you assume I have not researched it ? Did you read anything in the links I provided ?
I did read them . I have also read every book in english that I could find on the subject . I have read books by German , English, American and Japanese authors of differing views. I have read the Biographys of all the major players in the decision . I have read all the books I could find on the bomb itself and what went into developing it . I have also studied Japanese military history . I have studied Japanese culture .I do not consider myself an expert ...far from an expert..I am still learning but I am well informed on the subject . But of course you are sure of the subject .

was the invasion even needed? japan was already as good as defeated and conventional bombs brought everything down. instead of an invasion they could have just cut it off.

This statement proves you are not very well informed at all .

besides, from a moral standpoint the one who drops this bomb on civilians looses the war.

Why ? Why is it less moral than burning them to death with incindiarys or starving them by blockade or blowing them up with high explosives ? Or a combination of all of the above .

just because someone starts an attack, everything is suddenly justified?

Why did a rule book suddenly appear on what you are allowed to do to win ?
Why do you have to justify it beyond how it will effect YOUR country . You are in a war to win and by fighting it you are protecting yourself ...especially if you were attacked first and forced to declare war . Do you get extra points for letting more of your people die just to be nice ? What war was ever won by your standards ?

Your bias is showing . Come back when you decide to be rational
ra·tion·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rsh-nl)
adj.
Having or exercising the ability to reason.
Of sound mind; sane.
Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. See Synonyms at logical

 

[Solid Fro]

The atomic bomb was justified to stop the war. Period.

In some eyes, America can never win.

 

[unsanctified]

In some eyes, America can never win.

This is true with Iraq. Stupid war, stupid president. American blood for oil. Bush should resign and let someone else takeover. We'll never win, to many people are against us. Sure, we can bomb anyone on this planet to death but we won't. We'll never be liked or respected like we used to be. If we pull out, we'll have much hate lifted and lives saved.

Sorry, not trying to start an Iraq topic here.

 

[Solid Fro]

I suggest staying out of the Opinion forum, Concept, if you don't have any facts to back that statement up.

I was referring to how people have a bias towards America and think any action taken by America is automatically wrong.

 

[ledhed]

"American blood for oil."

When ever I see this I know I am not dealing with an unbiased rational person without an axe to grind . This one statement says it all when it comes to the uniformed sound bite spouter.

If we pull out, we'll have much hate lifted and lives saved.

And you know this because ? And what happens to all the people who are there now depending on us ? And what will it say to the rest of the world about us ?

We'll never win, to many people are against us.

who are all these scary people who may prevent us from winning and how exactly will they be able to do it ?

Its nice to have an opinion but its nicer to be able to back it up with something .

 

[unsanctified]

I'll stay in the opinions forum. I know my views are different from others, but I feel the war is pointless. I support our country and it's soldiers, just not our leader. Sorry if I come off as being ignorant.

 

[Solid Fro]

You can have any view you want, Concept but, you need to base them on fact. What if I called Jordan stupid? I have no facts at all, but in my opinion, he is still stupid. I can't do that, it's totally ridiculous, but then why do people do this to America? If you think war is pointless, fine, let's debate it. But, don't go around saying Bush is stupid and "American blood for oil" with no factual evidence.

 

[Touring Mars]

The atomic bomb was justified to stop the war. Period..

The fact that the war ended after the use of nuclear weapons is the only justification for using them... but the world was a very different place in 1945.... the US were the only nuclear power, and they were able to end the war by using those weapons. In the context of WWII, I think that the use of the atomic bomb was justified, but it cannot be so today...

The threat from nuclear terrorism is very real, but the solution to it lies not in invading countries and making them considerably more vunerable to terrorism (and hence become breeding grounds for terrorism, like Iraq is becoming), but in international diplomacy and intellegence gathering, something that the US has demonstrated (in recent years) that it is sadly lacking in proficiency on both fronts...

I reckon my opinion is probably half way between two extremes here: somewhere between Viper Zero and rk most likely.... the threat is real, and something has to be done, proactively and not passively, to ensure that terrorists do not gain the capability to use nuclear weapons. But that proactive stance needs to be directed intellegently, and not militaristically... The Iraq conflict is becoming a very good (or should I say very bad) example of why this is the case.

In the event of a nuclear attack by terrorists on US soil (which US security experts quoted by Robert McNamara on BBC TV last night state is very high within the next decade), who do the US 'bomb the hell out of' after it happens? Bombing endless miles of barren mountains in Afghanistan did a fat load of good. Bombing the hell out of Iraq has done equally as much good for US and global security... the answer lies in the fact that the US would not really be able to do anything after the fact... the loss of a city the size of Washington, or even New York would be a catastrophic blow to America as a nation... the place would never be the same again. Therefore, it is crucially important that the US and her allies seek to address the threat of nuclear terrorism in the best possible way... sabre-rattling and unilateralism and the Bush doctrine is the way wars get started. Intellegent diplomacy and international cooperation is the way wars are averted.