Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives?  
User currently offlineEZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4964 posts, RR: 25
Posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5010 times:

Hi everyone,
In another thread, the question came up: Did the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually save lives because it ended the war earlier? What do you think?

note: This is not inteneded as a pro or anti US thread, so please let's try to keep that out!

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/731955/


Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
185 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4983 times:

See the discussion in the other thread.

You could have kept it in that thread.

The answer is yes. It shortened the war by at least a year ,and made invasion of the Japanese home islands unnecessary. Yes, it saved far more than it cost.


User currently offlineStowAway From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 640 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4980 times:

You crack me up, Falcon. Yes, he is right, though.


A monkey's ass always talks crap.
User currently offlineLAS757300 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 261 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4974 times:

IMHO, yes. The world saw the horrors of the A-Bomb before they became large and more prevalent. Letting the nuclear cat out of the bag prevented many deaths as nuclear technology progressed.


KMSP
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4975 times:

And I'm with Falcon on this - as in the other thread . . .

User currently offlineEZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4964 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4974 times:

I started another thread because the other one was on Iran today, and this is about Japan 1945  Smile


Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
User currently offlineOYRJA From Denmark, joined Feb 2007, 78 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4973 times:

I got 1 very stupid question....

How many died in Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

And how many people would have died if they didn't dropped that bomb? AFAIK Japan gave up pretty soon after the bombs were dropped.


User currently offlineSpringbok747 From Australia, joined Nov 2004, 4387 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4960 times:

OYRJA,

See http://www.uic.com.au/nip29.htm

Did "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" save lives? Yes, they did. Many more (maybe even millions) would've been killed if the war had continued.



אני תומך בישראל
User currently offlineEZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4964 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4959 times:

Thanx for all the replies,

I can't say I stand corrected because I never denied or agreed that more people would have been killed, but I guess that the consensus is that lives were saved.



Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
User currently offlineZOTAN From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 609 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4954 times:

We were afraid over a US soldiers would die if we invaded Japan. The defended their islands in the pacific to the death and that wasnt even the homeland...

User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4943 times:

Wikipedia gives the total estimated death toll at about 250,000:

- Hiroshima, immediate deaths: 80,000
- Hiroshima, subsequent deaths: 60,000 (due to injuries, disease, and radiation)
- Nagasaki, immediate deaths: 39,000
- Nagasaki, subsequent deaths: 60,000 (exact figure unknown)

Note that the conventional firebombings of Tokyo killed considerably more people than the two atomic bombs put together but generally receive much less attention. Wikipedia mentions that "Monthly tonnage [of conventional ordnance] dropped on Japan had increased from 13,800 tons in March to 42,700 tons in July, and was planned to have continued to increase to around 115,000 tons per month." The two atomic bombs had a total yield of about 40,000 tons. A third atomic bomb was being loaded onto a Navy ship in San Francisco when the Japanese surrendered.


The plan to invade the Japanese home islands was called Operation Downfall. It consisted of an initial beach landing in Kyushu (the southernmost main island) designated Operation Olympic, and a subsequent invasion of Honshu near Tokyo, called Operation Coronet. Olympic was scheduled for November 1, 1945, with Coronet to follow a month later. If Olympic failed, Coronet would have been called off.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff estimated that Olympic alone would cost 456,000 men, including 109,000 killed. Including Coronet, it was estimated that America would experience 1.2 million casualties, with 267,000 deaths.

Staff working for Chester Nimitz, calculated that the first 30 days of Olympic alone would cost 49,000 men. MacArthur’s staff concluded that America would suffer 125,000 casualties after 120 days, a figure that was later reduced to 105,000 casualties after his staff subtracted the men who when wounded could return to battle.

General Marshall, in conference with President Truman, estimated 31,000 [dead] in 30 days after landing in Kyushu. Admiral Leahy estimated that the invasion would cost 268,000 casualties. Personnel at the Navy Department estimated that the total losses to America would be between 1.7 and 4 million with 400,000 to 800,000 deaths. The same department estimated that there would be up to 10 million Japanese casualties. The ‘Los Angeles Times’ estimated that America would suffer up to 1 million casualties.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/operation_downfall.htm

In hindsight, could the US have used the atomic bombs in a way that forced Japan's surrender without killing so many civilians? Maybe, maybe not; we can never know. What we do know is that President Truman and his commanders did not have the luxury of hindsight or time for philosophical introspection. They knew from bitter experience on Iwo Jima, Saipan, and elsewhere that Japanese soldiers and even civilians fought to the last man. They knew that hundreds of thousands of Americans and millions of Japanese would die in an invasion. There appeared to be no other way to end the war. In my opinion, they chose the least of the available evils.

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineJamesAg96 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2095 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4938 times:

Watched the History Channel the other day. Interesting story on how the Japanese had worked with the Germans on developing a Nuclear device. Their target date for attack was August 10th. If I remember correctly the German U-Boat that had the nuclear material ended up in New York.

Now I wished I had paid more attention to the program.

Anyone else see this?



Why Kate, You're not wearing a bustle. How lewd.
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4931 times:

Yes I did . . . interesting.

The U-Boat commander, upon receiving word that Germany had surrendered and in receipt of orders to return to Germany ignored the order.


User currently offlineOYRJA From Denmark, joined Feb 2007, 78 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4928 times:

Damn I would have loved to see that program!

Did the sub commander seek asylum in US or what?


User currently offlineSean1234 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 411 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4928 times:

Yes I too recall seeing that program. I believe it was a radiological device not the big blast type. I thought it was San Francisco, to be the destination?

User currently offlineJamesAg96 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2095 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4922 times:

Yeah...think San Fran was it. They sought asylum in New York and when the military found out what was on the sub they made the Germans remove it by hand.

Think it was to be a Dirty bomb type device.



Why Kate, You're not wearing a bustle. How lewd.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4891 times:

What was the name of the Programme on History Channel.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineIakobos From Belgium, joined Aug 2003, 3312 posts, RR: 35
Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4869 times:

Read this and make up your mind...
Source: US Strategic Bombing survey - Jul 1, 1946 - Washington DC - to the US Government

By the beginning of summer 1945, after a little over 1 year of strategic bombing, the situation in Japan was as follows:

average daily calories: 1,200 (3x less than in the US)
aluminum production had fallen by 91% (all vs summer 1944)
oil refining down by 83%
shipbuilding down 75%
electronics and comunications equipment down 75%
aircraft engines -75%
aircraft frames -60%
army ordnance -55%

There was a huge lack of raw materials such as bauxite (alu), ore (steel), rubber, oil, coal. The only sources of supply were Korea (bauxite-ore) and locally by coastal and inter-island shipping (coal).
There were no fertilizers. (Japan's population was half that of the US but the cultivated area was only 3% of that of the US !)
The economy had been destroyed twice, once by the continuous air attacks, once by the cut off of almost all imports.

A survey conducted by Rear Admiral Takagi betweeen Sep 43 and Feb 44 had concluded that defeat was inevitable. Accordingly, various tentatives of negotiations were instigated, among them via Moscow and Stockholm, during the second half of '44 and into '45. Japan was prepared for conditional surrender. The last tentative took place on 28 July '45, two days after the declaration of Potsdam.

The survey notes that the effect produced by the two atomic bombs could have been achieved in a conventional way
in Hiroshima: by 220 B-29
in Nagasaki: by 125 B-29

It also points out that the strategic bombing of 1 rail ferry (Hakkodate), 2 tunnels and 19 bridges would have completely paralyzed the country and its industry (no coal > no electricity and no railway).

It concludes as:
<>
The estimated period was November 1945.

In other words, the atomic bombs, in the sole context on the war against Japan, were not needed.
Mr Truman choose to use them, under the pretence that the US forces would have to invade, and their use thereby would save millions of lives.

The true reasons why the atomic bombs were launched have to be found somewhere else than in the war on Japan.





User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4863 times:

And how many people would have died if they didn't dropped that bomb?AFAIK Japan gave up pretty soon after the bombs were dropped.

But they only gave up BECAUSE the bombs were dropped. And the fact is that they damn near almost didn't give up even after those two atomic blasts. There was a large faction in the Imperial government that wanted to continue the war anyway. It took the Emporer to intervene personally to tell the government that the war would end. Had he stayed silent, as he did through much of the war it would have continued even after Nagasaki.

Knowing that, no one can tell me Japan would not have kept fighting if no A-bombs had been dropped. They would have, and they would have fought to the death.


User currently offline707CMF From France, joined Mar 2002, 4885 posts, RR: 29
Reply 19, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4860 times:

I think I read somewhere (couldn't give you the sources though, sorry) that Hiro Hito had decided to surrender as soon as the news was out for Hiroshima.

Yet, Nagasaki got bombed as well.

I will not make further comments.

Cheers,

èàè


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4850 times:

Actually, Hirohito didn't even make a comment until after Nagasaki, if memory serves. It was only his intervention after that second attacks that Japan ended the war. And again, there was a large faction that wanted to continue the fight. In fact a group of young officers tried to stage a coup against the Emporer and the government to continue fighting.

So, again, without those two attacks, the war would have gone on, for at least another year.


User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4844 times:

Based on my research, my personal opinion is that there was no need to drop those bombs. Except of course for the fact that the US had gone to all the trouble of making them and having no where to drop them was irritating as heck.

So they chose to ignore the information at hand and did their little science experiement. It was sad that they dropped the first one but completely attrocious they dropped a second.





User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4833 times:

Based on my research, my personal opinion is that there was no need to drop those bombs. Except of course for the fact that the US had gone to all the trouble of making them and having no where to drop them was irritating as heck.

A lot of people do believe that the INVASION wasn't necessary, no matter what, but I disagree that that bombs shouldn't have been dropped. I think the first one should have been, absolutely. Japan just wouldn't surrender, and this new, powerful weapon was being used to try and end the war. Some people debate the need for the Nagasaki bomb, but I'm convinced had the U.S. not dropped it, Japan would have continued the war.

My father was an American history teach for 30 years, and he studied WWII, and he really thinks the 2nd bomb was as much a warning to Josef Stalin as it was to get Japan out of the war. He's also of the belief that the U.S. didn't need to invade Japan, even if the bombs had not been dropped, since the nation was practically on it's knees by then anyway.


User currently offlineNUair From Malaysia, joined Jun 2000, 1181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4832 times:

Since when did the bombs have to do with defeating Japan?

I was always taught (mind you in a very liberal Madison, WI public school system http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Lesson_97_Notes.htm) that the bombs were dropped as more of a signal of the start of the cold war between the US and Russia. That it was more to show Russia what we had as far as military technology and that they shouldn't F*&# with us. As Iakobos pointed out Japan was already on the verge of defeat when they were dropped.



"How Many Assholes we got on this ship?" - Lord Helmet
User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4827 times:

Based on my research, my personal opinion is that there was no need to drop those bombs. Except of course for the fact that the US had gone to all the trouble of making them and having no where to drop them was irritating as heck.

So they chose to ignore the information at hand and did their little science experiement. It was sad that they dropped the first one but completely attrocious they dropped a second.


Now I have heard everything....  Insane


25 Post contains images Airplay : Now I have heard everything.... I "wrote" that stuff KROC. If you actually "heard" it you should seek help immediately. What other voices are in your
26 Post contains images KROC : After reading that...I am hearing allot of voices now...
27 Iakobos : It concludes as: The estimated period was November 1945. Sorry the arrows prevented the conclusion to appear. Here it is: Even without the atomic bomb
28 Ariis : Hi there, I don't entirely agree with your opinions but I understand them well. The reason of my disagreement (I mean, my answer to the main question
29 Cptkrell : Hmmm...maybe we should have dropped a zillion or so Sears and Roebuck catalogues and the Japanese would have wondered "what the f**k are we fighting f
30 Falcon84 : Since when did the bombs have to do with defeating Japan? You're kidding, right? Last time I looked, Japan surrendered right after the 2nd one was dro
31 Iakobos : You dislike reading Krell, or one eye suffices ? If the US Air Force (a liberal bunch ?) concludes (in '46) that H and N were not necessary and that t
32 SlamClick : What are you saying Iakobos? That the hardships being endured in Japan that winter by everyone but the Emperor and the high military staff would have
33 DesertJets : I am familiar with the report that Iakobos cites. And it is an interesting counterpoint to the argument that dropping the A-Bomb was the only way to e
34 Iakobos : SlamClick, I do not make history but it does not prevent me for informing myself about it. If your vision goes beyong the tip of your nose, you could
35 SlamClick : Well Iakobos that is the advantage of having a big nose. I can see pretty far. "Japan had tried several times and through several channels to enter ne
36 Falcon84 : But I question whether or not an invasion and occupation of Japan would have been neccessary. So do I. So do a lot of people, looking back in the pas
37 SlamClick : By the way, Iakobos Japan DID get a conditional surrender. The Emperor was allowed to stay in power. No war crimes trial for the "medica" research in
38 FDXMECH : Battle for Okinawa April thru july 1945 More people died during the Battle of Okinawa than all those killed during the atomic bombings of Hiroshima an
39 Cptkrell : "You dislike reading Krell, or one eye suffices ?" lakobos, in the land of the blind, one eye is KING. Regards...Jack
40 Falcon84 : Unfortunately, FDXMech, those who, almost 60 years after the fact, are trying to put a modern spin on the bombings, are doing an exercise in futility:
41 Peterpuck : Can anybody tell me why they had to drop these things on cities? Dropping them in the countryside would get the point across without killing hundreds
42 Iakobos : Well done boys, no one dares to address the US Air Force report ? (issued July 1946 and likely researched already in 1945) Unlike many I have no agend
43 Falcon84 : Can anybody tell me why they had to drop these things on cities? Dropping them in the countryside would get the point across without killing hundreds
44 FDXMECH : >>>Dropping them in the countryside would get the point across without killing hundreds of thousands of people.
45 SlamClick : Iakobos you did not answer these points: They did not need a peace conference. They did not need a signed document. They did not need to put on their
46 Dvk : Iakobos, Falcon is right and you are wrong. Truman didn't sit on the atomic capability that long before using it. The facts are that the bombs did pre
47 PeterPuck : Falcon, If killing 250 000 INNOCENT CIVILIANS to hurt your enemy is ok, I guess you are saying that 911 was justified too?! The US could have dropped
48 Iakobos : OK SlamClick, reaching boiling point already ? How would you call someone who gives up everything without trying to save whatever assets are left ? I
49 Post contains images StowAway : Falcon, nice to see, for a change, that you can be a redneck conservative. Nice to see that your argument went to shams, and you had to result to that
50 Daedaeg : If killing 250 000 INNOCENT CIVILIANS to hurt your enemy is ok, I guess you are saying that 911 was justified too?! World War II is not comparable to
51 SlamClick : Stupid Anti-American lie number 3482: "The US could have dropped the bomb in an empty part of Japan and they still would have surrendered." If you kne
52 SlamClick : Iakobos I am cool as a moose. You still did not give specific response to: "The Japanese military could have ordered a unilateral standdown and taken
53 ANCFlyer : Falcon, nice to see, for a change, that you can be a redneck conservative Damn, surprised I didn't see a mushroom cloud over CLE with that one!
54 MD11Engineer : I´ve read in autobiographies of several British soldiers in the Burma theatre, that they wre still having a hard time with the Japanese Army until we
55 N766UA : You know the fire raids on Tokyo, Yokohama, Osaka, etc. cost many, many more lives than the A-bombs did. Back to the original question, however.. ther
56 KROC : Can anybody tell me why they had to drop these things on cities? Dropping them in the countryside would get the point across without killing hundreds
57 SlamClick : There is another factor, what happened to Japan after the war. Yes, MacArthur was the real power for a short time. I believe that he is still well reg
58 MD11Engineer : Another thing is that by June 1945, the US had only enough fissible material for three nukes, one uranium bomb, of which they were fairly certain it w
59 JetService : Another thing is that by June 1945, the US had only enough fissible material for three nukes, one uranium bomb, of which they were fairly certain it w
60 Daedaeg : Considering the millions of Chinese, Koreans and other southeast Asian civilians the Japanese tortured and killed, they were very fortunate. The outco
61 Iakobos : SlamClick, Your timeline does not mention anything on the date of July 28, 1945. An omission or out or ink ? Did you find anything about the Japanese
62 JetService : What is it that annoys some here, frankly ? Jaded opinions predicated on a chronic distaste of the subject in question rather than the actual events.
63 SlamClick : Iakobos how about this? 28 July 1945 Colonel William Smith flies a B-25 bomber into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. and Japan rejects the
64 ANCFlyer : Iakobos can you provide a link for the Air Force report you're referencing. I'd like to have a go at it before I make any opinion. Without reading it,
65 MBMBOS : Not to mention Japan had their own secret program. Should the US had wasted their functional bombs on farmland only to have Japan call the bluff (cons
66 Iakobos : Jaded opinions predicated on a chronic distaste of the subject in question rather than the actual events. Sure you must have a Ph.D. in applied psycho
67 DL021 : Iakobos....I must disagree with your analysis of the situation and info here. While I am sure that there is some report somewhere that makes the case
68 ANCFlyer : Iakabos: I doubt such a survey, addressed to the US government, would have been made and signed by Colonels, In my experience the data presented by G
69 Ariis : Hi there, killing hundreds of thousands of people can hardly be called saving lives of hundreds of thousands (or more) of people. Using the nuclear bo
70 Post contains links Srbmod : Not to mention Japan had their own secret program. Should the US had wasted their functional bombs on farmland only to have Japan call the bluff (cons
71 SlamClick : Ya know Ariis I believe you are right. In fact I believe that had we not nuked at Hiroshima and Nagasaki all those people would have died anyway! Usin
72 Ariis : SlamClick > In fact I believe that had we not nuked at Hiroshima and Nagasaki all those people would have died anyway! Of course they would have died
73 SlamClick : Okay Ariis you caught me. No, I don't much agree with your premise that we cannot predict "what if" accurately. I think we can. Hell, I know we can. I
74 B757300 : Seems like I always miss these threads until they're already well developed. The main alternative to the atomic bombings was invasion; code named Oper
75 Pacificjourney : The real shame about using these weapons was that they effectively let Japan of the moral hook. The entrenched attitude here is that they are victims
76 ClassicLover : I've heard that too... Each country writes its history differently and the only people who know what really happened were those who were there. I've r
77 Falcon84 : Falcon, If killing 250 000 INNOCENT CIVILIANS to hurt your enemy is ok, I guess you are saying that 911 was justified too?! A few things, PeterPuck: 1
78 StarAC17 : American forces would have suffered have been published with preposterous low figures of 25,000 up to a ridiculously high number of 1,000,000. While t
79 Post contains images DeskPilot : Ariis said : "..It may only be me, but I have a feeling that all who agree with the topic question are Americans, and all who don't are non-Americans
80 EZEIZA : Wow, this is turning out to be a great debate, with very interesting point of views. Falcon: "Comparing 9/11 and the bombings of Hiroshima/Nagasaki is
81 ANCFlyer : EZEIZA - yes, excellent thread, Sir. To answer your question simply: Yes. Obvious follow up to that is why? Well, Hiroshima was Aug 6. The Japanese Su
82 SlamClick : You can only be "at war" if you are a nation. Individuals who think they are at war are criminals, no matter the cause.
83 Newark777 : In the mindset of the terrorists of 9/11, they are at war, thus this is not a time of peace for them (please don't think I am justifying 9/11). Fundam
84 Iakobos : ANC, This version erases the facts that Japan was seeking peace (by surrendering) for already 11 months, that all Supreme Council decisions had to be
85 ANCFlyer : Iakobos" I am doing some research to come up with something not would not be too long but contains a sufficient number of valid references for those w
86 SlamClick : It continues to amaze me how reluctant people are even to acknowledge the existence of "evil" in the human makeup. Even when confronted with evidence
87 TransportEng : A very late entry, but a thought or two: There is still research into the surrender of Japan. We don't know actually what happened. It was most likely
88 Iakobos : I assume I am one of "..how reluctant some.." I remind a second time Short reminder, I never argued the usefulness of H and N, to the contrary, I thin
89 Post contains images EZEIZA : "That is a horrible try at trying to link 9/11 and Hiroshima. It doesn't matter what their attitudes are or how they feel; the fact is that the US was
90 Post contains images Newark777 : I never tried to link 9/11 to the facts of 1945. I was just explaining that from the terrorist view, they were at war and that's why they attack their
91 Post contains images EZEIZA : Actually it was brought up in reply #47 regards
92 Ariis : Falcon84 Had the war dragged on into late 1946 an 1947, do you REALLY believe that less than 300,000 ON BOTH SIDES would have perished? No, I don't be
93 Falcon84 : No, I don't believe so. I just believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki people paid the highest price not only for others' lives being potentially saved, b
94 EZEIZA : Falcon, of course the US was trying to win a war but do you really believe that in addition to winning a war, the US was not proving a point by throwi
95 Ariis : Falcon84 you fail to mention Japan started that war; you fail (...) ... and so on. Yes, I fail to mention that, because why should I do that anyway? Y
96 Pelican : Again, your argument fails because you simply don't get it. You are talking about something-the Arms Race, that didn't happen till the mid 1950's. On
97 Post contains images Falcon84 : Falcon, of course the US was trying to win a war but do you really believe that in addition to winning a war, the US was not proving a point by throwi
98 ANCFlyer : Falcon: Very secondary in nature. The overwhelming point was to win the war. Absolutely. I'm not so sure at that point in time the US - President or a
99 DL021 : I have to say that the US and Britain knew well what threat would be presented by the Soviets. Any doubts were dispelled by the Yalta and Potsdam conf
100 Iakobos : ANC, Who do you think for the most part won the war in the European theatre ? You do not think the US, Britain and everyone else in the West was reall
101 JCS17 : Another thing that you have to look at when considering the ramifications of not dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is Japanese cultu
102 DL021 : Iakobos....The war was fought on two front in the ETO with the US, UK, and other allies in the west and the Russians on the eastern front by themselve
103 Pelican : I have to say that the US and Britain knew well what threat would be presented by the Soviets. Any doubts were dispelled by the Yalta and Potsdam conf
104 ANCFlyer : DL021: I have to say that the US and Britain knew well what threat would be presented by the Soviets I have to say that the US and Britain understood
105 Pelican : The use of the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was probably a great deterrent against the Russians proceeding any further in Europe without the US rea
106 DL021 : US military and intelligence officials knew of the threat presented by the Soviets, but were under orders to say nothing about it. General Patton was
107 ANCFlyer : Atomic weapons were theoretical to just about everyone, literally, at that point and the ethical/moral issues we now deal with were not their main con
108 Post contains images Falcon84 : Do you believe that the second bomb was necessary? Was Japan not ready to surrender after Hiroshima? There were signs that Japan MIGHT surrender, but
109 ANCFlyer : You cannot show mercy while the guns are firing when it will not be shown to you. You cannot show mercy until the last bullet of the last fight of the
110 Falcon84 : briefings I recieved as a young trooper in the mid 70s showed a pretty formidible force in the USSR. Didn't say they weren't formidable, I totally ag
111 ANCFlyer : Didn't say they weren't formidable, I totally agree. But we found out plenty when the overflights began, and the satilittes started to orbit: their IC
112 Ariis : Falcon84 Those who, earlier in this thread said the Emporer had no bearing on this, are dead wrong. He was not seen as man, but a Diety, a God, and ha
113 Pelican : That's just not true, Pelican. Than you don't know much about the Russian efforts and victories. I would never claim that Soviet Russia would have won
114 Iakobos : Ok, ok. Sorry for the drift to the ETO, my fault. Just a figure, the USSR reports the total number of casualties in the Red Army at 29.6 million soldi
115 Falcon84 : BUT, on the other hand, he was never in power to give any influence on the strategical and tactical decisions been made by the actual military command
116 Pelican : Without a western front, it could have dragged the war on into 1946. This time I've to agree with you. But in the end the war (in Europe) was decided
117 Airbus3801 : I don't see how anyone can justify killing all of those innocent Japenese who had done nothing against us! They are still deaths due to the fall out t
118 Iakobos : By comparing the forces in the E and W (ETO) you can get a picture of who was the heavy weight. No comparison. In a future thread, I will mention the
119 FDXmech : >>>Indeed, that's what I had in mind. To "share the burden" meant Stalin wanted relief.
120 Falcon84 : I don't see how anyone can justify killing all of those innocent Japenese who had done nothing against us! Airbus3801, your sentiment is commendable,
121 EZEIZA : "Civilians die in war. Unfortunately, it seems people like you, with the best of intentions, don't ever understand that point. And again, you're putti
122 ANCFlyer : EZEIZA I don't think that's the point Falcon is trying to make . . . I can't imagine anyone, especially Falcon, having the mentality of "well, he brok
123 Falcon84 : i can't agree with you saying over and over again that because Japan started the war they deserve the A bombs. The problem with you, is you're focusi
124 EZEIZA : Hi again ANC, I agree with what you say, and as I mentioned, falcon uses valid arguments that are his point of view and that are ultimatly creating a
125 Falcon84 : However, he has too often used the "Japan started the war" issue, and that's what bothers me because it's not the point. To the contrary, it is the ES
126 ANCFlyer : EZEIZA, I don't think his issue is necessarily that it's okay to use the atomic bomb - strictly focusing on the atomic bomb - solely because Japan sta
127 Post contains images Falcon84 : I won't speak for him, as I'm sure he'll pop back in here . . I already did.
128 PeterPuck : "Civilians die in war. Unfortunately, it seems people like you, with the best of intentions, don't ever understand that point. And again, you're putti
129 ANCFlyer : PeterPuck The next time a bomb explodes in a US city, and an Iraqi takes credit for it, you better not call him a terrorist Well, Puckster, that's exa
130 Falcon84 : PeterPuck, you're so clueless that it's not even worth arguing with someone like you. You don't understand war; you sure as hell don't understand what
131 EZEIZA : Falcon, please by no means was I intending to cause the US grief or put the blame on the US for this particular issue. If you read my posts, I began q
132 ANCFlyer : EZEIZA: What i was questioning was that because they started the war they deserved the A bomb. I just don't agree with that. I respect your opinion th
133 Falcon84 : please by no means was I intending to cause the US grief or put the blame on the US for this particular issue. Actually, you are. Unlike a few other s
134 EZEIZA : "you're putting some blame on the US for doing something that was in the best interest of the US and it's citizens, namely, ending the war, and seeing
135 PeterPuck : Falcon, You are the clueless one here. I was pointing out that by your logic any American civilian is a target for Iraqi insurgents right now. The US
136 Falcon84 : By the way what makes you an expert on something that happened before you were born? Reading about it; studying it; seeing film on it; educating mysel
137 PeterPuck : So you studied it all in American history books. You must have a totally unbiased outlook on things around the world then!? In my educated opinion, yo
138 ANCFlyer : Puckster, I looked through all the posts on this thread, and save one, your posts have offered absolutely nothing but drivel. Perhaps if you were to p
139 PeterPuck : Anc, In my first post I merely mentioned that perhaps when you develop an ultimate weapon, you could demonstrate that weapons power in a way that mini
140 ANCFlyer : PeterPuck Anc, In my first post I merely mentioned that perhaps when you develop an ultimate weapon, you could demonstrate that weapons power in a way
141 Iakobos : Falcon, Sorry for my burst re older than your father. I wish him the best I am indeed a little younger than he is, but not much... It would be interes
142 Falcon84 : So you studied it all in American history books. Did I say that? I said my father taught American History. He never taught in the schools I attended.
143 FDXmech : >>>Drop the bomb in a field and tell them the next one will be in Tokyo. They would have surrendered all the same. Falcons insults are constructive in
144 DL021 : Part of the thinking was that the mass firebombing was not fazing the Japanese. By dropping ONE bomb over a city, then doing it again, we demonstrated
145 ANCFlyer : Iakobos: What was not known were the effects and extend of destruction it could have in an urban environment. Of course it was not known, it had never
146 Iakobos : ANC, Wrong. A bomb had been tested in the open on July 2 in Los Alamos. Even well before that, at the initiative of Szilard, a first petition was tabl
147 FDXmech : >>>I can cite many cases where, regardless of testing, any new weapons actual extent of destruction and effectiveness will not, and cannot be known, b
148 ANCFlyer : Iakobos: A bomb had been tested in the open on July 2 in Los Alamos Not in combat my friend . . . read what I wrote . . . I can cite many cases where,
149 Falcon84 : I think the naivte of a few members on here, about the use of this new weapons in 1945, and how/when/why it was used, points up to a general lack of k
150 Post contains links Newark777 : FDXmech: In fact, certain potential "A" bomb candidate cities were prohibited from being targeted by conventional strategic bombing to see the results
151 ANCFlyer : Thanks Newark777 - very good article. It essentially repeats what everyone on this thread has been saying for a week. Both sides of the issue are pres
152 Post contains links B757300 : In fact, certain potential "A" bomb candidate cities were prohibited from being targeted by conventional strategic bombing to see the results of bombi
153 B757300 : I think the naivte of a few members on here, about the use of this new weapons in 1945, and how/when/why it was used, points up to a general lack of k
154 Cptkrell : Wow, thread still going strong. Some contributors seem to be responding in a realistic way, not pidgeon-holing the events, and indeed, the requirement
155 Iakobos : It is unfortunate when someone finds himself sufficiently "learned" and draws a line, isolating himself from further learning. Unless anyone here is t
156 Post contains links Falcon84 : It is unfortunate when someone finds himself sufficiently "learned" and draws a line, isolating himself from further learning. Isolating oneself? I've
157 Iakobos : Falcon, come on man. Mr Truman was a politician, just like G. Bush or any other politicians, American or any other nationality. Do you see what I mean
158 Falcon84 : Falcon, come on man. Mr Truman was a politician, just like G. Bush or any other politicians, American or any other nationality. Do you see what I mean
159 Iakobos : Falcon, civility is a virtue, if you can calm down, re-read some previous posts. Why you are this way ? what do you mean by that fellow member ? I wil
160 Tbar220 : Well after spending 45 minutes reading the entire thread (whew) I have come to one conclusion... I would have preferred that the nuclear bombs not bee
161 Iakobos : Congrats Tbar, yes it starts becoming heavy (the thread). I will start another one probably tomorrow, "H & N, why ?" I have spent quite some time in t
162 FDXMECH : Iakobos An extremely interesting and provocotive topic, indeed. Though to some extent Falcon is debating with those (not you) who don't espouse opposi
163 FDXMECH : >>>A conventional bombing would have taken longer, Japan might have surrendered later, but the damage would have been the same and we wouldn't have th
164 Tbar220 : True, but I still think that a conventional bombing would have caused Japan's eventual surrender. Maybe a month or two later, but we could have easily
165 ANCFlyer : I donn't know how much more of tis we can rehash over and over. Quite obviously there are opposing views on a lot of this. Quite obviously there are v
166 FDXMECH : >>>True, but I still think that a conventional bombing would have caused Japan's eventual surrender. Maybe a month or two later, but we could have eas
167 Tbar220 : But plastering Japans cities with incendiaries for another month or two would probably incinerate 100's of thousands more Japanese people if prior rai
168 ANCFlyer : TBar - I don't think the singular "goal" was Kill a lot of people now so that less will have to die in the future. I'm quite sure that was a secondary
169 DL021 : T-bar...I know that the thread is long, but if you go back you'll see that the desired effect of the weapon, specifically, was not just the destructio
170 FDXMECH : >>>Wasn't that the goal of the atomic bombs? Kill a lot of people now so that less people will have to die in the future.
171 Tbar220 : It is a very difficult subject to decide on. On one hand the bombs ended the war very quickly with minimal (relative) deaths compared to what would ha
172 Iakobos : What else is there to argue about? Ian, a lot, and this is precisely one of the points. It is wrong to assume that some want to rewrite history 60 yea
173 ANCFlyer : TBar: I want to believe that continued conventional bombing of Japan's cities and industrial centers would have achieved the same goal As was already
174 EZEIZA : Iakobos, I am looking forward for your thread tomorrow! This has become a great thread! I only started it because the debate began on another thread a
175 Falcon84 : I would have preferred that the nuclear bombs not been used, but rather a conventional bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki be carried out on the same sc
176 Post contains images Newark777 : Didn't some "blame American for Everything" PC nuts try to put, next to the Enola Gay, a revisionist explaination that blamed the U.S. for the outbrea
177 Tbar220 : Its almost as if the people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima paid an eternal price in history. Their deaths and suffering opened up the world to the horrors
178 Iakobos : Well Falcon, let us now see how objective you will be as to the reasons that led Harry to press the knob and making use of the shock-value.
179 Falcon84 : You can say whatever you want, Ikabos, it will NOT change my mind that he did it for the reasons he said he did. Your 2005 spin and prejudices will no
180 Iakobos : That's fine with me Flacon, your choice. I am so weak that I am willing to learn and thereby contemplate the possibility I may have to revise my opini
181 Tbar220 : Falcon, I have to agree with Iakobos, its not spin and prejudice. History is always subject to analysis and evaluation. New things are constantly bein
182 Post contains links Iakobos : For those interested http://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/738483/ It is long, sorry, but I could not contract it more without d
183 Falcon84 : I have to agree with Iakobos, its not spin and prejudice. History is always subject to analysis and evaluation. Evaulation, yes, but this goes beyond
184 Post contains links FDXMECH : >>>>To this day, it is very hard for a nation to assimilate and acknowledge collective wrongdoings. Germany did it, Japan did it, the Catholic Pope di
185 Iakobos : No Falcon, your (present) attitude is obscurantist. Yes, I record quotes from many politicians everyday and I do know that they are telling us what th
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Hiroshima And Radiation posted Sun Nov 5 2006 02:34:56 by Levg79
Hiroshima & Nagasaki.... Why? posted Thu Feb 10 2005 12:03:17 by Iakobos
The Day God Saved Mose And The Sons Of Israel... posted Mon Mar 1 2004 13:38:38 by Ts-ior
To Be A Intern On The Opie And Anthony Radio Show posted Sat Dec 2 2006 01:28:10 by AAFLT1871
Business As Usual - And We Lose posted Fri Dec 1 2006 04:26:46 by Halls120
Life, Liberty, And The Pursuit Of Federal Dollars posted Thu Nov 30 2006 18:00:11 by RJdxer
Step Away From That Cheeseburger And Buy An SUV! posted Thu Nov 30 2006 15:45:59 by Dougloid
Iraq And The Powell Doctrine posted Wed Nov 29 2006 03:37:20 by Bushpilot
Michigan Should Be #2 Regardless Of USC And Fla. posted Sun Nov 26 2006 02:03:02 by D L X
Obscure Cartoons: Magic Hat And Singing Mice posted Fri Nov 24 2006 21:18:00 by Duke