Atomic Bomb Debate (wwII)

[Keith7]

We are having a debate in my Modern Japanese history class over if the Americans were justified for dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I was wondering what some of you guys opinions are on it..

my teacher actually put a pretty cool spin on it, the class before the debate he took down everyone's opinion on it, and then when he made teams for the debate he made them switch sides.. (so if you were for the bomb before the debate, you had to argue against it during the debate and vise versa).. it really helped you see both sides..

this is a counterfactual arguement and there is no right or wrong answer

[Black_Magic]

The dropping of the atomic bomb should have took place BUT in a demonstration over tokio harbor. We should and could have demostrated the bomb in that way and could have told them of the demonstration so they would have surendered. If after the Demostration they do not surrender, then bomb Tokio instead of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Killing the women and children may have been avoided if they could have seen what was about to be dropped on them.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
The dropping of the atomic bomb should have took place BUT in a demonstration over tokio harbor. We should and could have demostrated the bomb in that way and could have told them of the demonstration so they would have surendered. If after the Demostration they do not surrender, then bomb Tokio instead of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Killing the women and children may have been avoided if they could have seen what was about to be dropped on them.

A demonstration IMO would have done nothing..heck it took TWO atomic bombs before they finally surrendered. So one in a harbor IMO would have done nothing.

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
A demonstration IMO would have done nothing..heck it took TWO atomic bombs before they finally surrendered. So one in a harbor IMO would have done nothing.

well we knew that the japanese had been sending telegraphs to the russians trying to get their help in negotiating a surrender with the U.S.

If the U.S. weren't so stubborn about getting a conditional surrender (which they ended up agreeing to after the bombs were dropped) then the Japanese would have given up awhile before the bombs were dropped

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
A demonstration IMO would have done nothing..heck it took TWO atomic bombs before they finally surrendered. So one in a harbor IMO would have done nothing.

Agreed.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
A demonstration IMO would have done nothing..heck it took TWO atomic bombs before they finally surrendered. So one in a harbor IMO would have done nothing. The Japanese didnt know what really hit them untill after the second bombing three days later. If you tell them about the weapon and show what it does like we could have done in order to save lives civilian children and women. it may have worked... we will never know because it was NOT done. If the demo does not work then your concience is clear and you did what you could to let them know what they were in for. it should have been tried first. we could have always dropped the bombs as we did AFTER a Demo if they were not smart enough to see what they were in for.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
The Japanese didnt know what really hit them untill after the second bombing three days later. If you tell them about the weapon and show what it does like we could have done in order to save lives civilian children and women. it may have worked... we will never know because it was NOT done. If the demo does not work then your concience is clear and you did what you could to let them know what they were in for. it should have been tried first. we could have always dropped the bombs as we did AFTER a Demo if they were not smart enough to see what they were in for.

Just wondering..but how does dropping a bomb in the ocean show its true might?

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
The Japanese didnt know what really hit them untill after the second bombing three days later. If you tell them about the weapon and show what it does like we could have done in order to save lives civilian children and women. it may have worked... we will never know because it was NOT done. If the demo does not work then your concience is clear and you did what you could to let them know what they were in for. it should have been tried first. we could have always dropped the bombs as we did AFTER a Demo if they were not smart enough to see what they were in for.

I am sorry, but more often than not your thoughts make me want to bang my head against a brick wall.

[smustangs]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
I am sorry, but more often than not your thoughts make me want to bang my head against a brick wall.

haha :clap:

[Gobbla2001]

wouldn't dropping the bomb in the harbor cause a tidal wave?

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
wouldn't dropping the bomb in the harbor cause a tidal wave?

Oh....Gobbla...only you. :D

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
The Japanese didnt know what really hit them untill after the second bombing three days later. If you tell them about the weapon and show what it does like we could have done in order to save lives civilian children and women. it may have worked... we will never know because it was NOT done. If the demo does not work then your concience is clear and you did what you could to let them know what they were in for. it should have been tried first. we could have always dropped the bombs as we did AFTER a Demo if they were not smart enough to see what they were in for.
We had already warned the Japanese about the bomb before all this happened. They knew what was coming, but like Keith said, we wanted an unconditional surrender so that we could strip most of the power from the emperor, turn Japan into a democracy, and strip them of all their military power.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
I am sorry, but more often than not your thoughts make me want to bang my head against a brick wall. To those who dont like to think of ramifications of thier actions . Some like to think of the posibilities before we act .. Like having insurance without the government MAKING us have it.... Some realize we dont alway make the right choise.. But you tell us Buffy.. what could be hurt by demonstration of the A bomb?? you dont think you could alway go ahead and drop them as planed after the Demo with the same effect as we got without the Demo??:rolleyes:

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
We had already warned the Japanese about the bomb before all this happened. They knew what was coming, but like Keith said, we wanted an unconditional surrender so that we could strip most of the power from the emperor, turn Japan into a democracy, and strip them of all their military power.

plus tidal waves aren't good for people either...

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
To those who dont like to think of ramifications of thier actions . Some like to think of the posibilities before we act .. Like having insurance without the government MAKING us have it.... Some realize we dont alway make the right choise.. But you tell us Buffy.. what could be hurt by demonstration of the A bomb?? you dont think you could alway go ahead and drop them as planed after the Demo with the same effect as we got without the Demo??:rolleyes:

well this wasn't exactly a message board discussion... it's not like "hey, let's poll America on what to do about this here bomb"... it was more along the lines of "we need to get out of here"...

communication wasn't then as it is today...

something happened... basically it showed that back then the US had balls...

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
We had already warned the Japanese about the bomb before all this happened. Sure we warned them by paper leaflets....:rolleyes: Who would believe a piece of paper describing a weapon so powerfull most people would have thought to be science fiction or just a trick to get them to surrender? would we just laydown our arms and surrender because the enemy" CLAIMS" to have a weapon to destroy and entire city with ONE bomb??? dont think so . why should we have expected them to believe it if we would not?

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Sure we warned them by paper leaflets....:rolleyes: Who would believe a piece of paper describing a weapon so powerfull most people would have thought to be science fiction or just a trick to get them to surrender? would we just laydown our arms and surrender because the enemy" CLAIMS" to have a weapon to destroy and entire city with ONE bomb??? dont think so . why should we have expected them to believe it if we would not?

it was the 40's... leaflets falling from the air was high-tech...

it's their lives... if they didn't want to believe it, that was their decision...

[piratebg]

I think the bombing was justified. Japan was half way across the wolrd and the Pacific fleet had already sustained heavy damage. If we had tried to take Japan on the ground, who knows how long it would have taken or if we would have even taken it. I work with a half Japanese/half Amercian and I just asked for his opinion. His only complaint is one of the bombs should have been dropped on Tokyo.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Sure we warned them by paper leaflets....:rolleyes: Who would believe a piece of paper describing a weapon so powerfull most people would have thought to be science fiction or just a trick to get them to surrender? would we just laydown our arms and surrender because the enemy" CLAIMS" to have a weapon to destroy and entire city with ONE bomb??? dont think so . why should we have expected them to believe it if we would not?
The Japanese government knew what we were talking about. Hell, the Germans were the first ones to get on the stick trying to develop the bomb, and they were the Japs' allies.

Hirohito and the gang knew exactly what we had built, and they're the only ones who could pull the plug on the war, not the citizens. That was our propoganda to get the citizens to doubt their government.

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by Keith7
there is no right or wrong answer

:thumbsup: Good Luck!! :)

[Reds fan]

Did the Japanese warn the U.S. before bombing Pearl Harbor?

[piratebg]

Originally posted by Reds fan
Did the Japanese warn the U.S. before bombing Pearl Harbor?


It was a surprise attack.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by piratebg
It was a surprise attack.

Exactly!

[Keith7]

the bomb was dropped just days after the leaflets were dropped, yes the millitary leaders knew the kind of destruction the bomb could possably do, but the japanese civilians did not, and were not ready to make their own assumptions that the U.S. was not bluffing and just up leave their homes and jobs over something that could or could not happen.. (Many japanese believe the U.S. was threatning this bomb mearly just to get Japan to surrender)

On top of that there were better targets the U.S. could have dropped the bombs.. They focused the bombs on the center of the cities where civianlians lived, while the military bases were actually on the outskirts of town..

Alot of people use Pearl Harbor as a reason to justify the bombs, but in pearl harbor only 68 civilians were killed, as opposed to 214,000 that were killed in the atomic bombs..

[Gobbla2001]

either way it was very tragic...

[JasperDog94]

Question: How many bombs did the US have at the time? I always thought that we only had 2 bombs. Feel free to correct me on this if that's not correct.

[piratebg]

I think the US took it light on Japan by not taking out it's capitol city. The fact that it took two bombs to get our point across is beyond me, but pride can be an ugly thing. My coworker said that some Japanese history books state that the war between the US and Japan was started by the US and that Pearl Harbor is not mentioned or is not considered the start of the war.

[pero chato]

The demonstration scenario has been around since before the bomb was dropped and was actually considered. One major problem with it was, what if the demo failed or only partially was successful? Many of the tests failed to detonate.
As horrible as it was, it actually saved both American and Japanese lives by putting an earlier end to the war. You have to remember that the Japanese believed the emperor to be a god. They were not going to surrender unless he did.

I lived in Japan for three years on a military base and all sides of this debate were presented. There's no real "right" answer after viewing the terrible devastation to lives and property from the bomb.
Bottom line, the Americans were weary of fighting a war on two fronts and after Iwo Jima and other battles, it was evident the Japanese were not into surrendering.

[piratebg]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Question: How many bombs did the US have at the time? I always thought that we only had 2 bombs. Feel free to correct me on this if that's not correct.


I heard that we only had enough time to build the two, but we had Japan thinking we were sitting on an arsenal.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by Keith7


Alot of people use Pearl Harbor as a reason to justify the bombs, but in pearl harbor only 68 civilians were killed, as opposed to 214,000 that were killed in the atomic bombs.. [/B]

I wasn't using Pearl as justification, just to point out that informing the enemy of your plans is not advantageous.

The decision to drop the bombs was not done without considerable thought at the time, it was deemed the most appropriate action, hindsight is irrelevant.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Reds fan
I wasn't using Pearl as justification, just to point out that informing the enemy of your plans is not advantageous.

The decision to drop the bombs was not done without considerable thought at the time, it was deemed the most appropriate action, hindsight is irrelevant. Hindsight is never irrelevant. It is what tells us that we did something good or bad. it helps us to keep us from repeating the same mistakes.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by piratebg
I heard that we only had enough time to build the two, but we had Japan thinking we were sitting on an arsenal. Okay, so if we used a "demonstration" and were only left with 1 bomb that would have been a risky move. The US wasn't going to risk it.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Hindsight is never irrelevant. It is what tells us that we did something good or bad. it helps us to keep us from repeating the same mistakes. Looking back is one thing. Monday morning quarterbacking is another. I'm not saying you're doing either. I'm just making an observation.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Okay, so if we used a "demonstration" and were only left with 1 bomb that would have been a risky move. The US wasn't going to risk it. I can say the same thing. the Japs didnt know we had only 2 bombs. WHy do you think they surrendered???? Because they thought we had more. Im telling you. They would have surrendered after a demonstration in Tokio harbor so the big dogs could see with thier own eyes what they were in for. If that didnt do it , then dropping it on a city would do it after the demo. Remember . they surrendered because they believed we had more and more were going to be dropped. see what im saying?

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
I can say the same thing. the Japs didnt know we had only 2 bombs. WHy do you think they surrendered???? Because they thought we had more. Im telling you. They would have surrendered after a demonstration in Tokio harbor so the big dogs could see with thier own eyes what they were in for. If that didnt do it , then dropping it on a city would do it after the demo. Remember . they surrendered because they believed we had more and more were going to be dropped. see what im saying? Yes. BUT, you can't say that you know they would have surrendered. Nobody knows for sure. Would they have? Maybe...probably...I don't know. All I am saying is that the US wasn't going to risk wasting one in a demonstration.

[pero chato]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
I can say the same thing. the Japs didnt know we had only 2 bombs. WHy do you think they surrendered???? Because they thought we had more. Im telling you. They would have surrendered after a demonstration in Tokio harbor so the big dogs could see with thier own eyes what they were in for. If that didnt do it , then dropping it on a city would do it after the demo. Remember . they surrendered because they believed we had more and more were going to be dropped. see what im saying?

Read my earlier post about a demonstration. It was considered but there is the risk of the demo not detonating. The Americans were in no mood to extend any courtesies to the enemy especially after the atrocities the Japanese inflicted on American POWs.
They surrendered after the emperor saw his people and cities vanish and they realized he wasn't a god after all.

[Rabbit'93]

I love it.

There is not right or wrong answer but it sure is fun watching people try to tell you so.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Rabbit'93
I love it.

There is not right or wrong answer but it sure is fun watching people try to tell you so. True.

What do you think 93?

[mustang04]

well...they bombed pearl harbor whenever we were trying to stay out of the war....the Japanese had what i like to call "Little Man Syndrome" and just like all the little wirey guys that try to take on the bigger opponent...they got what they deserved

[mustang04]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
I can say the same thing. the Japs didnt know we had only 2 bombs. WHy do you think they surrendered???? Because they thought we had more. Im telling you. They would have surrendered after a demonstration in Tokio harbor so the big dogs could see with thier own eyes what they were in for. If that didnt do it , then dropping it on a city would do it after the demo. Remember . they surrendered because they believed we had more and more were going to be dropped. see what im saying?

Good idea Blackie...lets just drop an atomic bomb right in their harbor, and them all die slowly of radiation poisoning from eating contaminated seafood...WAYYY MORE HUMANE:rolleyes: honestly i thinkg being at ground zero of a nuclear blast is the best way to go....you don't even have time to process what is going on pretty much

[Black_Magic]

Here are the pros and cons....

Why the bomb was needed or justified:
The Japanese had demonstrated near-fanatical resistance, fighting to almost the last man on Pacific islands, committing mass suicide on Saipan and unleashing kamikaze attacks at Okinawa. Fire bombing had killed 100,000 in Tokyo with no discernible political effect. Only the atomic bomb could jolt Japan's leadership to surrender.

With only two bombs ready (and a third on the way by late August 1945) it was too risky to "waste" one in a demonstration over an unpopulated area.

An invasion of Japan would have caused casualties on both sides that could easily have exceeded the toll at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The two targeted cities would have been firebombed anyway.

Immediate use of the bomb convinced the world of its horror and prevented future use when nuclear stockpiles were far larger.

The bomb's use impressed the Soviet Union and halted the war quickly enough that the USSR did not demand joint occupation of Japan.




Why the bomb was not needed, or unjustified:
Japan was ready to call it quits anyway. More than 60 of its cities had been destroyed by conventional bombing, the home islands were being blockaded by the American Navy, and the Soviet Union entered the war by attacking Japanese troops in Manchuria.

American refusal to modify its "unconditional surrender" demand to allow the Japanese to keep their emperor needlessly prolonged Japan's resistance.

A demonstration explosion over Tokyo harbor would have convinced Japan's leaders to quit without killing many people.

Even if Hiroshima was necessary, the U.S. did not give enough time for word to filter out of its devastation before bombing Nagasaki.

The bomb was used partly to justify the $2 billion spent on its development.

The two cities were of limited military value. Civilians outnumbered troops in Hiroshima five or six to one.

Japanese lives were sacrificed simply for power politics between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

Conventional firebombing would have caused as much significant damage without making the U.S. the first nation to use nuclear weapons.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Conventional firebombing would have caused as much significant damage without making the U.S. the first nation to use nuclear weapons. Why is this a con?

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Why is this a con? The Fire bombing of Tokyo Killed over 100,000 in one night. The Bomb on Hiroshima killed 75,000....

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
The Fire bombing of Tokyo Killed over 100,000 in one night. The Bomb on Hiroshima killed 75,000.... I guess I still don't get the point.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
I guess I still don't get the point. We did more damage with conventional bombing... Why be the first to us the A Bomb???? to justify the $2 billion spent developing it I guess..

[sahen]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
The Fire bombing of Tokyo Killed over 100,000 in one night. The Bomb on Hiroshima killed 75,000....
so we were being nice and just nuked them....

[sahen]

Originally posted by Keith7

If the U.S. weren't so stubborn about getting a conditional surrender (which they ended up agreeing to after the bombs were dropped) then the Japanese would have given up awhile before the bombs were dropped

just a question...after WWI didnt we let the German's just surrender, not a conditional one, or atleast not a strict conditional one...maybe we thought we should try to stay out of a WWIII 10 years later?

[sahen]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
[B]
Why the bomb was not needed, or unjustified:
Japan was ready to call it quits anyway. More than 60 of its cities had been destroyed by conventional bombing, the home islands were being blockaded by the American Navy, and the Soviet Union entered the war by attacking Japanese troops in Manchuria.

comment: they may have been ready but they sure as heck wasnt slackin off any in their fighting of us...they were kamikazing every chance they got....


American refusal to modify its "unconditional surrender" demand to allow the Japanese to keep their emperor needlessly prolonged Japan's resistance.


comment:my last post is my comment on this


A demonstration explosion over Tokyo harbor would have convinced Japan's leaders to quit without killing many people.

comment:do we really know this, i think this is just speculation? they could have used it for fuel...ur gonna die anyway, might as well kill the arrogant americans trying to show us up....


Even if Hiroshima was necessary, the U.S. did not give enough time for word to filter out of its devastation before bombing Nagasaki.

comment:in war isnt surprise a main component, i would think if we said hey we got this kick arse bomb and are gonna blow you up w/ it then the japanese would have been putting every aircraft possible in the air to blow up bombers and been even more wary about the bombs than before...not to mention if they think the war can end at any moment they might put every last military resource they have left to try to get us to surrender before we use it...


The bomb was used partly to justify the $2 billion spent on its development.

comment: probably so but if we just blow one up in the harbor for a demonstration and they dont surrender then thats quite a waste, not to mention the nuclear fallout and such that would effect tokyo...then we have to spend more money to use 3 bombs instead of 1 maybe, who knows....


The two cities were of limited military value. Civilians outnumbered troops in Hiroshima five or six to one.

comment:werent they cities we were going to have to take on our way to tokyo anyway if we invaded, maybe we were just clearing the road so to speak?....also if your trying to get a nation to surrender in a war the best way is to attack its civilians, and make the government hurt for losing it's civilians...its unpopular and should be used as a last resort, but we can argue here this was our last resort if we didnt want to lose 100,000 more of our own....


Japanese lives were sacrificed simply for power politics between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

comment: probably so, but is this so bad? the japanese were gonna keep killing out soliders and so we got 2 birds with one stone in a manner...we scared the crap outa the soviet union and we finished off the japanese without losing more men...


Conventional firebombing would have caused as much significant damage without making the U.S. the first nation to use nuclear weapons.

comment: but then the soviets wouldnt konw the power of the bomb, they were going to develop it and may have used us as the first nation to get nuked...plus we had already firebombed the everliving crap outa most of japan and they were still fighting...

not saying your points are all wrong or anything and u do bring a decent argument....but jsut as easily as you can argue not to use it the argument to use it exists....i think its hard for us to judge what should have been done...the culture now is much different than the WWII culture in the mid 40s...

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
We did more damage with conventional bombing... Why be the first to us the A Bomb???? to justify the $2 billion spent developing it I guess.. It's not about the money. It's about the destructive force in one blow. We used the most destructive force known to man and we bluffed them into thinking we had more on the way. That's what made them surrender.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
The Japanese government knew what we were talking about. Hell, the Germans were the first ones to get on the stick trying to develop the bomb, and they were the Japs' allies.

Hirohito and the gang knew exactly what we had built, and they're the only ones who could pull the plug on the war, not the citizens. That was our propoganda to get the citizens to doubt their government.

This is the thing that is most accurate about the arguement. But part of the problem is realizing that the Military was running the show and not the government. Most americans seem to think that Japan is just like any other country but most forget that the Samurai culture ran the country. The Samurai themselves ran the country in the early 19th century and had for 400 years. The government still operated on the same principles with the Military becoming the defacto Samurai. The worst thing to happen is to be defeated and captured alive. They would have fought to the last man woman and child and no demonstration would have stopped that. Only the brutal truth. They never believed we had the spiritual strength to defeat them much as the Jihadists feel today.

[Txbroadcaster]

While I enjoy this type of debate and always I have, I feel that there is NO true correct answer. Every scenario is based on conjecture and no true facts.

Yes Japan had sent out feelers to the Soviet Union about surrender, BUT we dont know if that was genuine, or just trying to stall the US from invading Japan.

We TRULY dont know if the United States Government believed this was the best way to end the war or just a chance to show the world(USSR mainly) that we had a bigger boomstick.

I do think one thing..Without the A-Bomb being dropped we might have seen WORSE events later. Countries like India and Pakistan who HATE each other and are bordermates who have been at war off and on BOTH have a nuclear arsenal. Yet they have never used it..I THINK one reason is the devestation shown in the "little" Abomb compared to the Nuclear missles that are in play now.

The Abomb was not a pretty thing, but WWII in total was full of alot of not so pretty things. The A-Bomb got the results it needed

It stopped a nation whose main belief was it was better to die for their country than give up AND it showed the world the power of a weapon that honestly might have done more for peace then any type of diplomacy.

[carter08]

I do not agree with the use of nuclear weapons

BUT

if they the united states has to be all macho and stuff, have the decency to bomb the military bases, not the civilians

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by carter08
I do not agree with the use of nuclear weapons

BUT

if they the united states has to be all macho and stuff, have the decency to bomb the military bases, not the civilians

WWII was in a different era..Back then they fought wars to be won, not to be the "good guy" and only try to hit military bases and such. It suxs, and sounds terrible, but we faced enemies that did the same thing and we were not worried about the PR or how the press would react. They were in it to WIN the war, and like it or not, sometimes things have to be done that might not be popular, but gets the job done.

[sahen]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
The Japanese government knew what we were talking about. Hell, the Germans were the first ones to get on the stick trying to develop the bomb, and they were the Japs' allies.


to be fair, the Germans were the first to hypothesize an atomic bomb...Heisenberg thought it up but thought it would be impossibe with Uraninum and such and attempted to make the bomb with Heavy Water, one of the few mistakes of Heisenberg's illustrious career (for scientist out there this is the same guy that gave us the Heisenberg Uncertainity principle and such)....when the Germans initial attempts to make the bomb failed they deemed it pretty much impossible by arrogance (they were the center of science and technology at the time) and gave up....techniquelly it is possible that the Germans could have told the Japanese that we were bluffing, but i never have heard that so i doubt they did....i actually heard the Germans that we didnt capture and used to make the bomb were pretty shocked when we dropped it and it worked....

[bandera7]

Lots of good points here...and like it was said there really is no right answer. But my personal opinion on the matter...
It would have been a huge waste of money to do a demo. The amount of money wasted to blow up their harbor and then not have them surrender anyway would have been ridiculous.
Like it was said before, we might have stopped the use of nuclear weapons in the future. People saw how terrible they are in our Japanese explosions.
Also, should we do the demo...the japanes culture was, as was said, a better to die with honor than live with a brain culture. So, by showing them, they might have went out and done a couple more pearl harbors, except on OUR civilians. And as an American, almost anything is better than losing American lives. Now I am not condoning killing others, but I am promoting American lives being the most important to our government.

[sinton66]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
The Japanese didnt know what really hit them untill after the second bombing three days later. If you tell them about the weapon and show what it does like we could have done in order to save lives civilian children and women. it may have worked... we will never know because it was NOT done. If the demo does not work then your concience is clear and you did what you could to let them know what they were in for. it should have been tried first. we could have always dropped the bombs as we did AFTER a Demo if they were not smart enough to see what they were in for.

Are you aware that at the time those were the ONLY two atomic bombs we had? They were dropped where they were dropped FOR maximum effect because there weren't any more readily available. In war, you do what you do FOR maximum effect to save AMERICAN lives, not those of your sworn enemy.

[Matthew328]

I dont get involved in too many debates but being the history buff I am I love this stuff...

I am not one to think we should ever rush into war...but once you are in a war you fight the war to win....war is ugly and horrible and awful but if you are gonna be in a war it needs to be a war fought to win, its not something you can do 50% you are either in or out....that being said the US did what ever they could do in their power to win the war and at the time thats what they did...it was horrible but IMO was the right decision

[yourboss319]

alright alright this was taught to me by my teacher and how i also feel... i highly doubt its 100% correct tho cause i fall asleep up in that class sometimes.. well.. america was gonna send a crap ass load of marines to storm the beaches and such.. an estimated almost 1 million were to die.. think about it.. better them than us.. would you die to save your enemy?

[GUNHO]

I don't think a demo would have had any effect for one simple reason.The real deal didn't have any effect.It took two.

I don't like having to kill women and children but I belive this saved millions on both sides.If we would have had to invade there is another possibilty that could have arised.SOME OF US MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN BORN.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Matthew328
..but once you are in a war you fight the war to win....war is ugly and horrible and awful but if you are gonna be in a war it needs to be a war fought to win... What a concept! Fight a war to win. War is hell, but we seem to have forgotten that.:( :(

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by sinton66
Are you aware that at the time those were the ONLY two atomic bombs we had? They were dropped where they were dropped FOR maximum effect because there weren't any more readily available. In war, you do what you do FOR maximum effect to save AMERICAN lives, not those of your sworn enemy. Yes I am aware that they were the only two bombs we had at that time. we had others being delivered shortly. BUT.. The japs didnt know we didnt have more bombs after those two either. we dropped the second so soon after the first that they still didnt know what hit them the first time. we didnt let them have time to figure it all out before we hit them at Nagasaki. IF we had Demostrated the device prior to dropping it on a city, they would know what they were going to get. If they surendered after two cities they would have after one demo and one city too. Would have had an excelent chance of cashing it in after the demo. either way we only had two and they didnt know that. If they surendered after the second they would have surrendered after a demo and a city....

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
If they surendered after two cities they would have after one demo and one city too. This is pure speculation. You don't know this for a fact. Nobody knows what would have happened. And to suggest that you know for sure is disingenuous.

[piratebg]

I can't believe you guys are still going on about this. The point is whether or not is was right or not, it worked. We won the war. They surrendered. My grandpa got to come home and make my family.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by piratebg
My grandpa got to come home and make my family. lol...same here. :D

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
This is pure speculation. You don't know this for a fact. Nobody knows what would have happened. And to suggest that you know for sure is disingenuous. Why would they not?? why would they surrender after two cities destroyed??? because they belived that more were to come. JUST LIKE THEY WOULD IF YOU DETONATED ONE IN TOKIO HARBOR TO SHOW THEM AND THEN BLEW UP A CITY. It is simple. they just had to be conviced of TWO things...... (1) The Bombs were REAL.. (2) And they could be dropped on thier heads... Both could have been proven with a Demo.. and BTW.. the Demo would have worked.. how do I know that? the Bomb on Hiroshima worked didnt it??:thinking:

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Yes I am aware that they were the only two bombs we had at that time. we had others being delivered shortly. BUT.. The japs didnt know we didnt have more bombs after those two either. we dropped the second so soon after the first that they still didnt know what hit them the first time. we didnt let them have time to figure it all out before we hit them at Nagasaki. IF we had Demostrated the device prior to dropping it on a city, they would know what they were going to get. If they surendered after two cities they would have after one demo and one city too. Would have had an excelent chance of cashing it in after the demo. either way we only had two and they didnt know that. If they surendered after the second they would have surrendered after a demo and a city....

I am still having a hard time understanding how dropping a bomb in a remote area would have any effect on people. If they don't see the devastation, do you really think they would just throw their hands in the air and surrender....because we dropped a demo bomb???

I am sorry but that is wishful thinking if you believe that. If they dropped a bomb on us in the middle of the desert and threatened to drop more, do you really think we would surrender? No. We would turn around and fight because it was more of a warning than a show and tell.

The Japanese were ruthless in their fighting methods and we had to put a stop to it. We did what we had to in order to get the job done.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Why would they not?? why would they surrender after two cities destroyed??? because they belived that more were to come. JUST LIKE THEY WOULD IF YOU DETONATED ONE IN TOKIO HARBOR TO SHOW THEM AND THEN BLEW UP A CITY. It is simple. they just had to be conviced of TWO things...... (1) The Bombs were REAL.. (2) And they could be dropped on thier heads... Both could have been proven with a Demo.. and BTW.. the Demo would have worked.. how do I know that? the Bomb on Hiroshima worked didnt it??:thinking:

I still dont see how dropping a bomb in the ocean gives the same impact as dropping one on a city.

[piratebg]

I think the US did right in demonstrating the stength the bombs by dropping them where the did. In that respects, the demonstration was a huge success.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
I am still having a hard time understanding how dropping a bomb in a remote area would have any effect on people.

Tokio Harbor is hardly remote. Look at it this way. If an atom bomb was detonated out in the water way a couple of miles from the statue of liberty, I belive the people of New York City would get the picture. After the demo clearly within thier sight and view, let them know we will now start dropping them on cities one per day untill surrender... You cant see how that would convice them??
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/ug/eardley/atom_bomb_2.jpg :eek:

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Tokio Harbor is hardly remote. Look at it this way. If an atom bomb was detonated out in the water way a couple of miles from the statue of liberty, I belive the people of New York City would get the picture. After the demo clearly within thier sight and view, let them know we will now start dropping them on cities one per day untill surrender... You cant see how that would convice them??
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/ug/eardley/atom_bomb_2.jpg :eek:

I am sorry but I just dont believe in anyway dropping bombs in a harbor would make them run in fear..this was a country that had people KILLING THEMSELVES because they were told by their government that the US tropps would rape the women and children. They did not do that out of fear, but because they did not want to disgrace their Emperor by being "used" by Americans.

There was also a STRONG contingent of people that STILL wanted to fight AFTER the two bombs were dropped. It was not like the whole country just dropped to their knees and say we give up.

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Tokio Harbor is hardly remote. Look at it this way. If an atom bomb was detonated out in the water way a couple of miles from the statue of liberty, I belive the people of New York City would get the picture. After the demo clearly within thier sight and view, let them know we will now start dropping them on cities one per day untill surrender... You cant see how that would convice them??
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/ug/eardley/atom_bomb_2.jpg :eek:

My point is, if no one is injured or killed, do you think they would fully understand the devastation?

Seeing is one thing....experiencing is another.

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
I am sorry but I just dont believe in anyway dropping bombs in a harbor would make them run in fear..this was a country that had people KILLING THEMSELVES because they were told by their government that the US tropps would rape the women and children. They did not do that out of fear, but because they did not want to disgrace their Emperor by being "used" by Americans.

There was also a STRONG contingent of people that STILL wanted to fight AFTER the two bombs were dropped. It was not like the whole country just dropped to their knees and say we give up.

EXACTLY, he just said it all! They were sacrificing their people, they were lying to their people!

They were the type of people that would drop a bomb on their own land and blame it on the U.S.!

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
I am sorry but I just dont believe in anyway dropping bombs in a harbor would make them run in fear..this was a country that had people KILLING THEMSELVES because they were told by their government that the US tropps would rape the women and children. They did not do that out of fear, but because they did not want to disgrace their Emperor by being "used" by Americans.

There was also a STRONG contingent of people that STILL wanted to fight AFTER the two bombs were dropped. It was not like the whole country just dropped to their knees and say we give up. Then why did they surrender after two?? why two??? They would have after one if we would have given a few more days.... They still had not figured out how destructive the first one was or what really hit them when we dropped the second. thats why they would have after a Demo or at least after a demo and ONE city. we killed 75,000 and didnt have to

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Then why did they surrender after two?? why two??? They would have after one if we would have given a few more days.... They still had not figured out how destructive the first one was or what really hit them when we dropped the second. thats why they would have after a Demo or at least after a demo and ONE city. we killed 75,000 and didnt have to

You just said it yourself....They still had not figured out how destructive the first one was or what really hit them when we dropped the second.

Henceforth, why the 2nd one was dropped. I don't think it should take 3 days for ANYONE to figure out by then we mean business.

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Tokio Harbor is hardly remote. Look at it this way. If an atom bomb was detonated out in the water way a couple of miles from the statue of liberty, I belive the people of New York City would get the picture. After the demo clearly within thier sight and view, let them know we will now start dropping them on cities one per day untill surrender... You cant see how that would convice them??
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/ug/eardley/atom_bomb_2.jpg :eek:

Blackie.....I wonder how you think that all of the G.I.'s, Marines, and sailors who fought, wounded, and died in places like Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, and all the rest, would feel about our modern discussion on the "wisdom" of the decisions made to end the war in the Pacific.

[Reds fan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Black_Magic
[B] You cant see how that would convice them??

I can see how it might convince them if you reference the Japanese thoughts in our terms but the Japanese did not think that way. They're thoughts were led by their emotional ties to the emperor, almost as a deity, and the belief in fighting to the death.

I'm here because of this and thankful for that.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Then why did they surrender after two?? why two??? They would have after one if we would have given a few more days.... They still had not figured out how destructive the first one was or what really hit them when we dropped the second. thats why they would have after a Demo or at least after a demo and ONE city. we killed 75,000 and didnt have to

You do realize that the bombs was not only reason right? Russia invaded Manchuria..And also a failed coup on the Emperaror by a group that wanted to continue fighting.So if two bombs on cities did not bring them to their knees instantly then how would one demo and one real attack?

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
Blackie.....I wonder how you think that all of the G.I.'s, Marines, and sailors who fought, wounded, and died in places like Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, and all the rest, would feel about our modern discussion on the "wisdom" of the decisions made to end the war in the Pacific. Its exactly that kind of thinking that got us into the situation of a second World War..... "punish the enemy for what they have done!!".. The treaty of Versailles was a prime example of that we didnt want a simple surrender from the German in WWI, we wanted them to PAY AND BE PUNISHED.... what did it get us?? Another World War. That exactly why you dont let them make that decision. Angry people dont make good rational decisions.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Its exactly that kind of thinking that got us into the situation of a second World War..... "punish the enemy for what they have done!!".. The treaty of Versailles was a prime example of that we didnt want a simple surrender from the German in WWI, we wanted them to PAY AND BE PUNISHED.... what did it get us?? Another World War. That exactly why you dont let them make that decision. Angry people dont make good rational decisions.

Actually what got us into WWII was the fact Europe DID NOT follow thru with treaty and enforce it. Germany was able to build up the military secretly and NOT pay back the reparations. Germany was also NOT occupied after WWI and thus there was not control

Japan WAS occupied, we were able to rebuild it AND watch over it to make sure no secret uprising was taking place.

If that had been done to germany after WWI, we would NOT have had a WWII.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
You do realize that the bombs was not only reason right? Russia invaded Manchuria..And also a failed coup on the Emperaror by a group that wanted to continue fighting.So if two bombs on cities did not bring them to their knees instantly then how would one demo and one real attack? They were already on thier knees... a raid of B29s that killed 100,000 did that. it was a matter of time. the emperor was already moving to making that decision prior to the two bombs. thats proven by analizing history of things going on in the last days in japan and what the emperor was doing and saing in the days leading up to the end.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
They were already on thier knees... a raid of B29s that killed 100,000 did that. it was a matter of time. the emperor was already moving to making that decision prior to the two bombs. thats proven by analizing history of things going on in the last days in japan and what the emperor was doing and saing in the days leading up to the end.


But they were not quitting. Talking about surrender and actually doing it is two different things. Even AFTER both vombs the Big 6(the ruling "house" of Japan) voted 3-3 on surrender. It STILL took the LARGEST bombing campaigin of the Pacific theater to get them to 100% surrender..AFTER the two bombs.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Angry people dont make good rational decisions.

Ding, ding, ding... exactly! See the analogy? :)

[piratebg]

Quit argueing and go look at the Ta-Tas on the East Texas State University thread.

[shankbear]

it was simply another weapon in our arsenal and we used it. They surrendered and it probably saved hundreds of thousands of more lives than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Actually what got us into WWII was the fact Europe DID NOT follow thru with treaty and enforce it.
Enforce it? You mean Stop HITLER from Violating it?? Hitler would NEVER have been anymore than a corpral in the german army and a failed artist if it was not for the Treaty of Versailles.... The Treaty created such an poor situation in Germany that the Democracy colapsed and a crackpot extreemist like Hitler could come to power. if you have a reasonable peace treaty with germany you dont have Hitler at all...Treaty of Versailles created Hitler. with a peace treaty that was not so bent on punishing Germany after WWI you would never have had a situation that provided a door for a crackpot like hitler to come to power.
Point is Dont Punish People in order to have a lasting peace. Heck if you leave it up to vets at Tarawa or Iwo Jima they would say Nuke the entire country and kill them all. thats not rational.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Enforce it? You mean Stop HITLER from Violating it?? Hitler would NEVER have been anymore than a corpral in the german army and a failed artist if it was not for the Treaty of Versailles.... The Treaty created such an poor situation in Germany that the Democracy colapsed and a crackpot extreemist like Hitler could come to power. if you have a reasonable peace treaty with germany you dont have Hitler at all...Treaty of Versailles created Hitler. with a peace treaty that was not so bent on punishing Germany after WWI you would never have had a situation that provided a door for a crackpot like hitler to come to power.
Point is Dont Punish People in order to have a lasting peace. Heck if you leave it up to vets at Tarawa or Iwo Jima they would say Nuke the entire country and kill them all. thats not rational.

If Germany had been occupied after WWI it would have NEVER been able to build up its force like it did. No matter WHAT rules were in place after WWI if there is no one there to enforce them, then Germany is allowed to roam free.

[piratebg]

I'm telling you, those jubblies on the other thread might help cool you down.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
If Germany had been occupied after WWI it would have NEVER been able to build up its force like it did. No matter WHAT rules were in place after WWI if there is no one there to enforce them, then Germany is allowed to roam free. True ocupation should have taken place. but having Germany pay the Billions and Billions of dollars in reparations thew the entire continent and germany especialy into an imposible situation. It was not the violations that started the war it was the Treaty that created an imposible situation and an atmosphere for hitler to come to power. that fact. If Europe had listened to W Willson and not insisted that germany "PAY" for the war, you would have never had a Hitler... THUS now VIOLATION AND NO WAR.:rolleyes:

[Txbroadcaster]

I agree to an extent..but again we have NO proof Hitler would not still come to power.

Back to Japan..I ask..if two bombs on cities did not work and it also took Russia invading AND the biggest bombing campaign in the Pacific..why would a demo have any effect?

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster

Back to Japan..I ask..if two bombs on cities did not work and it also took Russia invading AND the biggest bombing campaign in the Pacific..why would a demo have any effect? We dont know One bomb would not have worked in the first place. we didnt give enough time for them to figure out what really happened before we hit Nagasaki. We at least should have given a couple more days to respond. I really believe that a Demo in Tokio harbor would have had the same effect... At most we would have had to bomb ONE city. It would have had the same effect. we could have saved at least 75,000 and mayby 140,000 ( mostly women and children). and still achieved a surrender. I really believe that. and it makes sence.

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Its exactly that kind of thinking that got us into the situation of a second World War..... "punish the enemy for what they have done!!".. The treaty of Versailles was a prime example of that we didnt want a simple surrender from the German in WWI, we wanted them to PAY AND BE PUNISHED.... what did it get us?? Another World War. That exactly why you dont let them make that decision. Angry people dont make good rational decisions.

Blackie.....I don't think there is any way you could ever understand the "thinking" of the Greatest Generation and what they did to insure the future of this nation. I did not say that you do not appreciate what they did, but that you do not understand what compelled them to do what they did.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
Blackie.....I don't think there is any way you could ever understand the "thinking" of the Greatest Generation and what they did to insure the future of this nation. I did not say that you do not appreciate what they did, but that you do not understand what compelled them to do what they did. My father fought in the war and talks about it alot. I think I understand how they think more than you know.

[luvhoops34]

My dad and two of my uncles fought in WWII as did my first husband. My dad was on a destroyer that was attacked by a kamakazi. IMO the Japanese got exactly what they deserved, just not soon enough. The Japs are teaching their children that Pearl Harbor never happened.

I'm not gonna disagree that the A-bomb is a horrible weapon, but it got the desired results.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by luvhoops34
The Japs are teaching their children that Pearl Harbor never happened.

COME ON NOW:rolleyes: :rolleyes: they are teaching why pearl harbor happened in thier own ways but not saying it didnt happen.:rolleyes:

[scotty]

I wrote quite a number of feature stories about WWII vets and just about all of them regard President Truman as their hero because he ordered the bombing. So many of them had served in Europe, involved in the Battle of the Bulge and other such battles but didn't have enough time to come home after VE day. Many were sent to the Pacific for further training for the invasion of Japan. Just about every one will tell you that they don't believe they would have been here to tell their stories had it not been for the Atomic Bomb. The casulty rate of an invasion of the Japanse mainland would have been unbelievable. Just look how many lives were lost in the many Pacific island invasions. That would have been nothing compared to the way the Japanese would have fought to protect their mainland. As sad as it was, it was justified.

[SintonFan]

BM makes me want to drop the F-bomb everytime he posts.:mad: :eek:

[piratebg]

Originally posted by SintonFan
BM makes me want to drop the F-bomb everytime he posts.:mad: :eek:


Remember, don't drop it directly on him, but rather give him a demonstration that is within both viewing and hearing range. If he does not submit then let him have it. :D

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by piratebg
Remember, don't drop it directly on him, but rather give him a demonstration that is within both viewing and hearing range. If he does not submit then let him have it. :D
.
Advice taken and understood.:D
.
"BM" now means "Bowel Movement"!
So let it be written, so let it be understood!

[Keith7]

you guys do realize that although the U.S. only had two atomic bombs when they dropped the first one, they were planning on having a third one as soon as august 20th and were probably going to use it too if Japan had not surrendered by then

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Keith7
you guys do realize that although the U.S. only had two atomic bombs when they dropped the first one, they were planning on having a third one as soon as august 20th and were probably going to use it too if Japan had not surrendered by then

And if they had not surrendered I would have no problem with that

[big daddy russ]

Look, the Japanese were probably the worst of the Far Eastern countries during the period before WWII.

They were the quickest to adapt to the Western style of life, they were the quickest to arm themselves, and they turned out to be the quickest to adapt to post-military life by becoming an economic giant. Lost in all of this were the things they did while invading other countries. Ask Koreans what they think about the Japanese. The Chinese. The "Taiwanese" (or old Chinese).

The Japanese military was probably the most atrocious military in the world at the time. They used Korean women as sex toys. They were the ones who committed the Rape of Nanking (if you don't know what that is, look it up). They did this kind of stuff everywhere they went and they damn near conquered the Orient. The only thing that stopped them was the intervention of Russia and the US along with the alliance of Chinese opposing leaders Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-Shek in the early-1900's.

I'm not going to say the bomb was or wasn't the appropriate course of action, but they weren't exactly the innocent little country that we think of today, like some people seem to believe. They fought to the last man and surrender wasn't accepted by the culture.

Do some research on the Samurai culture. If they were caught by the enemy in battle or were defeated, they'd either kill themselves or have someone else kill them. And this culture was the governing body of Japan from the 1600's through the late-1800's. The Shogunate (a group of Samurais) actually ruled the country that entire time while the Emperor was just a figurehead.

Like I said, I'm not saying it's right or wrong. That's for you to decide. But we tend to put everything into our own cultural context and forget what or who we're fighting and the other circumstances surrounding the decision.

Hirohito and, more notably, General Tojo weren't about to surrender without a fight to the death.