Jim in Anchorage Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 I don't care what anyone says, the decision to drop the A bomb was good. the military invasion of Japan would have been a months long bloodbath.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 I don't care what anyone says, the decision to drop the A bomb was good. the military invasion of Japan would have been a months long bloodbath. president truman was faced with a horrendeous decision either way and history has shown he made the correct one.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 president truman was faced with a horrendeous decision either way and history has shown he made the correct one. I don't know...he chose the lives of soldiers over the lives of civilians.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 I don't know...he chose the lives of soldiers over the lives of civilians. either way MASSIVE amounts of civilans were going to die. If the US invaded mainland Japan you can make the argumen that based on their fanatical beliefs there would actually have been FAR more deaths of Japanese civilians, military and US military
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 21, 2009 Author Posted February 21, 2009 I don't know...he chose the lives of soldiers over the lives of civilians.So you think no civilians lives would have been lost if we had to invade Japan.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 either way MASSIVE amounts of civilans were going to die. If the US invaded mainland Japan you can make the argumen that based on their fanatical beliefs there would actually have been FAR more deaths of Japanese civilians, military and US military Alas, we will never know. Either way, it was a Catch 22 for Truman. Nobody should have to make that decision.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 So you think no civilians lives would have been lost if we had to invade Japan. Not nearly as many. You and your straw man fallacies.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 Not nearly as many. You and your straw man fallacies. i disagree.... the entire island of japan would have been in ruins as they refused to surrender and entire cities would have been flattened. this is back when unrestricted warfare was en-vogue and nothing less than unconditional surrender was to be accepted. pit that against generations of japanese indoctrination in the samurai way and that they were superior to all others with unquestioned loyalty to protecting the emperor and you have a recipe for disaster. in single fire bombing raids of tokyo estimates of 100,000 civilians died. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_firebombing not atom bombs, but CONVENTIAL weapons. here is a quote from a report on "operation downfall" the planned invasion of mainland Japan; "A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.[1]
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 21, 2009 Author Posted February 21, 2009 Not nearly as many. You and your straw man fallacies.You know,of course,the numbers in each case having run computer models. My Father was a bombardier in WWII and told me it would be unlikely I would have have existed if we had to invade Japan with conventional forces. It would have taken hundreds of bombing missions to make the way for ground forces. Is any one less dead because they had TNT dropped on their heads rather then a A bomb?
The Dean Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 My Father was a bombardier in WWII and told me it would be unlikely I would have have existed if we had to invade Japan with conventional forces. Well, that's one big argument for the use of conventional forces.
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 21, 2009 Author Posted February 21, 2009 Well, that's one big argument for the use of conventional forces. Coming from a long line of draft dodgers,I am sure you would be here regardless.
The Dean Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 Coming from a long line of draft dodgers,I am sure you would be here regardless. Actually, my father served in WW2, in the Army Corps of Engineers. He spent most of his time in the military in Germany and Italy.
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 21, 2009 Author Posted February 21, 2009 Actually, my father served in WW2, in the Army Corps of Engineers. He spent most of his time in the military in Germany and Italy. So be glad then he did not have to risk his life in Japan. The thought behind my OP.
The Dean Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 So be glad then he did not have to risk his life in Japan. The thought behind my OP. Umm...he risked his life fighting in Germany, Italy and France. I don't think it made a difference to him, where he risked his life, at the time or now.
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 21, 2009 Author Posted February 21, 2009 Umm...he risked his life fighting in Germany, Italy and France. I don't think it made a difference to him, where he risked his life, at the time or now.Missed my point completely. We ended the war quickly with the A bomb. Instead of going home,it would have been "heres your new orders mr dean, off to Japan to do it all over again"
/dev/null Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 I don't know...he chose the lives of soldiers over the lives of civilians. ~200k dead Japanese civilians by dropping the A-Bomb vs ~1M American soldiers + >~200k dead Japanese civilians Saved more lives than it took
Wacka Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 Sage and his great intellect again show us the error of our thinking. Millions of people alive today would not have be alive if we had to invade Japan. Dad or grandad wouldn't have been able to come home to mom or grandma in 1945 and give her the high hard one. I watched that Iwo Jima show also. Amazing at the valor and bravery of our solidiers.
The Dean Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 Sage and his great intellect again show us the error of our thinking. Millions of people alive today would not have be alive if we had to invade Japan. Dad or grandad wouldn't have been able to come home to mom or grandma in 1945 and give her the high hard one. I watched that Iwo Jima show also. Amazing at the valor and bravery of our solidiers. I think the point he was making (missed in spectacular fashion by you and Jim, among others) is that millions of Japanese are not alive today, due to the bombing. Add to that, the fact that most of the lives lost were civilian. And, unlike the damage that might have been done, and the lives that might have been cost, by use of conventional weapons, the lasting damage caused by Atomic weapons adds to the toll...that is rarely properly factored into the equations of loss comparisons. But, I'm not so sure Sage is arguing that the bombs shouldn't have been dropped, but that any discussion of this matter should really consider the horrendous damage caused...and that should make this occasion a more solemn event than the dull-witted first post implies. We can't know what would have happened had the bombs not been dropped...we can only speculate. I think it is clear that more American soldiers would have perished, and the war would have gone on longer. As to the civilian deaths...well, we will never know. I think Sage displayed the right temperament for this kind of discussion when he said: Alas, we will never know. Either way, it was a Catch 22 for Truman. Nobody should have to make that decision. The killing of millions of people, any people, is a time for reflection and remorse (even if it ended in a victory for the "good guys"). To celebrate something like that, and boldly dismiss any rational discussion of the negative ramifications of the event, really brings into question ones "goodness" .
/dev/null Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 I think the point he was making (missed in spectacular fashion by you and Jim, among others) is that millions of Japanese are not alive today, due to the bombing. Add to that, the fact that most of the lives lost were civilian. What about the millions of Japanese who are alive today because the US did not have to invade mainland Japan? An invasion would have resulted in the killing of untold 10s/100s thousands of Japanese soldiers and unfortunatley 10s/100s/1000s thousands of Japanese civilians (fight to the death, remember) Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a tragedy of historical proportion But the epic tragedies ended up saving more lives than it took I think Sage displayed the right temperament for this kind of discussion when he said:Alas, we will never know. Either way, it was a Catch 22 for Truman. Nobody should have to make that decision. You're both right. Nobody should ever have to make that decision But alas, circumstances dictated that somebody did have to make that decision. And he made the right one
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 21, 2009 Author Posted February 21, 2009 I think the point he was making (missed in spectacular fashion by you and Jim, among others) is that millions of Japanese are not alive today, due to the bombing. Add to that, the fact that most of the lives lost were civilian. And, unlike the damage that might have been done, and the lives that might have been cost, by use of conventional weapons, the lasting damage caused by Atomic weapons adds to the toll...that is rarely properly factored into the equations of loss comparisons. But, I'm not so sure Sage is arguing that the bombs shouldn't have been dropped, but that any discussion of this matter should really consider the horrendous damage caused...and that should make this occasion a more solemn event than the dull-witted first post implies. We can't know what would have happened had the bombs not been dropped...we can only speculate. I think it is clear that more American soldiers would have perished, and the war would have gone on longer. As to the civilian deaths...well, we will never know. I think Sage displayed the right temperament for this kind of discussion when he said: The killing of millions of people, any people, is a time for reflection and remorse (even if it ended in a victory for the "good guys"). To celebrate something like that, and boldly dismiss any rational discussion of the negative ramifications of the event, really brings into question ones "goodness" . The" good guys?"America? I am done.
Recommended Posts