The Dean Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 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 won't disagree with that, but will repeat that it is speculation. Nobody knows what would have actually happened. The point remains that millions of civilians were killed. We should respect that, and try to remember, irrespective of the alternatives, it was a tragedy.
SageAgainstTheMachine 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. 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" . Well said as always deano. And what can I say? They don't like me for some reason. I never said that the bombs shouldn't have been dropped. I mostly implied that we'll never know which option was the lesser of two evils and that more civilians, in the long run, PROBABLY died from the A bomb. Also, that Truman can't be blamed. World leaders have to make horrible decisions in war time. I'd be interested to see if people would be so cavalier about the loss of civilian life if it was two American cities that the bombs were dropped on. Let's flip the situation, hypothetically. Japan has the option of invading the US or dropping atomic bombs on Mesa, Arizona and Tacoma, Washington. They choose to drop the bombs, and the war ends. How do you feel about the Japanese? Did they make the right decision? Or are they monsters that killed millions? The life of an American soldier is no more valuable than the life of a Japanese civilian, so treat the bombings as they ought to be treated...a horrible, horrible tragedy. One of the worst the world has ever been witness to. A necessary tragedy? Maybe. We will never know. But when you say something like "You should thank god they dropped the bomb, or else you might never have been born", it cheapens the lives lost. Here's the thing about war...nobody wins. Ever.
BuckyFillUps Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 I don't know...he chose the lives of soldiers over the lives of civilians. we they come home, they are OUR civilians.
BuckyFillUps Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 A-bombs aside, you all know the firebombing raids over tokyo killed more than the abombs did right?
WellDressed Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 Those bombs should have been droped in remote locatios. Showing Power, not killing people.
Wacka Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 There aren't many remote locations in Japan, The idea of War is to kill people and break things till the enemy gives up. It took TWO a- bombs to convince them to stop. Blowing one up over water would not do anything.
BuckyFillUps Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 Those bombs should have been droped in remote locatios. Showing Power, not killing people. even if your senario was plausible, the technology in the mid 40's made the bombs not only extremely expensive, but also extremely difficult to make. so your idea of a "menacing fireworks display" would be not only innefective( as I said earlier, the raids over tokyo were far more destructive and lethal) but costly in both money and time.
Booster4324 Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 There are'nt many remote locations in Japan,The idea of War is to kill people and breaak things till the enemy gives up. It took TWO a- bombs to convince them to stop. Blowing one up over water would not do anything. We will never know will we? Would it have been enough to drop one somewhere nearby after letting them know where to look? Technically speaking, we could have blockaded the whole Island. Our Navy was astoundingly huge at that time, it would have been a trivial matter to do so. People speak of how we only had two bombs, so we had to make them count. I cannot remember the exact count, but we had more bombs in a relatively short time. The main question, is did we do it to subdue Japan, or to intimidate Russia? Sage nailed it. Edit - There is an upside, those little dinky A-Bombs were so horrific, that no one has used one in anger since. Let's hope that continues.
Beerball Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 Truman saved American lives so Truman made the proper decision. The subject really doesn't need any deeper thought. If you must though...think of the lives lost in Europe. Think of the surviving soldiers who would have had to make the trek across the world to take part in an invasion of Japan. Think of Pearl Harbor. Think of the Coral Sea. Think of Guadalcanal. Think of the Philippines. Think of Baatan. Think of Leyte. Think of Burma. Think of Iwo. Think of Kamikaze. Think of your fathers or your father's father. Think of your mothers or your mother's mother. If you think the choice was wrong then please do some reading on those places mentioned above.
Wacka Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 Japan was teaching their citizens how to fight in hand to hand combat. They would have fought to the last man. We had already lost a half million soldiers and they estimated that we could lose the same amount in an invasion. The military was getting ready to build massive hospitals on the islands we captured for the invasion of Japan. On Iwo Jima, there were more than 22,000 Japanese troops. Only 263 were captured. They would have been even more fervent in their defense of the homeland.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 Japan was teaching their citizens how to fight in hand to hand combat. They would have fought to the last man. We had already lost a half million soldiers and they estimated that we could lose the same amount in an invasion. The military was getting ready to build massive hospitals on the islands we captured for the invasion of Japan. On Iwo Jima, there were more than 22,000 Japanese troops. Only 263 were captured. They would have been even more fervent in their defense of the homeland. If they were willing to fight to the last man, why did they surrender after the two bombs? I'm not being snarky here, I'm legitimately curious.
Dan Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 If they were willing to fight to the last man, why did they surrender after the two bombs? I'm not being snarky here, I'm legitimately curious. Off the top of my head, I'd guess... they didn't know how many more bombs we had, plus they weren't really fighting or defending anything. They were just being slaughtered with our bombs. I think the power of their resolve is the fact that it took 2 bombs when it was apparent that after 1, they stood zero chance. Also, I saw another program that said they were working on their own atomic bomb. They "supposedly" tested it after our first bomb was dropped. Their test failed. So, perhaps they finally realized they just had no alternative and finally did what was best for their people.
Steely Dan Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 IIRC, the battle of Midway was much worse. I'm not positive of that though. I don't know...he chose the lives of soldiers over the lives of civilians. Tough call but it was the right one. Well, that's one big argument for the use of conventional forces. That's a horrible thing to say to someone. ~200k dead Japanese civilians by dropping the A-Bomb vs ~1M American soldiers + >~200k dead Japanese civilians Saved more lives than it took I'm not sure about your numbers but it would have cost a lot more casualties if the bombs weren't dropped so I agree with you on that. Well said as always deano. And what can I say? They don't like me for some reason. I never said that the bombs shouldn't have been dropped. I mostly implied that we'll never know which option was the lesser of two evils and that more civilians, in the long run, PROBABLY died from the A bomb. Also, that Truman can't be blamed. World leaders have to make horrible decisions in war time. I'd be interested to see if people would be so cavalier about the loss of civilian life if it was two American cities that the bombs were dropped on. Let's flip the situation, hypothetically. Japan has the option of invading the US or dropping atomic bombs on Mesa, Arizona and Tacoma, Washington. They choose to drop the bombs, and the war ends. How do you feel about the Japanese? Did they make the right decision? Or are they monsters that killed millions? The life of an American soldier is no more valuable than the life of a Japanese civilian, so treat the bombings as they ought to be treated...a horrible, horrible tragedy. One of the worst the world has ever been witness to. A necessary tragedy? Maybe. We will never know. But when you say something like "You should thank god they dropped the bomb, or else you might never have been born", it cheapens the lives lost. Here's the thing about war...nobody wins. Ever. War takes the strongest men and pits them against each other. Each society loses a lot of strong and smart men. It causes de-evolution for the human race. Someone once asked me if I believed there was intelligent life on other planets. I asked them to define "intelligent". They said like us. I said we aren't intelligent and they asked why I thought that. My answer was that we kill each other. They really had no response to that. Japan was teaching their citizens how to fight in hand to hand combat. They would have fought to the last man. We had already lost a half million soldiers and they estimated that we could lose the same amount in an invasion. The military was getting ready to build massive hospitals on the islands we captured for the invasion of Japan. On Iwo Jima, there were more than 22,000 Japanese troops. Only 263 were captured. They would have been even more fervent in their defense of the homeland. I agree. IIRC, they had even said they would fight to the last man. Off the top of my head, I'd guess... they didn't know how many more bombs we had, plus they weren't really fighting or defending anything. They were just being slaughtered with our bombs. I think the power of their resolve is the fact that it took 2 bombs when it was apparent that after 1, they stood zero chance. Also, I saw another program that said they were working on their own atomic bomb. They "supposedly" tested it after our first bomb was dropped. Their test failed. So, perhaps they finally realized they just had no alternative and finally did what was best for their people. I've never heard about Japan having nuclear bomb technology but I believe Germany was working on one. The first bombing was justified IMO. The second not as much. While the Japanese didn't think quickly enough about the first bomb I think a little more time and persuasion could have resulted in surrender before the next bombing. I just don't think they had enough time to process the devastation adequately. The first bomb was a uranium-235 and second was a plutonium-239. It's my opinion that those differences entered into the decision to bomb Nagasaki. I believe we wanted to see if both bombs were equally as destructive. Two interesting facts about the bombs. 1. Richard Feynman was a numbers cruncher on the Manhattan Project. 2. I can't find a link on the internet but IIRC, I saw a Modern Marvels on the history of bank safes and they said one brand of bank safe was made so well that it survived the blast of Hiroshima with it's contents intact.
Dan Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 I've never heard about Japan having nuclear bomb technology but I believe Germany was working on one. It was another one of those programs on the History/Discovery/History International Channel. I saw it a few weeks or so back. They apparently had 2 separate programs trying to build atomic bombs. One of them was based in North Korea and I believe that was the one they tested. All the details of the program are a little fuzzy to me. But the Japanese scientists were ordered to burn all records of the program when they surrendered. However, one set of documents made it out and some prof at Arkansas or Texas had them and some. I found it a fairly interesting program because I had never heard anything of a Japanese atomic bomb either.
The Senator Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 Anyone who has read anything about the Bataan Death March or the atrocities and war crimes committed by Japan against both American and Filipino civilians in the Philippines, not to mention their barbaric treatment of the Chinese from 1937-1941, would quickly abandon any argument sympathetic to Japan.
WellDressed Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 Anyone who has read anything about the Bataan Death March or the atrocities and war crimes committed by Japan against both American and Filipino civilians in the Philippines, not to mention their barbaric treatment of the Chinese from 1937-1941, would quickly abandon any argument sympathetic to Japan. Enjoy your Sushi there buddy.....
Beerball Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 Enjoy your Sushi there buddy..... Wow, that's probably the dumbest thing you've said all day...least I hope it is.
Tcali Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 Alas, we will never know. Either way, it was a Catch 22 for Truman. Nobody should have to make that decision. But someone has to.
Tcali Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 I won't disagree with that, but will repeat that it is speculation. Nobody knows what would have actually happened. The point remains that millions of civilians were killed. We should respect that, and try to remember, irrespective of the alternatives, it was a tragedy. 200,000 plus were killed--not millions
The Dean Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 Anyone who has read anything about the Bataan Death March or the atrocities and war crimes committed by Japan against both American and Filipino civilians in the Philippines, not to mention their barbaric treatment of the Chinese from 1937-1941, would quickly abandon any argument sympathetic to Japan. Well, they shouldn't. I don't hold all civilians accountable or responsible for atrocities committed by governments and/or armies. Huge loss of civilian life simply isn't something to be celebrated, IMO. Again, I'm not suggesting that it was the wrong decision. I'm simply suggesting some here use a little more sense and civility when discussing the issue.
Recommended Posts