Germany would have nuked the whole country, left no one alive, then targeted Britain and the US. Don't start making god damn dumb statements like that you moron.UON wrote:
Let's flip it and say Nazi Germany got the bomb in 1942 and nuked Stalingrad and a couple of other cities for good measure, thus saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of troops but killing millions of civilians and causing the unconditional surrender of Russia, thus rendering the 3rd Reich the major superpower in the world today. Would dropping the bomb have been seen as an act of mercy to spare the lives of a few million soldiers/civilians, or as an act of cruel evil?
Poll
Were the Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Necessary?
| Yes | 70% | 70% - 134 | ||||
| No | 29% | 29% - 57 | ||||
| Total: 191 | ||||||
History is written by the victorious.UON wrote:
Let's flip it and say Nazi Germany got the bomb in 1942 and nuked Stalingrad and a couple of other cities for good measure, thus saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of troops but killing millions of civilians and causing the unconditional surrender of Russia, thus rendering the 3rd Reich the major superpower in the world today. Would dropping the bomb have been seen as an act of mercy to spare the lives of a few million soldiers/civilians, or as an act of cruel evil?
Check out Rutger Hauer's Fatherland movie. Interesting watch of if Hitler won the war.
Last edited by Ilocano (2007-02-02 11:02:38)
Can we say they didn't kill millions of civilians by gassing them? If we can say that, then I will answer.UON wrote:
Let's flip it and say Nazi Germany got the bomb in 1942 and nuked Stalingrad and a couple of other cities for good measure, thus saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of troops but killing millions of civilians and causing the unconditional surrender of Russia, thus rendering the 3rd Reich the major superpower in the world today. Would dropping the bomb have been seen as an act of mercy to spare the lives of a few million soldiers/civilians, or as an act of cruel evil?
I suggest you continue to avoid this section.Miller wrote:
Germany would have nuked the whole country, left no one alive, then targeted Britain and the US. Don't start making god damn dumb statements like that you moron.UON wrote:
Let's flip it and say Nazi Germany got the bomb in 1942 and nuked Stalingrad and a couple of other cities for good measure, thus saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of troops but killing millions of civilians and causing the unconditional surrender of Russia, thus rendering the 3rd Reich the major superpower in the world today. Would dropping the bomb have been seen as an act of mercy to spare the lives of a few million soldiers/civilians, or as an act of cruel evil?
We could say that if they won, no-one would have known the true extent of the Holocaust. Or that the propaganda about the Zionist terrorists would have been accepted as an adequate justification for martial justice.usmarine2007 wrote:
Can we say they didn't kill millions of civilians by gassing them? If we can say that, then I will answer.UON wrote:
Let's flip it and say Nazi Germany got the bomb in 1942 and nuked Stalingrad and a couple of other cities for good measure, thus saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of troops but killing millions of civilians and causing the unconditional surrender of Russia, thus rendering the 3rd Reich the major superpower in the world today. Would dropping the bomb have been seen as an act of mercy to spare the lives of a few million soldiers/civilians, or as an act of cruel evil?
Last edited by UON (2007-02-02 11:04:07)
You should practice what you preach.Miller wrote:
Germany would have nuked the whole country, left no one alive, then targeted Britain and the US. Don't start making god damn dumb statements like that you moron.UON wrote:
Let's flip it and say Nazi Germany got the bomb in 1942 and nuked Stalingrad and a couple of other cities for good measure, thus saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of troops but killing millions of civilians and causing the unconditional surrender of Russia, thus rendering the 3rd Reich the major superpower in the world today. Would dropping the bomb have been seen as an act of mercy to spare the lives of a few million soldiers/civilians, or as an act of cruel evil?
We had 2 bombs... we could not (did not) bomb the whole TINY island of Japan.
Actually I don't think either was necessary... sorry. :(TuataraDude wrote:
I think most of the mature posters here all agree that dropping the bombs was a terrible and sad thing. I equally think we are divided on whether it was necessary. I still think it was, but I tend to side with Topal63 when it comes to the necessity of dropping the second. Given a few more days, the horror of Hiroshima may well have sunk in (the second was dropped only about 3-4 days after the first, probably way too short for accurate reports to get back to the hierarchy) and they may well have surrendered. The trouble is, there is a lot of "may" and "probably" in that and in the end, we weren't there to make the decision (thank God, it is a decision I would not have wanted to make).
As posted earlier, we have not been through 5 years of war leading up to this. I mean, just look at the current war on terror. The actions of 9/11 had many people crying for revenge and that was the culmination of a number of attacks over the past few years, hardly a full out war. While I concede that there were many people who did not cry out for revenge, try and imagine what the public opinion would have been had something like 9/11 happened every few days for 5 years, and the enemy was easy to identify and target (obviously not possible with Al Quaeda (did I spell that right?)). How would the people react then. We were not in their shoes and should not judge them for their actions.
Having said that, the dropping of the bombs also had on-going repercussions, not just in Japan, but the entire cold war. They may well have contributed to no WW3 happening (yet!). Solely on that, and the extraordinarily high casualties the Allies would have suffered in an assault on the main land (just look at Okinawa), the dropping was necessary. Sad, but necessary.
My point was all these hypotheticals:
It saved lives - from sparring us a costly land invasion.
It showed the Soviets!
They certainly would have used it on us.
etc...
It's all junk reasoning.
And then the reasoning gets worse from there:
They deserved it...
The (hypothetical) LAND invasion never happened - there is no reason to think it would have.. either.
We were already carpet-bombing civilian targets - to force an unconditional surrender. We were not carpet bombing civilian targets as payback, retribution, eye for an eye, etc; nor to just reduce/end their ability to wage war.
WE (the US) decided the GOAL was UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER - Japan you cannot save FACE on any level. This was not a NECESSARY ETHIC or NECESSARY IDEOLOGICAL stance and therefor neither was either A-Bomb.
*NOTE... caps do not mean I am shouting or being emotional... they're just bigger letters. :/
Last edited by topal63 (2007-02-02 11:12:20)
Save face? I am sick of hearing all this BS about Japan and their honor. Is a sneak attack against someone you are not fighting honorable?topal63 wrote:
WE (the US) decided the GOAL was UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER - Japan you cannot save FACE on any level.
That sneak attack might be dishonorable (IMO, sure - so what); it was more stupid than dishonorable.usmarine2007 wrote:
Save face? I am sick of hearing all this BS about Japan and their honor. Is a sneak attack against someone you are not fighting honorable?topal63 wrote:
WE (the US) decided the GOAL was UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER - Japan you cannot save FACE on any level.
And anyway that statement is an "asked and answered" - already.
The sneak attack was a mistake made by the Japanese ambassador's. It was something that Admiral Yamamoto regretted.usmarine2007 wrote:
Save face? I am sick of hearing all this BS about Japan and their honor. Is a sneak attack against someone you are not fighting honorable?topal63 wrote:
WE (the US) decided the GOAL was UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER - Japan you cannot save FACE on any level.
I know. That is when they threw all their honor BS out the window.Ilocano wrote:
The sneak attack was a mistake made by the Japanese ambassador's. It was something that Admiral Yamamoto regretted.usmarine2007 wrote:
Save face? I am sick of hearing all this BS about Japan and their honor. Is a sneak attack against someone you are not fighting honorable?topal63 wrote:
WE (the US) decided the GOAL was UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER - Japan you cannot save FACE on any level.
BTW, I'm not defending the Japanese. My father witnessed first-hand the atrocities the Japanese commited.usmarine2007 wrote:
I know. That is when they threw all their honor BS out the window.
No, they were not necessary.
The plan was to drop an A bomb on Berlin, but Germany surrendered a few days before. So the Americans had to test their bombs and the effectivity. Maybe the first was necessary to demonstrate their power, but it wasn't enough, no, they made the bomb even stronger, just to show how large their e-penis is.
Bastards.
The plan was to drop an A bomb on Berlin, but Germany surrendered a few days before. So the Americans had to test their bombs and the effectivity. Maybe the first was necessary to demonstrate their power, but it wasn't enough, no, they made the bomb even stronger, just to show how large their e-penis is.
Bastards.
No need to apologise :-) I realise you don't think either should have been dropped and I respect your view. I just don't agree with it entirely :-)topal63 wrote:
Actually I don't think either was necessary... sorry.
One could make a reasonably sound argument that it did save livestopal63 wrote:
My point was all these hypotheticals:
It saved lives - from sparring us a costly land invasion.
It showed the Soviets!
They certainly would have used it on us.
etc...
It's all junk reasoning.
Showing the Soviets was not the primary reason, but it was also on their minds as the allies were already putting plans in place due to what they perceived as the Soviet threat.
No one can say they certainly would have used it on us. To be honest, I'm not sure the Japanese would have, but they were so far off successfully developing it they would have been carpet bombed into submission before then. However, I am pretty confident Hitler would have.
I agree, that sort of argument is not constructive to this debate.topal63 wrote:
And then the reasoning gets worse from there:
They deserved it...
Who cares about their honor - that is not the point.usmarine2007 wrote:
I know. That is when they threw all their honor BS out the window.Ilocano wrote:
The sneak attack was a mistake made by the Japanese ambassador's. It was something that Admiral Yamamoto regretted.usmarine2007 wrote:
Save face? I am sick of hearing all this BS about Japan and their honor. Is a sneak attack against someone you are not fighting honorable?
We were carpet bombing civilians (women & children) to force another honor BS.
Taking our (US) honor to a level; that it is OK to target civilians, women & children (then 2 A-bombs) - to force an unconditional surrender was unnecessary. If there had been a proposal with limited provisions - we would still have / could have had a Japanese surrender. We would still have our honor. Negotiating is not a dishonorable way to end conflict (often it is actually how it is done; you know this). Unconditional surrender as on only option was not necessary.
(IMO) We are not dishonorable for dropping the bomb... but at the same time - reflection on that historical event - demonstrates that it might not have been necessary. It is not a US-bashing; to reflect upon the necessity of that action; its value in reflection - is upon our action in the future.
If you attack us, we will attack you. Don't like it? Don't attack. If you get your ass whipped back to Japan, take it like a man and don't dare and provoke the US to invade.
Dude - Japan is not a man, it is a country.usmarine2007 wrote:
If you attack us, we will attack you. Don't like it? Don't attack. If you get your ass whipped back to Japan, take it like a man and don't dare and provoke the US to invade.
People, civilians, women, children, the elderly, etc ... occupy a country.
Dude - Decision makers = mentopal63 wrote:
Dude - Japan is not a man, it is a country.usmarine2007 wrote:
If you attack us, we will attack you. Don't like it? Don't attack. If you get your ass whipped back to Japan, take it like a man and don't dare and provoke the US to invade.
People, civilians, women, children, the elderly, etc ... occupy a country.
Last edited by usmarine2007 (2007-02-02 11:45:43)
That's the plain and simple truth about the whole thing. The Japanese military knew full well that they couldn't win a war with the US.usmarine2007 wrote:
If you attack us, we will attack you. Don't like it? Don't attack. If you get your ass whipped back to Japan, take it like a man and don't dare and provoke the US to invade.
Duders, often it is not the men - in charge - that pay the price (you personally know this more than most).usmarine2007 wrote:
Dude - Decision makers = mentopal63 wrote:
Dude - Japan is not a man, it is a country.usmarine2007 wrote:
If you attack us, we will attack you. Don't like it? Don't attack. If you get your ass whipped back to Japan, take it like a man and don't dare and provoke the US to invade.
People, civilians, women, children, the elderly, etc ... occupy a country.
Oh and by the way, I arleady stated my OP:
(IMO) We are not dishonorable for dropping the bomb... It is not a US-bashing; to reflect upon the necessity of that action; its value in reflection - is upon our action in the future.
Last edited by topal63 (2007-02-02 11:51:18)
that has no relevance, we are talking about something that actually happened, and one nuke only kills a couple hundred thousand, not millions, and even so, you say saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of troops...hate to break it to you, but russian losses during WW2 were a hell of a lot greater than a few hundred thousand, more in the millions buddy.UON wrote:
Let's flip it and say Nazi Germany got the bomb in 1942 and nuked Stalingrad and a couple of other cities for good measure, thus saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of troops but killing millions of civilians and causing the unconditional surrender of Russia, thus rendering the 3rd Reich the major superpower in the world today. Would dropping the bomb have been seen as an act of mercy to spare the lives of a few million soldiers/civilians, or as an act of cruel evil?
top military planners of the time thought it saved lives, and a select few of you think not. i tend to believe the professionals. i fail to see how the almighty nuke is still so much worse than a few million total deaths from the invasion. you think it woudnt happen, they wouldve surrendered, pull your head out of your ass for me.
no one, no one has yet to come up with an alternate. you are still saying, oh well they would have surrendered i think. that doesnt fly, they werent going to surrender. its proven. need a better excuse
how are people still saying we have junk reasoning? they are professional views of the time, and still stand today. how are you throwing this out the window? just because you dont agree?
Last edited by mcjagdflieger (2007-02-02 12:22:03)
Every pacific atoll was taken by the US with HUGE casualties.
Which American parent would have said (or would say now) that they accepted their son's death was necessary to prevent Japanese casualties? That's the logic suggested by those who condemn the bombs.
Moderation in war is an imbecility. To paraphrase General Napier, you don't win by simply destroying a country's armed forces. You win by destroying their WILL to fight.
Which American parent would have said (or would say now) that they accepted their son's death was necessary to prevent Japanese casualties? That's the logic suggested by those who condemn the bombs.
Moderation in war is an imbecility. To paraphrase General Napier, you don't win by simply destroying a country's armed forces. You win by destroying their WILL to fight.
Dude, we should've totally sent troops in to wage bloody melee with their civilians, and then duke it out with the Soviet Union over who got which part. Yeah! Dude, I mean...dude!topal63 wrote:
Dude - Japan is not a man, it is a country.usmarine2007 wrote:
If you attack us, we will attack you. Don't like it? Don't attack. If you get your ass whipped back to Japan, take it like a man and don't dare and provoke the US to invade.
People, civilians, women, children, the elderly, etc ... occupy a country.
simple math
invasion= japanese and us dead, us wins
a bomb = japanes dead, us wins
and all of that "ready to surender" is bull shit.
Ever heard of kamakazi
invasion= japanese and us dead, us wins
a bomb = japanes dead, us wins
and all of that "ready to surender" is bull shit.
Ever heard of kamakazi
Erm, I was talking about military losses specifically at Stalingrad. It was close to a million total losses on both sides, but it was still hundreds of thousands. I'm asking what if the bomb had averted that battle, and most subsequent military and civilian losses in WW2 at the expense of the (essentially) total loss a few cities. Assume the cities in striking distance were more densely populated than Hiroshima and Nagasaki if that helps, and that food shortages make the figures from the strikes upto a couple of million. Or just use your figures and answer.mcjagdflieger wrote:
that has no relevance, we are talking about something that actually happened, and one nuke only kills a couple hundred thousand, not millions, and even so, you say saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of troops...hate to break it to you, but russian losses during WW2 were a hell of a lot greater than a few hundred thousand, more in the millions buddy.UON wrote:
Let's flip it and say Nazi Germany got the bomb in 1942 and nuked Stalingrad and a couple of other cities for good measure, thus saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of troops but killing millions of civilians and causing the unconditional surrender of Russia, thus rendering the 3rd Reich the major superpower in the world today. Would dropping the bomb have been seen as an act of mercy to spare the lives of a few million soldiers/civilians, or as an act of cruel evil?
This thread is mainly about what would have happened if the bomb wasn't used, we are discussing if the hypothetical alternatives made it necessary. They aren't knowns, they are potential scenarios. So don't act like most of this thread isn't hypothetical.mcjagdflieger wrote:
that has no relevance, we are talking about something that actually happened,
A few. Just a few. You know, just from early May to August...Cubefreak666 wrote:
No, they were not necessary.
The plan was to drop an A bomb on Berlin, but Germany surrendered a few days before.