http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=24106&p=3Deadmonkiefart wrote:
So what do you suggest the US should have done, rather than invade or nuke Japan?
If you lived back then, or had any idea what it was like, you would have wanted the bomb dropped. WWII was probably the largest, most desperate war in US history. Think of the repricussions if the Allies would have lost. How was the US even supposed to know what that the Japanese were planning to surrender? The Japanese had shown no signs of wanting to surrender, even after they had lost almost their entire military months before. Even after the nukes were dropped and the Japanese government surrendered there were small groups or resistors throughout Japan. With thousands being killed every day, I imagine they wanted to end the war as soon as possible.WinterWayfarer wrote:
The US should have waited, because they already won.
the second post..Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Are you sure you gave me the correct post?
post #52CommieChipmunk wrote:
the second post..Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Are you sure you gave me the correct post?
And when you said that Japan's treatment of POWs was bad, but that dropping nukes was worse, the point of the thread is not whether Japan's war crimes justified the A bomb or not. The point of the A bomb was to end the war; not as payback, but if you really did want to compare Japan's treatment of other nations and the US's treatment of other nations, go right on ahead. When the Japanese invaded china, they slaughtered and raped tens of thousands of chinese civillians.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
If you lived back then, or had any idea what it was like, you would have wanted the bomb dropped. WWII was probably the largest, most desperate war in US history. Think of the repricussions if the Allies would have lost. How was the US even supposed to know what that the Japanese were planning to surrender? The Japanese had shown no signs of wanting to surrender, even after they had lost almost their entire military months before. Even after the nukes were dropped and the Japanese government surrendered there were small groups or resistors throughout Japan. With thousands being killed every day, I imagine they wanted to end the war as soon as possible.WinterWayfarer wrote:
The US should have waited, because they already won.
Japan's an island. Without any navy or airforce to speak of.. what were they going to do? swim? I don't know it's a tough call.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
OK I will repeat the question:And when you said that Japan's treatment of POWs was bad, but that dropping nukes was worse, the point of the thread is not whether Japan's war crimes justified the A bomb or not. The point of the A bomb was to end the war; not as payback, but if you really did want to compare Japan's treatment of other nations and the US's treatment of other nations, go right on ahead. When the Japanese invaded china, they slaughtered and raped tens of thousands of chinese civillians.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
If you lived back then, or had any idea what it was like, you would have wanted the bomb dropped. WWII was probably the largest, most desperate war in US history. Think of the repricussions if the Allies would have lost. How was the US even supposed to know what that the Japanese were planning to surrender? The Japanese had shown no signs of wanting to surrender, even after they had lost almost their entire military months before. Even after the nukes were dropped and the Japanese government surrendered there were small groups or resistors throughout Japan. With thousands being killed every day, I imagine they wanted to end the war as soon as possible.WinterWayfarer wrote:
The US should have waited, because they already won.
If the United States of America did not drop those two nuclear A-bombs on Imperial Japan killing and destroying hundreds of thousands of innocent human lives, the entire world would have seen some better days for the start of world peace, not world destruction, may have already begun.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
If you lived back then, or had any idea what it was like, you would have wanted the bomb dropped. WWII was probably the largest, most desperate war in US history. Think of the repricussions if the Allies would have lost. How was the US even supposed to know what that the Japanese were planning to surrender? The Japanese had shown no signs of wanting to surrender, even after they had lost almost their entire military months before. Even after the nukes were dropped and the Japanese government surrendered there were small groups or resistors throughout Japan. With thousands being killed every day, I imagine they wanted to end the war as soon as possible.WinterWayfarer wrote:
The US should have waited, because they already won.
thank you, have a karmasHomeschtar wrote:
Good video Trigger. Music went very well with it.
Dam is that really true?MrPredictable wrote:
On average between 1946 and 1991 there was 1 atomic bomb test every 9 days, fortunately after the treaties between the US and the USSR the majority were below ground tests.
Okay, you wrote a paper. Great. Did you actually pay attention or learn anything, or did you have your mind made up before you even began to study for it? Yes, Japan is an island. Which somehow managed to obtain the resources to take over a sizeable percentage of the globe. England is also an island; they founded a rather large empire as well. Do not make the size of your country a significant factor.CommieChipmunk wrote:
Japan's an island. Without any navy or airforce to speak of.. what were they going to do? swim? I don't know it's a tough call.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
OK I will repeat the question:And when you said that Japan's treatment of POWs was bad, but that dropping nukes was worse, the point of the thread is not whether Japan's war crimes justified the A bomb or not. The point of the A bomb was to end the war; not as payback, but if you really did want to compare Japan's treatment of other nations and the US's treatment of other nations, go right on ahead. When the Japanese invaded china, they slaughtered and raped tens of thousands of chinese civillians.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
If you lived back then, or had any idea what it was like, you would have wanted the bomb dropped. WWII was probably the largest, most desperate war in US history. Think of the repricussions if the Allies would have lost. How was the US even supposed to know what that the Japanese were planning to surrender? The Japanese had shown no signs of wanting to surrender, even after they had lost almost their entire military months before. Even after the nukes were dropped and the Japanese government surrendered there were small groups or resistors throughout Japan. With thousands being killed every day, I imagine they wanted to end the war as soon as possible.
But the comparison between tens of thousands being raped and killed (don't get me wrong, still disgusting in my mind), and the 100,000+ thousand vaporised doesn't work terribly well. And don't forget the firestorms we created in Tokyo. Hundreds of planes dropping napalm, phosphorous and magnesium high explosives created massive fires in the city, which was basically made of wood. It created huge wind currents that actually sucked people into the middle of the fire storms... I think it was something like 150 MPH winds.
Either way you look at it, war is a terrible thing and arguably the single greatest flaw of human nature. Maybe one day leaders will grow up and realize that there's a difference between sacrificing your little green army man when your a kid and sacrificing thousands of human lives when you control a nation. Life is so precious and there is nothing in this world worth the death of so many young kids.
Wow. Someone does not study history. So, how peaceful was the world BEFORE the nuclear age, exactly? And how would this tiem of 'world peace' have come about? Historically, the longest period of 'world peace' was during the Pax Romana, and few would call the Romans a gentle society.WinterWayfarer wrote:
If the United States of America did not drop those two nuclear A-bombs on Imperial Japan killing and destroying hundreds of thousands of innocent human lives, the entire world would have seen some better days for the start of world peace, not world destruction, may have already begun.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
If you lived back then, or had any idea what it was like, you would have wanted the bomb dropped. WWII was probably the largest, most desperate war in US history. Think of the repricussions if the Allies would have lost. How was the US even supposed to know what that the Japanese were planning to surrender? The Japanese had shown no signs of wanting to surrender, even after they had lost almost their entire military months before. Even after the nukes were dropped and the Japanese government surrendered there were small groups or resistors throughout Japan. With thousands being killed every day, I imagine they wanted to end the war as soon as possible.WinterWayfarer wrote:
The US should have waited, because they already won.
We were already working out a peace treaty when we dropped the bomb(s). We knew that if we made the Japanese feel like they were surrendering, mass numbers of people would commit suicide because of their Bushido Code. We dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki for a reason; to scare the Soviet Union. The Cold War started right after we split up Germany and Berlin. We knew that when the Soviets had pushed through Eastern Europe to get to Berlin, and that they would continue to spread communism in this region even after WWII had ended. We decided to prove to the Soviet Union and to the world that capitalism is better by being stronger. To do this, we dropped the bombs.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
So what do you suggest the US should have done, rather than invade or nuke Japan?
Wrong. Have you read the book Hiroshima? I recommend it. Combined in the two bombs, yes, over 100,000 were vaporized instantly. These 'villages' each had over 100,000 people. Hardly a village. My city (Melbourne, Florida) only had about 75,000 people, and we're pretty big.imortal wrote:
Now, for the atomic bomb. Yes, it was attrocious, but there were not "100,000+ vaporized" as you have hinted at. First, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were realatively small villages.
Wrong again. They may have had minor military function, but I think that could be said for any industrial city in Japan during WWII. We dropped a test bomb in New Mexico in June of 1945. We knew exactly what it was capable of. That's why President Truman delivered a speech over radio waves to Japan about the approximate strength of the bomb. All of the info he described could not have been recorded in a day, especially when we had no satellites or scientists in Japan to watch the bomb happen, other than the cameras on the B-52's that dropped the bombs.imortal wrote:
They were chosen because they had SOME military function, albeit a small one, having minor factories. And, since they were so minor, they had not yet been attacked or bombed in the war. This was because the atomic drops were also a test, and any damage seen could be assumed to have been caused by the bombs.
Wrong. The populations of these cities was over a hundred thousand. You are correct that many died or were disfigured due to radiation damages, but you cannot exclude the immediate damages that the bomb did. Literally tens of thousands were killed instantly in both bombings. Even though some thousands survived, the damages done to their lives were almost as bad as death, considering almost every building was destroyed in the centers of these cities, family members were likely to have died, and there was no able government to help them until the war had ended.imortal wrote:
The total populations of the 2 villages were not in the hundreds of thousands, and realatively few were "vaporized." Most that immediately died would have been do to blast damage or radiation poisoning, with many more dying over the next decade. Many thousands survived the blasts.
Last edited by Havok (2007-05-10 17:47:00)
So I don't study history?? You are a complete dumbo, plus you got conquered by Havoc there. I am saying that if the United States of America did not drop those two nuclear bombs on Japan and tried to have Japan cooperate or something, many countries could have followed suit with their own dispositions. We could've learned how to get along with each other for the first time in history instead of going to war.imortal wrote:
Wow. Someone does not study history. So, how peaceful was the world BEFORE the nuclear age, exactly? And how would this tiem of 'world peace' have come about? Historically, the longest period of 'world peace' was during the Pax Romana, and few would call the Romans a gentle society.WinterWayfarer wrote:
If the United States of America did not drop those two nuclear A-bombs on Imperial Japan killing and destroying hundreds of thousands of innocent human lives, the entire world would have seen some better days for the start of world peace, not world destruction, may have already begun.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
If you lived back then, or had any idea what it was like, you would have wanted the bomb dropped. WWII was probably the largest, most desperate war in US history. Think of the repricussions if the Allies would have lost. How was the US even supposed to know what that the Japanese were planning to surrender? The Japanese had shown no signs of wanting to surrender, even after they had lost almost their entire military months before. Even after the nukes were dropped and the Japanese government surrendered there were small groups or resistors throughout Japan. With thousands being killed every day, I imagine they wanted to end the war as soon as possible.
Yeah, shame on the United States for getting pissed at a country that attacked them without warning, just because they MIGHT be a problem for the ambition of a bunch of people wanting to take over a considerable portion of the world to use its resources. Oh, in case I lost you, that was Japan attacking the United States.WinterWayfarer wrote:
So I don't study history?? You are a complete dumbo, plus you got conquered by Havoc there. I am saying that if the United States of America did not drop those two nuclear bombs on Japan and tried to have Japan cooperate or something, many countries could have followed suit with their own dispositions. We could've learned how to get along with each other for the first time in history instead of going to war.imortal wrote:
Wow. Someone does not study history. So, how peaceful was the world BEFORE the nuclear age, exactly? And how would this tiem of 'world peace' have come about? Historically, the longest period of 'world peace' was during the Pax Romana, and few would call the Romans a gentle society.WinterWayfarer wrote:
If the United States of America did not drop those two nuclear A-bombs on Imperial Japan killing and destroying hundreds of thousands of innocent human lives, the entire world would have seen some better days for the start of world peace, not world destruction, may have already begun.
edit: a lotteamorange wrote:
derailed a little
Fuck me sideways, we had B-52's in 1945? Well why the hell couldn't we have just dropped more bombs on them, considering they had, oh, three times the payload capacity of normal bombers of that era? I'm sorry, it's just that you seemed to know oh-so-much about the WWII era I expected you to get the mundane details correct. Guess not. Anyhow, how many of these atomic threads have been closed on these forums? Give it up, we fucking did it, its over, move on.Havok wrote:
We were already working out a peace treaty when we dropped the bomb(s). We knew that if we made the Japanese feel like they were surrendering, mass numbers of people would commit suicide because of their Bushido Code. We dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki for a reason; to scare the Soviet Union. The Cold War started right after we split up Germany and Berlin. We knew that when the Soviets had pushed through Eastern Europe to get to Berlin, and that they would continue to spread communism in this region even after WWII had ended. We decided to prove to the Soviet Union and to the world that capitalism is better by being stronger. To do this, we dropped the bombs.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
So what do you suggest the US should have done, rather than invade or nuke Japan?
It may sound far fetched, but why else would we attack non-military targets unless we wanted to show the devastation we could cause? If we truly wanted to cripple Japan into surrender, attacking military targets would have been much more effective. Instead, we wanted to show our might by using a weapon that brought the Cold War to a whole new level. What we didn't expect was that the Soviet Union was also very close to a nuclear weapon. We thought that we could show and maintain our superiority, but it wasn't so. As seen by this Tsar Bomb, the Soviet Union's nuclear program was stronger than our own.
To answer your question though, we should have sent an emissary to Japan with a surrender treaty that would not make the Japanese feel like the losers of the war, which is exactly what we did after we atom bombed them. Since we had already knocked the Japanese out of every foreign island they had captured, it's likely they would have surrendered had we worded the treaty correctly. Violence breeds more violence. This can be seen back from Hiroshima and Nagasaki (the creating of M.A.D.) and even in Iraq today (the insurgency formed due to our invasion).
EDIT:Wrong. Have you read the book Hiroshima? I recommend it. Combined in the two bombs, yes, over 100,000 were vaporized instantly. These 'villages' each had over 100,000 people. Hardly a village. My city (Melbourne, Florida) only had about 75,000 people, and we're pretty big.imortal wrote:
Now, for the atomic bomb. Yes, it was attrocious, but there were not "100,000+ vaporized" as you have hinted at. First, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were realatively small villages.Wrong again. They may have had minor military function, but I think that could be said for any industrial city in Japan during WWII. We dropped a test bomb in New Mexico in June of 1945. We knew exactly what it was capable of. That's why President Truman delivered a speech over radio waves to Japan about the approximate strength of the bomb. All of the info he described could not have been recorded in a day, especially when we had no satellites or scientists in Japan to watch the bomb happen, other than the cameras on the B-52's that dropped the bombs.imortal wrote:
They were chosen because they had SOME military function, albeit a small one, having minor factories. And, since they were so minor, they had not yet been attacked or bombed in the war. This was because the atomic drops were also a test, and any damage seen could be assumed to have been caused by the bombs.Wrong. The populations of these cities was over a hundred thousand. You are correct that many died or were disfigured due to radiation damages, but you cannot exclude the immediate damages that the bomb did. Literally tens of thousands were killed instantly in both bombings. Even though some thousands survived, the damages done to their lives were almost as bad as death, considering almost every building was destroyed in the centers of these cities, family members were likely to have died, and there was no able government to help them until the war had ended.imortal wrote:
The total populations of the 2 villages were not in the hundreds of thousands, and realatively few were "vaporized." Most that immediately died would have been do to blast damage or radiation poisoning, with many more dying over the next decade. Many thousands survived the blasts.
Yea, I have to agree with you on that one..imortal wrote:
Let's put it this way. If every single country except for... Australia got rid of all its weapons and all their militaries, then Australia would rule the world. Peace and understanding is nice, but might makes right, whether you wish it away or not.