WW2, The United States, and Nukes

[BUDDY]

One needs only to review the history of the invasion of Okinawa to see that the Japanese people were taught that it was better to die by suicide, than to surrender. At the time, there was a lot of propaganda ebing thrown to the people telling them that if they surrended tot he American they would be tortured and murdered, so fight and die because you will have more honor that way. I think one look at the event on Okinawa, the mothers jumping off cliffs with their children in their arms, the soldiers running undaunted towards American positions holding hand grenades, and the rest, would make the decision pretty clear. As horrible as the act was, in the end I believe that it saved lives.

 

[mr.guy]

Maybe bush was too much of a peace-nick after all when considering his tactics in Iraq....in retrospect, wouldn't it have been better to nuke them, too?

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Maybe bush was too much of a peace-nick after all when considering his tactics in Iraq....in retrospect, wouldn't it have been better to nuke them, too?

Would have dealt smartly with all those bloody insurgents, just for starters. And saved all those servicemen that have been killed, not to mention the odd civilian engineer that's had their head lopped off on video.
Think of all the lives Shrub could have saved if he'd just dropped a nuke.

 

[Thorin the Skald]

And what about all those in England and other European countries who lost lives, homes and loved ones??? Were they just "in the wrong place at the wrong time"??? People die during war.....in EVERY war. Is it more "honorable" to have several thousand die vs. several hundred thousand? That is what would have happened had we gone into Japan with troops......perhaps MANY hundreds of thousands....or more. I agree with BUDDY on this one.....and others......who feel that it was the thing to do.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

And what about all those in England and other European countries who lost lives, homes and loved ones??? Were they just "in the wrong place at the wrong time"??? People die during war.....in EVERY war. Is it more "honorable" to have several thousand die vs. several hundred thousand? That is what would have happened had we gone into Japan with troops......perhaps MANY hundreds of thousands....or more. I agree with BUDDY on this one.....and others......who feel that it was the thing to do.

Ugh. No, what is honorable is to look at the actual facts as compiled by your government - not propaganda, but an unbiased report - and accept that maybe it was a mistake that could have been avoided.
Of course, if sticking your heads up your arses and perpetuating the lie you prefer over the facts is what works for you, by all means have at it.

One day I'll learn to leave these bloody threads well enough alone...all the boiling of blood at sheer willful ignorance can't be healthy.:banghead3

 

[jeffrey]

I think it did save lives. Studied this a few times in school. But did we learn from it? I believe we did. It has not happened again. And because of it's horrific effects, it most likely prevented WW3 from taking place with the U.S.S.R..... At least so far.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

mmm. Or it's just perhaps less prudent to deploy a nuclear weapon against an opponent that is similarly capable than it is against someone who isn't.

 

[jeffrey]

If we would have used nukes in Vietnam, there would have been a lot less loss of American lives with a different outcome... But we didn't. I'm not advocating we should have. In fact, I don't think we should have been there to begin with. We did not nuke Bagdad. We did not nuke N. Korea.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Would have dealt smartly with all those bloody insurgents, just for starters. And saved all those servicemen that have been killed, not to mention the odd civilian engineer that's had their head lopped off on video.
Think of all the lives Shrub could have saved if he'd just dropped a nuke.

Quoth the Raven, that is not a valid comparison and you know it. Saddam Hussein wouldn't have surrendered even if we had dropped a nuke. The Japanese fought fanatically to the death, killing themselves and their families rather than being captured--Iraqis didn't. There would have been many times more civilians and soldiers killed and buildings destroyed in an invasion of Japan than there were in the invasion of Iraq.

At Okinawa alone, which covers an area of about 2,270 square kilometers, there were 72,000 American casualties, 100,000 Japanese soldiers were killed (and only 7,000 captured), at least 150,000 civilians were killed or killed themselves, and 90% of the buildings were destroyed.

Now imagine how many more soldiers and civilians would have died and how much more destruction there would have been if all of the main Japanese islands, which cover an area of 377,800 square kilometers, had to be taken.

You do the math.

Again, mid-20th century Japan was very different from modern day Iraq, and your comparison is not valid.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

United States Strategic Bombing Survey

Summary Report

(Pacific War)

July 1 1946. (http://www.trumanlibrary.org/)

:banghead3

The survey you quoted says that Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs hadn't been dropped. That shouldn't be too surprising....if the bombs hadn't been dropped, the B-29's flying over Japan would have continued to increase in number and increase their payloads. As has been pointed out numberous times on this thread, the atomic bombs were not really any more devastating than conventional weapons like firebombs. In all likelihood, a sustained bombing campaign would have killed many more people and destroyed many more buildings than the two atomic bombs that were dropped.

So yes, Japan probably would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs hadn't been dropped....but two atomic bombs probably killed less people than a few more months of conventional bombing.

 

[ChrisP]

This thread is pointless and depressing. People die every day. Especially during war, it's a fact of life.:sad4:

Can we just drop the subject and think happy thoughts??? :shout :rainbow1:

 

[Quoth The Raven]

The survey you quoted says that Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs hadn't been dropped. That shouldn't be too surprising....if the bombs hadn't been dropped, the B-29's flying over Japan would have continued to increase in number and increase their payloads. As has been pointed out numberous times on this thread, the atomic bombs were not really any more devastating than conventional weapons like firebombs. In all likelihood, a sustained bombing campaign would have killed many more people and destroyed many more buildings than the two atomic bombs that were dropped.

So yes, Japan probably would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs hadn't been dropped....but two atomic bombs probably killed less people than a few more months of conventional bombing.

Or you could have just said they could keep their emperor in the first place instead of saying no to something you agreed to in the end anyway, and it'd have been done and dusted without either option being employed. Funny how after the emperor told them it was all over they didn't burn down their houses and stream of the cliffs into the sea in the manner of lemmings.
Of course, an unwillingness to negotiate is completely justified. It makes it so much easier to claim you're saving lives later by killing a few of the enemy with the brand new toy.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

This thread is pointless and depressing. People die every day. Especially during war, it's a fact of life.:sad4:

Can we just drop the subject and think happy thoughts??? :shout :rainbow1:

Read every other one of these there's ever been here Chris...often enough they get nasty and locked. Frankly I wish people would stop starting the bloody things, cos they make me so angry I can't stay away from them.

 

[ChrisP]

Read every other one of these there's ever been here Chris...often enough they get nasty and locked. Frankly I wish people would stop starting the bloody things, cos they make me so angry I can't stay away from them.

ditto L_L. Hang, on I'm gonna have to dig up a Peacenik pic now

MMMMMmmmnn psychadelic :rainbow1:

 

[Quoth The Raven]

ditto L_L. Hang, on I'm gonna have to dig up a Peacenik pic now

MMMMMmmmnn psychadelic :rainbow1:

Cool. Now everybody sing....
'Jeremiah was a bullfrog....'

 

[ChrisP]

Cool. Now everybody sing....
'Jeremiah was a bullfrog....'

You weren't already? Oh you were on Kumbaya, that makes way more sense.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

You weren't already? Oh you were on Kumbaya, that makes way more sense.

Actually I think I was singing something by Country Joe and The Fish.

 

[ChrisP]

Actually I think I was singing something by Country Joe and The Fish.

The mind boggles

 

[Quoth The Raven]

The mind boggles

It should

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Or you could have just said they could keep their emperor in the first place instead of saying no to something you agreed to in the end anyway, and it'd have been done and dusted without either option being employed.

Or the Japanese could have just agreed to unconditional surrender. In that case, too, it would have been "done and dusted" without either option being employed. Japan was a militaristic, expansionist nation. I think the American people were justified in insisting on unconditional surrender, especially seeing how the conditioned surrender of Germany after WWI failed to secure a lasting peace.

Funny how after the emperor told them it was all over they didn't burn down their houses and stream of the cliffs into the sea in the manner of lemmings.

Funny how, until the emperor sent out a radio broadcast to the Japanese people telling them to submit to American forces, they did precisely that on Okinawa and in other places. Oh wait...that's not funny at all. :tsk: