Was the deployment of the two nukes justified?

Discussions on WW2 in the Pacific and the Sino-Japanese War.
Chief Whip
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 27 Apr 2002 16:16
Location: EU

Post by Chief Whip » 05 May 2002 19:39

Ah, sod it. Never mind already, Chesire. I won't change your mind anyway. Just remember that you are pretty much a hypocrite, you complained about III. Reich and the bloody reign in the East, but when Japanese people get burned alive or incinerated, you just simply don't care. A shrug and an excuse ('to end the war') and that's that. Aren't we being a tad racist and inconsequent here, Mr. Chesire Yeomanry?

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Post by Andy H » 05 May 2002 20:09

Lets get a few things straight shall we.

1, I'm not a rascist, never have been and never will be

2, I care but this thread isn't about "Caring" it's about making a choice, which again you can't seem to do. It's a hard choice but the men back in August'45 made it right or wrong, unlike you who seems happy to spout off without making or giving a viable alternative.

3, Hypocrite-No, Yes I complained about how the III Reich burn't poeple but the two don't compare. In Germany they were brought together for this sole purpose, the allies didn't do this in Japan.

4. You can't distance yourselve from the emotive subject matter, at it's basic level It's kill or be killed, simple as that, you make a choice.

5. Maybe you can't change my mind and I'm not looking to change yours, but I'm just trying to understand why you think it is so wrong given the circumstances of the day. I understand that you find the action abhorent and I respect that viewpoint but you give no alternative-as usual.

6. I never make it personnel and I certainly don't take to calling people racists, nazis, or whatever, that just demeans everyone.

:D Andy from the Shire

James Patrick
Member
Posts: 456
Joined: 05 May 2002 16:14
Location: Saint Louis, Missouri, USA

Post by James Patrick » 06 May 2002 14:51

It was justified. It ended WW2.

Pumpkin
Member
Posts: 216
Joined: 19 Apr 2002 14:38
Location: Stockholm

Post by Pumpkin » 06 May 2002 17:32

Cheshire Yeomanry wrote:There is no nice way to die in war, dead is dead is dead,
It's strange how such scary arguments appear when the actions of the allies is put to question. So, being shot or gassed doesn't matter?

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Post by Andy H » 07 May 2002 20:21

Pumpkin

I was using this rather cold sentence to make the point that in this instance that convential bombing as per the USSAF raid in March which killed 90,000 had much the same effect as the A-Bombs in there casualties caused. Between March-July 1945 the USAAF killed some 350,000 civilians through conventional bombing and still there was no sign of the Japanesse giving up-then after 2 A-Bombs they give up-coincidence I think not.

It's strange that this raid in March is never talked about, always the A-Bombs.

:D Andy from the Shire

User avatar
Thunderstruck
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: 14 Mar 2002 18:18
Location: Texas

Post by Thunderstruck » 08 May 2002 03:54

Some of you need to grow up.

War is war.

War is killing.

War is beating your enemy so far into the dirt he can never rise again to harm you.

People die in war.

You start a war and get the living snot pounded out of you TOO BAD.

I've been to Hiroshima, I shed no tears for the Japanese.

I shed no tears for the Nazi's or the Germans who allowed them to rule.

You know who I shed a tear for?

Not a damn one of you. I shed a tear for my countrymen who died defending MY rights.

I put my ass on the line to help defend my countrymen's rights as well.

Till any of you have done so shut up about the morality of war.

Who are you to sit safely ensconced in your homes passing judgement on those of us who have put our asses on the line to allow you to do so?

There is exactly ONE rule in war, win. All the rest is fluff.

Steve

User avatar
Cezarprimo
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 10:28

Rethoric...

Post by Cezarprimo » 08 May 2002 08:49

Mr. Thunderstruck, do you think I give a damn who you shed a tear for ?
Do you think I give a damn for what or who you put your posterior on the line ?

Well, you are damn wrong if you think so.

However, I give a damn on this discussion, and I belive that comming to terms with our past will help all of us live better in the future, that's why this kind of discussions are more than welcomed.

So Thunderstruck, stay on the topic and spare the rest olf us from this kind of rethoric or, if you don't like what we discuss here, just don't came any more.

As for this topic, I've already stated my opinion, but I'll do it again, for WWII the two nukes were unjustified, one can find thier justification in the way nukes prevented a big war from coming after WWII.

Regards

Pumpkin
Member
Posts: 216
Joined: 19 Apr 2002 14:38
Location: Stockholm

Post by Pumpkin » 08 May 2002 11:12

for WWII the two nukes were unjustified, one can find thier justification in the way nukes prevented a big war from coming after WWII.
I understand your reasoning, and ex post it seems to be correct. But it is an oversimplification. It was MAD (mutually assured deterrance) that helped prevent a WWIII. But that was not established until the 50s, when Soviet had a number of bombs, and means to deliver them. The nuke wasn't designed to prevent a WWIII, but to maximize the destruction of cities. Justifying it because of its (unlikely) consequences after the fact, is a bit strange.

User avatar
Starinov
Member
Posts: 1490
Joined: 18 Apr 2002 16:29
Location: Québec, Canada.

Post by Starinov » 08 May 2002 15:05

Bombing cities full of civilians is considered as psychological warfare. It destroys the morals of the population (well, that's the theory). Using bombs in Germany or Japan makes no difference. Hamburg was bombed for several days in a row with loads that are equal to the first nuclear bomb. There is no difference between using conventional bombing and nuclear war in a total war. they produce the same effect but you can use far less aircrafts to achive the same goal.

IAR80
Member
Posts: 184
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 21:05
Location: Satu Mare, Romania

re

Post by IAR80 » 08 May 2002 20:12

Fine, so why didn't the US nuke the crap out of the taliban instead of sending valuable spec ops troops and getting some of them killed, not to mention the armada of aircraft sent (overkill IMHO). All it took was one B-1, B-2, B-52, you name it, one nuke and one city or cave complex or training camp. After all, 1 nuke and 1000 or more bombs offer equal firepower, so why bother massing such a large conventional army? Same for the Gulf war.

Chief Whip
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 27 Apr 2002 16:16
Location: EU

Post by Chief Whip » 08 May 2002 20:20

Hear hear Cezarprimo, well said.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Post by Andy H » 08 May 2002 21:15

Chief Whip

I'm still waiting for a reply as to if you had a choice what would it be invade Japan or drop the bomb.

If the bomb is morally idefensible then what other options did the allies have to finish the war.

To help me understand your point of view please give me viable alternative??

:D Andy from the Shire

User avatar
Starinov
Member
Posts: 1490
Joined: 18 Apr 2002 16:29
Location: Québec, Canada.

Re: re

Post by Starinov » 08 May 2002 21:49

IAR80 wrote:Fine, so why didn't the US nuke the crap out of the taliban instead of sending valuable spec ops troops and getting some of them killed, not to mention the armada of aircraft sent (overkill IMHO). All it took was one B-1, B-2, B-52, you name it, one nuke and one city or cave complex or training camp. After all, 1 nuke and 1000 or more bombs offer equal firepower, so why bother massing such a large conventional army? Same for the Gulf war.
because:

1.: that was total war then and not now
2.: it is not politically correct now

Ovidius
Member
Posts: 1414
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 19:04
Location: Romania

Post by Ovidius » 08 May 2002 22:59

Thunderstruck wrote:my countrymen who died defending MY rights
Pure Political Correct naivete.
Cheshire Yeomanry wrote:In Germany they were brought together for this sole purpose, the allies didn't do this in Japan.
If you say so... :mrgreen:
Pumpkin wrote:I understand your reasoning, and ex post it seems to be correct. But it is an oversimplification. It was MAD (mutually assured deterrance) that helped prevent a WWIII. But that was not established until the 50s, when Soviet had a number of bombs, and means to deliver them. The nuke wasn't designed to prevent a WWIII, but to maximize the destruction of cities. Justifying it because of its (unlikely) consequences after the fact, is a bit strange.
Neither MAD, nor the result of the A-bombings in Japan did prevent a WWIII. "The Nuclear Winter", which the Hollyweird had poured in our eyes and ears for half a century was more or less a hoax - even if a nuclear war would happen, the civilization is not going to end, and even if so, the survivors can rebuild it soon.

WWIII did not happen for the sole reason that there was nobody able to fight it. The European countries were occupied - the Western ones by Uncle Sam, the Eastern ones by the Soviet Commies, Japan was also occupied, China had not yet fully developed, USA and USSR were more or less in a balance(if they didn't continue secretly their WWII alliance :mrgreen: ), the rest of the world was too poor.
Starinov wrote:Bombing cities full of civilians is considered as psychological warfare. It destroys the morals of the population (well, that's the theory). Using bombs in Germany or Japan makes no difference. Hamburg was bombed for several days in a row with loads that are equal to the first nuclear bomb. There is no difference between using conventional bombing and nuclear war in a total war. they produce the same effect but you can use far less aircrafts to achive the same goal.
While, of course, shooting the crap out of Soviet and Polish partisans was a "heinous crime" and "totally unjustified", was it !?

~Ovidius

User avatar
MVSNConsolegenerale
Member
Posts: 274
Joined: 23 Apr 2002 06:34
Location: Ontario, Canada

Nuclear Winter

Post by MVSNConsolegenerale » 09 May 2002 01:14

Um...nuclear winter is possible. Depends on the scale of the nuclear exchange. If between 1970-89 a full nuclear exchange occurred, then there would have been a disasterous nuclear winter. Plant life would almost all be wiped out, and with it most animals (plants are the ONLY primary producers of energy on this planet!). Human kind would probably survive, but we'd be thrown into chaos of at least a thousand years.

Return to “WW2 in the Pacific & Asia”