America got it right when it nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Discussions on WW2 in the Pacific and the Sino-Japanese War.
Post Reply
User avatar
Perfectionistul
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: 27 Apr 2003, 19:24
Location: At the limit of the western world, Romania

#16

Post by Perfectionistul » 04 Aug 2003, 21:34

Sam H. wrote: The US makes every effort to minimize civilian casualties.
Hmm, are you saying dropping the bombs was the only alternative? If US was so eager to minimize civilian casualties why couldn't the Americans just do a demonstration of an a-bomb on deserted island in front of Japanese and other international leaders?
Japan refused the surrender demands made by the allies as was preparing to fight to the last man, the bombs ended the war.
The reason why Japan refused to surrender on US terms is because US didn't guarantee the safety of the emperor, how many times do I have to repeat myself? The rest of the key demands of US were basically identical from what Japan was ready to offer.
Top
User avatar
Nectar
Member
Posts: 702
Joined: 20 Jul 2003, 20:42
Location: Arnhem

#17

Post by Nectar » 04 Aug 2003, 22:13

hmm, allow me to reformulate my question... What did Nagasaki NOT have that made it such a "high-potential" target (along with Hiroshima)? (hint: American POWs!). "Sadly", US Intel. didn't know that over 20 of their POWs were inside Hiroshima when the bomb was dropped.
So 20 american POWs should make a difference?
Top
Top
User avatar
Perfectionistul
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: 27 Apr 2003, 19:24
Location: At the limit of the western world, Romania

#18

Post by Perfectionistul » 04 Aug 2003, 22:20

of course not, I said that jokingly :D
Top
Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

#19

Post by Caldric » 04 Aug 2003, 22:28

Perfectionistul wrote:
Sam H. wrote: The US makes every effort to minimize civilian casualties.
Hmm, are you saying dropping the bombs was the only alternative? If US was so eager to minimize civilian casualties why couldn't the Americans just do a demonstration of an a-bomb on deserted island in front of Japanese and other international leaders?
That is silly, the scientist that built the bomb used that as an excuse to try and remove part of the guilt from their shoulders. Fermi went as far as to say he never wanted the bomb to be used, unless it was on Nazi's of course. This demonstration is silly and the thinking of children, the world does not work like that. If it did all the power could have met on a island in 1939 and flexed their muscles and just pass out territory as to who has the biggest stick, or potential stick. Or why not meet and have Stalin and Hitler fist fight? About as realistic as demonstrating weapons to each other.
Top
User avatar
Lawrence Tandy
Member
Posts: 1738
Joined: 18 May 2002, 08:41
Location: B.C, Canada

#20

Post by Lawrence Tandy » 04 Aug 2003, 22:30

I also don't believe that the U.S had enough bombs on hand or materials to waste one bomb for demonstrative purposes.
Top
User avatar
John W
Member
Posts: 9088
Joined: 03 Jan 2003, 08:12
Location: United States of America
Contact:
Contact John W

#21

Post by John W » 04 Aug 2003, 22:34

Well there are really two sides to this conflict:

I'm quite sure, that if Japan had had the atomic bomb by then, it wouldn't have hesitated to use them... much like the US did. People seem to forget that this was total war, civilians were as much the "front" as the soldiers were.

But then again, it is a very confusing scenario. If I am not mistaken, a blockade of Japanese ports was already in effect and a war looming with the Soviets. The Japanses had already show their willingness to negotiations. In such a scenario, wouldn't it have been much more simpler to just have blockaded the Japs into surrender?

I think that the first bomb could have been justifyable, but the second bomb makes absolutely no sense to me.

John
Top
User avatar
Nectar
Member
Posts: 702
Joined: 20 Jul 2003, 20:42
Location: Arnhem

#22

Post by Nectar » 04 Aug 2003, 22:42

Or why not meet and have Stalin and Hitler fist fight?
That would have been a fight :D

I still find the use of weapons of mass destruction not justified. Even now. So that's why i'm in dubio about the american gov.
Only america may have weapons of md and no other country. Only america may have the right to use weapons of md.
And why them? As leaders from the free world? I don't see a free world!

What if russia had dropped an a bomb on berlin? Would the USA have liked that?
What gives america the right to decide what's good and what's bad?
Still now childeren are being born mutulated. And it aren't two or three.
Top
Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

#23

Post by Caldric » 04 Aug 2003, 22:45

The US was not the first nor the only one to use weapons of mass destruction, I am so tired of hearing the phrase. Anyway massive gas and chemical warfare was a staple of WWI.
Top
User avatar
Nectar
Member
Posts: 702
Joined: 20 Jul 2003, 20:42
Location: Arnhem

#24

Post by Nectar » 04 Aug 2003, 22:52

we ain't talking about chemicals and gas
Top
Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

#25

Post by Caldric » 04 Aug 2003, 22:53

wombat_21 wrote:we ain't talking about chemicals and gas
Oh so you have several standards? Which hey I already knew that didn't I?
Top
User avatar
Nectar
Member
Posts: 702
Joined: 20 Jul 2003, 20:42
Location: Arnhem

#26

Post by Nectar » 04 Aug 2003, 22:59

I thought the topic was about atomic bombs?
Top
ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

#27

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 04 Aug 2003, 23:03

I thought the topic was about atomic bombs?
:lol:

Welcome to the Forum, all you new guys!
Top
User avatar
Nectar
Member
Posts: 702
Joined: 20 Jul 2003, 20:42
Location: Arnhem

#28

Post by Nectar » 04 Aug 2003, 23:05

I guess there would be a great market for an bush forum :D
Top
Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

#29

Post by Caldric » 04 Aug 2003, 23:10

wombat_21 wrote:I thought the topic was about atomic bombs?
wombat_21 wrote:I still find the use of weapons of mass destruction not justified. Even now. So that's why i'm in dubio about the american gov.
Only america may have weapons of md and no other country. Only america may have the right to use weapons of md.
And why them? As leaders from the free world? I don't see a free world!

What if russia had dropped an a bomb on berlin? Would the USA have liked that?
What gives america the right to decide what's good and what's bad?
Still now childeren are being born mutulated. And it aren't two or three.
Is it? Or is it only when convenient? Russia/UK/France all have WMD, India/Israel/Pakistan… China. France, Germany, Russia and UK have all used these weapons.
Top
ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

#30

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 04 Aug 2003, 23:25

I don't think so Caldric. Only Nuclear weapons cause "mass destruction." Media and political definitions not-withstanding.

Gas, Chemicals, and Biological agents can cause mass "death" but very little destruction.

Nuclear weapons cause both so they are in a class by themselves( mass.
death AND destruction).They are the only true single shot WMD's.
Top
Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in the Pacific & Asia”