America got it right when it nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Discussions on WW2 in the Pacific and the Sino-Japanese War.
Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

#31

Post by Caldric » 04 Aug 2003, 23:27

ChristopherPerrien wrote: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.
Well I do think so.

They cause mass death, that is the only point.

Physical destruction is hardly important when everyone is dead.

Anyway that is not the point, he is trying to use modern events to damn WWII events, hardly surprising.

Not to mention 1 standard for the US and multi-standards for others.

User avatar
Nectar
Member
Posts: 698
Joined: 20 Jul 2003, 20:42
Location: Arnhem

#32

Post by Nectar » 05 Aug 2003, 00:18

that's full of crap. The topic is about atomic bombs. If it was justified to bomb Japan. We weren't talking about gas or chemical warfare.

I don't have double standards if you think so.
Do you?

I stand proud for what I believe in, my country and my freedom. I say what I think. Is that wrong? Am I some dumb leftie? I sure ain't dumb!

What can be applied to your country can to any other country. If any country would use atomic bomb, i would be against it.

I wasn't talking about the bc weapons (as in abc :idea: ), and indeed talking about these weapons you are correct. These weapons were (and still are) being used many times. And so, forming an opinion on these is far more difficult.

History itself will repeat itself.
And don't say it isn't!
It's so easy to draw a line between then and now, so why shouldn't?

But no hard feelings on you anyway 8) :D


User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

#33

Post by Takao » 05 Aug 2003, 08:33

wombat_21 wrote:Only america may have weapons of md and no other country. Only america may have the right to use weapons of md.
I would like to point out that the United States was not the only nation pursing atomic weaponry. The United Kingdom, Soviet Union, Germany, and Japan were all pursuing development of these weapons. The UK,when their cash and resources ran short, combined their program with the Americans. The Soviets placed a much greater emphasis on their conventional armed forces and thus, their atomic research proceeded slowly. Germany's scientists moved quickly to develop these weapons, but due to errors in their calculations, concluded that atomic weapons would not work. In Japan, the government was not convinced of the feasibility of atomic weapons, thus their research was under-staffed, under-funded, and procceded at a snail's pace. Caldric has been kind enough to provide a fairly current list of those nations possessing nuclear capability in today's world.

As for the right to decide on the use of a weapon, that lies solely with the nation possessing the weapon. America had that right because they were the only one in possession of an atomic bomb at the time. No other nation had the right, because they had no atomic bombs to drop. You might as well ask yourself what gave Germany the right to use the V-2? It was an unstoppable(once launched) weapon that struck without warning. This weapon killed and wounded many, and it's large CEP precluded it's use against anything smaller than a city. At least with the atomic bomb, you could shoot down the bomber carrying it.
wombat_21 wrote:What if russia had dropped an a bomb on berlin? Would the USA have liked that?
The Soviets didn't need to. Not to mention the fact that the Soviets neither had an atomic bomb nor a means to deliver it. From "Russia at War". The quote is from Colonel-General Berzarin, commanandant of Berlin. (from pg 990-991)
Quote:
"Our artillery and infantry won this battle. The allied bombing caused great damage here, but it was of no direct military value. The allied dropped 65,000 tons of bombs on Berlin, but it was we who, in a fortnight, fired 40,000 tons of shells at it."
wombat_21 wrote: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.
If the Atomic bomb was bad, then why did other nations continue with their own nuclear programs. Why are other countries in possession of this "bad" device? And why are still other countries looking to be added to the list of "haves".
If the atomic bomb is good, then why haven't we used it since?

The atomic bomb was not fully appreciated for all of it's capabilities. Even the scientists that worked on the project were not sure of what would happen. In terms of devastation, the fire raids on Japan were more destructive than the atom bombs. As for the lasting effects of radiation, no one would knew about that until years later. Therefore, your quip on deformed children is null and void for this debate.

As for history repeating itself, are we placing bets on when Germany is going to start World War III? I'm sure I got a spare saw-buck somewhere.

User avatar
davethelight
Member
Posts: 1691
Joined: 21 Dec 2002, 08:52
Location: Australia

#34

Post by davethelight » 05 Aug 2003, 12:50

Perfectionistul wrote: lol, not only you give yourself the right to drop a-bombs on a starving population but you also give yourself the right to speak in their name, wonderful.
I fail to see how your'e logic works for you to say something like that.
DOES NOT COMPUTE. DOES NOT COMPUTE

Please explain.

User avatar
Perfectionistul
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: 27 Apr 2003, 19:24
Location: At the limit of the western world, Romania

#35

Post by Perfectionistul » 05 Aug 2003, 18:24

Well, you speak with so much certitude when it comes to the "sheer numbers" of Japanese lives that were saved, it almost gives the impression that you knew each and every "would be victim". :roll:

User avatar
Nectar
Member
Posts: 698
Joined: 20 Jul 2003, 20:42
Location: Arnhem

#36

Post by Nectar » 05 Aug 2003, 18:42

As for the right to decide on the use of a weapon, that lies solely with the nation possessing the weapon. America had that right because they were the only one in possession of an atomic bomb at the time. No other nation had the right, because they had no atomic bombs to drop.
So if my country had possesion of these kind of weapons the use of them would be justified?
Possesion of weapons justifies the use? So why this:
You might as well ask yourself what gave Germany the right to use the V-2? It was an unstoppable(once launched) weapon that struck without warning
They possesed it! From the german point of view the use of V2's would have been justified because they owned it. As you said.
Or is it that only american weapons are justified??

And would the enola gay had some special markings on his belly which said: "Hello, I'm the bomber that's about to drop an atomic bomb. Please shoot me down if you don't want this to happen"??
If the Atomic bomb was bad, then why did other nations continue with their own nuclear programs. Why are other countries in possession of this "bad" device? And why are still other countries looking to be added to the list of "haves".
If the atomic bomb is good, then why haven't we used it since?
Because, of your quote:
As for the right to decide on the use of a weapon, that lies solely with the nation possessing the weapon
Or is this rule then only valid for America?
Possesion justifies use, was is not?
You can drops where ever you want, as long as it isn't in America.

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

#37

Post by Caldric » 05 Aug 2003, 18:49

Wombat you brought up WMD not me, you tried to degrade the US position by stating the US was the only ones to use WMD, which is false, Iraq has used them also. So if it is crap it is crap of your making, so in the future if you want to do a modern comparison and use modern moral equivalency then make sure it is relevant. The only reason the US was the only one to use Atomic weapons was because they were the only ones to have any, do not think for a second Germany or Japan would not use them. The USSR would not because it could take Germany. It would be counterproductive for them to use Atomic weapons on their own battlefield.

Atomic weapons are also different then modern Nuclear weapons.


I will quote you here when you brought in WMD:
Wombat wrote: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!
Sounds more like you have a problem with modern USA. More people are free today to live their lives as they will then any time in history, Democratic and representive nations have went from 80 to 115 since the end of the Cold War. Ever heard the saying "must break a few eggs to make an omelet"?

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

#38

Post by Tim Smith » 05 Aug 2003, 19:55

Back on topic.

The Allies had publically set their war aim for both Europe and the Pacific as the 'Unconditional Surrender' of both Germany and Japan.

Japan never offered to 'unconditionally surrender' before the atomic bombs were dropped. What they offered was 'conditional surrender'.

The main conditions, on which the Japanese absolutely would not budge (before the atomic bombs) were that the Emperor must retain his position and that the four main Japanese home islands must not be occupied. Effectively equivalent to the terms offered by the Germans in 1918.

Both conditions were unacceptable to the Allies. The Emperor was a god to the Japanese people, and in the eyes of the Allied peoples bore ultimate responsibility for the Pacific war. To the average American in the street the Emperor was the enemy. So any surrender terms that leave him not only unharmed, but still in his pre-war position of influence, is unacceptable politically. And a peace agreement leaving Japan unoccupied, and possibly still clandestinely armed, is also out of the question politically. The Allies can't back down on their 'Unconditional Surrender' demand without losing face politically - therefore it couldn't be allowed to happen.

Finally, there would be at least half a million Allied casualties, a quarter of them KIA, if the Allies had to fight for just ONE of the four Japanese home islands (probably Kyushu) as bloodily as they fought for Okinawa. All you have to do take the casualties for Okinawa and scale them up. The Japanese had 10,000 planes (most of them kamikazis), 3 million troops and 20 million civilian 'militia' armed with bamboo spears. That is a HELL of a lot to defend Japan with, even if the Japanese are half-starved. The war would have lasted at least into 1946, very possibly longer.

Japanese casualties would be around 5 million killed in battle or by conventional bombing, and another 10-20 million dead of starvation when the US bombing and destruction of all Japanese shipping prevented their already meagre rice supplies from being distributed.

The American people are already tired of the war in 1945, how was Truman going to justify the deaths of over 100,000 more American soldiers to them when it became known to the people that Truman had the atomic bomb available in 1945 but chose not to use it?

Dropping the atomic bombs was a political necessity for Truman, as well as a military necessity.

The deaths of the 200,000 people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki very likely saved the lives of a hundred times that many.

User avatar
davethelight
Member
Posts: 1691
Joined: 21 Dec 2002, 08:52
Location: Australia

#39

Post by davethelight » 06 Aug 2003, 12:56

Perfectionistul wrote:Well, you speak with so much certitude when it comes to the "sheer numbers" of Japanese lives that were saved, it almost gives the impression that you knew each and every "would be victim". :roll:

Well I do consider myself well read enough on the subject to give my opinion with a high degree of confidence and conviction, though obviously not to the absurd extent that you have implyed. Why make such a ridiculous remark, it has no relevance, what point are you trying to make?

User avatar
Leica
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: 18 Jun 2003, 10:37
Location: Deutschland

#40

Post by Leica » 06 Aug 2003, 22:46

davethelight wrote:
wombat_21 wrote:But with what right?

What if the japs had a a bomb.
From their point of view a attack on washington was defitnly justified.
So why always think in the American point of view?
I am no American and I am glad to

History proofs that America will kill civilians
And history repeats itself
Like I said, the bomb ended the bulls**t.
Japan was just about beat. The war was winding down.
They had no chance of winning, all they could acheive was prolonging
the agony. What right did they have to do that?
By the time America dropped the bomb Japan should have
already quit more than a year before. The struggle was
pointless by that stage, as was the continously mounting death toll.
In my opinion America had the right to stop all that crap in one
simple stroke. There was a price, but the savings were greater.
This logic does not apply to Japan nuking America either, unless of course America is the shattered, wrecked but obstinate country holding on to the bitter end long after the cause has been lost and common sense has been abandoned. But that's what Japan was. A victory for common sense in my opinion.

Anyway, maybee this dicussion would be better in it's own thread.
You are wrong: http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=28765

Larso
Member
Posts: 1974
Joined: 27 Apr 2003, 03:18
Location: Brisbane, Australia

#41

Post by Larso » 07 Aug 2003, 08:15

A couple of things. The Americans only had two bombs. They were dropped close together to imply that the US could bomb at will. Now if one of these had been used on Mt Fuji or an off shore island as a warning and the Japanese percieved it as weakness, that would've been no result for the expenditure of half of the stock. Also as we know significant elements within the Japanese army were prepared to fight on even after Hiroshima and Negasaki, one would have axhieved very little. Also there was no guarantee both bombs would work. A failed 'demonstration' would have been very counter productive.

As for saved lives. Add in too the soldiers on the existing dozen battle fronts that lived because the war ended when it did. Also the thousands of prisoners of war who would have died if the war had gone an extra few months.

User avatar
davethelight
Member
Posts: 1691
Joined: 21 Dec 2002, 08:52
Location: Australia

#42

Post by davethelight » 07 Aug 2003, 11:49

Leica wrote:
davethelight wrote:
wombat_21 wrote:But with what right?

What if the japs had a a bomb.
From their point of view a attack on washington was defitnly justified.
So why always think in the American point of view?
I am no American and I am glad to

History proofs that America will kill civilians
And history repeats itself
Like I said, the bomb ended the bulls**t.
Japan was just about beat. The war was winding down.
They had no chance of winning, all they could acheive was prolonging
the agony. What right did they have to do that?
By the time America dropped the bomb Japan should have
already quit more than a year before. The struggle was
pointless by that stage, as was the continously mounting death toll.
In my opinion America had the right to stop all that crap in one
simple stroke. There was a price, but the savings were greater.
This logic does not apply to Japan nuking America either, unless of course America is the shattered, wrecked but obstinate country holding on to the bitter end long after the cause has been lost and common sense has been abandoned. But that's what Japan was. A victory for common sense in my opinion.

Anyway, maybee this dicussion would be better in it's own thread.
You are wrong: http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=28765
No Leica, on the balance of probabilities it is clearly you who is wrong.

User avatar
Kurt_Steiner
Member
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Feb 2004, 14:52
Location: Barcelona, Catalunya

America got it right?

#43

Post by Kurt_Steiner » 10 Apr 2004, 14:27

think America got it right when it nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It cost the lives of up to 200 000 Japanese people, the majority civilians, but it more than likely saved the lives of more than half a million civilians who would have died in a land campaign on mainland Japan, not to mention another million or so Japanese combatants and fifty to a hundred thousand allied service men.
I hope you're kidding... 8O

Please, take a look at http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/truman.html

Perhaps you'll change your mind.


Best regards.

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 784
Joined: 23 Mar 2004, 01:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

America got it right when it nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki

#44

Post by Simon Gunson » 12 Apr 2004, 18:18

Takao and Lawrence raised a couple of good points. Lawrence, if Stalin did not pass on peace feelers and there were feelers through Moscow and Stockholm, then it is because he wanted to grab Manchuria and Korea.
Stalin also wanted to capture the 8th Imperial Japanese Army's Nuclear laboratory at Hungnam in what is now North Korea.

Check out Japan's Secret War by Robert K Wilcox or his website which is
http://www.robertkwilcox.com

His book establishes by quoting files at US Army archives in Suitland how the Japanese succeeded test blasting a nuclear weapon two days after Hiroshima's blast. The German's were shipping uranium to Japan for enrichment by u-boat in 1944.

Read "Major Jordan's Diaries" and you will discover that Roosevelt was shipping Canadian uranium to Stalin through Persia, without Churchill's permission. USA was fixing to stab the British in the back in 1943 until they found out how dangerous Stalin really was.

I don't believe the Americans were ready to use the bomb, nor really wanted to in August 1945. I think they used it because they knew Stalin was shipping division to the far east and did not want Stalin to capture Japan's nuclear project.

I don't believe it was dropped to save American lives but to force Japan's capitulation before Stalin declared war on Japan.

User avatar
chrisccoyle
Member
Posts: 209
Joined: 19 May 2003, 02:07
Location: Australia
Contact:

#45

Post by chrisccoyle » 16 Apr 2004, 04:40

Did you know that the second nuke did not convince the Japs to give up, do you know what it was?

davethelight wrote:Well, all other arguments and petty griping aside, I think America got it right when it nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It cost the lives of up to 200 000 Japanese people, the majority civilians, but it more than likely saved the lives of more than half a million civilians who would have died in a land campaign on mainland Japan, not to mention another million or so Japanese combatants and fifty to a hundred thousand allied service men.
Basicly, the bomb ended the bulls**t.
Anyway, that's all I want to add to this debate (very much a digression).
Back to the main topic.

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in the Pacific & Asia”