No ‘Oppenheimer’ fanfare for those caught in first atomic bomb’s fallout

volsrock said:
u are on the side of the idiot left that keeps slavery alive
Click to expand...

On some issues I side with the moderate left, on some issues I side with the moderate right because I'm not an ignorant, narrow minded extremist cheerleader like you are, who's too weak to allow himself to see both sides and too dishonest to care about putting the truth above partisan politics.

Mule headedness is your problem not mine.
 
Stone said:
A full on land invasion of Japan would have cost a tremendous amount of civilian casualties. Probably more than the deaths caused by the bombs. You have to understand the people of Japans mindset in those days......they would have fought to the death every inch of the way. CIVILIANS and military, not just the military. It would have been awful for all parties involved.
Click to expand...

I know the argument. And more people feel like you do than feel like I do. Many more.

I just can't cross that line in my head. It's a bridge too far in terms of the ends justifying the means. For me, not intentionally targeting a civilian population is an absolute. There is no grey area. It's wrong, and will always be wrong.
 
BartenderElite said:
I know the argument. And more people feel like you do than feel like I do. Many more.

I just can't cross that line in my head. It's a bridge too far in terms of the ends justifying the means. For me, not intentionally targeting a civilian population is an absolute. There is no grey area. It's wrong, and will always be wrong.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point. If civilian life is want you want to save then the A bombs were the right way to go. Harsh I know,....but war means you have to make tough choices,
 
Stone said:
We tried to warn them that we had a new super weapon and that they should lay down their arms and quit so we didnt have to use it. A damn sight more than they did when they attacked Pearl out of the blue BTW. They didnt listen. Instead they fucked around and found out. Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ending up actually SAVING lives on BOTH sides. If we would have had to do an actual boots on the ground land invasion of Japan it would have cost them quadruple the lives AT LEAST then what the first A bombs cost them as they were very radicalized and surrender was not in their vocabulary. To say nothing of the massive loss of life on our side. A land invasion of Japan would have been a blood bath on a grand scale, not to mention the Island hopping involved fighting it out tooth and nail on the way there. Those who cry about the Atomic Bombing of Japan are ignorant of FACTS and history.
Click to expand...
Eisenhower was against it. Too bad he did not have your superior knowledge. Japan was done and peace talks were going on. After doing such a horrible thing, America had to justify it. So they made up and repeated the stories that fool people like you. America could not have said we did not need it but used it anyway. We spent the equivalent of 2 trillion dollars. We had to justify that too. And we wanted to see how much damage it would really do.
 
Last edited:
Nordberg said:
Eisenhower was against it. Too bad he did not have your superior knowledge. Japan was done and peace talks were going on. After doing such a horrible thing, America had to justify it. So they made up and repeated the stories that fool people like you. America could not have said we did not need it but used it anyway. We spent the equivalent of 2 trillion dollars. We had to justify that too. And we wanted to see how much damage it would really do.
Click to expand...

The things you believe.....:palm:

:magagrin:
 
Nordberg said:
Eisenhower was against it. Too bad he did not have your superior knowledge. Japan was done and peace talks were going on. After doing such a horrible thing, America had to justify it. So they made up and repeated the stories that fool people like you. America could not have said we did not need it but used it anyway. We spent the equivalent of 2 trillion dollars. We had to justify that too. And we wanted to see how much damage it would really do.
Click to expand...

First off,....Eisenhower ran the European/ German theater,....not the Asian/ Japanese. Second,....we all have the ability to look back and see how things turned out,... in this case good. But Ike was dealing with situations in REAL time. Two very different things. After doing such a horrible thing? Have you no clue what Japan did? Rape of Nanjing,.... Bataan death march,..ect ect. I suppose the fire bombing of whole German cities we supported was just fine though huh? The A bombs SAVED lives on both sides. PERIOD. You are simply wrong and ignorant of facts and history.

Trivium......Grammar, LOGIC, RHETORIC. :thinking:
 
Last edited:
"Operation Downfall was the proposed Allied plan for the invasion of the Japanese home islands near the end of World War II. The planned operation was canceled when Japan surrendered following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Soviet declaration of war, and the invasion of Manchuria.[1] The operation had two parts: Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet. Set to begin in November 1945, Operation Olympic was intended to capture the southern third of the southernmost main Japanese island, Kyūshū, with the recently captured island of Okinawa to be used as a staging area. In early 1946 would come Operation Coronet, the planned invasion of the Kantō Plain, near Tokyo, on the main Japanese island of Honshu. Airbases on Kyūshū captured in Operation Olympic would allow land-based air support for Operation Coronet. If Downfall had taken place, it would have been the largest amphibious operation in history, surpassing D-Day.[2]

Japan's geography made this invasion plan quite obvious to the Japanese as well; they were able to accurately predict the Allied invasion plans and thus adjust their defensive plan, Operation Ketsugō, accordingly. The Japanese planned an all-out defense of Kyūshū, with little left in reserve for any subsequent defense operations. Casualty predictions varied widely, but were extremely high. Depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians would have resisted the invasion, estimates ran up into the millions for Allied casualties."

MILLIONS of casualties JUST on the allied side alone. Can you imagine the loss of life on the Japanese side? Once again Nordberg has proven that he doesnt know what he's talking about.
 
Stone said:
A full on land invasion of Japan would have cost a tremendous amount of civilian casualties. Probably more than the deaths caused by the bombs. You have to understand the people of Japans mindset in those days......they would have fought to the death every inch of the way. CIVILIANS and military, not just the military. It would have been awful for all parties involved.
Click to expand...

Not really since they surrendered.

They weren't willing to fight until the end.
 
Losing THAT many people at one time with the massive damage that goes along with it is far different than the lives and damage that comes over time and attrition. Totally different Psychology involved.
 
Stone said:
Right......AFTER we used the A- bombs. AFTER. I know its early but WAKEY WAKEY! :laugh:
Click to expand...

Well they weren't prepared to fight to the end then were they?

Why does it matter if you die from a bullet or a bomb?

Japan still had plenty of aircraft and anti-aircraft weapons, they saw the bombers coming that dropped the bombs but ignored them so if they were prepared to fight to the end then why didn't they?

Odds are we would have invaded it they would have surrendered just as quickly.

They had the ability still to make it very difficult for our bombers to get on target.
 
Stone said:
The things you believe.....:palm:

:magagrin:
Click to expand...

For once I agree with Nordberg, not something I do very often.

Japan was on its knees. There were many military chiefs who were against it. Admiral Leahy, for one who wrote in his 1950 memoirs that "the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Moreover, Leahy continued, "in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

Eisenhower was against as well, as he recalled in 1963, as he did on several other occasions, that he had opposed using the atomic bomb on Japan during a July 1945 meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson: "I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."

There were just two of many who were opposed, others of course, included Churchill and Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, neither of who could be called bleeding hearts
 
Last edited:
Tinkerpeach said:
Well they weren't prepared to fight to the end then were they?

Why does it matter if you die from a bullet or a bomb?

Japan still had plenty of aircraft and anti-aircraft weapons, they saw the bombers coming that dropped the bombs but ignored them so if they were prepared to fight to the end then why didn't they?

Odds are we would have invaded it they would have surrendered just as quickly.

They had the ability still to make it very difficult for our bombers to get on target.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? The firebombing of Tokyo was only made possible by there being complete air superiority, only a fool would suggest otherwise.
 
Stone said:
"Operation Downfall was the proposed Allied plan for the invasion of the Japanese home islands near the end of World War II. The planned operation was canceled when Japan surrendered following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Soviet declaration of war, and the invasion of Manchuria.[1] The operation had two parts: Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet. Set to begin in November 1945, Operation Olympic was intended to capture the southern third of the southernmost main Japanese island, Kyūshū, with the recently captured island of Okinawa to be used as a staging area. In early 1946 would come Operation Coronet, the planned invasion of the Kantō Plain, near Tokyo, on the main Japanese island of Honshu. Airbases on Kyūshū captured in Operation Olympic would allow land-based air support for Operation Coronet. If Downfall had taken place, it would have been the largest amphibious operation in history, surpassing D-Day.[2]

Japan's geography made this invasion plan quite obvious to the Japanese as well; they were able to accurately predict the Allied invasion plans and thus adjust their defensive plan, Operation Ketsugō, accordingly. The Japanese planned an all-out defense of Kyūshū, with little left in reserve for any subsequent defense operations. Casualty predictions varied widely, but were extremely high. Depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians would have resisted the invasion, estimates ran up into the millions for Allied casualties."

MILLIONS of casualties JUST on the allied side alone. Can you imagine the loss of life on the Japanese side? Once again Nordberg has proven that he doesnt know what he's talking about.
Click to expand...

Sorry but that just totally incorrect, the plan was to use nukes until Japan surrendered, you're a bright guy why don't you know that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top