Why Use Atom Bombs on Civilans Barely 3wks after 1st Test Detonation?

a reply to: Fallingdown

I'm Dyslexic also Fallingdown.

I don't think you're dumb, but the facts are important.

It was not just England that fought in WW2 but the United Kingdom, nevermind the rest of the allies.

As to Ireland's participation in the Manhattan project, well do you imagine there was not at least a few American persons of Irish decent amongst the 1000s of people who contributed to the design of the bombs?

The blame for the war should lie at the foot of the bastards who profited from both the axis and allied powers throughout the whole affair if you ask me.

a reply to: andy06shake

I’ve been World War II buff for over 40 years . I know what went on and some .

When I spoke of Ireland I was speaking of the whole nation not select individuals. Plus the fact that part was sarcastic.

Personally I wish the US would’ve never gotten involved. Then we would’ve never became the policeman of the world.

All of our part-time allies would be speaking Russian/German/Japanese and would probably be easier to get along with .

The atomic bomb was a horrible weapon. But Germany, England, Russia, Japan, Italy, Romania, Norway, Finland, Poland, Greece or China would have used it too .

It was a completely different time back there. The events can’t be judged by current standards .

a reply to: Fallingdown

I only ken what i was told by my grandfather who served on the carrier HMS Searcher, fighting alongside the rest of the Allied powers against Japan and the Axis regime.

A different time indeed but keep in mind History will always be judged by current standards.

The bomb was dropped to make the Soviets think twice if you ask me, Japan was ready to fall one way or the other.

Probably did save lives, but it also took them and changed our theatres of war forever after.

a reply to: andy06shake

I don’t think the bomb was completely understood when it was used .

The real question is why didn’t we use it again in Korea against the Chinese.

The evil blood soaked US bent on causing carnage and killing as many civilians as possible. Should’ve used it with no more thought than crushing a bug .

MacArthur wanted to but he wasn’t allowed.

That little tidbit of information is also left out most of the time .

a reply to: Fallingdown

Because its overkill in the extreme and again the Soviets never mind China would have had had something to say about the matter.

Pretty common knowledge MacArthur and a few other generals were willing to use nukes in Korea but luckily cooler heads prevailed.

Suck the paint right off your house mate and ruin your day for the next few 1000 years if truth be told.

the main reasons were because the people in government were afraid to drag the war out any longer and the second reason was to intimidate the Soviet union.

a reply to: andy06shake

The Soviets couldn’t of said much .

We were way ahead of them .

What gets me is how bad these wars were considered - and they were - but it only lasted 4 to 5 years. Now we’re in 15, 20 year long wars or “actions” in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. and it sadly seems normal to us. I realize the world is a much different place now, but over the course of the 20th century I like we became desensitized as a society and culture to constant war. That’s just not a super healthy way to live.

a reply to: Fallingdown

You also did not have enough nukes nor totally adequate delivery systems to stage a full-scale nuclear conflict in the same manner that the arms race took us back then against the Soviet Union nor China.

All you would have done is make a mess and provoke the rest of the world against you.

Like i said, I'm glad cooler heads prevailed, else chances are we would not be able to converse in the manner in which we are now doing for one thing nor probably even exist for another.

a reply to: oriondc

Never been peace in my 43 years on the planet.

And I'm not holding out hope anytime soon.

Too much profit and monies to be made from endless conflicts staged around the globe for our respective military industrial complex, banking houses, and financial institutions, to ever ignore.

a reply to: andy06shake

In 1950 the US had 299 nuclear weapons. The Soviet union had five .

We also had tornado jet bomber .

My point is no one could’ve done anything had we used nukes in Korea.

But we didn’t .

We learned our lesson from the first two and it’s held every sense .

Invading Kamikazes that would die for their Emperor at the time with infantry for their country an allies would of been sucide for both sides.

The bombs just broke the slate, and were used as warnings if they didn't yield.

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein
a reply to: roadgravel

Japan had already surrendered before we dropped the bombs.
LINK

Aww cute! Revisionist history.

This is a prime of example of why we are in the position we are in now with our culture and peoples idealism.

Actual history isnt taught anymore, So people dont know what trail led down to the tragedies that were the biggest heart breaks in our world.

a reply to: Fallingdown

All of our part-time allies would be speaking Russian/German/Japanese and would probably be easier to get along with

Yeah, people who are willing to commit complete genocide and wipe whole swaths of nations innocent or not off the map, are usually pretty easy to get along with, especially ones who were vocal about America being a target when they were done.

You know I like a lot of what you write in the political threads, but I just cant fathom this dumb of a thought process.

For a ww2 buff you sure as hell seem to not know about some key points in their plans

I was born only about a decade after that war ended, My father served as well as my uncles and a few aunts, you should probably brush up a lot more on your history kiddo

a reply to: Fallingdown

We kind of learned that using such would not be looked upon too kindly by other nations nor history in general.

However, if we had learned anything significant, do you really imagine we would have continued to detonate nuclear devices on the ground and in our atmosphere?

What we learned, at least to a fashion, is that the M.A.D world in which we now live has thus far retarded a third world war from transpiring, down the fact that there could be no out and out winners nor spoils to be had.

We are still through essentially pointing a loaded gun at everyone's head on the planet, whilst staging, fighting, and policing, multiple small wars and proxy conflicts where ever we care to choose around the globe.

If that's progress, i don't know how.

Japanese were evil back then and he only way to defeat them was nukes as would have cost millions of lives. They believed on their war far more then the krauts did almost to a man.

Two people i knew who fought them.

First fought both the Germans then moved to eat and fought the Japanese. He said the SS were wimps compared with the Japanese Imperial guard who he described as hell on earth to fight

Second vet was imprisoned by the Japanese, he said they were evil to our boys, their favoirite trick was to tie Brits to a wall for weeks and let a bamboo tree grow straight up their backsides until it killed them.

Unbelievable horrors, the Japanese are so lucky they weren't all wiped out for what they did

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

The people who came home from those Japanese concentration camps were never quite the same again.

God bless the poor sods and then some considering we did not even know what PTSD was back then.

That being said, in the grand scheme of things, the likes of which the Japanese got up to, pales by comparison to say the British Empire or say the Romans and following Holy Roman Empire and Church of St Peter.

History in its entirety could be considered to be a collection of unbelievable horrors if truth be told.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Fallingdown

Because its overkill in the extreme and again the Soviets never mind China would have had had something to say about the matter.

Pretty common knowledge MacArthur and a few other generals were willing to use nukes in Korea but luckily cooler heads prevailed.

Suck the paint right off your housemate and ruin your day for the next few 1000 years if truth be told.

No, it wasn't overkill as has been mentioned it saved lives that the cost of an invasion would have created, have you read the plans for the invasion? a three-prong month's long campaign going into the only beaches where an invasion could be possible. Japanese plans for defense show defending these beaches to the hilt, with no divisions held in reserve. It would have been a slaughter, not only American but allied troops alike. Civilian deaths would have likely been astronomical, as well and who knows it could have degenerated into seperate Japans or guerilla war. Not only were the civilians likely to fight back once occupation was established there would jave likely been suicides as there were in Okinawa, lots of them. Along with the battle had been among the most brutal of the Pacific War. The Navy suffered its greatest casualties for a single engagement. More than 12,000 Americans were killed and a further 50,000 were wounded. More than 150,000 Japanese — many of them civilians — were killed during the battle.

a reply to: putnam6

Of course, it was overkill!

Even the people that designed the things and were responsible for there inception recognized that fact.

People die in war, and war is a slaughter, plus there are always civilian casualties those are also unfortunate facts of life, but nuclear weapons kill indiscriminately and leave nothing standing nor habitable for quite some time.

That's not warfare, that's total annihilation.

If that's not overkill, i dont know what is.

a reply to: SailorJerry

It wasn’t meant a literally .