It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Atomic bomb necessary?????

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 08:24 PM
link   
As you well know, an Atomic Bomb dropped in Hiroshima, Japan by the U.S ended the war.
The bomb killed 200,000 civilians causing Japan to surrender...But do you guys think that it was necessary? Could we have ended the war someother way? Perhaps only attack military bases?

www.doug-long.com...




posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 09:46 PM
link   
First of all, my interest would be in your own opinion on this issue, which will no doubt turn into a heated debate/discussion.

IMHO, in the determining of 'right' and 'wrong' in this debate/discussion, some relevant questions should be considered or answered first:

* Would the Japanese government have surrendered without the use of the Atomic bomb(s)?

* If so, when would they have likely surrendered?

* In the event that the US would have invaded Japan, due to the existing pre-invasion plans and casualty estimates available today, what would have been the resulting US casualties?

* Likewise, what would have been the likely casualty numbers for the Japanese defenders of their homeland?

* The US decision making process, discussion, and debate was that the Japanese would defend Japan as they defended Iwo Jima and Pelelou, etc., and as such, would an invasion of Japan have been necessary to gain a Japanese unconditional surrender?

* If the US opted to simply bomb Japan into unconditional surrender by non-stop conventional bombing, what would have been the likely Japanese casualties?

* If the conventional bombing and naval blockade option would have been taken, would this have forced the Japanese to unconditionally surrender?

* Considering all the known alternatives, what would have been the total Japanese casualties when compared to the known casualties that came from the atomic bomb(s) having been dropped?

* Lastly, since these were the first atomic bombs developed by any nation, what standard is being used to say whether dropping those two atomic bombs were indeed 'right' or 'wrong'?

Hindsight is always 20/20, when all things are considered in retrospect.





seekerof

[edit on 14-4-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   
In my humble opinion, it was outright wrong to bomb them with it with out warning them.

The United States government should have arranged it so that the Emperor of Japan at the time could see the bomb detonated, on an abandoned island for example. That way the Japanese Emperor would have been able to see its destructive force and made the descision to surrender without the huge loss of lfe.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   
In a war your sides lives are more important then the enemies. It was estimated that 500 thousand-1million american troops would have died if they had invaded Japan. If your america whats the obviouse choice to make? I do agree that they probably should have sent a warning nuke to some part of Japan that wasnt populated first, but they only had a couple nukes. They claimed that they could send a whole waive of nukes if they needed to. They called a bluff and Japan surrenedered.

[edit on 4/14/2005 by Croat56]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by hatchedcross
In my humble opinion, it was outright wrong to bomb them with it with out warning them.


Whaaaaaaaat!? We DID warn them. Fliers were dropped days ahead of time saying, "Something terrible will happen to these cities. Get out while you can." No one listened. The planes did a warning pass before dropping the bombs. When the sirens went off the first time, everyone hid. Then they assumed it was a recon mission when nothing was dropped. When they went off the second no one hid, and the bomb was dropped.

And yeah, as for showing them the power of the nuke that wouldn't be effective. As Croat56 pointed out, we only had a couple and they wern't something to be wasted. Besides, it took more than one dropped on thier country to get them to surrender, so how many demonstrations would it have taken?



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 10:45 PM
link   
The United States DID warn the Japenese that we had new a weapon and we would use it if they didn't surrender. They walked out on the meeting in a huff without listening.

The U.S. probably would have eventually won the war without using the bomb, but many more lives would have been lost since the Japanese of the era basically believed their emperor was god and they all fought to the death.

All in all, the decision to use the nuclear bomb was a good one and it actually saved more lives than it took.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by hatchedcross
In my humble opinion, it was outright wrong to bomb them with it with out warning them.


Did the soldiers that died at Pearl Harbor get a warning?

IMO, The bomb was necessary. The only way to judge its effectiveness was to drop it in a wartime situation. It could not have just been demonstrated, which is what the scientists wanted, because no one would truly realize the full potential of a nuclear device. Today everyone knows how much destructive power one of those things can produce and therefore no one uses them.


cjf

posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Area bombing, aka 'terror' bombing by the German people, had been common practice in the European Theater and employed by the Allied forces during WWII. The lines of collateral casualties as we know them today did not exist.

The incendiary bombing of Dresden and its' citizens by some 500+ allied heavy bombers as a historical example (estimates range in civil casualties 35k-100k) or the bombing of Hamburg two years prior (estimated 40k dead).

The first real, very heavy strike(s) on Japan's mainland, Honshu, naturally would and did employ a very similar strategy, regardless of the choice of ordnance used, one bomb or one-hundred thousand, it was simply going to happen. The US incessantly warned the Japanese beginning in 1944 (through about every means available) that the US and its' allies were going to bomb the snot out of them. The US told the Japanese about the 'bomb' in 1945 including drawings of the explosion it would create along with further warnings of relentless, continual bombing in leaflet form. Leaflets containing this informaiton were dropped on every Japanese city that had a population over 100k.

However; as a note, consider also the prevailing attitudes toward Japan by the allied nations, specifically the American's and her troops in the Pacific Theater. During the Pacific War the Japanese military and its' peoples were absolutely hated beyond any measure by Americans in the theater. Pearl Harbor, the Bataan Death March, the veracity by which the Japanese fought, prolific murder and torture of POWS and noncombatants...on and on. Fleet Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., of the USN summed up the prevailing attitudes of the time by making a very harsh statment to the press, "The only place they'll be speaking Japanese when I'm done with them is in Hell."

After Truman approved of the bombs use and the first bomb dropped with not much in the way of a response from Japan, I belive very few persons were tapping Truman on the shoulder asking, "Hey, don't you think that was a bit much?" No, they did it again.

In the year 1945, Japan is known to have had close to 200 active Divisions containing over 5 million men, the Japanese Defense Army (Mainland) alone in the same year contained some 50-60 divisions with an estimated 2 million defenders in place to repel any invasion and an additional 2 Divisions of elite and fanatical Imperial Gaurds. No picnic.

Did the use of the atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki save lives? Yes, those of the Allies and the Japanese simply by shortening the war, thus avoiding an invasion which would have dwarfed D-Day and by effectively hastening an unconditional surrender from Japan. Many, many other events also contributed heavily to Japan's eventual demise at enormous cost to human life, not solely atomic bombs dropped on two cities.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by hatchedcross
In my humble opinion, it was outright wrong to bomb them with it with out warning them.


Whaaaaaaaat!? We DID warn them. Fliers were dropped days ahead of time saying, "Something terrible will happen to these cities. Get out while you can." No one listened. The planes did a warning pass before dropping the bombs. When the sirens went off the first time, everyone hid. Then they assumed it was a recon mission when nothing was dropped. When they went off the second no one hid, and the bomb was dropped.

And yeah, as for showing them the power of the nuke that wouldn't be effective. As Croat56 pointed out, we only had a couple and they wern't something to be wasted. Besides, it took more than one dropped on thier country to get them to surrender, so how many demonstrations would it have taken?


This may be true but also you have to put yourself in the position of the Japanese. If you were attacked and found a flier saying such things, would you believe it? Maybe you would think it was all lies to enable an easy take over of your village.

War is war and I do not believe there can be rights and wrongs in war. War is wrong. Full stop. So if you've already engaged in war use whatever means necessary to win, if you don't like that, don't fight a war in the first place!



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Weapons are not a fate. Weapons are just a mistake of the human madness. No offense but your question is pathetic and sad.

[edit on 15/4/2005 by Musclor]



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Musclor
Weapons are not a fatality. Weapons are just a mistake of the human madness. No offense but your question is pathetic and sad.

[edit on 15/4/2005 by Musclor]


What do you mean by "weapons are not a fatality"?

Weapons are used and were created for one reason, to cause fatalities, to kill. The question was by no means pathetic and do you care to explain how it was 'sad'?

I feel that the bombs which were dropped were part of the war, luckily no more were dropped after. Wether they could have won with the attack on bases I am not so sure. What's to say the war would be over if they just attacked on ground, I believe that one of the reasons the war stopped was because such a huge destructive weapons was used. No-one was expecting it and I'm sure no-one wanted to encounter another.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Sorry i meant "fate" not "fatality". I mean they are not obligatory, you can live without them. And yes it is sad, cause people have forgotten this.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   
The way i see it and the simplest way i can put it is...

The U.S and Japan are on the same block..but they have problems with each other. Everyone knows that the U.S has a flamethrower. THE U.S warns people that they have a secret weapon...Japan decides,despite the warning, to throw a rock at the U.S flamethrower, breaking the trigger so that the U.S cannot use it against them. Unfortunately, the U.S' secret weapon is a tank...Which they roll out of their garage and park in front of Japan's house. They yell a warning for everyone to get out of the way. But they decide to stay and watch the 'show'. The U.S blows up half of the house away killing various family members..Japan surrenders and apologizes for the rock..



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Indeed stalemate.

But then Japan go and hide for 50 years to develop a SUPER tank. They use it on America, America sends 100 super dupper tanks back and causes a bit of a mess.




posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   


As you well know, an Atomic Bomb dropped in Hiroshima, Japan by the U.S ended the war.
The bomb killed 200,000 civilians causing Japan to surrender...But do you guys think that it was necessary? Could we have ended the war someother way? Perhaps only attack military bases?


No, I don't think it was necessary. I would have preferred the possibility of nuking an isolated military target to nuking civillians. Yes we could have ended the war another way. Hindsight is 20/20.

However, I think some good things came of it, for it woke the world up to the horror of nuclear warfare. Such weapons and the concept of MAD, helped to foster a Cold War environment between nuclear powers, vs. an actual war which would have cost far more lives. In the end, the act of dropping those bombs saved countless other lives that would have been lost in the war...on BOTH sides.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Good point Gazrok -

The Mod has spoken - Thread closed



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally Posted by Musclor
Weapons are not a fate. Weapons are just a mistake of the human madness. No offense but your question is pathetic and sad.


First of all how are just a mistake of human madness. The idea of weapons first originated as protection from what now are crazy people.
If you are implying that guns kill people then I can blame spelling mistakes on my pencil. Take away every weapon ever made and see how you protect yourself when a 6'3 psycho breaks into your house...

This question is not pathetic..200,000 people were instantly killed due to a bombing during a war and it isnt sad to question whether it was truly necessary or not.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   
The U.S. also saved alot of money by dropping the bombs. Think of how much it would have cost to send all those troops across the atlantic to invade Japan. 1 plane is alot cheaper. It ended the war alot quicker too.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Spiritual awakening -> no madness -> no weapons -> no war -> no such question

Do you understand what i mean ?

People live with problems -> I try to understand and solve them. You see, global peace and harmony is not utopia, we can achieve this, but we need to do it together, now.

"Open your mind and your consciousness, then you will see the light of wisdom which will save you."

If what i say is too much absurd for you, just ignore it and go your way. I brought my message and this was the most important.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   
No, what you say is not absurd, but what is, is that you should have given your 'talk' to Hitler and Tojo first?

Then perhaps WWII might not have taken place.
Then maybe we wouldn't be here now second-guessing why the Truman administration or the US decided to drop the Atomic bombs on Japan, eh?







seekerof




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join