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.

 

The Hiroshima debate, emotionalism vrs history...

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   
re·vi·sion·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-vzh-nzm)
n.
Advocacy of the revision of an accepted, usually long-standing view, theory, or doctrine, especially a revision of historical events and movements.

dictionary.reference.com...


Now is anyone here seriously trying to suggest that 50 years can qualify as a "long standing view"?




posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Now is anyone here seriously trying to suggest that 50 years can qualify as a "long standing view"?


Sixty years, actually; and all in my lifetime, which hardly qualifies it as a "long-standing view" LOL!



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Another thing a lot of people don't really realize is the fact that if no one had seen the destruction a nuke could do to a city, the US and the Soviets would have been a lot less hesitant to use nukes during the cold war, which could have resulted in more than two bombs being dropped on more than one country...



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Netchicken
Am I the only person annoyed at the anti bomb stance at the 60th anniversary of Hiroshima day?

Reading the articles in the media you are left with the feeling that the nasty American forces killed all those innocent Japanese out of spite, or to test their weapon, or scare the russians.

The actual historical antecedents around the event are lost in the outpouring of "oh poor people look what you suffered" articles.


Please excuse the truncated quote - it's not to infer or create bias in the original post by selective quoting - but just to reduce the amount of stuff to read through ...

Hiroshima is a point in time, and it's from that point that we as a species, must choose to learn and move forward, or we can just remain trapped under it's shadow, or ultimately in the shadow of other events of it's kind.

I understand the point being made in the original post. History may well come to judge the US more objectively than it does now. A speaker at the memorial event today spoke of Japan's need to face upto it's own culpability in the use of atomic weapons. Unquestionably the bombing saved many lives, despite the numbers killed in both (and it's worth remembering that the fire-bombing of Tokyo had killed an estimated 100k people anyway). Any invasion of Japan would have been both protracted and vicious, and had the potential for vast casualties, including of course the same civilian population. I'd go so far as to agree that their use there, is what has prevented their use elsewhere since. The rights and wrongs of each side in this are not for me to judge

What's important about Hiroshima [for me] is that we never, ever, forget the potential we have to annihilate ourselves and pretty much everything else on earth by the use of these damned nukes. The irony that the very thing that has kept us safe from them so far, is the fact that they exist in the first place cannot be lost. Until every man, woman and child has dignity, opportunity, freedom and peace, and we can resolve our differences by peaceful constructive dialogue, then we are stuck with them. That is why we must remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Having them is one thing, using them is something very different.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Nice post 0951


An interesting situation occured last night on the TV news. During the day on cable TV a reliable friend watched the BBC news which the Mayor of Hiroshima at the ceremony said some suprising things.

He acknowledged that the bombing was necessary in war and that the Japanese had committed terrible crimes and Hiroshima was their own fault.
When the evening news came around my friend was telling me to listen to this speach, it was so different, and so honest. Yet when we watched it, the entire part about the Japanese guilt was edited out. The Japanese responsibity for the event was never showing on TV at all.

Certianly we need to remember and learn from the events of that time, but at the same time to pull it totally out of its context and then to focus soley on that events distorts the event and fudges the line of responsability.



[edit on 6-8-2005 by Netchicken]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchyYou guys are pretty twisted. At least if we had invaded Japan we would have been killing Japanese Soldiers, hundreds of thousands of civilians died horrificly, and genetic mutations persist to this day. Japan offered a conditional surrender weeks before we dropped not one, but two atomic bombs on CITIES. Cities where Kids, Families, and Old People live, like this kid...


[sarcasm]Correct, because no civilians would have died from a full scale invasion by hundreds of thousands of marines on the mainland.
[/sarcasm]

The Japanese would not have given up unless we either invaded and conquered or dropped the bomb such as we did.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   
I think the Japanese probably would have surrendered without an invasion, but I don't think there was any way Truman could have known that with any certainty at the time. At the time, to the US leadership, it must have seemed like a no-brainer.

Information uncovered since has shown the Japanese were closer to a formal surrender than was thought, but the people making the decisions at the time did not have a clear picture of what was going on in Tokyo, for them the choice was between the bomb and invasion. As for the moral dimensios: we were already firebombing the hearts of Japanese cities, more people died in the conventional incendiary bombing of Tokyo than died in Hiroshima. That particular moral hurdle; the mass targeting of civilians, had already been crossed.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Read the link I put at the beginning xmotex, Weekly Standard it gives the most comprehensive overview of it that I have ever read. The Japanese were in no way intending to surrender.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
The Japanese military, by and large, had no intention of surredering.

However the Emperor and his advisors seem to have had other ideas.
Hirohito was ready to surrender on the condition he be allowed to remain Emperor. A condition which was eventually granted.

Which of these a given source seems interested in discussing seems to depend entirely on their political alignment


The Weekly Standard article is interesting, but I don't think the evidence presented strongly supports the authors conclusions at the end.

[edit on 8/6/05 by xmotex]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   
I don't understand why you Americans can't think of other ways that the WWII could have ended. What happened to tactics like nautical blockade? even if you did not do anything but waited at your coast for Japs to invade, you would have easily won the war.

Another tactic could have been hide & seek in the Pacific. The Japanese would not dare get their carriers to invade USA, because they wouldn't know if, at the same time, their home land would have been invaded by USA.

I don't agree with the opinion that many more would have died if the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were not dropped.

First of all, another Perl Harbour was unlikely to happen.

Secondly, USA had superiority in air, as the battle of Midway proved.

Thirdly, the Japan's Battlefleet was already destroyed. The IJN Yamato was sunk at April of 1945, and the Japanese had very few ships.

Forthly, just like the Enola Gay, a plane could have bombed Japan's military infrastructure with conventional bombs so they could not built other ships like the Yamato.

Furthermore, the British have just discovered the radar. I don't believe the Japs had it, did they? it could be used to easily wipe out Japan air and naval forces.

Finally, after the destruction of Germany, almost all of Earth's forces would have helped USA fight against Imperialist Japan...The USSR especially with its huge army and fleet.

I believe that it would take one more year for the final and total defeat of the Japanese. In the meantime, few Americans would have died as the result of naval and air battles. Remember that during the whole WWII, very few Americans died in the Pacific, especially compared with those that died in European battlefronts.

If America would not have dropped the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, then they would have a few thousand more casualties, but they would not have had the stigma of being the only country to having used nukes so far.

Another point of discussion is: why drop two bombs? wasn't one atomic bomb enough?

Yet another point is: wouldn't dropping a nuclear bomb in a deserted island near Japan accomplish the same targets? wouldn't Japanese be scared and surrender?

From all the above, I can see that there was really no point in dropping the two atomic bombs other than showing to the world "who's in charge".



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   
And 2 Cents from me - from a Related thread:

The Hiroshima Cover-Up

This time I will Quote Myself:



I fully Understand the meaning of the Atom Bomb being dropped on Imperial Japan during the WWII - it quickly ended the Final Agony of defeat and saved countless of lives, Japanese and American. I have no problem with that.

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki stand tall in the History books as a Bitter Reminder what an atom bomb actually does and the effect it leaves on the buildings, land and most important: the People.

The real problem is the Radiation Sickness which probably killed more people then the bomb blast itself. And according to these two reporters and their stories from the places of impact - the ARMY ofcourse denied everything and tried to keep the lid on it for a long, long time. Truth is that they wanted to see what the effect would be on the Urban Area and the Population. Why didn't they drop the bomb on a Military target? Like a Military Port full of Ships? That's the Question that was always in my head, since I have heard for Hiroshima and Nagasaki A-Bombs.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Well conventional explosives weren't very accurate in 1945 when dropped from above on specific targets. Many innocent civilians were being bombed because the bombs' accuracy just weren't that good. Add to that all the imbeded anti-aircraft flack being thrown at the bombers! An invasion would have been needed and costly.

You need to go back in time 60 years and then comment whether or not it was a good idea to drop the bomb. Looking at it through modern eyes is irrelevant.

I think dropping the bombs not only saved lives on both sides it also made Russia think twice about us. The women, children, and old folks that died, well thats too bad but it was required to keep my country free and independent.

My only regret is a bomb wasn't dropped on the Emperors head first instead. The bastard deserved it more because of what he did to us on December 7th 1941. But I think they ALL got what they deserved for what they did to us and every citizen was involved.

If they got the bomb first I'd be eating raw fish right now instead of steak. They sure nutted up afterward didn't they, and ever since!



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 06:50 PM
link   
MAN...this is fantastic! What a thread! This is why I come to ATS..so we can use big words like "revisionist".
Why does that word even exist??? Why would humans EVER want to look back and "revise" something? Like a model of the flat-earth, or whether light is a wave or a particle or how knowing that 550,000 civilian deaths stopped millions more.

Why EVER look back? Why ever question anything? Especially once the government has given us all the answers we'll ever need to know. I think people who look back are trouble makers and should be killed.
But that's just me.
I think anyone who questions authority should be ripped apart by large anilmals...but thats just me.
I think we need MORE nuclear weapons....MORE mass slayings of men, women and children.
Let's face it. Japan was an aggressive country back in the thirties. They illegally invaded other countries like China for their natural resources...like oil. I think they fabricated revenge for some atrocity commited by the Chinese a century earlier...but thats irrellavant.
They believed they were "civilizing" the chinese barbarians and they had the power. So....
1+1= Kicken *** and taken names. (remember that might makes right)

AND THEN KIDDIES, they had the GALL to think they should keep what they earned. But the U.S showed them. They tactically nuked their civilians in the model of a terrorist act...but then we didn't use that word back then, did we?
And you know what...it worked! Those cowardly Japanese quit! HAHAHA!
YA!
They lost so much life that they decided WAR just wasn't worth it. I'm glad the U.S will never make that mistake. I mean, even if there are HUGE protests in the country or something...it wouldn't stop a war. Even if there was huge, say worldwide, protest...its not stopping a U.S war. Even if the U.S congress declares a war illegal (like Iran/Contra) the U.S will just ship more weapons and sell more drugs to make it happen. Now thats what I call dead-i-cation. HAHA Get it? Dead-i-cation...haha. Someone explain it to EDSinger for me please.
A
n
y
w
a
y..to get back on topic, I believe in more nuking, more civilian casualties, less diplomacy, more world wars, less dialog, more killing, ABSOLUTELY NO REVISIONISM, a Flat earth, one holy and apostolic church, my fries super-sized, the "government knows best act" of 2008, book burnings, children informants, the devil, soy milk in my chai tea, ATS moderator superpowers, the A-Team, re-educating intellectuals, never questioning anything
and (most importantly)
THINKING JUST LIKE EVERBODY ELSE! hooray!

amen and god bless america, kids!



There is no enemy anywhere - Lao Tse



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TexasConspiracyNut
Well conventional explosives weren't very accurate in 1945 when dropped from above on specific targets. Many innocent civilians were being bombed because the bombs' accuracy just weren't that good. Add to that all the imbeded anti-aircraft flack being thrown at the bombers! An invasion would have been needed and costly.


But why an invasion in the first place? Secondly, at the time the bombs were dropped, more than 50 Japanese cities were flatten by American bombers. So?


The women, children, and old folks that died, well thats too bad but it was required to keep my country free and independent.


But your country could have been free and indepentent without dropping the bombs.


My only regret is a bomb wasn't dropped on the Emperors head first instead. The bastard deserved it more because of what he did to us on December 7th 1941. But I think they ALL got what they deserved for what they did to us and every citizen was involved.


How about threating them first? you could have said: "look, Japs, if you don't surrender,we are gonna wipe you from the face of this Earth with atomic bombs". From what I know, the Hiroshima bomb was thrown with no warning whatsoever.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
How about threating them first? you could have said: "look, Japs, if you don't surrender,we are gonna wipe you from the face of this Earth with atomic bombs". From what I know, the Hiroshima bomb was thrown with no warning whatsoever.


We did warn them. One week before we dropped the bomb, we warned them. We didn't tell them we were going to nuke them, we told them that they were facing "prompt and utter destruction" if they didn't surrender. They had their chance to surrender, it's their own fault they didn't take it.

There were even quiet a few Japanese people that acually were thankful that we dropped the bomb.

[edit on 6/8/05 by Slayer]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   
First off, the firebombings of Japan and Tokyo killed and maimed more people than the two atomics being dropped did. And yet, people are having major grief over the US decision to use the atomic bombs, huh?





as posted by masterp
How about threating them first? you could have said: "look, Japs, if you don't surrender,we are gonna wipe you from the face of this Earth with atomic bombs". From what I know, the Hiroshima bomb was thrown with no warning whatsoever.

Secondly, why should the Japanese have been issued a warning before dropping the atomic bombs on them? We were at war; they were at war. There is no fair play or a heads-up message to be given. Heads up warnings are useless in war anyhow. In the case of Japan, they would have simply told the US to shove it, which they basically did.
That would be like saying:
Germany should have warned Poland they were going to invade them.
Germany should have given warning that they were going to invade Russia with Operation Barbarossa.
Germany and Hitler should have given the Jews, Russians, Poles, Slavs, etc warning that they were going to be exterminated.
Japan should have given warning for Pearl Harbor.
The Allies should have given warning to the Germans that they were going to invade France with operations called D-Day.
Etc.
Etc.

Give Japan a warning? Hell, one would have to ask, did not the firebombings of Japan and Tokyo give enough warning that the US would end this war one way or the other? Incidently, neither the firebombings nor the dropping of the atomic bombs changed or deterred Japan's resolve to fight on till the bitter end. It took the emperor of Japan to contradict the will and resolve of the Japanese miltary establishment to bring the war to an end.
In war, you use every means at your disposal to win and end the war. This is not a charity benefit or a moral and ethical dissertation on how to be politically correct by giving a "warning."

If the Cold War had gone south, would either the US or Russia have given a warning? Hell no. Strategic and tactical surprise is the name of the game. Its called first initiative or first strike, where surprise is of the essence. The only warning either would have recieved would have been when their early warning systems detected those incoming ballistic warheads/missiles and oncoming strategic bombers.

A warning? Please.





seekerof

[edit on 6-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Also as Twitchy pointed out, the Japanese offered a conditional surrender before we bombed them twice. Americas involvment in WWII was shady at best, and our decision to use Nukes was even worse. I think it is good that people are questioning our decision, maybe then it will never happen again.


Be assured that real, correct, and meaningful History will never be written by historical revisionists either.


Yes, Japan offered a conditional surrender, but apparently and either unknown to you or twitchy or simply not being mentioned, is that the Japanese conditional surrender offer was not good enough. It was not good enough because during the wartime conferences, specifically the Potsdam Conference, it had been decided by Roosevelt and Churchill, concerning Germany, Italy, and Japan, that conditional surrender would not be acceptable or taken. Lessons from WWI, regarding the conditional surrender of Germany and how that backfired into WWII, had shown that nothing would suffice but a direct unconditional surrender from those nations making up the Axis powers. Hence the rejection of Japan's conditional surrender.

A conditional surrender for Japan would have allowed them to possibly maintain their war territory gains---you know how people are steadily whining and crying over Israel and them maintaining certain war territory gains---as well as, maintaining their army, navy, etc, setting up another possible Germany WWI conditional surrender situation. No, the US and Britain set out to make WWII the last major coventional global war and the lesson from that would be that if you decide to go to global war and lose, you lose it all, unconditionally.





seekerof

[edit on 6-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Seekerof....you still have not adressed how 60 years consitutes a long standing belief. The fact of the matter is, you and many others would perfer that the views of "history" stay a certain way. Let me ask you then, should we also continue teaching that Columbus "discovered" America? Should we also keep teaching that the revolutionary war was faught for slavery? Should we keep teaching that the birthplace of philosophy is Greece? The birthplace of civilization, Egypt?

The fact of the matter remains, there are plenty of things that you and I were taught as children that do actually classify as "revisionist", yet you choose to focus on the one aspect that might tarnish the American image. You are more transparent than you realize, and to attempt to logically sway others in your behalf is beyond reproach.

This very issue of Hiroshima, as you would have it told would claim that; the Japanese were a terrible force, able to sway the most virulent of American opposition due to their "lack of huamanity", "so much more would of died of course". Conveniently though you disregard the fact that we had prior knowledge to the bombing of Pearl Harbour, yet still choose to do nothing. Silent on the fact that MANY industrialist' actually financed the third reich, thereby financing, and profiting from both sides of the conflict. Silent you will be on the fact that America itsef was not responsible for winning the war, as many would have it believed, but was rather, another force just trying to make a buck like everyone else.

Silent you are on the fact that the greek, and hebrew translation for the word"holocaust" means "burnt offerïng". Silent the world is on the fact that if it was not for the "holocaust" or Shoa, the modern state of Israel would not be possible.
(sorry not trying to go off on a tangent, but it is relevant none the less)

You throw revisionist cliams at me sir....Well I throw "revisionist" claims at you and all of western civilizations long held beliefs on society and it's origins. To argue over a point as recent denies the multiple factors that have led up to said event. To try to circumvent them in any way shape or form, for any reason will get you nothing in mine eyes.

Not trying to knock you, just trying to give my opinion, it is strong, and it is IMO of course justified. I do appreciate your response, and correspondence. All I am saying is this: If you want to start throwing around the term "revisionist", then sit back, because I got a few thousand years of FACTS that are going to toss your world view on its head.

The fact of the matter is- If you were born and educated in the west, your whole foundation of knowledge is based upon LIES. So be careful once again, before you start throwing around accusations.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 10:33 PM
link   
phoenixhasrisin:



Let me ask you then, should we also continue teaching that Columbus "discovered" America? Should we also keep teaching that the revolutionary war was faught for slavery? Should we keep teaching that the birthplace of philosophy is Greece? The birthplace of civilization, Egypt?

Let me state for the record that there are real academically based historical revisionists and then there are simply those who claim to have a academic background or have an academic background, but who do not stick with academic historical revisionism methods, like scientific method is used in science, and amount to simply being fringe non-academia backed historical revisionists. You are aware of these two types? Are you aware of the their differences? You do understand that one uses the legit and academically/scholarly accepted methods of applying revisionism to make historical corrections versus the other that does not?

As such, academically based history books are or have been slowly being/been changed to make corrections on such matters that you have mentioned above. Ergo, books now indicate that Columbus discovered the 'New World' versus discovering 'America'. Ergo, the Revolutionary War was not fought over or for slavery. Incidently, if you have a book that says that the Revolutionary War was fought over or for slavery, you need to burn it, cause it was probably written by one of those non-sanctioned, non-academically backed historical revisionists, k? You must have been referring to the Civil War? Anyhow, that issue is still being, and has been for quite some time, debated in academia. Philosophy originating in Greece is still being debated by academia. And the birthplace of civilization being first in Egypt has been revised by academia. Btw, what one learns in elementary or middle school, or even high school, gets a rude awakening once you enter a decent and credible college or university [ie: higher education].





The fact of the matter remains, there are plenty of things that you and I were taught as children that do actually classify as "revisionist", yet you choose to focus on the one aspect that might tarnish the American image. You are more transparent than you realize, and to attempt to logically sway others in your behalf is beyond reproach.

Addressed above.





This very issue of Hiroshima, as you would have it told would claim that; the Japanese were a terrible force, able to sway the most virulent of American opposition due to their "lack of huamanity", "so much more would of died of course". Conveniently though you disregard the fact that we had prior knowledge to the bombing of Pearl Harbour, yet still choose to do nothing. Silent on the fact that MANY industrialist' actually financed the third reich, thereby financing, and profiting from both sides of the conflict. Silent you will be on the fact that America itsef was not responsible for winning the war, as many would have it believed, but was rather, another force just trying to make a buck like everyone else.

Something that needs to be made abundantly clear here is that the issue of Pearl Harbor and the historical revisionism that swells around it is very speculatively based, and has been, so much so, that the vast majority of scholarly academia has basically concluded that the issue of "prior knowledge" has been effectively 'debunked'. It has been debunked so much by academia, that the only people who STILL carry on such speculative non-academia backed crap are those historical revisionists that do not follow the methods of correct historical revisionism, like ihr.org and the like.
Anyhow, this topic has been discussed within ATS and can be readily found with a search, and has my imput in it, as well.

The issue of financing and profiteering during WWI and WWII are not being hidden and are readily discussed within the higher education history class for history majors in many credible and valid colleges and universities.

The issue of who won the war [ie: America] for the Allies in WWII is also debunked in higher education. Bear in mind that there is no discrediting the indepth benefits granted/provided and taken by the Lend Lease Act, k?





Silent you are on the fact that the greek, and hebrew translation for the word"holocaust" means "burnt offerïng".

Probably because it amounts to having no bearing, being irrelevant?





Silent the world is on the fact that if it was not for the "holocaust" or Shoa, the modern state of Israel would not be possible.

You are aware that academia records that there were efforts by a number of Jews, relating to Zionism, that sought a return to their historical homeplace prior to WWII? In fact, the initiative was being sought prior to WWI? Again, higher academia discusses this, satisfactorily.




Not trying to knock you, just trying to give my opinion, it is strong, and it is IMO of course justified. I do appreciate your response, and correspondence. All I am saying is this: If you want to start throwing around the term "revisionist", then sit back, because I got a few thousand years of FACTS that are going to toss your world view on its head.

As I am not trying to come across wrong to you or knock you, either. I am simply applying what is fact to what is half-fact and historical puzzle playing [ie: taking something out of its proper historical context and then trying to make it fit into one's scheme of revisionist thinking]. Be assured, I understand the full implications and meanings of what I am saying and indicating when I use the word: historical revisionist.


*edited to remove personal/self data.





seekerof

[edit on 7-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by masterpWhat happened to tactics like nautical blockade?

Blockade of what, with what? With out having the Japs try to blow the ships up?



even if you did not do anything but waited at your coast for Japs to invade, you would have easily won the war.

You really think anyone would want to entice the Japs to invade mainland US? Have you lost your mind?



I don't agree with the opinion that many more would have died if the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were not dropped.

Zero US troops died dropping two atomic weapons. Hundreds of thousands could have died invading the mainland.



Forthly, just like the Enola Gay, a plane could have bombed Japan's military infrastructure with conventional bombs so they could not built other ships like the Yamato.

The US was doing this and it did not have the effect of Thin Man and Fat Boy.




Finally, after the destruction of Germany, almost all of Earth's forces would have helped USA fight against Imperialist Japan...The USSR especially with its huge army and fleet.

The Soviet Union had just lost 10 million troops and many civilians and were hesitant of invading Japan who at the time posed no threat to them. They gave a minimum of 6 months to help the US after the surrender of Germany.



I believe that it would take one more year for the final and total defeat of the Japanese. In the meantime, few Americans would have died as the result of naval and air battles. Remember that during the whole WWII, very few Americans died in the Pacific, especially compared with those that died in European battlefronts.

If America would not have dropped the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, then they would have a few thousand more casualties, but they would not have had the stigma of being the only country to having used nukes so far.

Again, no troops died dropping the A-bomb. The goal in war is not to think about putting your troops safety in way of danger to give way to emotional sypmathy of the enemy.



Another point of discussion is: why drop two bombs? wasn't one atomic bomb enough?

Obviously one bomb wasn't enough considering the time frame between the two. The dropped one then waited three days to see if the Japs would change their minds, and they didn't.



Yet another point is: wouldn't dropping a nuclear bomb in a deserted island near Japan accomplish the same targets? wouldn't Japanese be scared and surrender?

Dropping a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima didn't convince them. Would it have worked better if the 2 hundred million tons of bombs dropped by allies been dropped on deserted areas?


[edit on 7-8-2005 by Frosty]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join