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.
Well if thread has achieved anything, it has proven how some Americans see the rest of the world.
I have always been very pro -US however it does get harder everyday.
It seems most in this forum think that WW2 start with the bombing of Pearl Harbour. Just because the US didn't enter until 41 doesn't mean the Japanese weren't causing terrible atrocities already against other western countries.
Australia has always been there to support the US. While we do not have the population we certainly do provide the strategic position.
Originally posted by pavil
Is it that simple?
You seem to think that strategic bombing something that was accurate. It wasn't like the JDAM's of today. Even daylight bombing by the USAF was not accurate. Yes they hit their target but they also hit everything around it. Night bombing by the RAF was little more that drop it on the city and hope you hit the targets you were aiming for.
Do you still bomb the factory?
Originally posted by Valhall
Yeah, you do. You perform "due diligence" to minimize civilian casualties and "collateral damage". You aim for the factory...you attempt strategic bombing.
Thank you for proving my point better than I ever could have. A nuclear bomb dropped on a major population center is not "strategic bombing"...it's mass murder.
Case closed.
Strategic bombing aims to undermine a nation-state's ability to wage war, historically as a part of a total war strategy.
en.wikipedia.org...
These fires were so hot they would literally ignite the clothing on individuals as they were fleeing. What was particularly horrifying was a lot of the women were wearing what were called 'air-raid turbans' around their heads and the heat would ignite those turbans like igniting a wick on a candle to start consuming the flame. The aftermath of the incendiary bombings lead to an estimated 100,000 Japanese dead. This may have been the most devasting single raid ever carried out by aircraft in any war including the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. en.wikipedia.org...
How is dropping the Atomic bomb on Japan not an aspect of Strategic bombing? It totally broke the will of Japan to continue to fight, when other attacks failed to do so.
Originally posted by Valhall
So, for you...and your ilk, "strategic bombing" means to kill as many civilians as possible in order push the enemy into submission, right?
Because that's what you just said. Instead of attempting the best attempt at strategic bombing, you just said that dropping a nuke on a major civilian population center is a "strategic bombing".
I'm just trying to make sure I understand you here.
Originally posted by pavil
In that sense it was of very great strategic value, hence my use of the term "an aspect of strategic bombing". Would it have been more humane to bomb all of Japan's industrial and urban centers into rubble and have 750,000 - 2 million casualties at a minimum? Why is that considered more acceptable?
Originally posted by XphilesPhan
If anything to me this thread proves many things.....
That americans are envied and hated....
Originally posted by SteveR
Originally posted by XphilesPhan
If anything to me this thread proves many things.....
That americans are envied and hated....
I hope that's not the true extent of your comprehension.
Originally posted by firebat
Hiroshima/Nagasaki were acts of terrorism and barbaric murder and anyone who believes otherwise needs to pull that blood-soaked flag from over their eyes.
Originally posted by firebat
Hiroshima/Nagasaki were acts of terrorism and barbaric murder and anyone who believes otherwise needs to pull that blood-soaked flag from over their eyes.
The first such raid on Tokyo was on the night of February 23–24 when 174 B-29s destroyed around one square mile (~2.56 km²) of the city. Following on that effort 334 B-29s took off from the Mariana Islands on the night of March 9–10 heading for Tokyo. After 2 hours of bombardment the wooden city of Tokyo was engulfed in a firestorm. These fires were so hot they would literally ignite the clothing on individuals as they were fleeing. What was particularly horrifying was a lot of the women were wearing what were called 'air-raid turbans' around their heads and the heat would ignite those turbans like igniting a wick on a candle to start consuming the flame. The aftermath of the incendiary bombings lead to an estimated 100,000 Japanese dead. This may have been the most devasting single raid ever carried out by aircraft in any war including the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Around 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city were destroyed in the fire storm. The destruction and damage was at its worst in the city sections east of the Imperial Palace. In the following two weeks there were almost 1,600 further sorties against the four cities, destroying 31 square miles (80 km²) in total at a cost of 22 aircraft. There was a third raid on Tokyo on May 26.
The firebomb raids were not the only raids on Tokyo; there were more regular raids using conventional high explosives. With the capture of Okinawa, the Eighth Air Force was transferred there from Europe and began its own raids. Monthly tonnage dropped on Japan had increased from 13,800 short tons in March to 42,700 tons in July (from 12,500 to 38,700 metric tons), and was planned to have continued to increase to around 115,000 short tons (105,000 metric tons) per month.
The firebombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities is considered a war crime by some. Unlike the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were at least partially intended to force Japan to capitulate immediately, fire-bombing, which killed more civilians in total, was carried out as a long-term strategy to destroy Japan's ability to produce war materials as well as undermine the Japanese Government's will to continue the war. In the context of total war, the large number of Japanese civilians killed by strategic bombing was seen as acceptable by the American administration. When reflecting on the campaign after the war, some expressed doubts about the morality of the firebombing. Curtis LeMay later said: "I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal." He felt, however, that his bombings were saving lives by encouraging Japan to surrender earlier. Former Japanese prime minister Fumimaro Konoe's statement that, fundamentally, the thing that brought about the determination to make peace was the prolonged bombing by the B-29s, lends support to this view.
Tokyo was not considered as an official target for the first nuclear attacks, although Tokyo Bay was apparently examined as a target for a non-lethal demonstration.
Originally posted by JbT
The Nuke Bombs saved MILLIONS of lifes. If they didnt drop those bombs every city in Japan would have been burnt to the ground along with every person in Japan, untill they couldnt make chop sticks... or weapons.
[edit on 14-8-2006 by JbT]
Originally posted by firebat
You can say that it saved millions of lives all you want... but at the end of the day, we still nuked 200,000 civilians. You can justify it by saying it ended up saving lives and it may have... I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is the fact that we, as Americans, do and have always thought of ourselves as the ones to make all these moral decisions. ...... I fundamentally disagree with condemning innocent people to their deaths for whatever reason, even if it is to "save millions more." Just because we CAN do it doesn't mean we should.
And besides, there is plenty of information out there that points more to the theory that the atomic bombings were a show of force for the Soviets and that they were primarily used to kick off the Cold War. There is plenty of information to back this up.
No offense to those that perished at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but how is it not ending the war early and saving at a minimum 500,000 per side, Japanese and American( as most historians believe), not the moral choice to make? Granted it is not a great choice, but that is what was left as of July 1945. You make the best of the cards you are dealt.
Would it have been more palatable for you for the US to invade the Japanese homeland Islands and battle for 1-2 years to subdue Japan to the state of unconditional surrender? Any way you look at it, the end of wars are devastating, there are no easy, simple choices.
For most of human history, wars have been awful, bloody affairs that end even worse than they begin. Hence, the need to avoid them whenever possible. Sadly, we repeat the same routine time after time.......
Quarterback history aside...
For most of human history, wars have been awful, bloody affairs that end even worse than they begin. Hence, the need to avoid them whenever possible. Sadly, we repeat the same routine time after time.......
by firebat
So what's another 200,000 dead Japs, right?
Quarterback history? Or propagandist history altered to convince people like you that killing 200,000 innocent people is an acceptable thing to do?
Originally posted by rich23
And a word on Pearl Harbor...
Firstly, ever since the Japanese had allied themselves with Germany and Italy, the USG had been trying to provoke them into war. The US blocked Japanese ships' access to the Panama canal, for example, and the ultimate sanction was a complete oil embargo.