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.

 

Japanese official: Dropping the A-bomb was inevitable

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Its not often you get a politician going out on a limb with what has to be an unpopular opinion in his home city.


Fred, Fred, since when are health care/welfare cuts in US cities something the people want? What you should have claimed is that politicians rarely DO things that the people want done as they clearly frequently say and do things the citizens never asked or wanted.


However, did the US need to drop the A bombs on Japan? I have to say "yes".


No they did not and the Japanese in fact surrendered as quickly as it become clear to them that the Soviet declaration of war and their invasion of Manchuria (Operation August Storm starting on the 8th) were fast going horribly wrong for Japan. The A-bombs might have helped but what they really feared was the complete annihilation of their million man army in China and the then threat of a Soviet invasion long before the US could muster similar potential. .


Invading the home islands would have resulted in horrendous losses for both sides. With the propensity of the Japanes forces to defend to the last man, I can not even begin to imagine what it would have required to subjigate the islands.


A blockade and continued bombing would have forced them into surrender within months if not a year with only a few thousands more American casualties; casualties the US government clearly did not mind when they went recklessly went about island hopping for no strategic reason under the sun.


Despite protest and denials to the contrary is it possible that Japan was able to get back on its feet post war because of the bombs?


I don't see how but i am quite open minded when it comes to not so conventional views... How would their industry have been able to build much anything with the continued bombing given their complete lack of strategic materials and the technology that prevented the air war against Germany from being anything but marginally successful?


If we had invaded we would have had to level the country.


The Japanese leveled 10% of Tokyo and other major cities themselves just to create fire breaks so clearly they were just playing for time and did not have much of their cities left anyways.


Yes thier main cities suffered horrendous damage, but were able to rebuild ather quickly.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Rebuild with even more flammable materials, yes.


Originally posted by FredT
Not true. I draw your attention to the Trinity Test on July 16, 1945. The test validated the design of the plutonium implosion bomb aka Fat Man that was used on Nagasaki.


But the American government was not brazen enough to test it on a populated city ( thought they apparently decided Port Chicago 1 23 4 was 'expendable' or maybe it really was just a ammunition ship and a 'accidental' nuclear detonation]] so they preserved Hiroshima and Nagasaki to see what would happen to cities and not towns.


The US bomber command had for months spared Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Kokura from the conventional bombing that had leveled and burned 60+ other major Japanese cities during the first half of 1945. One of the reasons for targeting relatively undamaged cities was scientific: to see what would happen to intact buildings--and their living creatures--when atomic weapons were exploded over them.

Nagasaki is famous in the history of Japanese Christianity. Not only was it the site of the largest Christian church in the Orient, St. Mary's Cathedral, but it also had the largest concentration of baptized Christians in all of Japan. It was the city where the legendary Jesuit missionary, Francis Xavier, established a mission church in 1549, a Christian community which thrived and multiplied for several generations until, in the early 1600s, it became the target of brutal Japanese Imperial persecutions. Within 50 years of the planting of Xaviar's mission church, it was a capital crime to be a Christian. The Japanese Christians who refused to recant their beliefs suffered ostracism, horrific torture and even crucifixions similar to the Roman persecutions in the first three centuries of Christianity. After the reign of terror was over, it appeared to all observers that Christianity had been stamped out.

Now it turned out, in the mystery of good and evil, that St. Mary's Cathedral was one of the landmarks that the Bock's Car bombardier had been briefed on, and, looking through his bomb site over Nagasaki that day, he identified the cathedral, ordered the drop, and, at 11:02 am, Nagasaki Christianity was carbonized, then vaporized, in a scorching, radioactive fireball. And so the persecuted, vibrant, faithful center of Japanese Christianity became ground zero, and what Japanese Imperialism couldn't do in 200 years of persecution, American Christians did in 9 seconds; the entire worshipping community of Nagasaki was wiped out.

www.nuclearfiles.org...


I guess Japanese Christians were just 'unlucky' that Kokura have cloud cover that fateful day. If they had bombed these cities before i might have believed it was 'to end the war' but they were preserved specifically because there were no military industries or military related infrastructure and thus did not aid the nation's resistance in any logistical sense.


You could make a slim case that they 'tested" the little boy which was a uranium based gun type weapon, but its pretty clear the US leadership knew what the bombs would do and used them to bring the war to a halt.


So much so that they chose targets of no military value that had never been bombed before? Could they not have waited till the Japanese lost their army in Manchuria, which would have probably surrendered before the end of August, to see if the Japanese would really have gone on fighting without whatever strategic resources they could extract from North East China?

Stellar

[edit on 1-7-2007 by StellarX]




posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
"Kamikaze"
The Jaqpanese 'invented' the suicide bomber.


No such luck as the concept of suicide assassins are far far older than this.


What this implies, is that the Japanese would not accept defeat under any circumstances. Period.


I don's see how that is a reasonable assumption or conclusion but i guess your free to try prove it.


The kamikaze bombers were viewed as national heroes....


No they were not. There is a HUGE difference between a national hero and someone who is considered to have done his 'duty'.


What if the dropping of the bomb was meant to illustrate the fact that their tactics could not win?


What tactics? Was it not suicide for the German high command to order the Stalingrad garrison to hold when they had a fair chance of breaking out at the start? Was it not mass suicide when entire German divisions were overrun and as good as destroyed in mere days back in 1945? There are few countries who have not fought wars they lost before any shooting ever started yet still they tried and that is a far more desperate kind of suicide than diving your airplane into aircraft carrier/destroyer/ whatever expecting to do far greater damage than you ever could with a rifle in a trench next to your house. I don't like war and killing in general but it's lunacy to disrespect those who refuse to die without inflicting as much harm as possible on their perceived enemies.


What if the unfortunate devastation of several hundred thousand people was in actuality a means to stop them from decimating their own way of life?


Give that statement another read and if it still seems logical repeat it in your response.


I have no support for this thought...merely a rumination...


And why you think the US government then or now has the best interest of even Americans ( to say nothing of Japanese or those half a million odd dead Iraqi's) at heart is beyond me.

Stellar

[edit on 1-7-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by sy.gunson
Heisenberg was aware that Nazi Leaders had been arrested for war crimes trials and was furiously backpedalling to distance himself from the war effort. This was disinformation by the nazi scientists.



Interesting. Thanks for the info.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Not true. I draw your attention to the Trinity Test on July 16, 1945. The test validated the design of the plutonium implosion bomb aka Fat Man that was used on Nagasaki. You could make a slim case that they 'tested" the little boy which was a uranium based gun type weapon, but its pretty clear the US leadership knew what the bombs would do and used them to bring the war to a halt.


Then why did the USA install laboratories in Nagasaki and Hiroshima to study the irradiated victims? Why did they buy dead bodies that were killed by the explosion?



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX


A blockade and continued bombing would have forced them into surrender within months if not a year with only a few thousands more American casualties; casualties the US government clearly did not mind when they went recklessly went about island hopping for no strategic reason under the sun.


That statement is not completely true.
history

From this point on, Nimitz and MacArthur engaged in island-hopping campaigns that bypassed strongly-held islands to strike at the ememy's weak points. Campaigns against the Aleutians and Rabaul succeeded in stopping the Japanese advances and secured bases for Allied advances on Japan.


As memory serves an effort was made not to take every island, as the Japanese did during there offensive. As to weather the islands take were of great or little strategic value could always be debated, but to say they had no strategic value shows a certain amount of arrogance.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zanzibar
There is no way that anyone can justify the A-Bomb attacks, massacring countless thousands of civilians is not a way to end a war.


Your merry old England killed more civilians in Germany than the atomic bombs killed using just conventional weapons. It was war. More civilians could have died if the allies invaded Japan including probably a hundred thousand+ on the allied side.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Its not often you get a politician going out on a limb with what has to be an unpopular opinion in his home city. However, did the US need to drop the A bombs on Japan?


The US didn't "Have" to drop the bomb. But to end the war quickly and without further massive US casualties, it was the best option available. I know this gets peoples panties in a bunch but in 1945 we were looking at massive casualties on both sides with an invasion of the homeland islands of Japan. We dropped the two bombs in order to save American lives that would have surely been lost in the invasion and subsequent battles. They did their intended result, breaking the back of any thought of survival of the Japanese Government. The primary concern was protecting the lives of countless US troops that would have perished in an Invasion of Japan.

Were they horrible weapons, no doubt. Were they effective in ending the war, no doubt. In case you havent noticed most of the truely "great" weapons are those that destroy your enemy with the least loss of life on your side. In real all out war, you don't really care about the casualties on the other side, I know that will come as a shock to most. The A-bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 fit that bill to a "T".



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkSide
Then why did the USA install laboratories in Nagasaki and Hiroshima to study the irradiated victims? Why did they buy dead bodies that were killed by the explosion?


Weapons science is always doing things like that. You always want further study on weapons in an effort to improve them. In health care we call this process continuous quality improvement. Also, these bombs were dropped over a city and thus the effects were bound to be a bit differernt in that environment as opposed to open desert testing.

Now I could be nieve and suggest they wer elooking for ways to protect the radiation victems, but the reality is that they wanted to see what the short / lonbg term implications were in an city environment.


What exactly did you expect them to do? They had already left people in place in the fallout zone of the Trinity blast. (Several ranchers were missed in the inital sweep and were left in place to study)



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Probably the biggest blow to the German nuke program was the British Commando raid, destroying the heavy water plant at Telemark, Norway, on 02/28/43.

Many felt the German program was pushed back a number of years by that raid. The bombing of Peenemünde arguably may have set them back as well.

But there's little doubt among historians that the Germans had a program and were not far from constructing a device.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
Probably the biggest blow to the German nuke program was the British Commando raid, destroying the heavy water plant at Telemark, Norway, on 02/28/43.


This was a huge blow and it did really delay things. The plant produced a huge chunk of the heavy water in the world. That exactly why it was targeted. The Nazi's would have had no qualms about using the device on London if they had one. Heavy water occurs when deuteriom atoms replace hydrogen in the form of D2O

Canada had its part in the manhattan Project by making heavy water for the US.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
A blockade and continued bombing would have forced them into surrender within months if not a year with only a few thousands more American casualties; casualties the US government clearly did not mind when they went recklessly went about island hopping for no strategic reason under the sun.


Really, the island hopping strategy was necessary to gradually bring the home islands under the gun. The long range strategic bomber was a future weapons system as was the mid air refuling concept. Im at aloss as to how the US was to persecute a war without securing a chain of based from which to respully and regroup??

So what exactly are you saying here? That a blockade and basicaly burning down thier cities to bedrock was preferable. Its funny, the firebomb attacks are NEVER mentioned. Yet, seem to be far more horrific esp. if LeMay had been allowed to continue. As I mentined above it seems like a viceral reaction to the use of nuclear weapons themselves as opposed to operational realities.


How would their industry have been able to build much anything with the continued bombing given their complete lack of strategic materials and the technology that prevented the air war against Germany from being anything but marginally successful?


The strategic air campaign in Germany was part disaster and part sucsess. You have to fator in the psych ops portion of it as well and the fact that despite horrendous sccuracy it did force fundemental changes in how the Nazi's had to do things. From underground factories etc.

I was refering to post war Japan. If you basiclly had burnt out every industrial center and most of the airable land. rebuilding the country would have been much more difficult.



But the American government was not brazen enough to test it on a populated city ( thought they apparently decided Port Chicago


Yes, but that is very debatable. Pick though some of the thread here. Its pretty easy to make a case that port Chicago was a accident nothing else. Daisy cutter boms and the MOAB bomb also leave mushroom type clouds, no doubt all those convential explosives packed toher might do the same.

Its bad enough that the Manhattan Project used radiation sick employees and ranchers who were in the wrong place at the wrong time as lab experiemnts (often NOT treating them) but the evidence simply does not really support an atomic blast at Port Chicago (BTW I live about 50 miles south of there)



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   
The bomb caused less deaths than invasion would have.

350,000 Japanese citizens died in total. 220,000 approximately to nuclear blast and exposure. The rest to fire-bombing.

Germany, however, facing the same odds that Japan would have, had TWO MILLION citizens die out of 78 million. Indirect and direct. WITHOUT nuclear weapons. This comes from mile by mile fighting and carpet bombing. Both which would be repeated in Japan.

China lost 9 million civilians to Japanese forces, through direct and indirect means due to occupation and war.

Germany: 3.5 million dead (soldiers)
Japan: 1.75 million dead (soldiers)


In short: Germany lost the most and they were far-less of a 'fight for every inch' trained civilian population than the Japanese were. If we had fought Japan, they would have had a civilian death rate well over 3 million. They had 72 million citizens at that time. Even if 10 or 20% of them were to fight to the death, thats more than the A-Bombs could ever do.


Outside of nuclear weapons, the US had over 15,000 V1 weapons reproduced for use on Japan during invasion.

On-top of this, if Japan had not surrendered, even after the A-Bomb use...

"The problem now [13 August] is whether or not, assuming the Japanese do not capitulate, to continue dropping them every time one is made and shipped out there or whether to hold them . . . and then pour them all on in a reasonably short time. Not all in one day, but over a short period. And that also takes into consideration the target that we are after. In other words, should we not concentrate on targets that will be of the greatest assistance to an invasion rather than industry, morale, psychology, and the like? Nearer the tactical use rather than other use." - Major General Leslie Groves

We would have been invading, nuking, bombing, fire bombing, shelling... every square inch of the island. At least 3 nuclear drops a month were possible at this time. Unless stock-piled and dropped in a short period.

I simply put: The A-Bombs ended the war with FEWER casualties. The US would have began continual use of them DURING invasion. Japan would have surrendered ONLY AFTER invasion had begun. Thus, MORE LIVES were saved by dropping two and waiting for surrender, than continued assault.

If you don't like it, to bad. Imagine US and Russian Casualties! 300,000 US soldiers died in WW2, 9 million in Russia (thanks to Stalin and Hitler's war games). If we had invaded Japan, that number would have soured.

AND I would not be here today! My Grandfather was in the invasion force's 'to be list'!



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   
This has been a great thread, FredT. I ended up discovering some interesting background information in my searches.

From "Hiroshima in Retrospect" by Hugh Gloster (1956):
www.jstor.org...


On one occasion a gentleman acquaintance, while talking about the use of the A-bomb and the outcome of the war, fatalistically declared, "Shi-kata ga nai." ("It can't be helped.") Then he went on to say that the United States was lucky to develop the A-bomb first and that Japan would doubtless have authorized the dropping of nuclear explosives on American cities if she had had the opportunity to do so. pp274


One thing that is pretty clear. Had one or two things gone just a little differently we might have lost the lead in the race to develop a fission bomb. There was a certain amount of luck involved in the outcome.

I shudder to think about what might have happened; most likely London would have been targeted by the Germans. Had the Japanese gotten something first, they may have targeted Beijing, or at least held them to some nuclear blackmail.

Thanks for bringing this up!



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedGolem
That statement is not completely true.


How many are?



history

From this point on, Nimitz and MacArthur engaged in island-hopping campaigns that bypassed strongly-held islands to strike at the ememy's weak points. Campaigns against the Aleutians and Rabaul succeeded in stopping the Japanese advances and secured bases for Allied advances on Japan.


They could have bypassed many more islands savings tens of thousands of American lives; they did not care THAT much.


As memory serves an effort was made not to take every island, as the Japanese did during there offensive.


The Japanese took most of the islands unopposed.


As to weather the islands take were of great or little strategic value could always be debated, but to say they had no strategic value shows a certain amount of arrogance.


Well you can argue it takes arrogance but as far as i am concerned it's just a fact and one i can prove with not much effort.

Stellar



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Really, the island hopping strategy was necessary to gradually bring the home islands under the gun.


Why?


The long range strategic bomber was a future weapons system as was the mid air refuling concept. Im at aloss as to how the US was to persecute a war without securing a chain of based from which to respully and regroup??


The US armed forces simply did not need many of the islands for 'resupply' and they certainly did not require them all to prosecute a air campaign against Japan.


So what exactly are you saying here? That a blockade and basicaly burning down thier cities to bedrock was preferable. Its funny, the firebomb attacks are NEVER mentioned


Nothing about war is 'funny' and i am well aware of the firebombing raids and just how effective they were at the start. I am not sure if it would have taken a additional 150 000 Japanese dead for them to surrender as it was pretty evident that the Russian offense were robbing them of their last strategic card.


Yet, seem to be far more horrific esp. if LeMay had been allowed to continue. As I mentined above it seems like a viceral reaction to the use of nuclear weapons themselves as opposed to operational realities.


This is not about the use of the nuclear weapons themselves but the fallacious claims that their use were REQUIRED to end the war; that is just a complete lie.


The strategic air campaign in Germany was part disaster and part sucsess. You have to fator in the psych ops portion of it as well and the fact that despite horrendous sccuracy it did force fundemental changes in how the Nazi's had to do things. From underground factories etc.


The Japanese did not have tens of thousands of anti aircraft guns or the type of shelters required to keep their factories and workers safe.


I was refering to post war Japan. If you basiclly had burnt out every industrial center and most of the airable land. rebuilding the country would have been much more difficult.


Japan were 'destroyed' long before the nuclear bombs were dropped and a additional month of strategic bombing would not have done much beside killing many tens of thousands more. There were not much military idustry left to protect.


Yes, but that is very debatable. Pick though some of the thread here. Its pretty easy to make a case that port Chicago was a accident nothing else. Daisy cutter boms and the MOAB bomb also leave mushroom type clouds, no doubt all those convential explosives packed toher might do the same.


Conventional explosives do not leave craters and the bit of dust they can kick up is in no way equivalent to the vaporizing effects of nuclear explosions. I am very near certain that port Chicago was a nuclear detonation of sorts but i am not greatly interested in attempting to prove that it was anything other than a accident.


Its bad enough that the Manhattan Project used radiation sick employees and ranchers who were in the wrong place at the wrong time as lab experiemnts (often NOT treating them) but the evidence simply does not really support an atomic blast at Port Chicago (BTW I live about 50 miles south of there)


I think the evidence is quite clear and more than proves that this was no conventional explosion. The US have tested biological, chemical and nuclear weapons on hundreds of thousands of it's own troops so what's five hundred odd dockworkers?

Stellar



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The Japanese of that day were extremely fierce and considered their emperor to be god on earth.


How many did? I will give you a hint and say that it's even less than the number who voted for Hitler...


Japan would have never surrendered otherwise without a full scale invasion of Japan that would have killed far more on both sides.


Well Japan did surrender without being invaded and strangely did so the moment they realised that their industrial base in China were now also dissapearing. This makes good strategic sense and i don't detect much 'fundamentalism' in those decisions.


I think it would have been immoral for Truman to not use the bomb since it saved so many American lives in ending the war without invasion.


What saved American lives was the fact that Japan were losing any means of fighting back and that the USSR were once again doing the real bleeding to end the war conclusive and fast at that.

Truman was not a moral man and his lies and inhumanity were directly responsible for every and all American casualties, to say nothing of the tens of millions in other countries, in a world war that he had the power to prevent.

Stellar


Originally posted by Foxe
The bomb caused less deaths than invasion would have.


Which is simply not the point of discussion.


In short: Germany lost the most and they were far-less of a 'fight for every inch' trained civilian population than the Japanese were.


But they were far better armed and the Japanese civilians could not possibly have resisted in the same way.


If we had fought Japan, they would have had a civilian death rate well over 3 million. They had 72 million citizens at that time. Even if 10 or 20% of them were to fight to the death, thats more than the A-Bombs could ever do.


So what? This discussion should not be and is not about how the US wanted to end the war by saving as many Japanese lives as possible. If that were the original intent there should never have been a oil embargo with a predictably Japanese response.


Outside of nuclear weapons, the US had over 15,000 V1 weapons reproduced for use on Japan during invasion.


Never heard about that 15 000 V weapons but unless they had chemical or biological warheads they would not have changed anything.


On-top of this, if Japan had not surrendered, even after the A-Bomb use...


Because the towns that were destroyed contributed nothing but manpower in the defense of Japan. The targets had no military significance.


We would have been invading, nuking, bombing, fire bombing, shelling... every square inch of the island. At least 3 nuclear drops a month were possible at this time. Unless stock-piled and dropped in a short period.


Maybe but we never will know how long the Japanese were going to resist and why should they have surrendered having yet taken so relatively few casualties? Killing a few million defenseless civilians were not going to end the war and it's not the reason Japan surrendered.


I simply put: The A-Bombs ended the war with FEWER casualties.


There is no conclusive evidence for that. The Japanese surrendered on the 15th because they were busy losing a million soldiers in China.


The US would have began continual use of them DURING invasion. Japan would have surrendered ONLY AFTER invasion had begun.


They surrendered as soon as the USSR showed that Japanese forces in Manchuria could not resist their advance; it had little if anything to do with the nuclear detonations.


Thus, MORE LIVES were saved by dropping two and waiting for surrender, than continued assault.


The dropping of the Atomic weapons had NOTHING to do with saving Japanese lives and i can not believe that people wish to defend this horribly comical notion.


If you don't like it, to bad. Imagine US and Russian Casualties! 300,000 US soldiers died in WW2, 9 million in Russia (thanks to Stalin and Hitler's war games). If we had invaded Japan, that number would have soured.


But there was absolutely no reason to ever invade Japan which could have been simply starved into surrender. By that time the USAF were perfectly capable of destroying the rice paddies if it grew tired of making rubble bounce.


AND I would not be here today! My Grandfather was in the invasion force's 'to be list'!


That would have been too bad for you and a a few hundred thousand American soldiers but it really does not concern me and it still that can not serve as a 'excuse' for dropping the nuclear weapons when they did. The knew the Russian invasion was about to start and knew the Japanese could not hold and would probably surrendered so they used the opportunity to 'test' their new toys on towns that had never been bombed before and where the air raid sirens did not sound for single planes. The fact that the USAF could send single planes speaks volumes.

Stellar

[edit on 1-7-2007 by StellarX]

[edit on 1-7-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
How many did? I will give you a hint and say that it's even less than the number who voted for Hitler...

The only reason the surrender of Japan went so peacefully is beacause of the Emperor. Talk to a vet who was there right after the war if you doubt me. The Emperor was almost considered divine and had to be obeyed.



Well Japan did surrender without being invaded and strangely did so the moment they realised that their industrial base in China were now also dissapearing. This makes good strategic sense and i don't detect much 'fundamentalism' in those decisions.

No, when they discovered that their own homeland was being vaporized city by city is when they got the message.




What saved American lives was the fact that Japan were losing any means of fighting back and that the USSR were once again doing the real bleeding to end the war conclusive and fast at that.

Truman was not a moral man and his lies and inhumanity were directly responsible for every and all American casualties, to say nothing of the tens of millions in other countries, in a world war that he had the power to prevent.




Wow, I will leave you to your beliefs on that one.
History proves otherwise. Yes Russia did the yeomans work in the war, but Truman in no way could have stopped it, nor was he responsible for every casualty of that war.

And if you want to really look at an immoral and inhumane man Look into your own Russian leader in WWII. Stalin was a maniac.




But they were far better armed and the Japanese civilians could not possibly have resisted in the same way.
Very debatable, again ask a vet who was there about the arms caches they found all over the place.



Maybe but we never will know how long the Japanese were going to resist and why should they have surrendered having yet taken so relatively few casualties? Killing a few million defenseless civilians were not going to end the war and it's not the reason Japan surrendered.


We can make an educated guess, which is what the Generals did in 1945. Take a look at the battle of Okinawa, the first homeland Island of Japan that was attacked.

Allies:
12,513 dead or missing,
38,916 wounded,
33,096 non-combat losses,
79 ships sunk and scrapped,
763 aircraft destroyed

Japan:

66,000 dead or missing,
17,000 wounded,
7,455 captured,
16 ships sunk and scrapped,
7,830 aircraft destroyed,
140,000 civilians dead or missing

en.wikipedia.org...

Don't try and tell me that the Japanese wouldn't have fought harder on the Big Islands.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Japan was also within weeks of their own nuclear weapon working...even some on the team claim (unsupported) that they tested in South Korea's coast line.

I stand by my remarks of previous post.


EDIT: I do want to mention, Japan was months from having thousands of jets in working, war operation. They would have wiped our navy off the ocean. Then took the fighting to us, island by island. Our nuclear weapons were delivered via high alt B-29, however, Jets could get to them. Thus, eliminating the nuclear threat. All jet factories were under mountains, our A-Bombs were not powerful enough to hurt those factories.

I stand by my remarks.

[edit on 1-7-2007 by Foxe]



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Language difficulty again. The Minister has stated that we are misinterpreting his remarks; it is not easy to translate Japanese language or thinking into English. His words convey the sense of fate, destiny, a deed that is done and as such is irreversible and written in the stone of the Universe. "The A-Bomb was dropped". It is simply a fact that can not be altered.

We are now members of one family of nations, united by one wish: may this kind of strategic slaughter NEVER happen again.

It is our unfortunate past. We can still dream, and build, a fortunate future.

Together.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zanzibar
Germany surrendered without being nuked, Japan would of as well. Nuking two cities was just a way of telling the world that they didn't want to mess with the US.


World War II Death by Country
Japan - Military Deaths 2,041,000 // Civilian Deaths 580,000 (A-Bomb)
Germany - Military Deaths 5,533,000 // Civilan Deaths 1,810,000 (City by City)

Others...
USA - Military Deaths 407,300 // Civilian Deaths 11,200
China - Military Deaths 3,800,000 // Civilian Deaths 15,805,000
Soviet Union Military Death 10,700,000 // Civilian Deaths 11,900,000

Japan : Civilian losses include 393,000 dead due to U. S. Strategic bombing including 210,000 killed in the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In addition to these deaths 150,000 civilians were killed on Okinawa and 10,000 on Saipan during the fighting.[9,297-299]These figures include post war deaths of civilians injured in the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki estimated at 110,000.Wikipedia

In the years between 1950 and 1990, it is statistically estimated that hundreds of deaths are attributable to radiation exposure among atomic bomb survivors from both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Wikipedia


Germany lost around 5.3 million more people than Japan in WWII, civilian and military. If the bombs were not dropped and the US invaded Japan both countries would have seen thousands and probably millions of more casualties.

I hope it doesn't come to this point again but thinks that's inevitable.

Side note:
3,580 - US Deaths in Iraq as of July 1, 2007 (march 20th 2007-July, 1 2007)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join