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.
In fact, it wasn't until July, 1949, that the bomb was tested and found to be, one, workable, and, two, controllable.
Originally posted by FredT
However, did the US need to drop the A bombs on Japan? I have to say "yes". Invading the home islands would have resulted in horrendous losses for both sides.
Originally posted by Intelearthling
I've read that if an invasion had taken place, the estmated casualties for Japan would've been in the millions while the American estimated casualties would've been in the the hundreds of thousands.
Still yet the question remains, did we have to use "The Bomb"? The answer is: It was war and it did save millions of lives.
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
In fact, it wasn't until July, 1949, that the bomb was tested and found to be, one, workable, and, two, controllable.
Moreover, Japan was given an opportunity to surrender, although we know that surrender for the Japanese was out of the question.
They had a chance to surrender after the Hiroshima bomb was dropped and before the Nagasaki bomb was dropped and refused.
While the use of the bomb was not inevitable, it was absolutely necessary to bring the war to an end.
In the end, probably a million lives were saved on both sides.
All the evidence leads to that conclusion, unless, of course, you ignore all the evidence.
Originally posted by sy.gunson
Er umm Grady I think you refer to the trinity test of July (was it 1945 or 44 ?)
Originally posted by StellarX
Why not give the Soviet Union landing craft so they can do the job; they were perfectly good enough to absorb the Wehrmacht, which would have required millions of American and British lives to fight, so why not let them invade Japan?
What does it matter how many Japanese died considering the reality that the US allowed millions of Soviet soldiers and civilians to die fighting the superior armed forces of Germany practically on their own?
.
What were the terms the US offered before dropping the bomb?
Which Roosevelt could have managed by not forcing Japan into a corner knowing full well that they would respond with agression. Roosevelt chose the war against Japan and it's one of those historic lies that Japan at that time had realistic options other than violence.
I would say all the evidence points elsewhere but since your not even reading it how would you know?
Originally posted by RedGolem
Your second quote answers the question in your first quote.
Terms is not the point the offer was made, there decision from there on.
So your saying it was ok for Japan to bomb Hawaii because no other realistic options but it is completely wrong for the U.S. to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki because there were other options.
Why is it that statement sounds jaded?
To use your own word, rubbish.
Katsumi said
he dont know what he says, USA dropped the A-bombs to use the population as guineapig, the war was finishing and the USA had not tested yet... simple that