It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


There was no good reason for dropping Nukes on Japan during WW II

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 12:06 AM
Great post and tells the story as it is. But no matter how much you bring to the table, some people are not ready to change their view. The firebombings already did massive damage to Japan and brought untold horror to millions of civilians, the nuclear bombs were just an unnecessary icing on the cake. Last kick to the head of a man who has been beaten to the ground. It was a crime against humanity and a barbarous act.

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 12:11 AM
reply to post by Shred

Yes,mankind will continue to commit crimes against itself,until it finds someone aside himself to destroy.

War is a crime against humanity,committed by ghouls who claim to be human.

Man kills everything,either directly,or by setting things out of balance by his mechanations.

As the Profit/Prophet says,it is.

edit on 18-10-2012 by MyHappyDogShiner because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 01:18 AM
reply to post by FortAnthem

While I appreciate your post for bringing this to attention it is hardly news. This has been known for many years.The fact we have wars period is ridiculous. It's all barbaric, extremely hypocritical of anyone to oppose the use of the atom bomb, when in fact guns are just as bad, if not worse, the atom bomb was never used again since, but there have been many guns used to kill and bombs just the same. Killing of any kind is never justified unless it is in self defense. Period.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 01:38 AM
What always got me was that they dropped 2 bombs, 1 would have been enough. To me the whole thing was just a show to tell the world we are your masters now.
What comes around goes around....

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 01:43 AM

Originally posted by FortAnthem

Originally posted by PrplHrt
Does it even matter to the naysayers in this thread that thousands of Americans might have died in an assault on the Japanese homeland, or does covering your own butt in war not count anymore?

What matters to me is that thousands of people died needlessly. Japan was ready to surrender to the Allies long before the bomb was dropped.

American officials, having long since broken Japan's secret codes, knew from intercepted messages that the country's leaders were seeking to end the war on terms as favorable as possible. Details of these efforts were known from decoded secret communications between the Foreign Ministry in Tokyo and Japanese diplomats abroad.

In his 1965 study, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (pp. 107, 108), historian Gar Alperovitz writes:

Although Japanese peace feelers had been sent out as early as September 1944 (and [China's] Chiang Kai-shek had been approached regarding surrender possibilities in December 1944), the real effort to end the war began in the spring of 1945. This effort stressed the role of the Soviet Union ...

In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting.

It was only after the war that the American public learned about Japan's efforts to bring the conflict to an end. Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan, for example, was obliged by wartime censorship to withhold for seven months one of the most important stories of the war.

In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)

This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor.

Was Hiroshima Necessary?

What I wonder about is why the allies continued their aggression long after the Japanese had signaled their intent to surrender? How many soldiers died needlessly in the months after Japan had offered unconditional surrender?

If America had invaded the mainland and thousands of soldiers on both sides had died, the ones who had ignored the offers of surrender would have been complicit in all those deaths, just as they are complicit in the deaths from the atomic bombs.

edit on 10/17/12 by FortAnthem because: [color=#3b3b3b]Why vote for the lesser evil? Vote CTHULHU for president in 2012

so they bomb pearl harbour and declare war on us ,kill thousand of americans

and when they decide oh sh-- we screwed up were sry lets end the war....

were suppose to say ok no problem mate

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 01:52 AM
Whether they were ready to surrender or never would have surrendered, doesn't matter. Also, how many supposed lives were saved does not matter. There is no excuse for using the bombs. If nations insist on warring, then let your troops fight it out. If you lose, then oh well, sh@# happens. That's the hazard of war.

We are told that it was necessary and that it saved lives by the nation that did it. Of course the US will say this, what are they going to say? "Yes we did it and it was evil"? Sadly, many people buy into that.

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 02:26 AM
reply to post by FortAnthem

Regardless of the reason for deploying the fat man and little boy weapons,Japan had no qualms about brutaly killing innocent civillians in the countries that they invaded,particullarly in China.they also displayed a total disregard for the Geneva convention when dealing with allied POWs.In those respects alone, they got exactly what they deserved.

Incidentally ,the Tokyo fire raids killed far more in a single raid than did the Hiroshima weapon,why is that not mentioned whenever the rights and wrongs of Nuking Japan arises?

edit on 18-10-2012 by nake13 because: spelling

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 02:46 AM
I'm not sure what you meant by millions of Japanese dying needlessly as the bombs were estimated to have killed about 300,000 at and after the bombings with about 220,000 in the initial blasts. Even if the numbers are quite low, this is still far below "millions". Considering the costly death toll to Americans on many of the islands (Guadalcanal, Saipan, Iwo Jima, etc.) one might be inclined to believe there would be a far larger toll in invading Japan itself. The estimates of the invasion death tolls WERE closer to the millions you mention. Was the second bomb needed? Possibly not. Was the first? An everlasting question but it did possibly save many lives despite the horrors it produced in a flash. My father was the captain of an LCT and may have died had we invaded Japan even if he never touched foot on its soil. Far more people were killed in the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo than the two nukes.

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 03:00 AM
reply to post by FortAnthem

Maybe it was like this.....

World leaders, elitists, illuminati etc got together in a room.

They said "okay we need another world war fellas"

So they're all like yes, here here! And they start hashing out the details of how it will all play out.

At one point Japan and the you-es start talking. Japan says "we're so backwoodsy. We're a relic of the era of the samuri. We really want to have a culture more like you guys (refering to the you-es)".

So the you-es says "okay here's what we'll do. you start attacking all of asia and plunder all of it as your reward. Then we'll leave out back door open on purpose, you come in and do an attack. We'll then start a war with you. and we'll just battle it out in the pacific. We'll modernize your society and make it like ours but in exchange we want to test out one of our new weapons on a few of your less known cities okay?"

They're like "fine go nut". so the you-es is like "so after we kill off 2 of your cities, we'll then get you to surrender. Then we'll send in our specialists to revamp your industrial system and start to modernize your country ok. Within about 30 years you'll be a whole new modern nation". they're like okay done deal.

so then they add there plans to the whole blueprint of how WW2 is to play out.

I doubt any of it was by chance. It all was planned out in advance by elitists wanting to take advantage of the sheeple. Develope new weapons, test out new weapons and fighting, redraw the map, stimulate economies, etc etc etc.

Wars are mostly all planned by design in advance. I don't think it's random chance that much anymore. It's all false flags, but even the FF are just part of a well thought out blueprint that I think both sides are always in on anyway.

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 03:10 AM
oh by the way the amount of innocent civilians killed in Iraq and Afgan is about 4 times that of those bombing. Man I'd hate to be born in the wrong country that's on the receiving end of that power.

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 03:16 AM

Originally posted by PrplHrt
It was us or them and I'm glad it was them. They had numerous chances to surrender and they didn't. They brought it upon themselves with their stubborn attitude.

They shouldn't have bombed Pearl Harbor. Perhaps we wouldn't have been so ruthless if they had thought twice about attacking us in such a fashion.

Older Americans have NOT FORGOTTEN.

who brought it upon them selves? the women and children and poor people in those 2 cities?
edit on 18-10-2012 by ThePeopleParty because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 03:17 AM
here is something I just learned recently.

Had Japan not surrendered completely and recalled all its war efforts....we would have faced a dire situation.

They had successfully developed submersible carriers, and had two en route to Panama to bomb our water ways there. That would have changed the entire war effort, since we would not be able to ferry troops and supplies to be massacred and spent on a costly land war in Japan.

They had every intention of continuing their war with the US, and could have provoked an upstart in Europe.

We did what was necessary. It saved American lives. Being an American, I am content to leave those things in the past as part of war. It gets horrible and costly. Don't start them.

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 03:17 AM
The Americans won by causing 29 Japanese deaths for every single American death. The Japanese were offered surrender terms repeatedly, and refused, even after the first bomb was dropped.

The emperor and Tojo cared nothing for the lives of their civilian population. They fought on after Hiroshima was nuked because they were gambling that the US could only build one such bomb....

This was based on their own nuclear program which had benefited from Nazi research delivered to them by a secret U-boat before the German surrender in April. The Nazis gave as much heavy water and fissionable material as they had generated to help the Japs nuke the USA.

The Japanese program was invested in creating one bomb. The fact that the Americans had already manufactured two bombs (representing millions of centerfuge-hours of uranium enrichment) was the key indication that the Americans could produce at least one nuke every 6 months or so. It was only after this fact became evident that the Japanese decided to surrender.

If it is a war crime to kill 200,000 of an enemy nation that has refused surrender offers, what kind of crime is it for the Japanese commanders to sacrifice 200,000 of their own civilians when they knew that the war was unwinnable, and that the US had nuke power?

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 03:24 AM
"There was no good reason for dropping Nukes on Japan during WW II"

There is NEVER a good reason for such things... There NEVER should be...

If only all could love and respect eachother...

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 03:45 AM

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by FortAnthem
Japan was ready to surrender to the Allies long before the bomb was dropped.

Revisionist claptrap. If Japan had really wanted to surrender they would have. After the first bomb they did not surrender, after the 2nd bomb they did not want to surrender, there was even a attempt at a military coup, and only after the emperor stepping in and making a public radio broadcast for the first time did Japan surrender.

You either surrender or you dont, it is not a matter of "wanting" to surrender.

you said pretty much everything i was going to say

they had what 5 days after the first bomb? ..the militarty commanders were not willing to surrender, and to be sure if japan had an atomic weapon they would of used it no doubt, as well they were working on various biological reep what you sow..the bomb ended the war sooner and also was a show to the soviets

edit on 18-10-2012 by vonclod because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 04:01 AM

Monday, August 6, will mark one of the United States’ most important but unheralded anniversaries. It is remarkable not only for what happened on this day in 1945 but for what did not happen subsequently. What did happen was that the “Enola Gay,” an American B-29 bomber from the obscure 509th Composite Group (a U.S. Army Air Force unit tasked with deploying nuclear weapons), dropped a uranium-based atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. It hastened the end of World War II, which concluded within a week after the August 9 detonation of a plutonium-based bomb over Nagasaki. Approximately 66,000 died in Hiroshima from the acute effects of the “Little Boy” bomb and about 35,000 more in Nagasaki from the “Fat Man” device. (The subsequent, short-term death toll rose significantly due to the effects of radiation and wounds.) Dangerous Stowaways At The Summer Olympics Henry I. Miller Henry I. Miller Contributor Fake And Flawed Medicines Threaten Us All Henry I. Miller Henry I. Miller Contributor Overzealous And Interventionist Feds Come Up Short On Drug Shortages Henry I. Miller Henry I. Miller Contributor Obama's Disdain For The Private Sector Henry I. Miller Henry I. Miller Contributor About a year after the war ended, the “was it necessary?” Monday-morning quarterbacks began to question the military necessity and morality of the use of nuclear weapons on Japanese cities. Since then, there have been periodic eruptions of revisionism, uninformed speculation and political correctness on this subject, perhaps the most offensive of which was the Smithsonian Institution’s plan for an exhibition of the Enola Gay for the 50th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. In a particularly repugnant exercise of political correctness, the exhibit was to emphasize the “victimization” of the Japanese, mentioning the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor only as the motivation for the “vengeance” sought by the United States. (The exhibit as originally conceived was eventually canceled.)

thats Forbes take on the matter and as other members have already pointed out the firebombing alone killed way more Japanese then the two nuclear bombs there is a link to the invasion plans and counter plans by Japanese. they had prepared to use the last of their air force to ram our invasion force ammunition ships and hospital ships in an attempt to drive us back into the sea and hurt morale. midget suicide subs called kaitans i belive would have tried to kamikaze into our vessels as well. pdf on the plans to defend and hold Kyushu

not to mention typhoon Louise coincided with the scheduled invasion of the home islands and if you look at it from the Japanese perspective for the second time in their history when all was lost and they were looking for a sign on weather or not to fight on a tsunami ravages and in theory stops cold an invasion of their homeland and drowns the invaders off their coast.....they would have fought tooth and nail for every block.

chemical weapons were already being considered by Japanese high command for use on the invasion beaches and they had moved the bulk of there ammunition and troops to the area where we were going to land.not to mention the fact that they would have immediately executed all pows and let alone what unit 731 would have cooked up.
in earlyer battles in the war the Japanese threw their own children off cliffs because they believed the propaganda of their own country and then ended up either jumping after their family or blowing them selves up with hand grenades,every man woman and child in that country was preparing to wage war on us and make Stalingrad look like a winter holiday

and finaly

How the Atomic Bomb Saved 4,000,000 Lives Omaha World Herald | November, 1987 | Davis Posted on Monday, September 25, 2006 3:20:44 PM by pabianice Invasion Not Found in the History Books Deep in the recesses of the National Archives in Washington, D.C., hidden for nearly four decades lie thousands of pages of yellowing and dusty documents stamped "Top Secret". These documents, now declassified, are the plans for Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan during World War II. Only a few Americans in 1945 were aware of the elaborate plans that had been prepared for the Allied Invasion of the Japanese home islands. Even fewer today are aware of the defenses the Japanese had prepared to counter the invasion had it been launched. Operation Downfall was finalized during the spring and summer of 1945. It called for two massive military undertakings to be carried out in succession and aimed at the heart of the Japanese Empire.

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link and just in case any one was thinking the Japanese were innocent in the matter and to give a better example of the thought process of the time vs what they are now

The historian Chalmers Johnson has written that: "It may be pointless to try to establish which World War Two Axis aggressor, Germany or Japan, was the more brutal to the peoples it victimised. The Germans killed six million Jews and 20 million Russians (i.e. Soviet citizens); the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese. Both nations looted the countries they conquered on a monumental scale, though Japan plundered more, over a longer period, than the Nazis. Both conquerors enslaved millions and exploited them as forced labourers—and, in the case of the Japanese, as (forced) prostitutes for front-line troops. If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand or Canada (but not the Soviet Union) you faced a 4% chance of not surviving the war; (by comparison) the death rate for Allied POWs held by the Japanese was nearly 30%."[31]

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 04:23 AM

Originally posted by rickymouse
I don't understand why the bomb wasn't dropped on the leaders of the Japan instead of on the regular people. I guess you are allowed to kill all the pawns but not the kings and queens. Notice in chess, the king is never killed. We are conditioned from young, and so were our ancestors, that we cannot kill the main character. Notice we didnpt bomb Hussein. We destroyed the army and civilians. The people of Iraq took it upon themselves to kill him when he was found. That was never allowed in the past, the ruler usually went into asylum somewhere else.

I guess the rules are changing. Now the leaders of the countries will have to worry about getting punished for their actions once again.

I thiink you mean Libya the US hung Saddam remember and our ancestors were a lot less stupid than you think.

You bomb the Empoprer although all he was in the West was an absurd little man wi glasses,nevertheless to the Japanese he was divine.

When you occupy the defeated country it is better to show your not the western butchers that they have been told you are but decent,normal humans and that your government and beliefs are fair and just.

Hearts and minds.You nuke their divine emporer you've no hope of showing you're not everything they were always told you were.

They had a mind on winning the peace as well as the war and considering how brutal the war was that speaks much of our ancestors.

Perhaps if we'd shown a fraction of that insight or forethought when we went in tö Iraq and i blame we the uk as much as you the US perhaps we'd have some respect in the middle east

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 04:32 AM
reply to post by FortAnthem

Yeah there was a good reason to this. Just because they were on the verge of surrendering does not mean the killing by the Nips would stop killing instantly when the land invasion was mounted. If it saved only just one life of the brave Australian, American or one of our allies soldiers then it was worth it! Then it again it was worth it for all those Japanese to die than see any of our boys suffer at the hands of that regime in any capacity.

Hide all you want like a left wing apologist the fact is it saved lives, the lives of our heroes.

It also sent a big message. Don't mess with the allies!
edit on 18-10-2012 by phatpackage because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 04:53 AM
do you have the concept of total world war.

there are no, rules, but one.

destroy the people destroying you before they destroy you.

or until one surrenders completely without conditions.

that means if the victor wants to rape every woman over 18, you can't resist.

if they want to send their citizens to live on your land, you can't resist. because you have nothing to resist with.

if they want to randomly shoot the losers and make them slaves, you become their slaves.

because the time to fight is gone. you have surrendered un-conditionally.

that was what world war II was.

so in war like that, to complete destruction or victory, what would you choose?

edit on 18-10-2012 by randomname because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in