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

page: 6
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 04:54 AM
link   
It's beyond me why anyone thinks it was a good idea to use nukes on innocent civilians.

It's cowardly. You should shove your nukes up your


have a fair fight with a samurai sword.........thought not.




posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloro
 


No, you disregard the extent to which they were "brainwashed" - having been whipped into a frenzy of nationalist superiority. Some people in the highest military council of Imperial Japan even wanted to continue AFTER the bombs. The Emperor finally gave in.

There were lots of rumors about Axis superweapons everywhere - in Europe, ordinary people didn't know until the very last days if the Nazis did not manage to use a superweapon used never before in history.

Also, as much as I love Japanese culture, the 20th century empire was almost on a par with Nazism. True, they did not have annihilation camps. But they did human experiments on masses of Chinese and slaughtered hundreds of thousands for fun. There were reports of widespread torture and cannibalism. And they had an unquestionable belief in their Emperor. They knew very well they were evil.

In reality, I agree with those that say it was a decision based on mixed motives.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   
My Grandfather(Morse code operator on HMS Searcher during WW2) would say that atomic attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima shortened the war and got him back home safely. He has told me some storys about Kamikaze attacks on the HMS Searcher. I beleve him these wee dudes were serious and committed combatants. Necessary evil at the time me thinks. But the leason is that it should never be repeated!

edit on 18-10-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   
The Japanese Hara-kiri were indoctrinated to believe that their ultimate sacrifice would bring them [in Heaven] all they desired on Earth. The American Navy was key to defeating Japan but even when the fleet was in sight of the Japanese mainland it faced destruction due to the flying bombs. The Nuclear destruction of the two cities was a last resort and if the Japanese had not surrendered then more would have been dropped. The Japanese Imperial culture did not regard surrendered enemies to be worthy of life, its family unit actively promoted the suicide pact offered to its sons by the Military. Captured soldiers suffered years of concentration camp brutality or were ritually slaughtered. Little wonder that desperate measures were used in the End.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   

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.

American double standards are the best.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   
In the summer of 1945 you had the United States in firm control of the Pacific, save for that small area called Japan.

To defeat them totally, which was the objective, there were three options.

1) Invade. The preliminary planning for it revealed that casualties were going to be just this side of several millions dead, with an additional several million wounded. That invasion would have involved using naval bombardment, the army air force bombing. The use of poison gas to clear the beach heads, though this is conjecture on my part, but my father who was on Saipan at the time, remembers seeing containers of just such an item being readied for transport to the staging areas.

With the casualties of Okinawa fresh in their minds, the planners of Downfall were none too keen on this idea.

2) Blockade. Starving them out. The U.S. had been utilizing unrestricted submarine warfare against the Japanese since the beginning of the war, and the merchant fleet of Japan was virtually extirpated by 1945, so this was a strategy that would have worked. But how many millions would have starved to death, not to mention the diseases that usually accompany this sort of thing? We'll never know...but my guess is several million would have died.

3) Drop the Atomic bomb. Nagasaki. Hiroshima. Several hundred thousand died, many more injured, and suffered long term illnesses as a direct result of this action.

War forces decisions that are only differing shades of horrible. There was no good alternative. Japan was not, by any stretch of the imagination ready to surrender. They were, in fact, more than ready to continue the fight in the streets and alleyways of Japan, and were laying plans to do just that. Those two explosions, and the fear that more might follow, awakened the Japanese warlords to the inescapable reality that the war was all but over.

So... Three alternative plans to end the war. Invasion. Blockade. Bomb. In all three the casualty count is going to be hideous. One of them is a bit less hideous. They used it.

...it was horrific. It was barbarous. It was just about any word you care to use that means horrific. Yet it doesn't change the basic mathematics of the situation. Fewer people died than would have with the other two solutions to the problem of ending the war.

Several hundred thousand versus millions. The mathematics are horrifying in their simplicity.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Wifibrains
 


Since when, in warfare do you fight "fair"?

You fight to win, with as few losses to yourself as possible.

Fight fair? Nonsense.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by GLaDOS
 

Educate yourself. Then we'll talk.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by PrplHrt
reply to post by GLaDOS
 

Educate yourself. Then we'll talk.


"American double standards are the best."
If I may quote.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   

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.


Do a little research. They tried to surrender the whole summer before we dropped the bombs. Even the generals were against using the bomb and spoke out against the president for using them.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 

There is much more to the history of WWII than my two paragraphs.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by Wifibrains
 


Since when, in warfare do you fight "fair"?

You fight to win, with as few losses to yourself as possible.

Fight fair? Nonsense.


I'm sure you would not be saying that if the bombs where dropped on you, I'm neither Japanese nor American so my view is from a neutral point. It's like watching a guy with a penknife defend himself against a guy with a AK47.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by PrplHrt
reply to post by GLaDOS
 

Educate yourself. Then we'll talk.


You should take your own advice. You do know we allowed Pearl Harbor to happen. Do you honestly think that large of a fleet could get that close to us and we not know it? We needed an excuse to get into WW2 and that was it.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
In the summer of 1945 you had the United States in firm control of the Pacific, save for that small area called Japan.

To defeat them totally, which was the objective, there were three options.

1) Invade. The preliminary planning for it revealed that casualties were going to be just this side of several millions dead, with an additional several million wounded. That invasion would have involved using naval bombardment, the army air force bombing. The use of poison gas to clear the beach heads, though this is conjecture on my part, but my father who was on Saipan at the time, remembers seeing containers of just such an item being readied for transport to the staging areas.

With the casualties of Okinawa fresh in their minds, the planners of Downfall were none too keen on this idea.

2) Blockade. Starving them out. The U.S. had been utilizing unrestricted submarine warfare against the Japanese since the beginning of the war, and the merchant fleet of Japan was virtually extirpated by 1945, so this was a strategy that would have worked. But how many millions would have starved to death, not to mention the diseases that usually accompany this sort of thing? We'll never know...but my guess is several million would have died.

3) Drop the Atomic bomb. Nagasaki. Hiroshima. Several hundred thousand died, many more injured, and suffered long term illnesses as a direct result of this action.

War forces decisions that are only differing shades of horrible. There was no good alternative. Japan was not, by any stretch of the imagination ready to surrender. They were, in fact, more than ready to continue the fight in the streets and alleyways of Japan, and were laying plans to do just that. Those two explosions, and the fear that more might follow, awakened the Japanese warlords to the inescapable reality that the war was all but over.

So... Three alternative plans to end the war. Invasion. Blockade. Bomb. In all three the casualty count is going to be hideous. One of them is a bit less hideous. They used it.

...it was horrific. It was barbarous. It was just about any word you care to use that means horrific. Yet it doesn't change the basic mathematics of the situation. Fewer people died than would have with the other two solutions to the problem of ending the war.

Several hundred thousand versus millions. The mathematics are horrifying in their simplicity.



Or the fourth thing you didn't mention. Accept their surrender.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   
WHY did Japan attack Pearl Harbor? Because the US were stopping their oil.
Why did US attack Iraq? Because they were selling oil in Euros instead of Dollars.

But of course, attacking Iraq was perfectly fine.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   
The young have been rewriting history since the 60's.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by PrplHrt
The young have been rewriting history since the 60's.


To be fair, history was being rewritten as it happened. Take Douglas MacArthur for example. He was claiming Australian victories as American ones and would occasionally marginalise, if not, silence Australia's involvement in the Pacific theatre.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by PrplHrt
The young have been rewriting history since the 60's.

"History is written by the victors."

That's all I'm saying.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by GLaDOS
 

The classroom, since the 60's, has been the haven of revisionist socialists in the US. They have been systematically teaching American youth an alternative history which demonizes the achievements of the United States and diminishes our position in world affairs.

I've watched it happen.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by PrplHrt
 


Demonising?
American schools are some of the most biased in the world. Also, I'm not American.





top topics
 
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join