politic_analyst, Using atomic weapons on Japan. - Page 2

Iriemon · 07-06-07, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bub

Hey Cherokee, there is a debate over this question (was it needed to use atomic bombs in 1945), there is not only one answer possible.

You and politic analyst have different point of view, both are right IMO.

I have read it had been estimated too many US soldiers would have died if you had tried to invade Japan, that was one of the most important argument used by those who supported the use of atomic bombs.

But there are also arguments against it:
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But Yalta had prepared the cold war and many people in the US and in the "western" world were frightened by the Soviets. A few examples:
1) Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (as you can see, UK, US and France supported the White Army and sent troops to stop the Communists)
2) The Nazis used this fear to make many Westerners join the Waffen-SS (Waffen-SS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
3) the "race" between US/UK and USSR armies to free Europe (what was freed by the Soviets would remain Communist)

The atomic bombs would show how powerful the USA were. It would allow US diplomats to negociate in a more powerful position.

Wow! That is fundamentally different than the story that I've heard over the years, that the Japanese were prepared to defend their Island fanatically and suicidally, and it took the second A-bomb to convince them because they still held out after the first.

Trajan Octavian Titus · 07-06-07, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Wow! That is fundamentally different than the story that I've heard over the years, that the Japanese were prepared to defend their Island fanatically and suicidally, and it took the second A-bomb to convince them because they still held out after the first.

They were infact the emperor issued an order for every man, woman, and child capable to pick up a weapon to fight any invasion force, the A-Bomb saved lives just look at the battle of Okinawa in which 100,000 Japanese and 10,000 Americans were killed now multiply that by about 100 and then you will have some glimpse of how costly an invasion of mainland Japan would have been.

Trajan Octavian Titus · 07-06-07, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politic_analyst

Here is a scenarioon why we used the atomic bomb.

We knew that the russians would continue on to take over the whole of Europe. By showing that we are capable of a weapon that no one had, no one would dare to challenge US and GB. The A-bomb was unnecessary to be used on a defeated nation as japan. Its only purpose was to tell the world we have a weapon that could annihilate anyone. The russians got the message and thus planned to create their own. The cold war started.

That scenario doesn't hold water because if we were only attempting to intimidate the Russians we could have dropped the bomb on a deserted Island.

Donkey1499 · 07-06-07, 11:18 PM

I understand why the bombs had to be dropped, but I still don't like it. It just seems too... easy. It just reminds me of a game of D&D I played once where this kid wanted to always do attacks that could kill multiple enemies at a time with one stroke of his sword. It's just not fair. It takes all the "fun" out of waging war.

I also assume that our leaders at the time didn't give a damn about the Japanese children when they made the decision to drop the "Super Weapons". And if I was the pilot who was given the order to drop the atomic bombs on the Japanese cities, I would've declined and accepted whatever punishment I was dealt. There is no honor in vaporizing children and exposing them to intense radiation.

Trajan Octavian Titus · 07-06-07, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donkey1499

Location: Pasco County

GD plant cityian, back in your trailor!

bub · 07-07-07, 04:51 AM

And did you know McArthur supported bombing China with 50 A-Bombs during the Korea war? This was a serious scenario!
But the other guys in the Pentagon didn't agree because Russia would have invaded Western Europe.

Donkey1499 · 07-07-07, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

GD plant cityian, back in your trailor!

I'm actually west of there. And I live in a block home. I don't trust trailors as far as a tornader can throw 'em.

Donkey1499 · 07-07-07, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bub

And did you know McArthur supported bombing China with 50 A-Bombs during the Korea war? This was a serious scenario!
But the other guys in the Pentagon didn't agree because Russia would have invaded Western Europe.

Don't ya think 50 is a little too much? Hell, even ONE is over-kill. 50 is like "Mu-mu-mu-multi KILLLLL!!!!!"

Holy Hell, I'm joking around about the most powerful weapons on this planet... I must be insane or sumtin'.

cherokee · 07-08-07, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bub

And did you know McArthur supported bombing China with 50 A-Bombs during the Korea war? This was a serious scenario!
But the other guys in the Pentagon didn't agree because Russia would have invaded Western Europe.

So what? When did this turn into anything to do with the Korea war?

Remember this is about the US and the japs who clearly several times failed to end the war when they were given the chances.

bub · 07-08-07, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherokee

So what? When did this turn into anything to do with the Korea war?

It does not interrest you to see we nearly had a total nuclear war with the Communists???

And this has everything to do with the Korean war: the Communists nearly invaded the whole peninsula, they were supported by China (just like Iran does in Iraq now) but we could not bomb China (that would have meant World War III). But McArthur was pissed off and wanted to invade Manchuria and nuke the Com's.

Quote:

Remember this is about the US and the japs who clearly several times failed to end the war when they were given the chances.

The title of the topic is about nukes, not about peace.