Obviously I think it was the right choice. The Japanese were not going to surrender and were in fact arming themselves. They were convinced that the women would be raped and sold into slavery, the children would be slaughtered and the men tortured. Yes dropping the bomb killed a lot of people. But how many more would have did in an invasion.

To be defeated and captured was still a worse fate than death and they were prepared to fight to the very last man, and anyone who couldn't fight was prepared to die.

Further, the Japanese were suffering from a master race complex at the time. The idea of them being defeated was unthinkable, since they were superior to everyone, thus fueling their passion for battle.

Even conservative estimates put the death toll of soldiers and civilians extremely high under a conventional war.

The Japanese needed a severe shock to end the war in the cleanest way possible. While it wasn't an easy choice, dropping the bomb was the right choice.

quote:

---

Nobody really understood why Demos wrote:
I don't regret the dropping of it. I regret the choice of targets. I think there could have been better targets than such highly-residential areas. Yes I realize they put people to work on military projects in these areas on purpose, but was that any different than Rosie Riveter working for the war effort back home? How would we have felt if someone dropped a bomb on a city in Ohio that had 150,000 people and a steel mill working on fuselages for our planes?

---

While the sentiment is admirable I don't feel that any other targets would have worked. Keep in mind that even after the first bomb was dropped, the Japanese refused to surrender. It wasn't until the second bomb at Nagasaki that they finally caved in. I have heard there was a 3rd bomb in the works that was going to be targeted on Tokyo if surrender was not forthcoming.

The conventional bombing of Tokyo had already caused more deaths than both Atomics did. And the people that knew about the bomb before it was dropped really just thought it was just lie a REALLY large conventional bomb. Obviously we know different now but back then things were different. Basically they saw it as two choices. Kill a bunch of people with bombs and then invade, or kill a bunch of people with one (two actually) bomb and shock them into surrendering.

A bit of Trivia, Nagasaki was not the original target of the second bomb. Originally the target was the Kokura Arsenal. Weather conditions prevented the attack so they went with a secondary target which ended up being the City of Nagasaki and a Torpedo plant at it's center.

Azizza fucked around with this message on 08-06-2005 at 03:49 PM.

Other bit of trivia the ship that delivered the bombs was targeted by the same sub on its trip to and from its destination only on the return trip was it close enough for an attack to be made. Because its mission was secret no one knew it was overdue and many sailors died because of it.

I think that a civilian target was neccecery for its shock value. If I recall the bomb was orginaly intended for Berlin but that war ended prior to it being ready to be used.

A nice program about it and the rest is "Trinity and Beyond"

The reason for dropping the bomb is that we made the bomb. All the other "reasons" are additional supports made afterwards. Simply put, it was WW2, we had a new experimental bomb intended for Germany, and Germany had already dropped out. You can't make an experimental bomb and then not drop it somewhere, the idea is outrageous in WW2 thinking.

WW2 mentality did not take civilians into account. Everyone uses modern views to try to analyze it, but that is actually not the right way to do it. The fire bombings of Tokyo killed many more than both nuclear bombs combined. Hiroshima was chosen because it was simply a suitable test case. How many civilians died in Europe in WW2? There were no "smart bombs", and civilian or military targets didn't really exist.

So, in short, we made a bomb that cost taxpayers a lot of money. We had to use it. There wasn't really any consideration on what types of targets we used for it, and even if there was, the best estimates were that approximately 1000 would die to it. Even with testing of one within the States, nobody had any idea that as many would die to it as did.

The "it saved more lives" theory is kind of American textbook bunk. That reasoning was sort of made after all the reports were in and the numbers were analyzed... after the war had ended.

Also, Nagasaki was bombed only 3 days after Hiroshima. Tokyo was in ruins. The Emperor himself was in danger. Everything was in such disarray that it would have been pretty hard for Japan to have officially surrendered in 3 days. Also, Russia was not far from invading Japan at this point. We only had 2 nukes (number 3 was going to be 1 or 2 weeks later) but we certainly wanted to test them both. They employed different technologies, and we wanted to see the yields each one had.

Snugglits fucked around with this message on 08-06-2005 at 08:10 PM.

quote:

---

Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Snugglits absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
Well shit, I just spent 6 weeks in Hiroshima studying language and culture.

The reason for dropping the bomb is that we made the bomb. All the other "reasons" are additional supports made afterwards. Simply put, it was WW2, we had a new experimental bomb intended for Germany, and Germany had already dropped out. You can't make an experimental bomb and then not drop it somewhere, the idea is outrageous in WW2 thinking.

WW2 mentality did not take civilians into account. Everyone uses modern views to try to analyze it, but that is actually not the right way to do it. The fire bombings of Tokyo killed many more than both nuclear bombs combined. Hiroshima was chosen because it was simply a suitable test case. How many civilians died in Europe in WW2? There were no "smart bombs", and civilian or military targets didn't really exist.

So, in short, we made a bomb that cost taxpayers a lot of money. We had to use it. There wasn't really any consideration on what types of targets we used for it, and even if there was, the best estimates were that approximately 1000 would die to it. Even with testing of one within the States, nobody had any idea that as many would die to it as did.

The "it saved more lives" theory is kind of American textbook bunk. That reasoning was sort of made after all the reports were in and the numbers were analyzed... after the war had ended.

Also, Nagasaki was bombed only 3 days after Hiroshima. Tokyo was in ruins. The Emperor himself was in danger. Everything was in such disarray that it would have been pretty hard for Japan to have officially surrendered in 3 days. Also, Russia was not far from invading Japan at this point. We only had 2 nukes (number 3 was going to be 1 or 2 weeks later) but we certainly wanted to test them both. They employed different technologies, and we wanted to see the yields each one had.

---

Um, no.

We used the nuclear weapons because the alternative was to invade Japan. After the invasion of Okinawa, we had a pretty keen idea what that would cost in terms of lives.

It's easy to point the finger of moral superiority in hindsight and claim that it was horrible, but imagine what the sheer bloodshed would've been like had a ground invasion been forced. The unfortunate fact is that history is going to vilify the atomic bomb more and more as time passes, if only for what it unleashed upon the future of warfare, but for sake of the people involved at the time, I think it had to be done.

quote:

---

Y.O.T.C impressed everyone with:
We should have hit tokyo. Thats supposivly where a 3rd would have went.

---

Hitting tokyo was a last ditch scenario only. Remember that they saw the Emperor as a god, killing him could have driven the Japanese to a level of Fanaticism unheard of even in todays terrorist organizations.

And as for the Bullshit that Snugglits spouted. Well, I don't think it even deserves a response. It has no basis in reality.

quote:

---

Azizza had this to say about Knight Rider:
Hitting tokyo was a last ditch scenario only. Remember that they saw the Emperor as a god, killing him could have driven the Japanese to a level of Fanaticism unheard of even in todays terrorist organizations.

And as for the Bullshit that Snugglits spouted. Well, I don't think it even deserves a response. It has no basis in reality.

---

Politics threads require an even greater deal of civility beyond normal threads.

And in normal threads, flames are not allowed.

quote:

---

Jackman's account was hax0red to write:
Is it a flame if its true?

---

THIS IS THE LAST WARNING FOR ANYONE WHO PRESUMES TO START INSULTING OTHER PEOPLE IN OTHERWISE CIVILIZED DISCUSSIONS: ANYONE WHO POSTS AN INFLAMMATORY, OFF-TOPIC, OR OTHERWISE SHITTY POST WILL BE BANNED.

quote:

---

Verily, Sean doth proclaim:
If someone asked me if we should bomb Japan, a simple "Yes." By all means sir, drop that fucker, twice!

---

I'm going to go completely insane unless I figure out what this is from.

quote:

---

Y.O.T.C had this to say about Pirotess:
We should have hit tokyo. Thats supposivly where a 3rd would have went.

---

Didn't we firebomb the shit out of that place already?

Nah, better to use them on fresh targets.

2) You misquoted: it's "Someone set up us the bomb."

quote:

---

Jackman had this to say about Knight Rider:
"Sombody set us up the bomb "

---

Guess what 'off-topic or otherwise shitty post' entails.

Since you're mentally handicapped, I'll let this serve as the last warning for you.

quote:

---

Mr. Parcelan Model 2000 was programmed to say:
Guess what 'off-topic or otherwise shitty post' entails.

Since you're mentally handicapped, I'll let this serve as the last warning for you.

---

It's not off topic we are talking about the Bomb dropped 60 years ago. I can't help it if my honest attempt at humor well bombed

quote:

---

Jackman obviously shouldn't have said:
It's not off topic we are talking about the Bomb dropped 60 years ago. I can't help it if my honest attempt at humor well bombed

---

Twenty-four hour ban.

I trust everyone else is feeling fine.

As was already pointed out, the estimates of casualties on both sides would have been absolutely staggering, and the Japanese would have fought to the last man. I don't believe that the Americans, especially the civilians, would have been quite so willing to take that step even given the sucker punch that brought us into the war in the first place. That many lives is a LOT to stomach, and I doubt that the public would have agreed with sending that many of our boys to die.

Snugglits? Read a book. I'll risk Parcelan's wrath to say you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I don't really find it that unlikely that at least part of the cause of dropping it was to make a "success" for the Manhattan project.

But then, maybe my professor was just an American hater?

Though, the way he stated it, it didn't sound like he was putting America in a bad light for dropping the nulcear bombs, just that it was the natural course of action after putting so much effort into making them.

Snugglits fucked around with this message on 08-07-2005 at 01:54 AM.

quote:

---

Verily, Snugglits doth proclaim:
This is what our class taught briefly when we went over it.

I don't really find it that unlikely that at least part of the cause of dropping it was to make a "success" for the Manhattan project.

But then, maybe my professor was just an American hater?

Though, the way he stated it, it didn't sound like he was putting America in a bad light for dropping the nulcear bombs, just that it was the natural course of action after putting so much effort into making them.

---

What professors say isn't always fact. It is often colored by their own personal belief structure and you have to know how to intrepret it and make it your own.

quote:

---

x--SnugglitsO-('-'Q) :
But then, maybe my professor was just an American hater?

---

Nestled in the womb of academia and protected by tenure, many professors are able espouse beliefs that would otherwise crumble to rational argument in the real world.

Ward Churchill and Noam Chomsky are highly visible examples, but you can see them any time you walk onto a college campus.

Maradon! fucked around with this message on 08-07-2005 at 04:30 AM.

quote:

---

Maradon! had this to say about dark elf butts:
Nestled in the womb of academia and protected by tenure, many professors are able espouse beliefs that would otherwise crumble to rational argument in the real world.

Ward Churchill and Noam Chomsky are highly visible examples, but you can see them any time you walk onto a college campus.

---

Right screw all those people who have studied their field for decades, everyone knows that that social sciences are a construct of liberal academia made as part of a master plan to tenure more professors. It's not like there are long-standing debates and disputes among members of academia which are in fact subject to debate and what you call 'rational argument'.

Oh and tenure is a protection against the government leaning on professors to keep them on the ideological national line as used to be the norm, it's quite an important safeguard and not nearly as costly and wasteful as the opponents of hurr liberal academia seem to think.

quote:

---

Maradon! had this to say about dark elf butts:
Nestled in the womb of academia and protected by tenure, many professors are able espouse beliefs that would otherwise crumble to rational argument in the real world.

Ward Churchill and Noam Chomsky are highly visible examples, but you can see them any time you walk onto a college campus.

---

quote:

---

Maradon! stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
OHO here comes Mod in defense of extreme socialism!

---

Show how this discussion not only involves socialism but EXTREME socialism, since the socialism scale goes pretty far towards collectivism simply 'farther left than the libertarian party' won't cut it, or stop just dropping meaningless buzzwords.

Mod fucked around with this message on 08-07-2005 at 06:25 AM.

quote:

---

Pvednes probably says this to all the girls:
The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were textbook examples of crimes against humanity. It's something that must not be allowed to occur ever again.

---

Nanking and the Phillipines invasion.

quote:

---

Azizza was naked while typing this:

A bit of Trivia, Nagasaki was not the original target of the second bomb. Originally the target was the Kokura Arsenal. Weather conditions prevented the attack so they went with a secondary target which ended up being the City of Nagasaki and a Torpedo plant at it's center.

---

History channel just played several of stories about the bombings yesterday, pretty interesting.

Even the pilots did not know the target of the first bomb until mere hours before they were supposed to drop it. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Kokura were all possible targets. Like the second bomb, whichever city was having the best weather that day would get bombed.

quote:

---

Pvednes probably says this to all the girls:
The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were textbook examples of crimes against humanity. It's something that must not be allowed to occur ever again.

---

So you think it would have been less of a crime for us to invade and essentially wipe the country out. Because that was the only other option.

quote:

---

Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Snugglits gently hums:
This is what our class taught briefly when we went over it.

I don't really find it that unlikely that at least part of the cause of dropping it was to make a "success" for the Manhattan project.

But then, maybe my professor was just an American hater?

Though, the way he stated it, it didn't sound like he was putting America in a bad light for dropping the nulcear bombs, just that it was the natural course of action after putting so much effort into making them.

---

As a strategist, I've read extensively on the subject, and I've never seen a credible source say we dropped atomic weapons "just because we could." That illogical nonsense trivializes not only the monumental decisions involved, but also the sacrifices of the tens of thousands of soldiers and sailors who were killed setting up for the eventual invasion.

Further, that kind of stupid "reasoning" is shown to be false by the entire Cold War, in that no atomic weapons have been used in anger since Japan.

One could argue that dropping the atomic weapons was unnecessary, since Japan was on the verge of economic collapse anyway. No one denies that surrender was, after Okinawa, inevitable. After Germany's surrender, though, and the beginning of troubles with the Soviet Union, there were serious doubts as to whether the Alliance would stick together long enough to wait, or whether there would be enough public support to stick to the stated goal of unconditional surrender. Additionally, the Soviet Union was quickly turning east, and the last thing anyone with a lick of sense wanted was a big Soviet presence in Asia, given that China had troubles of its own. There was a ton of pressure to wrap up the war quickly, and the atomic weapons were the only way to do it.

In short, your "professor" was an idiot, and either had no clue what he was talking about, or dumbed it down so far for you that it no longer made sense.

quote:

---

Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Pvednes absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were textbook examples of crimes against humanity. It's something that must not be allowed to occur ever again.

---

That's just stupid. The only way to reach that conclusion is to apply today's knowledge and morality retroactively from the safety and security of our modern superiority.

Before making sweeping generalizations about which you haven't the faintest clue, I suggest you read up on morality and warfare, as well as the various treaties and laws in effect at the time.

While perhaps unthinkable due to the myths that have surrounded nuclear weapons over the last half-century, given a similar situation today, it would be quite possible to justify the same bombings given today's laws of war. Killing civilians is not, contrary to popular belief, forbidden--it's just that the expected civilian casualties must be proportional to the expected military gain. Further, in struggles for national survival, it is generally deemed morally permissable to target all phases of the enemy's production chain, including factory workers, the national infrastructure, and whatever else may contribute to the war machine.

Who would be most likely to use one and what would the most likely target be?

quote:

---

Because Snoota is my friend.
"We kick their asses at Pearl Harbor! We drop ten thousand bomb!!! We go back to Japan and party. 'Who da man? I da man. Who da man? I da man.' But all we did was make them angry! They come back and bomb us! They no drop ten thousand bomb. They no drop one thousand bomb. They no drop one hundred bomb. They no drop twenty bomb! They drop... two bomb! Bomb so powerful, even our penis get small!"

---

That is Carlos Mencia's only funny joke. His series sucks balls.

quote:

---

Jackman had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
So just what would acceptable use of a nuke be in today’s world? 60 years ago it was thought necessary to make use of the weapon, but could provoke its use now?

Who would be most likely to use one and what would the most likely target be?

---

In the event of a China/America war, they're set to turn Guam into a sheet of glass.