Agree or Disagree with dropping the "Nukes".

[El_Machinae]

I dont agree with sending financial aid to countries that are critical of us.

You'd be surprised at the goodwill that the Tsunami Relief efforts brought to the US from heavily muslim communities.

Sometimes you have to be nice BEFORE someone likes you.

 

[kingjoshi]

You'd be surprised at the goodwill that the Tsunami Relief efforts brought to the US from heavily muslim communities.

Sometimes you have to be nice BEFORE someone likes you.

As though the US hasn't been continually sending financial aid throughout the world. Earthquake relief in Turkey and even Iran. A lot of people give generously to charity in addition to the aid the US gives to the United Nations and each country separately.

The US gave money to Nepal. The fact that the government used a good portion of it to buy weaponry for the civil war is not a fault of the givers of aid. The Maoists consider foreign governments hostile for that reason (UK and India have helped the government previously as well I believe). And when the other countries don't give, Maoists and others will chastise the governments for being spoiled rich people who don't help the needy. Then you'll have people say the governments didn't give enough, only to have larger portions being distributed for oppression and war. Great.

The fact is, there isn't an objective right answer. If the US didn't use atomic weapons and the war possibly lasted much longer with massive loss of life, then the government would be chastised for not ending it sooner. And given the circumstances, there is no reason to assume that hundreds of thousands of people weren't saved by the early end to the war. Classic between a rock and a hard place. That's what life often can be. The dropping of the atomic bombs saved lives, ended the war sooner and formed the political dynamics for the prosperity of Japan.

Playing the "what if" game requires the burden of proof on the opponent side. Just like in instant replay, if you want to change the call, you need overwhelming support. There just isn't it.

 

[bhsup]

You have to remember that in Japanese culture, the Emperor is a God.
It would be akin to asking America to abolish Christianity.

I sufficiently addressed that in point #2 of my post.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

The A-bomb dropping was not a really good thing. But either that, or the deaths of a million Allied soldiers and deaths of the entire civilain population of Japan(estimated figures and the government told the civilians to defend their country to the death wielding bamboo sticks as weapons). Oh, and if World War II didn't end, there would have been more casualties.

 

[Marla_Singer]

My question is, why not starting the nukes parade on a strictly military target such as one of the Japanese fortress islands ? No one has answered to me on this point !

Anyway, I believe that question is ideoligical, it's stupid to find any arguments which would satisfy everyone. A good way to determine if a thread is about an ideological topic is if there are more than 10 pages on it. Usually, that's the case of threads about abortion, religion, death penalty, or Hiroshima.

 

[CaptainF]

Genocide? Rofl.

It doesnt even come close to the meaning of the word.

In fact, it is most likely that millions of Japanese were saved by the bombs. I hardly think the Japanese would have surrendered otherwise.

Only an overwhelming show of force could have made the Japanese Emperor surrender.

Its not genocide in and of itself.

It is certainly mass murder. And it certainly was terrorist in nature.

The firebombings of tokyo, kobe, nagoya and just about everyother Japanese city, coupled with these attacks, were one of the blackest marks on our country's history.

And even if we did save millions, it should not exempt the fact that we committed a truly horribleact. Had we lost the war, Truman would have been swinging from gallows for war crimes.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Had we lost the war, Truman would have been swinging from gallows for war crimes.

That's why it's better to win.

In the case of WW2, had the US lost and the Axis powers had access to US leaders, there would not have been any war crimes trials. Most likely, summary executions would have taken place.

 

[Bugfatty300]

My question is, why not starting the nukes parade on a strictly military target such as one of the Japanese fortress islands ? No one has answered to me on this point !

I adressed this issue in depth several pages ago.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3844555&postcount=18

 

[MobBoss]

Its not genocide in and of itself.

It is certainly mass murder. And it certainly was terrorist in nature.

Not at all. Once again its not murder and its not even terrorist in nature. You simply do not understand war on that scale. You are used to the modern "sanitized" war were if we have 10 people killed a half a world away its all over the news and consider "horrible".

Those cities were major military industrial centers. The poeple that lived and worked there supported the Japanese war effort. If we had not targeted the German and Japanese ability to manufacture armaments, we never would have won that war.

The firebombings of tokyo, kobe, nagoya and just about everyother Japanese city, coupled with these attacks, were one of the blackest marks on our country's history.

Once again, I humbly submit that the war itself one of the blackest marks upon humanitys history.

And even if we did save millions, it should not exempt the fact that we committed a truly horribleact. Had we lost the war, Truman would have been swinging from gallows for war crimes.

Whats the more horrible act? Commiting to a tough decision and prevent the death of millions more or through inaction allow millions more to be killed? Dont judge those who made this decision harsely as I doubt many of us appreciate the type of decisions faced by those people at that time.

 

[MobBoss]

My question is, why not starting the nukes parade on a strictly military target such as one of the Japanese fortress islands ? No one has answered to me on this point !

Because at the time it was decided that the quickest way to win the war was by destroying the military industrial capacity of the enemy. Very simply, just destroying military targets simply meant that those forces would be rebuilt and replaced and thus the conflict extended. If you destroy the enemies capacity to even build armaments, eventually you dont even have to bomb military targets as no more exist.

Anyway, I believe that question is ideoligical, it's stupid to find any arguments which would satisfy everyone. A good way to determine if a thread is about an ideological topic is if there are more than 10 pages on it.

Really? I hadnt realized that Babe Thread XXXXXX was an ideological topic.

 

[kingjoshi]

Really? I hadnt realized that Babe Thread XXXXXX was an ideological topic.

That's why I make sure to check it everyday. Some mindblowing stuff there.

On Topic: I don't understand how people can complain when the US and others don't give money to Palestinians to save lives, and conversely do something else which (while killing many) saves many lives. If there was inaction, we'd still be considered criminals for inaction. I don't think it's about not pleasing everyone. I think some people themselves can't be pleased.

 

[ThePrankMonkey]

That's why I make sure to check it everyday. Some mindblowing stuff there.

On Topic: I don't understand how people can complain when the US and others don't give money to Palestinians to save lives, and conversely do something else which (while killing many) saves many lives. If there was inaction, we'd still be considered criminals for inaction. I don't think it's about not pleasing everyone. I think some people themselves can't be pleased.

i'd certainly agree with the last half of this post, you simply cannot make every happy no matter what you do. do nothing and be accused of not stepping in, step in and they'll bash for you how you stepped in regardless how to did it.

heads they win tails, you lose!

 

[CaptainF]

Not at all. Once again its not murder and its not even terrorist in nature. You simply do not understand war on that scale. You are used to the modern "sanitized" war were if we have 10 people killed a half a world away its all over the news and consider "horrible".

Nope. It was ruthless, deliberate targeting of civilians so as to scare the government into surrendering. That is just a bit of terrorism ain't it?

Those cities were major military industrial centers. The poeple that lived and worked there supported the Japanese war effort. If we had not targeted the German and Japanese ability to manufacture armaments, we never would have won that war.

Sooooo.....drop a conventional bomb. It would make a lot more practical sense than making an example out of half a million people.

Once again, I humbly submit that the war itself one of the blackest marks upon humanitys history.

Agreed. But we participated in it and have some dirt on our hands as well, intentional or not, ulterior motive or not.

Whats the more horrible act? Commiting to a tough decision and prevent the death of millions more or through inaction allow millions more to be killed? Dont judge those who made this decision harsely as I doubt many of us appreciate the type of decisions faced by those people at that time.

As if I should appreciate a war crime? Surely you aren't going to argue that the raw reality of killing half a million people isn't a bad thing?

 

[kingjoshi]

Sooooo.....drop a conventional bomb. It would make a lot more practical sense than making an example out of half a million people.

All those people that die from 'conventional' methods, I'm sure their final thoughts are, "At least we didn't die from nukes."

Though the numbers are still many, your figures are twice as high as those that died from the atomic bombs.

 

[CaptainF]

All those people that die from 'conventional' methods, I'm sure their final thoughts are, "At least we didn't die from nukes."

Though the numbers are still many, your figures are twice as high as those that died from the atomic bombs.

So how does that excuse it?

A nuclear weapon is by its very nature an indiscriminate weapon. You take out everything in a radius of X miles...including women and children.

At least with a conventional bomb some discretion could be used.

 

[EdCase]

So how does that excuse it?

A nuclear weapon is by its very nature an indiscriminate weapon. You take out everything in a radius of X miles...including women and children.

At least with a conventional bomb some discretion could be used.

Research "The Blitz", Coventry, Dresden to name but three then tell me how much discretion plain old iron bombs had.
In this age of televised warfare, we all feel we are some kind of expert ...judge and jury of what is right (or wrong) in warfare.
I am guessing that no one here was actually involved in WWII. We do not have the right to judge the the people making the decisions using 20/20 hindsight.
The bombs were dropped. The war ended. None have since been used. I personally view that as all the information I need.

 

[kingjoshi]

Even in the Iraqi wars (plural), many have died from friendly fire. In WWII, it was much greater. All weapons we have are indiscriminate.

From David Brinkley's "A Memoir", page 35:

The end of this little tale is that Company I landed in Normandy after D Day, June 6, 1944, and was fighting its way into France. Whereupon, on July 25, 1944, a fleet of American bombers from the Eighth Air Force flew over England carrying tons of bombs intended for the Germans. When the American pilots could not find their assigned targets through the cloud cover and the thick dust raised by previous bombings, they had to drop their bombs anyway. They fell and exploded directly on the 120th Infantry's Thirtieth Infantry Division - one of the great, bloody mistakes of the war with a very heavy loss of life in an unutterable disaster. Out of 250 men, 245 died. The same attack also killed General Lesley J. McNair, the chief of Army Ground Forces. Not one of my friends in the 120th did I ever see again. That was Dry Pond's contribution to the war. No one gave more.

I don't need to watch any more movies and I don't need or want to experience war to know how deadly, gruesome and painful it is. Death is not something to be happy about. The whole war is a tragic experience.

But there are times in our lives as well as the course of human history when we're in situations where we don't want to be. And we have to make horrific choices where no decision is something we'll be happy about.

In the absurdly mindnumbing situation of choosing between allowing possibly millions to die versus possibly abruptly ending the worst war on earth, I am satisfied with the decision that was made. And I look at the silver lining that peace was ushered sooner and humanity could at least try to move on.

Even if you disagree with the decision, there is no reason to insult the men who had to make the decision by questioning their motives and saying they didn't understand the gravity of what was at stake. Hopefully humankind has learned enough to never recreate such a scenario. But all it takes is some psycho in power that wants to wipe someone off the map...

 

[MobBoss]

Nope. It was ruthless, deliberate targeting of civilians so as to scare the government into surrendering. That is just a bit of terrorism ain't it?

My dear boy...if it were deliberate targeting of civilians they were after, they would have gone after cities with a much larger population. Please think about what you are alleging.

Sooooo.....drop a conventional bomb. It would make a lot more practical sense than making an example out of half a million people.

See, here is where you are ignorant. For conventional bombs it often took many bombing runs over days, if not weeks, to take out an industrial target. They were hugely inaccurate by todays standards and as such, often resulted in far more civilian casualties in the long run.

Agreed. But we participated in it and have some dirt on our hands as well, intentional or not, ulterior motive or not.

You make it sound as if we had some sort of choice in the matter. Remember, the Japanese sneak attacked us...the Germans also had to be stopped. What was the alternative? Let them take over Asia and Europe? I dont think you can imagine the world today if we had kept out of WWII for "morality" reasons.

As if I should appreciate a war crime? Surely you aren't going to argue that the raw reality of killing half a million people isn't a bad thing?

Not a war crime....and the casualities from both bombs were no where near a half million people. Please stop reacting emotionally and think logically. Which is worse...under 200k people killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the millions that would die (both civilian and military) in an attempt to invade the Japanese mainland? Grow up and think about it because that is the exact question that Truman had to answer.

So how does that excuse it?

A nuclear weapon is by its very nature an indiscriminate weapon. You take out everything in a radius of X miles...including women and children.

At least with a conventional bomb some discretion could be used.

If you really think this then you need to do some reading on WWII bombing campaigns. Conventional bombs of the time were very innaccurate and just as indescriminate (if not more so) than an atomic weapon.

 

[Colonel]

These quotes are refering to Operation Downfall- the plan for the invasion of the Japenese homeland.

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

So we killed roughly 120,000-150,000 civies to save between 1.7-4 million American soliders, and 5-10million japanese civies, seems like it was the better option.

and this next bit I just thought was intresting

Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. As of 2005, all the American military casualties of the following sixty years—including the Korean and Vietnam Wars—have not exhausted that stockpile.

Also here are some lower figures still more then the civie casualties from the bomb

In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.

A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by Gen. MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. When these figures were questioned by Gen. Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.

In a conference with President Truman on 18 June, Marshall, taking Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties). Adm. Leahy, more impressed by Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000). Adm. King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.

 

[MobBoss]

Very good Colonel...you are showing promise!

These are the types of options allied leaders faced in WWII....very, very tough decisions that I am very glad I dont have to make.