sgrig
Comrade
OMG! For once my opinion coincides with RMsharpe! 
The Atomic Question?
- Thread starter MrPresident
- Start date
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
What if they are one and the same. If there are civilians near a military installation who would probably be killed by an attack would you launch one?
Mîtiu Ioan
Deity
Good question. My answer : if it's a key instalation - yes.
But of course there are a lot of details which may assure a less number of civilian victims - for example : hour of an attack, a previous attack with conventional bomb ( which will reduce the number of civilians in area ) and so on.
As said in one quote ( I don't know the author ) - "Devil is hidden in details"
Regards
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
You would have to attack at night to give yourself the most protection and you couldn't really do a conventional bomb attack first because this will alert the enemy to where you are going to drop the bomb and so they would build up their defences.
Mîtiu Ioan
Deity
I agree with you ...
But anyway I feel that a drop of A-bomb after a half an hour of conventional bombing may reduce the number of civilian casualties.
But the fact is nobody take care about such of details !!! And probably THIS is the crime ...
(Regards
The Art of War
[none]
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2002
- Messages
- 699
Yes, I would've dropped the A-bombs. They save more lives than they killed. If we hadn't dropped them, more than 500,000 American soldiers would've lost their lives, along with thousands of Japanese soldiers during Operation: Downfall, the invasion of Kyushu. So, yes, it was the right thing to do.
Xiahou-Dun
Retired Super Hero
The Hien could and did intercept B-29 bombers.
The first ones, Ki-61 where kamikaze attacks.
Hien Ki-100
The reason only one B-29 was sent to drop the bomb was because the Japanese would not waste time/planes attacking single planes. After all the "fire bombing" (which killed more people than both A bombs combine) the US figured out single planes where not top priority to the Japanese. I believe they (Japan) considered single planes just scouts.
to referance to the person who said that in British schools, irish history is not taught.
i, being 18 and in a british school, have learnt all about british involvement in ireland. so what you said is untrue, so don't generalise. "Asumptions are the mother of all %uck ups"
i, being 18 and in a british school, have learnt all about british involvement in ireland. so what you said is untrue, so don't generalise. "Asumptions are the mother of all %uck ups"
insanewarrior
Warlord
I'm not so sure whether i would bomb cities like Hiroshima or Nagasaki. There was suggested the obliteration of an atol to proove the potency of the new American weapon.
Still, looking back into the records of that time, it seems that the Japanese have schedulled a bombing of the US with biological agents (plague), and all planes were canceled when Japan capitulated.
The Japanese were willing to go to extreme lengths in order to secure their victory and thus i believe that the bomb was necessary. Yet, historical truth does not stop America from appologizing from dropping the A-bomb, as moral compensation for the victims.
Still, looking back into the records of that time, it seems that the Japanese have schedulled a bombing of the US with biological agents (plague), and all planes were canceled when Japan capitulated.
The Japanese were willing to go to extreme lengths in order to secure their victory and thus i believe that the bomb was necessary. Yet, historical truth does not stop America from appologizing from dropping the A-bomb, as moral compensation for the victims.
roadwarrior
Warlord
Personally, I see no reason for the United State's government to apologize for an action which ended the most brutal war this planet has ever seen and potentially saved millions of lives, especially when it would be apologizing to a nation which was responsible for starting the war in the Pacific and committed numerous documented atrocities. And which has never apologized for any of them, and does not even mention them in history texts. Maybe if we got an apology for the attack on Pearl Harbor and the killing of American (and other countries') POW's, the use of "comfort women," and the actions of Unit 731 by the Japanese government we might feel compelled to extend an apology.
insanewarrior
Warlord
"Personally, I see no reason for the United State's government to apologize for an action which ended the most brutal war this planet "
Are u suggesting that the killing of civillians in any war would be acceptable?
Indeed, the Japanese commited atrocities, but does that justify the American atrocities. Even if the Americans killed less civilians than the japanese it is not an excuse.
"The atom bomb actually saved the lives of more japanese than it killed... " - do you think that arithmetics can apply to human life? How are 70,000 innocent people less important than say 100,000 of 200,000 military? The bomb may have been necessary, but certainly not commendable.
That is my oppinion.
Are u suggesting that the killing of civillians in any war would be acceptable?
Indeed, the Japanese commited atrocities, but does that justify the American atrocities. Even if the Americans killed less civilians than the japanese it is not an excuse.
"The atom bomb actually saved the lives of more japanese than it killed... " - do you think that arithmetics can apply to human life? How are 70,000 innocent people less important than say 100,000 of 200,000 military? The bomb may have been necessary, but certainly not commendable.
That is my oppinion.
knowltok2
Deity
Your figures are a bit off when it comes to potential lives saved. It is not just the military lives (which would have been much higher in an invasion for both sides) but also the civilian lives as well. The Japanese population was being encouraged to resist any invasion and in many cases women were being trained with spears. The Japanese had shown absolutely no history of surrender, and in fact had shown various examples of of civilians commiting suicide to avoid capture.
There were also plans for a Russian invasion of the Northern parts of Japan which would have resulted in yet more casualties as the friendly Russian troops fresh from the civilized conflict in the west went to work on the Japanese.
To whoever suggested a demonstration on an Atoll: Why would this work when the destruction of Hiroshima didn't?
roadwarrior
Warlord
I do not think that an apology is necessary or right because an apology shows that you accept guilt for something, which we do not have reason to do. It was not an easy choice to make, but it was Japanese aggression which forced the decision in the first place. And if you think that there would only be 100,000 or 200,000 casualties in an invasion of Japan, and all military at that, then all I can say is that you are sorely confused. Knowltok just summed it up as well as I could hope to do.
While you ask, in the minds of the elected American leadership, the preservation of American life would have been of the utmost importance and priority. It would be a far greater error to in their mind to sacrifice needlessly the lives of American servicemen when they could be spared. Call it cruel, but there are few if any governments on this earth who will value the lives of their enemies' civilians over those of their own citizen-soldiers. It is a sobering truth, but has generally held true in history, and even to a greater degree in democratic societies where the leadership must answer to the people.
Also, at the time the atomic bomb was simply seen as a more efficient way of bombing cities. Would it have been any better if thousands of planes had bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki into the ground than one plane drops a single bomb? This was the scenario they were looking at, due to their lack of understanding of the health effects of the radiation.
While you ask, in the minds of the elected American leadership, the preservation of American life would have been of the utmost importance and priority. It would be a far greater error to in their mind to sacrifice needlessly the lives of American servicemen when they could be spared. Call it cruel, but there are few if any governments on this earth who will value the lives of their enemies' civilians over those of their own citizen-soldiers. It is a sobering truth, but has generally held true in history, and even to a greater degree in democratic societies where the leadership must answer to the people.
Also, at the time the atomic bomb was simply seen as a more efficient way of bombing cities. Would it have been any better if thousands of planes had bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki into the ground than one plane drops a single bomb? This was the scenario they were looking at, due to their lack of understanding of the health effects of the radiation.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Originally posted by Ohkrana
Without hesitation
And would I have nuked Japan if I were Truman?
I would of dropped the Bomb Thrice! (hence I voted yes)
Bad things do come in three's.
I tell you, this bloke is like me in so many ways.
As previously said, I would have done it without any hesitation, and in a far more evil manner.
In traditional Civ style, I would have signed the treaty aboard the Missouri, and then nuked Tokyo in 1960.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
"That still wouldn't stop Godzilla"
It would probably create another one.
It would probably create another one.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
Doublepost.
Similar threads
