Tough Decision

[Azash]

Bombing includes environmental hazards and drastically lowered internal public opinion - blockade.

 

[colontos]

But you see, I am very lazy. It's not my job to find the facts for you.

It isn't my job to restate my position in Simple English everytime you misunderstand it.

Give me a source and I won't argue with you here. But you must not forget, the deaths of impact also include the amounts of radiation that caused sometimes fatal injuries to thousands. Even if these firebombings can range up to this devastation, I still firmly believe that two wrongs don't make a right.

Here's atomic bomb stats: here.

And some info about the firebombing.

The firebombing of Tokyo killed more than the bombing of Nagasaki.

The stubborness of the generals doesn't prove much. As being the relatively first of its kind, I'm sure the detonating of atomic missles anywhere near the island would demoralize the Japenese, maybe even cause public unrest and revolt. Sure, this plan isn't perfect as you pointed out, but I'm just too sympathetic that I would risk it. I don't know how Truman did it.

The stubbornness of the generals after the a-bombing proves that even 2 atomic explosions wasn't enough to convince everybody. They were considering, seriously, continuing the war.

 

[thenooblet22]

It isn't my job to restate my position in Simple English everytime you misunderstand it.
Here's atomic bomb stats:here.
And some info about thefirebombing.
The firebombing of Tokyo killed more than the bombing of Nagasaki.

Uh, yes it is. If your going to claim firebombings were more devastating, you're damn well going to provide a source. I didn't ask for it to be spelled out in "Simple English," I just wanted evidence if you're going to back your arguement with it. And from what I can tell from this article is that firebombings wouldn't ever reach interior Japan. If it did, it would be costly in manpower and time. So what is your point again? We could have done something worse than atomic bombs? That doesn't actually change how destructive they were. Air raids take days to weeks to bombard a city. These missiles did it in a flash.

The stubbornness of the generals after the a-bombing proves that even 2 atomic explosions wasn't enough to convince everybody. They were considering, seriously, continuing the war.

Again, public morality and opinion would stand to differ. To draw comparisons, did the Russians want war with Germany on the outbreak of World War I? Did they do something? I know it's a stretch. But to say the sight of atomic missiles didn't affect them is dang ludicrous. Revenge can only carry you so far, everyone has a breaking point.

 

[civverguy]

Nuke when the single men see all the women in the country they will end up joining them . Then the queen will entrance all the men and make them fight against the other men so the war will not be successful.

 

[Smidlee]

Isn't the only reason there is an option to nuke Bob city is all the other cities has already has been bombed back to the dark ages with conventional bombs?

 

[colontos]

Uh, yes it is. If your going to claim firebombings were more devastating, you're damn well going to provide a source.

It's common knowledge, ask anybody. Or read a book. And watch your tone when demanding sources for things that, quite frankly, anyone with a passing knowledge of the war knows. Would you like a source showing that WWII actually happened?

So what is your point again? We could have done something worse than atomic bombs?

My point is that we DID do something worse than atomic bombs, and the Japanese hadn't surrendered yet. The Japanese didn't surrender because we dropped two a-bombs. They surrendered because they thought we would drop 10 more.

That doesn't actually change how destructive they were. Air raids take days to weeks to bombard a city. These missiles did it in a flash.

They were bombs, not missiles. And a firebombing campaign could destroy a city in less than a day.

Again, public morality and opinion would stand to differ. To draw comparisons, did the Russians want war with Germany on the outbreak of World War I? Did they do something? I know it's a stretch.

A stretch? It's ridiculous. The tsar was not a totalitarian leader who brainwashed his population. Russians did not think the tsar was a god. Russians were not imbibed with the kamikaze spirit. There was never any indication that the Japanese people were even thinking about rising up, while in Russia there were many indications. They had even risen up once before in 1905.

But to say the sight of atomic missiles didn't affect them is dang ludicrous. Revenge can only carry you so far, everyone has a breaking point.

But my point, which you keep missing, is that in actuality, the a-bombs did not cause all Japanese to give up the ghost. Many wanted to fight on. Why would you think that an a-bomb demonstration causing LESS damage than the actual one would get the job done so easily?

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Can we keep on topic and leave WWII discussion to the other thread?

 

[Stylesjl]

Nuke the city. Who knows what other problems might come up in ten years. End this crap now.

However I don't beleive nuking Japan was justified anyway given that it was mainly the Soviets who actually scared the crap out of them

 

[thenooblet22]

It's common knowledge, ask anybody. Or read a book. And watch your tone when demanding sources for things that, quite frankly, anyone with a passing knowledge of the war knows. Would you like a source showing that WWII actually happened?

My tone comes from you undermining me in every ending post of yours. And sorry, I don't read books over World War II, but I do pertain common knowledge over it. This is the first time I've heard of these air raids, even though I'm not surprised of them. And another insult the end that, eh? How can we have a civilized arguement?

My point is that we DID do something worse than atomic bombs, and the Japanese hadn't surrendered yet. The Japanese didn't surrender because we dropped two a-bombs. They surrendered because they thought we would drop 10 more.

Air raids were a common and expected form of bombardment. The ability of dropping tactical nukes over a country over an undescribable distance was something new and something to fear. Why would the Japanese think we were armed with less nukes if we chose appropriate targets?

They were bombs, not missiles. And a firebombing campaign could destroy a city in less than a day.

Thanks for the correction! Bombs, I'll remember that now! In the article, it states it took 10 days of campaigns to eliminate 32 square miles of Japanese cities. The radii of these two cities, especially Hiroshima, obviously scaled these perimeters.

A stretch? It's ridiculous. The tsar was not a totalitarian leader who brainwashed his population. Russians did not think the tsar was a god. Russians were not imbibed with the kamikaze spirit. There was never any indication that the Japanese people were even thinking about rising up, while in Russia there were many indications. They had even risen up once before in 1905.

A stretch yes, but not ridiculous. You totally took that out of context. Next time I should probably embolden and italics that "maybe." I will fold on this issue because I don't even want to begin comparing two different societies, not my intention. I just wanted to draw an illustration that public moral and support do affect wars and stability. Even under totaltarian regimes, there is resistance, brainwashed or not

But my point, which you keep missing, is that in actuality, the a-bombs did not cause all Japanese to give up the ghost. Many wanted to fight on. Why would you think that an a-bomb demonstration causing LESS damage than the actual one would get the job done so easily?

It wouldn't do LESS damage, it would do LESS destruction. You can't say they would have kept fighting because then we would be argueing "what if" scenarios. Just because some people wanted to keep fighting, doesn't mean they had the will to keep fighting. We don't know what the citizens would have done if the Japanese refused to accept unconditional surrender.

 

[Azash]

Can we keep on topic and leave WWII discussion to the other thread?

I think all hope is lost

 

[dcbandicoot]

I voted for blockade. Killing innocents when unnecessary is repulsive and barbaric at best.

 

[colontos]

How can we have a civilized arguement?

We can't, and I'll show you why using only your last post:

And sorry, I don't read books over World War II, but I do pertain common knowledge over it.

This is the first time I've heard of these air raids, even though I'm not surprised of them.

The ability of dropping tactical nukes over a country over an undescribable distance

Why would the Japanese think we were armed with less nukes if we chose appropriate targets?

In the article, it states it took 10 days of campaigns to eliminate 32 square miles of Japanese cities. The radii of these two cities, especially Hiroshima, obviously scaled these perimeters.

It wouldn't do LESS damage, it would do LESS destruction.

Can anybody argue with this?

 

[thenooblet22]

We can't, and I'll show you why using only your last post:
Can anybody argue with this?

Don't see your point. Saying I'm unreasonable? Saying my facts are wrong? Saying I'm being aggressive? Or all of the above? I'm not trying to fight. In fact, I love arguements. One of the only reasons I visit the forums. Come on, continue.

 

[colontos]

Don't see your point. Saying I'm unreasonable? Saying my facts are wrong? Saying I'm being aggressive? Or all of the above? I'm not trying to fight. In fact, I love arguements. One of the only reasons I visit the forums. Come on, continue.

No, I'm saying your prose is non-sensical. No, I don't think I'll be continuing this. See you in other threads. *unsubscribes*

 

[CurtSibling]

Nuke them - They will learn to respect the power of Alexania.

...