Many of you may believe that we had no choice but to use nuclear weapons upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But Japan surrender before Nuclear weapons were launch at the cities. I think Truman wanted to used weapons to make threaten other former world powers such as the soviet union .

9/17/2005 7:56:32 PM

...

9/17/2005 7:57:56 PM

you can't hug terrorists with nuclear arms

9/17/2005 7:58:20 PM

Quote :

"But Japan surrender before Nuclear weapons were launch at the cities."

1) Learn english.

2) Learn history.

3) Profit.

9/17/2005 7:59:27 PM

did we have ICBM'S during world war II?

i forget

9/17/2005 8:00:15 PM

i want to have a nuclear war just so i can hear the AWOOGA klaxons

9/17/2005 8:02:29 PM

They initially did not accept unconditional surrender.

Even the night before the surrender occured, part of the military tried to prevent the surrender. Don't act like they were groveling for surrender before we nuked them.

It saved the lives of american soldiers. Period.

9/17/2005 8:05:02 PM

Just because the text book said that Japan wanted to surrender does not mean it actually happen. Mr. Joshua , I have some advice for you. Learn history in school . Then go teach yourself history.

9/17/2005 8:05:15 PM

Japan suprised attacked us on a Sunday morning, let's not talk about morals.

9/17/2005 8:07:29 PM

you don't spend 2 billion dollars on making a bomb you're not going to drop

9/17/2005 8:07:59 PM

1.) Japan surrendered after we bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

2.) Starting a war with the Soviets was the last thing Truman would have wanted.

3.) It is arguable whether using the bomb was the right thing to do. I say it was because it probably resulted in the least total death and destruction. You could also so it was wrong because most of the casualties were civilians. I discount that because although they were civilians, they were not innocent bystanders. They were the workforce that powered the Japanese war machine.

4.) We can't use the bomb now because somebody would probably send one our way.

9/17/2005 8:08:49 PM

<---- history major

Penzoate, I have some advice for you. Pull your head out of your ass. Then go learn yourself some history.

Elements of the government wanted to surrender while they still had some bargaining power. However, the military had authority. In accordance with bushido, they wanted to fight to the death.

Quote :

"You could also so it was wrong because most of the casualties were civilians."

Prior to surrender, the Japanese government trained civilians in fighting Allied soldiers with bamboo spears. Had a full scale invasion occurred, as many as one million Allied troops would have died (high end estimate) and countless more Japanese civilians. Some historians say that the war could have lasted into the 1950's. The motto at the time was "Ten million die for the emperor." In the long run, fewer civilians died because of the bomb.

[Edited on September 17, 2005 at 8:15 PM. Reason : .]

9/17/2005 8:12:00 PM

it's funny

because the instant someone declares their credibility

it's cuts it by half

9/17/2005 8:13:30 PM

^ True. That was just in response to this:

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua , I have some advice for you. Learn history in school ."

I'll admit that school learnins ain't all its cracked up to be.

9/17/2005 8:18:13 PM

Just for the record,

The US is the only country on Earth that I know of that not only has used a nuclear weapon. It's also the only country whree the population thinks using nukes is a good thing and is seriously considering using them in future.

It's therefore imperative that other countries acquire WMDs as soon as possible to stop these morons if they decide to stir some shit.

9/17/2005 9:48:37 PM

^you're effectively, if not legally, one of us now.

Quote :

"You could also so it was wrong because most of the casualties were civilians. I discount that because although they were civilians, they were not innocent bystanders. They were the workforce that powered the Japanese war machine. "

1. targeting civilians was not limited to the atomic attacks or to either side in WWII. For example, the incendiary raid on Tokyo killed at least as many people as both of the atomic raids COMBINED (discounting increased cancer rates over the long term...that probably eventually tipped the balance in "favor" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

2. the "powered the war machine" argument is a bullshit cop-out under most circumstances. The only difference in WWII is that it was total war. we haven't seen anything like that since, so you can't compare it to other conflicts. the fact is that both sides were engaging in that type of combat, and both sides were both quite resolute and evenly matched, and so our options were mutually limited.

side note: war is bad enough under any circumstances. morals and ethics have to be maintained at whatever level they can. that said, war is an ugly business, and it raises some tough questions. i mean, if an infantry division stormed a city, executing every man, woman, and child, that would be viewed by almost anyone as horrendous. however, there was widespread targeting of civilians by both sides in WWII from bombing raids, and we think of that as wholly different.



now, reasons for nuking japan, in no particular order:

1. speedy end to the war; at least arguably reduced casualties on both sides...especially going on the knowledge that we had in august of 1945.

2. USSR had declared war on japan days earlier. we didn't want them to get their hand in on the post-war restructuring of japan. looked what happened in berlin, germany, and eastern europe in general.

3. show of force to the soviets

4. real-world test of revolutionary weapon

9/17/2005 10:33:59 PM

Just for the record:
"The US is the only country on Earth that I know of that not only has used a nuclear weapon. "
True.
"It's also the only country whree the population thinks using nukes is a good thing"
False. You are using the work "using" which is present tense. We will defend their use in 1945, but no one here will defend their use in 2005.
"and is seriously considering using them in future."
This one "might" be founded, but as you probably know, only in retaliation, which makes us not the only one, but one among every single country that has one.

It's therefore imperative that other countries acquire WMDs as soon as possible to stop these morons if they decide to stir some shit.
True, I think every good country on Earth should have nukes, South Korea, Japan, etc. etc. Only this can check the ambitions of nefarious characters, which could at some point in the distant future be the United States.

[Edited on September 17, 2005 at 10:38 PM. Reason : ...]

9/17/2005 10:38:00 PM

well, duke's list sums it up almost perfectly

and the order is probably right too

but racism/revenge should also be on there, as number 5

it also would have been bad for Truman politically if he hadn't dropped it

9/17/2005 10:50:19 PM

^ indeed

good god, i couldn't even imagine the fallout for Truman if he had invaded, lost a ton of troops, and then told everyone he had that weapon and didn't use it.

9/17/2005 11:08:37 PM

even if he hadn't have invaded

and besides, they were already blowing the shit out of Japan with conventional stuff, so why not nuke it too?

9/17/2005 11:10:26 PM

He did not have to invade japan because japan had already surrendor fool!

9/17/2005 11:22:04 PM

is this person for real? because the grammar and general lack of understanding seem too out of place for a college student. even a freshman

[Edited on September 17, 2005 at 11:33 PM. Reason : ]

9/17/2005 11:33:03 PM

Quote :

"and the order is probably right too but racism/revenge should also be on there, as number 5 it also would have been bad for Truman politically if he hadn't dropped it "

yeah...that order wasn't really an accident...i just said "no particular order" because arguing their relative importance is stupid, pointless, and impossible to make a real conclusion.

and there is probably at least SOME truth to the racism/revenge part, and definitely a case for political motivation.

[Edited on September 17, 2005 at 11:40 PM. Reason : ^^no.]

9/17/2005 11:39:27 PM

^^ I'm guessing English isn't her first language. In that case, it's understandable.

9/17/2005 11:43:07 PM

Quote :

"He did not have to invade japan because japan had already surrendor fool!"

fool? you've been on here a month and a half - get some time and posts before you can even think about calling other posters fools, let alone people with ~9000 posts.

9/17/2005 11:45:19 PM

post count doesn't mean shit. smart is smart, and dumb is dumb.

to quote MathFreak (and you don't hear that from me all that often)

Quote :

"Some people really are stupid. They can be identified by saying things that are wrong."

9/17/2005 11:48:07 PM

well, I agree there are some stupid people on here with a lot of posts. I don't claim to be that smart in this forum - I'm not for sure. usually, they get when to talk and when not to talk after a while.

9/17/2005 11:53:22 PM

Quote :

"^you're effectively, if not legally, one of us now."

I have nothing in common with those approving past use of nuclear weapons and/or using them in future.

9/18/2005 12:09:47 AM

Japan didn't surrender before the bombs were dropped. We had the choice of using nuclear weapons, and we chose to. The bombings ended the war immediately, and by all estimations, with less casualties especially to American soldiers. I'll take that.

9/18/2005 12:13:23 AM

^^ Why do you disapprove of 'past use' of atomic bombs?

9/18/2005 12:17:29 AM

^^ Yes, the Americans were deliberately killing civilians to achieve their political and military goals. Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are just the most famous examples. That obviously is the very definition of terrorism. Something even the Soviets never did during the WWII.

^ I'm against terrorism.

[Edited on September 18, 2005 at 12:18 AM. Reason : .]

9/18/2005 12:17:44 AM

I've been to Hiroshima. I'm also nuclear engineering btw. I can't begin to argue that this nation shouldn't have dropped an atomic bomb at that time. It was done with a heavy heart, but I still can't bring myself to believe that everything was done to end things in the most humane way possible, i think it was done to end the war the quickest way possible.

The soviet factor was huge. What has always bothered me was that 2 bombs, not 1 were dropped. Japan had the mentality of fighting until complete destruction, and that is exactly what the US offered. if they didn't surrender, every major population center would be turned into a wasteland. Given that, it seems to make no sense to me that the second bomb would have made any difference on the surender/not surender side of things. The US even had 2 waiting in storage for Tokyo.

From my limited knowledge of history, I understand that at that time we had a new president that quite possibly didn't have the strength to use the atomic bomb as a negotating tool instead of a kill people then negotiate tool. In my limited knowedge of history I also seem to remember that it wasn't fully understood by the japanese what went on with the first bomb when the second bomb was dropped. Communication from Hiroshima after the bomb just didn't happen i heard, the city pretty much dissapeared.

I'm not a history guy. But whatever way you look at it, there's the general accepted clause that if you're in a situation where you can totally anhilate another country or your own, you have every right to chose your own. A lot of ppl would have died if another path was taken (I won't venture to guess), and hundreds of thousands died when the bombs were dropped. At Perl Harbor something like 3000 American soilders died, and a similar number for 9/11. In the Hiroshima case I think the creapest thing is that it was communities outright destroyed, not a family here, a family there loosing a son. It's also the creapest thing on earth to walk around the city and think about how no building is more than 60 years old, minus the one they leave up as a monument. Maybe that was less suffering. In the 1km around the actual target, the ppl who would have been crying for the dead were dead with the ppl they would have cried for. But maybe the earth looses something more precious in that case.

9/18/2005 12:21:46 AM

Dude, I think we could have better used the Bomb to get its purpose across by not bombing these cities...

but the guy who made this thread is fucking dumb. You stated something untrue and then quoted every single US history text out there. gg captain obvious, now go take HI 452

9/18/2005 12:21:51 AM

Bring the fireboming raids (which killed a comperable number of ppl to the atomic bombs) into the picture and I have to say that the morality argument leap to drop the bombs was already decided. The use of atomic bombs in particular was just one of the really crappy things that went on in that war.

9/18/2005 12:25:40 AM

Quote :

" it is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. - Adm. Leahy, Chief of Staff at the time"

But what did he know? I'll better listen to TWW dorks who think they are military experts.

9/18/2005 12:26:29 AM

You realize that 'successful bombing with conventional weapons' means fire bombing, right? And you realize that fire bombing casualties were comparable to atomic bomb casualties, right? And you realize that 'effective sea blockade' means shortages and starvation, right?

So what if Leahy thought we shouldn't have used the bomb? Why is his opinion worth more than those in government (military and civilian) who thought that we should?

Leahy may not have like the bomb, but his alternative was certainly no less civilian friendly.

Quote :

"Something even the Soviets never did during the WWII."

Don't try this comparison. The Soviet Union's human rights record is certainly not blemish-free.

[Edited on September 18, 2005 at 12:46 AM. Reason : ]

9/18/2005 12:44:21 AM

^^Nice and all, but I'm confident in our ability to find quotes to the exact opposite effect from other brass at the time. You just not going to listen to any of them, or will you listen and then say, "Well mine outranked yours," unless I put up Truman, in which case will you say, "Well he was President he wasn't a general, he is less of a military expert"? Please, I want to know how this is going to go down before I bother to dig up the quotes.

9/18/2005 12:47:50 AM

Quote :

"[It] is far too early to say that the war is lost . . . it is by no means impossible that we may be able to reverse the situation in our favor . . . there really is no alternative but for us to continue the war. General Anami, Japanese Minister of War, to the War Direction Council following the bombing of Nagasaki"

9/18/2005 12:49:12 AM

Yes, Leahy and Eisenhower outweigh the rest. So shut the fuck up.

9/18/2005 12:50:01 AM

Nagasaki was a seconday target. If they had dropped the Fat Man on tokyo as was planned, there would have been many more civilian casualties.

9/18/2005 12:52:43 AM

Tokyo was never a target.

[Edited on September 18, 2005 at 12:54 AM. Reason : ]

9/18/2005 12:54:04 AM

They weren't going to drop Fat Man on Tokyo.

Quote :

"Yes, Leahy and Eisenhower outweigh the rest."

Well, MathFreak has spoken, giving us his unimpeachable assessment of the character and competence of every leader in WWII.

9/18/2005 12:54:40 AM

Quote :

"Don't try this comparison. The Soviet Union's human rights record is certainly not blemish-free."

Again, for those apparently unable to read. Deliberate killing of civilians in order to achieve political or military goals is terrorism. It was later outlawed by the Geneva convention. Yes, I realize the word "later" is there. It was later outlawed because it had always been immoral and wrong.

The record of the Soviet Union is the area of human rights is abhorrent. They nonetheless never terrorized civil population of any country (as in killed part of it to turn the rest into submission).

9/18/2005 12:55:29 AM

Quote :

"They nonetheless never terrorized civil population of any country (as in killed part of it to turn the rest into submission)."

Are you serious?!?!?!? You don't have to even look past the border to find examples of killing "part of it to turn the rest into submission."

9/18/2005 12:57:42 AM

Maybe he's saying they killed all those people for no reason whatsoever, so it's not terrorism.

wait for it...it's coming...

I AM FROM RUSSIA AND NONE OF YOU HAVE EVER BEEN ANYWHERE AND ARE IGNORANT SO I AM RIGHT BECAUSE I LIVED THERE AND THUS I WAS RIGHT.

[Edited on September 18, 2005 at 12:59 AM. Reason : ]

9/18/2005 12:58:53 AM

^^ You're a moron who has no clue. Go watch a Rockie movie which is evidently the source of your knowledge on history. Taking an English class to learn the meaning of certain words you like to use no matter the context wouldn't hurt either.


^ Yes, there was a reason, you stupid dork. But it wasn't to terrorize the population. And the population wasn't and didn't feel terrorized.

[Edited on September 18, 2005 at 1:06 AM. Reason : .]

9/18/2005 1:03:26 AM

Well never mind, then.

[Edited on September 18, 2005 at 1:05 AM. Reason : ]

9/18/2005 1:05:20 AM

Quote :

"Well never mind, then."

Never minding you has been my intention for quite some time now. I'm sorry I did. I will not from now on.

[Edited on September 18, 2005 at 1:20 AM. Reason : ?]

9/18/2005 1:07:46 AM

9/18/2005 1:11:55 AM

Quote :

"the population wasn't and didn't feel terrorized"

9/18/2005 1:13:23 AM