Were the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?

[Gamma Male]

Personally, I think that the bombing of these two cities full of innocent men, women, and yes, infants, were horrible, evil, inexcusable acts and that those responsible should've been executed for crimes against humanity. The fact that some people are actually making excuses and defending the genocide of tens of thousands of innocent civilians is just mind boggling, and shows that the power of the MIC to brainwash the masses into blindy accepting whatever they tell us is extraordinary.

We judge the Nazis for what they did during the holocaust, and we have every right to. But don't you think that if they had won they would be brushing off the holocaust just like we brush off Hiroshima abd Nagasaki now? Don't you think we would all be talking about how horrible the US was for killing all those families and infecting so many people with radiation poisoning, and that we would all be making excuses for the holocaust and calling it "necessary"?

[Miserabilia]

I'm not completely decided about this.
I think it's a faul act and as you said, killed many thousands of innocents,
which is in itself inexcusable.
Then again, war is political play and most people beleive(d) this was the only move to stop japan, but I'm sure there were other ways.
I can see the reasoning behind an attack,
but bombing two whole cities full of innocent civilians is a terrible thing, regardless.

[Harry Smith]

I don't think so, the Japanese were on their last legs and wouldn't of been able to resist any form of invasion that was planned-I mean we were going to land about 2 million men on the South of Japan backed up about 30 Aircraft carriers.I wonder how the US would of felt if Japan nuked Pearl Harbor, I doubt they'd be calm about it.

Saying that I'd steer clear on closer reflection of labelling it as a war crime alone, because in reality we'd been doing it for about 5 years to Germany and about 3 years for Japan. But I'd defo agree that we seem very happy to forget just how awful the nuclear bombs must of been

[Gamma Male]

I don't think so, the Japanese were on their last legs and wouldn't of been able to resist any form of invasion that was planned-I mean we were going to land about 2 million men on the South of Japan backed up about 30 Aircraft carriers.I wonder how the US would of felt if Japan nuked Pearl Harbor, I doubt they'd be calm about it.

Saying that I'd steer clear on closer reflection of labelling it as a war crime alone, because in reality we'd been doing it for about 5 years to Germany and about 3 years for Japan

At least pearl harbor is an actual military base. How would we have felt had they nuked a city full of civilians?

[Plane And Simple]

I'm not interested in debating at all, basically because I have no arguments in this matter, but what I got told by my history teacher (historian) is that Japan was days, or at long last weeks away of waving the blue flag. They (USA) didn't want to miss the opportunity to test the weapon after spending thousands of millions of dollars in them.

The Bomber pilot is now pacifist. Enough said.

[Harry Smith]

I'm not interested in debating at all, basically because I have no arguments in this matter, but what I got told by my history teacher (historian) is that Japan was days, or at long last weeks away of waving the blue flag. They (USA) didn't want to miss the opportunity to test the weapon after spending thousands of millions of dollars in them.

The Bomber pilot is now pacifist. Enough said.

Very good point, we always hear about the cold war and how the Russians were going to attack but only one nation has dropped the bomb was the US

At least pearl harbor is an actual military base. How would we have felt had they nuked a city full of civilians?

It would of been like 9/11 on crack

[Southside]

It was brutal but I think a full invasion would have been worse and more civilians would have been killed. Those Japanese civilians were prepared to fight to the death, they might have committed suicide like those in Okinawa did.

What about the Filipino civilians who were killed in Manila? or the Chinese civilians who were slaughtered in Nanking? No one complains about them but they complain about us dropping the nuke. War is war, and sadly civilians will be killed. Its not a war in the history of the world where civilians weren't displaced or killed.

[Miserabilia]

It was brutal but I think a full invasion would have been worse and more civilians would have been killed. Those Japanese civilians were prepared to fight to the death, they might have committed suicide like those in Okinawa did.

What about the Filipino civilians who were killed in Manila? or the Chinese civilians who were slaughtered in Nanking? No one complains about them* but they complain about us dropping the nuke. War is war, and sadly civilians will be killed. Its not a war in the history of the world where civilians weren't displaced or killed.**

* Oh rly? I think most people care.

** well maybe it's time for a possitive change.

[Gamma Male]

It was brutal but I think a full invasion would have been worse and more civilians would have been killed. Those Japanese civilians were prepared to fight to the death, they might have committed suicide like those in Okinawa did.

What about the Pacific Islanders who were used in forced labor or the Chinese civilians who were slaughtered in Nanking? No one complains about them but they complain about us dropping the nuke, war is war.

Both sides committed horrible, inexcusable travesties. "War is war" is NOT a valid excuse. My complaint is with the Military Industrial Complex and the corruption of power, not any particular government.

And the crimes they committed don't make it okay. Two wrongs do not make a right.

[Southside]

* Oh rly? I think most people care.

** well maybe it's time for a possitive change.

* That's not what I'm saying, everyone always complains how we were wrong for using nukes against Hiroshima and Nagasaki but no one really says anything about the crimes the Japanese committed. The point im trying to make is civilians have been casualties of war since the dawn of time, that's not going to change anytime soon no matter how many advances are made in weaponry.

** Yes, I do agree.

[Miserabilia]

* That's not what I'm saying, everyone always complains how we were wrong for using nukes against Hiroshima and Nagasaki but no one really says anything about the crimes the Japanese committed.


Right, so that's exactly what you are saying.
I dont know why you feel that the japanese crimes are never mentioned because that's not true, and they are often painted as the "bad guys" in history so there is actualy more focus on their war crimes and attacks than those of america.

[Gamma Male]

* That's not what I'm saying, everyone always complains how we were wrong for using nukes against Hiroshima and Nagasaki but no one really says anything about the crimes the Japanese committed. The point im trying to make is civilians have been casualties of war since the dawn of time, that's not going to change anytime soon no matter how many advances are made in weaponry.

** Yes, I do agree.

Your attitude is just infuriating. Civilians have been getting killed in wars forever, so that makes this okay? Bullshit. These bombings were completely unnecessary, and the people who ordered them should've been executed for war crimes.

[Southside]

Your attitude is just infuriating. Civilians have been getting killed in wars forever, so that makes this okay? Bullshit. These bombings were completely unnecessary, and the people who ordered them should've been executed for war crimes.

You two don't understand where I'm coming from, Im not saying killing civilians is OK. I'm saying that it sadly was, is, and always will be apart of human warfare.

Name one war where civilians weren't apart of the casualty count

[Gamma Male]

You two don't understand where I'm coming from, Im not saying killing civilians is OK. I'm saying that it sadly was, is, and always will be apart of human warfare.

Name one war where civilians weren't apart of the casualty count

Only for as long as people sit back and take it. If I had my way the US government would be overthrown and the vast majority of our leaders would be executed, like they should be. Maybe if the occupy guys weren't such hippies wthey could've actually accomplished something. :lol:

[Horatio Nelson]

Japan would have continued the war for years if we hadn't bombed them.

It may have not been the best decision, but it happened. I'm not about to get in a verbal fist fight over something that I can't change nor did I have a part in it.

[Southside]

Only for as long as people sit back and take it. If I had my way the US government would be overthrown and the vast majority of our leaders would be executed, like they should be. Maybe if the occupy guys weren't such hippies wthey could've actually accomplished something. :lol:


So do you believe civilian causalities are 100% avoidable?

[plebble]

No. It was completely out of order. The individual people living in those cities did nothing wrong? I get that America wanted to prove a point that bombing Hawaii was bad but they could have just regularly bombed Tokyo or something. Not bloody nuclear bombs that wipe out pretty much everything!

[Cygnus]

The problem the US faced is that Japanese have overwhelming amounts of honor, a thing that seems to be lost now a days, and they would rather die than surrender, so you would have to kill each and every single one of them to proclaim victory. You don't want to do that, drop the atomic bombs instead and have them surrender at the cataclysm.

[tovaris]

no they werw not!

[Gamma Male]

So do you believe civilian causalities are 100% avoidable?

Of course not, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 100% avoidable.

[Gigablue]

They could have just regularly bombed Tokyo or something

They did. The firebombing of Tokyo, on march 9, 1945, killed more people than either nuclear bomb. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were damaging, but weren't even the deadliest bombings in the war.

I think the bombings can be justified. The war would have taken much longer to come to an end. Mounting a full scale invasion of Japan would have taken a long time, and would have caused many civilian and military casualties. Furthermore, the Japanese army was causing destruction all over Asia, in the territories they had captured. Civilians were being massacred; it was one of the worst genocides in history.

The bombings ended the war. Too many civilians died, but even more would have died had they not been carried out. It was tragic, but it was the best thing to do.

[Cpt_Cutter]

I get that America wanted to prove a point that bombing Hawaii was bad but they could have just regularly bombed Tokyo or something.

Oh, they did. They Did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

This was 5x as much of a war crime as anything involving the nuclear bombings of the Japanese mainland.

I believe that it's a slippery slope. On the Negative side, it killed many many people, however the reasons for the bombing make sense when you think about it.

They used 1 to show the Japanese the power they had.
They used the second to show the Russians they had more than one.

I'm not defending the bombings, but they may have just helped stop the Russians from getting any crazy ideas about keeping going all the way to the English channel.

[Sir Suomi]

War is hell. That's a given fact. People are going to die, whether they fight on the battlefield, work in the factory, or attend school. This is something that cannot be avoided, no matter how many treaties you sign, how pure of a conscious you have, or how careful you think are. Keep this in mind for future reference. I'm not being brutal by any means, I'm being honest. Open up any history book that delves into any major conflict, and you will see the same.

You see, most people don't realize what really causes defeat, at least in most cases. It's not the fact that you can't fight anymore, it's the fact that you won't fight anymore, or in other words, war is almost more psychological than it is physical. Getting into the hearts and minds of your opponent can get them to wave the white flag faster than a hailstorm of bullets can.

Fat Man and Little Boy were more psychological weapons than they were physical, even though both bombs delivered tremendous destructive power. They were used as a means of intimidating the Japanese into surrendering, that way we could have avoided an amphibious invasion, which would have more than likely caused even more fatalities for both sides.

Japan was given clear warnings to surrender to avoid devastation, however, they flat out refused, and instead began withdrawing troops back to the mainland, along with creating a vast army of civilian militia to fight the invaders. Both sides estimated huge losses of life, with Japan predicting up to 20 million of their own people dead, and America predicting the loss of up to 800,000 of their own forces. Imagine Iwo Jima, but on a much larger, bloodier, and drawn out outcome. It would have been one of the deadliest campaigns to ever have been planned in the history of mankind.

But instead of going through with Operation Downfall, a.k.a the mainland invasion of Japan, our leaders decided to scare the Japanese population to the point that even their respected honor code could not overcome it. And the two nuclear bombs, Fat Man and Little Boy did exactly that.

At the cost of 135,000 people, we spared millions. That was the justification behind the dropping of the nuclear bombs. By no means am I saying that this event was tragic, when it fact it was. But it was indeed the lesser of two evils, and saved lives, both Japanese and Allied.

[Harry Smith]

At the cost of 135,000 people, we spared millions. That was the justification behind the dropping of the nuclear bombs. By no means am I saying that this event was tragic, when it fact it was. But it was indeed the lesser of two evils, and saved lives, both Japanese and Allied.

I accept the premis, but since we're going into speculative ( we don't lnow how much the US would of lost) would you of been happy for Japan to nuke the west coast if they had the ability?

It was brutal but I think a full invasion would have been worse and more civilians would have been killed. Those Japanese civilians were prepared to fight to the death, they might have committed suicide like those in Okinawa did.

What about the Filipino civilians who were killed in Manila? or the Chinese civilians who were slaughtered in Nanking? No one complains about them but they complain about us dropping the nuke. War is war, and sadly civilians will be killed. Its not a war in the history of the world where civilians weren't displaced or killed.

The ironic thing is that the US stood by when the majority of these happened e.g rape of Nanking 1938 so it's always a bit skeptical for the US to act like the guardian overall of goodness. There's good and evil on both sides of every war ever fought.

I understand the rational behind the decision from a military view-as Gigablue said it's hypocritical to oppose the use of nuclear weapons alone since the US had been bombing Tokyo for months.

I'm just not sure that the UK/US would of been that happy if we'd been nuked-as I said before it would of been 9/11 on crack

[Korashk]

From me a while ago (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1665167&postcount=10):

The bombings were completely unnecessary for a large number of reasons:

1.) The number of American deaths in the result of an invasion were greatly exaggerated in official statements by the government. Most actual estimates put them at around 46,000 (http://books.google.com/books?id=oQYAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=A+Postwar+Myth:+500,000+U.S.+Lives+Saved&source=bl&ots=GnpYLPED9-&sig=fffEDBnCbOuLVemHvOTDR2us1wo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rleTU4mELYmPyATdsYKYAw&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=A%20Postwar%20Myth%3A%20500%2C000%20U.S.%20Lives%20Saved&f=false), which is much different than the 500,000 to 1,000,000 claimed by Truman. In fact, there was no US military planner then or since that would estimate more than 200,000 American deaths.

There are many quotes from high ranking government officials of the time lambasting the potential use of nuclear weapons:

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at the very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude…" - Then General Dwight D. Eisenhower

"MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different than what the general public supposed. When I asked MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn that he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed — as it did later anyway — to the retention of the institution of the emperor" - Norman Cousins; after an interview with General Douglas MacArthur

"I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe that we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender that was satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs." - John McCloy, Assistant Secretary of War under President Truman

~~~~~

2.) The Potsdam Declaration (http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/P/o/Potsdam_Declaration.htm), which was basically a missive asking for and setting terms of Japan's surrender contained seemingly unreasonable demands and vaguely outlined consequences. Exemptions for important government leaders under the demands and explicit detailing of the consequences for not surrendering would have likely caused the Japanese government to accept the surrender. The exemptions should have been given to the Emperor (which is something that happened anyways) and other government leaders; the consequences should have been outlined better than "prompt and utter destruction", and instead included things such as how much nuclear weapons were going to fuck them up or how the Soviets would brutally destroy their country and people. The latter being guaranteed to happen in the result of an invasion.

~~~~~

3.) The bombs didn't have to be used on a populated area to get the point across. If the bombs even made an impact on the Japanese population, it wasn't the casualties that made an impact, it was the destructive power. I say this because Allied Forces had been bombing Japan for a while and the casualties of both the bombs are comparable to the regular firebombings of cities. An attack on an unpopulated area would have accomplished the exact same thing without the loss of life.

~~~~~

Lastly and most significant:
4.) The Japanese tried to surrender (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/truman-diary/) before the bombings and the Potsdam Declaration. You might read how it wasn't the whole government, and you'll also read that it was more than six times. How able to fight do you think the non-surrendering parts of Japan would be after six major portions already laid down arms?

~~~~~

Therefore, the nuclear bombings are more accurately described as a kind of terrorism than a legitimate effort to end WWII in an efficient manner.

It was brutal but I think a full invasion would have been worse and more civilians would have been killed. Those Japanese civilians were prepared to fight to the death, they might have committed suicide like those in Okinawa did.
The problem the US faced is that Japanese have overwhelming amounts of honor, a thing that seems to be lost now a days, and they would rather die than surrender, so you would have to kill each and every single one of them to proclaim victory. You don't want to do that, drop the atomic bombs instead and have them surrender at the cataclysm.
These are baseless claims.

with Japan predicting up to 20 million of their own people dead, and America predicting the loss of up to 800,000 of their own forces.
False, see my first point.

EDIT: Fixed a broken link.

[Lovelife090994]

The war would have been much worse without the bombings. The bombings were atrocioous, but given the war and the Japanese they would have died before they surrendered. If America and the Allies invaded Japan the deaths would have been unspeakable.

[Harry Smith]

The war would have been much worse without the bombings. The bombings were atrocioous, but given the war and the Japanese they would have died before they surrendered. If America and the Allies invaded Japan the deaths would have been unspeakable.

Did you even read what Korash said in the post above, he proved this idea to be complete bullshit

Lastly and most significant:
4.) The Japanese tried to surrender before the bombings and the Potsdam Declaration. You might read how it wasn't the whole government, and you'll also read that it was more than six times. How able to fight do you think the non-surrendering parts of Japan would be after six major portions already laid down arms?

[Lovelife090994]

Did you even read what Korash said in the post above, he proved this idea to be complete bullshit

Did you not read? That Korash of yours blatant ignored reason as you are doing now and do very well. You know, or maybe you don't know that invading Japan would have been even worse. It would be like 9/11 and The Blitz times 12. So if someone negates a group I believe them? No. Give me reason, and give me fairness. I never believe everything I read. His words didn't even seem to hear the points. Good bye, none of your excuses, end of story. This conversation is over. Done.

[Harry Smith]

Did you not read? That Korash of yours blatant ignored reason as you are doing now and do very well. You know, or maybe you don't know that invading Japan would have been even worse. It would be like 9/11 and The Blitz times 12. So if someone negates a group I believe them? No. Give me reason, and give me fairness. I never believe everything I read. His words didn't even seem to hear the points. Good bye, none of your excuses, end of story. This conversation is over. Done.

Invading Japan Would of only resulted in 46,000.casulties the end done

[bob97]

I honestly think it is. If the US didn't and did a ground invasion of Japan, many more people would have died. And alot of them civilians. They would fight against the soldiers and it would have taken years to finally stop them. They will not surrender. I feel like the only way they could have without most of the people dying was with the bombs. This is mostly my opinion and I could be very wrong. So dont get too mad

[Harry Smith]

I honestly think it is. If the US didn't and did a ground invasion of Japan, many more people would have died. And alot of them civilians. They would fight against the soldiers and it would have taken years to finally stop them. They will not surrender. I feel like the only way they could have without most of the people dying was with the bombs. This is mostly my opinion and I could be very wrong. So dont get too mad

Would you of been happy if Japan had nuked the US?

[phuckphace]

America was in absolutely no danger from anyone during WWII. We have two giant ass moats on either side of us, a huge geographical advantage when it comes to the enemy's ability to counterattack us. I'm inclined to believe the conspiracy theories that Roosevelt wanted to carry out the attack as a warning to the Soviets, not because we were in any danger of an attack and invasion by Japan. to think that the Japanese or anyone else of their size would be idiotic enough to try attacking the mainland US is bizzare.

I wouldn't say that the H-bombs were genocide, at least in the sense that our conventional bombings killed more people but weren't considered genocide. a more modern nuke I think would be genocidal by default.

[bob97]

Would you of been happy if Japan had nuked the US?

Obviously I wouldn't be happy but if I would get over it when I realized it was for the better. Hindsight is an amazing thing

[bob97]

America was in absolutely no danger from anyone during WWII. We have two giant ass moats on either side of us, a huge geographical advantage when it comes to the enemy's ability to counterattack us. I'm inclined to believe the conspiracy theories that Roosevelt wanted to carry out the attack as a warning to the Soviets, not because we were in any danger of an attack and invasion by Japan. to think that the Japanese or anyone else of their size would be idiotic enough to try attacking the mainland US is bizzare.

I wouldn't say that the H-bombs were genocide, at least in the sense that our conventional bombings killed more people but weren't considered genocide. a more modern nuke I think would be genocidal by default.

Your taking his question literally. He didn't actually mean that it was a possibility. Granted the point he used is crap because it could have never happened. He just doesn't want to admit defeat hahahaha

[Sir Suomi]

Invading Japan Would of only resulted in 46,000.casulties the end done

That's complete and utter bullshit. The losses would have been in the high six digits, if not in the millions.

[Vlerchan]

It's almost like everyone just skipped over Korashk's post because it was too long or something.

[Lovelife090994]

Invading Japan Would of only resulted in 46,000.casulties the end done

Way more than that. Put that in the millions.

Would you of been happy if Japan had nuked the US?

If it did then all Hell would have broken loose. The day the US or any other power is bombed is the day the world enters Nuclear War.

[Korashk]

It's almost like everyone just skipped over Korashk's post because it was too long or something.
Lol, I'm used to it.

[Sir Suomi]

False, see my first point.

Would you of been happy if Japan had nuked the US?

You do realize that Japan was also in the process of doing the same exact thing to us? Japanese physicists actually encouraged the government to continue fighting after Hiroshima after seeing the bombs as a potential shift in control in the war. If we'd not rushed them into surrender, it's quite possible, given that'd they'd have enough time, we'd have seen the mushroom clouds falling upon our own men and women.

It's almost like everyone just skipped over Korashk's post because it was too long or something.

Apparently so was mine.

[Korashk]

You do realize that Japan was also in the process of doing the same exact thing to us? Japanese physicists actually encouraged the government to continue fighting after Hiroshima after seeing the bombs as a potential shift in control in the war. If we'd not rushed them into surrender, it's quite possible, given that'd they'd have enough time, we'd have seen the mushroom clouds falling upon our own men and women.
I don't believe you. Do you have a source?

Apparently so was mine.
Even though I didn't quote you, my post addresses basically everything in your post. I make the claim that the bombs could have been used as a psychological deterrent without dropping them on populated areas, explained why Japan refused our offer to accept their surrender, and debunked the claim that there would be significant American loss of life in a land invasion. The last point is honestly moot in my opinion, though.

[Sir Suomi]

I don't believe you. Do you have a source?


Even though I didn't quote you, my post addresses basically everything in your post. I make the claim that the bombs could have been used as a psychological deterrent without dropping them on populated areas, explained why Japan refused our offer to accept their surrender, and debunked the claim that there would be significant American loss of life in a land invasion. The last point is honestly moot in my opinion, though.

i. "Dark Sun: The Making of the Atomic Bomb"-Richard Rhodes

[Korashk]

i. "Dark Sun: The Making of the Atomic Bomb"-Richard Rhodes
Okay...how about a source I can actually verify. Even if I could access that book online (which I can't seem to do) I'd have to read the whole thing just to find one part about the Japanese A-bomb.

[Sir Suomi]

Okay...how about a source I can actually verify. Even if I could access that book online (which I can't seem to do) I'd have to read the whole thing just to find one part about the Japanese A-bomb.

Here's a whole article about the Japanese nuclear weapon research program:
http://mragheb.com/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%20Engineering/Japanese%20Nuclear%20Weapons%20Program.pdf

It's not allowing me to copy and paste parts of the article, so you will have to read through it.

[Harry Smith]

That's complete and utter bullshit. The losses would have been in the high six digits, if not in the millions.

Nah it's not mate
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oQYAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=A+Postwar+Myth:+500,000+U.S.+Lives+Saved&source=bl&ots=GnpYLPED9-&sig=fffEDBnCbOuLVemHvOTDR2us1wo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rleTU4mELYmPyATdsYKYAw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=A%20Postwar%20Myth%3A%20500%2C000%20U.S.%20Lives%20Saved&f=false

You do realize that Japan was also in the process of doing the same exact thing to us? Japanese physicists actually encouraged the government to continue fighting after Hiroshima after seeing the bombs as a potential shift in control in the war. If we'd not rushed them into surrender, it's quite possible, given that'd they'd have enough time, we'd have seen the mushroom clouds falling upon our own men and women.



Apparently so was mine.

You're a smart guy, you know your military matters. Japan didn't have the means to drop a bomb on the US-A) They lacked the industrial base B)They lacked the means of delivery e.g no long range bomber C)They couldn't afford it considering there industry had been destroyed in 44

[Sir Suomi]

Nah it's not mate
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oQYAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=A+Postwar+Myth:+500,000+U.S.+Lives+Saved&source=bl&ots=GnpYLPED9-&sig=fffEDBnCbOuLVemHvOTDR2us1wo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rleTU4mELYmPyATdsYKYAw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=A%20Postwar%20Myth%3A%20500%2C000%20U.S.%20Lives%20Saved&f=false

There's many different ideas and estimates of that possible campaign.
You're a smart guy, you know your military matters. Japan didn't have the means to drop a bomb on the US-A) They lacked the industrial base B)They lacked the means of delivery e.g no long range bomber C)They couldn't afford it considering there industry had been destroyed in 44

i. It's impossible to know how the campaign would have turned out. Some people have agreed with the higher figures, as I have, and some people have agreed with lower figures, as you have. Like I've said, history is full of "what-if's". It's impossible to know. I base my assumption on the way the Japanese defended Okinawa, which was practically on Japan's front door step. American forces suffered roughly a 25% casualty rate, and Japan suffering roughly a 75% casualty rate, along with up to 150,000 civilian casualties. Can you imagine those same statistics on mainland Japan, where there was countless more assets available for the Japanese? The campaign would've taken months, possibly even years.

ii. They moved the nuclear operations to Korea, where they had a little more breathing room.

iii. Not on exactly U.S soil, but on our ground troops. That'd be enough to wipe out an entire invading force.

[Harry Smith]

i. It's impossible to know how the campaign would have turned out. Some people have agreed with the higher figures, as I have, and some people have agreed with lower figures, as you have. Like I've said, history is full of "what-if's". It's impossible to know. I base my assumption on the way the Japanese defended Okinawa, which was practically on Japan's front door step. American forces suffered roughly a 25% casualty rate, and Japan suffering roughly a 75% casualty rate, along with up to 150,000 civilian casualties. Can you imagine those same statistics on mainland Japan, where there was countless more assets available for the Japanese? The campaign would've taken months, possibly even years.

ii. They moved the nuclear operations to Korea, where they had a little more breathing room.

iii. Not on exactly U.S soil, but on our ground troops. That'd be enough to wipe out an entire invading force.

Okinawa was largely different, because it was a smaller island it meant that of course the fighting was going to be much more intense, I'd even argue that the Marines who fought on Okinawa lacked the forward planning time-I mean look at the Dieppe raid in 1942-using the Okinawa logic with Dieppe D-Day should of ended total massarce. It's all about tactics, plus in the mainland invasion they would of had about 5 airbourne divisions with them along with half the British Army.

They really didn't have the ability to make even a dirty bomb because they didn't have the knowledge or money-I mean Germany failed to make one despite on the vast wealth/resources they had. I'd argue the only reason the US got one was because the east coast was largely untouched by the war. The soviets would of probably got to Korea by Christmas so the threat from a nuclear weapon is non-existent. Using my extremely tn knowledge of nuclear weapons I'd also doubt that Japan had access to the Cynclones/energy that was required to actually spin the atoms to achieve fusion.

As I asked before, would you be happy with Japan theoretically launching a nuclear attack on say Seattle and Los Angeles?

[Sir Suomi]

Okinawa was largely different, because it was a smaller island it meant that of course the fighting was going to be much more intense, I'd even argue that the Marines who fought on Okinawa lacked the forward planning time-I mean look at the Dieppe raid in 1942-using the Okinawa logic with Dieppe D-Day should of ended total massarce. It's all about tactics, plus in the mainland invasion they would of had about 5 airbourne divisions with them along with half the British Army.

They really didn't have the ability to make even a dirty bomb because they didn't have the knowledge or money-I mean Germany failed to make one despite on the vast wealth/resources they had. I'd argue the only reason the US got one was because the east coast was largely untouched by the war. The soviets would of probably got to Korea by Christmas so the threat from a nuclear weapon is non-existent. Using my extremely tn knowledge of nuclear weapons I'd also doubt that Japan had access to the Cynclones/energy that was required to actually spin the atoms to achieve fusion.

As I asked before, would you be happy with Japan theoretically launching a nuclear attack on say Seattle and Los Angeles?

i. Have you even read into how the Japanese fought in the late onset of the war? They waited in hidden bunkers across the landscape, using the environment to their advantage by setting up in mountain regions where it was extremely hard to maneuver, creating small and contained kill zone that our troops would've had to fight through. To clear one bunker could cost the lives of a whole squad. Now imagine an unimaginable amount of these across the whole country, and with each one, you waste time, resources, and lives. There were countless squadrons of kamikaze pilots, waiting to plunge head first into any amphibious invasion fleet. Hell, they were even training their civilians to run at our soldiers with bamboo spikes, instructed to disembowel one of our troops before being killed. They may have been on their last legs, but they'd fought like tigers trapped in a corner. It would've been an unimaginable horror to see that campaign happen.

ii. They could have done it, given the resources that were available, yet that were not given to them. However, there are reports that the Japanese were extremely close to developing nuclear weapons, and that the Soviets took their ideas, and ended up using them to further their own nuclear program.

iii. No, I would be upset. Like I've said, what we did in Japan wasn't the "good" thing to do, it was what we had to do. It was the lesser of two evils. Remember, however, that Japan was the aggressor in that war. They easily could have stayed out of it, or at least waited longer. Granted, we did cut off their oil supplies, but that was to encourage them to cease their hostilities in South East Asia.

iv. I'll present you with my own scenario:
Let's say you're handed two remote detonators, one set to blow up a group of 1000 people, the other set to blow up a group of 1,000,000 people. In order to save one group of people, you must kill the other. Both groups of people are composed of innocent people. Who do you choose to save?

[Harry Smith]

i. Have you even read into how the Japanese fought in the late onset of the war? They waited in hidden bunkers across the landscape, using the environment to their advantage by setting up in mountain regions where it was extremely hard to maneuver, creating small and contained kill zone that our troops would've had to fight through. To clear one bunker could cost the lives of a whole squad. Now imagine an unimaginable amount of these across the whole country, and with each one, you waste time, resources, and lives. There were countless squadrons of kamikaze pilots, waiting to plunge head first into any amphibious invasion fleet. Hell, they were even training their civilians to run at our soldiers with bamboo spikes, instructed to disembowel one of our troops before being killed. They may have been on their last legs, but they'd fought like tigers trapped in a corner. It would've been an unimaginable horror to see that campaign happen.

ii. They could have done it, given the resources that were available, yet that were not given to them. However, there are reports that the Japanese were extremely close to developing nuclear weapons, and that the Soviets took their ideas, and ended up using them to further their own nuclear program.

iii. No, I would be upset. Like I've said, what we did in Japan wasn't the "good" thing to do, it was what we had to do. It was the lesser of two evils. Remember, however, that Japan was the aggressor in that war. They easily could have stayed out of it, or at least waited longer. Granted, we did cut off their oil supplies, but that was to encourage them to cease their hostilities in South East Asia.

iv. I'll present you with my own scenario:
Let's say you're handed two remote detonators, one set to blow up a group of 1000 people, the other set to blow up a group of 1,000,000 people. In order to save one group of people, you must kill the other. Both groups of people are composed of innocent people. Who do you choose to save?

Everyone knows the Japanese fought hard in Okinawa, in the same way that the Germans fought hard in the Battle of the Bulge, what happened 5 months after that? They surrendered. Soldier's don't win wars. Everyone has this romantic idea that they would fight to the last but in reality the Japanese would of been very limited to the scale of Invasion considering from what I saw Downfall was expected in 46/47 allowing a year of air strikes.

The Japanese were not close, it took us 8 years and the French 15. It's one of the most complicated things to do, because it's not a case of just building a bomb and droping it-every stage is so complicated and requires so much funding/energy. It took America 3 years with help from Canada/UK etc plus amble money plus an undamaged east coast. The Japanese were not going to have a nuclear weapon no matter what

pan's nuclear efforts were disrupted in April 1945 when a B-29 raid damaged Nishina's thermal diffusion separation apparatus. Some reports claim the Japanese subsequently moved their atomic operations Konan (Hungnam, now part of North Korea). The Japanese may have used this facility for making small quantities of heavy water.

And America was the Aggressor in Iraq, we were the aggressor in the Suez War. I don't think that justifies burning 170,000 people and polluting there land, do you have any idea how bad nuclear weapons are? Even back then.

It's a nice trick that we do-we tell our self that we had to do, it wasn't easy but we had to do it. Al-Qaeda would say the same for 9/11-and look how the west reacted to that. But that's another story.

[Sir Suomi]

Everyone knows the Japanese fought hard in Okinawa, in the same way that the Germans fought hard in the Battle of the Bulge, what happened 5 months after that? They surrendered. Soldier's don't win wars. Everyone has this romantic idea that they would fight to the last but in reality the Japanese would of been very limited to the scale of Invasion considering from what I saw Downfall was expected in 46/47 allowing a year of air strikes.

The Japanese were not close, it took us 8 years and the French 15. It's one of the most complicated things to do, because it's not a case of just building a bomb and droping it-every stage is so complicated and requires so much funding/energy. It took America 3 years with help from Canada/UK etc plus amble money plus an undamaged east coast. The Japanese were not going to have a nuclear weapon no matter what


And America was the Aggressor in Iraq, we were the aggressor in the Suez War. I don't think that justifies burning 170,000 people and polluting there land, do you have any idea how bad nuclear weapons are? Even back then.

It's a nice trick that we do-we tell our self that we had to do, it wasn't easy but we had to do it. Al-Qaeda would say the same for 9/11-and look how the west reacted to that

i. You have to realize that Japan and Germany have different mindsets. Sure, Germans were very loyal and patriotic to their homeland, but in the end, they had the same mindset of a typical Westerner, which is that when things look hopeless, they give up. Japan wasn't like this. They followed the Bushido Code, which was a traditional warrior code that instructed you to commit suicide before surrendering. You know what a lot of Japanese civilians did when Allied troops began to clear the area? They fucking committed mass suicide, whole entire families. You want to know why? Because the Japanese government had indoctrinated into their minds that the Americans would rape and murder anyone who surrendered. Now imagine that on a massive scale in Japan.

ii. Like I said, if they'd relocated some of their resource assets to the project, they could have. They even had the Japanese equivalent of Albert Einstein to help them. It was possible.

iii. Stay on the topic. If we want to bicker like women I can start listing off all the shit Britain has started throughout history.

[Harry Smith]

i. You have to realize that Japan and Germany have different mindsets. Sure, Germans were very loyal and patriotic to their homeland, but in the end, they had the same mindset of a typical Westerner, which is that when things look hopeless, they give up. Japan wasn't like this. They followed the Bushido Code, which was a traditional warrior code that instructed you to commit suicide before surrendering. You know what a lot of Japanese civilians did when Allied troops began to clear the area? They fucking committed mass suicide, whole entire families. You want to know why? Because the Japanese government had indoctrinated into their minds that the Americans would rape and murder anyone who surrendered. Now imagine that on a massive scale in Japan.

ii. Like I said, if they'd relocated some of their resource assets to the project, they could have. They even had the Japanese equivalent of Albert Einstein to help them. It was possible.

iii. Stay on the topic. If we want to bicker like women I can start listing off all the shit Britain has started throughout history.

It doesn't matter about the civilians, the Japanese government wanted peace

All this happened before the bombing

In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end.

On July 12, Hirohito summoned Fumimaro Konoye, who had served as prime minister in 1940-41. Explaining that "it will be necessary to terminate the war without delay," the Emperor said that he wished Konoye to secure peace with the Americans and British through the Soviets. As Prince Konoye later recalled, the Emperor instructed him "to secure peace at any price, notwithstanding its severity."

Months before the end of the war, Japan's leaders recognized that defeat was inevitable. In April 1945 a new government headed by Kantaro Suzuki took office with the mission of ending the war.

Lets see what the Generals said about the bomb as well.

Douglas LeMay-TOP USAAF official in the Pacfic

General Curtis LeMay, who had pioneered precision bombing of Germany and Japan (and who later headed the Strategic Air Command and served as Air Force chief of staff), put it most succinctly: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war."

Douglas MacArthur

Stated on numerous occasions before his death that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: "My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender."

Why is the response to my calling out the US then to criticize the UK, I know we're crap. Us being crap doesn't make the US any better-it just shows how bad your argument is.

[Sir Suomi]

It doesn't matter about the civilians, the Japanese government wanted peace

All this happened before the bombing







Lets see what the Generals said about the bomb as well.

Douglas LeMay-TOP USAAF official in the Pacfic



Douglas MacArthur



Why is the response to my calling out the US then to criticize the UK, I know we're crap. Us being crap doesn't make the US any better-it just shows how bad your argument is.

i.You do realize the cost of the war to us American's, both on a moral standpoint and a resource standpoint? Do you think we'd accept a proposal that ends in nothing less than utter victory? No. After Pearl Harbor, America was back for revenge, and nothing less. You don't fuck with America, it's kind of the basis to everything involving foreign policy.

ii. You still haven't answered my question.

[Harry Smith]

America was back for revenge,

And that is why the US dropped the two bombs. I think I'm going to go to bed now, feels good to leave on a rather poetic note

[Sir Suomi]

And that is why the US dropped the two bombs. I think I'm going to go to bed now, feels good to leave on a rather poetic note

Same, I'm done with debating for tonight. It's been fun, as always :rolleyes:

[Korashk]

Here's a whole article about the Japanese nuclear weapon research program:
http://mragheb.com/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%20Engineering/Japanese%20Nuclear%20Weapons%20Program.pdf
Nothing in that article gives weight to the claim that the Japanese were anywhere close to developing any kind of functional nuclear weapon by the end of the war. It mostly details the program's catastrophic failures of the Thermal Diffusion Effort, the Caultron Project, the Centrifuge Project, and government's ineptitude in managing the project because they didn't take the effort seriously. It also claims that after the US dropped our bombs on the two cities, most of the project's scientists switched to studying the effects of radiation on people affected by the bombs.

Using the threat of a nuclear Japanese counterattack as justification for our own nuclear attack is simply laughable. The Japanese government didn't even take the project seriously until we dropped ours.

i. It's impossible to know how the campaign would have turned out. Some people have agreed with the higher figures, as I have, and some people have agreed with lower figures, as you have.
The difference is that the lower figures were made by contemporary military experts, and modern ones by military historians, whereas the higher numbers are pure propaganda. To quote my original post:

"...no US military planner then or since that would estimate more than 200,000 American deaths."

Like I've said, history is full of "what-if's". It's impossible to know. I base my assumption on the way the Japanese defended Okinawa, which was practically on Japan's front door step. American forces suffered roughly a 25% casualty rate, and Japan suffering roughly a 75% casualty rate, along with up to 150,000 civilian casualties. Can you imagine those same statistics on mainland Japan, where there was countless more assets available for the Japanese?
I think this does a good job of explaining the situation at Okinawa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa#Civilian_losses.2C_suicides_and_atrocities).

To sum it up:
- The Japanese army were "indistinguishable" from civilians on that island, which led to the Americans indiscriminately attacking them.
- Soldiers forced civilians to carry gredades into American troops, used them as human shields, and convinced them to commit suicide rather than be taken hostage.
- Okinawan education propaganda was much more hardcore than in Japan proper and according to survivors this mentality led to a significant portion of the civilian casualties.

The campaign would've taken months, possibly even years.
lolno, not years. Japan was the last of the Axis to fall. The combined might of the rest of the world was coming to knock on their doorstep.

ii. They could have done it, given the resources that were available, yet that were not given to them. However, there are reports that the Japanese were extremely close to developing nuclear weapons, and that the Soviets took their ideas, and ended up using them to further their own nuclear program.
What reports? The only source you've given claims that the Japanese nuclear project during the war was a complete and utter joke.

iii. No, I would be upset. Like I've said, what we did in Japan wasn't the "good" thing to do, it was what we had to do. It was the lesser of two evils.
I think I've satisfactorily debunked this notion and you have yet to successfully challenge any of my evidenced claims.

Japan wasn't like this.[/B] They followed the Bushido Code, which was a traditional warrior code that instructed you to commit suicide before surrendering.
Most people actually didn't. The twisted version of Bushido exampled in Japanese culture at the time was meant for the military, not civilians.

You know what a lot of Japanese civilians did when Allied troops began to clear the area? They fucking committed mass suicide, whole entire families. You want to know why? Because the Japanese government had indoctrinated into their minds that the Americans would rape and murder anyone who surrendered. Now imagine that on a massive scale in Japan.
Actually, if you read my above source, the suicides in Okinawa (I assume you're mostly referring to Okinawa here) were the cause of the Japanese military there telling the citizens that being captured by Americans meant rape and torture combined with the extreme nature of the Okinawan educational system.

ii. Like I said, if they'd relocated some of their resource assets to the project, they could have. They even had the Japanese equivalent of Albert Einstein to help them. It was possible.
The Japanese Alpert Einstein everyone (from your source):
http://i.imgur.com/NK6UFsv.png

iii. Stay on the topic. If we want to bicker like women I can start listing off all the shit Britain has started throughout history.
He is on topic. His point is that it doesn't matter who started it when innocent people are murdered.

i.You do realize the cost of the war to us American's, both on a moral standpoint and a resource standpoint? Do you think we'd accept a proposal that ends in nothing less than utter victory? No. After Pearl Harbor, America was back for revenge, and nothing less. You don't fuck with America, it's kind of the basis to everything involving foreign policy.
I think this statement says more about your absurd argument that nuking a populated area was justified than anything else in this thread. Your statement speaks for itself I think.

[Perfectly Flawed]

It's debatable whether or not an invasion would have caused more civilian casualties, but one thing is for sure. The absolute destruction caused by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings has stopped a lot of wars from ever happening. The fear of what power house countries could do made a lot of people reluctant to ever go to war again. I think if it weren't for those bombings, the Cold War may have ended very differently.

[Miserabilia]

A double edged answer, yes and no. It was inhuman, yet most agree it ended the war 4 years early and ultimately resulted in less casualties from a more drawn out conflict. Mutually assured destruction kept the soviets at bay for 40 years too. There's always a positive and negative to any war or tactic in war.


This, basicly, but I always wonder if there could have been another way. It's so extremely brutal.

[Walter Powers]

Given the world's first nuclear weapons, any nation would've done it. We faced the prospect of having more and more of our guys killed, possibly near the amount that was killed by the first bomb, and we needed to end the war. The Japanese weren't playing fair themselves and so I think it was understandable.

What gets me is how it took TWO atomic bombs to get their surrender. Their emperor must've been crazy.

[Gamma Male]

Given the world's first nuclear weapons, any nation would've done it. We faced the prospect of having more and more of our guys killed, possibly near the amount that was killed by the first bomb, and we needed to end the war. The Japanese weren't playing fair themselves and so I think it was understandable.

What gets me is how it took TWO atomic bombs to get their surrender. Their emperor must've been crazy.

I believe Koraskn or whatever his name is already covered these points.

Japan had the entire global community at their doorstep, there would've been absolutely no reason for them to continue to resist and they knew that.

And why'd it have to be on a city full of innocent people? Why not a military base or country side? It couldve been anywhere, but they chose a civilian populace full of innocent families.

And the fact that "any nation wouldve done it" is completely irrelevant, it was still unethical.

[Harry Smith]

Given the world's first nuclear weapons, any nation would've done it. We faced the prospect of having more and more of our guys killed, possibly near the amount that was killed by the first bomb, and we needed to end the war. The Japanese weren't playing fair themselves and so I think it was understandable.

What gets me is how it took TWO atomic bombs to get their surrender. Their emperor must've been crazy.

War crimes can never be justified on the basis that the other side did them first. The argument that the US had them first, so had a right to use them is pretty weak at best. If the USSR did it then the US would of milking it to this day saying how it's an example of communist agression

[Walter Powers]

I believe Koraskn or whatever his name is already covered these points.

Japan had the entire global community at their doorstep, there would've been absolutely no reason for them to continue to resist and they knew that.

And why'd it have to be on a city full of innocent people? Why not a military base or country side? It couldve been anywhere, but they chose a civilian populace full of innocent families.

And the fact that "any nation wouldve done it" is completely irrelevant, it was still unethical.

I'll say this: It is apparent that we did have to do it on cities, because even AFTER the first bombing of a large city they still wouldn't surrender. It took two.

The fact that any nation would've done it certainly is relevent. Non-Americans shouldn't be judging America on our use of the bombs if their nation wouldv'e done the same.

[Harry Smith]

I'll say this: It is apparent that we did have to do it on cities, because even AFTER the first bombing of a large city they still wouldn't surrender. It took two.

The fact that any nation would've done it certainly is relevent. Non-Americans shouldn't be judging America on our use of the bombs if their nation wouldv'e done the same.

Nope-your wrong. As Korash said the nuclear bombs didn't end cause the Japanese to surrender

Lastly and most significant:
4.) The Japanese tried to surrender before the bombings and the Potsdam Declaration. You might read how it wasn't the whole government, and you'll also read that it was more than six times. How able to fight do you think the non-surrendering parts of Japan would be after six major portions already laid down arms?

[Gamma Male]

I'll say this: It is apparent that we did have to do it on cities, because even AFTER the first bombing of a large city they still wouldn't surrender. It took two.
They had barely even figured out what had happened to the first city when we bombed the second. We didn't give them time to surrender.

The only reason we nuked them twice is because our military wanted to test out both Uranium and Plutonium bombs.
The fact that any nation would've done it certainly is relevent. Non-Americans shouldn't be judging America on our use of the bombs if their nation wouldv'e done the same.

Other people aren't responsible for the actions of their government any more than I am for mine. Foreigners and Americans alike both have the right to criticise the American government.

[Harry Smith]

Non-Americans shouldn't be judging.

I forget that only Americans have a right to talk about politics

[Sir Suomi]

I forget that only Americans have a right to talk about politics

I also forget how Europeans love to make themselves look like shining examples even though they caused the whole damn war.

[Harry Smith]

I also forget how Europeans love to make themselves look like shining examples even though they caused the whole damn war.

I don't think anyone in Britain ever, ever calls themselves European. We're British, not European. And we tend to actually arrive on time to our wars, rather than turn up two years late and act like we saved the day. Can you actually quote where any European on this site has claimed that we were a shining example throughout the war-please quote it or back away from your laughable claims

[Sir Suomi]

I don't think anyone in Britain ever, ever calls themselves European. We're British, not European. And we tend to actually arrive on time to our wars, rather than turn up two years late and act like we saved the day. Can you actually quote where any European on this site has claimed that we were a shining example throughout the war-please quote it or back away from your laughable claims

I think you've been making your tea a little too strong, it appears it's starting to kill off your brain cells, just like what this conversation with you is doing to me. And we did save your ass, in both wars, which we should have kept our noses out of, and if it wouldn't have been for the incompetence of the Germany and Japan, we would've stayed like that. In WWI, we helped break the stalemate that was occurring, because you and Jerry decided to make yourselves comfortable in your trenches, not to mention the amount of resources and equipment we provided. In WWII, the same principles applied, even though it was an even more drastic situation for you then. And if it wouldn't have been for us and the USSR, you'd be speaking German right now. And I've no need for a quote, you simply portray it in your words.

[Harry Smith]

And we did save your ass, in both wars,

Who won the Battle of Britain in 1940?

[Sir Suomi]

Who won the Battle of Britain in 1940?

Honestly you didn't win much. Germany eventually decided to stop wasting it's assets on taking on Britain, since it had an actual threat to worry about, the USSR. Why on earth they didn't wait until after they'd conquered you I've no idea, but trust me, eventually, you'd have fallen to the endless onslaught.

By the way, good job on Operation Market Garden. You Brits really showed your brilliance in battle.

[Harry Smith]

Honestly you didn't win much. Germany eventually decided to stop wasting it's assets on taking on Britain, since it had an actual threat to worry about, the USSR. Why on earth they didn't wait until after they'd conquered you I've no idea, but trust me, eventually, you'd have fallen to the endless onslaught.

By the way, good job on Operation Market Garden. You Brits really showed your brilliance in battle.

We beat the Germans at El-Aleminin, we sank the Bismark in the Atlantic ocean, we beat the desert fox at the Battle of the Alamenian and we destroyed the Italian fleet at anchor before the US turned up

My granddad fought in operation Market Garden, someone he'd served with for 4 years died during operation Market Garden. I don't appreciate you making light out of an action where british troops such as my grandfather fought and died. Have some respect.

But if you want to continue with this crap-well done for Kasserine pass

[Sir Suomi]

We beat the Germans at El-Aleminin, we sank the Bismark in the Atlantic ocean, we beat the desert fox at the Battle of the Alamenian and we destroyed the Italian fleet at anchor before the US turned up

My granddad fought in operation Market Garden, someone he'd served with for 4 years died during operation Market Garden. I don't appreciate you making light out of an action where british troops such as my grandfather fought and died. Have some respect.

But if you want to continue with this crap-well done for Kasserine pass

We stormed Omaha Beach, held off what could have shifted the war into the Germans favor at the Battle of the Bulge, spearheaded the advance into Italy, beat you across the Rhine, all of this and more, while at the same time devoted practically half our forces in the Pacific front, where you Brits on the other hand couldn't hardly hold on to any of your territories.

And my Great-Grandfather had a lot of his friends killed over in Europe, finishing the mess you Europeans started. Don't give me that.

Oh please. Baatan, Dieppe, Dunkirk, do I need to go on? We can go at this all day if you want.

[Harry Smith]

We stormed Omaha Beach, held off what could have shifted the war into the Germans favor at the Battle of the Bulge, spearheaded the advance into Italy, beat you across the Rhine, all of this and more, while at the same time devoted practically half our forces in the Pacific front, where you Brits on the other hand couldn't hardly hold on to any of your territories.

And my Great-Grandfather had a lot of his friends killed over in Europe, finishing the mess you Europeans started. Don't give me that.

Oh please. Baatan, Dieppe, Dunkirk, do I need to go on? We can go at this all day if you want.

The united States has a population of 300 million,we have 60 million. Our country is smaller than the state of Delaware. Of course the US were more powerful than us, you had more men and more money.

Not really half-you had most of your land forces in Europe. Yep we lost places in the pacific, so did the US- Philippines, Guam etc.

I do however disagree with the view that the US saved us from the war. We'd been fighting the Germans for two years, and we'd managed to hold are own. Sure we had bad moments in the war, so did the soviets, and the germans. Read this-the germans never would of beaten us

http://www.philm.demon.co.uk/Miscellaneous/Sealion.htm

To be honest I just think that a lot of yanks have daddy issues with the UK. You must feel so special and warm inside that you managed to save us from the big bad German wolf

[Gamma Male]

Guys, if anyone saved Europe from the Germans it was the Soviets. They suffered the most causalities by far.

[Sir Suomi]

The united States has a population of 300 million,we have 60 million. Our country is smaller than the state of Delaware. Of course the US were more powerful than us, you had more men and more money.

Not really half-you had most of your land forces in Europe. Yep we lost places in the pacific, so did the US- Philippines, Guam etc.

I do however disagree with the view that the US saved us from the war. We'd been fighting the Germans for two years, and we'd managed to hold are own. Sure we had bad moments in the war, so did the soviets, and the germans. Read this-the germans never would of beaten us

http://www.philm.demon.co.uk/Miscellaneous/Sealion.htm

To be honest I just think that a lot of yanks have daddy issues with the UK. You must feel so special and warm inside that you managed to save us from the big bad German wolf

i. When I said "half", I meant for the most part we had strictly our Navy and Marine Corps in the Pacific while we had our Army and Air Force in Europe.

ii. I'm done debating over who behaved the best in WWII. It's honestly becoming a pointless debate.

iii. Also, it sounds like you Brits are having a tad bit of jealousy after seeing how your offspring has done so much better in a drastically shorter amount of time.

[Gamma Male]

iii. Also, it sounds like you Brits are having a tad bit of jealousy after seeing how your offspring has done so much better in a drastically shorter amount of time.

How exactly are we doing better?

Even if we are doing better, we still had to slaughter entire nations of innocent natives to get here. That's hardly an accomplishment.

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

Considering the fact that we bombed Japan because Japan bombed us first, I think we bombed japan just to tell them and the rest of the world.
Don't mess with AMERICA!!!

[Sir Suomi]

How exactly are we doing better?

Even if we are doing better, we still had to slaughter entire nations of innocent natives to get here. That's hardly an accomplishment.

America is still the beacon of hope towards the rest of the world, is it not?

The Strong conquer the Weak. That's how every major nation has been created, and more than likely it shall remain. The Greeks did it, the Romans did it, the British Empire did it, and so have we. It's easier to bash your neighbor over the head with a stick than it is to barter with him.

[Gamma Male]

America is still the beacon of hope towards the rest of the world, is it not?
Looking at our approval ratings? No. No we aren't.

The Strong conquer the Weak. That's how every major nation has been created, and more than likely it shall remain. The Greeks did it, the Romans did it, the British Empire did it, and so have we. It's easier to bash your neighbor over the head with a stick than it is to barter with him.

Since when does "well everyone else is doing it!" make something okay? The way we treated and are continuing to treat Native Americans is horrible, regardless of how common that sort of thing is.

[Cpt_Cutter]

America is still the beacon of hope towards the rest of the world, is it not?


Thanks, I needed to cheer up a bit after the boring day I've had, and this joke really did the job.

[Harry Smith]

i. When I said "half", I meant for the most part we had strictly our Navy and Marine Corps in the Pacific while we had our Army and Air Force in Europe.

ii. I'm done debating over who behaved the best in WWII. It's honestly becoming a pointless debate.

iii. Also, it sounds like you Brits are having a tad bit of jealousy after seeing how your offspring has done so much better in a drastically shorter amount of time.

It was never over who done the best-I was rejecting your claim that you saved us. We survided for two years as the only country fighting Germany-and I'm proud of that.

Jealous? of what? A country who's so afraid of socialism that they'd rather have there children die on the street rather than get free healthcare? A country where more blacks are in prision than college, a country that keeps prisoners in the most extreme conditions possible without charge and a country which has supported the murder of over 50 foreign leaders.

The UK may be crap, heck we are crap but I'd much rather live on this tea drinking socialist island than in the US

[Whos_ur_Buddha]

I don't think they were because they killed so many innocent people. say America was bombed with nuclear weapons the US would refer to that as a tragedy. No one deserves to die like that. Also moderator the US could have just invaded instead of killing innocent people. Thats like me telling you that the US needed 9/11 because they are a prideful self absorbed nation and the terrorist attack would get them to be more selfless. No i do not believe that because the alkita screwed up so many people but thats basically what you said about japan, "to get japan to give up you blow up there people with weapons of terror". In that situation the US are terrorists.

[Vlerchan]

I'm actually genuinely unsure whether George S. Patton's 'beacon of hope' remark was supposed to be a joke or not.

[Calyx]

It depends how many people would have been killed in subsequent invasions of Japan and the surrounding islands (which would have been very difficult to take complete control of), if it was more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki then I think it could be justified.

Don't forget that Hiroshima and Nagasaki also contained military targets, Hiroshima had a large number of soldiers in and Nagasaki was a large industrial area. Finally, although this doesn't make killing innocent people right millions of leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities warning people to leave as they would be targeted by bombs very soon.

[Gamma Male]

Considering the fact that we bombed Japan because Japan bombed us first, I think we bombed japan just to tell them and the rest of the world.
Don't mess with AMERICA!!!

They bombed a military base.

We nuked a city full of innocent civilians. Men, women, children, and infants. But that's okay because

DON'T MESS WITH AMURICA!!!! FUCK YAH!

[Magg]

i swear to god i hate those "don't mess with america" kind of comments :mad:
and i don't think any bombing is justified.

[Baseball1999]

Personally, I think that the bombing of these two cities full of innocent men, women, and yes, infants, were horrible, evil, inexcusable acts and that those responsible should've been executed for crimes against humanity. The fact that some people are actually making excuses and defending the genocide of tens of thousands of innocent civilians is just mind boggling, and shows that the power of the MIC to brainwash the masses into blindy accepting whatever they tell us is extraordinary.

We judge the Nazis for what they did during the holocaust, and we have every right to. But don't you think that if they had won they would be brushing off the holocaust just like we brush off Hiroshima abd Nagasaki now? Don't you think we would all be talking about how horrible the US was for killing all those families and infecting so many people with radiation poisoning, and that we would all be making excuses for the holocaust and calling it "necessary"?

I get where you are coming from, but Truman gave Japan a chance. He asked for a unconditional surrender, but Japan did not agree. So he dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima to try and stop the war. Again, Japan did not agree to the unconditional surrender so he dropped another at Nagasaki. He was looking out for the country and he ultimately saved lives. If we would of invaded Japan, (I'm pretty sure) there would be around 1M+ American soldier casualties. Although the bombings were devastating, it saved lives and ended the harsh war.

[Gamma Male]

I get where you are coming from, but Truman gave Japan a chance. He asked for a unconditional surrender, but Japan did not agree. So he dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima to try and stop the war.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe he ever asked the tens of thousands of innocent people he murdered for their 2 cents. I mean, so the the Japanese government refused to surrender. Fine. Bomb a military base or government building. Not two cities full of civilians who have fuck all to do with the war.
Again, Japan did not agree to the unconditional surrender so he dropped another at Nagasaki.
Wrong. By the time we bombed Nagasaki, Japan hadn't even figured out what had happened to Hiroshima completely. The only reason we bombed Nagasaki was because we wanted to test out both Uranium and Plutonium bombs.
He was looking out for the country and he ultimately saved lives. If we would of invaded Japan, (I'm pretty sure) there would be around 1M+ American soldier casualties. Although the bombings were devastating, it saved lives and ended the harsh war.
False. I believe Korasnk adequately debunked this. Read his posts.

[Lovelife090994]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe he ever asked the tens of thousands of innocent people he murdered for their 2 cents. I mean, so the the Japanese government refused to surrender. Fine. Bomb a military base or government building. Not two cities full of civilians who have fuck all to do with the war.

Wrong. By the time we bombed Nagasaki, Japan hadn't even figured out what had happened to Hiroshima completely. The only reason we bombed Nagasaki was because we wanted to test out both Uranium and Plutonium bombs.

False. I believe Korasnk adequately debunked this. Read his posts.

Koransk didn't cover it all and like you is very deaf to the facts. Japan attacked the US first here. War is messy. Besides, if the bombings hadn't have happened to show what war can reap then the war would have continued. Japan had numerous times to surrender but didn't. The Japanese live by a code of honor and kamikaze that is suicide. In Asian culture a person will die first to defend their honor.

[Gamma Male]

Koransk didn't cover it all and like you is very deaf to the facts. Japan attacked the US first here. War is messy. Besides, if the bombings hadn't have happened to show what war can reap then the war would have continued. Japan had numerous times to surrender but didn't. The Japanese live by a code of honor and kamikaze that is suicide. In Asian culture a person will die first to defend their honor.

Koransk and I literally covered everything you just said. I mean literally all of it. I'm not repeating myself.

[Lovelife090994]

Koransk and I literally covered everything you just said. I mean literally all of it. I'm not repeating myself.

That's not a reasonable response coming from you. You aren't even replying.

[Harry Smith]

That's not a reasonable response coming from you. You aren't even replying.

That's a tad hypocritical

Koransk didn't cover it all and like you is very deaf to the facts. Japan attacked the US first here. War is messy. (1)Japan had numerous times to surrender but didn't. The Japanese live by a code of honor and kamikaze that is suicide. In Asian culture a person will die first to defend their honor.

Yes it is-the war wouldn't of continued that's been addressed-are you blind to the facts?

(1)In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting.
The asian culture? Do you have any idea how ignornant that sounds? Asia is fucking huge-there isn't one huge single mindset for the entire population

[Gamma Male]

That's not a reasonable response coming from you. You aren't even replying.

I'm not replying to your points because I've already covered them all and I don't want to repeat myself. I'm sick of repeating myself in debates. Read the thread

[Dennis98]

It was just measurment to end war more quickly ... It was 1945 and both Americans and Japanese had big casualities and financial problems ... Americans knew that their landing on Japanese land would have catastophic impact on army morale and casualities ... So , they used A-bomb to end war on Pacific .... Hitler had same idea on Eastern front with his V bombers , but Russians stopped them when they won in Stalingrad battle . After Nazi defeat in Stalingrad , they started to spend more money on tanks and infantry weapons ... So , in some point they completely stopped with financing that project ... Although my grand grand father fought on Nazi side , bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is totaly approved from my point of view , because I would do same as Americans ....

[Star Wolf]

Personally, I think that the bombing of these two cities full of innocent men, women, and yes, infants, were horrible, evil, inexcusable acts and that those responsible should've been executed for crimes against humanity. The fact that some people are actually making excuses and defending the genocide of tens of thousands of innocent civilians is just mind boggling, and shows that the power of the MIC to brainwash the masses into blindy accepting whatever they tell us is extraordinary.

We judge the Nazis for what they did during the holocaust, and we have every right to. But don't you think that if they had won they would be brushing off the holocaust just like we brush off Hiroshima abd Nagasaki now? Don't you think we would all be talking about how horrible the US was for killing all those families and infecting so many people with radiation poisoning, and that we would all be making excuses for the holocaust and calling it "necessary"?

Agree 100%, except for the death penalty part. The bombs were completely inexcusable.

[Gamma Male]

It was just measurment to end war more quickly ... It was 1945 and both Americans and Japanese had big casualities and financial problems ... Americans knew that their landing on Japanese land would have catastophic impact on army morale and casualities ... So , they used A-bomb to end war on Pacific .... Hitler had same idea on Eastern front with his V bombers , but Russians stopped them when they won in Stalingrad battle . After Nazi defeat in Stalingrad , they started to spend more money on tanks and infantry weapons ... So , in some point they completely stopped with financing that project ... Although my grand grand father fought on Nazi side , bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is totaly approved from my point of view , because I would do same as Americans ....

The bombings were not necessary to address the war for reasons already addressed in this thread.

[Lovelife090994]

The bombings were not necessary to address the war for reasons already addressed in this thread.

Right or wrong it happened and ended the war. The past has passed. What? Will you sue the United States Government for war crimes? The Japanese weren't exactly Snow White.

[Gamma Male]

Right or wrong it happened and ended the war. The past has passed. What? Will you sue the United States Government for war crimes?
So we shouldn't point out bad things that have happened in the past and recognize past wrongs? We should probably shut down all of those pointless 9/11 and holocaust museums then right?
The Japanese weren't exactly Snow White.

I absolutely fucking hate it when people try to justify these nukings by pointing out the wrongs of the Japanese GOVERNMENT. The innocent CIVILIANS who were killed in these nukings had fuck all to do with Pearl Harbor- Or any military action carried out against the US at all for that matter. You do realize this is the same mindset terrorists have right? That it's okay to murder civilians for the actions of their government?

[Lovelife090994]

So we shouldn't point out bad things that have happened in the past and recognize past wrongs? We should probably shut down all of those pointless 9/11 and holocaust museums then right?


I absolutely fucking hate it when people try to justify these nukings by pointing out the wrongs of the Japanese GOVERNMENT. The innocent CIVILIANS who were killed in these nukings had fuck all to do with Pearl Harbor- Or any military action carried out against the US at all for that matter. You do realize this is the same mindset terrorists have right? That it's okay to murder civilians for the actions of their government?

Have you forgotten? America has lost hundreds of men in the war. Innocents become enemies in war. War is messy. I am not saying it was right, but it ended the war. What do you want? A eulogy?

[Gamma Male]

Have you forgotten? America has lost hundreds of men in the war. Innocents become enemies in war. War is messy. I am not saying it was right, but it ended the war. What do you want? A eulogy?

So you concede that the bombings were immoral and not necessary to end the war?

[Lovelife090994]

So you concede that the bombings were immoral and not necessary to end the war?

No. I mark them as a disaster but necessary to end the war. If not by a bomb the war would have ended years later with more casualties.

[Gamma Male]

No. I mark them as a disaster but necessary to end the war. If not by a bomb the war would have ended years later with more casualties.

This has already been debunked previously. Mostly by Korashk in page 3 of this thread.

[Lovelife090994]

This has already been debunked previously. Mostly by Korashk in page 3 of this thread.

Well, sad for you I don't agree with anything Korashk said. And no one said he debunked anything except you. So until 90% get on your side, I'll be the one who isn't politically correct with his own mind and opinion.

[Korashk]

Well, sad for you I don't agree with anything Korashk said.
Then explain how anything I've said in this thread is wrong. I dare you.

[Lovelife090994]

Then explain how anything I've said in this thread is wrong. I dare you.

Explain why you feel superior? I don't have to say a thing to you.

[Korashk]

Explain why you feel superior? I don't have to say a thing to you.
No, you don't have to, but every time someone challenges your views (which is basically every thread you participate in) you switch from discussing the topic to making irrelevant quips about people and often claim that you're being oppressed because you're a Christian.

I've never seen you support any of the views you hold with evidence or a reasoned argument. I'm not superior to you, I just base my views on research and evidence whereas you don't seem to based on your history of never defending your views and crying foul when people challenge them.

[Lovelife090994]

No, you don't have to, but every time someone challenges your views (which is basically every thread you participate in) you switch from discussing the topic to making irrelevant quips about people and often claim that you're being oppressed because you're a Christian.

I've never seen you support any of the views you hold with evidence or a reasoned argument. I'm not superior to you, I just base my views on research and evidence whereas you don't seem to based on your history of never defending your views and crying foul when people challenge them.

I base my beliefs on what I believe versus some other person. Unlike you I know how to not be a fool and write off everyone I meet. You on the other hand are an accuser and a mean person who debates any idea just for the fun of it. I give you my opinion and you spit on it and call it inferior. You always demonstrate this I'm liberal and better than you view. Newflash, we aren't all liberal and following everything put out by the media which is biased.

[Korashk]

I base my beliefs on what I believe versus some other person.
This doesn't make sense. You base your beliefs on what you believe? The very definition of circular logic.

Unlike you I know how to not be a fool and write off everyone I meet.
I don't do that. However, I do write off people who can't defend their views.

You on the other hand are an accuser and a mean person
Whatever you say. I don't care about what strangers on the internet think of me.

who debates any idea just for the fun of it.
Yeah, in case you haven't noticed this is the DEBATE forum. That's what we do here. You never debate, so honestly I don't even know why you post here.

I give you my opinion and you spit on it and call it inferior.
No, I call out your opinions when they're wrong or when I disagree with them. I disagree using evidence.

You always demonstrate this I'm liberal and better than you view. Newflash, we aren't all liberal and following everything put out by the media which is biased.
What? I'm not a liberal. I'm probably more "conservative" than you on most issues considering I'm a libertarian. Anarcho-capitalist to be specific.

[Lovelife090994]

This doesn't make sense. You base your beliefs on what you believe? The very definition of circular logic.


I don't do that. However, I do write off people who can't defend their views.


Whatever you say. I don't care about what strangers on the internet think of me.


Yeah, in case you haven't noticed this is the DEBATE forum. That's what we do here. You never debate, so honestly I don't even know why you post here.


No, I call out your opinions when they're wrong or when I disagree with them. I disagree using evidence.


What? I'm not a liberal. I'm probably more "conservative" than you on most issues considering I'm a libertarian. Anarcho-capitalist to be specific.

So you basically spent all that time to bandage and hide any vitriol you have done? Splendid, you've become a true politician.