Last Member of the Enola Gay has died. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Emperorconor;45538821]why would unconditional surrender be so important? why not a mediated peace and save the lives of several hundred thousand persons? [/QUOTE] You don't start a war with a cowardly surprise attack and expect to end said war with a mediated peace agreement. Unconditional or bust. The US fought to the front gates of Japan, they weren't going to accept economic sanctions and go home. [QUOTE=Emperorconor;45538821] and you are absolutely positive that the USA would actually go ahead and commit mass genocide? that the japanese government wouldn't fall to revolutionaries? that millions upon millions would somehow die because of an invasion? that the japanese even had enough resources to defend their barely functioning country?[/QUOTE] absofuckinlutely. The Japanese populace would have fought like fanatics to an American invasion, and it would have been complete genocide. [editline]29th July 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperorconor;45538845][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Divisions_within_the_Japanese_leadership[/URL] if the government does not have faith in their people to be loyal, that's especially bad news[/QUOTE] You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You know damned well that any collaborators in a uprising would be executed on the spot if any suspicion around them were to arise around them. A civilian populace wouldn't be able to formulate an uprising because they wouldn't even have the resources to do it.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;45538846]You don't start a war with a cowardly surprise attack and expect to end said war with a mediated peace agreement. Unconditional or bust. The US fought to the front gates of Japan, they weren't going to accept economic sanctions and go home.[/QUOTE] usually what you want to do in a war is end it as quickly as possible to end the human suffering if america wanted to drag it out so they could get bigger and better terms and allow more people to die then there is little respect to be had bear in mind that while japan did commit mass genocide, this is no excuse for the americans [quote]absofuckinlutely. The Japanese populace would have fought like fanatics to an American invasion, and it would have been complete genocide.[/quote] the japanese weren't mindless zombies many of them were starving, under an oppressive military regime, with poor rations and bitter about the war. they were losing and knew it, and they didn't just blame the americans mind you [QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;45538846]You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You know damned well that any collaborators in a uprising would be executed on the spot if any suspicion around them were to arise around them. A civilian populace wouldn't be able to formulate an uprising because they wouldn't even have the resources to do it.[/QUOTE] most revolutions are spontaneous affairs in japans case, even if the government was feeling uneasy about the loyalty of their people, then you kind of know that they were about to be toppled either from within or without

You seem to be under the impression that I'm justifying dropping 2 nukes on Japan, or that I think genocide is ok or that mass murder is a good thing or some evil bullshit like that. You're clearly missing my point and you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;45538961]You seem to be under the impression that I'm justifying dropping 2 nukes on Japan, or that I think genocide is ok or that mass murder is a good thing or some evil bullshit like that. You're clearly missing my point and you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.[/QUOTE] i know exactly what you're saying 2 bombs had to be dropped because in the long run it would save more lives unfortunately i disagree with this for two reasons: 1: technically it was a war crime 2: alternatives existed

[QUOTE=Emperorconor;45539007]i know exactly what you're saying 2 bombs had to be dropped because in the long run it would save more lives unfortunately i disagree with this for two reasons: 1: technically it was a war crime 2: alternatives existed[/QUOTE] compared to the japanese war crimes committed up to that point? also what alternatives were there?

[QUOTE=ZeFruitNazi;45539025]compared to the japanese war crimes committed up to that point?[/quote] just because your enemy commits war crimes doesn't excuse you from any [quote]also what alternatives were there?[/QUOTE] signing a ceasefire and mediating a peace through a third party

[QUOTE=Emperorconor;45539007]i know exactly what you're saying 2 bombs had to be dropped because in the long run it would save more lives unfortunately i disagree with this for two reasons: 1: technically it was a war crime 2: alternatives existed[/QUOTE] It was either drop the bombs or invade Honshu. Bombs: about 200 thousand civilian deaths. Invasion: Even more civilian deaths, and a projected several million military casualties from both sides. I could go into this for hours, but I won't. These are the hard facts. Even if some military leaders were for surrender, I have no doubt that there would be a significant military [b]and[/b] civilian faction that would not accept defeat. Without the overwhelming power of the bombs, there would be no easy peace in Japan.

[QUOTE=Emperorconor;45539049]just because your enemy commits war crimes doesn't excuse you from any signing a ceasefire and mediating a peace through a third party[/QUOTE] You do know this is the war where carpet bombing a city with incendiary and conventional warheads was considered not just a valid plan but a normal one? Also, to invade japan itself would be practically another D-day without the distraction campaign. A peace treaty back then was usually done after your opponent had no more will or ability to fight effectively.

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;45539099]It was either drop the bombs or invade Honshu. Bombs: about 200 thousand civilian deaths. Invasion: Even more civilian deaths, and a projected several million military casualties from both sides.[/quote] come on, you and i both know that in the world there exists more than two options let us imagine they picked invasion why did they /have/ to invade honshu? what strategic goal was to be gained? to whose benefit was this invasion? would they be able to justify the immeasurable casualties? would americans look back on it in fifty years and think they made a good decision? [quote]I could go into this for hours, but I won't. These are the hard facts. Even if some military leaders were for surrender, I have no doubt that there would be a significant military [b]and[/b] civilian faction that would not accept defeat. Without the overwhelming power of the bombs, there would be no easy peace in Japan.[/QUOTE] then why did japan surrender so easily when it did? where was the mass fighting and internal unrest? the deep hatred of the americans? within a few years japan had recovered from the war and was peacefully rebuilding. obviously either the entire psychological makeup of an entire nation did a 180 or they were never even that diehard in the first place [editline]30th July 2014[/editline] Or let us put it another way. If Japan had developed two nuclear bombs first, and dropped them on the United States, would that be considered a war crime?

[QUOTE=Emperorconor;45539139]come on, you and i both know that in the world there exists more than two options let us imagine they picked invasion why did they /have/ to invade honshu? what strategic goal was to be gained? to whose benefit was this invasion? would they be able to justify the immeasurable casualties? would americans look back on it in fifty years and think they made a good decision? then why did japan surrender so easily when it did? where was the mass fighting and internal unrest? the deep hatred of the americans? within a few years japan had recovered from the war and was peacefully rebuilding. obviously either the entire psychological makeup of an entire nation did a 180 or they were never even that diehard in the first place[/QUOTE] Simple, they fell for our bluff, we claimed we had more nukes(when we didn't they needed to actually be made still) and were basically trying to break their will by using the most destructive weapon ever produced. Basically break their will to fight. The three options we had for "victory" were Invade and have a second D-day without support or an effective distraction campaign(Too few options for invasion), hope for an effective surrender, or break their will to fight. The first and last were guaranteed wins the central one may never occur, and eventually force either of the others while we are suffering casualties from the war in the meantime. [QUOTE][editline]30th July 2014[/editline] Or let us put it another way. If Japan had developed two nuclear bombs first, and dropped them on the United States, would that be considered a war crime?[/QUOTE] Ignoring that we were already carpet bombing their cities with incendiaries and conventional warheads, which killed more people than the nukes combined and destroyed more.

[QUOTE=deadoon;45539231]Simple, they fell for our bluff, we claimed we had more nukes(when we didn't they needed to actually be made still) and were basically trying to break their will by using the most destructive weapon ever produced. Basically break their will to fight. The three options we had were Invade and have a second D-day without support or an effective distraction campaign(Too few options for invasion), hope for an effective surrender, or break their will to fight. The first and last were guaranteed wins the central one may never occur, and eventually force either of the others while we are suffering casualties from the war in the meantime.[/QUOTE] Remember that an unconditional surrender was not necessary to end the war, (what additional benefit to the people of Japan and the USA would unconditional give as opposed to a mediated one?) and that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria had just as large a role to play in the Japanese surrender. If the Japanese were willing to fight so hard, why did their armies in Manchuria rout as soon as the Soviets arrived? If you even had to drop the nuclear bombs, why not on a less populated location? Why not drop one in a location to terrify them but reduce as much loss of life possible? Would not dropping one in an uninhabited area show to them that they had enough bombs that they were willing to use one for demonstration? Why not on a military location instead of the centre of a major urban area?

[QUOTE=Emperorconor;45538427]the most depressing thing is that the bomb didn't even need to be dropped in the first place it killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people[/QUOTE] So instead allow millions to die in the coming invasion, letting hundreds of thousands to continue dying with air-raids, force a Germany-style split between the USSR/USA once the occupation had begun, and the total destruction of what little remained of Japanese infrastructure? Yeah sure, that's a fuckin' great idea.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;45539308]So instead allow millions to die in the coming invasion, letting hundreds of thousands to continue dying with air-raids, force a Germany-style split between the USSR/USA once the occupation had begun, and the total destruction of what little remained of Japanese infrastructure? Yeah sure, that's a fuckin' great idea.[/QUOTE] and how do you know that this would happen? do not alternatives exist?

[QUOTE=Emperorconor;45539301]Remember that an unconditional surrender was not necessary to end the war, (what additional benefit to the people of Japan and the USA would unconditional give as opposed to a mediated one?) and that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria had just as large a role to play in the Japanese surrender. If the Japanese were willing to fight so hard, why did their armies in Manchuria rout as soon as the Soviets arrived? If you even had to drop the nuclear bombs, why not on a less populated location? Why not drop one in a location to terrify them but reduce as much loss of life possible? Would not dropping one in an uninhabited area show to them that they had enough bombs that they were willing to use one for demonstration? Why not on a military location instead of the centre of a major urban area?[/QUOTE] Fear, that is the answer to both of your questions, the Japanese did not want to risk fighting the soviets, and showing that we were not just able to but [B]willing to use the weapons offensively[/B] is quite different. Also Japanese military and industrial targets were intermixed with civilian targets. We had informed them that we had developed the weapon, told them the capabilities they thought it was a bluff, we provided a live demonstration on their own targets. Their scientist confirmed it was a nuclear warhead, then thought we didn't have the materials to make another for a while. Which we then dropped a second one which brought on their surrender. An unconditional surrender and further occupation ended up to be the better idea due to we were able to assist them in rebuilding and were able to build better ties to them in the long run. Rather than the sue for peace strategy which would have prevented us from assisting in their rebuilding of our own volition if it were put in the treaty, allowing their leadership to claim that the US was not helping them for any other reason than they were forced to by terms of the treaty. Seriously, look up what you are arguing for a moment, they were notified of the nukes, they ignored them, they discredited our capacities and more. If they accepted reality on any of those steps, the loss of life would be lessened. Heck iirc, we sent them videos of the trinity experiments.

[QUOTE=TestECull;45538148]Nah. The Trinity device wasn't a 'bomb' per se. It was a nuclear explosive, yes, but it wasn't a bomb. Little Boy was the first bomb to employ a nuclear device as its explosive payload.[/QUOTE] Yeah, Trinity device: [IMG]http://www.hcc.mnscu.edu/chem/abomb/Gadget_2.jpg[/IMG] Little Boy: [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Little_boy.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Emperorconor;45539139]come on, you and i both know that in the world there exists more than two options let us imagine they picked invasion [B]why did they /have/ to invade honshu? what strategic goal was to be gained? to whose benefit was this invasion? would they be able to justify the immeasurable casualties? would americans look back on it in fifty years and think they made a good decision? [/B] then why did japan surrender so easily when it did? where was the mass fighting and internal unrest? the deep hatred of the americans? within a few years japan had recovered from the war and was peacefully rebuilding. obviously either the entire psychological makeup of an entire nation did a 180 or they were never even that diehard in the first place [editline]30th July 2014[/editline] Or let us put it another way. If Japan had developed two nuclear bombs first, and dropped them on the United States, would that be considered a war crime?[/QUOTE] You retarded m8? Honshu is the mainland. It's where all their shit is. They would not have surrendered if they still had Honshu, because it's literally 90% of Japan.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;45538481]No, you're 100% undoubtedly wrong. Japan had already lost the war but they refused to surrender. They didn't have enough food to support their populace because the US was nailing any ships heading out or into Japanese harbors. People were starving to death and parents were having to forgo feeding their youngest children. The starvation was so bad that it still has an effect on their culture over there. Japan was being raided on almost a daily basis by fighter-bombers that were shooting up anything and everything that could be deemed a military target; anything from a car to a fishing boat. They were suffering from bomb raids by B-29's that their fighters couldn't even reach in time before the bombers dropped their bomb loads. Tokyo was in ruins and most of Japan's factories were in ruins, but Japan still refused to give up the war. The US had plans for an invasion of Mainland Japan, called Operation downfall if you'd like to read up on it, that had casualty estimates in the millions on both sides. Because of the way the Japanese were at the time, every man woman and child would have been expected to fight the invading Americans, so it would have been absolute genocide. They were expecting 1.5 million US deaths within a few months of the invasion, and you can assume that the deaths of the Japanese there would have been much much much higher. The Russians were also on there way to Japan to finish what they started at the beginning of the war. Japan was stuck between 2 super powers and on the verge of starvation. By dropping those 2 bombs, the US saved millions and millions of lives.[/QUOTE] This is basically quoting every world war 2 textbook from the last 70 years. There are allot of arguments that are barley discussed about the subject of the use of nuclear weapons. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=csDKShn0cQI[/url]

[QUOTE=OvB;45538497]I heard that they didn't know the full details of what they were ordered to drop, so they were kind of in shock after seeing the result. I don't think at that time many people were aware of the bombs carnage. I don't know, did they show pictures/footage from Trinity at the time?[/QUOTE] I remember reading a book on the Americans race to build the bomb and it said that right after Enola Gay dropped Little Boy the Los Alamos crew threw a giant party that it had worked, until the reports came in. Oppenheimer was walking to his dorm and he saw a scientist puking his guts out in a bush because of it.

[QUOTE=Emperorconor;45539347]and how do you know that this would happen? [/QUOTE] As I stated previously, the Soviet Union was barreling towards Japan on a quest for vengeance. They'd already raped their way through Berlin and were ready to conquer Tokyo. [QUOTE=Emperorconor;45539347] do not alternatives exist?[/QUOTE] Yea, dropping 2 nuclear bombs on 2 major populace centers of Japan to force them to rationalize the situation they're in and realize that their 2 options are unconditional surrender or complete annihilation. "Mediating peace" is bullshit and it obviously didn't fucking work which is why 2 nukes were dropped on them. The US didn't fight it's way and lose 350,000 troops to "mediate peace" Their terms were unconditional surrender, or bust. You're confusing "possibilities" with "options". They're 2 different things when it comes to war. [editline]30th July 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Catesby;45539477]This is basically quoting every world war 2 textbook from the last 70 years. There are allot of arguments that are barley discussed about the subject of the use of nuclear weapons. [URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=csDKShn0cQI[/URL][/QUOTE] I've never read a WWII history textbook that even mentioned operation downfall.

plus you know there's the possibility of us showing off to the Soviets. so there's that piece of it as well.

[QUOTE=Emperorconor;45539347]and how do you know that this would happen? do not alternatives exist?[/QUOTE]Are you intentionally ignoring the culture of Japan in the 1940's or are you simply ignorant? I'm genuinely curious, because it's widely understood and accepted (and reinforced by the testimonials of Japanese people alive during that time) that the Japanese population was ready and willing to engage in total war. This isn't "oh we'll take to the mountains and wage a guerrilla war against them!" no, this is [i]"kill those American white devils, every last one of them, drive them off our islands without mercy."[/i] I don't think you fully understand how much Americans hated the Japanese and how much the Japanese hated [i]everyone else.[/i] Conditional peace was off the fucking table, there's no goddamn way the US population would settle for some bullshit sanctions and some harsh words, we wanted blood and we were going to [i]get[/i] blood come hell or high water. You think we would have accepted some silly sanctions after 9/11? No, when shit like that goes down, when America gets her nose punched in, Americans nationwide begin to froth at the mouth and we go into a beserker rage. Every single major conflict we've been in has always been because we suffered some sort of wound to our national pride and a significant number of Americans killed. Hell, we fought a war with Spain because we [i]thought[/i] they might have been responsible for sinking the USS Maine, we didn't even have evidence and we still tore down an entire fucking empire anyway. Why? [i]Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain![/i] We would have sent a million men into the fray and saw the Japanese people utterly demolished, and it would only occur to us afterward what a horrible thing we've done. Without those two bombs Japan wouldn't have ever backed down, because there was still a chance of a glorious final battle and a sliver of hope that they would prevail. Being hit once by a single bomb and losing an entire city in a flash of light had no honor in it, the fight was truly futile and it was suddenly widely recognized to be futile. Even after the surrender, there was an attempted coup because there were [i]still[/i] military leaders who did not want to accept defeat. Even in the face of absolute and total destruction they still refused to accept reality, they still wanted to carry on the war. That's the Japan we were fighting. That's the mentality we were against.

Last known photo with family. [IMG]http://cdn.theanimals.pics/pictures/farm4.staticflickr.com/3524/3231948219_51189031d9_z.jpg?zz=1[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Emperorconor;45539347]and how do you know that this would happen? do not alternatives exist?[/QUOTE] Are you kidding me? You can find videos on youtube of women and school age children practicing how to use bamboo spears and combat manuevers for the pending invasion. The military was preparing for total war and a fight to the death if the land invasion of Japan occured. Seriously, just google it.

[QUOTE=Emperorconor;45539301]If the Japanese were willing to fight so hard, why did their armies in Manchuria rout as soon as the Soviets arrived?[/QUOTE] Manchuria was used as a training ground, because the main fighting forces of japan were deployed against the chinese and the americans. And besides, the Soviets brought [I]veterans[/I] from the Eastern Front to Germany. Superior training, superior morale, superior technology and superior numbers, no wonder the japanese were crushed. [quote]If you even had to drop the nuclear bombs, why not on a less populated location? Why not drop one in a location to terrify them but reduce as much loss of life possible? Would not dropping one in an uninhabited area show to them that they had enough bombs that they were willing to use one for demonstration? Why not on a military location instead of the centre of a major urban area?[/QUOTE] Because you can't realize a weapon's power by dropping it in the middle of the ocean. You can't realize the destructive power of a single bomb by using it on a small village, because the enemy can hide the attack as the result of a conventional bombing run. Hiroshima was an industrial city. It had factories and depots, and it was one of the few cities to be spared from conventional bombing, just for the sake of testing the bomb. Fun fact: Due to Japan's geography, it wasn't hard for them to realize where would be Allies land during Operation Downfall. The catch is that, by chance, they also guessed correctly the [I][B]planned dates[/B][/I] for the landings. It would've been a fucking blood bath for both sides.

Plus, the Japanese people wouldn't accept defeat, they would fucking kill themselves instead of being beaten. Just look at the examples of that happening on different Islands in the Pacific during WWII. Now Imagine Mainland Japan like that.

This might be one of the most tired debates that you can have at this point. Rather than debating whether the bombings should have happened can we not instead just accept that they did and leave it?

You don't fucking understand. We should have NEVER invaded Troy when we did, we had [I]options[/I]. Greece just wanted their oil

The U.S. should never have declared war on Japan. After Pearl Harbor we should have ended the oil embargo. It would have saved more lives and avoided more warcrimes.

US should have NEVER declared war on Britain. THERE WERE OPTIONS.

[QUOTE=Explosions;45541103]The U.S. should never have declared war on Japan. After Pearl Harbor we should have ended the oil embargo. It would have saved more lives and avoided more warcrimes.[/QUOTE] Lol, so you're saying that we should have done nothing when Japan attacked our fleet killing thousands of sailors and numerous civillians and sinking countless Naval vessels? Unless you're being sarcastic. Which you probably are, sorry.