[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]
I hope this is bad sarcasm I really do or I'm going to have to go up and change that funny to a winner because this is the dumbest shit posted on FP in a long time and you deserve some sort of an award if it is tbh
then again the fact that I'm willing to believe this isn't 100% sure sarcasm shows how A+ the sensationalist head limes community is
iirc Japan in WWII was actually waiting for an mainland invasion and they had plans for that.
Yeah, there are no way the Japanese would have surrendered.
[QUOTE=jason3232;45541313]iirc Japan in WWII was actually waiting for an mainland invasion and they had plans for that.
Yeah, there are no way the Japanese would have surrendered.[/QUOTE]
And they were right to think that to. There would have been no way for them to be defeated through bombing runs alone, and they didn't plan on surrendering. All wars in then-current history drew lines to a full scale invasion and occupation of Japan.
What they didn't expect was that we had manufactured the single most destructive weapon of all time and decided to toss TWO of those bad boys right on their heads.
Originally we were going to take out Kyoto as one of the nuke targets, but as the religious capital it was decided that it would probably just send the japanese into a religious furor and keep fighting, even after the bombs hit.
Whilst maybe it's naive to claim dropping the bombs was unneccesary I don't think you should all be fighting the idea so fervantly. Especially when a lot of the "oh but our other bombings killed more people!" and "Japan was comitting all these war crimes so we're allowed one or two!" are just straight up fallacious.
There is plenty of evidence that Japan was willing to surrender on conditions similar to the final result. There is also plenty of evidence that people in the US had strong reservations about the use or necessity of the bombs:
[url]http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html[/url]
I don't think it's as clear cut as either argument sets out.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;45538481]
By dropping those 2 bombs, the US saved millions and millions of lives.[/QUOTE]
God bless America. We had to save them from themselves, and we did it out of the kindness of our own hearts.
[editline]30th July 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;45539783]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. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;45539783]That's the Japan we were fighting.
That's the mentality we were against. [/QUOTE]
This is gross, please stop talking like this.
[QUOTE=Sailor Mars;45541705]God bless America. We had to save them from themselves, and we did it out of the kindness of our own hearts.
[editline]30th July 2014[/editline]
This is gross, please stop talking like this.[/QUOTE]
i too enjoy shutting myself off from reality
There's no reality in being jingoistic about dropping bombs on Japan. Why can't we accept the idea that there were alternatives without devolving into a slippery slope argument? I want to legitimately know what we stand to lose by accepting just the idea.
[QUOTE=Sailor Mars;45542025]There's no reality in being jingoistic about dropping bombs on Japan. Why can't we accept the idea that there were alternatives without devolving into a slippery slope argument? [b]I want to legitimately know what we stand to lose by accepting just the idea.[/b][/QUOTE]
Oh, only more soldiers' lives.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;45542039]Oh, only more soldiers' lives.[/QUOTE]
What?
Read what I said, I want to know what we stand to lose by accepting the idea today that the nuclear bombs were not the only option in a fallacious choice between x and y.
We can't change what actually happened, you know that, but I think maintaining that black and white distinction sucks and it's gonna lead I feel to the wrong attitude about the US's role with weapons. It creates this idea that somehow the US made 100% the right choice and I don't think that's true.
Interesting how he's seen as a war hero for killing 140,000 people.
But that's me, I see no point to war and killing.
[QUOTE=IceWarrior98;45542094]Interesting how he's seen as a war hero for killing 140,000 people.
But that's me, I see no point to war and killing.[/QUOTE]
To say that he was proud of it would be a stretch, I doubt many people could easily live with themselves if they were reaponsible for that.
[QUOTE=Sailor Mars;45541705]This is gross, please stop talking like this.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Sailor Mars;45542049]What?
Read what I said, I want to know what we stand to lose by accepting the idea today that the nuclear bombs were not the only option in a fallacious choice between x and y.
We can't change what actually happened, you know that, but I think maintaining that black and white distinction sucks and it's gonna lead I feel to the wrong attitude about the US's role with weapons. It creates this idea that somehow the US made 100% the right choice and I don't think that's true.[/QUOTE]You want me to accept there were other options? Fine, [i]technically[/i] things could have been done differently. Now I want you to accept that 1945 America was unbelievably different than 2014 America and no matter how many butterfly puppy kisses you conjure up with your eager little heart, basically everyone in the United States during that time wanted the Japanese to [i]pay[/i] for everything they had done.
[editline]30th July 2014[/editline]
I really shouldn't say unbelievably different. That "kill all those X because they are/they did/they will do Y" mentality is still pretty strong today.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;45542193]You want me to accept there were other options? Fine, [i]technically[/i] things could have been done differently. Now I want you to accept that 1945 America was unbelievably different than 2014 America and no matter how many butterfly puppy kisses you conjure up with your eager little heart, basically everyone in the United States during that time wanted the Japanese to [i]pay[/i] for everything they had done.
[editline]30th July 2014[/editline]
I really shouldn't say unbelievably different. That "kill all those X because they are/they did/they will do Y" mentality is still pretty strong today.[/QUOTE]
I didn't know what "butterfly puppy kisses" I "conjure up" with my "eager little heart" has to do with what I'm saying, I'm saying why do we persist with the narrative when self-criticism is far better and will make us more aware of how we use them in the future.
Don't take this too seriously but I think our opinion that we were so 100% right in dropping those bombs had some impact on us thinking we were 100% right in Vietnam, and 100% right in Iraq. Of course plenty of people didn't think about those conflicts in the way you describe, but you're trying to force it that way into making it seem like our foreign military action is somehow an act America collectively makes against something.
I don't think that's true, forgive me if it's my eager little heart, but I think there are super-complex foreign policy factors (like Truman's writings on the decision to drop the weapons) and misunderstandings that you're refusing to acknowledge in favor of your narrative that America 100% wanted "revenge" against the Japanese. I'd say that's problematic and leads to our horrible foreign policy today.
[editline]30th July 2014[/editline]
I'm not saying we shouldn't have dropped the bombs or that we should have, I don't know anything about that and honestly no-one does because it's all assumption-based. I'm saying the way we think about it is troublesome and leads to serious consequences today.
There's a tendency to overestimate the lives saved by the bombs and the necessity of dropping them, I think. Of course the bombs might have prevented a long arduous war on the mainland, but reasons given by the army, Truman, etc. range from "We really used a lot of money developing those bombs" to "What would happen" to "It'll most likely end the war". The motive of scaring the Soviet Union (which they did) shouldn't be excluded at all, either. Truman doesn't even really stress the "Saved American lives" angle in his speech at all, this is really something that started later on. The US was ready to drop more bombs (7 in total by December), while landing an invasion. It's also important to note that the Soviet Union entered the war against Japan around the time of the Hiroshima bombing - Japan was facing war on two fronts, and it's not like the Emperor was completely suicidal.
Personally I believe the bombs might've saved lives in the end, but just going "Yeah it's was totally required, nothing could be done about it" is kind of naive in my opinion. Couldn't they have exploded a bomb close to Tokyo, not killing a lot of people but simply showing that they meant business? Then drop one for real if that didn't work out? I don't think there's sense in being completely in either camp - there's a bit of both.
[QUOTE=Sailor Mars;45542236]I didn't know what "butterfly puppy kisses" I "conjure up" with my "eager little heart" has to do with what I'm saying, I'm saying why do we persist with the narrative when self-criticism is far better and will make us more aware of how we use them in the future.[/QUOTE]I'll explain this as plain as I can because you didn't get it the first two times:
It was a different time then, and the attack on Pearl Harbor was seen as equal parts terrible and cowardly. While there was technically different options to end the war, there was no way in hell they would have been seen as acceptable at the time. Simply accepting that the emperor retain his position was almost too much to bear for the Allies, there was [i]serious talk[/i] about dismantling the whole regime forever and deal with the consequences later. I'm sure if you went back to the 1940's and asked people how to deal with Japan they would all pretty much say the same thing: destroy them. Go back to 2001, ask any American "hey, yo, what should we do with the people who did 9/11?" you'd get the same response.
You're confusing military and political leaders and their sentiments with the general population. I'm not talking about if Truman paced across the oval office in anguish over bombing the Japanese home islands, I'm talking about [i]the entire country[/i] that was acting like a hive of wasps that some dumbshit hit with a tennis racket.
[editline]30th July 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;45542435]Personally I believe the bombs might've saved lives in the end, but just going "Yeah it's was totally required, nothing could be done about it" is kind of naive in my opinion. Couldn't they have exploded a bomb close to Tokyo, not killing a lot of people but simply showing that they meant business? Then drop one for real if that didn't work out? I don't think there's sense in being completely in either camp - there's a bit of both.[/QUOTE]No, they couldn't have. There's a reason why the first target was of strategic importance, it showed that we could remove an entire city [i]no matter how important or however well defended[/i] with just one strike. Obviously hitting Tokyo was out of the question, if the military and political leadership were taken out then there really would have to be an invasion; Japan would never ever forgive us and never relent if we did that. Hiroshima was a perfect test target because it was largely untouched by firebombing mostly due to it's lack of highly flammable structures and amount of water. Then when we hit Nagasaki, an entirely unimportant city, we drove the point home: we were done fucking around, accept the goddamn surrender agreement.
You're right though, the decision to drop the bomb had little to do with wanting to swiftly end the war. We wanted to knock out their capabilities first and foremost, demoralize them, and more importantly to scare the piss out of the Soviets. We knew we'd be facing them soon enough and we wanted them to know what kind of cards we had to play. (we didn't know that they already knew anyway due to clever use of espionage) Say we had no bombs, say the Manhattan Project never started: there isn't a doubt that there would have been an invasion of Japan and it would have been one hell of a fight. Millions upon millions would have perished, and the world would be very different today. All the atomic bombings did was make our goal of winning a hell of a lot easier and a hell of a lot cleaner, but there shouldn't be any doubt that without them we would have gone in on foot if it meant beating Japan.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;45542800]I'll explain this as plain as I can because you didn't get it the first two times:
It was a different time then, and the attack on Pearl Harbor was seen as equal parts terrible and cowardly. While there was technically different options to end the war, there was no way in hell they would have been seen as acceptable at the time. Simply accepting that the emperor retain his position was almost too much to bear for the Allies, there was [I]serious talk[/I] about dismantling the whole regime forever and deal with the consequences later. I'm sure if you went back to the 1940's and asked people how to deal with Japan they would all pretty much say the same thing: destroy them. Go back to 2001, ask any American "hey, yo, what should we do with the people who did 9/11?" you'd get the same response.
You're confusing military and political leaders and their sentiments with the general population. I'm not talking about if Truman paced across the oval office in anguish over bombing the Japanese home islands, I'm talking about [I]the entire country[/I] that was acting like a hive of wasps that some dumbshit hit with a tennis racket.
[editline]30th July 2014[/editline]
No, they couldn't have. There's a reason why the first target was of strategic importance, it showed that we could remove an entire city [I]no matter how important or however well defended[/I] with just one strike. Obviously hitting Tokyo was out of the question, if the military and political leadership were taken out then there really would have to be an invasion; Japan would never ever forgive us and never relent if we did that. Hiroshima was a perfect test target because it was largely untouched by firebombing mostly due to it's lack of highly flammable structures and amount of water. Then when we hit Nagasaki, an entirely unimportant city, we drove the point home: we were done fucking around, accept the goddamn surrender agreement.
You're right though, the decision to drop the bomb had little to do with wanting to swiftly end the war. We wanted to knock out their capabilities first and foremost, demoralize them, and more importantly to scare the piss out of the Soviets. We knew we'd be facing them soon enough and we wanted them to know what kind of cards we had to play. (we didn't know that they already knew anyway due to clever use of espionage) Say we had no bombs, say the Manhattan Project never started: there isn't a doubt that there would have been an invasion of Japan and it would have been one hell of a fight. Millions upon millions would have perished, and the world would be very different today. All the atomic bombings did was make our goal of winning a hell of a lot easier and a hell of a lot cleaner, but there shouldn't be any doubt that without them we would have gone in on foot if it meant beating Japan.[/QUOTE]
I totally agree with what you're saying and I don't mean to be pedantic but the only reason that Nagasaki was chosen as a target was because it was the secondary target to Kokura. The reason why we didn't drop the bomb on Kokura was due to bad weather, Nagasaki was the secondary target and was a strategic goal. The reason why you don't hear about Nagasaki as much is because the bomb was dropped in a valley, which undoubtedly saved thousands of lives.
The Soviets were also made aware of the bomb not through espionage but through us more so telling them. Truman literally went up to Stalin (no seriously he walked right up to him) and said "Hey brah, I got this secret plan against Japan involving this secret thing I been working on want to hear about it?".
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;45542976]I totally agree with what you're saying and I don't mean to be pedantic but the only reason that Nagasaki was chosen as a target was because it was the secondary target to Kokura. The reason why we didn't drop the bomb on Kokura was due to bad weather, Nagasaki was the secondary target and was a strategic goal. The reason why you don't hear about Nagasaki as much is because the bomb was dropped in a valley, which undoubtedly saved thousands of lives.
The Soviets were also made aware of the bomb not through espionage but through us more so telling them. Truman literally went up to Stalin (no seriously he walked right up to him) and said "Hey brah, I got this secret plan against Japan involving this secret thing I been working on want to hear about it?".[/QUOTE]
I think it had more to do with the fear knowing that the United States had this type of power and the Russians did not. Remember the Russians had just finished with their form of "Industrial Revolution", and they've never seen shit like this before.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;45542976]I totally agree with what you're saying and I don't mean to be pedantic but the only reason that Nagasaki was chosen as a target was because it was the secondary target to Kokura. The reason why we didn't drop the bomb on Kokura was due to bad weather, Nagasaki was the secondary target and was a strategic goal. The reason why you don't hear about Nagasaki as much is because the bomb was dropped in a valley, which undoubtedly saved thousands of lives.
The Soviets were also made aware of the bomb not through espionage but through us more so telling them. Truman literally went up to Stalin (no seriously he walked right up to him) and said "Hey brah, I got this secret plan against Japan involving this secret thing I been working on want to hear about it?".[/QUOTE]I know, I'm just saying that Nagasaki's bombing really hit the point home, even if Kokura had been hit (or Niigata, or Kyoto) the point would have been made just fine too. Nagasaki was strategic, yes, but it was mostly populated by civilians while Hiroshima was a major military center. I suppose if you look at it from their perspective it was sharply out of character, normally we (the Allies) tried very hard to avoid civilian casualties. Even if they somehow knew about Nagasaki's status as a secondary target it wouldn't have made a difference, we just nuked two cities and were still waiting a reply on that "surrender or we'll flatten your fucking country" note we passed them not too long beforehand.
I mention the Soviets because they weren't merely aware of it, they knew intimate details and it's how they got their own running so quickly. That's why the Tu-4 (Soviet copy of the B-29) was a huuuuge fuckin' deal at the time, the Soviets were right there with us in military capability and we had no idea how the hell they got there.
[QUOTE=gerbe1;45541534]
There is plenty of evidence that Japan was willing to surrender on conditions similar to the final result. There is also plenty of evidence that people in the US had strong reservations about the use or necessity of the bombs:
[/QUOTE]
I've said this 14 times and I'll say it for a 15th time; Any surrender that Japan was interested in that was not unconditional, the US would not have accepted. The war started with a cowardly sneak attack and took the lives of 350,000 US troops. The US didn't fight to the gates of mainland Japan to have them try and weasel their way out of the war. Unconditional surrender or bust; no help from the soviets, no retention of their government, either surrender or face annihilation.
And it's a given that the US had reservations about dropping nuclear weapons on them. They're the most destructive bombs in history and they're capable of taking millions of lives at once and ruining generations of children for decades. Nobody wanted to drop bombs on them, except for that Shitbag MacArthur, but it was the only option aside from invasion.
[editline]30th July 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sailor Mars;45542025]There's no reality in being jingoistic about dropping bombs on Japan. Why can't we accept the idea that there were alternatives without devolving into a slippery slope argument? I want to legitimately know what we stand to lose by accepting just the idea.[/QUOTE]
Yea one alternative was that all soldiers in the pacific theater drop their arms and gather in Tokyo to watch Tom and Jerry, or that everyone could have agreed for the best to just end the war and let bygones be bygones, but they aren't realistic options.
You don't have any sort of grasp on reality or the situation at the time if you honestly think that the US would have accepted anything other than an unconditional surrender. Japan wasn't interested in it at the time else they would have done it. Live in the real world.
Sad news.
If anyone wants to know more about the atomic bombs and the morality of it all I highly recommend Logical Insanity from Dan Carlins' Hardcore History series of podcasts. It's about 2.5 hours long and really examines the issue in a very provoking and concise manner. It really helped me to set a frame of reference for myself and informed me of things I didn't know about like the horrific firebombing prior to it.
Here you go: [URL]http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hharchive/Show-42---(BLITZ)-Logical-Insanity/Second World War-World War Two-World War One[/URL]
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;45542800]
No, they couldn't have. There's a reason why the first target was of strategic importance, it showed that we could remove an entire city [i]no matter how important or however well defended[/i] with just one strike. Obviously hitting Tokyo was out of the question, if the military and political leadership were taken out then there really would have to be an invasion; Japan would never ever forgive us and never relent if we did that. Hiroshima was a perfect test target because it was largely untouched by firebombing mostly due to it's lack of highly flammable structures and amount of water. Then when we hit Nagasaki, an entirely unimportant city, we drove the point home: we were done fucking around, accept the goddamn surrender agreement.
You're right though, the decision to drop the bomb had little to do with wanting to swiftly end the war. We wanted to knock out their capabilities first and foremost, demoralize them, and more importantly to scare the piss out of the Soviets. We knew we'd be facing them soon enough and we wanted them to know what kind of cards we had to play. (we didn't know that they already knew anyway due to clever use of espionage) Say we had no bombs, say the Manhattan Project never started: there isn't a doubt that there would have been an invasion of Japan and it would have been one hell of a fight. Millions upon millions would have perished, and the world would be very different today. All the atomic bombings did was make our goal of winning a hell of a lot easier and a hell of a lot cleaner, but there shouldn't be any doubt that without them we would have gone in on foot if it meant beating Japan.[/QUOTE]
Hiroshima wasn't only intact because of non-flammable material used in buildings, it was intact partly because it was reserved for use in the bombing.
[QUOTE=http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html]A. Dr. Stearns described the work he had done on target selection. He has surveyed possible targets possessing the following qualification: (1) they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter, (2) they be capable of being damaged effectively by a blast, and (3) they are unlikely to be attacked by next August. Dr. Stearns had a list of five targets which the Air Force would be willing to reserve for our use unless unforeseen circumstances arise.
[/QUOTE]
Targets were also decided upon taking into consideration how well defended they were.
Also, while Japan denied to surrender unconditionally, the US never threatened them with a nuclear bomb prior to actually dropping one. Is it that unlikely that a "simple" power demonstration would've made them change their mind? As I mentioned, the Soviet Union was also revving up.
About saving "millions upon millions", that's up for debate, really. As I said earlier I don't think dropping the bombs were necessarily a bad decision, but I think people forget about the more cynical aspect.
Where is Enola Straight huh? Just more gay propaganda!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
/sarcasm
[QUOTE=IceWarrior98;45542094]Interesting how he's seen as a war hero for killing 140,000 people.
But that's me, I see no point to war and killing.[/QUOTE]
Why do people who claim they're against war and stuff always state it in such a douchebag way like "pfft, i'm better than you uncivilized barbarians"
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;45544240]It indirectly saved billions more lives by causing the Soviet Union to proliferate nukes. Without MAD there'd be no check on US imperialism.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure the US stopped the whole imperialism thing in the 1800's, no?
The sad thing for me is, he would like nuclear weapons abolished. But I know, they can't be.
[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;45545637]The sad thing for me is, he would like nuclear weapons abolished. But I know, they can't be.[/QUOTE]
Until we create a new more powerful weapon that makes nuclear weapons look like children's toys that is.
Nuclear weapons being outdated by newer more powerful and far more dangerous weaponry, It's bound to happen eventually.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;45543808]Hiroshima wasn't only intact because of non-flammable material used in buildings, it was intact partly because it was reserved for use in the bombing.
Targets were also decided upon taking into consideration how well defended they were.
Also, while Japan denied to surrender unconditionally, the US never threatened them with a nuclear bomb prior to actually dropping one. Is it that unlikely that a "simple" power demonstration would've made them change their mind? As I mentioned, the Soviet Union was also revving up.
About saving "millions upon millions", that's up for debate, really. As I said earlier I don't think dropping the bombs were necessarily a bad decision, but I think people forget about the more cynical aspect.[/QUOTE]Yes, but it was also spared from firebombing because it made a poor candidate for it. Even without being on the list for potential nuclear strikes, Hiroshima would have been strictly conventional bombs only. Also we never threatened them specifically with atomic bombs, but we did say we'd destroy their military and level their country if they didn't surrender. I'm sure re-reading that message had an entirely different meaning on the 7th of August than it did the day before.
I'm not sure how saving millions is up for debate, we would have gone in and there would have been a blood bath. Reasons for using the weapons aside (no, they were not used specifically to save millions of lives, they were used like any other bomb: to destroy the enemy) they contributed far more heavily to Japan's decision to surrender than the Soviets declaring war. All the Soviet war declaration did was ensure Japan couldn't use the Soviets as a mediator in their surrender, which was a total fucking pipe dream anyway because there is no way in hell we'd let the USSR play middleman when we wanted nothing but unconditional surrender. There were other options, but it was believed that we wouldn't listen to.. oh, Sweden for example, as they tried to help negotiate a surrender. This sentiment was probably correct.
[editline]30th July 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Blazyd;45544361]Pretty sure the US stopped the whole imperialism thing in the 1800's, no?[/QUOTE]WWII ended with us giving up our few attempts at imperialistic endeavors, we granted independence to anyone who wanted it (Philippines) and gave up on the idea of forming an American empire.
[QUOTE=hanswithcheese;45538163]i remember reading somewhere that the crew of the enola gay had immediate regrets about dropping the bomb and that they didn't want to do it in the first place but orders are orders.[/QUOTE]
correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe one of the men in the Enola Gay even said "what have we done", or something like that
[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]
Was it brutal: Yes
Was it nessasary: Yes
The bomb undoubtedly prevented a possibly disastrous mainland invasion of the Japanese home islands, which the military elite believe would have eventually cost more lives, civilians included.
There is no doubt that the bomb was a brutal, horrible device, but it saved more lives then it took in the long run.
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;45546958]correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe one of the men in the Enola Gay even said "what have we done", or something like that[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure they were so regretful as everyone in the thread is suggesting. I've done quite a bit of reading on the Manhattan Project, and the crew knew what they were getting into. They had to understand the power of the bomb in order to fly safely.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
