Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/15/2008 12:50:40 PM EDT
Do you guys think that the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan was the best way to go or would it have been better if the US invaded Japan? (or some other idea?)
Link Posted: 2/15/2008 4:39:17 PM EDT
Nuclear weapons definitely saved more lives on both sides.

Nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed a combined total of approximately 150 to 200K people.

Land invasion of the home islands would probably have resulted in MILLIONS killed.

It was without question the more humane way to end the war.
Link Posted: 2/15/2008 6:28:54 PM EDT
I saw a guy speak on this at a WWII/Holocaust work shop for history teachers over the summer. He is currently an adviser to the .gov, professor etc. etc. He stated that there is no question these days, but that dropping the bombs did save lives on both sides. Apparently the Japanese scholars are of the same belief. Only the uninformed, and quacks would suggest otherwise.
Link Posted: 2/15/2008 6:37:26 PM EDT
The Battle of Okinawa took 250,000 lives

The Bombs are the Best Option Used !
Link Posted: 2/15/2008 6:50:22 PM EDT
Heard this on the History Channel:

Gen. Lamay's fire bombing of Japan's citys killed more people then the 2 atomic bombs.
Link Posted: 2/15/2008 7:11:58 PM EDT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties



Estimated casualties


Because the U.S. military planners assumed "that operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population",[7] high casualties were thought to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates, but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions, and purposes — which included advocating for and against the invasion — afterwards, they were reused to argue for and against the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding campaigns, drawing different lessons:

In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.[36]

A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.[37] A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days.[38] When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.[39]

In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties).[40] Adm. Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000).[41] Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.[42]
Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa,[43] and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.[1]
Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."[44]

For context, the Battle of Normandy had cost 63,000 casualties in the first 48 days; and the Battle of Okinawa ran up 72,000 casualties over about 82 days, of whom 18,900 were killed or missing. Several thousand soldiers who died indirectly whether from wounds or other causes at a later date are not included. The entire war cost the United States a total of just over a million casualties, with 400,000 fatalities.

Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the sixty years following the end of World War II — including the Korean and Vietnam Wars — have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.[45] There are so many in surplus that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan are able to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to wounded soldiers on the field.


***********


Steve
<­BR>
Link Posted: 2/16/2008 5:33:56 AM EDT
Some folks claim that the Japanese would have surrendered. However, nothing was discovered in Japanese military records that even vaguely indicated they had any intention of surrendering.
Link Posted: 2/16/2008 5:38:13 AM EDT
The Japanese were prepared to throw their children under American tanks to demoralize our troops. They were not going to surrender.

This is one of the most studied what-if scenarios in history and there is little disagreement that the atomic bombs saved more lives than they took. Even a great many Japanese agree!
Link Posted: 2/16/2008 5:49:28 AM EDT
After making it through Europe alive, my Father was on orders to the Pacific, for the eventual invasion of Japan.


I for one, am dang glad they used the bombs.
Link Posted: 2/16/2008 6:01:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/16/2008 6:05:22 AM EDT by Gamma762]
Using the atomic bombs on Japan at the end of WWII had much more far-reaching consequences than just the end of WWII. IMO it's well established that the timely end of WWII after their use saved a tremendous number of lives on all sides... one thing not normally taken into account is that the Soviet Union declared war on Japan after the Hiroshima bombing (which they would have done when the US invaded), their attack led to (IIRC) nearly 100,000 casualties in only one or two days of fighting before Japan surrendered to the US.

The results of their use in combat, while precipitating the cold war arms race, also prevented their use in future conflicts. A very dangerous condition would have been going into the cold war without a sense of the results of their use. As it was, politicians on both sides did have a clear picture of the results of their use and were restrained because of it.
Link Posted: 2/16/2008 6:04:16 AM EDT
dropping those bombs was definitely the way to go. We did them a favor by doing that...
Link Posted: 2/16/2008 6:47:35 AM EDT
I'm convinced that dropping the bombs were not only the best thing to do, it was also the most humane thing to do.

Alternatives?

Well, we could have invaded, but remember the casualties would have been very high. One marine division was written off after the fourteenth day. Planners figured casualties would have been so high that it would cease to be effective as a unit. Our invasion would have been preceded by a massive gas attack against Japan. Most of the military had gas masks, so they wouldn't be affected. The gas would have destroyed or injured many of the civilian infrastructure that supported the military effort. Think railroad, transport workers, warehouse employees, factory workers. We could also use starvation. 90% of Japan's merchant marine had been sunk by our subs and so no food was coming in from overseas. By defoliating Japan, we would reduce the food supply even further. Starvation doesn't discriminate between rich or poor, strong or weak, young or old. However, it would also result in the death of our PoWs held by Japan.

One thing most people never envision is the Russian invasion. If Russia could land troops, there'd be a Communist North Japan. By dropping the bomb, we gave the Japanese a means to save face and surrender. It saved hundreds of thousands of Allied lives and millions of Japanese lives. It also prevented the Russians from landing on Japanese soil and from extending their sphere of influence.

Dropping the bomb was not only the most correct thing to do, it was also the greatest act of humanity we did as one people towards another. The Marshall Plan comes in second place by comparison.
Link Posted: 2/17/2008 4:09:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ShiningPath:
The Battle of Okinawa took 250,000 lives

The Bombs are the Best Option Used !


My dad fought on Okinawa, it really f*&ked him up good. Mentally, he hated it that the Japanese when cornered would not surrender. He was an officer and learned enough Jaanese to tell them 'we weren't going to hurt then when captured'. To get the japanese out of caves etc his unit had to flame thrower them out.

He was glad the atomic bombs were dropped as he and 4 of his 5 brothers were set to invade Japan. He thought none of them would return home if there was an invasion.
Link Posted: 2/17/2008 4:11:09 AM EDT
Without a doubt, the bombs were the best course of action.
Link Posted: 2/17/2008 4:30:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/17/2008 5:00:32 AM EDT by raf]
Link Posted: 2/17/2008 4:44:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By raf:
I'll leave you with this tidbit: All the Purple Heart meda;s awarded since the end of WW II and now were made and kept in storage in anticipation of the invasion of Japan.



My dad's Purple Heart from Korea.
Uncle Bud's Purple heart from Vietnam.
And the Purple Heart that I happily didn't get in Iraq(1991).

Were all ordered in 1944 to cover the cost of invading Japan.

Oh yeah the bombs saved lives and a country.
Link Posted: 2/18/2008 5:15:53 AM EDT

On the history channel there was a show once that stated that Japan was going to use submarines to launch a radioactive dust attack on San Fransisco. It got called off on account of them surrendering first.
Link Posted: 2/18/2008 7:47:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By omega62:
Nuclear weapons definitely saved more lives on both sides.

Nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed a combined total of approximately 150 to 200K people.

Land invasion of the home islands would probably have resulted in MILLIONS killed.

It was without question the more humane way to end the war.
Link Posted: 2/21/2008 7:13:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 4v50:
-snip-
It also prevented the Russians from landing on Japanese soil and from extending their sphere of influence.
-snip-


That is not quite correct. The Russians took some islands north of Hokkaido that belonged to Japan. The Russians are still on those islands and this is a thorn in Japans side to this day.

I was born in Japan 2 weeks after the official occupation ended in 1951. My father was an Army Combat Engineer Officer who had fought in the Pacific, including Okinawa. He told me they were set to invade Kyushu when Japan surrendered. There was huge relief and much celebrating by the troops all over Okinawa that day.

Considering the high casualties the Engineers take during beach landings, I believe that I would probably not be here if not for the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. Also, Japan was working on it's own atomic bomb and they would not have hesitated for a heartbeat to drop their bomb on us.

Having been to the Atomic Museum in Nagasaki, I have seen evidence of the horror one of those bombs can bring. However, it is still better than the alternative (invading Japan)
Link Posted: 2/22/2008 6:45:26 AM EDT
Yes, I have talked to a veteran who served during the war, and was part of the occupation after war. He told me about the thousands of rifles, hundreds of tanks and aircraft the Japanese hid because of the supposed invasion.

The bombs saved Japanese and American lives.
Link Posted: 2/22/2008 7:43:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By omega62:
Nuclear weapons definitely saved more lives on both sides.

Nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed a combined total of approximately 150 to 200K people.

Land invasion of the home islands would probably have resulted in MILLIONS killed.

It was without question the more humane way to end the war.


I agree.
Link Posted: 2/23/2008 4:51:52 AM EDT
I hate that children and innocents were killed. I believe there is no moral justification for it. Wrong is wrong.
(wait, before you flame me!)
Of course this isn't specific to nuclear weapons, and purposeful bombing of civvies I hate.
HOWEVER- had we not done it, as already stated, millions would have died. The USA may not have been able to withstand this burden and we could have lost.
I believe that because of the circumstances, we were forced to do something that was was morally wrong in order to survive.
I'm glad we did it, although it pains me to know we killed children and civilians.
I probably didn't explain my thoughts very well, sorry about that.

Thank God for precision munitions that limit the killing of innocents.
Link Posted: 2/23/2008 5:44:41 AM EDT
Why was it a good idea to drop two bombs on Japan?

Because they surrendered before we got to three.

Yes. Right move. No question.
Link Posted: 2/23/2008 11:04:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By seahorse:

Originally Posted By 4v50:
-snip-
It also prevented the Russians from landing on Japanese soil and from extending their sphere of influence.
-snip-


That is not quite correct. The Russians took some islands north of Hokkaido that belonged to Japan. The Russians are still on those islands and this is a thorn in Japans side to this day.


Opps. You're right. I forgot about that. Thanks for the correction.
Link Posted: 2/23/2008 10:30:40 PM EDT
and to think of all the hell my warrior brothers caught for may lie (misspelled) in rvn. -----------------he walked into younder village and never returned
Link Posted: 2/23/2008 10:44:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By THEHUNTERMAN:
Do you guys think that the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan was the best way to go or would it have been better if the US invaded Japan? (or some other idea?)


YEP!
Link Posted: 2/23/2008 11:03:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ar15_rifleman:

Originally Posted By THEHUNTERMAN:
Do you guys think that the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan was the best way to go or would it have been better if the US invaded Japan? (or some other idea?)


YEP!
+1
Link Posted: 2/23/2008 11:57:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/23/2008 11:58:20 PM EDT by Desert_AIP]
A tough decision but it was what needed to be done.

I was actually pleasantly surprised when I visited the Hiroshima museum, on Aug 6th no less, that there is no blame the bad ole' USA rhetoric there.
The place is a matter of fact presentation of what happened on that day. They display life in the city pre and post bomb.
The Japanese present an honest look at that day. Even to admitting there were Korean slaves captured by the Japanese working in the city when the bomb hit.
Link Posted: 2/24/2008 1:30:27 PM EDT
You also have to realize that it wasn't exactly an "either or" proposition. Considering the fact that no one really had a good perspective on the A-bomb, and by the scheduled time of invasion we would have had somewhere around six, it's quite possible, even probable IMO that we would have used them in both a strategic and tactical role.

So the more accurate question might very well be, "Use two strategically to get them to surrender, or use six late in support of an invasion?"

Many look at history like it's some kind of "science" with only alternative answers. It's not. Alternatives might have existed, but in the context of the times it's more likely that the A-bomb would be used regardless. The fact that they made the decision to drop it and no one really thought twice about it, supports the theory that they would have used them in an invasion as well. If America was fully willing to drop it on two cities in two separate strikes, they damn well would have been fully willing to drop it on
six or seven cities, troop concentrations, whatever, during an invasion.

Given the lack of knowledge as to what it could do and the after effects of radiation, odds are pretty high (given the example of the later tests where the Army marched guys though A-bomb blasts) they would have been used in a manner that would most likely have caused far greater problems than the two that were used.

That doesn't factor in the use of Chemical weapons, which FDR was against, and no one wanted to give the Germans an excuse to use them. Once both of them (FDR and the Krauts) were out of the picture, and after Iwo Jima and Okinawa, Chemical weapons became very viable. The Japanese had pretty sorry to non-existant chemical protection for it's troops, let alone it's civillian population.

This dosen't adress political factors, like the Soviets, or the over one million Jap troops in China you'd still have to deal with directly, rather than them surrendering under the Emperor's orders. No surrender means you'd still have to deal with that million-man army in China AFTER reducing Japan's home islands.

The way it worked out was the best way it could have.

Link Posted: 2/25/2008 6:50:27 AM EDT
I don't have the details available, but is my understanding that more Japanese were killed on the home islands by other means (primarily fire bombings, or possibly fires caused by bombings) than the number killed by the nuclear bombs. The casualties from other means just didn't get the attention of the Japanese all at once like the a-bombs did.
Link Posted: 2/25/2008 7:22:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RolandofGilead:
I hate that children and innocents were killed. I believe there is no moral justification for it. Wrong is wrong.
(wait, before you flame me!)
Of course this isn't specific to nuclear weapons, and purposeful bombing of civvies I hate.
HOWEVER- had we not done it, as already stated, millions would have died. The USA may not have been able to withstand this burden and we could have lost.
I believe that because of the circumstances, we were forced to do something that was was morally wrong in order to survive.
I'm glad we did it, although it pains me to know we killed children and civilians.
I probably didn't explain my thoughts very well, sorry about that.

Thank God for precision munitions that limit the killing of innocents.



I'm sort of inclined to agree with you ... till I remember those captured Aussie Nurses who were machine gunned on the beach.
Fuck'em ... the bastids got off light.
But ultimately, I too am grateful we have those precision munitions.
Link Posted: 3/7/2008 8:15:45 AM EDT
The firebombing of Dresden Germany and Tokyo Japan may have killed more civilians than the 2 nukes.

Obviously we targeted civilian populations with our bombers and killed hundreds of thousands of women and children and old men.


Now days if a soldier kills one single civilian non-combatant, it will be on the front page of the newspapers and on the TV news. That soldier may face court-martial and even murder charges.

What happened?


Link Posted: 3/7/2008 9:36:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Scamp:
The firebombing of Dresden Germany and Tokyo Japan may have killed more civilians than the 2 nukes.

Obviously we targeted civilian populations with our bombers and killed hundreds of thousands of women and children and old men.


Now days if a soldier kills one single civilian non-combatant, it will be on the front page of the newspapers and on the TV news. That soldier may face court-martial and even murder charges.

What happened?


Radical feminism has pussified our culture.
Link Posted: 3/8/2008 9:34:35 AM EDT
Iwo Jim, and even more so, Okinawa convinced Truman the the quickest and least bloody way to end the war was to use nukes. An invasion of Japan would have been a disaster for all involved. We had estimated that Japan had 3 divisions in the invasion, in fact, they had 9. If Russia would have invaded as well we could have wound up with a divided Japan just like Korea and Germany. The American public may not have stood the casualties. Once the war in Europe ended, most Americans figured that Japan would fall soon after. In fact, the Japanese Army was barely touched in WWII. Most of the troops on the islands of the Pacific were rear area garrison troops with little training. Iwo Jima and Okinawa showed what their better trained forces were capable of. Dropping the bomb meant that my father and father-in-law got to come home. It also meant that my mother-in-law did not have to lose maybe a third and fourth brother to the war effort.

It was a terrible thing to do, but war is terrible. If Japan had called out bluff after the second bomb, we would have been in a world of hurt for some time as we only had two nukes ready to go. We warned Japan of the weapon before we dropped the first one and also gave the warning of a second bombing after they failed to show any inclinations to surrender after Hiroshima was bombed. After they military had to admit to the emperor that they were powerless to stop more bombings, he ordered surrender and the military had no choice but to follow his wishes.

An American POW camp was at ground zero. Some 200 internees were there. We knew about the camp before the bombing. The fact that it was there was no deterrent to the decision as to where to strike first. I believe three survived initially. There were sound military reasons to go after Hiroshima first.
Link Posted: 3/8/2008 9:38:00 AM EDT
The atomic bombs saved my grandfather's life (in my opinion) he was drafted and scheduled to report the day after the bombs were dropped
Link Posted: 3/8/2008 9:57:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/8/2008 9:59:22 AM EDT by Gamma762]

Originally Posted By gaweidert:
If Japan had called out bluff after the second bomb, we would have been in a world of hurt for some time as we only had two nukes ready to go.

Not quite correct, as the core material for a third bomb was to be ready for use within a couple weeks of Nagasaki, and the estimated production rate IIRC was 2 bombs per month and possibly more by the end of 1945. There were additional "Fat Man" bombs already on Tinian, just waiting for the fissile material cores before they would be able to be used. The levitated composite core was already in the concept if not development and that would have rapidly accelerated the production rate of bombs.

The Manhattan Project scientists predicted, accurately, that only one or two bombs would be required to end the war. One would probably have sufficed, except that the damage at Hiroshima was so complete that little info about the event made it out to the Japanese leadership in a timely fashion. Truman also believed that the atomic bomb would end the war... one of his writings said something to the effect of "Japs will fold up quickly once Manhattan appears over their homeland".

The hurry to use them was to get the war ended quickly before the Soviets entered the picture.
Link Posted: 3/9/2008 5:33:21 PM EDT
The fact that 2 bombs were needed shows that they were in fact necessary.
Link Posted: 3/9/2008 5:37:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jbombelli:
dropping those bombs was definitely the way to go. We did them a favor by doing that...


Amen.
Link Posted: 3/9/2008 7:16:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By raf:
I'll leave you with this tidbit: All the Purple Heart meda;s awarded since the end of WW II and now were made and kept in storage in anticipation of the invasion of Japan.



Interesting.
Link Posted: 3/10/2008 9:37:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/10/2008 9:39:21 AM EDT by raf]
Link Posted: 3/14/2008 6:04:26 PM EDT
The atomic bombings were no different than the allied firebombing campaign. It was simply more efficient. They did with two bombers what had previously taken hundreds. If someone believed that bombing civilians by any means is morally wrong; I believe at the least they have clear rational. On the other hand, those who oppose only atomic weapons ignore what happened before and act as if Japan had not been bombed until the 1st bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

I asked a young guy of Japanese descent what he thougth of the atomic bombs. He had an interesting point. He says he understood the 1st bomb but why was it necessary to drop the 2nd bomb so soon after the 1st. He felt the Japanese had no time to grasp what had happened and formulate a peace offering before being hit again. Indeed, Oppenheimer did treat the Nagasaki bomb as a kind of experiment since it was a different type of bomb.

Link Posted: 3/15/2008 4:59:41 AM EDT
Without the A-bombs,there would be no Japanese people.Period.
In the ETO commanders complained that their men didn't hate the nazis enough.This was not a problem in the pacific.After Iwo and Okinawa we lost our sense of humor with the japs.
By this time,the U.S.Military was commanded by some of the hardest men in history,leading battle hardened troops from the Pacific and ETO.
They would have firebombed every city,village and hamlet in japan.
It would have looked like a Libtard Vietnam movie.
We would not have stopped until every last vestige of a Japanese state was destroyed,every cultural artifact despoiled,and most of the population rotting in mass graves.
The few survivors would have been scattered to the winds,never again to be Japanese.
We would probably have given the depopulated islands to the ROK.
August 6 should be celebrated in Japan as their liberation day from their lunatic feudal system.
They should have a gigantic memorial to Truman,Lemay,and the Enola Gay.
Link Posted: 3/15/2008 3:29:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bishop746:
I asked a young guy of Japanese descent what he thougth of the atomic bombs. He had an interesting point. He says he understood the 1st bomb but why was it necessary to drop the 2nd bomb so soon after the 1st. He felt the Japanese had no time to grasp what had happened and formulate a peace offering before being hit again. Indeed, Oppenheimer did treat the Nagasaki bomb as a kind of experiment since it was a different type of bomb.



Your acquaintance of Japanese decent didn't have his history right. After the bombing of Hiroshima, the Japanese government was given 3 days to respond. The US did not receive a response so they proceeded with the planned bombing of Nagasaki. Apparently a second bombing was what it took to get the point across. The Japanese have nobody to blame for this but themselves.
Link Posted: 3/16/2008 4:46:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By feudist:
Without the A-bombs,there would be no Japanese people.Period.
In the ETO commanders complained that their men didn't hate the nazis enough.This was not a problem in the pacific.After Iwo and Okinawa we lost our sense of humor with the japs.
By this time,the U.S.Military was commanded by some of the hardest men in history,leading battle hardened troops from the Pacific and ETO.
They would have firebombed every city,village and hamlet in japan.
It would have looked like a Libtard Vietnam movie.
We would not have stopped until every last vestige of a Japanese state was destroyed,every cultural artifact despoiled,and most of the population rotting in mass graves.
The few survivors would have been scattered to the winds,never again to be Japanese.
We would probably have given the depopulated islands to the ROK.
August 6 should be celebrated in Japan as their liberation day from their lunatic feudal system.
They should have a gigantic memorial to Truman,Lemay,and the Enola Gay.



I agree to this. As has been posted, and invasion would have had horrible casualties for both sides and would have went mideval quick. The japanese would have been all but whiped out as a people and culture.
Link Posted: 3/16/2008 5:09:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bishop746:
Indeed, Oppenheimer did treat the Nagasaki bomb as a kind of experiment since it was a different type of bomb.

That's not correct. The "Fat Man" weapon used at Nagasaki was essentially the same device as the Trinity test used, the only difference is that the Trinity device wasn't fully enclosed and with the additional components to make it a deliverable bomb.

The "Little Boy" bomb design was essentially a sure thing but was horribly inefficient in its use of precious fissionable material, it was really only built as a parallel development item because until the Trinity test they did not know for sure that the implosion design would work. After the trinity test proved the implosion design, no more gun-type bombs were constructed, but the Little Boy was already in the process of being deployed so was the first device used.
Link Posted: 3/18/2008 3:26:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Desert_AIP:

Originally Posted By Scamp:
The firebombing of Dresden Germany and Tokyo Japan may have killed more civilians than the 2 nukes.

Obviously we targeted civilian populations with our bombers and killed hundreds of thousands of women and children and old men.


Now days if a soldier kills one single civilian non-combatant, it will be on the front page of the newspapers and on the TV news. That soldier may face court-martial and even murder charges.

What happened?


Radical feminism has pussified our culture.


I tend to agree with the pussification comment, but let's face it guys- the killing of an unarmed civilian is murder no matter what country they're from. Furthermore if it can be proved the killing was not an accident, and could have been avoided, why wouldn't a military member be charged with murder?
Military people are held to a higher standard. We are given a special trust, and when somebody betrays that trust is sickens me.

The killing of Japanese civilians was, regrettably, required to SAVE them AND us. A military member nowadays has zero reasons for intentionally killing a non combatant- it is thankfully no longer required to save anyone.
Link Posted: 3/18/2008 3:31:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/18/2008 3:32:17 PM EDT by raf]
Link Posted: 3/18/2008 3:50:28 PM EDT
Agreed
The above applies to the killing for no good military reason, especially in today's circumstances.
Link Posted: 3/18/2008 4:41:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RolandofGilead:
Agreed
The above applies to the killing for no good military reason, especially in today's circumstances.


So if a civilian is aiding the enemy by waving his hands, shouting and alerting the enemy to the presence of a U.S. or allied patrol...thereby endagering their lives and their mission...is that civilian a valid target in your opinion?
Link Posted: 3/18/2008 4:50:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Desert_AIP:

Originally Posted By RolandofGilead:
Agreed
The above applies to the killing for no good military reason, especially in today's circumstances.


So if a civilian is aiding the enemy by waving his hands, shouting and alerting the enemy to the presence of a U.S. or allied patrol...thereby endagering their lives and their mission...is that civilian a valid target in your opinion?


Make all the little angry faces you want.

Your scenario is a tough call, and somewhat uncommon. If US troops are in the area- everyone knows it. (with the excpetion of SF types).
Anyways, to answer your question (sort of) you'd need more info. Are they say...spotting for mortar rounds? If they are, they are a valid target as they are calling in IDF.
Is it some dumb kid who thinks he's doing the right thing? If it is then no, he's not IMO.
So in short, "it depends".
Link Posted: 3/18/2008 5:08:06 PM EDT
Not too many people know that of all the islands and cities of Japan, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the two most populated with Japanese Catholics. Well over 50% of all Japanese Catholics lived in those two cities.

In the 1920s a polish monk by the name of Fr Kolbe visited a small community of his monks then working in Nagasaki and they asked about buying a piece of property on a hill overlooking the city. He instead said he was revealed in prayer that the monastery ought to be built on the far side of the hill looking away from the city. So they built it there.

In ww2 Fr Kolbe was captured in Poland by the Germans and died in Aushwitz in a starvation bunker. His Japanese monastery was spared from the atomic blast by the hill.

In ground zero photos of the bomb site you can still see a blackened European Gothic style cathredal skeleton standing scorched amid the rubble.....

It was worth it....yes, but those who bore the brunt of the assault were the Japanese who would have been most open to an allied invasion to begin with.

One Japanese I knew told me they considered the American atomic bombing of those Christian cities as evidence that the Americans were willing to annihilate the entire Japanese people, starting with those who'd otherwise be most favorable....it sort of made the Japanese realize we meant business - and since we'd already proven ourselves to have 1000 plane bomber formations (that that summer had been firebombing every OTHER major city), the idea that a single bomber could destroy a city showed them that surrender really was the only option they had for civilizational survival.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top