Political Crossfire Forums

TJdem · Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2004 10:28 pm Post subject:

But one wouldn't have put the fear in 'em enough. I don't in whole diagree with the bombing, but I think one would have done the trick.

Arwon · Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2004 11:12 pm Post subject:

Why stop at the atomic bombs?

What about Dresden and Hamburg and Tokyo and other such deliberate firebombings?

Dresden was targetted for its flammibility and cultural significance. It had little military value and was swollen with refugees fleeing the Red Army. Legitimate targets like the city's barracks, train station and Shell oil reservoirs were left alone.
The bombings were designed to set the city aflame - people suffocated as well as burned. People fleeing to the Elbe river were machine gunned by fighter jets. This was murder, the aim was to kill lots of civillians.

Says everything2.com aboutt he actual technique used in the firebombings:

Quote: As a large number of incendiary bombs were dropped on the city center, a fairly sizable fire erupted. The allies continued to feed the flames with bombs, soon getting several buildings burning. Eventually the flame reached a critical mass: The air convection caused by the source of heat, blowing hot air up into the atmosphere and sucking cool air in from beneath it, began to cause winds strong enough to suck debris into the fire -- and so the fire began to feed itself, and suck the air out of the buildings and even some underground areas of dresden. There were people who died simply of suffocation because the fire took their oxygen away.

Once the firestorm became self-sustaining, the allies could leave it knowing that it would feed itself -- it would do far more damage than a bomb (with two notable exceptions) ever could.

Tokyo, likewise, was much the same situation - mostly wooden houses, and the firestorm was fed until it reached a self-sustaining, oxygen-sucking point which suffocated people it didn't manage to burn. 80 000 killed and a million left homeless in 6 hours. Murder, basically, and damage almost in the same league as the atomic bombs.

Why are these acts more justified than the bombings of Guernica or Coventry? Given this behaviour, does "good" and "evil" really have much of a meaning in war? What moral high ground can be claimed? If we so were willing to fight like this... what exactly were we fighting for? And what of the "war crimes" trials post war? Hypocracy?

Locke · Joined: 25 Jan 2004 Posts: 78

WorldParty wrote: I can understand the USA dropping an A-bomb off Japan's coast, or even over it's countryside or mountains to demonstrate US technology. I am sure the Japanese would have got the message.

What I don't understand is why not one, but two, heavily populated cities were wiped out.

Who authorised this approach? And why?

As usual, i didn't bother to read the other posts, but really, I dont know who authorized it(I suppose the president);
but in my opinion, it was the smartest thing to do, we had to show them that if you go up against America, you WILL lose, and they've been clinging to us ever since. Guess it worked.

Arwon · Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2004 11:42 pm Post subject:

This probably belongs in the new history board.

TJdem · Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 1:53 am Post subject:

Where you now find it.

C Katrena · Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 1:58 am Post subject:

Vaporizing two cities full of people is disgustingly disgusting. How we were even able to get away with something like that (and I mean get away by saying we weren't tried for it) is beyond me.

More on this later.

RedWhite&Blue · Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 4:59 am Post subject:

TJdem wrote: But one wouldn't have put the fear in 'em enough. I don't in whole diagree with the bombing, but I think one would have done the trick.

But it did not do that trick. The reason we had to bomb the second time is because the Japanese did not believe we had a second one. They thought we only had the one and some of them wanted to keep fighting but the gov't did try to gain a negotiated peace. The U.S or rather the Allies would accept nothing but UNCONDITIONAL Surrender just like we did with Germany and Italy. So we had to bomb them again. Within a few days of the second bombing they agreed to UNCONDITIONAL Surrender. Saving not thousand but Millions of lives on both the Japanese and American sides. Projected time lines for invading and occupying Japan by the way were not a few years but a minimum of 10 years. So all in all even though several hundred thousand to a half a million lives between the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were taken It is more than offset by the projected lives saved on both sides in the already planned invasion and Occupation of Japan.

By the way I believe it was for up to a week before we attacked Hiroshima the US army air corps was dropping leaflets on the city WARNING THEM that an attack of devastating scale was coming and that they should leave the city. so THEY WERE GIVEN AMPLE WARNING!! that they choose not to believe the warnings was sadly their problem and to their detriment. I agree war is a horrible thing however the last time I checked I dont know of a country that won any war it was in by being nice. they won it by doing wht they had to do within reason to win it.

Dutchguy · Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:04 am Post subject:

But why choose two targets with no significant military value? The bombings of London, or Rotterdam (one of the major cities in my own country);
were generally considered attrocities, despite the fact that they actually offered some military interest. Londen for obvious reasons, Rotterdam because it held and holds the largest port of Europe and one of the largest in the world. So these two cities actually had military significance and weren't even obliterated to the extend of Hiroshima or Nagasaki (or Dresden for that matter, but that's a separate issue);
but nonetheless the bombings of these cities was considered a vile and despicalbe thing to do. Why? Because it happened in the early stages of the war, that's why. Towards the end, the war machine from all sides involved had grown desensified to civilian casualities and actually startt targetting civilians, in order to break moral and turn the general population away from the war effort.

Is this right however? Well, I would say no. The thing that should have distinguished the allies from the axis, is that the allies would actually adhere to some moral fibre and respect the rules of war, which means that military targets should be the ONLY intentional targets. The allies did what they deemed nessecary, but in doing so did exactly those things we despised the axis for. In the end it might have turned out to be the right call, but one still wonders if things couldn't have been done differently.

solange · Joined: 02 Jan 2004 Posts: 493 Location: Massachusetts

Another interesting twist on this debate: The scientists involved in the Manhattan Project, those who acutually developed The Bomb, upon realizing the power unleashed by "the gadget" (as they called it);
were horrified by what they had created.

Oppenhiemer sent emmisaries to the White House to dissuade Truman from dropping The Bomb on civilians. The Scientists' scheme was to gather together Japenese Officials and, in some isolated area, demonstrate to them the unbelievable power of this new devise. These men of science thought that, upon seeing this demonstration, the Japenese would surly realize they were fighting a loosing cause and sue for peace.

Needless to say, Oppenhiemer's pleas went unheaded.

jwesleyhardin · Joined: 28 Feb 2004 Posts: 57

Quote: this has to be one of the biggest stains on american history ever. i don't think the world has seen a bigger act of terrorism than those 2 bombings.

You may or may not agree with the decision to drop the bombs but to label the decision an act of terrorism is absurd. We were at war and let me remind you that the Japanese did attack Pearl Harbor. Look at the statistics about how many of allied prisoners of war survived their ordeal as POWs. Read up about how difficult the invasions on Iwo Jima and other islands were. Truman had every reason to believe that the alternative to dropping the bombs was an invasion where he could expect to lose a million allied soldiers. You may not agree with his decision but you can not fault him or call him a terrorist.

RedWhite&Blue · Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 8:22 pm Post subject:

jwesleyhardin wrote: Quote: this has to be one of the biggest stains on american history ever. i don't think the world has seen a bigger act of terrorism than those 2 bombings.

You may or may not agree with the decision to drop the bombs but to label the decision an act of terrorism is absurd. We were at war and let me remind you that the Japanese did attack Pearl Harbor. Look at the statistics about how many of allied prisoners of war survived their ordeal as POWs. Read up about how difficult the invasions on Iwo Jima and other islands were. Truman had every reason to believe that the alternative to dropping the bombs was an invasion where he could expect to lose a million allied soldiers. You may not agree with his decision but you can not fault him or call him a terrorist.

VERY VERY well said.

Bad_Bad_Fires · Joined: 05 Feb 2004 Posts: 115

DrKatrena wrote: Vaporizing two cities full of people is disgustingly disgusting. How we were even able to get away with something like that (and I mean get away by saying we weren't tried for it) is beyond me.

More on this later.

Please do say more. I'd love to see where else your arguments lie.

How much do you know about War?

Dutchguy · Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2004 3:50 am Post subject:

Quote: You may not agree with his decision but you can not fault him or call him a terrorist.

For targetting non-strategic, civilian targets (which is what both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were);
yes, you can... Personally I wouldn't go that far and rather keep it at a misjudged judgment call. Either which way you look at it, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tragedies and perhaps even travesties.

(Oh, and Pearl Harbor is incomparable, being a military, strategic target)

1Revolution · Joined: 14 Feb 2004 Posts: 242 Location: Washington State

Psychological impact is not "non-strategic," but I do understand what you are implying. I don't believe the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were "terrorist acts," and while I wish those lives could have been saved, I do believe that the use of both atomic bombs were justified.

The way I understand it is, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were placed on the target lists because they were relatively untouched by the war, and the U.S. targeting commission wanted the effects of the weapons to be clear to world. This may sound barbaric to some, but the alternatives were much worse. An invasion of Japan would have cost hundreds of thousands of American lives--like it or not, our people are more important to us than them--and we had no reason to believe that they would give up easily. Japan has various factions within the military, and while some may believe reports that "Japan was on the verge of surrender," take into consideration that there was an attempted coup d'état on the eve of the Emperor’s radio address.

World War 1 & 2 were not police actions or “contained” wars, and our criteria for "acceptable" targets was very different back then. Psychological impact was a strategic objective, and this objective would not have been successful if we just bombed an open field. If Japan did not surrender after Hiroshima, why do you believe they would have surrendered after seeing a mushroom cloud over a corn field?

jwesleyhardin · Joined: 28 Feb 2004 Posts: 57

Quote: For targetting non-strategic, civilian targets (which is what both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were);
yes, you can... Personally I wouldn't go that far and rather keep it at a misjudged judgment call. Either which way you look at it, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tragedies and perhaps even travesties.

(Oh, and Pearl Harbor is incomparable, being a military, strategic target)

I would argue that in fact the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were strategic in support of our strategy to end the war. Take into consideration all of the circumstances and I believe you can not fault Truman for taking the decision he did. By the way I used Pearl Harbor to indicate who had started the war and it was an unprovoked attack.

jawsome · Joined: 17 Jan 2004 Posts: 13580 Location: San Diego

RedWhite&Blue wrote: jwesleyhardin wrote: Quote: this has to be one of the biggest stains on american history ever. i don't think the world has seen a bigger act of terrorism than those 2 bombings.

You may or may not agree with the decision to drop the bombs but to label the decision an act of terrorism is absurd. We were at war and let me remind you that the Japanese did attack Pearl Harbor. Look at the statistics about how many of allied prisoners of war survived their ordeal as POWs. Read up about how difficult the invasions on Iwo Jima and other islands were. Truman had every reason to believe that the alternative to dropping the bombs was an invasion where he could expect to lose a million allied soldiers. You may not agree with his decision but you can not fault him or call him a terrorist.

VERY VERY well said.

that's fine if you'd like to interpret it that way, that's your opinion and that's what this forum is made for.

it's just hard for me to see what would make it okay for us to nuke cities where the results are the same, but then it would be the worst thing possible if terrorists did it.

for things like this, the intentions don't outweigh the consequences.

RedWhite&Blue · Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:21 pm Post subject:

In this case it was a matter of picking the lesser of two evils. Either A use the new weapons we had and sadly kills a few hundred thousand or resort to an outright invasion of the Japanese home Islands at a cost to both sides of 1 million people. I say yes it was terrible what happend to both of those cities. but it was less costly in total human toll than an outright invasion would have cost. Again it may not have been right from a moral stand point but it was most definitely the lesser of two evils Oh and by the way the projected length of time to totally defeat the Imperial Japanese army was said to be about 10 years in length. So instead of ending in 1945 it would have ended in 1955.

Hmmmmmm how many of your fathers or Grandfathers would have been called up for service and thus some of you maybe not being here today had they not dropped the bombs.

jawsome · Joined: 17 Jan 2004 Posts: 13580 Location: San Diego

are you sure that it would've lasted for 10 years? japan was in economic ruin and it was showing; its economy seemed to be collapsing.

RedWhite&Blue · Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2004 8:17 pm Post subject:

first a link to a map of the planned invasion called "Operation Downfall"

http://reta.nmsu.edu/bataan/maps/wwiia50.html

Read this link as well. I think it will open EVERYONES eyes in regards to why the bombs were dropped. you will find that total Casulties for the invasion by early 1946 would have been 1million (and that was said to be conservative) Also check out the maps and things attached to the site.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8141/downfall.html

by the way I looked for the 10 year prediction and could not find it but I will look further. However I think this site pretty much sums up the FACT that the loss of two cities by a new and very deadly weapon were some what small in comparison to the losses that both sides would have felt if an invasion had happened.

jawsome · Joined: 17 Jan 2004 Posts: 13580 Location: San Diego

yeah, i've learned about the invasion and it's presumed consequences. but i really doubt the war lasting for 10 years thing, sir. i've never heard about that and everyone knew japan was soon to capitulate but was certain the bombs would do the trick, which they obviously did. i still say we should have just waited for their economy to completely crumble instead of the bombs.

but would that have killed more lives? oooo tricky subject.