Political Crossfire Forums

[RedWhite&Blue]

Jawsome,

I have put the facts in front of you and you still dont seem to want to believe them so I am done. as for your final comment. YES IT WOULD HAVE KILLED SUBSTANTIALLY more lives. This is not revisionist history its FACT from the formerly Classified Documents in the National Archives.

However if anyone else would like to continue this topic I would be happy to continue.

[endersshadow]

You're right Red, an invasion would have cost so much more destruction and death. Civilians and soldiers alike. More than 2 cities would have been left in shambles.

Asked why they dropped a second, an answer comes to mind. This is complete personal opinion, but it seems logical to me.

Think this:

You're Japan. You see a weapon unlike anything you've ever seen before drop. You think: OK, they have the technology, but they could only have money for one; after all, they're on a two-theatre campaign. A few days later, BOOM, another bomb drops. At this point you're in total shock. Two? Two bombs? They must be cheap! They must have more! We surrender!

OK, that's just the way I would think if I were me :wink: Would anybody else think like this?

[RedWhite&Blue]

endersshadow wrote: You're right Red, an invasion would have cost so much more destruction and death. Civilians and soldiers alike. More than 2 cities would have been left in shambles.

Asked why they dropped a second, an answer comes to mind. This is complete personal opinion, but it seems logical to me.

Think this:

You're Japan. You see a weapon unlike anything you've ever seen before drop. You think: OK, they have the technology, but they could only have money for one; after all, they're on a two-theatre campaign. A few days later, BOOM, another bomb drops. At this point you're in total shock. Two? Two bombs? They must be cheap! They must have more! We surrender!

OK, that's just the way I would think if I were me :wink: Would anybody else think like this?

thanks for the support :)

[Dutchguy]

Quote: You're Japan. You see a weapon unlike anything you've ever seen before drop. You think: OK, they have the technology, but they could only have money for one; after all, they're on a two-theatre campaign. A few days later, BOOM, another bomb drops. At this point you're in total shock. Two? Two bombs? They must be cheap! They must have more! We surrender!

Considering the fact that Japan was well aware of the US's enormous economic and industrial potential (Admiral Yamamoto actually called it a 'sleeping giant' in that respect prior to Pearl Harbour);
it seems HIGHLY unlikely that the Japanese goverment would have thought that the US could only afford one stupid bomb... The Japanese were not blind to the fact that despite of the fact the US fought a war on two fronts, the US was capable of rolling entire fleets out of their shipyards and produce enough aircraft to turn the skies dark at the cost of billions and billions of dollars. Surely the US could produce more than one bomb.

[psholtz]

WorldParty wrote: Thanks for all the posts. But I still don't understand why these bombs were not just detonated over open countryside, mountains, or just off the coast etc.

Why were two cities used instead for these tests? Was Truman really behind this?

It's called terrorism. The criminals running the U.S. government have been honing and perfecting this powerful tool of international diplomacy since the World Wars first started way back in 1914..

The only reason more than 2 cities were obliterated is b/c the Americans had run out of uranium..

[psholtz]

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

How much do you know about War?

What I understand about war is that we are (very very) rapidly entering a period in history were there simply can be no more war. Not ever again. Period. No more excuses..

I suspect that such a message will bounce off about 98% of the planet's inhabitants like teflon, but it's a true statement. The human race is at a pivotal point in its evolution: we are currently living in the time when (a) mankind must (finally) learn how to live in peace; or else (b) there simply will be no more mankind.

Simple as that. There are no other options. None. Period.

It's actually a very simple choice, yet unfortunately I suspect we shall still be forced to endure one final war, a Last War - if you will. It is the outcome of this war that will determine the fate of mankind: if option (a) prevails, then the world population is reduced to a more manageable 300-500 million (globally);
and peace (finally) prevails; if option (b) prevails, there is no more human population on the globe (anywhere);
and Nature gets to experiment with evolving intelligent cockroaches - humans get to take their place in history's dustbin alongside the dinosaurs.

This is not just idle banter about the pathetic state of the world today: the complete ahnilation of the human species very nearly occurred in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Conventional wisdom concerning this event is that both sides had "their finger on the button", but that eventually the crisis was defused through skillful diplomacy.

Such conventional wisdom is (as usual) not (entirely) true.

At a meeting in Havana Cuba in 2002 - to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis - "veterans" from the U.S., Russia and Cuba who took actually part in the Cuban Missile Crisis met to commenerate the event. What they learned there utterly shocked and horrified them all.

It turns out the Russians didn't just "have their finger" on the button - the Russians actually PRESSED the button(!!) At one point during the crisis, orders were ACTUALLY given to fire a nuclear missile on Washington DC(!!) The only reason we're still here to talk about is b/c the shipman on the Russian sub whose job it was to launch the nuke refused to obey his orders.

One man saved the entire human race on that day.

Next time, the Fates may not look so kindly upon us.

At this point, I sincerely believe it's (far) too late to prevent a "last" war (so to speak). The die has already been cast (a long time ago). At best, all we can do now is hope that some human population survives the cataclysm to carry on civilization.

I sincerely hope those who survive will "know" more about war than we appear to..

[jwesleyhardin]

Quote: At a meeting in Havana Cuba in 2002 - to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis - "veterans" from the U.S., Russia and Cuba who took actually part in the Cuban Missile Crisis met to commenerate the event. What they learned there utterly shocked and horrified them all.

It turns out the Russians didn't just "have their finger" on the button - the Russians actually PRESSED the button(!!) At one point during the crisis, orders were ACTUALLY given to fire a nuclear missile on Washington DC(!!) The only reason we're still here to talk about is b/c the shipman on the Russian sub whose job it was to launch the nuke refused to obey his orders.

I'd be very interested to see your source for this information. I remember that there was an incident with a Russian submarine that was providing protection to one of the ships that was coming close to the line we had drawn. Actaully I believe it turned out that the ship crossed the line before receiving orders to turn around. One of our destroyers picked up the sub on sonar and there was a debate about whether we should try to make the sub surface. I believe the sequence of events was that the ship turned around before we had to make a decision.

If you are interested in reading about someone who did save the world read about Oleg Penkowski. He was a US mole in the Soviet High Command during this time.

[jwesleyhardin]

Quote: 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.

I couldn't disagree more. It has everything to do with intent. War is not moral. Either we win or we lose. The consequences for the US and our allies to have lost that war to Germany and Japan would have been terrible. Is there any doubt in your mind about that?

You may criticize Truman for dropping the bombs because his intent was to save allied soldiers lives. Think about the consequences of the allies losing the war. Do you think the Japanese would have been any more benevolent towards their enemies than the Germans were? Ask the Koreans or the Chinese.

The immoral decision would have been not to drop the bombs.

[1Revolution]

Quote: It turns out the Russians didn't just "have their finger" on the button - the Russians actually PRESSED the button(!!) At one point during the crisis, orders were ACTUALLY given to fire a nuclear missile on Washington DC(!!) The only reason we're still here to talk about is b/c the shipman on the Russian sub whose job it was to launch the nuke refused to obey his orders.

A Soviet sub did cross the quarantine line during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and it was in a region where the U.S. was dropping depth charges to surface any undetected submarines. This sub was severely damage when a depth charge exploded right next to their hull—engine crippled—and before they surfaced there was a debate over if they should launch their payload as their standing orders outlined. To clarify, the Kremlin did not order them to launch their nuclear warhead. Obviously they did not launch the missile, but the first officer of that sub made a statement at the recent Cuban Missile Crisis memorial stating that if he were in command, he would have launched the weapon. This sub took several months to return home because of their wreaked engine, and upon their arrival they were disgraced.

Besides, how is it logical for the Soviet Union to order the launching of one nuclear missile? If you launch one, you know for certain that the opposing side will launch all of theirs at you, and the purpose of a first strike is generally to destroy/limit their ability to retaliate.

That being said, I do agree with you on a few points. War will become more and more costly to nations involved in the years to come, and as nation’s interests become more closely interlocked, the desire to send one link in this chain into chaos will not be as acceptable. I doubt that war will disappear during my lifetime though.

[Dutchguy]

Quote: I couldn't disagree more. It has everything to do with intent. War is not moral. Either we win or we lose. The consequences for the US and our allies to have lost that war to Germany and Japan would have been terrible. Is there any doubt in your mind about that?

You may criticize Truman for dropping the bombs because his intent was to save allied soldiers lives. Think about the consequences of the allies losing the war. Do you think the Japanese would have been any more benevolent towards their enemies than the Germans were? Ask the Koreans or the Chinese.

The immoral decision would have been not to drop the bombs.

That argument doesn't really stick, becasue at the time the bombs were dropped, there really already was no doubt that sooner or later, Japan would be defeated. Essentially they already were, they just wouldn't admit it yet.

[RedWhite&Blue]

Dutchguy wrote:

That argument doesn't really stick, becasue at the time the bombs were dropped, there really already was no doubt that sooner or later, Japan would be defeated. Essentially they already were, they just wouldn't admit it yet.

Look If you look back at the info I posted earlier. Truman had a choice between the lesser of two evils. Drop the Bomb or if need be both bombs and possibally bry the war to an end with only a few hundred thousand to half a million casulties or invade Japan and risk taking in the first 6 months to one year alone. an estimated 1million casulties and that is just in allied (U.S.) troops alone. Had he choosen the invasion and it gotton out that he had the first option he would have been crucified by the American people. Both choices were not good but remember who started this war the Imperial Japanese Empire. For the Allies and the US not to have used the bomb would have been the complete wrong move. . Stop sitting on your moral Elitist high horses and passing judgment on my country. We did what we had to so that the war was brought to a successfull conculsion with as little additional casulties as possible on both sides.

[Dutchguy]

Quote: The consequences for the US and our allies to have lost that war to Germany and Japan would have been terrible. Is there any doubt in your mind about that?


Quote: Think about the consequences of the allies losing the war

That sounds a lot like you are arguing that if the bombs hadn't been dropped the war would have been lost, and that is what I was responding to, no more, no less... Bombs or no bombs, the Allies would have won anyway (or, in the pacific theatre most notably the US);
it might just have taken a lot longer and cost a lot more lives. Than again, it might not have, no matter how many prognoses have been made, we will never know for sure.

I do not judge the dropping of the bombs, they ended the war and indeed probably actually saved a lot of lives. That doesn't mean that questions can not be asked if things could not have been solved differently. Less destructively.

[Synapse]

Dutchguy wrote:
I do not judge the dropping of the bombs, they ended the war and indeed probably actually saved a lot of lives. That doesn't mean that questions can not be asked if things could not have been solved differently. Less destructively.

Yes, things could have been solved differently.
Well, for starters, Japan could've stayed on their own friggin islands and not invaded the Phillipines, Pearl Harbor, China, etc. etc. etc.

[Dutchguy]

Uhm, that has nothing to do with resolving the war, that has to do with preventing it.

[SideTraKd]

Dutchguy wrote: That sounds a lot like you are arguing that if the bombs hadn't been dropped the war would have been lost, and that is what I was responding to, no more, no less... Bombs or no bombs, the Allies would have won anyway (or, in the pacific theatre most notably the US);
it might just have taken a lot longer and cost a lot more lives. Than again, it might not have, no matter how many prognoses have been made, we will never know for sure.

I do not judge the dropping of the bombs, they ended the war and indeed probably actually saved a lot of lives. That doesn't mean that questions can not be asked if things could not have been solved differently. Less destructively.

The use of overwhelming force is often tatamount to servicing the end to a war. It also has the unique result that the same war does not re-occur. The finality of it is the defining factor. The U.S. is currently allied with Japan, and have no forseeable future threats coming from them, other than possible economic concerns, which have been overstated in the past and have since been marginalized. Not only are the Japanese our current ally, but I believe that the majority of people here in the states see them as a very STRONG ally. I do not believe this would have ever come to pass, had those bombs not been dropped.

[jawsome]

i'm not sure about what people knew at the time of the bombs, but in retrospect, it's obvious japan was going to collapse on itself economically. they couldn't keep fighting for much longer and it looked like they were going to have to give in soon enough.

[Dutchguy]

They knew. It was common knowledge that Japan lacked the resources to keep fighting much longer. They were especially low on oil (which they didn't have in Japan, only in the the conquered territories they had since lost again);
which is ofcourse a vital resource for modern warfare.

Quote: I do not believe this would have ever come to pass, had those bombs not been dropped.

Such is questionable. Germany is also a strong ally of the US and it was defeated the 'conventional' way. Ofcourse, Germany is Europe and Europe has always had a different relation with the US, but it seems more likely that the reconstruction of Japan by the US and not the nuclear destruction of 2 of its major cities is what created a lot of good will towards the US and turned Japan from enemy to friend.

[jawsome]

along with their lack of oil, they had a ridiculously low amount of steel, which is probably the most important resources when it comes to war and the machinery needed for it.

i just don't understand why we couldn't have waited for japan to collapse economically.

...but would that have induced a famine which would have killed more people? oooo interesting.

[Dutchguy]

Well, that much we will never know...

[ZenDebater]

The most convincing explanation I've read is that we did the atomic bombings in order to deter and warn the Soviets from encroaching further into Japan's mainland Asian holdings, such as Korea.