View Thread : If war broke out tomorrow....


Fittisize
and your country was in danger of being taken over, would you go fight?

Ryan
You bet your ass.

Dark Jaguar
That is a non-possibility. In that weird world where America could actually be taken over, I'd look into how America got into that position and why the other nation is attacking. I'd also be considering hiding somewhere if it looked to be a dead matchup, and when the battle is over, I'd run in and take over BOTH nations myself.

alien space marine
I would hide in a ambulance truck and sniper the enemy.

Geno
I'd support the troops, but I wouldn't find on the front lines. I'd just be another number on the casualty count.

A Black Falcon
No.

alien space marine
Cowardice! its a good thing are grandfathers werent such wimps that would let other people die for their own freedom.

Great Rumbler
Depends.

alien space marine
If there was no hope for Victory then you quit and live to fight another day.
If the enemies goal was to completely anailate all life and kill everything they conquere, Then you have no choice but to fight to survive.

Fittisize
That is a non-possibility. In that weird world where America could actually be taken over, I'd look into how America got into that position and why the other nation is attacking. I'd also be considering hiding somewhere if it looked to be a dead matchup, and when the battle is over, I'd run in and take over BOTH nations myself.

Well try not to look too deep into it...say if you were from a different country, then.

Cowardice! its a good thing are grandfathers werent such wimps that would let other people die for their own freedom.
But uh, you do know that a lot of them were forced to go and fight and die for our freedom?

A Black Falcon
Yeah if they'd had the choice a lot of them would most certainly not have gone...

Ryan
Most of them would. Most people, even noncoms, understood that if we didn't fight then, fighting would eventually come to us, and destroy America the way Europe was destroyed. Many were afraid, and certainly there were some who wished the task never fell to them, but they weren't cowards like many are today.

We're lucky our grandfathers were brave men, but we should also be lucky that most everyone else was also brave and strong. We didn't have people subverting the war effort, calling their own troops murderers and killers, and staging demonstrations to lower our own morale. Americans then, by and large, were courageous people. Certainly, many probably did not want to go fight in the 40's, and many would never outright volunteer, but those who were conscripted knew that the stakes were high and their duty was to fight for their country. And this was before we knew the true depths of horror Germany and Japan were capable of.

Unfortunately, the boom and prosperity that followed WWII created a generation of whiny losers who hated the country they lived in and had no problem letting everyone know. Unfortunately, there's quite a bit of that today yet, even if those people today are a bit more subtle about it.

I would not volunteer for combat because I feel that I would be a liability. Being a soldier means you are responsible for the lives of your comrades, and I would be afraid of becoming a liability to them. However, if drafted, I would have no complaints about it. I enjoy the freedoms of America and if I were to dodge the draft, I would be a coward and I wouldn't deserve the right and privelege to live here. If it came to the point where I had to fight for America, I would do so without any regrets, save for one: I'd be putting my life on the line for a lot of people, and some of them don't deserve it.

Dark Jaguar
ANOTHER country eh? Depends. Is that country evil? If so, I'd likely be heading straight to some decent 1st world country at the first chance. I'm not fighting for Hitler ya know.

Geno
If bad came to worse, sure, I'd fight if I had to. Only if the circumstances were great, which I don't see happening anytime in my life. I'm not physically strong and have bad reaction time (except in video games), and war isn't exactly a sport. However, if all hell broke loose, I'd have nothing to live for sitting at home while the war is being fight in my frontyard. In such a case, I would fight, even if I was killed immediately, at least I'd go down fighting instead of cheerleading or hiding.

A Black Falcon
Yes because of course you know how many of them would have gone. :rolleyes:

But for WW2 in the military situation we were just lucky that it started with something like Pearl Harbor. Until then the antiwar, isolationist movement was VERY strong and Roosevelt, who was doing all he could to help the Allies, could only send some supplies to England... without Pearl Harbor, and then Hitler's idiotic declaration of war against us (I am far from convinced that had he not declared war on us we would have anyway, at least not until we defeated Japan first...), I'm sure that the draft would have caused a huge amount of anger.

Ryan
Oh, I'm sorry. I'm just an ignorant, uneducated Virginia rube, and I don't know shit. You being the educated and sophisticated Yankee scholar that you are, YOU know how many WOULDN'T have gone, I guess.

Dick.

A Black Falcon
Didn't really read my post then.

alien space marine
Hitler was a Moron , Invading Russia and then declaring war on the U.S which was his down fall, I guess he didnt have good inteligence. I guess he thought that the U.S was screwed having to fight Japan but I guess he was suprised you guys could do a two front war.

A Black Falcon
Germany and Japan both thought the US was so soft and would never really fight and victory would be easy... they were surprised when once riled the US became a very strong combatant and drowned them all in military production. As I said, without Pearl Harbor...

Yes, Weltall, after Pearl lots of people did want to fight. As I said if not for that the situation would have been very different. Hitler may have been evil but the average American was somewhat isolationist and didn't really want to get involved in another European war...

Dark Jaguar
Back then America didn't really completely overpower like they do today. Back then it truly was a struggle, which is why so many of our soldiers were lost. In the end, with the help of our allies, we managed to win the day. In part due to bad decisions on the enemie's part and in part due to very good strategies we used, but not due to superior technology that overwhelmed the enemy, well except in the case of Japan. Who knows how well that would have gone if not for E=MC<sup>2</sup>

Dark Lord Neo
I'd have to consider it
I wouldn't just blindly fight, I'd want to know why we were being invaded

Fittisize
Hm..what if there was conscription, and you had no choice but to fight. How would you oppose.

Personally if my country was in danger of being taken over, I'd fight for it.

A Black Falcon
I don't fight and I wouldn't...

And as for Japan, there's plenty of controversy over whether Japan would have surrendered eventually without the A-Bomb or whether it was needed... and if the second one was needed of if given some more time they would have surrendered anyway after just one. Okay, true, at the time the American leaders had really no idea how horrific a A-Bomb would be, but still... it was a tragedy and even more sad if it could have been avoided.

Did you know we killed probably between 450,000 and 500,000 Japanese civilians during our bombings in World War II? Compared to about 250,000 American soldiers killed in the whole war...

The question really was when the military group in charge in Japan was vulnerable. If they had been given the choice they would have fought to the death and the Japanese people, after so many decades of what essentially was brainwashing, would have followed their leaders wherever they lead... when could some people who wanted peace finally get enough power to get the Emperor to go over the warlords and announce surrender? And of course the Soviets play a huge role here. Truman wanted to keep the Soviets from taking more land. I think that played at least as big a role as the stated reason (saving American lives in an invasion)... quite possibly more. The Cold War had begun even before WWII ended and we were trying to keep the Soviets from getting more land... given enough time it is possible that Japan could have surrendered. The militarists were wavering. But of course we'll never know... either that or whether if the Soviets would have invaded Japan too and taken a chunk of that country as well...

Ryan
You would. "A conservative is a liberal who got mugged", so the saying goes. Either that, or you'd welcome your new overlords with open arms. I'm not quite sure.

As far as Japan goes, no point second-guessing what we did. Japan might have surrendered without the bomb, but they certainly DID with it. Therefore, it was the right thing to do.

Nor do I feel a bit of guilt over their civilians. First, they started that war. Second, they'd have done worse to us if given the chance.

A Black Falcon
Yes because of course the Japanese civilians knew everything that was going on and condoned all of the military's actions... :rolleyes:

Now, I definitely agree that their value system was twisted. However, I can't blame the civilians for it. In that situation anyone would have ended up that way. I mean, since the 1860s the government had been emphasizing how important it was for Japan to be strong! They taught it and many of its side effects -- Japan needed industry. Equal trade relationships. A strong military. An empire. Equal fleets. Anything less and Japan was lesser than the West and they were obsessed with being as good as or better than the West... and the people were as I said trained to be militaristic. Now in class we just reached the 30s, but in the 20s there was a more democratic period... abut as I explained before while there were trappings of democracy the military was full of hardliners who wanted to expand their Chinese territories, and they got the chance when Hirohito took the throne... and its spiralled from there...

Did the Japanese people support the action in Manchuria? Yeah, probably. It was in defence of national honor, "protecting the Manchurians" (the government was very good at propaganda among its people), etc... and as I said they'd conveniently forget to mention all the massacres of civilians, the war atrocities, and all of that -- just the good stuff. The Japanese didn't learn what their troops had done to people until 1945.

Yes, breaking that system would be hard. And the A-Bomb probably was the easy and safe way out, making the peace faction a lot stronger in a hurry. But still... hundreds of thousands died... and most WERE innocent. At least guilty of nothing more than believing what their superiors told them and remember Japan was and still is a top-down society.

Darunia
I most certainly would go and fight. Bill Clinton would go to Canada and wait it out with Chretien; and all the world would forget about our favors and alliances and leave us to fight for ourselves---but we'd win anyay.

Darunia
Did you know we killed probably between 450,000 and 500,000 Japanese civilians during our bombings in World War II? Compared to about 250,000 American soldiers killed in the whole war...

Those numbers onyl reflect the fact that we won. If the Japanese had won, their losses would be lower and ours higher. If they'd won the Pacific, they would've bombed our cities and we'd have suffered more. It goes without saying that the winner will suffer fewer losses. And as for the legitimacy of using the A-bombs, I too ponder that...if we shouldn't have maybe just nuked a small village or nuked off-shore. That would've painted their panties brown without being so direct. Maybe we could've nuked a fishing ground, then moved up to worse targets until they gave in---but at least we didn't pull any Nankings or Bataans on their sorry, war-mongering asses.

Fittisize
As far as Japan goes, no point second-guessing what we did. Japan might have surrendered without the bomb, but they certainly DID with it. Therefore, it was the right thing to do.
Ah yes, of course the quickest and easiest way out of winning the war is the right thing to do. It doesn't matter how many innocent lives were lost and how many others continued to die from radiation afterwards...the point is that we Americans won the war. "USA: We'll find the quickest way and easiest way to get to anything! Damn the consequences!"

Nor do I feel a bit of guilt over their civilians. First, they started that war. Second, they'd have done worse to us if given the chance.
Right...so because you think that all the Japanese would do much worse, all those innocent lives deserved to go. You're probably right that every single civilian was an evil Hitler-lover and hated everything USA. But then again, you're not.

Ryan
Okay. Let's say we didn't bomb them. Let's say we decided a war of attrition was the best course. It might, in the long run, result in a lower civvie casualty total, though it is quite likely that it would not, also. It would certainly result in greater American casualties, some speculate that number exponential to what they were. The last, and most potentially devastating factor to consider is that Japanese scientists were hard at work on their own A-Bomb, and it would be stupid to allow them more time to develop it, especially since at the time, we knew they were working on it, but we had no idea how far along they were. And they undoubtedly would have used it on us if given the chance.

And, perhaps it's the realist in me, but the lives of my fellow countrymen mean more to me than the civilians of a mortal enemy, one that obviously did not give a damn about civilians themselves. Before you damn America for doing something that most likely saved many more lives than ended, consider what Japan would do if they were in America's position in 1945. They'd have built as many A-Bombs as possible and nuke us as far back to the Stone Age as they could, for theirs was a culture that did not believe in surrender, for themselves or from their enemy. They wouldn't care that you hate the country you live in, that you live there damns you.

Dark Jaguar
Now I'll just add this. Maybe the best thing to do WOULD have been to drop the first nuke in an unoccupied area, though close enough that everyone would notice it immediatly. However, had that not worked, the second bomb assuredly should have been dropped where people were. In other words, try it a way that only let them know of our POWER OF ULTIMATE FISSIONOSITY THAT ALL ENERGY BLASTS IN ANIME AND VIDEO GAMES MADE THERE WILL HENCEFORTH EMULATE (and in an obvious way too), and if that wasn't enough, THEN let them know we aren't afraid to use it to kill as well. That might have been the best strat when it comes right down to it, using one to give a great fear, and if it turned out the culture wouldn't give in JUST to a show of power, then also show you will use it whenever possible. However, it's very likely that that would have had to be done anyway, so it's nothing to really get guilty over. War is NOT pretty or honorable. It's a very ugly and grim reality of death. It's all just plain killing, so in the end it really IS all about doing what it takes to win because it's all killing in the end. It's easy to make certain people look like a hero, and yes they are, but the truth is that they are killing people so there's really nothing that can be said except it's about survival. Grim yes, but that's the reality. So, before claiming we were very honorable UNTIL the bombing, remember that it's all horrid killing, and it all just had to be done to safeguard America. Don't make it out to sound like the other lives taken were any more virtuous. It's not the killing, or who is killed, or how they are killed, where the virtue lies. It's in the risking of one's own life.

So, I guess that if we ever attacked a country with nothing but robotic dolls, that would be cowardice...

Fittisize
Air and land combat: the soldiers knew that they were killing, and both sides wanted to do so.
Dropping of the A-Bomb: the Americans may have wanted to kill, but how many people that died as a result of the A-bomb wanted to kill?

A Black Falcon
Racism plays a huge factor here. Remember, this is the '40s. America didn't just hate the Germans and Japanese... watch some '40s Looney Tunes cartoons. They are instructive. Or political cartoons.

The Germans, and Hitler, are mocked. Hitler generally looks like a fool and they regularly humiliate him. The Germans are stupid and silly but not sinister or something...

The Japanese? Almost subhuman. Very sterotyped looks. This conformed with the time -- Americans were quite racist against non-whites. Before the war it was common to insult the Japanese Empire and believe that they had nothing like modern technology -- those people aren't like us and aren't as good as us and could never be as good as us... it was almost unconcious racism and even some people who had said things against racism were racist against Asians sometimes (like Dr. Seuss -- in WW2 he was a political cartoonist and made several that were racist against the Japanese...). And American soldiers thought of them as not really human... probably makes it easier to kill them, but it breeds a high level of racism.

Now of course the Japanese thought they were superior to us as well and thought they had much better will and stuff and the soft Americans would lose because we are so weak and unwilling to fight, but when you talk about that remember that we were the same towards them. And I am sure that that affected Truman's decision. As I said, had they finished the A-Bomb before Germany fell and they thought they could keep the Soviets out of Eastern Germany by using it (because I suspect that in Japan the anti-Soviet effect was one of the prime reasons for using the bomb), would they have used it? I bet not. Germans are white.

Ryan
Now of course the Japanese thought they were superior to us as well and thought they had much better will and stuff and the soft Americans would lose because we are so weak and unwilling to fight, but when you talk about that remember that we were the same towards them. And I am sure that that affected Truman's decision. As I said, had they finished the A-Bomb before Germany fell and they thought they could keep the Soviets out of Eastern Germany by using it (because I suspect that in Japan the anti-Soviet effect was one of the prime reasons for using the bomb), would they have used it? I bet not. Germans are white.
Well, Japan was a different situation than Germany was, also. By the time it got to the point where the Soviets were a major concern to us was when the two fronts met. Basically, Germany was already in the vice, and Hitler's Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe and SS were all but neutered. Japan, on the other hand, was certainly not in a position to make a comeback victory, but they could have possibly sustained a war of attrition for years to come. They were beaten but not defeated the way Germany was. We needed not to just beat Japan, we needed to cut their balls off too, ensure that they would never be such a threat to us again. Assuming we just said, "Okay, we took back their empire, shoved them back to their four islands, let's call it a day", that would not have happened. Japan would have taken her lumps and possibly desire a rematch... after she developed her own atom bomb. Not desirable at all. The other alternative to the bombing was to produce a ground invasion, and there are very few people who believe that would have gone well. Some predicted as many as a million American casualties in such an enterprise. We might have defeated them in conventional invasion, we also might very well have failed, the only certain outcome would be terrible devastation that Europe knew all too well. The death totals for both sides would have likely been astronomical. So, the alternative to dissecting Japan limb by limb was to go straight for the balls. Thus, the A-bomb. It did exactly that. It snapped their will to resist like dry kindling over a knee. The result was a large amount of Japanese casualties, and there's nothing honorable about that, but to suggest it would have been better to undertake an invasion that would have certainly cost many times more, not only in numbers of casualties but sheer destruction, is fallacy.

I believe the bombs were dropped primarily to neuter the Japanese, with the added bonus of not only proving to the Soviets that we had the bomb, but to show them exactly what it was capable of, and what the consequences were. It was quite unfortunate that the commies were so close themselves, but in 1945 they were still several years behind, and it is quite likely that they were... not scared, so to speak, but cautious. They knew that until they got the bomb themselves, fucking with the United States was a pretty bad idea. Thus, we were able to take Japan and rebuild the nation, without the many problems that we had attempting to do the same thing in Germany. Japan was stable and self-sufficient within about ten years or so, it took Germany nearly four times as long, and it took the collapse of communist Russia, for that to happen. If we didn't scare the commies away from Japan, they would be a stagnant pit just as Germany is now.

Darunia
"USA: We'll find the quickest way and easiest way to get to anything! Damn the consequences!"

Japan certainly found the quickest and easiest way to bring us INTO to war by suddenly bombing us just shy of a legitimate declaration of war.

Racism plays a huge factor here. Remember, this is the '40s. America didn't just hate the Germans and Japanese... watch some '40s Looney Tunes cartoons. They are instructive. Or political cartoons.

Man, those are some fine cartoons too. It's a shame that they were pulled from the air waves by uptight liberals (cough cough). I admit, though, that they are obviously tainted, and were a form of propaganda.

Dropping of the A-Bomb: the Americans may have wanted to kill, but how many people that died as a result of the A-bomb wanted to kill?

How many of the sailors, soldiers and civilians who were sleeping in, going to church or doing their peacetime duty wanted to go kill the Japanese prior to their being bombed? I bet if you'd interviewed anyone at Pearl Harbor at 6:30am on December 7th, they would've rather kept on sleeping than go get blown up.

The Germans, and Hitler, are mocked. Hitler generally looks like a fool and they regularly humiliate him. The Germans are stupid and silly but not sinister or something...

Well isn't that just a fucking crying shame. On behalf of the United States, I would like to apologize to the Nazi party, and especially Hitler, for that callous barbaric behavior. We were wrong to "humiliate" you, Hitler. You deserve better. I tried getting the state of Israel to join me in this apologetic motion, but they weren't inclined to feel so apologetic. Something about a holoca---holocron or something like that.

EdenMaster
And as for Japan, there's plenty of controversy over whether Japan would have surrendered eventually without the A-Bomb or whether it was needed... and if the second one was needed of if given some more time they would have surrendered anyway after just one. Okay, true, at the time the American leaders had really no idea how horrific a A-Bomb would be, but still... it was a tragedy and even more sad if it could have been avoided.

Did you know we killed probably between 450,000 and 500,000 Japanese civilians during our bombings in World War II? Compared to about 250,000 American soldiers killed in the whole war...

When they attacked us, we didn't have the nuke. They were probably aware of what weapons we had (except the A-Bomb) and thought they had similar firepower to overtake us. They came bombed Pearl Harbor, so we showed our teeth. We nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki and then the Japanese knew very well that they were greatly outgunned and ran to us with their tail between their legs. The blame for lives lost in those two cities rested solely on the shoulders of Japans leaders. You'd rather more brave American lives would have been lost than the lives of those who attacked us in the first place? America isn't to be toyed with, and we showed them why that day.

See what "Our words are backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!" can do for your standing an conflict?

As for fighting, I'd rather not go, I'm not built for combat nor in shape and I'll admit I'd be more of a pain than an assistance for the effort. Were I to be drafted I woudn't be too pleased, but I'd go.

Fittisize
Dropping of the A-Bomb: the Americans may have wanted to kill, but how many people that died as a result of the A-bomb wanted to kill?

How many of the sailors, soldiers and civilians who were sleeping in, going to church or doing their peacetime duty wanted to go kill the Japanese prior to their being bombed? I bet if you'd interviewed anyone at Pearl Harbor at 6:30am on December 7th, they would've rather kept on sleeping than go get blown up.

Try and think of your fellow man instead of just your fellow Americans. The amount of deaths in Pearl Harbour barely scratches the surface compared to how many died as a result of the A-Bombs. Yeesh, that and all the lukemia deaths due to radiation afterwards...

EdenMaster
We didn't want to do it, we were pressed to do it. Hiroshima and Nagasaki would stand just the same today if they hadn't gotten bold and attacked us. The blame is theirs, one-hundred percent. Who knows how many Americans would have been killed if the war had been allowed to linger on for the sake of sparing the lives of those THAT WE WERE FIGHTING IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Fittisize
There were better options to ending the war than blowing up two cities and killing half a million people! The Americans are to blame for killing all of those people...yeesh, USA's armed forces are extremely powerful, I'm sure they could have found a way to end that war in a more respectful way...like what was mentioned above, maybe nuking an unihabited area to let them know what they're capabale of. "Shock and awe"

EdenMaster
Many large cities lie on the shore of the Pacific. Seattle, San Franciso, Los Angeles to name a few. A few big bombing in even one of those cites would have been a big deal.

Nuking a field wouldn't have the same impact. It wouldn't prove anything. Let's use expensive weapons to radiate our enemies fields while they attack our cities! They'll surrender before we know it! Besides, we only had two A-Bombs at that point, and they were expensive, we couldn't afford to waste them. We were lucky they surrendered after we used them, because we didn't have any more.

Fittisize
I dunno, are you even aware of what Shock and Awe is?

Just because you have atom bombs doesn't mean you have to use them. How much does USA spend on building nuclear bombs a year? Does that mean that you should go out bombing other cities now?

A Black Falcon
We didn't want to do it, we were pressed to do it. Hiroshima and Nagasaki would stand just the same today if they hadn't gotten bold and attacked us. The blame is theirs, one-hundred percent. Who knows how many Americans would have been killed if the war had been allowed to linger on for the sake of sparing the lives of those THAT WE WERE FIGHTING IN THE FIRST PLACE!

If you say that the blame of the Pacific War in WW2 was theirs, 100%, you do not know your history one bit. Yes, their agression was their fault. However war was not a given. We forced confrontation, you see.

Okay... it's the 1930s. Japan is at war with China in their unending struggle to gain empire that went bad when they hit the sheer size of China. They are growing bolder, and are thinking of also going southeast. They see the European conflict coming and realize that like in WW1 the Europeans will not be able to defend their colonies and they can bite off some chunks. Of course then they look at us, the US, and see a weak (in military might and will to fight) nation that is "spiritually deficient". They want to secure the Southeast Asian oil fields that they rely on for oil. Just like with Hitler taking Romania so that he can get oil his war machine requires, Japan was using Southeast Asian oil. But the US put a block in their path. Roosevelt wanted confrontation with the Axis, in a nation that was not prepared for war. He took a course that he must have known would lead to war. We cut off funds from the US, blocked their holdings in US banks, blocked trade... then working with Britain tried to block them from their oil. So either Japan backs down and reduces its militarism or they attack us. Given the culture in Japan at the time (as I have detailed), militarists controlled the government utterly at this time, and the Emperor was just another pawn of the militarist-industrialist-imperialist group that had so much power (politically, economically, etc). Well the government was elected (by 2.4% of the people), but the army, especially in China, was almost autonomous and started the China war all on its own... when militarists took power at home too as they soon did (rising patriotism in Japan swept prowar factions to power -- as I said they had indoctrinated their people well) there was no chance for that. So war was inevitable.

Now is that an indictment of Pearl Harbor? No. No one really expected a strike there... they were just expecting a move on Southeast Asia (Guam, the Phillipines, etc).

And I object strongly to your implications (that Weltall says many times) that the civilians are the same as the government... for any country. Like Germany. Yes, some people were evil there (like people who participated in anti-Jewish actions) but most? I doubt it. They just were patriotic (wanted to defend the tattered honor of their country and get revenge on the nations who had humiliated them) and (like all Westerners, as I said last time...) but somewhat racist (here is another forgotten fact -- Americans too were racist against Jews. Why do you think that we heard some word of the Holocaust for years but didn't pay any attention until we actually uncovered the camps themselves? Yeah, Americans had some lingering but real dislike for Jews...) people... following a man who clearly was extremely charismatic, Hitler. Was their cause wrong? Yes. Were some of them evil, like death squads and many of the SS? Yup. But does that indict the CIVILIANS as well as the army? No way! We did of course bomb Germany, including firebombings like in Dresden... it's a simpler way to kill civilians, from the sky, you can almost forget you are killing people... Germany and the USSR did it on the ground, in that horrific and extremely bloody war on the Eastern Front that held few prisoners and led to millions of civilian casualties.

Yes, the Germans elected Hitler. They are guilty of that. But again, he was extremely charismatic and was in the right place at the right time. Without the Great Depression none of it would have happened so I guess we can blame the European war in WW2 on ourselves because after all it was our economy that blew up and caused the whole thing (because 20's Germany invested very heavily in the US stock market to pay off the massive indemnity that the Allies had forced on it after WW1)... the point is that no one is really blameless here. In Japan militarists took power that is true but it was a reaction to not wanting to go the way of China and be subjugated... they just took 'we must be equal with the west' too far and mixed it liberally with their racism against everyone else...

Anyway, the point is that more often than not the people are pawns of the powerful, and the powerful are to blame for what occurs, not the people. Killing the people for the fault of the powerful is cruel...

Try and think of your fellow man instead of just your fellow Americans. The amount of deaths in Pearl Harbour barely scratches the surface compared to how many died as a result of the A-Bombs. Yeesh, that and all the lukemia deaths due to radiation afterwards...

Definitely. I may be American but I would never presume to say that that makes me better than anyone else... it's just luck that I (or you) are not a starving person in Africa, and while we can only do so much consideration for others does matter. Doing evil that is by your perspective good is no less evil, but it explains how you could be doing evil and why and, if you truly did not know what the right was, could explain it away... the A-Bomb was good by a 'saving American lives' perspective but the objective observer would look at it by ALL perspectives not just that one limited one.

When they attacked us, we didn't have the nuke. They were probably aware of what weapons we had (except the A-Bomb) and thought they had similar firepower to overtake us. They came bombed Pearl Harbor, so we showed our teeth. We nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki and then the Japanese knew very well that they were greatly outgunned and ran to us with their tail between their legs. The blame for lives lost in those two cities rested solely on the shoulders of Japans leaders. You'd rather more brave American lives would have been lost than the lives of those who attacked us in the first place? America isn't to be toyed with, and we showed them why that day.

See what "Our words are backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!" can do for your standing an conflict?

Even we did not know the true effects of the A-Bomb so they had no clue about that. As for the rest by the end it was mostly pride that kept them going. Pride and honor. By their code death was preferable to surrender... they knew they were doomed and victory was impossible but they were prepared to die (and with them have die millions of their citizens) because of how unthinkable surrender was. Now late in the war less extreme factions were gaining strength, but as I explained in depth before we will never truly know if they would have succeeded (and surrendered without a massive American invasion or A-Bombs) or not... it didn't go that way so we won't know. But it's sad that the world was not given the chance. I think there was one... maybe a atomic test in some uninhabited area near Japan could have sufficed to show we had a weapon of incredible power, but using it on people with them having no true idea of the apocalypse of what they faced? That is wrong.

Japan certainly found the quickest and easiest way to bring us INTO to war by suddenly bombing us just shy of a legitimate declaration of war.

Surprise attack was a frequent Japanese modus opurandi. We were expecting one. It was a surprise that it was at Pearl Harbor, that is true, but that has as much to do with a long series of intelligence and logic errors as it does to do with the daring to attack our fleet in its base...

Man, those are some fine cartoons too. It's a shame that they were pulled from the air waves by uptight liberals (cough cough). I admit, though, that they are obviously tainted, and were a form of propaganda.

It's an interesting way to see WWII American propaganda...

Well isn't that just a fucking crying shame. On behalf of the United States, I would like to apologize to the Nazi party, and especially Hitler, for that callous barbaric behavior. We were wrong to "humiliate" you, Hitler. You deserve better. I tried getting the state of Israel to join me in this apologetic motion, but they weren't inclined to feel so apologetic. Something about a holoca---holocron or something like that.

You look like you don't understand my point there. We just insult and make buffoons of the Nazis despite the horrors they brought on Europe. The Japanese? They we made subhuman in a way, made them look as stereotyped as possible with shoddy construction and building materials (because Asians can't do things as well as whites..), and make them sinister, evil, backstabbing... it's a noticable contrast if you watch or read this stuff and it's mostly due to racism.


Weltall's latest post.

Japan still was a threat? Well yes, because they'd fight to the death house by house. But they had no navy or air force. And much of the army was stuck in China. They had a lot of troops in Japan but it was more civilians than anything... but they would have fought for the Emperor had he asked it and they were expecting it. Many Japanese were expecting to die and when surrender came they were in a sense granted life... to reassess their world I guess. That mindset is of course what brought them there, and it's why you might have a point that an invasion would be catastrophic. The question really is 'how much would it take to knock the militarists out of power'. And as I've detailed, we don't know the answer to that question. So the A-Bomb was a thing you can defend in some respects, but still I think that 'bomb somewhere uninhabited (but with something there to show off its power) and wait a few weeks to see if something happens (this brings up another thing -- Nagasaki was probably unnecessary. Without it Japan was well on the road to surrender and it was just tens of thousands of needless casualties, that likely served no purpose but maybe move up the surrender a few days...)... no need to add more thousands of civilians on our concience...

As for postwar, BTW, Japan was occupied for six years. By the end it was a strong nation. We did of course keep troops there afterwards and still have 30,000 troops in Japan, but in 1952 we gave them back their soveirgnty. Of course we did force on them a very liberal constitution in the process... here I think you are wrong. I don't think we would have accepted anything less than unconditional surrender, and once that happened some kind of new government was a given. One as liberal as the Japanese constitution formed it as? Possibly not. But certainly not one like the one that was in place, where for instance civil rights can be suspended at will...

... long post. Can you tell I love history? :D

Ryan
If you say that the blame of the Pacific War in WW2 was theirs, 100%, you do not know your history one bit. Yes, their agression was their fault. However war was not a given. We forced confrontation, you see.
What? We cut off supplies. Therefore, we in some way deserved to get attacked? Because of that we share the blame? That's absurd. They had choices, as you said. They could back down or lash out. They made the wrong choice, completely of their own volition. And they paid dearly for it.

You look like you don't understand my point there. We just insult and make buffoons of the Nazis despite the horrors they brought on Europe. The Japanese? They we made subhuman in a way, made them look as stereotyped as possible with shoddy construction and building materials (because Asians can't do things as well as whites..), and make them sinister, evil, backstabbing... it's a noticable contrast if you watch or read this stuff and it's mostly due to racism.
Do you remember the massive German backlash there was in the First World War?

It also bears noting that much of America's action for a good deal of our involvement was against Japan. Until D-Day, there really wasn't a huge American presence against Germany. For most of the war Japan was our nemesis. When we were finally able to start throwing our weight around in Europe, Germany collapsed pretty quickly. They weren't the immediate threat to America that Japan was. Racism? Yeah, that had something to do with it. But the fact that Japan was much closer to home and for a while practically knocking on the door, coupled with their coward's attack against us while in peace talks doubtless made Americans far more pissed at the Japanese than we were with Hitler.

For the rest, I will agree with Nagasaki. There was no point to a second bomb. We should have been a tad more patient. But the first was an absolute necessity in my opinion. The only way to beat sense into a people with a death wish is to grant it for a few thousand of them.

Fittisize
Right...or a few hundred thousand innocent deaths.

The dropping of the a-bomb, one of the greatest blunders in history.

Ryan
The second one, yes. Not the first. Better a few hundred thousand than several million.

Fittisize
"Several million"? If the war would have been finished without the dropping of the atom bomb, I am quite sure that the death toll wouldn't have totalled more than the innocents lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

Ryan
Then do a little more research into Japanese culture of the era, and how the citizens were indoctrinated with a 'fight to the death' doctrine that would have definitely come into play given a ground invasion. The casuality total would have been exponentially higher.

EdenMaster
The Japanese are all about honor in battle, as pointed out earlier. Kamikaze runs and ground invasion would have claimed many lives, just as innocent as the Japanese who died. Dropping the bomb was not a plunder, it was showing our teeth to a nation who thought they had the balls to defeat us.

Say what you will, dropping a bomb in an uninhabited area is like beating up on a crash test dummy rather than your enemy and hoping it'll convince them to surrender. Come on now. I'd say vaporizing their cities gave them just enough "Shock and Awe", don't you?

ABF: What did you do, copy a textbook?? That may very well be the longest post in TC history!

Fittisize
Then do a little more research into Japanese culture of the era, and how the citizens were indoctrinated with a 'fight to the death' doctrine that would have definitely come into play given a ground invasion. The casuality total would have been exponentially higher.

USA had approximately 295,000 casualties. Japan, 1,806,000. Um, Japan was 'exponentially higher' in the casualties department. The war was all but won. No need for the a-bomb.

*Edit-type in WWII Casualties on Altavista and some searches come up for some casual ties from WWII. :D

Ryan
USA had approximately 295,000 casualties. Japan, 1,806,000. Um, Japan was 'exponentially higher' in the casualties department. The war was all but won. No need for the a-bomb.

*Edit-type in WWII Casualties on Altavista and some searches come up for some casual ties from WWII. :D
There were still, at the least, a million men in Japan's military when the decision was made to drop the bombs. We did eliminate their navy and air force for the most part, but to invade and capture Japan city by city? There's no telling if we'd even win such a war, to say nothing of scoring a very costly victory. To conduct such an invasion totally from the sea, being vastly outnumbered... the only way there wouldn't be a huge body count is if we were soundly defeated and driven off. Hardly something to hope for.

Japan's casualty total for the war was very high, but then again, their war essentially started several years before we got involved.

Plus, my statement still stands. Those casualty numbers, for both sides, would have been far larger if we had invaded instead of dropping the bomb. There is little room for debate on that topic.

What you're essentially saying is that dropping the bomb was the worst thing we could have done, but you can offer no plausable alternative to it.

Dark Jaguar
<EMBED src="http://www.eviltrailmix.com/extra/presidents.swf" quality=high bgcolor=#FFFFFF WIDTH="500" HEIGHT="350" NAME="presidents"</embed>

Fittisize
What you're essentially saying is that dropping the bomb was the worst thing we could have done, but you can offer no plausable alternative to it.

Fighting the war without dropping the bomb would have indeed been a better alternative...the body count could have possibly (but not likely) rang up as high as the number killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but they wouldn't have been *innocents*. 500,000 deaths of soldiers who would die fighting for their country, or at least knowing that fighting could have very well brought about their demise, compared to 500,000 (or more? how many in total died from the a-bomb droppings?) innocent bystanders...

Fittisize
ABF: What did you do, copy a textbook?? That may very well be the longest post in TC history!

I disagree. I remember way, way back when in the Perfect Dark Countdown thread demon made a post that was like, at least twice as large as that one....

Dark Jaguar
And I myself have made posts longer than this whole thread before, most of them unintelligable gibberish, and one my analysis of the Zelda storyline.

A Black Falcon
ABF: What did you do, copy a textbook?? That may very well be the longest post in TC history!
That was ~6 800x screens long. I know that Weltall and I have bested that in some of our political "duscussions"... :)

And ... well I'm currently reading a book about WWII and am taking a class about Japan 1860-now, so... oh and last fall I read about half of a lengthy book about the American occupation in Japan after WWII. Very good book...

And yes, as I said if their leaders had ordered them to fight to the death many people would have done so and personal reservations or certain defeat were beside the point. This is a good question that we cannot come up with a definitive answer to. It didn't happen, after all... :) But still the question -- how much would it have taken for Japan to surrender -- is a good one. Maybe we should wait a few months, I'm sure I'll know more by the end of this class I'm taking... :) But based on what I know now it is a tough one. As I said militarists were falling but still clung to some power until the A-Bomb gave the peace side enough strength to act... I don't know, it might have taken something on the magnitude of Hiroshima to give the peace side enough strength to act. But still... I think that maybe Hiroshima (as I said Nagasaki was a waste and served no purpose) could have been avoided. Yes, dropping one in some uninhabited (or close to it) area of Japan wouldn't be quite as big a statement, but it would be one once they figure out the destructive potential of the weapon... I do think that had we just waited the militarists would have held on to enough power to force us to attack Japan in an attack that would lead to mass casualties on both sides, but did we need to blow up a CITY? I think the answer is no. It might not have been quite as good a statement but it'd still be a great one and would have saved the world a lot of trouble... and if (when given enough time -- 3 days is NOT enough!) that didn't work, THEN consider using it on an inhabited city, now that they'd know the true power of the weapon (saying 'we have a weapon of unimaginable power' isn't very useful when no one has any conception of what this thing can do...) and still refused surrender. But I think that that might have destabilized the government enough. But we'll never know for sure of course.

What? We cut off supplies. Therefore, we in some way deserved to get attacked? Because of that we share the blame? That's absurd. They had choices, as you said. They could back down or lash out. They made the wrong choice, completely of their own volition. And they paid dearly for it.

No. We cut off supplies so we knew that an attack was virtual certainty. And we had signs -- the attack hardly came out of the blue. As I said we had cut their oil so they had a small window of a few months to act before their oil supply grew very low and some kind of decision was forced. And given that militarists were in control a peaceful solution and some kind of withdrawl was quite uniikely. So Roosevelt knew that this would likely lead to war... because they would not back down or see reason. Well for the majority of course. Some Japanese had really looked at the USA and seen that behind the apparent softness was a great nation and knew that Japan could never hope to win a long war, but the majority opinion was that of our weakness and Japanese 'moral superiority' that would lead them to victory against the soft Americans. And then of course Pearl Harbor... as I said it should not have been a surprise. We knew in the day or so prior that Japan would attack somewhere. The Phillipines were expecting assualt, and Guam... Pearl was far out and wasn't expecting anything, but still (basing this on said WWII book I read) there were things that should have shown it... a warning from Washington that attack was coming was blocked by poor reception and didn't get to Pearl Harbor until after the battle started, that radar station assumed that the Japanese planes were an expected flight from California and not an enemy force, other Japanese messages clearly marking Pearl Harbor were unread in the intercepted communications part of the decoding operation, etc...

And yes a surprise attack was not the way you shouid start a war but as I said Japan in recent history had done it multiple times before so it was hardly a tactic that we did not expect them to use.

Do you remember the massive German backlash there was in the First World War?

Yeah, they were all baby-killing Huns, right?

It also bears noting that much of America's action for a good deal of our involvement was against Japan. Until D-Day, there really wasn't a huge American presence against Germany. For most of the war Japan was our nemesis. When we were finally able to start throwing our weight around in Europe, Germany collapsed pretty quickly. They weren't the immediate threat to America that Japan was. Racism? Yeah, that had something to do with it. But the fact that Japan was much closer to home and for a while practically knocking on the door, coupled with their coward's attack against us while in peace talks doubtless made Americans far more pissed at the Japanese than we were with Hitler.

Hmm. I disagree. We did not focus on Japan ahead of Germany. Look at the invasions in North Africa in 1942 and Italy in 1943 before Normandy in 1944... actually for a while we were thinking HItler first, then the Japanese. We did change that and start island-hopping while acting in Europe as well, but still I would say that we focused more on Germany than Japan. Of course the fact that Germany had England and Russia also fighting them hard while only China and some British on the south and west edges were fighting Japan had an impact too, but we decided for a while to more slow Japan than put on a full assualt... I think that's why it took as long as it did. But I'd say that we were able to fight that two-front war pretty effectively, with plenty of emphasis on both fronts the whole time to be able to do more than just hold the line...

Great Rumbler
That was hilarious, DJ! :D

Ryan
Fighting the war without dropping the bomb would have indeed been a better alternative...the body count could have possibly (but not likely) rang up as high as the number killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but they wouldn't have been *innocents*. 500,000 deaths of soldiers who would die fighting for their country, or at least knowing that fighting could have very well brought about their demise, compared to 500,000 (or more? how many in total died from the a-bomb droppings?) innocent bystanders...
...That is likely the most ridiculous thing I've ever read here that wasn't posted by ABF. :hmm:

I would think the ideal would be to prevent as many deaths as possible, regardless of who they were. And, as I said before, since I am an American, I would vastly prefer the course that results in less Americans dying. After all, the Americans were fighting for my benefit, while the Japanese were fighting, at least, in spirit, to kill me and defeat my country. I don't get why differentiating between the two is so difficult. It works the same way of how you value the lives of your family over those of strangers... in this case, strangers who are out to get you. If I had to kill five people to save someone I loved, especially if they were out to kill that person, I'd do it twice if I could.

A Black Falcon
One misconception -- 500000 is all the deaths from American bombing. Hiroshima was about 100,000-150,000 immediate casualties (ie not counting the thousands of later deaths from radiation poisoning), and Nagasaki 30-40 thousand or so... the rest of those were from conventional bombings, including the Tokyo firebombing that was early in our bombing campaign and killed between 80,000 and 100,000 people.

World War II was probably the worst and least moral war ever fought. Tens of millions of innocent civilians died. And only a tiny fraction of the people who killed those civilians were punished... including of course virtually none of the Allied ones because we won so we wouldn't persecute ourselves!

And Weltall it's because of what we said. Killing enemy soldiers? Okay, they were directly threatening you so I can see why you'd do that. But civilians are not... and it's not like killing them will make the people you are killing want to give up it will just harden their resolve especially in a state like Japan at that time. The goal should be the fewest casualties, and of the casualties the fewest civilians (an invasion wouldn't have been a great alternative here either of course because huge numbers of civilians would have died in that too, by accident or in mass attacks against the Americans that the Japanse would do...). Just because those people hated America because they were told to doesn't make it okay to kill them! They have the right to life too, and it should be our responsibility to find the best way out. We didn't really do that here. We took the easy way, with no casualties for us but massive ones for them... that is more palpable to Americans but objectively not any more moral than having large casualties for both sides. I cannot believe that there was no way to avoid mass slaughter on a scale never before seen.

Ryan
One misconception -- 500000 is all the deaths from American bombing. Hiroshima was about 100,000-150,000 immediate casualties (ie not counting the thousands of later deaths from radiation poisoning), and Nagasaki 30-40 thousand or so... the rest of those were from conventional bombings, including the Tokyo firebombing that was early in our bombing campaign and killed between 80,000 and 100,000 people.

World War II was probably the worst and least moral war ever fought. Tens of millions of innocent civilians died. And only a tiny fraction of the people who killed those civilians were punished... including of course virtually none of the Allied ones because we won so we wouldn't persecute ourselves!

And Weltall it's because of what we said. Killing enemy soldiers? Okay, they were directly threatening you so I can see why you'd do that. But civilians are not... and it's not like killing them will make the people you are killing want to give up it will just harden their resolve especially in a state like Japan at that time. The goal should be the fewest casualties, and of the casualties the fewest civilians (an invasion wouldn't have been a great alternative here either of course because huge numbers of civilians would have died in that too, by accident or in mass attacks against the Americans that the Japanse would do...). Just because those people hated America because they were told to doesn't make it okay to kill them! They have the right to life too, and it should be our responsibility to find the best way out. We didn't really do that here. We took the easy way, with no casualties for us but massive ones for them... that is more palpable to Americans but objectively not any more moral than having large casualties for both sides. I cannot believe that there was no way to avoid mass slaughter on a scale never before seen.
...I'm glad you hate fighting, come to think of it. The idea that you might ever lead or command combat men... it would frighten me to the depth of my soul to fight under the command of someone who would gladly send me and possibly millions of my comrades to their certain death just to ease his own conscience about enemy civilians. Someone who would gladly see MORE people die and prolong the devastation of war for God knows how many years just to ensure that more uniformed Americans die as opposed to civilians. It's even worse when this comes from someone who lacks the fortitude to fight for his country himself.

If anyone ever wonder why I actually hold personal animosity to liberals while just being able to agree to disagree with other groups of people, it's because of people who think like this.

Fittisize
Ah, the death of a uniformed officer is much more, um, what's the word I'm looking for here? Anyways I've said it before in this thread: soldiers know what they are getting into, they signed up (well, some of them) to fight for the death. Civillians don't deserve to die over something they aren't fighting for...

I'd hate to have you ever lead a combat or battle. "Instead of killing off their army, why don't we just bomb their cities and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people?" "Makes sense to me!"

A Black Falcon
Where do you get the idea I think a ground invasion would be a good alternative? Overall it probably would have led to even more civilian casualties, especially considering the character of Japan at the time!

Fittisize
More?? You're crazy

Carazy.

A Black Falcon
That was a response to Weltall of course.

And what do you mean? How wouid a ground invasion lead to fewer than 200,000 civilian deaths? Oh okay add tens of thousands if you want to include all the radiation poisioning deaths later on, but it was under 200,000 immediate deaths... a ground invasion could get VERY messy if Japanese leaders wanting peace hadn't quickly gotten power. And many, many civilians would die because they would attack the American troops... as I said, no matter if they could win or not...

For a model, see Okinawa and expand it to a huge scale. That was a very real possibility had we invaded.

I'd hate to have you ever lead a combat or battle. "Instead of killing off their army, why don't we just bomb their cities and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people?" "Makes sense to me!"

Standard operating strategy on all sides in WWII.

Dark Jaguar
Thanks GR!

Vote for Urkel!

Darunia
I'd hate to have you ever lead a combat or battle. "Instead of killing off their army, why don't we just bomb their cities and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people?" "Makes sense to me!"

You speak as though their entire army would be tightly clustered and unprotected. Like sitting in a field, or on a camping retreat. If it'd have been feasible to take out the army, I'm sure it would've been done---but you know that in reality, armies are scattered and protected more so than many cities.

alien space marine
To be honnest I understand why the U.S nuked them , You had fought a exhausting war in europe and you had defeated the Japanese but they wouldnt quit and were so desperate they began training women for combat which was Taboo for them. The nuclear strikes may saved more lives preventing years of warfare and casualties . unfortunately it also pushed the Russians to rush in and get armed with as many nukes as possible.

Dark Jaguar
Haha, I hadn't noticed that little thing there. I was suggesting just bombing some place they could all see and then bombing a city if it didn't work, but it does look like ABF is actually suggesting they "bomb the army" as though the Japanese would actually group it all and tell everyone where it is.

Great Rumbler
Hirohito: Alright, Mr. American President, I have moved all of my troops to a large open field!

Truman: Hey, sounds good to me!

Nick Burns
Wow ABF, You need to get your facts straight.

The ONLY REASON the Japanese surrendered was because we nuked them. The leaders of their military forced the men of Japan to fight by threatening to kill their families. They were all prepared to literally fight to the last man. Yes, the number of human casualties was high, but they killed 75% of the POWs they captured, military and civilian. What we did was better for their country anyway, if almost all the men of Japan died in conflict, there would be very few true Japanese living today. And if we didn't use the bombs and invaded Japan like intended, then alot of Japan's natural history would have been destroyed, and there would be no guarantee they we would have won. The Allied soldiers of the pacific theatre where used to open-terrain fighting, not close-quarters city fighting. Japan and German cities where very different in the fact that Japan's cities are large and cramped, easily hiding millions of troops in buildings with civilians.

And before you reply to this, answer me this ABF: If you where fighting back then, and someone gave you the choice of dropping a bomb, or going in with your friends to fight without the nukes, would you go in and risk your life and possibly never see your family again (wife and kids), or would you want to go home and live out the rest of your days happily with your loved ones?

A Black Falcon
The ONLY REASON the Japanese surrendered was because we nuked them. The leaders of their military forced the men of Japan to fight by threatening to kill their families. They were all prepared to literally fight to the last man. Yes, the number of human casualties was high, but they killed 75% of the POWs they captured, military and civilian. What we did was better for their country anyway, if almost all the men of Japan died in conflict, there would be very few true Japanese living today. And if we didn't use the bombs and invaded Japan like intended, then alot of Japan's natural history would have been destroyed, and there would be no guarantee they we would have won. The Allied soldiers of the pacific theatre where used to open-terrain fighting, not close-quarters city fighting. Japan and German cities where very different in the fact that Japan's cities are large and cramped, easily hiding millions of troops in buildings with civilians.

The ONLY REASON? And you know this how? You do know that not the ENTIRE Japanese goverment was all for fighting to the death, right? By late in the war there was a side wanting peace. The Emperor didn't really come around until Okinawa was lost, but at that point he did start moving towards peace. As I detailed before (and as you say) the problem was that the militarists were in control. And as I said before, the question was how much it would take to get them out and let the Emperor move for peace... was the nuke needed or would have some diplomacy, late in the war (ie before the nukes), have done the trick? A "test" near Japan? With how badly they were doing the peace group was gaining strength for sure...

alien space marine
You cannot forget that Japanese military philosophy at the time conciderd surrender or peace as a sign of cowardice and dishonnor infact soldiers were orderd to commit suicide rather then be captured,Japan had been militaristic for centuries and their own pride and arogance prevented them from seeing reason.While there was definently some who wanted to end the war the ones in charge wouldnt untill they got their asses burned too the ground.

I think the Nuking regretably was inevitable,It was to show that those Japanese zealots had zero chance of winning and if they didnt call it quits they would be wiped out off the face of the earth one by one and be remeberd as idiots and fools for not surrendering.

Nick Burns
The Emperor didn't really come around until Okinawa was lost, but at that point he did start moving towards peace.

Common misconception that is in put in many school textbooks: The emperor had nothing to do with the surrender. It was that choice of most of the CO's after their families where killed. Even then, there where those who sought to take the pre-made surrender recordings to continue the war (thus forcing the president to drop a third atomic bomb on TOKYO). Go watch the history channel before you post again. Its your kind that are a disgrace to this country.

A Black Falcon
That's the traditional way of thinking -- that they never would have surrendered any other way. Sorry that I've been reading some newer books that are a bit more contraversial on their views on the end of the war...

ASM you say nothing I didn't say already, in some of my long posts. I acknowledged that Japan was extremely militaristic. I said that their constitution was rigged so that when it wanted to the people on top could easily take over and Japanese society, as a 'do as your superior says no matter what' society in every way, was an easy one for a military clique to take over, especially when they are closely connected to some of the biggest industrialists...

But as I said, in 1945 it was obvious that they had lost. A book we're reading for class is a biography of Hirohito. It's a contraversial one. It says that contrary to the popular belief, Hirohito was a strong leader who had a lot of power. He wasn't just a pawn of militarists, he WAS a militarist. He was brought up to be one by a military clique and he grew up to be one. And he believed that Japan would win, strongly. The book says that Hirohito didn't really start thinking about peace until after Okinawa was over... most other governments would have surrendered well before then, but as we have established Japan had a unique character. Still there WAS a peace side, including the crown prince, and the Emperor by the time Okinawa ended had realized that the war probably had to be ended. And as I said the main conflict was the peace group, now immesurably stronger (it would have gone absolutely nowhere without the Emperor's support), versus militarists.

And as I said, the big unanswered question is what it would have taken to dislodge them. After reading this book, and another one about postwar Japan, I think that the nuke was not needed. As I said timely diplomacy (possibly as little as assuring that the Imperial house would not be destroyed) or maybe a test not on a city could possibly have done it (if given time to go through the process). But of course I'm liberal and the books probably are too so you probably won't pay much attention to me...

And Weltall I don't get how you continue to think that I wanted us to invade. I just don't.

Great Rumbler
Hindsight's always 20/20...

It's easy to sit back 60 years later and say "That wasn't necessary". Think about this though: If Truman had dropped out two atomic bombs, our ONLY two atomic bombs, somewhere isolated and the Emperor still refused to surrender, then what? And it's easy to say "I read a book about the emperor and I know that he would have surrendered after something like that", but the president didn't have the luxury of know what the emperor would or would not do. There was a chioce: Use the nukes in such a way that the Japanese would have no choice but to surrender, or risk an all out ground invasion which would have cost countless lives, destroyed the country, and be faced with the possibility of a war we couldn't win. There weren't any history books to read to try and find what the right chioce was, there weren't any autobiographies that said how far they would have to go to get a surrender. Truman chose to drop the bombs and end the war.

A Black Falcon
GR we had four A-Bombs. I believe we had one more left... not absolutely certain, but I think we had one more left.

And you're right that living it doesn't give you as many options as speculating for a long time. And you need to take into account that they didn't really know what was going on in Japan exactly... or they probably would have tried more diplomacy a bit sooner and maybe done a assurance for the Emperor (though that was contentious because some said that that would leave the militarist structure in place -- we rectified that by making the Emperor powerless in the constitution we wrote...)... but they had a lot of other things and probably didn't see Japan nearly as close to surrender as information suggests it possibly was.

Oh, if the militarists had kept power and we had invaded it would absolutely have been a bloodbath. As I said the people may have had misgivings but if they had been asked to fight and die, or commit suicide by the millions, they would have done it... which is why I said that invasion was no alternative. The question was how we could get a stubborn nation to surrender without invasion... and Truman took the safest way out, the way most certain to lead to a quick surrender. Other means probably would have worked but it would have meant working with the Japanese leaders in some fashion, and given we were in a war with them it's very possible that we didn't make enough efforts that way...

And then of course we ran out of time, and the Soviets entered the war. We couldn't let them take any more land so we had to end it really fast and we just used the bomb.

Great Rumbler
GR we had four A-Bombs. I believe we had one more left... not absolutely certain, but I think we had one more left.

I'll have to look again, but I'm pretty sure the one we dropped on Nagasaki was our last one.

A Black Falcon
Anyway one was probably enough (why drop TWO to show them that the A-Bomb works? One'd be enough I think...) so even if that WAS last you'd have one more...

Dark Jaguar
Well GR, keep in mind the idea is to drop one where they can see it, and THEN drop one on a city if that didn't do it. That MIGHT have been the better thing to do, though there's a chance that had they only seen it, while we were giving them time to surrender, they would have been rationalizing it within themselves since no one actually died and figure they could deal with such a weapon. That time to surrender might just be used to build up their courage to a point that when a city was bombed, they would still not surrender because they are no longer surprised. They likely figured that, and while there's a CHANCE simply showing the power before actually using it against them could work, I think they figured into that sort of psychology and decided their best bet was to attack them and put the fear into them. Why drop 2 you may ask. The second was to show that we had more than 1, and nothing more really. To show that that wasn't a fluke, and that it wasn't an accidental meteor. For example, how long do you think it would have taken for us to figure out it was a terrorist attack if rather than 4 planes being hijacked and crashed, they only crashed 1 of them? I remember that some thought after hearing of the first one, for a bit, that it was just some terrible accident. It's to show proof that it was certainly a planned attack and not some freakish event of nature (considering the sheer amazing power, and their mindset, they may assume we Americans are lying and claiming a fantastical event of nature as their own doing). Now, the thing is, it's clear that at the time they thought it was their only option to drop it directly onto some major cities, and it's clear they were convinced they needed to show them that it was truly them and not a freak accident of nature like a meteor. However, it's not clear that they needed BOTH bombs to hit cities. Perhaps they could have bombed a city and open country within view of another city. They would have to be far apart, but then one last thing. It's possible the Americans had thought the Japanese, trying to convince themselves of it being a natural disaster, would assume the sightings of the blast out in an unoccupied area were actually just people seeing the city blast, or at least that's what everyone would be told by the higher ups. Since humans back then were just as intelligent as we are now, you can't put it past them that they would think of these sorts of psychological elements of the attack. Indeed the very nature of the attack WAS psychology. No, it's clear that America after some thought was convinced that if they were going to use the bombs to end the war, the only sure way to do it was the one they chose, the rest were fraught with chances the Japanese would either not be afraid after seeing a demonstration and given time to think about it or the Japanese thinking it was a natural disaster of epic proportions. This was the only way to put a quick fear into them that would get them to surrender without much time to think about it and convince them that it WAS in fact humans who caused that massive catastrophe. Indeed, since they most likely had backups (remember GR, they DID have to test this weapon many times before actually using it, so they had more), they were merciful only in the sense that they ONLY used what they had figured they needed to, and didn't use ALL their bombs.

A Black Falcon
Did you people read my long posts?

Nick Burns
Well GR, keep in mind the idea is to drop one where they can see it, and THEN drop one on a city if that didn't do it. That MIGHT have been the better thing to do, though there's a chance that had they only seen it, while we were giving them time to surrender, they would have been rationalizing it within themselves since no one actually died and figure they could deal with such a weapon.

That MIGHT have worked, If you could find a spot anywhere near there that wasn't heavily populated. That and the fact is that we didn't have the money at that time to take such a gamble. And if we did nuke it for show, who's to say that some nuteral countries wouldn't retaliate?

alien space marine
They couldnt take any risks , so they blasted two cities to make sure that there would be no doubt in the minds of the Japanese that the U.S had the power to obliterate them and the resources too continue to do it and it was no bluff.

Dark Jaguar
Well, actually nuking the cities would have gotten the same retaliation if that was to occur. I'm not sure that's an issue per say, but the rest of what I mentioned sure are issues.

There is ALWAYS an unoccupied area. I don't think you realize how truly massive our planet is relative to us. Humans are spread OUT everywhere, but are you even comprehending the sheer gaps between cities? You've only seen places with the human touch. You've never gone too far from a road, I think at least, most people haven't. Try driving into the country, and THEN walking out into the vastness for a while. I can promise you that if you kept it up, no one would EVER find you for a LONG time, until eons from then some archeoligists say stuff like "We assume this device, which we label a "backpack", was designed as a form of punishment.". Sure there's plenty of space to bomb nothing, and considering how big a nuke's explosion is, they'd see it. Keep in mind the other problems I thought of.

Darunia
I'll have to look again, but I'm pretty sure the one we dropped on Nagasaki was our last one.

Good thing that they didn't know that. :banana:

Great Rumbler
That was kind of the point. :)