Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Diamond Casino Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

      1. Events
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA 6

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

The Unvirginiser

Hiroshima/Nagasaki

Recommended Posts

Omnia sunt Communia

I'm sure if Germany or Japan had fired the atomic bomb, instead of it being the other way around, their leaders would of been tried for war crimes and faced the full wrath of America's "justice". Face it, the atomic bombs that struck Hiroshima/Nagasaki were crimes of war. They killed more innocents than not and in the end is no better than simple terrorism.

 

People say that a full-scale invasion of Japan would of killed more people but do these people take into consideration the amount of people who died hours, days, weeks, months, years and even decades after the bombings due to radiation poisoning? Do they take into account the people who are still born, to this day, with birth defects caused by the radiation? Do they count the American citizens who died why testing out the nuclear bombs? Those who weren't warned about it's radiation? I think you'll find the death toll is much higher in that area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobgtafan

 

I'm sure if Germany or Japan had fired the atomic bomb, instead of it being the other way around, their leaders would of been tried for war crimes and faced the full wrath of America's "justice". Face it, the atomic bombs that struck Hiroshima/Nagasaki were crimes of war. They killed more innocents than not and in the end is no better than simple terrorism.

 

People say that a full-scale invasion of Japan would of killed more people but do these people take into consideration the amount of people who died hours, days, weeks, months, years and even decades after the bombings due to radiation poisoning? Do they take into account the people who are still born, to this day, with birth defects caused by the radiation? Do they count the American citizens who died why testing out the nuclear bombs? Those who weren't warned about it's radiation? I think you'll find the death toll is much higher in that area.

No matter how you try to add up the numbers you still aren't going to come up with more than a million plus dead. Not to mention how many would had had to die if Japan armed it's citizens. The nuke was an unforunate thing but it was the only way at the time besides even larger deaths. You really can't get around it. It was sad that those people had to go through that but any other way and it could had been worse. And simple terrorism? Your being simple minded. What's the alternative since your so quick to critize. Both sides bombed cities and killed innocents. So? We just had the bigger better bomb. But now that we have better technology a large number of innocents dying isn't needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli

I really hate this topic.

 

 

Anyway, the Japanese were trying to surrender honorably, we didn't have to nuke them. They wanted to end the war. The whole fight to last man, women or child anecdote was almost entirely bullsh*t, they had no intention of doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Omnia sunt Communia
Anyway, the Japanese were trying to surrender honorably, we didn't have to nuke them. They wanted to end the war. The whole fight to last man, women or child anecdote was almost entirely bullsh*t, they had no intention of doing that.

I agree. I've seen no evidence to back up the claim that "every Japanese citizen would be armed a fight to the death", it's just ludicrious to think that they had such a hivemind society. The only people I've heard who have said that are people who try and justify the bombings. I've seen more evidence that points towards the Japanese looking for a peaceful way out of the conflict, than them preparing to arm every citizen.

 

You've then got to take into consideration that the Atomic Bombs were dropped on densely populated areas of civilizians. Why not military bases or even government strongholds? Surely that would do more damage to their infacstructure than killing innocent people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ronnyboy

You've then got to take into consideration that the Atomic Bombs were dropped on densely populated areas of civilizians. Why not military bases or even government strongholds? Surely that would do more damage to their infacstructure than killing innocent people?

I guess you could say it was to cause more devastation to Japan causing an even faster surrender. It's a lot like 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. A lot of people say that 9/11 was worse due to the fact it was mostly innocent civilians. It caused great upset and probably more hate then Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor is bad, but some say not as bad because it was people who signed up and knew that they would face death and that they could die, even though it was a low blow (guess all's fair in war). So they figured that attacking a military base would be like a regular bombing run, so they would turn to the civilians. Plus the military in Japan was very ruthless, so they also must have figured that even a large A bomb wouldn't even stop that army. So to the civilians, and thus it ended the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CHOOKOKABRA
Plus the military in Japan was very ruthless, so they also must have figured that even a large A bomb wouldn't even stop that army. So to the civilians, and thus it ended the war.

Too true. The Japanese armed forces would not have surrendered even if American troops captured Tokyo, their fanaticism was that strong. Only by dropping the atomic bombs did the Japanese leadership realize that they could no longer fight the war with any composure. Their morale had to be crushed to dust for victory and I suppose nothing does that better than knowning that your enemy at pretty much any time can drop "heavenly fire" down upon them and end the lives of hundreds of thousands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobgtafan

http://shop.history.com/detail.php?p=69228...ory&pagemax=all

Go watch x day invasion of japan when comes on tv or buy it or whatever. If I had a link for the video of it I would post it. Anyway that show explains why they didn't nuke a military target, or invade ( sucide) or something esle. Serious its a good show.

 

I was thinking their really shouldn't even be a debate over this. Quite frankly regardless if you think what they did was right or wrong it all worked out in the end. Japan is the second richest nation on earth and is free. Korea and China not to mention all those other islands are no longer Japans bitches. And the War ended sooner than it could had other wise with the least amount of deaths possible. The Japanese Military was willing to stop the war but not unconditionally. Also Japan was a very patriotic country and if you watch the show above you will see to what extent. They trained millions of boys to fight to the death if a foreign force invaded. Look it up. If the allies didn't use the nukes on Japans cities then it wouldn't have the same pyshcologic effect on unprestaying the Japanese people to give up. That all being said it was the BEST course of action. Hell the other plan was to Muster Bomb all of Japans cities. That would had killed millions. And if we just invaded it would had been 1 million vs 6 million who don't give up until they die and who formed a citizen milita to fight guerrilla style. Now which was better? A million dead over all on both sides. Or maybe 20 million at worse? Don't beleive me watch the show. You will see.

Edited by bobgtafan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Omnia sunt Communia

 

Plus the military in Japan was very ruthless, so they also must have figured that even a large A bomb wouldn't even stop that army. So to the civilians, and thus it ended the war.

Too true. The Japanese armed forces would not have surrendered even if American troops captured Tokyo, their fanaticism was that strong. Only by dropping the atomic bombs did the Japanese leadership realize that they could no longer fight the war with any composure. Their morale had to be crushed to dust for victory and I suppose nothing does that better than knowning that your enemy at pretty much any time can drop "heavenly fire" down upon them and end the lives of hundreds of thousands.

I've heard that a lot. Quite a few people cite it as a justifiable reason for nuking Japan. Though I've never seen any evidence. I only ever hear people say it. The only "evidence" that any of them can come up with tends to be wartime propaganda. Do you expect that to be 100% reliable? Do you think they would of turned around and say: "Some Japanese people may fight back if we invade them"?

 

There is more evidence to point towards the fact that Japan were already preparing to surrender. High-ranking members of the army and navy at the time agreed with this:

  • "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
[source]

 

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion , and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

Others who disagreed with the bomings included General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President) and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials).

 

Even then, besides those facts, even if it was necessary. Was Nagasaki? The Nagasaki bombing came only days after Hiroshima. Japan did not have time to react in time to the first bombing. They were still in a state of shock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ronnyboy

I feel that those who agreed to the bomb were feeling to give a last hoo-rah. They knew the Japanese might have been close to surrendering but the final decision would have been made not only by the Army, but the people of the United States. Sure the top Brass saw it as a bad thing, but the people wouldn't like an invasion of the land, possibly losing another son and keeping the war going for a little longer wouldn't look good in the eyes of Americans. The atomic bomb not only gave a quick end to a war that, to the American people, would be hard to win thanks to American War Propaganda. It gave American's pride and satisfaction that they were still the main and powerful country that could always kick ass.

 

But the dual bombs were due to the fact that the first bomb knocked out communication of Hiroshima, so no one was able to send a message that it happened. So they figured that "Well, they must not be giving up" and ordered the second one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Omnia sunt Communia
But the dual bombs were due to the fact that the first bomb knocked out communication of Hiroshima, so no one was able to send a message that it happened. So they figured that "Well, they must not be giving up" and ordered the second one.

Do you honestly believe that the Americans could of dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and nobody would of noticed? mercie_blink.gif I'm pretty sure they knew about Hiroshima by the time Nagasaki was bombed. It was not like they gave them a chance to surrender, though, I mean the second nuke was dropped merely three days after the first.

 

I'm sure there are quite a few people out there who will say that Nagasaki was responsible for securing Japan's immediate surrender, but do you think they would of held out for much longer after Hiroshima? Do you think they would of considered carrying on the war after witnessing what the Americans could do to them? It may have taken a few days, but I'm in no doubt that they would of surrendered.

 

...No they wouldn't have, they're all blood thirsty subhumans who would be given rifles and fight to the last one is dead. sarcasm.gif

 

I just find it hilarious that people condone the Germans for the Blitz and the Japanese for Pearl Harbour; yet the combined bomings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed a lot, lot more people than both of those events and did a lot more lasting damage (radiation poisoning, cancer, birth defects etc.).

 

I don't see how dropping an atomic bomb on a large civilian city can be justified on the grounds that it "boosted morale". By that logic 9/11 is justifiable because it probably boosted the morale of some Islamic terrorists in Pakistan. I know they say "all is fair in love and war" but what is far may not be right. Those were times (before the Geneva Convention) where human rights laws were almost non-existant but I don't think we can use that as an excuse for the bombings.

 

I mean, a long time ago, slavery was considered to be acceptable. Do we think that was right? Not now. We did back then. But not now. I think that's what it all comes down to now-a-days.

 

Though there were obviously other ways around it, that didn't involve a full-scale land invasion of Japan, but we were just too lazy (or scared) to try them. Japan was on the verge of surrender and Hiroshima/Nagasaki tipped the scaled, ground them into ashes, set them alight then let them dwell in radioactive poison for a couple of decades.

 

In the end, I don't think they were justifiable, and I don't think I ever will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General Goose

We need to know the bigger picture. I mean, if the US government knew Japan was weak and planning on surrendering already as some sources state, then nuking Japan was just flexing off its muscles to the big bad Soviet Union and making sure the money went to good use.

 

But if they didn't, you've got to remember invasions often have VERY high casualty rates. Potentially millions of US soldiers, Japanese soldiers and civilians could have died.

 

Even if this was the case, couldn't they have shown Japan what it was up against, or aimed for a purely (or mostly) military area?

 

Recently there was a documentary in school, and it showed the suffering really well, and I think the Americans could have handled it much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TFatseas

 

I've heard that a lot. Quite a few people cite it as a justifiable reason for nuking Japan. Though I've never seen any evidence. I only ever hear people say it. The only "evidence" that any of them can come up with tends to be wartime propaganda. Do you expect that to be 100% reliable? Do you think they would of turned around and say: "Some Japanese people may fight back if we invade them"?

 

 

 

Operation Ketsu Go, the Japanese Island defense plan of which the God-Emperor even stated a month earlier, before the bombs that Ketsu Go was to be " ...The fundamental policy to be followed henceforth in the conduct of the war..." and "That the Japanese people must chose extinction rather than surrender..."

 

Also Hiroshima militarily was important, it was the center of the Japanese Military District to defend Kyushu, which was the first objective of Operation Olympic.

 

 

 

Even then, besides those facts, even if it was necessary. Was Nagasaki?

Nagasaki was actually a secondary chosen due to weather.

 

 

 

The Nagasaki bombing came only days after Hiroshima. Japan did not have time to react in time to the first bombing. They were still in a state of shock.

 

Cop out argument, the Japanese knew what happened immediately after the first bomb was dropped, due to being warned on August 1st. See "LeMay bombing leaflet."

 

The Japanese still did not surrender after Nagasaki, a coup was even attempted against the emperor after he finally relented. Days later.

 

Hirohito even referenced the atomic bombs in his declaration of surrender.

 

 

"Moreover, the enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

 

Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers."

 

Also the Japanese talks to surrender hinged on the Soviets, but that went out the window, due to the August 9th invasion of Manchuria, which was already agreed upon at Yalta. The Soviets purposely put off and delayed the talks to the Japanese ambassadors in Moscow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QwertyAAA

Anniversary of Hiroshima tomorrow. Hrm. Topic needs to be revived.

 

 

"The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage."

 

It was justified. Somewhat. Invading Japan would have prolonged the war a few more years, if the last few millennia are anything to go by. Not quite a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigAmericanTitties

I read an essay in a counterfactual history book called "No Bomb: No End" about what would happen if Operation Downfall (American invasion of the Home Islands) went underway. And it's not pretty. Japan never surrendered, they fought to the last man. Look at Iwo Jima, virtually a rock (albeit an important one) in the of the Pacific Ocean.

Japanese Strength- 17,845- 18,375 (approx.)

Japanese Casualties- 18,061- 18,591 (approx.)

Source- http://books.google.com/books?id=K8J4wkgcq...page&q=&f=false

 

Same at Okinawa. Just think the fight they would put up for Japan herself.

 

A Joint Cheif of Staff study:...This implied that a 90-day [Operation] Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If [Operation] Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities. Source- Got it from the essay.

 

I couldn't find any estimates for Japanese casualties, but both civilian and military would probably be high. And if the U.S. began to bomb the islands, the transportation system would probably get destroyed, not to mention the crops in Japan. This could've caused widespread famine. Then there's also the Russians. Shortly after the bomb was dropped, the Soviets invaded Manchuria (Soviets wanted a Japanese surrender too). Though Japan already surrendered, the attacks were not made known and thus not stopped. The Soviets had plans to invade the northernmost main island of Japan, Hokkaido, if the war went on. If Japan lost in the ensuing U.S. invasion (which they probably would with a decimated army), an East-West Germany like situation could've erupted in Japan. More fuel for the Cold War, maybe another Vietnam? Also, as they were moving through Manchuria, Russia secured the northern part of Korea. If America was preoccupied with Japan, the USSR could've easily overrun the rest of Korea.

 

Overall, I think the bombings ironically saved a lot of lives. Was it justified? IMO somewhat. The Japanese did have the uncalled-for attack on Pearl Harbour. But the destruction was nothing compared to the atomic bombs. The fact it was simply an attack on civilians is also unjustified. I think the atom bomb was not the best way. A naval blockade could've halted any Japanese comeback. Followed by bombings (not on civilian targets, maybe some railways which could be rebuilt if the U.S. occupied or even funded a new Japanese administration) to force the Japanese into submission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ronnyboy
Cop out argument, the Japanese knew what happened immediately after the first bomb was dropped, due to being warned on August 1st. See "LeMay bombing leaflet."

The Japanese never followed or read these pamphlets. They saw it as a cheap attempt to bring down the will of their people. Ever hear that story about those Japanese soldiers who stayed on an island for about 20 or so years after WWII, because they didn't beleive the pamphlets dropped from a plane?

 

The Japanese people didn't believe in the pamphlets and weren't expecting it. So when it hit, they didn't actually know it was coming. With all communications shattered, how could they let the message out? That was what made the second bombing. So your justifying the fact that they knew and could have surrendered around pamphlets that the people did not even read? Ok, doesn't sound like much logical sense to me, but what ever works for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jean Capel

 

 

The Japanese people didn't believe in the pamphlets and weren't expecting it. So when it hit, they didn't actually know it was coming. With all communications shattered, how could they let the message out? That was what made the second bombing. So your justifying the fact that they knew and could have surrendered around pamphlets that the people did not even read? Ok, doesn't sound like much logical sense to me, but what ever works for you.

Mind if I join the debate?

 

 

 

 

Assuming your point about them not reading the pamphlets is correct (which seems likely considering a similar situation in which a Japanese soldier stayed on an island for a good 25 years and committed several murders because he believed it was propaganda being used against him). The point remains, we dropped the pamphlets, we did more then we were obligated to in a time of war, we gave them a heads up, "Hey guys, if you stay here, we're going to blow you away." Especially considering that the Japanese initiated the war only so they could rape Nanking, I think we fulfilled our obligation towards the civilians occupying the targets we picked. What else could we do? Send in diplomats to those targets to be butchered?

 

 

 

Edit: Also, to clarify my position, I believe that Hiroshima/Nagasaki was a necessary but unfortunate action of war.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jean Capel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
philster_12

 

good thing they blew up nagasaki and hiroshima, Japan well deserved a blow like that!

 

besides Japan was an Abusive military, unlike the Nazis, the Nazis still has some Respect when fighting

 

The Japanese get Comfort women , The Nazis have some SL*ts,

The Japanese kill babies, The Nazis not

The Japanese "Microwave" People and The Nazis do that to the soldiers of the enemy

 

I say Nagasaki and Hiroshima is Justifiable by MANY MEANS! angry.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy
good thing they blew up nagasaki and hiroshima, Japan well deserved a blow like that!

 

besides Japan was an Abusive military, unlike the Nazis, the Nazis still has some Respect when fighting

 

The Japanese get Comfort women , The Nazis have some SL*ts,

The Japanese kill babies, The Nazis not

The Japanese "Microwave" People and The Nazis do that to the soldiers of the enemy

 

I say Nagasaki and Hiroshima is Justifiable by MANY MEANS! angry.gif

Man, how can you really say that considering they killed over 6 million people. Or do you consider those the soldiers of the enemy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
philster_12
good thing they blew up nagasaki and hiroshima, Japan well deserved a blow like that!

 

besides Japan was an Abusive military, unlike the Nazis, the Nazis still has some Respect when fighting

 

The Japanese get Comfort women , The Nazis have some SL*ts,

The Japanese kill babies, The Nazis not

The Japanese "Microwave" People and The Nazis do that to the soldiers of the enemy

 

I say Nagasaki and Hiroshima is Justifiable by MANY MEANS! angry.gif

Man, how can you really say that considering they killed over 6 million people. Or do you consider those the soldiers of the enemy?

yeah they took away lives of innocent people, so they deserve losing theres too!, besides if americans set foot on japan civilians will fight againts them anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1066ant

 

yeah they took away lives of innocent people, so they deserve losing theres too!, besides if americans set foot on japan civilians will fight againts them anyway.

But these people were for the majority inoccent civillians, thats like saying:

 

Your government has been conducting experiments on people, another country does not agree with this.

 

So they bomb your town and kill everyone there, despite the fact none of these people knew about the government or had ever harmmed anyone....

 

 

besides if americans set foot on japan civilians will fight againts them anyway

True, and if you support your country thats the correct thing to do, do you think if the Japanese invaded the USA the cvillians would sit back in their arm chairs watching their country be destroyed?

 

The Japanese "Microwave" People and The Nazis do that to the soldiers of the enemy

The Nazis commited the holocaust, hardly an honourable orginisation. Even some Nazis thought it was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 2 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 2 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.