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

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

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

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

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

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

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

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

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

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

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

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Yarpie

Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Recommended Posts

Playstation_Loyalist

The discussion is turning into an offensive argument. Everyone fails to defend right except for the few who didn't argued ffs.

 

Japan's wiping our arse right now with a 99 year reconstruction treaty agreement since 1946. Yeah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nerner
Someone forgot to read the rules of D&D. Must be that they are too fascist.

ph34r.gif

 

And for the sake of argument and since I am typing this on my phone I will keep this as short as possible...

 

The US dropped the bomb to show the world what new weapon we had. If they weren't showboating, they wouldn't have sent several planes for the sole purpose of recording the event and measuring/obtaining blast/atmospheric data.

 

Would I have dropped the bomb? Yes.

 

Would I have done it differently? No.

 

It was spot on to end the war as fast as possible. An all out invasion of mainland Japan would of been catastrophic for everyone. And that is a fact. I am sorry that women and children had to die. But the allies did give them multiple opportunities to surrender.

Exactly. Kill the few to save the many. Just like in Otter's topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Playstation_Loyalist

 

Exactly. Kill the few to save the many. Just like in Otter's topic.

 

Agreed. It was what America did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Toole
Exactly. Kill the few to save the many. Just like in Otter's topic.

 

Agreed. It was what America did.

except I would change it slightly -

 

"Kill my few brothers to save my many enemies"

 

It was what Japan did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_corTEC

Tom Toole, I don't know what nationality/race you are and frankly i don't give a damn, but your attitude to others is completely mis-aligned. Their viewpoints and feelings expressed should not provoke your responses. I am questioning your debating skills as you cannot coherently express yourself or stay 'on point'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Toole
Tom Toole, I don't know what nationality/race you are and frankly i don't give a damn, but your attitude to others is completely mis-aligned. Their viewpoints and feelings expressed should not provoke your responses. I am questioning your debating skills as you cannot coherently express yourself or stay 'on point'.

So now this guy - cortec - he tells me many things about me - he tells me I am mis-aligned like a pair of tires can need proper alignment. He questions me debating skills. He says the responses I give shouldn't have been provoken by the comments and feelings of others. His opinion is to be valued, especially by him.

 

I shall value his opinion to the extent that I respect him. I don't know him. Who is this guy - who doesn't participate in D&D for a while - to question me? I quote him now "I don't know what [cortec's] nationality/race [is] and frankly I don't give a damn, but [his] attitude to other is completely mis-aligned".

 

I wonder if he shall be satisfied. A guy who digresses from an argument, about history to debate about debate - it's not something I disrespect - but can he "coherently express [him]self or stay 'on point'"?

 

Japan lost the war or the battle? Does losing and winning really exist or is the reality of things that surviving is already winning, and surviving while your enemy is alive is already losing? These questions are not easy to answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ari Gold

I'm not exactly a warmongering prick and I have no hatred for the Japanese people in any form whatsoever, but the fact is the bombings were justifiable and necessary.

 

The main goal of the US was to stop the oppression by Japanese expansionist imperialists of most of the states of south-east Asia. On a monthly basis, the Japanese regime in 1945 claimed more lives than the Nazis in Europe; 250,000 people were dying a month during their regime throughout the Philippines, Malaya, Papua New Guinea, the Dutch East Indies and Borneo, and in fact in the week before the Hiroshima bombings more than 80,000 people died in Vietnam as a result of a famine sparked by abysmal treatment by the Japanese occupiers.

 

Obviously, it was necessary for the US to do something about it.

 

However, it wasn't just the US who could've ended Japan's war in the Pacific. The Soviet Union and the Japanese themselves could've brought down their own demise. But the cost of anticipating the future demise would've resulted in more lives being lost.

 

The three other possibilities at ending Japan's oppression included an all-out invasion by the United States on the home island called Operation Downfall. The invasion was planned for approximately September-October 1945. More than 375,000 US soldiers would've been killed in addition to more than 5,000,000 Japanese soldiers, many who were guerrilla civilians being used as pawns in Japan's total war machine. In addition, by the time of the invasion, and additional 750,000 people would've died across Japanese territories through one reason or another, based on estimates of population deaths in the year preceding the bombings.

 

The second possibility was the invasion and declaration of war by the Soviet Union on Japan on the 4th of August 1945. On this day, Soviet forces led a mass invasion of Manchuria with more than 160,000 people killed in the two weeks. Despite the mass purging of the Soviet invaders, the Imperialists in Tokyo were almost completely unaware as to the extent to which the Soviets were propelling their attacks. By the time the Japanese would've liberated by the end of the Soviet invasion, more than 300,000 Russian soldiers would've been killed in addition to more than 4,500,000 Japanese soldiers; basically, like the US' planned Operation Downfall.

 

The third possibility would've been the planned obsolescence of Japan as a stable state. Internal issues on the home islands, economic problems, diminishing military capabilities, loss of food and supplies as a result of a freeze in imports and talks of surrendering by the end of 1945 were definitely believed to have led the Japanese to surrender from November to December 1945. But, as I reiterated earlier, approximately 250,000 people were dying a month across Japanese territories, and from August 1945 to November 1945 an estimated 1,000,000 more people would've died.

 

Although there's no official number, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings claimed about 400,000-500,000 lives. Compare these with the other possibilities and their projected deaths:

 

Operation Downfall: 6,000,000+

Full Soviet Invasion of Japanese territories: 5,000,000+

Fragmentation of Japan: 1,000,000+

Bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima: 400,000-500,000

 

I'm neither Japanese nor American, I have no hate for the Japanese people for the actions of their army in World War Two and I'm not a warmonger. But, facts and are facts; it was the most logical way to killing off the War in the Pacific and to liberate millions of people from Japanese oppression, also paving the way to the rebuilding of Japan as a world power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Toole

Mr. member of the andolini family - I greet you with respect for you - not too much mind you - but you andolini's tend to be at least better than the general rabble out there in cyberspace.

 

Yes - very nicely written you know - nicely argued and all - but regarding certain things you ... kindof missed out on a central bit of the argument in my opinion. I mean - the campaign against japan was in general against civilians for example - thus a certain part of the accusation of "genocide" - I mean ... I don't see you associating Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the rest of the American campaign in World War II or in general. It comes out looking like Hiroshima and Nagasaki is just an exception in American foreign policy or American foreign policy in World War II - when I argue it is nothing of the sort - this kind of attack is sistematically done by the US - to the point that Iraq is just a continuation - a clear continuation of the same foreign policy.

 

I appreciate your considerations that you are neither racist, nor of any nation involved, frankly I don't really take that into consideration - It would take a very honest racist man to admit to being racist... Also Ideologies are not nation-based - and the ideology that supports the foreign policy that the US has practiced is one that is spread over the entire world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gtaivpc

to be honest, both countries' actions could not be justified. both had exterminated millions. US did it to show they own the world, that they're the boss, just like they are doing now. don't tell me they cared for japs or their freedom. they could have attacked them (hell, even bomb them) another way. what makes a nuclear bomb different is indeed the long term effect of it. I really don't know what to think. Japan was a strong totalitarian regime but the people paid for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
darthYENIK
to be honest, both countries' actions could not be justified. both had exterminated millions. US did it to show they own the world, that they're the boss, just like they are doing now. don't tell me they cared for japs or their freedom. they could have attacked them (hell, even bomb them) another way. what makes a nuclear bomb different is indeed the long term effect of it. I really don't know what to think. Japan was a strong totalitarian regime but the people paid for it.

First off, war in the 1940s was seen a lot differently than war today. In these days, civilian casualties can be avoided much easier. We have smart bombs, and computer targeting, and many ways to prevent non-combatant death. During WWII colateral damage or "exterminating" civilians was UNAVOIDABLE. Also Japan killed anyone who wasn't Japanese, or forced them to fight for them.

 

Secondly, the U.S. did it to "show that they're the boss"? Do you even know why America entered the war? Or what position on the totem pole of power America was in that era? We definitely weren't "the Boss" and were in no place to start declaring we were "the boss". America was attacked, as well as our allies in Manila, China, and various pacific nations, including Australia. Were we supposed to sit back and say, "Oh, well, they attacked Pearl Harbor, and our various bases in the Philippines. Lets just let them do it." Or maybe you think they said this, "So they attacked Pearl Harbor, lets use this as an excuse to become a world super power."

 

As for the A-bombs. You cannot deny that if they weren't dropped, millions upon millions more people would die. Japanese, American, everyone. I know people hate to admit that destroying something justifies saving something else, but that doesn't make it wrong. There isn't always that fictional middle of the road choice that everyone will be happy with, that you see in video games and movies. Any military in the world at that time, would have choose to drop an A-bomb instead of invasion. If the U.K. had it in 1939, they'd probably have used it on Germany. And vice versa. As well as could be said of Japan if they had it. It was not known the impact an A-bomb would have in the long term.

 

Right now with all we know, it is wrong. But almost 70 years ago, it was a completely different story. You can't use tomorrow's knowledge to make decisions today, just as you can't use today's knowledge to judge the actions of someone yesterday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gtaivpc

the thing that tickles me is that they used nuclear bombs, not that they used bombs. there were of course going to be many civilian casualties, but with the nuclear bomb they basically exterminated life in two whole areas. of course you had to take some action, and I justify a huge attack on japan, but you had already beat them de facto by the time the bomb dropped.

it is one of the few times I could possibly justify the US. it was more an act of revenge than an act needed to win the war. they had already been devastated (they asked for it though tbh).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tycek

USA army was mad crazy that days. They were droping napalm bombs at japanese cities, where houses have wooden walls, and they were dropping them at night to kill as many civilian as possible (watch tombstone of fireflies - animated movie about this). And the two nuclear bombs were dropped as some kind of test how will they work in populated area. Japanese people were weak that days and they will surrender soon, but americans had to test their new toy.

 

Interesting fact: Do you know that second bomb was to be dropped on Kokura (americans were dropping them at industrial cities), but the heavy clouds in that area made that impossible. Plane was flying back to base, but they were running out of fuel, so they dropped the bomb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ari Gold
Japanese people were weak that days and they will surrender soon, but americans had to test their new toy.

Yeah, but by the time they would've have surrendered/been invaded by the US/Soviet Union, more than a million more people would've died in Japanese held territories. The bombings were simply the 'lesser of evils', per se.

 

I'll quote myself from earlier in this topic:

 

 

The three other possibilities at ending Japan's oppression included an all-out invasion by the United States on the home island called Operation Downfall. The invasion was planned for approximately September-October 1945. More than 375,000 US soldiers would've been killed in addition to more than 5,000,000 Japanese soldiers, many who were guerrilla civilians being used as pawns in Japan's total war machine. In addition, by the time of the invasion, and additional 750,000 people would've died across Japanese territories through one reason or another, based on estimates of population deaths in the year preceding the bombings.

 

The second possibility was the invasion and declaration of war by the Soviet Union on Japan on the 4th of August 1945. On this day, Soviet forces led a mass invasion of Manchuria with more than 160,000 people killed in the two weeks. Despite the mass purging of the Soviet invaders, the Imperialists in Tokyo were almost completely unaware as to the extent to which the Soviets were propelling their attacks. By the time the Japanese would've liberated by the end of the Soviet invasion, more than 300,000 Russian soldiers would've been killed in addition to more than 4,500,000 Japanese soldiers; basically, like the US' planned Operation Downfall.

 

The third possibility would've been the planned obsolescence of Japan as a stable state. Internal issues on the home islands, economic problems, diminishing military capabilities, loss of food and supplies as a result of a freeze in imports and talks of surrendering by the end of 1945 were definitely believed to have led the Japanese to surrender from November to December 1945. But, as I reiterated earlier, approximately 250,000 people were dying a month across Japanese territories, and from August 1945 to November 1945 an estimated 1,000,000 more people would've died.

 

Although there's no official number, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings claimed about 400,000-500,000 lives. Compare these with the other possibilities and their projected deaths:

 

Operation Downfall: 6,000,000+

Full Soviet Invasion of Japanese territories: 5,000,000+

Fragmentation of Japan: 1,000,000+

Bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima: 400,000-500,000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
darthYENIK

From everything I've learned, the Japanese were not planning on surrendering. The word fanatical is thrown around a lot during this time. They weren't surrendering on Iwo Jima, or Okinawa. They were fighting to the death, and inflicting massive casualties all around, themselves, civilians, and Americans, because of this. This was a foreshadowing of what awaited if an assault on mainland Japan occurred, except magnified 10x. They didn't fight like a western military. They weren't Germans, who were willing to surrender to save their own lives. On top of that, Japan rejected the U.S. ultimatum to surrender or have their military completely destroyed. So let me repeat, they were not going to just up and surrender.

 

The only viable option was to use the "toy" to show that surrender is the only option, if Japan wanted to keep the rest of it's country and people safe.

 

In simpler terms, without the atomic bombs, Japan would most likely not have surrendered without many many more deaths than had already occurred.

Edited by darthYENIK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guns N R0se

*skipping thread*

 

My thoughts: No problems with it. It was that or send millions of American soldiers to their deaths because Japan would never just surrender their homeland. They would've kept fighting down to the last person. it was us or them, we chose us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shylock
Interesting fact: Do you know that second bomb was to be dropped on Kokura (americans were dropping them at industrial cities), but the heavy clouds in that area made that impossible. Plane was flying back to base, but they were running out of fuel, so they dropped the bomb.

Yea, that would be a great fact. If it were true. Nagasaki was always the secondary target if Kokura was obscured by clouds. Orders dictated a visual ID of the target, so naturally when they couldn't bomb Kokura and didn't have the fuel to fly around in circles all day they moved onto their secondary target. Nagasaki was only partially cloudy and when visual confirmation was made by the bombardier the bomb was dropped.

 

So yea. Sweet fact. Next time at least make an attempt to tell the whole story. dozingoff.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy
From everything I've learned, the Japanese were not planning on surrendering. The word fanatical is thrown around a lot during this time. They weren't surrendering on Iwo Jima, or Okinawa. They were fighting to the death, and inflicting massive casualties all around, themselves, civilians, and Americans, because of this. This was a foreshadowing of what awaited if an assault on mainland Japan occurred, except magnified 10x. They didn't fight like a western military. They weren't Germans, who were willing to surrender to save their own lives. On top of that, Japan rejected the U.S. ultimatum to surrender or have their military completely destroyed. So let me repeat, they were not going to just up and surrender.

 

The only viable option was to use the "toy" to show that surrender is the only option, if Japan wanted to keep the rest of it's country and people safe.

 

In simpler terms, without the atomic bombs, Japan would most likely not have surrendered without many many more deaths than had already occurred.

Yup, the Japanese military was still resistant to surrender even after the first two bombs were dropped. There was an attempted military coup to prevent the emperor from broadcasting his surrender, and from what I read in "The Fall of Japan" they did this despite the Americans threatening to drop a third bomb and an additional bomb for every day they delayed the surrender. Of course this was a bluff, but it worked.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_Incident

 

 

Tyeck, you mean Grave of Fireflies? I haven't watched it yet, but it's in my collection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tycek

@ Shylock. I thought I told the whole story, because it was said in TV, about bombing these two japanesse cities. They could mess this and I thought that was true.

 

@ SagaciousKJB. Yup that is the movie. It's having different titles in different countries. Great, but very sad movie.

Edited by Tycek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General Goose

Japan PROBABLY would have surrendered anyway. We don't know for certain (I think), as the Japanese at the time were one of those people who were being groomed by their government to be a nation of hyper-patriotic, dutiful mass of soldiers (or cannon fodder.) However, they were weak, and a surrender could probably have been negotiated without dropping two nuclear bombs on cities, and the Americans were closing in, and the other big guy remaining in the region (the USSR) had just declared war on them.

 

Now, the USSR was the reason why, in my eyes. An attack on mainland Japan, if it couldn't have been avoided by diplomacy, may have been worse in terms of casualties than the nuclear bomb, but as the need for an attack is in my view hazy at best, they just did it to show off to Russia and go "this is what will happen if you mess with us". Unless I see proper evidence that Japan would have carried on fighting and a mainland invasion would have been necessary, I can't view the bombings as anything more than overkill designed to intimidate Moscow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy
Japan PROBABLY would have surrendered anyway. We don't know for certain (I think), as the Japanese at the time were one of those people who were being groomed by their government to be a nation of hyper-patriotic, dutiful mass of soldiers (or cannon fodder.) However, they were weak, and a surrender could probably have been negotiated without dropping two nuclear bombs on cities, and the Americans were closing in, and the other big guy remaining in the region (the USSR) had just declared war on them.

 

Now, the USSR was the reason why, in my eyes. An attack on mainland Japan, if it couldn't have been avoided by diplomacy, may have been worse in terms of casualties than the nuclear bomb, but as the need for an attack is in my view hazy at best, they just did it to show off to Russia and go "this is what will happen if you mess with us". Unless I see proper evidence that Japan would have carried on fighting and a mainland invasion would have been necessary, I can't view the bombings as anything more than overkill designed to intimidate Moscow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_Incident

 

Does this count as proper evidence?

 

Even after two bombs the Japanese military wasn't ready to surrender.

 

 

Of course I suppose you'll dispute the credibility of this, yes? I only assume that as you qualified the evidence as needing to be "proper" but didn't give any guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
darthYENIK

Not only that, like I mentioned, the Japanese military were not surrendering from the generals on down to the lowest ranks in the battlefield. On Iwo Jima they were killing themselves, and booby trapping the dead. On Okinawa, they were literally fighting to the last man. For christ sake, it took decades (in this past decade actually) to finally talk down the last Japanese soldiers on (if I remember correctly) Mindanao in the Philippines, and finally convince them that the war has been over for years. Surrender was not in their vocabulary, especially not before the bombs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General Goose

I guess. I dunno really, I've never really looked at the War in Japan much. I do agree that a nuke (though two?) was preferable to a mainland invasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Toole
*skipping thread*

 

My thoughts: No problems with it. It was that or send millions of American soldiers to their deaths because Japan would never just surrender their homeland. They would've kept fighting down to the last person. it was us or them, we chose us.

very nice that skipping thread thing, maybe you should use it more often - have you ever tried the *skipping GTAF*? I don't reccommend it - GTAF is so good, but for those that don't fit in, it might be the only possible choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EternalChe
I guess. I dunno really, I've never really looked at the War in Japan much. I do agree that a nuke (though two?) was preferable to a mainland invasion.

yeah, right.

 

read these

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=HzHSnX7gI...rrender&f=false

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7706...den-agenda.html

 

 

and watch this, the Japanese would had surrendered, by November max, they had the biggest food shortage ever because of the naval blockade and their cities were getting firebombed, the a-bombs weren't necessary just as the mainland invasion.

 

FROM 5:30 ONWARD

 

 

even McNamara admits it

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Killer.Khan

It needed to be done. Imagine the number of deaths on the Japanese islands ALONE. If they went into the main city, the US would have lost 10x more men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MetaPhysics
Not only that, like I mentioned, the Japanese military were not surrendering from the generals on down to the lowest ranks in the battlefield. On Iwo Jima they were killing themselves, and booby trapping the dead. On Okinawa, they were literally fighting to the last man. For christ sake, it took decades (in this past decade actually) to finally talk down the last Japanese soldiers on (if I remember correctly) Mindanao in the Philippines, and finally convince them that the war has been over for years. Surrender was not in their vocabulary, especially not before the bombs.

Indeed you speak the truth. They, if you will, brainwashed their soldiers with nationalism and patriotic duty to carry out the fight until there was no blood left to spill on either side. The fight would have continued without a statement from America showing the Japanese war machine that there is no reason to continue. The only way to do that, was to target the civilians. I'm not saying that all of those gory photos of flash-burned people in Nagasaki are good, nor am I saying America did a good job (Even though they did), I am simply saying it had to be done.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rown

@EternalChe:

 

The first video doesn't seem to say that Japan would have surrendered other than Gore Vidal claiming that Truman held out so he could show the Soviets his new toy. That seems much more an opinion than a fact. The rest was Eisenhower disapproving of the bomb and its use.

 

The second video says that the bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki were effectively immoral and not proportional to the danger. They cut his response when he was saying whether or not this meant we should have sent men to die on the "beaches of Tokyo". That or he left out an answer. The central parts seemed cut together for effect. The end though was pretty solid in its message.

 

I might track down the rest of those respective series though.. MIC stuff entertains me.

 

 

The siege strategy (without the A-bomb) might have produced the desired Japanese surrender by 1 November. The probabilities are not very high (maybe 25-30 percent) because the crucial problems, in this counterfactual history, are whether Japan's peace forces would have pushed ardently for surrender, whether the emperor would have intervened if his government had been divided, wheher the militarists would have yielded to his sense of necessity, whether the government would have accepted the defeat and moved to surrender, and whether Japanese military leaders in the field would have abided by the Tokyo government's order.

 

•Trying to predict alternate histories is nice, but not exactly a science.

 

•The Kyūjō Incident seems to lend itself to the second yellow section of the above quote.

 

Rown rampage_ani.gif

Edited by Rown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EternalChe

the question of militarist leadership is irrelevant, I personally believe that the Japanese would had surrendered eventually, the question is how long would it take. I would say around the start of winter. Japan is deprived of all its resources, Russians are coming from the east etc.

 

I guess if it would come to it (without the bombs), americans would scrap the mainland invasion and go for a Leningrad Blockade scenario "on steroids"

 

incendiary bombing was proven to be very effective just look up the bombing of Tokyo.

 

the question: is starving millions and burning hundreds of thousands of people more "immoral" than killing hundred thousand people in few a seconds and irradiating hundreds of thousands more for the next generations to come? (non of which is a war crime if you win)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rown

Your own sources say that we would NOT have gone for a strategy of blockade. The plan BEFORE the bombs was to invade. Why would that have changed?

 

Yes incendiaries were highly effective. But the psychological effect of the Atomic bomb is greater. Why send squadrons of planes to decimate cities over the course of an evening when you can send one plane, with one bomb, and do the same thing instantly?

 

Alternate histories are conjecture though so it really doesn't matter.

 

On the morals of warfare it's my opinion that damn near everything about World War II was immoral. Civilian targeting is among the highest of immoralities in my mind. Cruelty to civilians is cruelty to civilians.

 

The duration and degree (both subjective) of the action and its effect are where things matter. The atomic bombs didn't last long, the radiation did. However the number of people effected was far fewer than the invasion would've been, and far fewer than the incendiary attacks that had already taken place.

 

The death of an entire nation would have been more immoral than the scarring of it.

 

Rown rampage_ani.gif

Edited by Rown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnage1120

The US asked Japan for unconditional surrender and they refused, then the US decided to soften the deal by asking Japan for unconditional surrender of armed forces and they still refused.

You all need to realize that the Japanese "civilians" were trained to kill americans on sight, even the school girls were taught to kill Americans with sharpened bamboo sticks.

They were taught never to surrender, it was unthinkable to them. It was incredible that the US even got a surrender from Japan, if it wasn't for the A - Bomb the Japanese would of kept fighting till there were no more of them.

 

 

 

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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