lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 10-18-2006, 04:39 PM   #81
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
"Because our enemy was so bad, we get to do bad things as well."
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-18-2006, 04:43 PM   #82
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
TK, beyond maybe playing devil's advocate, what exactly is your point? Perhaps you should enlighten us on how the war war should have been concluded and why you think it could have REALISTICALLY worked that way.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-18-2006, 04:47 PM   #83
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
TK, beyond maybe playing devil's advocate, what exactly is your point? Perhaps you should enlighten us on how the war war should have been concluded and why you think it could have REALISTICALLY worked that way.
We didn't need to get involved in the first place. If Japan or Germany showed up with troops on our shores, yeah, we'd crush them there. But forcing American citizens to fight overseas against their will (draft) is not freedom.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-18-2006, 05:14 PM   #84
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Oh, I forgot that the US must have attacked PH with copies of Japanese weapons to drag us into the war. You also seem to forget that a great number of Americans actually volunteered to join the war and didn't wait around for a draft board to "violate their freedom". I think you're confusing WW2 with perhaps Vietnam or other postwar conflicts (perhaps "Bush's war"?). WW2 didn't provide us with the luxury of sticking our head in the sand and hoping everything just blew over.

Also, you still don't explain how the war could have been realistically concluded w/o the dropping of the 2 Abombs, or at least some heavy lost of life via other means. I will take it that you realize that the US is not an autarky (ie completely self sufficient in natural resources) and sometimes has to defend it's interests beyond it's physical borders.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-18-2006, 05:24 PM   #85
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Oh, I forgot that the US must have attacked PH with copies of Japanese weapons to drag us into the war. You also seem to forget that a great number of Americans actually volunteered to join the war and didn't wait around for a draft board to "violate their freedom". I think you're confusing WW2 with perhaps Vietnam or other postwar conflicts (perhaps "Bush's war"?). WW2 didn't provide us with the luxury of sticking our head in the sand and hoping everything just blew over.
If WWII could have been fought without a draft, that'd have been great - but I don't think we could have done so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Also, you still don't explain how the war could have been realistically concluded w/o the dropping of the 2 Abombs, or at least some heavy lost of life via other means.
We didn't have to do anything. They would have either surrendered on their own, or wouldn't have been able to attack us anyway, and would crumble away under the strain put on their country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
I will take it that you realize that the US is not an autarky (ie completely self sufficient in natural resources) and sometimes has to defend it's interests beyond it's physical borders.
Protecting our interests didn't include the slaughtering of innocent men, women, and children.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-18-2006, 05:58 PM   #86
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
I suppose you're right. We could have just sat by while the Soviets took over Japan. If the concept of a draft seems to frighten you so, or at least strike you as almost unforgivably unjust, you probably ought to emigrate to Scandanavia or Switzerland.

C'mon, seriously, all your telling us is that you don't like the draft and that somehow people should've been magically spared at war's end. You still don't say how the Japanese would've surrendered and even stated that we could have embargoed Japan in 1945, but allowed them food and medicines. How would that have induced them to surrender? How would we have prevented them from trying to regroup and launch a slew of suicide weapons vs the fleet that would've had to enforce AND carry out the terms of said embargo? Also, considereing the strain placed on the USSR at the beginning of the war, perhaps you can explain how they kept on till the end even in the face of 25 million casualties. Japan might have eventually collapsed under it's own weight, but not before the Soviets would have invaded it. How many Japanese sholud've died to satisfy one's sense of moral superiority about not using an atomic weapon? Sadly, it took the prospect of almost complete annihilation to bring the Japanese around.

Unfortunately, you're quite wrong there. Slaughtering innocents, as you put it, is one of the ugly aspects of war that is almost always unavoidable. It also tends to serve as one of the reasons people try to use every diplomatic trick in the book before they go to war to get what they want. Hitler would have been quite happy to take Europe by diplomacy if he could have pulled that off. But staggering human loss is also the main reason WW3 never happened. If not for nukes, there would have been almost nothing to stop the USSR from overrunning Europe within a decade of the war's end.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-18-2006, 06:19 PM   #87
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
We didn't need to get involved in the first place.
Yeah, we did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_Attack
Up until that time the majority of Americans wanted to stay out of the war (isolationism).

As for using nuclear weapons on Japan: no, the civilians didn't "deserve it," but the military installations in those cities did. This was just one of many very inhumane acts carried out by both sides in the bloodiest, most ruthless conflict the world has ever seen. It was seen at the time as a way to swiftly end the war with no more American lives being lost. I doubt that at that time Truman, or any other American for that matter, really gave a rat's ass about the civilian deaths these bombs would cause, given the fact that by that stage in the war the ruthless flattening of entire cities by massive air strikes had become the norm. EmpDev has already correctly pointed out that the firebombing of Tokyo alone killed as many people as nuking Hiroshima did, and it was just one of several Japanese cities that got the same treatment.

After four years of total war on two fronts, America was sick of war and Japan had shown no outward signs of giving up. Your idea of a total blockade is admirable, but unrealistic given the fact that it was already being done. The US Navy had adopted Germany's methods in the use of submarines. They were sinking every Japanese merchant or naval vessel that was in the waters around Japan, and had been for at least the past year.

The Japanese were cut off and starving, but they wouldn't surrender. Based on experience gained through four years of total war the US military leadership had every reason to believe that they would never surrender. As thay saw it, there there was only option: a bloody invasion with millions, yes millions of casualties on both sides, which they were completely willing to and were planning to undertake when the nukes suddenly became available. To them it was a no-brainer. Either invade at the cost of several hundred thousand American lives or nuke two cities and kill a couple hundred thousand Japanese in a way little different than they'd been doing for the past year, and with little or no loss of American lives. It was probably the easiest decision Truman ever made.

Was it brutal? Yes, but so was everything else that happened in that war. It pales in comparison to the stuff that Germany and Japan did. He who tries to remain a saint while waging war loses. There is no question in my mind that if the Germans or Japanese had developed these weapons first, they would have used them to take over the world. The US used them to end the war, and probably also as a message to that ruthless bastard Stalin that he'd better behave himself.

Your humanitarianism is admirable, but ultimately I think the use of the bomb saved more lives than it took.
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-18-2006, 07:47 PM   #88
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qliveur
Yeah, we did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_Attack
Up until that time the majority of Americans wanted to stay out of the war (isolationism).
Pearl Harbor was a result of the U.S. choosing to ally ourselves with Britain and the Allies, and cut off trade with Japan. Had we stayed neutral we might not have gotten attacked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qliveur
The Japanese were cut off and starving, but they wouldn't surrender.
But why not? A number of professionals have voiced their opinion (as I have quoted previously in the thread) that they regretted the atomic bombings, because they DID think that Japan was on the path of surrendering.

And if they didn't surrender, why right away bomb a bunch of civilians? Why not detonate the bomb over an unpopulated part of Japan, just to show the rest of the world that we have the bomb, but not slaughter innocents in the process...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qliveur
Either invade at the cost of several hundred thousand American lives or nuke two cities and kill a couple hundred thousand Japanese in a way little different than they'd been doing for the past year, and with little or no loss of American lives.
Why did we have to do anything? Was Japan prepared to come and invade the U.S. and take it over? If not, then we would be on an offensive campaign, not a defensive one.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-18-2006, 11:18 PM   #89
Emperor Devon
36 Wings, 365 Eyes
 
Emperor Devon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,479
Current Game: Ass Effect
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Pearl Harbor was a result of the U.S. choosing to ally ourselves with Britain and the Allies, and cut off trade with Japan. Had we stayed neutral we might not have gotten attacked.
You are overlooking some aspects of the war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
But why not? A number of professionals have voiced their opinion (as I have quoted previously in the thread) that they regretted the atomic bombings, because they DID think that Japan was on the path of surrendering.
I'm beating around the bush with this. They were not surrendering. Life in some parts of Japan was truly horrible for years, and they put up with it. They were sending planes on suicide missions, and at an increasing rate. Is that a sign of wanting to surrender?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
And if they didn't surrender, why right away bomb a bunch of civilians? Why not detonate the bomb over an unpopulated part of Japan, just to show the rest of the world that we have the bomb, but not slaughter innocents in the process...
That would have been as effective as Osama crashing an empty plane into a corn field in Nebraska. While at it, why just detonate the bomb in the U.S. and show the world a video?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Why did we have to do anything? Was Japan prepared to come and invade the U.S. and take it over? If not, then we would be on an offensive campaign, not a defensive one.
So we shouldn't have brought the third most evil nation on Earth at that time to justice? All the atrocities Japan had committed which rivaled that of the Nazis? If you leave countries alone during war, they rebuild their militaries. Giving an opportunity like that would have been foolish in the extreme.

From what I've noticed in your posts, you seem to be overlooking how evil how Japan was during that time. They were the ones who invaded countries without provocation, tortured people, burned cities, were responsible for thousands of deaths in Asia, and other war crimes I can list if you want. Is there a reason you seem to be overlooking this?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth
We will be great failures one day, you and I
Emperor Devon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-19-2006, 03:17 AM   #90
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
So, TK, the US is now not allowed to adjust it's trade policies b/c some other country might find them inconveient? You do realize that being "on the path of surrendering" isn't the same as actually doing it? Your repeated attempts to cite pointless civillian deaths is misplaced. As has been pointed out to you, these targets all had military and economic reasons (supporting Japan's war effort) and Japan was too densely populated to avoid such casualties if we chose to do so anyway. Hawaii and PH were part of the US. Offensive campaigns are not bad in and of themselves. I think you must be trying to delineate between wars of conquest and those forced on you by others. The US fought both offensive and defensive campaigns throughout the war in both the Pacific and European theatres. Frankly, and with all due respect, you need to read up on the natures of both the Imperial Japanese government and the Nazi regime and their goals if you're to better understand the issue at hand. Sorry if that sounds harsh to you.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:15 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.