Hiroshima

[Eg.]

well the thing is, we won, we dont have to deal all this dribble about whose to blame

"Nagasaki still proved that the United States was capable of senseless cruelty." AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAH, i love how thats the only opinionated statement they make.

 

[Sulkdodds]

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAH

Yes, mass genocide really is hilarious isn't it?

 

[bliink]

It did bring the beginning of MAD. Which arguably stopped the cold war from being a real war. However, it could have been shown off on a milarty target.

MAD was phased out before/during detente in the 70's... part of START or SALT or one of those things.

it went:
1) Massive retailation- Fire everything we have upon the first sign of aggression
2) MAD- We have enough to kill you as much as you kill us.
3) Flexible response- bomb us, and we bomb your bombs.

The same principle still applied, but it wasn't MAD.

Either way, the fact that the US used a nuke on Japan did NOT bring about MAD. MAD only existed once russia had as many nukes as the US, and the policy was invented in the 60's.

To say that it brought about something that prevented the cold war turning hot is silly anyway considering it also brought about the cold war itself!

Its like saying: "The invention of the slingshot was good because it could be used to defend yourself against people with slingshots"

 

[Sulkdodds]

To say that it brought about something that prevented the cold war turning hot is silly anyway considering it also brought about the cold war itself!

But if they hadn't dropped a nuke at all (military target or no) then there would not have been as much awareness of the terrible consequences of atomic bombing and thus countries might have been more ready to drop 'em on eachother. I think.

I mean, I see your point...but then again, who knows when it comes to alternate histories?

MAD was phased out before/during detente in the 70's... part of START or SALT or one of those things.

Well actually I thought someone invented ABS missiles that could shoot down other missiles, thus making both countries believe they could maybe survive a nuke war because they could shoot some of the incoming missiles down. Could be wrong on that though, that's GCSE history...

 

[MjM]

McNamara, with respect to the Japanese campaign said, he was in know doubt that the Americans had commited war crimes, not exactly referring to droping the A-bomb, more to do with the fire boming which killed allot more than the nukes did.

Some cities had up to 85-90% of their inhabitants killed.


But as it was mentioned, the US/Allies prevailed, So Japan couldnt really do anything about it.


Perhaps it was a dramatic display of superiority to erode any will for resistance to the eventual occupation, but for all the ills that occurred during the war, America rebuilt both Europe and Japan, which i think shows the respect that they had for their adversaries and i guess the practicality of having thriving trading partners.

 

[bliink]

But if they hadn't dropped a nuke at all (military target or no) then there would not have been as much awareness of the terrible consequences of atomic bombing and thus countries might have been more ready to drop 'em on eachother. I think.

I mean, I see your point...but then again, who knows when it comes to alternate histories?

It wasn't so much a point about alternate history I was making, rather, pointing out the paradoxical statement in his post.

Well actually I thought someone invented ABS missiles that could shoot down other missiles, thus making both countries believe they could maybe survive a nuke war because they could shoot some of the incoming missiles down. Could be wrong on that though, that's GCSE history...

That would have been a contributing factor, sure... but the missiles were not foolproof and were pretty cumbersome to use. I would say it was mostly policy change that dictated the level of hostility (potential and real) between the two powers.

 

[Mith']

"Nagasaki still proved that the United States was capable of senseless cruelty." AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAH, i love how thats the only opinionated statement they make.

Kurt Vonnegut said that while the Hiroshima bomb may have saved the lives of his friends in the U.S. armed forces, Nagasaki still proved that the United States was capable of senseless cruelty.

Hmmm...

 

[The Mullinator]

McNamara, with respect to the Japanese campaign said, he was in know doubt that the Americans had commited war crimes, not exactly referring to droping the A-bomb, more to do with the fire boming which killed allot more than the nukes did.

Some cities had up to 85-90% of their inhabitants killed.


But as it was mentioned, the US/Allies prevailed, So Japan couldnt really do anything about it.


Perhaps it was a dramatic display of superiority to erode any will for resistance to the eventual occupation, but for all the ills that occurred during the war, America rebuilt both Europe and Japan, which i think shows the respect that they had for their adversaries and i guess the practicality of having thriving trading partners.

Off-topic:
That reminds me. Read the book "The mouse that roared". Its a comedy about a fake country in Europe no larger than a city that decides to declare war on the US and lose so the US and lose so the US will spend money helping them get a better economy. The really funny part is that in the end they actually win.

 

[CptStern]

it's also a good movie starring Peter Sellers

 

[CrazyHarij]

Some (american) people here claim these countries don't admit to their evildoings, well, I still haven't seen the US admitting to all the looting and raping that occured in europe during WW2 for instance. But yeah, history is written by the winners.

 

[The Mullinator]

it's also a good movie starring Peter Sellers

Yes I have been meaning to find that movie but havn't gotten around to it yet.

Some (american) people here claim these countries don't admit to their evildoings, well, I still haven't seen the US admitting to all the looting and raping that occured in europe during WW2 for instance. But yeah, history is written by the winners.

So did the British army:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0510-24.htm

 

[Eg.]

Yes, mass genocide really is hilarious isn't it?

yes, i agree that genocide is terrible, but the a-bomb was not genocide. nothing we did to japan was anywhere near genocide. if you have a problem with vaporizing a city, then why dont you cry out against the conventional bombing of regular japanese cities, which killed just as much?

also, it was a war. how does bombing your enemies cities turn into a warcrime? what are we supposed to do, make sure we kill nothing during a war?

what i found amazingly funny was that was the only statement in that script

 

[Dag]

Some (american) people here claim these countries don't admit to their evildoings, well, I still haven't seen the US admitting to all the looting and raping that occured in europe during WW2 for instance. But yeah, history is written by the winners.

Looting and Raping as compared to that commited to the ones by Japan onto China? Or maybe Stalin's troops "Rape or Berlin"? Did you know, that Germany doesn't teach anything about the Holocaust in thier schools. Don't even mention it happened. Lots of people know think that it was just a disease that killed 6 million Jews. But are you yelling at them for that? No, your focusing all your hatred of this toward the US to make it look bad. And maybe you are forgetting the most important thing of all. It was a war. And not just any war, but the most feroucious and horrible war humankind has yet to see. And you are mad because some American soldiers couldn't control thier feelings or ethics in a war that crippled Europe, and killed millions? And don't say "But they were soldiers, they were trained not to do that." They were conscripts. Draftees. Normal people brought in off the streets to fight the war. Go down to the slummy side of town, and ask some people what they would do to a sworn rival gang member. And if your mad about the rapings and lootings being a big deal in the middle of the most horrible war man has ever seen, maybe you should do good to think that history is written by the winners, and there is nothing you can do about it.

 

[MjM]

Hey Dag is it possible that what you have leant about WW2 leaves out parts that dont portray the USA in the best possible light?

Just like how the Japanese and Germans apparently leave out episodes?

Seems totally reasonable to me. I did a quick search in Google and found a few articles: http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics and History/us_war_crimes/us_war_crimes_in_world_war_II_1.htm
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics and History/us_war_crimes/Eisenhowers_death_camps.htm
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics and History/us_war_crimes/allied_war_crimes_1941-1950.htm , as of writing this i havnt read them but perhaps they highlight some aspects of WW2 not covered by the allies too openly?

Hunger made German women more "available," but despite this, rape was prevalent and often accompanied by additional violence. In particular I remember an eighteen-year old woman who had the side of her faced smashed with a rifle butt and was then raped by two G.I.s. Even the French complained that the rapes, looting and drunken destructiveness on the part of our troops was excessive. In Le Havre, we'd been given booklets warning us that the German soldiers had maintained a high standard of behavior with French civilians who were peaceful, and that we should do the same. In this we failed miserably.

"So what?" some would say. "The enemy's atrocities were worse than ours." It is true that I experienced only the end of the war, when we were already the victors. The German opportunity for atrocities had faded; ours was at hand. But two wrongs don't make a right. Rather than copying our enemy’s crimes, we should aim once and for all to break the cycle of hatred and vengeance that has plagued and distorted human history. This is why I am speaking out now, forty-five years after the crime. We can never prevent individual war crimes, but we can, if enough of us speak out, influence government policy. We can reject government propaganda that depicts our enemies as subhuman and encourages the kind of outrages I witnessed. We can protest the bombing of civilian targets, which still goes on today. And we can refuse ever to condone our government's murder of unarmed and defeated prisoners of war.

I realize it is difficult for the average citizen to admit witnessing a crime of this magnitude, especially if implicated himself. Even G.I’s sympathetic to the victims were afraid to complain and get into trouble, they told me. And the danger has not ceased. Since I spoke out a few weeks ago, I have received threatening calls and had my mailbox smashed. But its been worth it. Writing about these atrocities has been a catharsis of feeling suppressed too long, a liberation, and perhaps will remind other witnesses that "the truth will make us free, have no fear." We may even learn a supreme lesson from all this: only love can conquer all.

Source: Reprinted from The Journal of Historical Review, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 161-166

"Starting in April 1945, the United States Army and the French Army casually annihilated one million [German] men, most of them in American camps . . . Eisenhower's hatred, passed through the lens of a compliant military bureaucracy, produced the horror of death camps unequalled by anything in American history . . . an enormous war crime."

-- Col. Ernest F. Fisher, PhD Lt.
101 st Airborne Division, Senior Historian, United States Army

While you dont deny horrible things happened, Dag, i think you do under estimate the balance of brutality that existed on both sides.

 

[Eg.]

yeah, those arent really good sites, as they seem to believe in the illuminate or how ever you spell it, so im going to say those links are trash

 

[Foxtrot]

Hey Dag is it possible that what you have leant about WW2 leaves out parts that dont portray the USA in the best possible light?

Just like how the Japanese and Germans apparently leave out episodes?

Seems totally reasonable to me. I did a quick search in Google and found a few articles: http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics and History/us_war_crimes/us_war_crimes_in_world_war_II_1.htm
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics and History/us_war_crimes/Eisenhowers_death_camps.htm
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics and History/us_war_crimes/allied_war_crimes_1941-1950.htm , as of writing this i havnt read them but perhaps they highlight some aspects of WW2 not covered by the allies too openly?

EDIT: Does the guy i linked to seem to be Jew bashing?

Those go against first hand accounts that I have heard, either that was an incredibly isolated case, or a complete lie.

 

[MjM]

Did you read all of them?

And fiollow some of the links. The first link, the guy seems abit absurd but then he goes on to document allot of figures.

Check the post by the 101 air borne dude, that i edited in.

 

[Eg.]

Yes, lets look at the site and see that it has to say... ok so its run by priest that seems to have gone bonkers. Great place for a history lesson.

 

[MjM]

They have references.

 

[Sulkdodds]

For God's sake people. Everybody in WW2 did some bad stuff but that doesn't mean you can't critisise one particular nation. The USA forced all Japanese-Americans into concentration camps when Pearl harbour happened, taking away their homes, property and their money. That's pretty nasty. And when they finally let Japanese people join the US military, there was a massive surge in enlistment.

But are you yelling at them for that? No, your focusing all your hatred of this toward the US to make it look bad.

Just because we're focusing on one country doesn't mean we're saying no others did bad stuff. Do you expect people to constantly make reference to every other country in WW2 when talking about this stuff?

And you, EG: first you argue that the hiroshima bombings were okay because it was a war, it was justified. Now you're refusing to believe any other atrocities that the US committed. Make up your mind!

 

[Kyorisu]

All manner of countries do bad things, no one can say they don't.

In this case America had suffered heavy losses after attempting an attack on a japanese occupied island. America knew attacking Japan itself via a naval and land attack would suffer heavy losses. America needed a way to stop the war with japan, and so the A bomb was used.

Massive losses of japanese citizens forced Japan into a non conditional surrender.

 

[Dag]

Just because we're focusing on one country doesn't mean we're saying no others did bad stuff. Do you expect people to constantly make reference to every other country in WW2 when talking about this stuff?

Actually, you are. This whole thread was built around that fact that America was horrible in WWII. Yes, I do expect people to constantly make references to all the countries and thier atrocities during WWII. It was a war, and to win a war, the nation that came out the winner had to come out the victor by using any means possible to win. No country can be portrayed in the best possible light, it was a war for Christ sake. Everyone did horrible things, because they were all desperate to win.

Hey Dag is it possible that what you have leant about WW2 leaves out parts that dont portray the USA in the best possible light?

No, actually. I love reading history, and what I said seems to have some people thinking that I have an image of America as The Holy Saints who never did anything wrong, and if you can show me where I said that, I'll stop argueing. Yes, America did commit atrocities. Look what they did to the Japanese, and how many came to victory in Europe. But thier atrocities just don't add up to the kinds like those of the Holocaust, or the Assault on China. And for all your bickering about how the US is bad, what about Britian, and Russia? Or the French Underground? I guess thier atrocities don't quite add up to Americas, do they?

 

[MjM]

Looting and Raping as compared to that commited to the ones by Japan onto China? Or maybe Stalin's troops "Rape or Berlin"? Did you know, that Germany doesn't teach anything about the Holocaust in thier schools. Don't even mention it happened. Lots of people know think that it was just a disease that killed 6 million Jews. But are you yelling at them for that? No, your focusing all your hatred of this toward the US to make it look bad. And maybe you are forgetting the most important thing of all. It was a war. And not just any war, but the most feroucious and horrible war humankind has yet to see. And you are mad because some American soldiers couldn't control thier feelings or ethics in a war that crippled Europe, and killed millions? And don't say "But they were soldiers, they were trained not to do that." They were conscripts. Draftees. Normal people brought in off the streets to fight the war. Go down to the slummy side of town, and ask some people what they would do to a sworn rival gang member. And if your mad about the rapings and lootings being a big deal in the middle of the most horrible war man has ever seen, maybe you should do good to think that history is written by the winners, and there is nothing you can do about it.

The impression i get from this post is that you recognise that America did bad things but then you doen play it for one reason or another.

What im trying to say is that America did bad things as well, which shouldnt be down played. Chaces are there were cases where Allied forces committed crimes equal to those comitted by opposing forces on the Western front/Pacific campaign.

Just because you love reading history has no bearing on whether what you are reading is biased or not.


And revision is a good thing. If i take NZ history as an example. The histories of the land wars (1840s), are vastly different from the 1900s to the 1970s. The interpretation of history changes with time. Generally speaking it gets far more balanced. Its called historiography.

Following the trend of history in NZ, it could be 100 years or so following WW2 that a truest account be revealed. But thats pure speculation.

 

[Edcrab]

Well, despite how atrocities have been committed by every side I wouldn't say that a thread discussing the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings was being unfair to the US- you must admit that it's one of the most defining moments in history.

Besides, on the atrocity front I come from one of the contenders- the good ol' British Empire ****ed over the vast majority of the planet by abusing its vast armies and economic positioning. Hell, look at India. So just because a thread is focusing on one particular aspect of a conflict people shouldn't think that others have been forgotten, because that'd just be the worst kind of hypocrisy.

Whether it ended the war or played a major part will forever be a matter open to debate- but it certainly made the world as a whole take note after the death of thousands and thousands of people. Personally I could have sympathised more with the decision to nuke a military installation instead of a city- or hell, even just a mountain- but if the Japanese didn't take note escalation would've occured either way. Mountain to forest to port to army base to city- or whatever was necessary until "peace" was declared.

You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't, although the difference would be a standard bomb annihilating your family instead of an atomic shockwave.

 

[nick_t]

I can't see how you can justify the slaughter of millions of innocent people (which were totally uninvolved to the war), the painful death of thousands of others due to cancer, and the defects of their children (if they happen to be born). Nothing justifies this action, unless it was done to prevent greater suffering which is exactly what the US tries to present... bs.

 

[Tr0n]

Actually if you think about it...in a sense it was kinda ok that we did bomb them.It showed the world how horrible the atomic/nuclear bombs are and can be.Which probally prompted the future super powers to kinda back down from using them.

If we didn't use them...they would have probally been used later on in the future by us or someone else.

 

[nick_t]

Actually if you think about it...in a sense it was kinda ok that we did bomb them.It showed the world how horrible the atomic/nuclear bombs are and can be.Which probally prompted the future super powers to kinda back down from using them.

If we didn't use them...they would have probally been used later on in the future by us or someone else.

ok then, why not bomb a small town? how about a military installation? If it's so "OK" to use milions of people as an example, why doesn't the US bomb one of their own towns or how about the real threat - the Nazis? That's because the bombings were an act of hate executed with a ruthless disregard for human life. Seeing how powerful a weapon is doesn't make people back off - it makes people more eager to use it and make it more deadly! Please study history. Richard J. Gatling invented the Gatling gun for the sole purpose of terrifying the world so it would never dare to wage war again:

"November 4, 1862- Richard J. Gatling patents the machine gun. Gatling’s idea was to invent machines to make war too terrible to be waged any longer. What he succeeded in doing was to indeed make war more terrible." link

"So, as you see Richard Jordan Gatling wanted to make a gun so powerful that, in fear, it would stop war instead of causing mass death." link

Now tell me, how much has he succeeded in stopping war by showing the horrific capabilities of a powerful weapon? You might say it's different with a Nuclear weapon because it actually kills people on "a large scale." But that would be an unreasonable argument since cruel minds don't care about how many they kill; the Gatling gun could easily wipe out a large settlement of people which is parallel to now where the Nuclear bomb could easily wiped out an entire metropolis. So please, don't try to justify this bloody chapter imbued in the pages of history - it's not "OK." There are a few incidental positive outcomes such as saving the lives of soldiers and understanding how terrible warfare has become but overall, it's foolish to counter this dispicable and dreadful event with rationalization.

 

[MjM]

Thats kinda stupid because they mesaure nukes in terms of explosive power, i think. i.e. this warhead is the equivalent of x Mega tonnes of dynamite or whateva their standard is.

So you need only to extrapolate out to concieve of the destructive power a nuke would bring.


Perhaps nukes helped deter the USA, Europe and the USSR from direct confrontation.

 

[Tr0n]

A gatling gun can't start a nuclear winter or kill millions of people in one blast.

Oh and nick...if you knew your history...they didn't finish the bomb or had a working bomb till after the surrender of nazi germany.I never said it would stop war...only back down from using them for now.Oh and war....it happens nick.

It wasn't an act of "hate"...it was an act of strategy to save millions of allied soldiers lives.In war it's ether you or them...that's how it is folks.

 

[MjM]

It wasn't an act of "hate"...it was an act of strategy to save millions of allied soldiers lives.In war it's ether you or them...that's how it is folks.

But their fire bombing was just as effective?

 

[Foxtrot]

But their fire bombing was just as effective?

Not nearly as effective, not even close.

 

[nick_t]

A gatling gun can't start a nuclear winter or kill millions of people in one blast.

I already went over this but you missed the point. A Gatling gun back in those days was incredibly terrifying. In days when it takes a long time to reload your rifle, shoot, and kill someone, a machine which kills hundreds in seconds was absolutely devestating. Noone could imagine such destruction and bloodshed! This is parallel to how people couldn't imagine the destruction of the atomic bomb - history repeats itself. You're telling me its OK to drop the A-Bomb because people need to see its destructive power so they will be afraid and not use it again. Well, it was dropped but people are only more eager to acquire it now that they have seen its power - US, Russia, Israel, India, N. Korea... Therefore, your theory that dropping the a-bomb on innocent people was "OK" because it prevented further suffering and terror is invalid.

Oh and nick...if you knew your history...they didn't finish the bomb or had a working bomb till after the surrender of nazi germany.I never said it would stop war...only back down from using them for now.Oh and war....it happens nick.

Ok you're right - they couldn't drop it on Germany (I'm not a WWII freak). But that still doesn't explain why they couldn't drop it on actual people involved in the war instead of innocent people.

It wasn't an act of "hate"...it was an act of strategy to save millions of allied soldiers lives.In war it's ether you or them...that's how it is folks.

I agree war is about "you or them," but war should only affect military personnel - not completely innocent people! Many of the Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki might've been against the war. There's no point in arguing though. Whatever I say, you'll just revert to your "it saved allied soldiers" argument. And I agree, it did. But when you look back on all the grief and devestation caused by those bombs and see the millions of innocent people (and their future generations) suffering for something they never took part in, I don't see how such an atrocity can be justified.

 

[Tr0n]

I already went over this but you missed the point. A Gatling gun back in those days was incredibly terrifying. In days when it takes a long time to reload your rifle, shoot, and kill someone, a machine which kills hundreds in seconds was absolutely devestating. Noone could imagine such destruction and bloodshed! This is parallel to how people couldn't imagine the destruction of the atomic bomb - history repeats itself. You're telling me its OK to drop the A-Bomb because people need to see its destructive power so they will be afraid and not use it again. Well, it was dropped but people are only more eager to acquire it now that they have seen its power - US, Russia, Israel, India, N. Korea... Therefore, your theory that dropping the a-bomb on innocent people was "OK" because it prevented further suffering and terror is invalid.

No I'm telling you it was ok to drop it to save allied soldier lives.Hell what about those innocent civilians in China during the rape of Nanking?Did they deserve that?What about the Manila Massacre?Hell the allied did some bad things also...like the firestorm bombing of many japanese and german cities, but they don't compare to the atrocities that the japanese and germans comitted.

Ok you're right - they couldn't drop it on Germany (I'm not a WWII freak). But that still doesn't explain why they couldn't drop it on actual people involved in the war instead of innocent people.

Morale...a great weapon in war if used right.Read "Sun Tzu's art of war"...and you will understand.Also I forgot to mention it was to push the Emperor into surrendering.When the first bomb was dropped he wouldn't surrender...but once we dropped the second it pretty much showed he wasn't going to win.

I agree war is about "you or them," but war should only affect military personnel - not completely innocent people! Many of the Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki might've been against the war. There's no point in arguing though. Whatever I say, you'll just revert to your "it saved allied soldiers" argument. And I agree, it did. But when you look back on all the grief and devestation caused by those bombs and see the millions of innocent people (and their future generations) suffering for something they never took part in, I don't see how such an atrocity can be justified.

Many?What are you smoking?Hell I guess you didn't know, but most of the japanese population was actually gearing up to fight off an allied invasion of their home land.I remember watching something on the history channel about how the goverment handed out these pamphlets on how to fight a US soldier.There was this one funny part in it that that talked about how the japanese should use their size as an advantage, by kicking the soldier in the nuts and doing some combo hit.Don't remember what tho...Anyways you get the point.

 

[Sulkdodds]

1. Like Edcrab said, this is a thread about Hiroshima so it stands to reason we're discussing American atrocities and not everyon else's. If you want to start another thread about other people's war crimes, go right on ahead.

2. I do think dropping the Hiroshima bomb was an atrocity but Tron is right on one thing at least: as I've already said earlier in this thread, it demonstrated the power of nuclear weapons to the entire world. Without that demonstration of power, Russia and America might have ended up going to war with conventional weapons or even nukes. Remember thah before Hiroshima and Nagisaki, no-one knew about the fallout caused.

Yes, it would have been better to drop it on a military target, and yes, I'm not saying that it was 'ok'. But in the end, it probably saved more lives than it destroyed. Without Hiroshima and Nagisaki, the USA and USSR might well have ended up flinging nukes at each other.

3.

A Gatling gun back in those days was incredibly terrifying.

Uhm, a gatling gun isn't even in the same league as a nuke.

A nuclear bomb could flash-fry everyone in a 20km radius.

For a gatling gun to kill all those people, they'd have to be standing in a stadium waiting to get shot, all close-packed, and even then it'd take a couple of days and several hundred reloads.

EDIT: By the way Tron, just to play devil's advocate: what if Japan had dropped a nuke on the US in a last-ditch effort kinda thing? What if they had nuked a major US city?

 

[MjM]

Curtis LeMay, later said: "I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal." He felt, however, that his bombings were saving lives by encouraging Japan to surrender earlier. Former Japanese prime minister Fumimaro Konoe's statement that "the determination to make peace was the prolonged bombing" lends support to this view.

Tokyo was not considered as a target for a nuclear attack, although Tokyo Bay was apparently examined as a target for a non-lethal demonstration.


Quite interesting eh. I think there is merit to both points of view on this issue. However, by that quote it seems the firebombing may have been the bigger consideration to the Japanese.

http://www.answers.com/topic/bombing-of-tokyo-in-world-war-ii

 

[Tr0n]

EDIT: By the way Tron, just to play devil's advocate: what if Japan had dropped a nuke on the US in a last-ditch effort kinda thing? What if they had nuked a major US city?

Let me get my time machine and try to alter history.After I'm done then ask me that question.

I really don't know...If they did, we would have done the same to them 3 times over. *shrugs* That's war folks.

 

[Dag]

ok then, why not bomb a small town? how about a military installation? If it's so "OK" to use milions of people as an example, why doesn't the US bomb one of their own towns or how about the real threat - the Nazis? That's because the bombings were an act of hate executed with a ruthless disregard for human life. Seeing how powerful a weapon is doesn't make people back off - it makes people more eager to use it and make it more deadly! Please study history. Richard J. Gatling invented the Gatling gun for the sole purpose of terrifying the world so it would never dare to wage war again:

"November 4, 1862- Richard J. Gatling patents the machine gun. Gatling’s idea was to invent machines to make war too terrible to be waged any longer. What he succeeded in doing was to indeed make war more terrible." link

"So, as you see Richard Jordan Gatling wanted to make a gun so powerful that, in fear, it would stop war instead of causing mass death." link

Now tell me, how much has he succeeded in stopping war by showing the horrific capabilities of a powerful weapon? You might say it's different with a Nuclear weapon because it actually kills people on "a large scale." But that would be an unreasonable argument since cruel minds don't care about how many they kill; the Gatling gun could easily wipe out a large settlement of people which is parallel to now where the Nuclear bomb could easily wiped out an entire metropolis. So please, don't try to justify this bloody chapter imbued in the pages of history - it's not "OK." There are a few incidental positive outcomes such as saving the lives of soldiers and understanding how terrible warfare has become but overall, it's foolish to counter this dispicable and dreadful event with rationalization.

Maybe you should read history a little more closely, the Nazi's were already defeated, Russia was parading around Berlin at that time. Anyway, Einstien and the others working on the Manhatten project were focused more on creating a weapon of such ferocity, that Japan would give up without a full blown invasion. And did they? Yes, they did. Einstien probably realized that if you want to make people not make war, don't create better weapons. What would you have done, MjM, nick_t, ect. What would you have done? Given Japan a Cease-fire, like the end of WWI? Just let them go home, with an intense hatred of the Allies and with militaristic capabilities? Or would you have kept up the siege, letting millions die in starvation and disease anyway?

If Japan had bombed America, it wouldn't be a war crime. It would be war. People die in war. Everyone in this thread is so furios that these people died on a large scale by Nuclear weapons. I guess this isn't as appaling as the millions of civilians that died on the Eastern Front, right? Or France? Or was it the way they died, by radiation poisoning? But thats not as bad as getting you leg shot off, or your lower jaw. Or getting torched by a flame thrower? Run over by a tank? Killed off by infection? And if the Atomic bomb had not been dropped, how would we later have learned how destructive it was? On Britain? Berlin? Moscow?

 

[MjM]

You forget that targeting civilians is a war crime.

As for knowing how destructive nuclear weapons are. They do test these things bvefore they drop them. It wasnt like they were curious, they already new it was a fricking killing machine.

What would i have done?

If you really feel it was necessary to drop a nuke, then a non lethal demonstration somewhere around the coast of japan could have been an answer. Tokyo bay, as mentioed in an earlier post of mine. I dunno what the repercussions are when detonating at sea, in terms of long term pollution and food supplies, but i would definately assume it would be far less lethal than droping it directly on a city.

 

[Foxtrot]

You forget that targeting civilians is a war crime.

As for knowing how destructive nuclear weapons are. They do test these things bvefore they drop them. It wasnt like they were curious, they already new it was a fricking killing machine.

What would i have done?

If you really feel it was necessary to drop a nuke, then a non lethal demonstration somewhere around the coast of japan could have been an answer. Tokyo bay, as mentioed in an earlier post of mine. I dunno what the repercussions are when detonating at sea, in terms of long term pollution, but i would definately assume it would be far less lethal than droping it directly on a city.

We had 2 bombs, we dropped one on Hiroshima and they didn't surrender, we dropped another on Nagasaki and they finally did. What makes you think that dropping one on the coast would have made them surrender? Also, dropping it in the water boils all the water and forms a radioactive cloud, of death.

 

[MjM]

Good to know they tested these babies throughout the pacific.

Also i dont know why Dag said the Japanese wouldnt have been tried if they had done the same thing.

They had the Tokyo War crimes tribunal, MAY 3, 1946 to NOVEMBER 12, 1948.

I suppose in those early days they didnt know what variation in fallout occured.
Air bursts are the least dangerous, basically the more material you kick up in the explosion the more dangerous the fallout is.