dropping the bomb on japan? yes or no?
- Thread starter farmerboy219
- Start date
Recommended Videos
But it DID save more lives. Estimates from Operation Downfall estimated everywhere from tens of thousands to a million allied troops, just from the ground invasions. And that doesn't include deaths at sea. Estimates from the Japanese side of things estimated in the millions and tens of millions of deaths, civilians and soldiers combined. From a combined casualty count of tens of millions, I would take the route that guaranteed that less blood would be spilled if they wouldn't surrender.heavymedicombo said:
That militia made up of civilians? 28 million people. Innocent people who were willing to die for their country rather than make peace.
And the land invasion also would have cost much more than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It would also take more time, which would lead American support for the war to plummet, to the point where we would be brought to armistice instead of victory. And since they attacked us first, victory would have been the expected outcome, and the one that would be most welcome by the populace.
Overall, the bombings were a far more efficient way of getting the job done. And it wasn't about being a police state or a big brother for the rest of the world, it was about defending ourselves. We were attacked at Pearl Harbor without a formal declaration of war. I certainly wouldn't let myself get punched in the face, stand up with a bloody nose and say "You know what? Just do what you're gonna do".
I never once said that war was unnecessary. I just personally do not find it justifiable.Bruin said:
Now while others may, that is up to them.
But people are entitled to their opinion and free speech, are they not?
We have the right to protest.
Basically, what I'm trying to argue is that the US backed themselves into a corner and then claimed that it did what it had to. That's why I brought up the origins of the war, to draw parallels. So, sorry but you're going to have to bear my discussions on the beginning and the end.Swollen Goat said:
The behaviour of the Japanese (from my understanding) is that they acted similarly to European powers beforehand. Japan, like Germany, was 'late to the party' for colonisation and, within that century, the European nations had participated in a colonial land-grab in Africa with brutality that was similar to what Japan did with the civilians and POWs under its control in WW2. It doesn't excuse Japanese actions but it explains their anger at the hypocrisy of the West for denying Japan the opportunities they had. From our context, the Japanese acted inappropriately but, for a young nation that wanted to take its place amongst the Great Powers of the time set in the early 20th century, they acted predictably.
Combined with the extreme nationalists that ran Japan at the time, the offer for a peace treaty with China was (at the time) a very generous proposal which brings me to my argument that the US backed Japan into a corner with Pearl Harbour. Either Japan lost its colonial possessions, which not only sullied its honour (which, I assume, would be pretty big back then) but also affirmed within Japan the hypocrisy of the West; or it 'liberated' Asia from Western hegemony. I don't condone what Japan did but I can understand why they did it.
The whole reason I bring the start of the war up, like I said before, was to show that the US acted in a way so that the A-bomb was the only option available to them. The entire world, at the time before the bomb, knew that the US would win the war and it was only a matter of time. Japan's strategy was to sue for peace, which I argue could have occurred if the US had agreed to safeguard the Emperor. From what I've understood, the Japanese were so fanatical because of the Emperor and if the Emperor was protected, the Japanese would have gone along with complete disarmament. While we can only speculate, I say that the success of the Occupation that occurred showed how that Japanese would completely disarm, at the orders of the US, as long as the Emperor was safe. If the Americans offered a peace treaty which ordered complete disarmament but guaranteed the Imperial Family's safety, I think the Japanese would have surrendered. At least, the Americans could then, and only then, claim that the A-bombs were a last resort.
You bring up the point that, from a purely military point of view, the A-bombs would have been used. I'm sure you've read the argument that the A-bomb was (arguably) used to scare the Soviets. If the Americans could have gotten peace through negotiations, then one of the major drivers to use the weapons would be to not only scare the Soviets but stop the spread of communism, both in Eastern Europe (as the Red Army liberated the region from Nazism) and also in Asia (as the Soviets did not enter the war).
Note: FDR was not the only world leader who wanted to intervene in the Sino-Japanese War, especially since one of the major ways the Nationalists were supplied was through the Burma Road, a British initiative. While WW2 was the start of US 'world policing', at the beginning, the US was only interested in the conflict to ensure their interests of trade relations with China and their colonial possessions (the only one I can think of is the Philippines).
Note (2): The removal of the Kaiser was one, albeit a very important, reason as to why the Weimar Republic failed. The Allies lacked the foresight in regards to Germany in a lot of areas (economically, for one). Even though the Kaiser was a poor leader, if he had stayed (as a constitutional monarch) then the Weimar government may have had support from the people and so, it may have survived. I've heard there were calls to keep the Kaiser as a constitutional monarch but Wilson insisted the Kaiser abdicate.
The parallels between Germany and Japan are eerie. Basically, if the Treaty of Versailles was as thorough with Germany as the Allied occupation of Japan was, then the Nazis could not have come into power.
Which doesn't even come close to answering my question.Cazza said:
Not all situations can be resolved with talking, and a home invasion is one of them. What would you do?
Protest all you'd like.NuclearPenguin said:
It doesn't negate the fact that man kills to survive--it is something that has followed him everywhere. It's a part of who he is and what he is. If survival isn't justified in nature's eyes, what is justifiable?
Call it barbaric or savage but in the end it's looking out for themselves and that's all anybody can really do. It would have been nice and humanitarian to somehow whisk away the civilians and blow up only the soldiers, but that wouldn't have done anything to increase their global position on the stage nor would it have been nearly as effective considering half of the effect was to scare the shit out of the Japanese.
I don't agree with killing people in that manner. Obliterating them from the face of the earth, that is.
But I sure do understand it. Call it necessary, perhaps, and I'll see where you're coming from. Or unnecessary. A final punch to the gut, maybe, but it worked.
I appreciate the protection of your family, but unfortunately that plan of action exposes a very vulnerable weakness to the robber. He knows you aren't going to forcefully defend yourself which means he can essentially do whatever he wants. By backing down, you are giving the wrong person the advantage.Cazza said:
You see the problem here?
In shortMazty said:
I didn't make things up; and as for the "if you hate america leave" I gladly would, but they have me trapped in lower class so that I can never afford to leave and they will continue to milk me for all I'm worth just to pay me enough to live so they can slave-drive me more
but no I don't burn flags, I'm not THAT extreme.
and I'm not a kid if that's what you were implying at the beginning; I'm just a bit of a political dick and muckraker.
Wrong. I didn't say I was a pacifist or helpless. If he attacks who said I couldn't do serious damage to him.JeanLuc761 said:
Oh I would if I could huh? Wrong
Here I give the opinon for everyone to leave without needing medical assistant. If they don't want to take the risk that the other person is either more armed or better trained.
I have given my wanted outcome to this person, but talking can not only be done by one person. In this situation they could take that outcome or take a chance that they could get a better one by attacking. Which anyone with a brain will know is highly unlikily.
You make a lot of assumptions, actually. I never implied you were a pacifist, but it was your own wording that made you seem helpless.Cazza said:
You said yourself that you believe all situations can come to an understanding, under the implication that no violence is involved. My point is that, while good on paper, there are situations in life where force is necessary. Human nature has proven time and time again that conflict will never, EVER stop.
Ah, well see now we're getting somewhere.Cazza said:
In regards to the bombings, you condemned them because you felt there were other, peaceful options. My whole argument has been based around what has been established as a LACK of any other option. We tried to negotiate, they failed to comply with what we were asking, we attacked with the hopes the war would end immediately.
It worked.