- Joined
- Jan 13, 2016
- Messages
- 38,083
- Reaction score
- 22,576
- Location
- Norfolk Virginia area.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Read more @: John Kerry Makes Historic Visit To Hiroshima Memorial
I will always contend that we should of never dropped these weapons on Japan, but this is none-the-less a historic and symbolic gesture from the US government. [/FONT]
I already did. You cut down my posts when replying and responded to the one sentence where I wasn't explaining it.
Truman's decision only seems simple if (1) you only see things in either black or white, and (2) you think Americans are the only real human beings on Earth.
If you don't agree with either, or both, then it is a very bitter decision with no clear right answer
I think dropping an atomic weapon on a civilian population is wrong.Of-course you think forcing Japan to surrender and saving Americans lives was the wrong thing to do....
I think dropping an atomic weapon on a civilian population is wrong.
Along just one front, they had 3700 aircraft, 80 subs and numerous other naval support. Could ally tanks have swum across to normandy? No, it's the same concept. They had 1.5 million ground troops which is far beyond the ability of japan to defend. Again this was just their northern front
They conquered manchuria in short order, in fact in between the two atomic bombs. The soviets then landed and captured the kuril islands attached to japan's main land, which remain in their control. Only then did japan surrender, a full month after the bombs
Stalin was never impressed by the bombs, which did very little damage to japan militarily. It did not impress much of japan's own high command either, as they attempted a coup on the emperor to prevent a surrender
What about bombing a military target instead?
What about bombing a military target instead?
I'd have nuked a military target
You have the luxury to armchair quarterback a war that's been over for 70 years, Truman didn't.
He was responsible for saving American lives during a time of War. He made the right and ONLY choice.
And you DO realize we dropped incendiary munitions on population centers prior to bombing those two cities, right ?
So what's the difference? The existence of a plutonium pit ?
Read more @: John Kerry Makes Historic Visit To Hiroshima Memorial
I will always contend that we should of never dropped these weapons on Japan, but this is none-the-less a historic and symbolic gesture from the US government. [/FONT]
There wasn't exactly a JDAM kit to affix to Little Boy. As far as things were defined in that era Hiroshima was a strategic target.
They were military targets and population centers.
Truman wanted those attacks to have a psychological effect and besides, civilian centers were targeted before those two bombs were ever dropped.
No one spared Civilians and who ever said Population centers were off limits during times of war ?
There are currently thousands of Nuclear warheads in Russia and in the US with a major Cities name on them.
The fact that my City would be reduced to a toxic cloud of nuclear waste is some concellation if they ever decide to start lobbing those things over the Ocean. I would rather be vaporized than have to suffer in a post apocalyptic hell
Houstons, actually the City of Pasadena's large petrochemical installations would take direct hits and Im not far from Pasadena
I'd have nuked a military target
It's not like accuracy was of much importantce. Just hit a base somewhere that's not surrounded by so many civilians.
Bombing one or two targets to demonstrate how badly outclassed the enemy is by your new, unprecedented weapon is not remotely comparable to a potentially species-ending hypothetical exchange with Russia.
And I'm really shocked that I have to explain that to you.
It's not like accuracy was of much importantce. Just hit a base somewhere that's not surrounded by so many civilians.
Bombing one or two targets to demonstrate how badly outclassed the enemy is by your new, unprecedented weapon is not remotely comparable to a potentially species-ending hypothetical exchange with Russia.
And I'm really shocked that I have to explain that to you.
Sorry, I find the act of dropping an atomic bomb on a civilian population an idea one should never see as a justifiable decision.
What base would you recommend? Almost every major military installation in Japan was located either within or adjacent to a major city. In fact I struggle to think of one that wasn't.
The Japanese were going to fight on even if we performed a demonstration---hell, even after losing cities they were still willing to fight on
Yes, I wonder how you nuke just a military base. Did they have any bases that were that far removed from civilian population? I hope Kerry dropped a copy of "Unbroken" at the memorial.
I don't think that the Japanese would have been convinced to surrender if we did that.Speculative. The morally superior choice would have been to try a demonstration with fewer civilian casualties first.
I don't think that the Japanese would have been convinced to surrender if we did that.
Speculative. The morally superior choice would have been to try a demonstration with fewer civilian casualties first.
Not speculative, seeing as that's what happened in real life after the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which is much more devastating than any demonstration
I don't agree. Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a devastating effect on Japan and forced them into surrender, and I don't believe a demonstration would do that, at least not very easily.I think they would have. That there was no defense against such weaponry would have been readily apparent.
They did surrender after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?