bombings on japan, were the really needed Options

[Kitsune_black666]

Um...I think the bombing just made the surrender come faster. I don't know if it was nesecary or if the president just panicked big time. No one will ever know, most likely.

[*NatiMarie*]

The Japanese was in no position to make demands. They were the enemy; they chose to be the enemy; and after Pearl, they shouldn't even be thinking about making demands.

We were generous to let them keep their Emperor... of course that generosity came from a selfish motive, but we were still quite generous.

The US wanted the Japanese to surrender ASAP. As you pointed out, Manchuria was invaded. Though not the same as invading the Japanese Islands, it still meant that Stalin was on the path to Japan. The US needed to end the war quick, or we might have been faced with Communist Japan.

Okay...quite queasy right now (taking medication)...so let's see if I have my head put on straight.

So I have two quotes to get at...

Okay...so about the Emperor: The US didn't want the Japanese to keep the emperor, AT ALL. They really wanted the emperor to drop down from his position and this was already going to produce more conflict in the situation. You see, they wanted the emperor to drop down to make the situation 'all better' but of course this wasn't going to happen. The Japanese saw the emperor as a god, and was the thing that held together the Japanese culture and people.

Okay, about the Stalin incident (well: kryogenix's quote): Okay, yes maybe the US had to enter the war quick, but why drop TWO atomic bombs, thus killing more innocent people, which only one atomic bomb could have been enough. I just don't see the logic in that. FDR asked for the two bombs to be dropped, but how is it that even Albert Einstein mentioned after that the atomic bombs shouldn't have been placed (after much consideration, he saw that it was unnecessary, stating that he regrets consenting the bomb to be placed). Over 59 scientists oposed the dropping of the bombs...so doesn't that say something?

[sadolakced acid]

everyone is asking, why drop 2 bombs. i'm going to answer it.

the japanesse though we only had one bomb. the bomb was something they had also been trying to help the Nazis develop. they knew how hard it was to make bombs

we had to drop 2 in quick succession, to make them thing we had big warehouses full of bombs, that we could kill the entire island. it was a bluff.

we had to trick the japanesse into thinking we had unlimited bombs.

so we acted like we had tons and were going to drop one every few days.

droping one shows you have the power to deveolp one bomb. droping two shows you have the power to make tons of bombs and destroy them.

[Spirited Away]

Okay...quite queasy right now (taking medication)...so let's see if I have my head put on straight.

I hope you'll feel better...

Okay...so about the Emperor: The US didn't want the Japanese to keep the emperor, AT ALL. They really wanted the emperor to drop down from his position and this was already going to produce more conflict in the situation. You see, they wanted the emperor to drop down to make the situation 'all better' but of course this wasn't going to happen. The Japanese saw the emperor as a god, and was the thing that held together the Japanese culture and people.

But as the loser, they were still allowed to retaine their Emperor. You said it yourself that they were not going to let it happen, they were stubborn til the end. Of course I see their reasoning for it: honor, I presume, but America had to defend its honor as well.

You don't attack someone and not expect a retaliation. It was a war, not a game.

Okay, about the Stalin incident (well: kryogenix's quote): Okay, yes maybe the US had to enter the war quick, but why drop TWO atomic bombs, thus killing more innocent people, which only one atomic bomb could have been enough. I just don't see the logic in that. FDR asked for the two bombs to be dropped, but how is it that even Albert Einstein mentioned after that the atomic bombs shouldn't have been placed (after much consideration, he saw that it was unnecessary, stating that he regrets consenting the bomb to be placed). Over 59 scientists oposed the dropping of the bombs...so doesn't that say something?

These scientists were worried about innocent lives that was lost or could be loss in Japan. The president had to worry about innocent lives that would be lost AROUND THE WORLD if the War was to continue. You said yourself that the Japanese wasn't going to let go of their Emperor so easily and that means that they were still willing to fight.

[*NatiMarie*]

I hope you'll feel better...



But as the loser, they were still allowed to retaine their Emperor. You said it yourself that they were not going to let it happen, they were stubborn til the end. Of course I see their reasoning for it: honor, I presume, but America had to defend its honor as well.

You don't attack someone and not expect a retaliation. It was a war, not a game.



These scientists were worried about innocent lives that was lost or could be loss in Japan. FDR had to worry about innocent lives that would be lost AROUND THE WORLD if the War was to continue. You said yourself that the Japanese wasn't going to let go of their Emperor so easily and that means that they were still willing to fight.

I hope you'll feel better...

Thanks

Of course war isn't a game, but the fact of the matter is that unconditional surrender wasn't going to bring about peace. The bombings on Japan weren't necessary and there were possibly other ways to prevent the deaths of many people (including American soldiers). I'm just still debating on placing two atomic bombs...I just don't think that dropping the bomb in Nagasaki was truly necessary.

(hehe, we had a debate on this in class. I was obviously on the con side...yup I did a lot of research on this for class )

These scientists were worried about innocent lives that was lost or could be loss in Japan. FDR had to worry about innocent lives that would be lost AROUND THE WORLD if the War was to continue. You said yourself that the Japanese wasn't going to let go of their Emperor so easily and that means that they were still willing to fight.

Yes, the Japanese were still willing to fight before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, but then after intercepting those messages from the Emperor, he stated that he was going to surrender. The American Military didn't care and were still going to drop the bomb on Nagasaki anyways. Basically, those intercepted messages didnt' mean squat.

[Spirited Away]

Of course war isn't a game, but the fact of the matter is that unconditional surrender wasn't going to bring about peace. The bombings on Japan weren't necessary and there were possibly other ways to prevent the deaths of many people (including American soldiers). I'm just still debating on placing two atomic bombs...I just don't think that dropping the bomb in Nagasaki was truly necessary.

I agree in that the second bomb on Nagasaki was unnecessary (I conceed to that much while debating with comradered), but as kyro said the second one ensured surrender. Not only that it brought a sense of security during the time of confusion to America, especially while our relationship with Russia was wavering. After all, Truman would've been bashed by many Americans if it was known that we had WMD and did not use it to secure surrender of the country that attacked Pearl.

While I agree that it was unnecessary, I will maintain that the bombs were justified.

Yes, the Japanese were still willing to fight before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, but then after intercepting those messages from the Emperor, he stated that he was going to surrender. The American Military didn't care and were still going to drop the bomb on Nagasaki anyways. Basically, those intercepted messages didnt' mean squat.

Nagasaki was never the intended target. At first, the target was to be Kokura, now part of Kitakyushu, however, heavy cloud diverted the target to nearby Nagasaki. The damage to Nagasaki was wasn't as intense as in Hiroshima because of the city's topography.

Truman was under time pressure to keep Stalin's forces out.

If the war was prolonged there would have been more casualties.

No such weapon of mass destruction has ever been created. Its power could not have been conceived by those who do not know the weapon for what it is, as was the case of most Americans.

Understanding the military culture of Japan during that era, surrender would be considered disgrace. It's was hard to know whether or not the Emperor's word of surrender would be carried out by the military.

[*NatiMarie*]

I agree in that the second bomb on Nagasaki was unnecessary (I conceed to that much while debating with comradered), but as kyro said the second one ensured surrender. Not only that it brought a sense of security during the time of confusion to America, especially while our relationship with Russia was wavering. After all, Truman would've been bashed by many Americans if it was known that we had WMD and did not use it to secure surrender of the country that attacked Pearl.

While I agree that it was unnecessary, I will maintain that the bombs were justified.



Nagasaki was never the intended target. At first, the target was to be Kokura, now part of Kitakyushu, however, heavy cloud diverted the target to nearby Nagasaki. The damage to Nagasaki was wasn't as intense as in Hiroshima because of the city's topography.

Truman was under time pressure to keep Stalin's forces out.

If the war was prolonged there would have been more casualties.


Understanding the military culture of Japan during that era, surrender would be considered disgrace. It's was hard to know whether or not the Emperor's word of surrender would be carried out by the military.

No such weapon of mass destruction has ever been created. Its power could not have been conceived by those who do not know the weapon for what it is, as was the case of most Americans.

Sorry...btw that I didn't respond earlier...I have been busy this week and kind of drowsy, but I think I'm okay now .

Anywhoo...the Americans could have tested it to see the damage...but they refused to.

Sadly...the bombing on Japan still caused tension between the Soviet Union and the US, considering the fact that the Cold War started after WWII.

[Spirited Away]

Sorry...btw that I didn't respond earlier...I have been busy this week and kind of drowsy, but I think I'm okay now .

Anywhoo...the Americans could have tested it to see the damage...but they refused to.   

Sadly...the bombing on Japan still caused tension between the Soviet Union and the US, considering the fact that the Cold War started after WWII.

Atleast Japan was spared from further tension between Russia and the US. The Japanese would've suffered more if Russia had occupied parts of Japan and refused to leave.

[winsome]

Truman was under time pressure to keep Stalin's forces out.

At the time of the bombings, the Soviets and the US were still on the Allied side together. Stalin had no interest in staying in Japan, he was bribed to fight there in the first place.

Stalin entered the war in Japan at the behest of Roosevelt and Churchill at the Yalta conference in Feb. 1945 (they promised him the southern half of Sakhalin island, which Russia lost to Japan in 1905, if he would help them against Japan). Truman became president in April 1945 when Roosevelt died. He did not come to blows, as it were, with Stalin until after Japan surrendered and it became glaringly obvious that the Soviets were disregarding the free election policies discussed at Yalta and the German occupation policies agreed to at Potsdam.

Of course there was tension between the Soviets and Americans at the time, Stalin had always been suspicious of his western allies, but the atomic bombs were dropped to get a surrender from the Japanese, not to stop the advance of Soviet allies.

[Spirited Away]

Of course there was tension between the Soviets and Americans at the time, Stalin had always been suspicious of his western allies, but the atomic bombs were dropped to get a surrender from the Japanese, not to stop the advance of Soviet allies.

That's the part that I want to emphasize.

It was to get a surrender from the Japanese, but also to show the enemies and possible enemies that the US was not afraid to use WMD.

[EmeraldKnight]

QUOTE (winsome @ Jun 22 2004, 1:07 PM)
Of course there was tension between the Soviets and Americans at the time, Stalin had always been suspicious of his western allies, but the atomic bombs were dropped to get a surrender from the Japanese, not to stop the advance of Soviet allies. 


That's the part that I want to emphasize.

It was to get a surrender from the Japanese, but also to show the enemies and possible enemies that the US was not afraid to use WMD.

I agree with that.. but additionally, the atomic bombs were used because
a. it saved hundreds of thousands of US soldiers that would've died in a land invastion (millions of Japanese died in their place..)
b. by preventing a land invasion, the US also prevented Communism from spreading to Japan.. Communism spread to N Korea because the Soviets accepted the Japanese surrender there and were able to establish themselves.. the atomic bomb was a defense against communism as much as it was against the Japanese

[sadolakced acid]

most agree the bomb was necessary. the first one.

the second one was needed to show that we had the capibilities to do it again.

EXAMPLE:

senario 1.
say that al quida detonates a dirty bomb in a major city.

we clean up the mess, beef up security, start blaming people.

senario 2.
say that al quida detonates a dirty bomb in a major city.

we clean up the mess, beef up security, start blaming people.

then two days later they hit another major city. now everyone's worried. where will they strike next?


the psycology of getting hit once when you're not expecting it,

and then getting hit again with all your defenses up, but harder,
that's what got the surrender.

[EmeraldKnight]

most agree the bomb was necessary. the first one.

the second one was needed to show that we had the capibilities to do it again.

EXAMPLE:

senario 1.
say that al quida detonates a dirty bomb in a major city.

we clean up the mess, beef up security, start blaming people.

senario 2.
say that al quida detonates a dirty bomb in a major city.

we clean up the mess, beef up security, start blaming people.

then two days later they hit another major city. now everyone's worried. where will they strike next?


the psycology of getting hit once when you're not expecting it,

and then getting hit again with all your defenses up, but harder,
that's what got the surrender.

Um.. you spelt "scenario" wrong both times same with "quaeda"

but see.. the diff is that they have to somehow sneak their way in and we can stop them with security measures.. the Japanese had little chance to stop the two bombs. they didnt have any chance to rebuild any defenses of sorts after the first bomb was dropped

[sadolakced acid]

haha. i was in a hurry.

we had to sneak past thier air defenses

flak cannons, zeros

it's not easy to bomb another country.

but see.. the diff is that they have to somehow sneak their way in and we can stop them with security measures.. the Japanese had little chance to stop the two bombs. they didnt have any chance to rebuild any defenses of sorts after the first bomb was dropped

oh, but you see. the japanese could have stopped the bombs. all they had to do was shoot down the bomber. the bomb wasn't even armed before about 2 hours before bombs away.

one bomber

hiroshima didn't have an air base. it was a military support area, not an are base.

the japanesse were not idmediatly wounded. it was a long term wound, to prevent the japanesse from manufacturing supplies.


thier air defenses were quite adequete, i tell you.

[EmeraldKnight]

oh, but you see. the japanese could have stopped the bombs. all they had to do was shoot down the bomber. the bomb wasn't even armed before about 2 hours before bombs away.

one bomber

hiroshima didn't have an air base. it was a military support area, not an are base.

the japanesse were not idmediatly wounded. it was a long term wound, to prevent the japanesse from manufacturing supplies.


thier air defenses were quite adequete, i tell you.

Air defenses adequate.. I dont know about that.. it was over major cities.. oh well.. but anyways.. were not immediately wounded.... ??? what are you talking about? how many ppl were killed? you call that not immediately wounded? And two bombs were dropped.. why were both necessary?

[sadolakced acid]

i ment militarily wounded.

they were still able to fight after hiroshima. they were still willing.

we had to prove that we had more than one bomb, that we could make more bombs.

they knew how hard it was to make the bombs. they were trying to help germany.

we had to prove that we had the capibilities to flatten the island. to convince them to surrender.

[EmeraldKnight]

i ment militarily wounded. 

Gotcha

they were still able to fight after hiroshima. they were still willing.

Where do you get this?

we had to prove that we had more than one bomb, that we could make more bombs.

they knew how hard it was to make the bombs. they were trying to help germany.

we had to prove that we had the capibilities to flatten the island. to convince them to surrender.

Wouldnt you say the measures were a bit extreme? Couldnt we have given them a little more time to surrender after the first bomb?

[FlyingFries]

well......if the US hadn't dropped the two bombs, thousands of other people would have died buh by droppin the bombs it caused long term damages to many people
of japan

soooo i would have to say.... iono

[sadolakced acid]

the emperor tried to surrender. some people took over, saying it was cowadice. the emperor wa a living god. it was high treason. but they still did it. because he was going to surrender.

the thing is, we couldn't have waited. because, we had to strike in quick succesion for the bombs to have extreme psycological effect.


by the way, the second bomb, fat man, it missed nagasaki, although not compeletly.

it's about a display of power.

[EmeraldKnight]

by the way, the second bomb, fat man, it missed nagasaki, although not compeletly.

Yeah... well it still caused horrendous amounts of damage

it's about a display of power.

I still say its a bit extreme

the thing is, we couldn't have waited. because, we had to strike in quick succesion for the bombs to have extreme psycological effect.

And why didnt one bomb wiping out an entire city have enough of a psychological effect?

[Justingamemaster]

ROCK ON!!

Tom Cruise is in fault for this!!
If he didn't convince the emperererer to not sign the treaty, the US and JAPAN would have been in PEACE!!

"sorry sir, if i may" - ambassador

"so sorry ambassasdor, but you may not!" -empepepereerer





Justin £¤¥¤£™

[EmeraldKnight]

ROCK ON!!

Tom Cruise is in fault for this!!
If he didn't convince the emperererer to not sign the treaty, the US and JAPAN would have been in PEACE!!

"sorry sir, if i may" - ambassador

"so sorry ambassasdor, but you may not!" -empepepereerer

Hahaha was that movie even historically accurate? I mean.. did someone realli convince the emperor?

[*kryogenix*]

And why didnt one bomb wiping out an entire city have enough of a psychological effect?

because we wanted to try to trick them into thinking we could drop atomic bombs on them every day.

[*NatiMarie*]

because we wanted to try to trick them into thinking we could drop atomic bombs on them every day.

Not necessarily...we just wanted them to surrender, which they were going to...but the US didn't take in consideration that they should have tested the bomb to the Japanese before they actually dropped it. It's supposed to show the destructive effect to see if they would surrender after seeing the negative effects...but the US didn't do that...a cowardly act.

[sadolakced acid]

they were going to. but then they kidnapped thier own emperor. thier surrender wasn't just a white flag to them. it was a big deal. an honourable death on the battle fieldis better than the cowardly death years later. that is thier philosophy, and they followed it.