should the u s of a have dropped the nuclear bombs on japan

should the u s of a have used the nuclear bombs on japan

  • Total voters
    14
  • Poll closed .
Wickedjews said:
The Japanese had a ridiculous rule that required unanimous consent in cabinet to surrender (I suppose this is because Japanese culture considers surrender so humiliating). By the end of the war everyone was voting for surrender besides three military idiots.
Click to expand...

And this has what to do, with us dropping the big one??
 
Wickedjews said:
It has to do with a random point you made.
Click to expand...

I don't see how; because even with the information from the testing of the bomb, the Japanese Government made a decision to continue the war.
I really don't care about their reasons for doing so, or the workings of their Government.

The question was should we or shouldn't we have bombed Japan.
Japan's reasons for refusing to surrender, should have nothing to do with the decision we made.
 
Bender Bending Rodriguez said:
It was one of the very rare cases where the lesser of two evils was to be chosen. It also had a benefit of shocking the Soviets into pacification (they intended to kick things off with Europe as soon as we finished off Japan).
Click to expand...

how about the lesser of three evils.....would the demonstration of power been as effective if the site of the demonstration had been different?.....perhaps someplace like this...

japan-fuji-mountain.jpg
 
Threedee said:
BTW, Christie, I was glancing at a great conservative thinker named Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, and he personally thought the atomic bombings were wrong. He also had a huge issue with Churchill for Dresden. Interesting stuff, actually. :clink:
Click to expand...
Wow, congratulations 3D, you just invented a new oxymoron. "Great Conservative Thinker".
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
There is a high probablity that if the US had invaded Japan, to bring the war to an end, that the entire Japanese culture would have gone the way of the Mayan's and the Aztec's.
The Japanese Government was planning on having the populace fight, with rocks and sticks if necessary, to the last man.
On some of the other Japanese held islands; women through themselves off cliffs, while holding their children, because they had been told that the American soldiers would rape and slaughter them and that they would also then kill all the children.
Since this is what the Japanese did when they invaded China, I guess it wasn't such a stretch for them to think that others would act like this also.
Click to expand...
But at what cost? I've seen DOD estimates that were not unrealistic, of US casualties exceeding a million. More then double the casualties the US had suffered in WWII at that time.

The one interesting thing that resulted from the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is we accepted a conditional surrender from Japan. We did not do that with the Nazi's.
 
Once again, the good guys lose to the forces of evil. Hopefully all 10 of you die soon, and as painfully as possible. Karma = sweet. The children who died at Nagasaki will be cheering your way to hell.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
But at what cost? I've seen DOD estimates that were not unrealistic, of US casualties exceeding a million. More then double the casualties the US had suffered in WWII at that time.

The one interesting thing that resulted from the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is we accepted a conditional surrender from Japan. We did not do that with the Nazi's.
Click to expand...

From everything I've seen; the estimate was around 1 million American losses, if we had invaded Japan, which would have something that America would have taken a long time to recover from.

But as I suggested; the Japanese culture may have quite possibly been sent into history.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
From everything I've seen; the estimate was around 1 million American losses, if we had invaded Japan, which would have something that America would have taken a long time to recover from.

But as I suggested; the Japanese culture may have quite possibly been sent into history.
Click to expand...

Whatever, child killer. Does it give you sadistice pleasure to know that you are directly responsible for the death of innocent children? It will give me sadistic pleasure when you, and all who supported the bombings, die. It will be justice. It will be truth and beauty, to see you justly scream and cry for help, as the children at Nagasaki did as they were burned alive to please your sadism. Hopefully you die a million deaths, as all conservatives will.
 
Wickedjews said:
Whatever, child killer. Does it give you sadistice pleasure to know that you are directly responsible for the death of innocent children? It will give me sadistic pleasure when you, and all who supported the bombings, die. It will be justice. It will be truth and beauty, to see you justly scream and cry for help, as the children at Nagasaki did as they were burned alive to please your sadism. Hopefully you die a million deaths, as all conservatives will.
Click to expand...

Translation:
Blah - blah - blah
blah - blah
blah - blah - blah
 
Bender Bending Rodriguez said:
They refused to surrender after the first bomb. Their military even had an assassination plot against the emperor when he announced he was going to call for surrender.
Click to expand...
They wouldn't of dared. I guarantee you that a revolution would have occurred in Japan had the militarist touched a hair on the Emperor. Remember, the Japanese people were willing to risk nuclear annihilation then give up their Emperor to the Allies. Allowing the Emperor to remain in place was the one condition the Allies accepted when Japan did surrender. We have MacArthur to thank for that. The US and our Allies were adamant that we only accept unconditional surrender from the Japanese. MacArthur understood the role and the significance of the Emperor to Japanese culture. Had not MacArthur convinced Truman and Marshall that this was an acceptable condition, we would of had to invade Japan.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
They wouldn't of dared. I guarantee you that a revolution would have occurred in Japan had the militarist touched a hair on the Emperor. Remember, the Japanese people were willing to risk nuclear annihilation then give up their Emperor to the Allies. Allowing the Emperor to remain in place was the one condition the Allies accepted when Japan did surrender. We have MacArthur to thank for that. The US and our Allies were adamant that we only accept unconditional surrender from the Japanese. MacArthur understood the role and the significance of the Emperor to Japanese culture. Had not MacArthur convinced Truman and Marshall that this was an acceptable condition, we would of had to invade Japan.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of the significance of the emperor in their society, from everything that I've read, it was going to look like a Allied bomber killed the emperor late at night.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Where do you guys come up with this nonsense? Have you been studying history under 3D?
Click to expand...
Yeah, real crazy thought there. The Soviets assist us in an invasion where we effectively lose 1,000,000 men, and comparable amounts of supplies and equipment. Then we have to put more men in Japan to occupy it. Meanwhile, the Soviets are left to their lonesome in Europe, being the only ones not completely PWNED by the war. I mean it's not like they had any territorial goals of uniting the whole world under the banner of communism, by military force if necessary. They'd never want to harm us, their stalwart chums and allies.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
There is a high probablity that if the US had invaded Japan, to bring the war to an end, that the entire Japanese culture would have gone the way of the Mayan's and the Aztec's.
The Japanese Government was planning on having the populace fight, with rocks and sticks if necessary, to the last man.
On some of the other Japanese held islands; women through themselves off cliffs, while holding their children, because they had been told that the American soldiers would rape and slaughter them and that they would also then kill all the children.
Since this is what the Japanese did when they invaded China, I guess it wasn't such a stretch for them to think that others would act like this also.
Click to expand...

You are dead-on correct. It appears that Watermark is the one who hates children. Or maybe he hates Japanese people and culture.
 
Bender Bending Rodriguez said:
Yeah, real crazy thought there. The Soviets assist us in an invasion where we effectively lose 1,000,000 men, and comparable amounts of supplies and equipment. Then we have to put more men in Japan to occupy it. Meanwhile, the Soviets are left to their lonesome in Europe, being the only ones not completely PWNED by the war. I mean it's not like they had any territorial goals of uniting the whole world under the banner of communism, by military force if necessary. They'd never want to harm us, their stalwart chums and allies.
Click to expand...
You making an assumption on a false premise. During the entire length of WWII we had 12 million men in Uniform including nearly 3 million in the European theater alone. An invasion of Western Europe probably would have ment the end of the Soviet Empire in 1945 or 46 and their own people probably would have revolted and been the ones to end it. It's highly doubtful with the US presence and air dominance over western Europe, and considering the stagering cost in lives and treasure the Soviets had expended, that an invasion of western Europe was even remotely possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top