Would you have used the atom bomb on Japan in WWII if you were Prez?

This is total nonsense....General jake. Lol

 

That is the one claim that might have credibility - to drop it at sea. HOWEVER, the Japanese command were convinced that the USA did not have the stomach to slaughter tens of millions of Japanese, which was among the reasons they felt they could stop an invasion from totally taking over the country.

It was a psychological attack more than a deadly attack. Firebombing raids killed Japanese by the tens and hundreds of thousands. Dropping the bomb off shore would have only confirmed we did not have the stomach to mass kill the Japanese. Dropping them on cities of a size that the bomb would totally obliterate the city with a single explosion conveyed a clear message: "Surrender or we will kill every Japanese without suffering one casualty.

Again, the Emperor said EXACTLY THE REASON he surrendered: With the "cruel" usage of the atomic bomb, Japan literally faced "extinction." We also had tricked him into believing we had hundreds of atom bombs, by which in the next few days we could have erased the Japanese into literal extinction - so he surrendered. We deliberately wanted the Japanese to believe we were a ruthless in mass slaughtering as they were against the Chinese. And it worked. The war ended.

Why would they surrender if we proved we did not have the stomach to mass kill Japanese by dropping the bomb offshore? Instead, we would have proven we don't have what it takes to win an invasion nor would use the bombs to an extinction level. Killing two small cities "cruelly" was deliberate for psychological purposes.

It also is interesting how many believe more Americans in arms should have been sacrificed not to kill Japanese - consistent for some with their Americans-last morality, even in wars started by the other side.

How would YOU feel about that if drafted into the military, and you learned that you have a 1 in 3 chance of dying even before you hit the beach - because the president decided he doesn't want to kill Japanese people and it therefore more moral that you die instead? Oh, kiss off the lives of all Allied prisoners of war too. I guess they should have had to die so not to harm the Japanese too.

We had the means to end the war with no more American lives lost and President Truman did exactly that. He did not share what many Democrats now believe - Americans should be last in consideration as punishment for the USA's sins. President Truman's consideration was simple: "win and end the war ASAP" with as few to no more American lives lost. Proof is in the success. All the alternatives are just ideological speculation and in denial of really simple facts.

- - - Updated - - -

Since you have not responded to any specifics repeatedly, I take this of yours message a just trolling to divert from your concession.

 

Yup good point there,
considering how the civilian side glorify their Emperor Hirohito and that fervent adherence with nationalism.
They even armed themselves with sticks to defend their homeland.

 

Of all the many insults and names Americans were calling the Japanese, they were never cowards and never disloyal, willing to die for their country.

 

Yup, something very important to ponder upon.

 

Right after I nuked the Russians.

 

Please!

Japan still occupied significant areas of the Asian mainland and Pacific islands. Absent an invasion and the deaths of perhaps 100 million people or the use of the bombs Japan was not surrendering and Iwo Jima where Japan suffered an 80% casualty rate showed just how costly an invasion would be.

Not invade? What would then prompt Japan to end the war and their occupations of several nations? A sternly worded letter?

You don't get to rewrite history because you don't like some path taken by those living it.

 

What would prompt almost every military expert of the time to disagree with you?

 

It has been historically proven that the atomic bombs didn't severely influence the outcome of the war. This wasn't even the intention of the bombings. The intention was demonstrating their power (mostly aimed at the Soviets). So it was obviously a crime against humanity.

 

Given that they was planning on sending in old men and children arm with spears and such those bombs likely save many millions of Japanese civilians along with many hundreds of thousands of allies troops including my father at the time.

 

any country that uses them should be nuked themselves, that would be a deterrent from any country in future using

 

Interesting would you like to provide any proof to substantiate that? Also how would the plan of firebombing most of their major cities been more humane? Which would have been the standard operating procedure if we did invade.

 

I thought this was common knowledge by now but from my own experience I know that American history classes are very bad. I can provide some proof when I'm back home since doing so on my phone would be a pain in the butt.

For the record I also disapprove of the fire bombings because attacks that are aimed at civilians and the mass murder of civilians is widely considered to be a war crime.

 

Most people do know that the use of the atomic bomb had very little to do with Japan. That war was essentially over. Truman wanted a message sent to Russia. And what a awful way to do it.

 

Sorry but the Japanese spread out their manufacturing into small units in civil areas as must as possible so whole cities was valid military targets.

 

The war was over. There would be no invasion. The only thing they wanted was no member of the royal family could be indicted for war crimes. We dropped the bombs....and then never tried the royal family anyway

 

We did drop leaflets warning the civilian population to evacuate the cities prior to dropping each bomb.

- - - Updated - - -

Really...most people know that?

 

No matter how many times you post that, it is false. I already cited the generals most directly involved and all supported dropping the bomb - and even ones you cite (falsely) as your military experts - also wanted to drop an atom bomb on Tokyo, then drop atomic bombs on China - and then wanted to drop atomic bombs on Russia.

You actually make no response at all and apparently have none other than endlessly repeating your false one-liner.

 

And what we did to Dresden? Munich? Belin? Such selective outrage...

 

Yes if Truman had not used the atom bombs and we lost hundreds of thousands in the invasion of the Japanese home islands as predicted and the US population then learn of those weapons he would had been the first president rightfully hung in front of the white house.

Next as long as the Japanese war leaders was willing to keep fighting even with spears in the hands of old men and children the war was not over.

 

Imperial Japan didn't have time (nor personnel, nor resources) to develop any German technology. & as far as nuclear weapons go, the Germans had miscalculated the amount of fissionable material required for an atomic bomb. That research would have been a hindrance to IJ - it led them into a blind alley, if they even bothered to translate it (this was late in the war).

IJ wasn't developing new weapons - their machine guns, side arms, fighter aircraft, combatant ships, tanks, arty - all were essentially the same @ the end of the war as @ the beginning of IJ's adventures in China in the 1930s - & they didn't correct the known problems with these weapons. IJ did work on biological & chemical weapons - but to my knowledge, they never deployed them in mass attacks.

By the time we invaded the Philippines, we were also targeting IJ commerce shipping. It wasn't just IJ civilians who were starving - the IJ economy & military couldn't get fuel, metals, ores, rubber. & once we started firebombing IJ cities, they didn't have factories nor machine tools, their workforce was either homeless or out looking for food - it was a logistical nightmare for the IJ defenses. & logistics were never IJ's strongpoint anyway, it's one of the reasons their war efforts floundered.

 

He just makes up stuff like that.

 

We are talking about Japan and you just have it flat out wrong

- - - Updated - - -

No invasion was needed

 

Who were these experts exactly?

 

I would point out that this is the same guy that so massively underestimated the Koreans. Are you still sure that you want to support this?