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

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by slackercruster, Feb 20, 2017.

?

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

  1. Yes

    85 vote(s)
    67.5%
  2. No

    41 vote(s)
    32.5%
  1. slackercruster

    slackercruster Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    509
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Would you have used the atom bomb on Japan in WWII if you were Prez?
     
  2. Crawdadr

    Crawdadr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    7,293
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    unfortunately, because of their culture and military prowess it probably saved more civilian lives then it cost.
     
  3. hoosier88

    hoosier88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,025
    Likes Received:
    143
    Trophy Points:
    63
    With what was known @ the time? In a heartbeat.

    We needed that war over ASAP, our POWs & the Allied POWs & the countries & populations captured by Imperial Japan freed as soon as possible. We needed to stop the USSR from invading northern Japan. We needed to care for our POWs, begin feeding & treating captive populations, begin rebuilding the countries & economies wrecked by the war. There was a lot to do, & no time to lose.
     
    VietVet likes this.
  4. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. From all of the military briefings received it was told that Operation Downfall "X-Day" would have been way worse in terms of lives lost both civilian and military. The Japanese warrior culture was admirable in that aspect but the whole fighting to the death concept would prove too much to handle for the US invading the mainland. Civilians would have likely been arming themselves as well to defend the homeland. Plus when fighting on home turf the military and civilian populations get intertwined and in an era without guided munitions it would have forced the US to carpet bomb cities thus killing loads of people.

    I think a lot of folks just have a problem with the fact that the US atom bombed two cities due to the fact that atom bombs, and nukes today, are "taboo" weapons. But what many don't understand is that by atom bombing Japan we actually did a lot less damage and killed a lot less people than we would have if we had to invade the island. It sounds cruel but from a realist perspective, the Japanese are lucky all we did was atom bomb them and not invade.

    Plus Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't just random cities we decided to bomb to prove a point. They were strategic cities that we bombed for a reason. Yes they were "civilian" targets but they were part of the war effort, Nagasaki especially, it was a war production city staffed by civilians so...

    And from what I've read we were sending the next bomb to Tokyo, so I'm glad they decided to surrender before the US was forced to level their capital.
     
  5. jack4freedom

    jack4freedom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    19,874
    Likes Received:
    8,447
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I do not think they should have dropped them on two huge population centers and killed all of thos civilians and destroyed two historic cities. In my opinion, they should have destroyed a less populated area which was mainly a military installation. What we did was tantamount to having Dallas and Chicago demolished...Not very nice and quite unnecessary in my book.
     
    Matthewthf likes this.
  6. PARTIZAN1

    PARTIZAN1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2015
    Messages:
    46,841
    Likes Received:
    18,955
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I not only woukd have used it on Japan I would have had more made and had Russia fried to an atomic crisp.
     
  7. Crawdadr

    Crawdadr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    7,293
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If we would have invaded we would have firebombed most of the major cities. Look at Dresden as an example. Once we had to land there would have been no stopping. Most likely millions more would have died. If we had targeted less populated areas we would not have been sure of the populations support for peace. The right call was made.
     
  8. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,531
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Knowing what we know now, or working with the knowledge available back then.
     
  9. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nagasaki was a seaport and a huge wartime production city. It wasn't just a random city where people were just going about their daily lives, it was basically a huge war factory city. That's why it was targeted. I mean yeah they were "civilians" in the essence that they weren't actively engaging US forces but they were busy behind the scenes creating the weapons of war for the Japanese military to do so...
     
  10. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Many a Japanese of that era has expressed that the atom bombs saved millions of Japanese lives.

    The Japanese population was starving as the military was consuming all. The military had huge stockpiles of weapons - heavy weapons and Kamikazi aircraft as well as millions of light arms - in the mountains. Defending against Kamkazis for a beach landing almost impossible. The Japanese military was militarizing the entire population young and old if capable of fighting in any manner. The rest were increasingly being pushed into slave labor production while starving at the same time. The defensive plans against invasion was extensive, complex, militarized the whole civilian population - and was willing to sacrifice the civilian population. Japan also had a million troops to bring back from China - which would have likely evolved to a war between China and Russia.

    Records also show that the military was imminently prepared to imprison the Japanese emperor and civilian government to prevent their surrendering, though would not tell the Japanese civilian population this had happened. Instead the military speak for the Emperor and force him to say what they wanted via torture and threats against his family. If that failed, they would assassinate the Imperial family they were holding, claiming they had been deliberately targeted and killing by an American bombing. At that point the fanatically military would be in total control.

    They figured they could slaughter allies and American ships at the beachheads, but ultimately the landings would success despite massive American casualties. With the government and military centered in the mountains, they calculated the American military would have to fight thru entire Japanese civilian populations. They believed that the USA was not willing to have hundreds of thousands of casualties while also killing millions upon millions of Japanese. But if need be, they were prepared for every Japanese civil and every Japanese in the military to die as a matter of honor and duty.

    Had we not dropped the atom bombs when we did, the Emperor would not have surrendered. He would then have been taken control of by the Japanese military, which was prepared, planned and armed enough so we would have to mass kill our way across Japan, their military based in rugged mountains - as American casualities grew into the hundreds of thousands.

    The dropping of the two atomic bombs saved millions of lives, mostly Japanese lives.
     
    XploreR and drluggit like this.
  11. Andrew Jackson

    Andrew Jackson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2016
    Messages:
    48,445
    Likes Received:
    32,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well said and spot on.

    Hard to argue with that analysis. :salute:

    It is hard to even conceive of a land invasion of the main island. Imagine trying to take Tokyo block-by-block against a kamikaze culture of death before dishonor.
     
  12. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A few years ago I read the actual translated military materials of Japan for defense of the Japanese mainland. It was massive, very well planned, and took advantage of every possible resource - including total militarization of the civilian population with enough weapons for them all. They also had held back significant amounts of heavy weaponry and aircraft. Because of the terrain, kamikazi attacks could strike invasion force ships with essentially no notice for how close the ships had to come to shore. It was calculated in the invasion force estimated (our estimate too) at 1.1 million allies troops, mostly American - and 400 troop transports would be sunk by kamizakis killing over 300,000 Americans before and during landing. 300,000 lost just getting to the beaches.

    From there we would have to fight thru booby traps, snipers and anti-tank and vehicle bazooka type weapons popping out of every crack and surprise underground mini bunkers and fox holes - as we slaughtered our way through military and civilian Japanese forces, with non-combat Japanese essentially as human shields. Millions of Japanese would have to be firebombed or burned to death with flame throwers in urban fighting - as was done on the islands before. Basically we would bomb and burn our way thru every Japanese city, town, and village, every structure a point of defensive fire.

    Ultimately, after killing 20 to 30 million Japanese of their 72 million population and as many as three quarters of a million American casualties - with tens of millions more Japanese civilians starving and wounded for us to attend to, we would finally have the Japanese military trapped in the very rugged Japanese mountains - their fortress.

    30,000,000 Japanese dead and nearly a million dead Americans later, we would have finally killed the last Japanese solders - probably in a final suicidal bonzi attack as their last generally cut open their own guts.

    Having won the war this way, we then would have 40,000,000 starving Japanese with every city, town and farm destroyed to take care of. Japan totally destroyed and all civilians starving with no homes, no industry, nothing. The Japanese military was convinced we did not have the stomach to lose a million more American lives and kill Japanese at unprecedented genocidal levels of tens of millions of desperate, starving Japanese to then have a totally destroyed Japan to totally care for.

    The emperor knew the Japanese military was willing to sacrifice all civilians but did not believe the USA was willing to kill all Japanese. Dropping the 2 atomic bombs convinced the emperor that all his people would die if he did not surrender. He knew the military would let all Japanese die rather than surrender. He now believed the USA was in fact willing to do just that - kill all Japanese down to the last person. He surrendered without notice to the military by radio broadcast before the military seized him and his family and knowing they would never allow him to broadcast if they knew he was going to.

    Those who oppose us having dropped the atomic bomb said we should have done that instead.

    I can't find the materials I read before, but here is a wiki on the topic. The Japanese military planned to never surrender. Instead, they were going to seize the Imperial family and take over the government to prevent any surrender. They had no more intentions of surrendering than did Germany - but Germans were not ingrained with the duty to suicide/die rather than fail or surrender, which was the core of Japanese culture for thousands of years.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
     
  13. perotista

    perotista Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    16,900
    Likes Received:
    5,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sure. If the United States had invaded mainland Japan with convention forces the estimates were 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. Also unknown at the time is the Japanese had saved half of their Kamikaze force to be used when the U.S. invaded. Also taken into consideration was the USSR was gearing up to also invade Japan at the end of August 1945. If that happened, Japan would have been divided much like Germany was.

    Without the invasion and dropping the bomb instead of 1.7–4 million American casualties and 400,000–800,000 Americans KIA the number was zero. Instead of five to ten million Japanese killed with a conventional invasion, the number was approximately fatalities were between 130,000-220,000 with roughly half killed on then first day with the rest to come later.

    Far as I am concerned, Truman made the right call. Without the use of the bomb, a lot of us wouldn't be here today as fathers and grandfathers would have died. Many more Japanese also wouldn't be here today either. There is quite a difference between 130,000-220,000 deaths on their side due to the bomb and the five to ten million that a conventional invasion would have caused.

    If the estimates were correct, millions of lives were saved by the bombs. But we will never know for sure if there were or weren't. But most of the casualties were based on the Okinawa invasion and what happened there for both sides.
     
  14. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,518
    Likes Received:
    27,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08/07/why_did_japan_surrender/

    Why did Japan surrender?
    Sixty-six years ago, we dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima. Now, some historians say thatÂ’s not what ended the war.

    What ended World War II?

    For nearly seven decades, the American public has accepted one version of the events that led to JapanÂ’s surrender. By the middle of 1945, the war in Europe was over, and it was clear that the Japanese could hold no reasonable hope of victory. After years of grueling battle, fighting island to island across the Pacific, JapanÂ’s Navy and Air Force were all but destroyed. The production of materiel was faltering, completely overmatched by American industry, and the Japanese people were starving. A full-scale invasion of Japan itself would mean hundreds of thousands of dead GIs, and, still, the Japanese leadership refused to surrender.

    But in early August 66 years ago, America unveiled a terrifying new weapon, dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In a matter of days, the Japanese submitted, bringing the fighting, finally, to a close.

    On Aug. 6, the United States marks the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombingÂ’s mixed legacy. The leader of our democracy purposefully executed civilians on a mass scale. Yet the bombing also ended the deadliest conflict in human history.

    In recent years, however, a new interpretation of events has emerged. Tsuyoshi Hasegawa - a highly respected historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara - has marshaled compelling evidence that it was the Soviet entry into the Pacific conflict, not Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that forced JapanÂ’s surrender. His interpretation could force a new accounting of the moral meaning of the atomic attack. It also raises provocative questions about nuclear deterrence, a foundation stone of military strategy in the postwar period. And it suggests that we could be headed towards an utterly different understanding of how, and why, the Second World War came to its conclusion.

    “Hasegawa has changed my mind,” says Richard Rhodes, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of “The Making of the Atomic Bomb.” “The Japanese decision to surrender was not driven by the two bombings.”

    President Truman’s decision to go nuclear has long been a source of controversy. Many, of course, have argued that attacking civilians can never be justified. Then, in the 1960s, a “revisionist school” of historians suggested that Japan was in fact close to surrendering before Hiroshima - that the bombing was not necessary, and that Truman gave the go-ahead primarily to intimidate the Soviet Union with our new power.

    Hasegawa - who was born in Japan and has taught in the United States since 1990, and who reads English, Japanese, and Russian - rejects both the traditional and revisionist positions. According to his close examination of the evidence, Japan was not poised to surrender before Hiroshima, as the revisionists argued, nor was it ready to give in immediately after the atomic bomb, as traditionalists have always seen it. Instead, it took the Soviet declaration of war on Japan, several days after Hiroshima, to bring the capitulation.

    Continued: http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08/07/why_did_japan_surrender/
    (there are additional pages to the article)
     
  15. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One of the most horrifying things we learned in fighting island to island - despite overwhelming force on our side, total command of the air and sea - was not the still huge numbers of casualties we suffered. Nor was it that when finally defeated and hopeless, Japanese soldiers would do mass suicidal bonzi charges for which with rare exception we had to kill every Japanese soldier. Most horrifying is having finally won, the civilians would literally mass suicide including their own children. For years, the Japanese had convinced the civilians not just of the duty to die, but that Americans were so unthinkably evil that would savagely rape, torture and murder them all. They had total control of propaganda radio and had proven they HAD convinced civilians to fight to the death - and if impossible to fight to end their own lives to not suffer unthinkable abuses and torture before death at the hands of the Americans. They had been telling false horror stories of Americans torturing Asians for years - and even more than how most people believe anything they are told by the media in the USA as their are many sources of info - the civilians of Japan believed every word of it and no reason not to.

    Because of the suicide rather than capture instilled in both military and civilian personnel, the level of Japanese deaths is likely well under estimated. They fought even if certain death. But if unable to fight, or women and elderly, they they would kill themselves and their children rather than being allowed to be controlled and captured. ONLY the Emperor himself could prevent this. We knew this, why we NEVER tried to kill the Emperor in bombing attacks. It is notable that we did NOT drop an atomic bomb of Japan's Imperial city or Tokyo. The reason is obvious. WE NEEDED THE CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT AND EMPEROR ALIVE. There was no surrender possible without them. Without exception, Japanese military commanders had chosen suicide over capture. They would never surrender.

    It also is a fact we did not demand "unconditional surrender." We did offer a condition. We will not kill or put any member of the Imperial family on trial. We kept that deal, even though at least one of the Imperial family member was a general who did mass atrocities against civilians. We had to convince the Emperor via the atomic bomb that we were imminently going to literally kill everyone on the Japanese mainland and had convinced him we had hundreds of atom bombs by which in a matter of days all of Japan would be a dead zone.

    The atomic bombs were foremost propaganda to that ends. One mass conventional bombing raid on those same cities would have killed nearly as many. But conventional bombs could not genocide Japan.
     
  16. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Eisenhower said there was no need to drop the bombs. He has more credibility than anyone on this forum.
     
  17. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Japan" did not capitulate. Rather, giving no notice to the military, the Emperor radio broadcast the surrender, specifically citing that the atom bombs were going to totally destroy the Japanese people.

    It was the atomic bombs that did it.

    It is known why the Emperor made the surprise and secret from his own military surrender radio broadcast. This is EXACTLY what the Japanese Emperor said was his reason to announce surrender:

    Emperor Hirohito, Accepting the Potsdam Declaration, Radio Broadcast.

    Transmitted by Domei and Recorded by the Federal Communications Commission, 14 August 1945

    "To our good and loyal subjects: After pondering deeply the general trends of the world and the actual conditions obtaining in our empire today, we have decided to effect a settlement of the present situation by resorting to an extraordinary measure.

    We have ordered our Government to communicate to the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that our empire accepts the provisions of their joint declaration.

    To strive for the common prosperity and happiness of all nations as well as the security and well-being of our subjects is the solemn obligation which has been handed down by our imperial ancestors and which we lay close to the heart.

    Indeed, we declared war on America and Britain out of our sincere desire to insure Japan's self-preservation and the stabilization of East Asia, it being far from our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandizement.

    But now the war has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the best that has been done by everyone--the gallant fighting of our military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of out servants of the State and the devoted service of our 100,000,000 people--the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest.

    Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

    Such being the case, how are we to save the millions of our subjects, nor to atone ourselves before the hallowed spirits of our imperial ancestors? This is the reason why we have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the joint declaration of the powers.

    We cannot but express the deepest sense of regret to our allied nations of East Asia, who have consistently cooperated with the Empire toward the emancipation of East Asia.

    The thought of those officers and men as well as others who have fallen in the fields of battle, those who died at their posts of duty, or those who met death [otherwise] and all their bereaved families, pains our heart night and day.

    The welfare of the wounded and the war sufferers and of those who lost their homes and livelihood is the object of our profound solicitude. The hardships and sufferings to which our nation is to be subjected hereafter will be certainly great.

    We are keenly aware of the inmost feelings of all of you, our subjects. However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that we have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the [unavoidable] and suffering what is unsufferable. Having been able to save *** and maintain the structure of the Imperial State, we are always with you, our good and loyal subjects, relying upon your sincerity and integrity.

    Beware most strictly of any outbursts of emotion that may engender needless complications, of any fraternal contention and strife that may create confusion, lead you astray and cause you to lose the confidence of the world.

    Let the entire nation continue as one family from generation to generation, ever firm in its faith of the imperishableness of its divine land, and mindful of its heavy burden of responsibilities, and the long road before it. Unite your total strength to be devoted to the construction for the future. Cultivate the ways of rectitude, nobility of spirit, and work with resolution so that you may enhance the innate glory of the Imperial State and keep pace with the progress of the world."


    https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/hirohito.htm

    It is not complicated to know exactly what the Emperor surrendered. IT WAS THE ATOMIC BOMB. That was the EXACT and singular tangible reason he gave. Not one of the reasons. Rather, THE reason - singular. No atomic bomb? No surrender.
     
  18. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Every major military leader except one said we did not need it. I believe them
     
  19. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He does not have more credibility than the Emperor who surrendered. That was SINGULARLY the Japanese Emperor's decision, not Eisenhower's decision plus Eisenhower was in the European theater, not the Asian theater.

    Generals fight, that's their job. A general announcing "we could have easily kicked their ass and forced them to surrender" is how generals think - PLUS I think he wanted to assure the world we'd never use the atom bomb again - meaning it was a political and foreign policy statement.
     
  20. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Killing women and children should not be a statement. It was unecessary
     
    snakestretcher likes this.
  21. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have cited a general who wanted to use atomic bombs against both China in the Korean war and against the USSR over the Berlin blockade.

    Nor is your statement accurate.

    General Marshall's main task in 1945 was to prepare for a possible invasion of mainland Japan, scheduled to begin that year on Nov. 1st. He felt the decision to use the atomic bomb - to introduce a new and more dangerous level of warfare to the world - was a political rather than military decision. Assistant Sec. of War John McCloy recalled:

    "[Marshall's] insistence to me that whether we should drop an atomic bomb on Japan was a matter for the President to decide, not the Chief of Staff since it was not a military question... the question of whether we should drop this new bomb on Japan, in his judgment, involved such imponderable considerations as to remove it from the field of a military decision." (quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 364).

    If you actually explored the evolution of discussions - something you are not inclined to do by your messages - it was extensively discussed on how to convince the rest of the world we were not going to totally take over the world with atomic bombs - for which every country would start their own frantic atomic bombs program. In this decision, it was decided generally to express how using the atomic bomb is so horrific we would never, ever do so - ADDING THAT WE ARE SO MILITARILY POWERFUL WE DON'T HAVE TO. The anti-bombing statements came out of that policy.

    It was General Marshall, NOT EISENHOWER or any other military leader you cite, who was in charge of the plans to invade and conquer Japan. From his diary:

    " After a talk with Marshall about the atomic bomb on June 12, 1947, Atomic Energy Commission Chairman David Lilienthal quoted Marshall in his diary as saying:

    "There is one point that was missed, and that, frankly, we (the military) missed in making our plans. That was the effect the bomb would have in so shocking the Japanese that they could surrender without losing face. ...we didn't realize its value to give the Japanese such a shock that they could surrender without complete loss of face." (David E. Lilienthal, The Journals of David E. Lilienthal, Volume Two: The Atomic Energy Years, 1945-1950, pg. 198).

    http://www.doug-long.com/marshall.htm

    THE general in charge of the invasion of Japan - not any you cited - acknowledged the PERSUASIVE nature of dropping the atomic bombs as a PERSUASION tactic, not just a military action. The atomic bomb convinced the Emperor to surrender - and he could do so saving face for himself, the military and the Japanese people. It would have been COWARDLY to surrender to avoid a conventional military defeat. But the atomic bomb was total genocide of the Japanese with no defense even possible.

    That is how the atomic bomb ended the war - and the General in charge of invasion plans came to realize it, where the military was just asking if we could have won without it.
     
  22. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pick any other general or admiral. They knew far more about this than you and they were all against this "statement"
     
  23. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, in your alternative reality tens of millions of Japanese and upwards of a million Americans would have died. In your alternative reality, genocide was a necessity.

    Some liberals look for any way to hate the USA and declare the USA evil. They think this proves they are enlightened - and convert fantasy slogans to unreal realities. That is common to your messages, including on this topic.

    I understand from your messages your general view that the USA is the most evil country to ever exist, then and now, and that in WWII it was the USA that was the true evil power. But, then, you are allowed to rant hatred of the USA, the USA military, President Roosevelt and President Truman and any other hatreds you think trendy on the left you want to. It means nothing unless you vote and then a factor of 1 in 120,000,000 - a regrettable factor in my opinion given your extreme anti-American messages and viewpoints.

    Explain against your wishes that the USA now devolve to total anarchy because of Trump - or stick to this your cursing of President Truman effectively calling him a deliberate evil mass murdering racist against the Japanese who dropped atom bombs on the peaceful Japanese out of pure sadism - or whatever other rant you want to make.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  24. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok. You are still wrong according to almost all of the military experts of the time. A fact you can not deny
     
  25. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,622
    Likes Received:
    2,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Both in terms of what was known then and what we know now, yes.

    In terms of 1945 estimates of civilian casualties ranged into the millions for a full invasion. US casualties would have gone to the 10s of thousands. From a military perspective the bombs resulted in the least damage to people and property.

    In terms of what we know since then: Dropping those bombs during war probably resulted in the avoidance of a nuclear war over the last 70 years. As tragic as the events were, everyone became aware of just how devastating the use of these weapons could be. If the bombs had not been dropped in war, in Japan, bigger bombs would have eventually been used elsewhere. MAD was only effective because those in charge knew the outcome.
     

Share This Page