- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If you were our President, under what circumstances would you
Posted on 6/28/14 at 10:56 am to Rex
Posted on 6/28/14 at 10:56 am to Rex
quote:
understand that sentiment, but I don't agree that we should use the certainty of 200,000 civilian deaths to prevent an American death that might or might not occur.
You really believe an invasion of Japan would mean an American death may occur or might not occur?
We fire bombed Tokyo. I don't see much difference if you lived here in Tokyo
Or in Nagasaki. Dead is dead.
1
Posted on 6/28/14 at 10:57 am to Rex
An D-Day style invasion of Japan would have killed 10x more combined on both sides, Rex.
Posted on 6/28/14 at 11:03 am to Rex
I told you in another thread to avoid all conversations regarding the military because you are absolutely clueless.
I'm trying to help you out here
I'm trying to help you out here
This post was edited on 6/28/14 at 11:04 am
Posted on 6/28/14 at 11:03 am to LSUAlum2001
quote:
An D-Day style invasion of Japan would have killed 10x more combined on both sides, Rex.
3 to 5 million civilian casualties is about the ballpark we're talking about. I'm not sure about 1 million U.S. killed, but certainly 1 million casualties - heck we took 50,000 casualties (12,000 KIA) on Okinawa, against less than 150,000 defending troops and less than 500 square miles.
Just 20% of that rate for all of Japan would have been over 1 million U.S. KIA/MIA. Likewise, that's several million Japanese killed, mostly civilians.
Posted on 6/28/14 at 11:05 am to Rex
Can you cite where you got those numbers?(Rex) I can cite sources. Herbert Hoover did a study for Truman where he estimated 1.4 million to as many as 4 million US casualties(dead and wounded).
The Joint Chiefs did a study. Coronet and Olympic together,90 days each,1.4 million.
There are widely different numbers but mine are reasonable. It would have been very ugly for us and the Japanese.
The Joint Chiefs did a study. Coronet and Olympic together,90 days each,1.4 million.
There are widely different numbers but mine are reasonable. It would have been very ugly for us and the Japanese.
This post was edited on 6/28/14 at 11:07 am
Posted on 6/28/14 at 11:07 am to Rex
quote:
Like I said, a bullshite statistic.
Overall, Okinawa casualties ran ~250,000-300,000 thru an 82 day campaign. What do you think the casualty numbers would have looked like if we had invaded Honshu or even Shikoku, Kyushu, or Hokkaido?
Posted on 6/28/14 at 11:10 am to NC_Tigah
As much destruction as there was,imagine LeMay's forces augmented by 40 aircraft carriers and the Eighth Air Force from Europe. And possibly seven more nukes used in a tactical role.
Posted on 6/28/14 at 11:13 am to Rex
quote:
Like I said, a bullshite statistic.
Hmmmm.
So you are saying that this is similar to when Obama says jobs "created or saved".
Posted on 6/28/14 at 11:19 am to TrueTiger
Truman made the right call. He saved many many lives on both sides by forcing an end to the war.
We can learn from history.
We can learn from history.
Posted on 6/28/14 at 11:28 am to m2pro
I like the "ideal" that you espouse....if it actually worked. The message it sends the world is that you would rather be enslaved than to "harm" another human in protecting yourself , your loved ones and your countrymen. It also sends the message that if you follow their example.....it is just a matter of time before you suffer the same pathetic state of existence.
I am not proud that we are the only ones to have employed a nuclear weapon. However, I am not naive enough to NOT know that the fact we have already demonstrated our willingness to use them in a dire situation has proven a deterrent to the use of them against us in a first strike scenario.
I am not proud that we are the only ones to have employed a nuclear weapon. However, I am not naive enough to NOT know that the fact we have already demonstrated our willingness to use them in a dire situation has proven a deterrent to the use of them against us in a first strike scenario.
Posted on 6/28/14 at 11:35 am to Rex
If it is a BS statistic Rex, please give us the real estimate and your source. Not implying you are wrong, I just want to see reasoning for your assertion.
Posted on 6/28/14 at 11:42 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:
]You really believe an invasion of Japan would mean an American death may occur or might not occur?
Of course there would have been American deaths if an invasion was necessary. What wasn't certain was a PARTICULAR American death. Beerinthepocket's grandfather had a far better than average chance of surviving the war in a live and healthy state, the civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima almost none.
I say "if an invasion was necessary" because there's a fair chance Japan would have surrendered if merely a demonstration of an atomic bomb had been provided. The Emperor, in particular, was already war-weary.
Posted on 6/28/14 at 11:42 am to Rex
quote:
Eventually, someone will use a nuke against us because we set the precedent.
Is that the reason they bombed the towers twice, we set the precedent?
Posted on 6/28/14 at 11:46 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
3 to 5 million civilian casualties is about the ballpark we're talking about.
And the number grows and grows. It's all a guess. Why stop at 5 million? Why not go for 50 million when, as somebody else here said, they preferred to be killed rather than surrender?
Posted on 6/28/14 at 11:47 am to roygu
So we demonstrated a bomb in Hiroshima,and they would not surrender.
Posted on 6/28/14 at 11:48 am to Rex
quote:How on Earth would a demo have caused surrender when they didn't even surrender after the first NON demo?
I say "if an invasion was necessary" because there's a fair chance Japan would have surrendered if merely a demonstration of an atomic bomb had been provided. The Emperor, in particular, was already war-weary.
Posted on 6/28/14 at 11:48 am to Rex
quote:
Rex I
f you were our President, under what circumstances would you quote: Rex,watch your language. I repeat,one million casualties. If you have another number by all means out it out there. Of course I have another number. 50,000. 100,000. 200,000. 300,000. All of those estimates are as valid as yours.
I have a number Rex and it is one, one American soldier comes home that would of died had not the bomb not been drooped and Japan invaded. I'm good with that number.
Not piling on Rex but one can do a bit of forensic casualty estimation by scale, same enemy, same equipment, same basic topography, many more soldiers on both sides.
This post was edited on 6/28/14 at 11:49 am
Posted on 6/28/14 at 11:48 am to antibarner
If Rex had been President in 1941,we would all be speaking either German or Japanese. And worshipping the Emperor or Adolf Hitler.
Posted on 6/28/14 at 11:48 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Overall, Okinawa casualties ran ~250,000-300,000 thru an 82 day campaign. What do you think the casualty numbers would have looked like if we had invaded Honshu or even Shikoku, Kyushu, or Hokkaido?
There would not have been further Okinawa's. The Japanese military was rendered rudimentary.
Posted on 6/28/14 at 11:56 am to Rex
quote:
he Japanese military was rendered rudimentary.
Size of the Japanese military in August 1945 was over 6,000,000.
Page 4 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News