- 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: Was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary?
Posted on 4/17/18 at 4:58 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Posted on 4/17/18 at 4:58 pm to Draconian Sanctions
yes it was
now we have anime
now we have anime
0
Posted on 4/17/18 at 4:58 pm to Centinel
even Rusty isn't trying to pretend there's no way they would have ever surrendered.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 4:59 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:I hate how you frame an argument...its not genuine at all
which is all fine, i just don't like the mindless belief that the US has always been squeaky clean.
One or the other right? If we agree the bomb was necessary we must therefore believe the US is squeaky clean in all its military endeavors. Has to be that way right?
No different than saying if you dont support the march for science you are against science or if you do not support gun control you are ok with school shootings
Some times there is no right answer. I Am not even sure why this thread exists, as if you believe there is a definitive right answer outside of the subjective.
Throughout the entirety of American history since the bombs were dropped the question of whether or not we should have dropped them has always been discussed as a particulary pressing and difficult moral dilemma, a decision which was not made with ease of mind. It wouldnt be a moral dilemma if there was a decision that absolutely had to have been made one way or another. The fact that we had a choice is what creates the dilemma
There is no objective answer to your question so do not treat it as such
Posted on 4/17/18 at 5:00 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Was never going to happen, that's the entire point. Did you even bother reading the OP?
Which is based on hindsight and speculation.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 5:00 pm to Draconian Sanctions
No, I didn’t. Wanna know why? Because the millions of mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, wives, etc. would have gone on wondering what their son’s life would’ve amounted to if they hadn’t have bombed the cities and invaded instead.
Have you ever thought about what would happen if we did invade, took the casualties that were expected, won and then the word broke out that we had a weapon that would’ve made it not necessary at the time? Obviously you haven’t, but there would be heads on spikes if that word got out.
frick’s sake son, the firebombing we were doing of Tokyo killed more people and didn’t cause their surrender.
Furthermore, I asked you a question, do you know what the object of war is?
Have you ever thought about what would happen if we did invade, took the casualties that were expected, won and then the word broke out that we had a weapon that would’ve made it not necessary at the time? Obviously you haven’t, but there would be heads on spikes if that word got out.
frick’s sake son, the firebombing we were doing of Tokyo killed more people and didn’t cause their surrender.
Furthermore, I asked you a question, do you know what the object of war is?
This post was edited on 4/17/18 at 5:06 pm
Posted on 4/17/18 at 5:01 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
i've been hearing the other side of the debate my entire life
I imagine by your constant pushing that your agenda is right that you or either a college kid or a high school kid who constantly questions things. There's nothing wrong with that but coming from a kid this comes off as arrogant. You are given the benefit of being away from WW2 like 70 years. Had you made this statement in an open forum 10 years after the war then i would like to see the outcome
Travel the World my friend and see how lucky you are that you can post and say what you want without repercussions. Maybe you are right but i can tell you in 1945 had germany/japan /or russia got that bomb first there would have been a whole lot more cities nuked and we all might be speaking a different language. No one is saying that the U.s is squeaky clean. War is horrible and it turns people into animals. Why point this out now. i mean was it necessary for hitler to kill millions of jews? or stalin to murder millions of people? or japan to murder thousands of chinese ?. No but it happened
This post was edited on 4/17/18 at 5:11 pm
Posted on 4/17/18 at 5:01 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
but we did, except we just called it unconditional surrender so people like you could argue it was different than what Japan had already offered even though by all accounts it wasn't.
Wrong. You didn’t read the link I posted which is the source of your own link. It clearly states that 3 of the 6 members didn’t want unconditional surrender.
Why does it matter if the survey thinks EVENTUALLY japan would surrender. Well we didn’t want to wait any longer. We had the upper hand. They could have surrendered on our terms and it would have been over. They waffles and paid for it
Posted on 4/17/18 at 5:03 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Don’t know about necessary, but it sure as hell worked. 
Posted on 4/17/18 at 5:04 pm to Draconian Sanctions
sad that someone would think this.....
Posted on 4/17/18 at 5:04 pm to Draconian Sanctions
The key to this entire argument is that we are talking about 2 different issues.
You are trying to argue that Japan would have EVENTUALLY surrendered.
We are trying to say they wouldn’t surrender HOW and WHEN we wanted.
The fact that they may have EVENTUALLY surrendered as we continued to kill them with conventional bombs is irrelevant
You are trying to argue that Japan would have EVENTUALLY surrendered.
We are trying to say they wouldn’t surrender HOW and WHEN we wanted.
The fact that they may have EVENTUALLY surrendered as we continued to kill them with conventional bombs is irrelevant
Posted on 4/17/18 at 5:10 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
You are trying to argue that Japan would have EVENTUALLY surrendered.
No, I’m saying we could have gotten essentially the same terms before and after the bombs
Posted on 4/17/18 at 5:11 pm to Draconian Sanctions
I just proved that wrong through the link you won’t read. It’s the source article from your wiki page.
LINK
LINK
This post was edited on 4/17/18 at 5:12 pm
Posted on 4/17/18 at 5:16 pm to Draconian Sanctions
please provide evidence that Japan agreed to all the terms they eventually did before the bombs were dropped. It’s not in any of your links
Your whole argument is based on the fact that the these Japanese generals said they would have eventually surrendered. Well they didn’t. So should we just stop the war and wait when we have the upper hand?
They didn’t give us any time when they surprised attacked Pearl Harbor
Your whole argument is based on the fact that the these Japanese generals said they would have eventually surrendered. Well they didn’t. So should we just stop the war and wait when we have the upper hand?
They didn’t give us any time when they surprised attacked Pearl Harbor
Posted on 4/17/18 at 5:17 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
No, I’m saying we could have gotten essentially the same terms before and after the bombs
Now your god i guess. In your young mind you have all the answers. Get back to us in 20 years when you've had some life lessons and trying to change history really doesn't matter.It will make your life a whole hell of a lot easier
Posted on 4/17/18 at 5:18 pm to WaWaWeeWa
No, you didn’t. What the ministers wanted doesn’t mean jack shite. I’ve posted several times links ab how the last Hong stopping peace was that the Emporer wouldn’t be killed or tried as a war criminal
Posted on 4/17/18 at 5:18 pm to Lakeboy7
quote:
Okinawa was the rehearsal for the main island invasion. In the initial planning with the overpowering manpower, air supremacy and naval power it was believed the operation could be accomplished in two weeks. Remember the supply reinforcement possibility was non existent at Okinawa.
It took 80 days of non stop, 24 hour a day combat to subdue the Japanese. Of the 150k Japanese soldiers on the island 100 thousand died as well as 50 thousand Americans.
There was no reason to believe the defense of the main island would be any less fanatical. shite after the first bomb was dropped they still wouldnt surrender!
quote:
Summary: The battle of Okinawa, also known as Operation Iceberg, took place in April-June 1945. It was the largest amphibious landing in the Pacific theater of World War II. It also resulted in the largest casualties with over 100,000 Japanese casualties and 50,000 casualties for the Allies.
quote:
Over the next two to four months, the acute effects of the atomic bombings killed 90,000–146,000 people in Hiroshima and 39,000–80,000 people in Nagasaki; roughly half of the deaths in each city occurred on the first day
The government expected 1 million US casualties with a mainland invasion.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 5:20 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
No, you didn’t. What the ministers wanted doesn’t mean jack shite. I’ve posted several times links ab how the last Hong stopping peace was that the Emporer wouldn’t be killed or tried as a war criminal
No. You didn’t.
Please link the article again
I know you didn’t because there is no definitive evidence of that or else we wouldn’t be having this argument. That is someone’s opinion.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 5:21 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
So you're calling Eisenhower a liar?
wouldn’t be the first time a (future) President lied.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 5:22 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
On the contrary, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey reported, "Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped." The November 1 date is important because that was the date of the earliest possible planned U.S. invasion of the Japanese main islands.
Bird in the hand...
On July 26, the US called for Japan's unconditional surrender (this is the only option when waging war on a nation that had killed 2400+ Americans in an unprovoked attack) in the Potsdam Declaration. Japan refused. After the first atomic bomb was dropped, the US again called for Japan's unconditional surrender. Japan again refused.
They were so ready to surrender that it wasn't until the 2nd bomb that Hirohito intervened and ordered the unconditional surrender..
Sure, they were willing to surrender, but only on their own terms. It took 2 freaking cities getting wiped out to bring them around, so I don't want to hear what would have happened "in all probability". If there were so defeated, why didn't they surrender unconditionally when given the option of that or imminent destruction?
This post was edited on 4/17/18 at 5:30 pm
Posted on 4/17/18 at 5:22 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
No, I’m saying we could have gotten essentially the same terms before and after the bombs
"Essentially"
Page 13 of 26
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News