- 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 4:11 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Posted on 4/17/18 at 4:11 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Yeah, it involves accepting the terms we refused until after the bombings
So they had the full terms of surrender first, then dropped the bombs?
1
Posted on 4/17/18 at 4:12 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
point is that we could have easily ended the Pacific Theater without more American casualties and without dropping the bombs had we wanted to.
I’ve already asked you how, mr military strategist, and you deferred to your OP which offers no solutions
Posted on 4/17/18 at 4:12 pm to Draconian Sanctions
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!
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!
Posted on 4/17/18 at 4:12 pm to Centinel
quote:
So they had the full terms of surrender first, then dropped the bombs?
the major sticking point was about keeping the emperor, which we ended up accepting after the bombs yes.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 4:13 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
the major sticking point was about keeping the emperor, which we ended up accepting after the bombs yes.
You make it sound like there were other sticking points. What were they?
Posted on 4/17/18 at 4:14 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
At that point we wouldn't accept a surrender that included keeping the Emperor
Then we dropped 2 nukes and then immediately accepted a surrender that included keeping the Emporer
So you tell me
They accepted an unconditional surrender. The fact that we let the emperor stay was our own graciousness, and not a condition of their surrender. Or am I wrong there?
Posted on 4/17/18 at 4:15 pm to Centinel
quote:
You make it sound like there were other sticking points. What were they?
i can't speak to every detail but nobody has ever argued that the emperor was the main bone on contention
i would be really disappointed if we ended 2 cities over whether or not they could have a standing army for 99 years instead of 75.
This post was edited on 4/17/18 at 4:16 pm
Posted on 4/17/18 at 4:15 pm to CptRusty
quote:
The fact that we let the emperor stay was our own graciousness,
Mac insisted on that
Posted on 4/17/18 at 4:16 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
and yet we dropped the bombs and the emperor system survived.
You keep saying this but it did not.
The emperor was still in place as a figure head but we took his balls and the population no longer saw him as a god.
That’s what we wanted. They didn’t want to surrender that way until after the bombs.
Again, you keep avoiding the question. You said they were ready to surrender before the bombs. Is that on our terms (unconditional) or on their terms (conditional)?
Posted on 4/17/18 at 4:16 pm to CptRusty
quote:
They accepted an unconditional surrender. The fact that we let the emperor stay was our own graciousness, and not a condition of their surrender. Or am I wrong there?
that's the spin version
Posted on 4/17/18 at 4:16 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Better safe than sorry.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 4:17 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
i can't speak to every detail
Which is why your armchair quarterbacking is pointless.
ETA: The longer this thread goes, the more you're starting to look like a 9/11 truther.
That's not a good thing.
This post was edited on 4/17/18 at 4:18 pm
Posted on 4/17/18 at 4:17 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
that's the spin version
Really????
They were ready to accept an unconditional surrender prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs?
Link please?
Posted on 4/17/18 at 4:18 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
we could have gotten a surrender out of them at an even earlier date
WHAT ARE THE SPECIFICS OF THAT SURRENDER? stop avoiding the question
It’s alot more complicated than just saying “a surrender”. Yea maybe the way they wanted to surrender.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 4:19 pm to Centinel
quote:
Which is why your armchair quarterbacking is pointless.
Okay so I guess because none of us were there for every meeting we shouldn't bother with debating the major events of the war? You have to have first hand knowledge?
Posted on 4/17/18 at 4:20 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
It’s alot more complicated than just saying “a surrender”. Yea maybe the way they wanted to surrender.
Why don't you tell me what, in your opinion, was so unacceptable about the way they wanted to surrender vs what eventually happened.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 4:20 pm to Draconian Sanctions
What are your solutions on how we could have gotten an earlier surrender without the bombings? You’ve typed enough ITT that going over it again shouldn’t be too much of an issue. Stop avoiding
Posted on 4/17/18 at 4:21 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Okay so I guess because none of us were there for every meeting we shouldn't bother with debating the major events of the war? You have to have first hand knowledge?
To second guess the actions of the men who were fighting the war? Most certainly.
I mean this is the very reason the term "armchair quarterback" exists.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 4:22 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
What are your solutions on how we could have gotten an earlier surrender without the bombings?
I mean i think using the bombs as a show of force against the Russians isn't the worst idea in the world so i don't know i would have done anything differently.
That we dropped the bombs is not my issue, the false narrative that we dropped them to save a million soliders from having to invade the mainland is.
This post was edited on 4/17/18 at 4:23 pm
Page 9 of 26
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News