That We Should Have Dropped the Nukes

[name_not_availble]

Hey, im just wondering on your pplz opinions on this topic.

 

Personally i think we should have dropped the nukes over the two cities. I have a justifyable position on this as well. For example the Battle of Okanawa, many soldiers died. This is just one example of a major battle. If we had not have dropped the nukes, many millions of people would have further died than did if we dropped them. It had been proven that the ninja would fight to the end, so we simply brought the end faster.

[Crisb92]

Name_not_available, one of the major reasons behind the dropping of the nuclear bombs on the two Japanese cities was a political ploy by the United States of America to state its position. The bombs were a statement of its power. Not only this but they were designed to kill indiscriminately, which they did. America should have looked at all avenues available to it before sanctioning the mass murder of civilians.

 

Oh, and as for 'The ninja'. They are not considered to be our enemies anymore, so could you please take a slightly less racist tone, it'll help your comments be taken seriously.

[Karasuman]

Actually, they did look at other avenues before dropping the bombs. name_not_available is absolutely correct in that it would've cost both sides even more lives if it hadn't been done, no matter how atrocious of an act it may seem to you or anyone else.

 

The Japanese were losing and had every opportunity to surrender long, long before the bombs were even mentioned as a course of action. Furthermore, they were warned TWICE that it would happen beforehand. They chose to blatantly ignore it.

 

And as far as mass murder, don't give me that sh*t. Convenient how you left out the completely unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, which is an even worse example of mass murder, considering the two nations weren't even at war when it happened.

 

The truth is, there was no way the war was going to end without a substantial loss of life one way or the other.

 

And if you still feel bad for the Japanese, I ask you which is worse: the loss of 400,000 people killed by the A-bombs, or the loss of likely a million or more Japanese soldiers and civilians as a result of a full-scale American invasion of the main island? Not to mention the thousands and thousands of American soldiers who would've died along with them (which I realize full-well most Europeans and others could care less about).

 

Let me clear one thing up: I'm not Mr. Ra-Ra Patriotic; far from it. But it really irritates me when people act like that was such an easy decision to make. I'm sorry, but the Japanese weren't "victims." They attacked another nation without just cause or provocation, and had they not done that one thing, they wouldn't have faced such a fate in the first place. If you want to be mad at somebody for that happening, be mad at the Japanese government at the time for first starting the war, and then allowing their civilians to be lambasted after repeated warnings it would happen.

[FritzDerochebrune]

I agree with Crisb, they should not have used them. With the idea of "saving millions of soldiers' lifes", you get nowhere. Aren't soldiers the ones to save people from harm? It is their job to kill enemy soldiers, and they can die. That is a risk in a soldier's life.

 

Why did America use them? Well, as already said: to mark their power. They had the bomb, nobody else had. They didn't care less about the people in axis lands, as visible in the bombing of axis cities. It is untrue that Germany started bombing cities as most people think. It was Churchill who broke the agreement and on the 12th may 1940 ordered the first bombingraid over German cities. If you've seen movies like 'The Memphis Belle', you must know they are mostly fiction. Allied bombers didn't care if they hit a factory or a school. All Jerries.

 

Did the Japanese actually attack an American city? Did they Bomb San Fransisco? No. It might be that there where some victims during attacks on military targets, but I can't find any recoring of mass-murder due to Japanese attacks on cities.

 

You've warned the Japanese? Twice? Wow, I really would surrender my entire army if you would threaten me... Dude, the ninja where Pwning the Americans hard. Do you know how many POW's would be made from an Island with 3000 defenders? 5. The others would die defending. Have you ever seen an attack on a Japanese-held Island? Ships and Plains bombed the entire Island for half a day before the marines attacked. And still the remaining Japanese forces would defend the island (If you can even call it that after the american bombings) until their last breath. Do you really think any commander of such an army would even think of capitulation if you say: We are going to nuke your cities! It wasn't even clear if the Americans had Nukes, so it might have been an empty threat.

 

A little lesson about WW2

 

cya

 

Fritz

[Switch]

I agree with Crisb, they should not have used them. With the idea of "saving millions of soldiers' lifes", you get nowhere. Aren't soldiers the ones to save people from harm? It is their job to kill enemy soldiers, and they can die. That is a risk in a soldier's life.

Agreed. In the sense of the lesser of two evils, going with the soldier route is far better than vaporising 400,000 innocents. I'm not saying soldiers are any less human than civilians, but they enter into battle knowing the risks. A million soldiers with some civilians mixed in is in my opinion better than vaporising innocent people as they go about their daily business in their homes, people who didn't start the war in the first place, aren't contributing to the war, and probably didn't even get to vote in whether it went forth or not. It's premeditated murder of men, women, and children, as opposed to attacking soldiers that are attacking you, and perhaps catching some civilians in the crossfire.

[Karasuman]

"A little lesson about WW2"

 

lol! Thanks for the lesson! I stand in awe at your divine wisdom of it all. Typical holier-than-thou synopsis of the matter.

 

The Japanese weren't "pwning" anything by the time the bombs were used. Allies didn't care about people in Axis lands? Really? That's utter bullsh*t, but even so, if they didn't, it's only because they were led by example. News flash: the governments of the Axis lands didn't care about their people either. Japan was prepared to sacrifice every single civilian in a hopeless conflict they had no chance of winning by the time it came down to the decision in question. And let's not act like they gave a rat's ass about people in Allied lands either.

 

And yes, they were warned before any bombs were dropped that they were facing catastrophe of a sort they'd not seen before if they continued the war, and they ignored it. Then the first bomb dropped, and they STILL continued. Looks to me like their military commanders had about the same level of regard for their citizens as their enemies did.

 

Here's a WW2 lesson for you: The Japanese were also committing some pretty serious atrocities towards the people of China and Indonesia at the time of the war (people who were going about their daily business in their homes, who didn't start the war in the first place, and probably didn't get to vote on whether it went forth or not), and you sit here glorifying them as war heroes. Save your condescending lessons for someone stupid enough to believe them, and by your rationale it's cool to just fly over to someone who has not initiated any sort of conflict with you and start bombing them with no warning or indication.

 

Every single country that was involved in WW2 suffered heavy losses. I might be more inclined to believe your crap if the Japanese weren't slaughtering Chinese innocents and others by the thousands, which is a nice little detail left out of your argument. I believe you were recently quoted as saying to a certain member that he "turns everything how it suits him best." Quite a hypocritical claim in light of your post on this matter.

[Peregrine]

Did the Japanese actually attack an American city? Did they Bomb San Fransisco? No. It might be that there where some victims during attacks on military targets, but I can't find any recoring of mass-murder due to Japanese attacks on cities.

 

The only reason the Japanese didn't attack an American city was the simple fact that they couldn't. They just didn't have anything with the range to get there even if they wanted to (which they did). So it wasn't some act of mercy involved.

 

I agree with Crisb, they should not have used them. With the idea of "saving millions of soldiers' lifes", you get nowhere. Aren't soldiers the ones to save people from harm? It is their job to kill enemy soldiers, and they can die. That is a risk in a soldier's life.

Agreed. In the sense of the lesser of two evils, going with the soldier route is far better than vaporising 400,000 innocents. I'm not saying soldiers are any less human than civilians, but they enter into battle knowing the risks. A million soldiers with some civilians mixed in is in my opinion better than vaporising innocent people as they go about their daily business in their homes, people who didn't start the war in the first place, aren't contributing to the war, and probably didn't even get to vote in whether it went forth or not. It's premeditated murder of men, women, and children, as opposed to attacking soldiers that are attacking you, and perhaps catching some civilians in the crossfire.

 

 

Wrong again, Switch. Read your history before making statements like this. In the Japanese culture at the time, everyone was a soldier, and everyone fought to the death (sometimes in deliberate suicide attacks). In a traditional invasion, far more than 400,000 civilians would have died, fighting to the death with whatever hopeless weapons they could find.

 

The nuclear attacks were the only thing that could break this situation, by demonstrating that resistance was literally hopeless. Japan would die, without ever seeing an American soldier to kill. The rules of the game had to be changed, or countless lives on both sides would be lost.

[poopgoblin]

I just want to remind everyone that it doesn't matter now. It's already happened. Sure, you can debate the policies and such involved with dropping the bombs, but that won't change anything.

 

But I actually agree with Peregrine on this one. (I guess the world as we know it is coming to an end)

 

 

Oh, and Fritz, "They didn't care less about the people in axis lands"

 

The USAAF had about 1,224,000 men overseas and the RAF had about 1,000,000. I know that not all of these men were on bomber crews, but the Allies had thousands of bombers. Each of these bombers had a bombadier who released the bombs over the target. Now, are you saying that out of all those thousands of men, none of them cared about innocent civilians? Also, these bomber missions into Germany (especially) would take VERY heavy losses. If the bombadiers were to release their bombs early over a civilian target on purpose, it would be like their buddies died in vain. Hitting civilians instead of a factory wasn't going to help the war effort.

[FritzDerochebrune]

The only reason the Japanese didn't attack an American city was the simple fact that they couldn't. They just didn't have anything with the range to get there even if they wanted to (which they did). So it wasn't some act of mercy involved.

WRONG. The ninja had a weapon wich could reach America, and even bomb its cities. What it was? Simple, it wasn't a rocket, or even a plain. It was the common balloon. You see, there is a favorable wind for Japan to use these weapons. It will take a balloon from Japan straight to the west coast of the US. However, Japan did not use these balloons to attack cities.

 

Wrong again, Switch. Read your history before making statements like this. In the Japanese culture at the time, everyone was a soldier, and everyone fought to the death (sometimes in deliberate suicide attacks). In a traditional invasion, far more than 400,000 civilians would have died, fighting to the death with whatever hopeless weapons they could find.

 

The nuclear attacks were the only thing that could break this situation, by demonstrating that resistance was literally hopeless. Japan would die, without ever seeing an American soldier to kill. The rules of the game had to be changed, or countless lives on both sides would be lost.

No, you are wrong again. Not everybody was a soldier. Did the civilians at the bombed cities have arms? Did they have a chance to defend themselves? And if they where soldiers, why didn't the ninja send them of to fight? It is true about the 'no surrender' part, but not everybody was as willingly to do that. You can say much, but if the Japanese army was crushed, no 400.000 would keep up the fight with 'whatever weapon they would get'. Japanese beliefs says a soldier never surrenders, not that civilians have to do idiotic things.

 

The nuclear attack wasn't the only thing that could break this situation. The rules of wartime always have been the same, no changes had to be made. The nuke could have been used on a Japanese held island, with only soldiers on them, but no, bombing civilians showed the US was capable of penetrating Japanese airial defences, only to show how 'powerfull' the US was.

 

And if the Allied command was so 'concerned' about their men, why would they use the Sherman throughout the war, though it had been proven it was no match for the best german armor. 10 shermans to take out one tiger was good use of materials. After all, the Shermans could be replaced... and the men too.

 

I´ve been studying the second world war for six years now. I know what I´m saying, since everything I´ve added in my post has two seperate sources. You can´t disprove it.

 

EDIT: @poopgoblin: of course they didn't care about civilians. They did there jobs and liked it. There might be a few bombers who would have a bad feeling after the first flights, but after those it became a routine. It was the plan of the high-command, but bomber-squads where all to eager to do their 'job'.

 

Bombing a city has no strategic value? Do you know anything about WW2? It happened all the time. The Brittish began with the bombing on 12th of may. Other well-known bombing-missions with civilian targets where: Germany bombs Rotterdam (1940), Germany bombs London (1940 with bombers, rest of the war with rockets), Germany bombs Stalingrad (1942), Allies bomb allmost every city in Germany(1943-1944-1945). The goal of these bombing-runs was to lower morale, but it just increased the hate and thus the morale of the targeted civilians.

 

And they wouldn't take heavy losses. The B-17 isn't called the flying fortress for nothing. Especially after the allies won the air-battle, since the only thing to stop them was FlaK, manned by children because all adult men where at the front. The American air forces lost 1.61% of all pilots or crews who entered service. The total amount of pilots and crew-members who entered service was 3 400 000. What about that, heavy losses, eh?

 

Do you know why the Allies where halted at the border of Germany before they could push trough half a year later? Do you know the reason why German civilians picked up arms to counter the Allies? Do you know why nazism survived? Because of Allied bombers bombing every German city to rubble. Before the Allied soldiers came, people where afraid of them. If the bombers already did so much damage, what would Allied soldiers do when they would arriver? After the war much hate remained and that's why nazism survived, even though the Allies did their best to disband it during the Nurnberg-trials.

 

cya

 

Fritz

[Peregrine]

The USAAF had about 1,224,000 men overseas and the RAF had about 1,000,000. I know that not all of these men were on bomber crews, but the Allies had thousands of bombers. Each of these bombers had a bombadier who released the bombs over the target. Now, are you saying that out of all those thousands of men, none of them cared about innocent civilians? Also, these bomber missions into Germany (especially) would take VERY heavy losses. If the bombadiers were to release their bombs early over a civilian target on purpose, it would be like their buddies died in vain. Hitting civilians instead of a factory wasn't going to help the war effort.

 

Fortunately there is a simple explanation: bombing is HARD. Real war is not Starcraft, you don't just tell your bombers "hit this point" and 30 seconds later bombs rain down with pinpoint accuracy. If you disagree, I would suggest getting a good WWII flight sim and trying it yourself. Then come back and tell us about how easy it is to do collateral damage. Just to be clear, using the best WWII bombsight, you had to:

 

1) Set your ground speed and altitude exactly correct. The bombsight is only accurate if you give it the correct numbers. Note that your airspeed indicator does not give this, you have to hope the conversion charts are accurate for the exact atmospheric conditions.

 

2) Sight the target properly, from miles away, when it may be little more than a blob on the horizon. Your bombsight crosshairs will now track the target as you approach.

 

3) Fly perfectly straight and level at a constant speed, for the entire bomb run. If you move too sharply to track the target, or change speed/altitude, you have to start over from the beginning. Note that you are probably under attack at this point. Please calmly avoid taking evasive action, even if you can hear holes being shot in your plane.

 

4) Make very very slight corrections to your course as you approach. Note that you are not the pilot, you aren't doing this directly. If your aim is off by a fraction of a degree, you have to tell the pilot what to do and hope he doesn't over-correct. Fail to do this correctly, and you will miss the target.

 

5) Release the bombs at the exact right moment. Miss the drop point and they'll miss the target. You're flying over 300mph, remember.

 

6) Hope that there aren't any wind differences at different altitudes, or your bombs will be blown off course as they fall.

 

7) Hope that you are the lead bomber in the formation. If you aren't, not only will the simple fact of flying in formation mean that your bombs will be less accurate (since two planes can't occupy the same space at the same time), but you may not even have a bomb sight of your own. You will be following the leader's release point, and almost definitely miss the target. Or maybe not... maybe the leader's release was off, or there's more wind, or whatever, and it's your bombs that hit the target.

 

 

Congratulations. If you manage to do all of this successfully, instead of killing an innocent factory worker in his home, you have killed him in the factory. Now, presented with this lack of accuracy, and the simple fact that factories and other industrial targets tend to be located near innocent civilians, you have two choices:

 

1) Cancel all strategic bombing, and give up any chance of damaging the enemy's industrial support. The war will likely drag on longer and longer, and even more people will die. Note that by the time it's over, invading and taking a city from determined defenders will probably do just as much damage and kill just as many civilians.

 

2) Accept the damage, and order the attacks.