That We Should Have Dropped the Nukes

[KawiRider]

I just have something to say about the balloon bomb controversy going on in this thread.

 

Balloon Bombs

 

Now I realize Wikipedia isn't exactly 100% reliable, but we did discuss the Japanese Balloon bombs way back in high school. (My teacher was a retired Army Officer - we THOROUGHLY discussed WWII). Anyways, the Japanese did in fact deploy several hundreds of balloon bombs, in which in only one instance proved fatal. A balloon bomb was found by picnic-ers and exploded killing several civilians. I don't know if this was ever up for debate but I just wanted to clarify that the balloon bombs were real and were actually deployed by the Japanese with many balloons found along the West Coast during the war.

 

As for whether or not we should have dropped the bomb... lives are lives to me, whether they be civilian or military. In the end, millions more families (on both the Japanese and American sides) were saved from suffering loss, so in my opinion the bombing was a good idea.

[kalan1]

one thing that has been overlooked in this thread so far if the fact that there were more Japanese casualties as a result of the firebombing or Tokyo than either atomic attacks

 

secondly, in reference to the tank debate, the design of the tank depends on the role of the tank,

 

the germans used tanks supported by infanty

 

the western allies used tanks in support of infanty

 

a highly mobile lightly armored tank is able to outmaneuver a slower less mobile but highly armored tank and hit it in its weakspots given the room, without said room of course the defensive designed tank would prevail

 

KAL

[Heretic666]

This is the subject that riles me up the MOST >:( >:( >:( personnaly i think america should take there nukes and shove them up there ass. By the time the japanese had surrendered to the american f***ers there generals thought "hmmmm how can we screw the planet any more that we have now" and they came up with "i know how about we go and murder millions of innocent civillions"... you know what they say "history is written by the victor" so the yanks covered it up with tales of heroism and bravery... Bulls**t... the yanks are murdering F**ks who should all be shot for there crimes over the short time they have existed >:( >:( >:(

 

Btw, sorry about the ripe language but anyone with any sense should agree that if anyone america were the "bad guys" during ww2 and many wars afterwards.

[floggingmolly22]

Bombs were used on both sides to kill inocent poeple, that doesn't make it a fair tactic in my mind. Kind of underhanded, but, if the Americans did invade Japan, yes, many more would have died. On the other hand, The fact that they were dropped was a sort of display of power and strenght like *we can murder many with a single bomb*. So, I have mixed feelings about the Nuclear bombs that were dropped. :huh:

[Abramul]

Btw, sorry about the ripe language but anyone with any sense should agree that if anyone america were the "bad guys" during ww2 and many wars afterwards.

Please explain why the Nazis were not the "bad guys" in World War II.

[Heretic666]

Btw, sorry about the ripe language but anyone with any sense should agree that if anyone america were the "bad guys" during ww2 and many wars afterwards.

Please explain why the Nazis were not the "bad guys" in World War II.

 

By all means im not saying Germany did'nt commit atrocities during ww2, all sides did, but all im saying is america (as usuall) :dry: went waaaayyy too far by dropping the nukes and not just killing millions of innocent japanese but damning many of them to have to suffer the nuclear fall-out. And if im not mistaken america were the only country to drop the nuke during the war.

[poopgoblin]

And I have one word for you, you ****ing idiot: Nanking. 300,000 innocent civilians murdered by the Japanese, twice the deaths from the nuclear attacks. Now who's the bad guy and going too far?

Well, he seems to be a member of the Blame America First Brigade, so, I bet it'll still be America.

[Karasuman]

"And if im not mistaken america were the only country to drop the nuke during the war."

 

That's only because Germany and the rest of the Axis powers didn't have nuclear weapons. If they did, you can rest assured they would've used them. Since you're calling us yanks, I assume you to be British. For the life of me, I cannot understand the amount of dislike many of the British have for the US. You do realize that without the US, you'd be speaking German right now, don't you? That's if you were alive at all. The combined strength of Russian and British forces was (obviously) not enough to halt entirely the German advance throughout Europe.

 

Combined total of civilians massacred by the Axis during WW2 (that is, by deliberate intention): 20-30 million. Never in one's wildest arguments could they make a case the US has ever been responsible for that level of thoughtless bloodshed. It doesn't matter who hates the US or not. Hating someone does not magically change facts, no matter how badly one wishes it.

 

Or are you one of those delusional types that believes The Holocaust didn't happen?

[Malchik]

You do realize that without the US, you'd be speaking German right now, don't you? That's if you were alive at all. The combined strength of Russian and British forces was (obviously) not enough to halt entirely the German advance throughout Europe.

 

Actually that doesn't follow at all. It presumes that the 'German Empire' was economically sustainable. It wasn't. It would have imploded almost immediately. However that is not relevant to the issue.

 

Whilst the US were certainly not the bad guys of WW2, they were not unqualified good guys either. They would initially have been perfectly happy to let Germany take over the whole of Europe. They only sent troops into the war after Pearl Harbour, despite repeated pleas for help from Europe. Whilst the arrival of the US certainly tipped the balance it must be remembered that the UK did have help from its Empire and WAS managing to stay afloat while fighting in Europe, Africa and the Far East for some time before the US came on the scene. So let's have less of the 'the US won the war' tub thumping from across the Atlantic. They played a part, that is all, and they did not do so until their own interests were directly threatened.

 

Can both sides of this debate keep their eyes on the facts, please.

 

The reason the US is disliked at the moment is almost certainly down to the widely held perception that the current President is an arrogant, war-mongering, bullying disaster. Whether or not that is a fair view, it is what many people outside the US believe. From my point of view I am saddened that the US believes it can flout international law with impunity - and certainly appears to be able to. It makes their suggested reasons for trying to change 'evil' regimes, hypocritical. It is one thing to claim the moral high ground when practise and preaching are the same. However, by saying one thing and doing another, the US becomes as bad as the regimes it attacks. Until the US can abide by the international laws it supposedly signs up to, that dislike will continue and escalate.

 

Nevertheless with a change of president that feeling could quickly evaporate. It wasn't there before he came to power.

[Karasuman]

"So let's have less of the 'the US won the war' tub thumping from across the Atlantic."

 

I never once said America won the war. I said that without American intervention, the British very likely could've been taken over by the Germans. That is an undeniable fact. Britain was one more major German attack away from defeat, and everyone in the British government and military knew it. It was a mixture of determination and sheer luck that prevented that from happening, as Germany decided to focus its efforts on Russia instead. Determination only carries one so far before insurmountable odds take their final toll. They very nearly did for Britain.

 

I'm also not touting the US as a saintly state. I'm defending it from certain blatantly untrue criticisms that have been going on here. You would do the same for your nation, yes?

 

Back on the topic, it is a fact that Japan was systematically slaughtering civilians of her Asian neighbors (most notably China) by the millions. The nuclear attacks killed at most 400,000 Japanese. An American invasion of Japan would've killed far more Japanese and Americans. It's that simple, and I haven't seen a counter-argument to that which is actually worth anything yet.

 

And Malchik, you're a moderator. How can you guys honestly reprimand or rebuke my posts with a straight face and let hate-laced, profanity-filled (and far worse) ones like Heretic's stand? One can only surmise it's because you agree.