Nagasaki anniversary

Discussion in 'Military' started by Baruch Menachem, Aug 10, 2009.

?

Were the bombs justified

  1. No, it was a racist act

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. no, it was not militarily necessary

    1 vote(s)
    16.7%
  3. Yes, it saved lives

    5 vote(s)
    83.3%
  4. yes, it shortened the war

    3 vote(s)
    50.0%
  5. Yes, it was karma

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Baruch Menachem
    Offline

    Baruch Menachem '

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,204
    Thanks Received:
    3,235
    Trophy Points:
    185
    Ratings:
    +3,305
    Today is the day the last atom bomb was used (Until the Iranians get theirs done anyway). As a right wing freak in good standing everything Truman did is suspect however I think the use of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the right decision.


    I think the Japanese are cool, I watch lots of their TV. It is an interesting culture with lots we can learn from, but in the war years, they were crazy. And given the way they waged war, I think the Atom bombs saved lots of lives, Japanese as well as American. Given the way the Japanese waged war, not using them would have been a greater tragedy than their use.

    Truman was looking at the record of Japan's military in Iwo, Saipan, Okinowa and all the other battlefields. Saipan suffered a civilian casualty rate of 70%, Okinawa about 60%. There were about 5 survivors from Iwo. conquering and subjugating and policing the home islands would probably have had the same results as what happened elsewhere. The japanese kept fighting with sticks after the officers and ammunition were all gone.

    Of course the US casualties would have been something amazing too. My father was in the army back then. He might have been one of those left on the beach.

    Some folks might even be willing to argue that the atom bombs brought the world a bit of Karmic balance. After the way the Japanese behaved in Korea, Manchuria, the Philippines etc etc still leaves a lot of resentment in those places. If you read Michelle Malkin, you get a taste of the anger the Japanese occupation left behind three generations on. I don't want to go there, but the Japanese are not in the position to whine about war crime.
     
  2. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,559
    Thanks Received:
    5,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,973
  3. Centrism'sVoice
    Offline

    Centrism'sVoice Seceded from USMB

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    813
    Thanks Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +58
    I've always said that those who think the US shouldn't have dropped its bombs really don't understand the nature of war.
     
  4. mightypeon
    Offline

    mightypeon Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2008
    Messages:
    728
    Thanks Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Berlin Germany (NOT MASSACHUSETS)
    Ratings:
    +83
    Given the relativly low losses (and high rates of captured Japanese) the Russians had both during Calchin Gol (1939) and during their August Storm operation in Manchuria (which saw 1 Million Japanese out of the war over a course of some weeks, with Soviet Deaths beeing below 20.000, jup, thats roughly 1:50), I believe that the "Japanese fight to the death" myth may be a fairly gross exaggeration.

    On the other hand, if the US military was indeed unable to defeat Japan conventionally, it was a very smart decision to no attempt any overt agression against the Soviet Union after WW2.
     
  5. Centrism'sVoice
    Offline

    Centrism'sVoice Seceded from USMB

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    813
    Thanks Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +58
    However, if the bombing could reasonably save even a few American lives over an invasion, it was tactically the correct decision.
     
  6. mightypeon
    Offline

    mightypeon Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2008
    Messages:
    728
    Thanks Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Berlin Germany (NOT MASSACHUSETS)
    Ratings:
    +83
    From what I get, a main rationale was that the American gouverment wished to prevent the USSR from having a say in the matter of Japan.
    If you look at it this way, Russia payed about 80-90% (in terms of losses and of casulties inflicted on the Wehrmacht)of the price needed to defeat Germany, but only got around 50% of the spoils (East Germany and Prussias possesions, the US got way more bang for the buck, although France did not prove to be a very reliable vasall), the US wished to avoid that Russia gained significant things out of Japan. Strategically and Tactically, Nuking was a good thing to do for the US, but I hotly object to any claims of it beeing "moral". It was exactly as moral as Dschingis Khan annihilating a chinese city to get 5 other cities to surrender. And mind you, that kind of stuff worked well for the Mongols too.
     

Share This Page