"Thank God for the Atom Bomb"

**Officer of Engineers** · 28 Dec 08,, 06:52

Originally Posted by ANZAC

Well I guess you think the survey got it all wrong, and the Japanese still wouldn't have surrendered, so the need to drop the bombs were the way to go, fair enough.

Personally I think the survey was pretty much on the money, wasn't Hirohito determined to end the war, but the sticking point was guaranteeing the imperial line.

On the attempted coup, it's amazing the power one man [or God] has over his people isn't it?
When he ordered the military to quit the fight, they did almost to a man, out of 2 million men under arms in Japan, [100,000 in the Tokyo district,] plus millions more throughout the Pacific and the mainland, all chucked it in on his order, except for a few dozen renegades.

So by your own admission, the only man who mattered in the surrender was Hirohito who can give the order one way or the other.

Seriously, do you think that the civilians of Okinawa wanted to jump off cliffs. Because that is the ONLY explaination to your arguement, that WE, the Western Allies, gave Japanese civilians no choice.

Yes, I will admit that the Japanese population wanted to surrender but I will also state that without a doubt that they did not dare to surrender without Hirohito's permission. What Japan wanted was irrevlent, what Hirohito wanted was all that mattered.

**tankie** · 28 Dec 08,, 11:37

[QUOTE=ANZAC;594944]Didn't explain myself too well, I meant if the Nukes didn't bring about surrender, what would you do then if you were C in C, the slow option of
firebombing and blockade or the quicker solution of invasion?

You could be on the ball there tankie.
But cripes, what do you know that I don't with your last remark.:enukes.

Just a guess mate as to how the Iran Q is unfolding

**Hitman817** · 28 Dec 08,, 12:47

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

Well, it seems like America had options: 1) Do nothing, since Japan's ability to attack her neighbors was gone; 2) Blockade and/or invade; 3) Nuke. If we did one, Japan quite possibly would have just built up her strength and started the war again, with consequent mass death and destruction. If we did two, we cause starvation and/or slaughter at least an order of magnitude greater than the nukes caused. So that leaves nukes as the best way to win with the least number of lives lost, no?

You may rationalize as much as you want, but the simple fact is you were afraid of your enemy and you nuked them, that's pretty cheap in my set of values!

**tankie** · 28 Dec 08,, 13:20

Originally Posted by Hitman817

You may rationalize as much as you want, but the simple fact is you were afraid of your enemy and you nuked them, that's pretty cheap in my set of values!

You never heard of the phrase ,,, alls fair in love and war , and lets face it the Japanese then , were a bunch of sneaky low life torturing bastards , who got what was inevetiable , just ask any survivors from Pearl or Burma .

**tankie** · 28 Dec 08,, 13:26

Originally Posted by tankie

It was done IMO to show the world who was the worlds master ,and still is (like it or lump it ) ,showed the power of A bombs , and stopped Russia from :as has been said: ,coming to a nuclear conflict .

But the coming few months in 2009 may prove that wrong .

Hitman i qouted this before and i reckon i was right , the yanks were not afraid , as history shows they ( japs )were beaten anyway .

**Hitman817** · 28 Dec 08,, 13:34

Originally Posted by tankie

You never heard of the phrase ,,, alls fair in love and war ,

I don't think that this is true, there have to be rules even in war, for one you don't kill women and children.

and lets face it the Japanese then , were a bunch of sneaky low life torturing bastards , who got what was inevetiable , just ask any survivors from Pearl or Burma .

I know that, but you cannot make the entire Japanese population responsible for the crimes of their millitary, even less so since they were ruled by an emperor.

**Hitman817** · 28 Dec 08,, 13:40

Originally Posted by tankie

Hitman i qouted this before and i reckon i was right , the yanks were not afraid , as history shows they were beat5en anyway .

That actually makes the whole thing worse, Japan was beaten, but the US choose to nuke them anyway and for what to be economic or to show the Ruskis their newly achieved power?

**tankie** · 28 Dec 08,, 13:49

Originally Posted by Hitman817

That actually makes the whole thing worse, Japan was beaten, but the US choose to nuke them anyway and for what to be economic or to show the Ruskis their newly achieved power?

YES

We can debate this forever mate , but read Ooe,s posts ref the civvy populace , and i stick with what i posted .

**tankie** · 28 Dec 08,, 13:53

[QUOTE=Hitman817;595035]I don't think that this is true, there have to be rules even in war, for one you don't kill women and children.

Bombs dont know that do they ,The Geneva convention huh , B/S , look thro any conflict and there are always civvy casualties commited by all opposing forces and its still going on , and yes i know what you are going to say next , ref A bomb ,

well i still think it was the way to go . .

**kuku** · 28 Dec 08,, 15:10

We had a similar discussion back in school, some 10 years back, all i could contribute was that the Allies could have demonstrated the power of the bomb without killing so many people and then threatened to use more bombs on civilian populace if Japan did not surrender.
Was that possible, well not that it matters, what is done is done, nothing matters now.

**Kommunist** · 28 Dec 08,, 19:14

The A-bombs on Japan had more to do with revenge for Pearl Harbor than for ending the war.

**ace16807** · 28 Dec 08,, 19:46

Originally Posted by Kommunist

The A-bombs on Japan had more to do with revenge for Pearl Harbor than for ending the war.

That's nothing more than an opinion lacking in defense. Prove it.

**Kommunist** · 28 Dec 08,, 20:00

Originally Posted by ace16807

That's nothing more than an opinion lacking in defense. Prove it.

I agree its an opinion.
But tell me, when most of Japan's navy gone, War in europe over, Rusia entering the fray against Japan, were the nukes necessary?

One more thing, what is the limit for collateral damage?

**Inst** · 28 Dec 08,, 20:30

On some level I wonder if the Japanese should be thankful that the United States dropped the atomic bomb on Japan. The Soviets entered the war on August 9th, and if the United States hadn't nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan might have fallen under the Soviet yoke.

**~~bugs~~** · 28 Dec 08,, 22:09

Originally Posted by Inst

On some level I wonder if the Japanese should be thankful that the United States dropped the atomic bomb on Japan. The Soviets entered the war on August 9th, and if the United States hadn't nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan might have fallen under the Soviet yoke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...e_Soviet_Union