[QUOTE=Invader;1224274]QUOTE]
"They were not spread only into the Pacific. Universal Mind made that part clear."
South and East Asia but not to the extent as at the beginning of the war.
"Less time than you think. Japan was desperate when they made their strike
at Pearl Harbor. They had a fraction of the industrial power we did and no
current means of maintaining it without our supply of oil to them."
Japan had a lot of momentum after Pearl Harbor. The war could have just as easily gone the other way.
"Unless you can provide decent reasoning for this, I am going to have to disagree."
It should go without saying. Look at Iraq. Major military operations ended 6 years ago but soldiers are still dying. If the war is not over people will die, it adds up more than you might think. The rate of death was much higher in the Pacific than it is in Iraq. Japan may have been fighting a losing battle, and they were, but they would still fight with everything they had. All the more reason to end it.
"You can kill more civilians in a minute with a very large bomb than may
be killed over a month in crossfire. The logic is too straightforward to miss. If
you disagree, please, provide an example."
You're missing the point. Sure an atomic bomb kills an enormous amount of people in an instant, but the rate of death during an invasion would be astronomically high. It would be a matter of a weeks before the invasion matched the atomic bomb. But the invasion keeps going and going and going, before you know it the casualty rate reaches 1 million. I didn't just make that number up, it was actually estimated that over a million people could die if we chose to invade. Thats 10 times the amount of people killed by an atomic bomb. All you have to do is read about the battles in the Pacific and you'll realize that all signs point to a long, bloody, brutal engagement. It has been estimated that an invasion of Japan could have been the bloodiest conflict in recorded history. There's no such thing as a sure thing, but why risk a catastrophe like that.
"It is only relevant because you accused me of making a lazy analysis before
bothering to ask why I had made it. A nuke would have been financially
beneficial in place of having to mobilize thousands of troops and vehicles. It
was an easy option with respect to the amount of time and planning that
would have to go into a conventional ground/air assault of the region.
Terrorism is easier to accomplish than defeating a standing enemy military. If
you can scare them into surrender, all the better."
Financial matters is a reason (not the reason,) laziness is not. You couldn't have put much thought into it if you concluded that it was lazy to drop the atomic bomb.
If dropping an atomic bomb is terrorism, what doesn't constitute terrorism? Almost every military in WWII could be considered terrorists by your terms.
You act like it was cowardly to drop the bomb. Should we have spent millions of dollars and risked millions of lives so we can systematically slaughter their people and prove that we aren't cowards and we aren't lazy? Maybe the easier option was the better option.
"Do you have evidence of a similar case actually occurring? Otherwise, this statement amounts to no more than a personal attack."
Of what? Somebody getting fired? Of course not, it was a personal attack.
"May I refer you to my previous statement about a large bomb that kills more
people in less time? Again, unless you can provide evidence of past civilian
death tolls and compare them to the number that died as a result of our
nuclear weapons, your statement holds no ground."
Just look at how the Japanese fought in the Pacific, they don't care if they die. Just the existence of banzai attacks and kamakazi pilots should be enough to warrant the atomic bomb. You need to get over the emotional response to a nuclear attack and look at the big picture. Sometimes bad things have to be done for the greater good of humanity.
"You mean industrial. And that was not the only reason. The point of using
the nuke was not to slow down industry, it was to obtain an unconditional
surrender. That said, the U.S. military wanted a target that would be
affected on such a scale as to create significant psychological impact on the
Japanese people. It was desirable that as much of the city be destroyed as
possible."
Industrial=economic. The point was to cripple Japanese industry and to show force. It was meant to prevent the Japanese from doing something foolish. The fear is a good thing.
"There's a difference between knowing civilians will die and purposely
choosing a civilian target for the impact it will have on the minds of the
nation's people."
There was no target that was not a civilian target. No matter where you go there are civilians within range. 73,000,000 people in a country about the size of california. They chose economic centers. I will submit that they wanted to scare the Japanese people, but they didn't want to kill the most amount of people possible. There were better targets if that was the goal.
"No. It was speculated that the damage at Hiroshima, for example, would be
magnified thanks to the surrounding mountains to contain the blast. About
half of the casualties came in the days after the bombing due to radiation
sickness, burns and trauma. It could not be calculated accurately."
Effects of radiation was largely unknown but the blast damage could be accurately estimated.
"No, you're right, all we did was drop the most destructive military weapon on them at the time. Not so bad."
It's beside the point. There is a big difference between making a habit of targeting individuals on the ground and collateral damage from a bomb.
"I'm not going to outright disagree here, but I would like to know where I can
find this information. The statistics of casualties in WWII (including
population density and city size) has suddenly piqued my interest. Share, please."
Wikipedia has a list of casualties during WWII. There were more civilians killed than military personnel, this is largely due to carpet bombing in Germany and fire bombing in Japan.
|
|
Bookmarks