Printable View
The atomic bombs in Japan prevented the inevitable invasion and take-over of Japan. Do you think that more than 200,000 deaths (the amount of deaths caused by the bombs) would have occured in the invasion of Japan.
Keep in mind that over 100 millions deaths occured in Europe (NOT including Nazi concentration camps).
I voted yes. It saved more lives than it ended.
Alright, so far thats 3 to 0. KEEP IT UP!!!!
Wouldn't a better idea be, to get one of the mods to split off the Hiro/Naga discussion from the Iraq thread, rather than to make a wholly new thread?
50 : 50!!!!!!!!! 3;!!!!!!!!
From now on, if you believe that invading Japan would have had a lower death toll, you have to explain yourselves. Tell us how, with reason, how the several battles, bombings, and raids there would have been less than 200,000 deaths. Over a million Soviet soldiers died in the battle of Stalingrad, which was just a single city. Hardly an entire country
I second that.Quote:
Originally Posted by badassbob
aite, keep it up.
I voted no. There were a lot of deaths in Europe but Japan's a lot smaller isn't it?! Maybe less people died than would have but to me saying yes is condoning it. I feel sorry for the pilots who dropped it, having all those deaths on your hands...maybe they're heroes to some...I don't look on them badly, just feel sorry for them. I wonder how they feel about it now.
I voted no because an invasion of Japan was not necessary, so it becomes irrelevant whether it would have killed more to invade than the bombs killed. Continuation of the blockade and willingness to accept a conditional surrender (like allowing the emperor to remain in power) would have been possible with far fewer casualties.
I voted no because for one Truman decided to drop the A - Bomb to deter away from a costly US invasion which didn't matter because Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves. This was just the U.S way of trying to impress the Soviet Union Thus kick Starting the Cold War.
I said no for the same reasons exactly as Ne-yo and Tsen. yah me too, ive always thought this was quite a big reason for the start of the cold war.
Yup, I too feel that dropping the bombs was a big factor in the start of the Cold War.
oh yea, man the dropping of the a bomb started the cold war.
but you have to look at the japanese war comittee.
before the droping of the a bomb, the counsil unanimously agreed on staying in the war.
After the bombing, it was half pro war and half anti war.
the emperor had to step in and break the tie (in favor of anti war)
Lets face the facts that none of us know if Japan would have given up after isolation. In fact, experts, including Truman and the secretary of war, believed they wouldnt surrender.
To say otherwise is really just your opinion, without any fact basis.
And impressing Russia has nothing to do with the amount of casualties form the bomb vs. invasion.
I suggest you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall for the facts.
estimated AMERICAN fatalities for the entire operation were between 500,000 to 1,000,000.
estimated JAPANESE fatalities for the entire operation were between 5,000,000 and 10,000,000.
It may just be me but any where from 5,500,000 and 11,000,000 is a little bit more than 214,000 (the bombing deaths)
Indisputable
You seem to have an extreme case of selective hearing.
Let's try this with caps-lock and in bold:
THE INVASION OF JAPAN WAS NOT NECESSARY. CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT HOW MANY CASUALTIES INVADING JAPAN WOULD HAVE INCURRED.
Japan was not ready to surrender because they were afraid of losing face. They already knew, with no doubts in their minds, that they could no longer obtain their initial objectives. They were being stubborn, but if we simply continued the blockade, cutting them off from the world, they would have been forced to surrender. The process could easily be furthered by a willingness to accept a conditional surrender.
Aha, shows how much you know about Japan.
Japan at the time was an isolationist. They cut themselves off form the world willingly. I am sure they were full capable of living by themselves.
No they weren't. Japan didn't have the industrial resources needed to support their rapidly growing and industrializing nation.
Dipwad.
Once again, your ignorance of japanese history and culture shows
dipwad
:goodjob:Quote:
Originally Posted by The
I seems rather vague to where it would be a definitive split.
So in regards tot his same topic;
Respond to this post for a similar topic ---> http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/index.php?...c=37109&hl=
Hominus, you really are being an idiot.
Look at Japan--it's an incredibly densely populated island of relatively small porportions, and on that island there is nowhere near enough resources for Japan to create and uphold a powerful military force.
That was the entire reason they invaded China--they needed the resources desperately.
Cutting off Japan would have effectively reduced their war machine to rubble.
Quote:
Japan set its sights on China, Korea and other countries in Southeast Asia as a result of a critical lack of resources. Japan needed these resources to continue its rapid industrialization and development. After conquering some of the territories of these nations, it started contesting Russia's far-eastern territory and eventually began to invade eastern Mongolia.
Japan turned to a government form that was very similar to Fascism as a result of the Great Depression. Although this unique style of government was very similar to Fascism, there were many significant differences between the two and has therefore been termed Japanese nationalism.
Unlike the regimes of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, Japan had two economic goals in developing an empire. First, Japan's tightly controlled domestic military industry jump-started the nation's economy in the midst of the depression. Japan was forced to import raw materials such as iron, oil, and coal to maintain strong growth in the industrial sector due to the lack of natural resources on Japan's home islands. Most of these raw materials came from the United States. As a result of this military-industrial development scheme and the industrial growth of Japan, mercantilist theories prevailed. The Japanese felt that resource-rich colonies were needed to compete with European powers. Korea (1910) and Formosa (Taiwan 1895) had earlier been annexed primarily as agricultural colonies. In addition to Korea and Formosa, Japan primarily targeted Manchuria's iron and coal, Indochina's rubber, and China's agricultural resources.[/b]
they were looking to dominate asia, but their history as an isolationist country would have enabled them to survive.
Survive, perhaps, but just barely. It would be sufficient pressure to force them to surrender--they were already bordering on surrender, and had made a few attempts at seeking acceptable terms.
Remember, they had a quickly booming population and desperately needed grains from China as well as Iron--whether they were isolationist or not doesn't matter, because they simply didn't have enough materials to support their growing population.
What you know about Japan is quite questionable Hominus. how do you figure that Japan was an isolationist during WW2? If my history on Japan serves me right the Japanese were not isolationist during the 2nd world war. Gunboat Diplomacy was forced upon Japan in 1854 and forcing the country out of Isolationism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hominus
They're history at the time as a isolantist country would have ultimately resulted in their demise. As Tsen mentioned the population was expanding much to fast for the amount of materials that they had available to support the people. When the Tokugawa Shogunate enforced the Sakoku Policy even though foreign contact was prohibited the Japanese sustained relations with China, Korea and the Dutch. So it was pretty essential that the lines of trade between those countries remained open in order to continue the flow of some form of resources to help with it's growing population. And they were not looking to dominate Asia they just wanted to assert a place in the East Asian hierarchy. The Sakoku also pushed Japan away from tributary relations with China that had fueld for centuries before, thus safegarding it's almost depleted mineral resources. So would they have survived during a state of Isolationism? I wouldn't bet on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hominus
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hominus
We knew that the Japanese Parliament was already in session, planning on Surrender. Remember, there had already been the Mass Fire Bombings of Tokyo and Kyoto -- where 5 times more people were killed than died in the smaller cities of Hiroshima and Nakasaki. Even conventional fire can be deadly. Especially when delivered by Thousand Plane Raids -- that is 2000 Tons of Incendiary Bombs dropped on homes made of bambo and rice paper.
But Americans aren't War Criminals.
The winners never are.
But Harry Truman wanted to show the Russians that he had the Bomb.
And Nagasaki was so that nervous Generals would be able to tell the Russians we had more than 1. (somehow they thought it was worth so many lives, when the next question would have been "do the Americans have more than 2). Generals are stupid.
Who goes into the Military for a Career but mentally challenged idiots from families that have enough pull to get their moron sons into West Point.
yes and no
yes it saved lives by not having as many air raids
no by the radiation effects that still exist today
another thing they bombings may have stoped the war ... who really wants to mess with a country that is crazy and drops 2 nukes with out much thought?....
The dropping of the atomic bombs was the right choice.
1. It ended World War II, as we knew it would. All other routes were iffy.
2. The Japanese had been waffling in regard to surrender. They didn't deserve even another three seconds of that when we knew how to end the war and stop our soldiers from having to keep fighting and dying. My two grandfathers were two of those guys fighting the Japanese, and they lived through it. If they had invaded Tokyo or waited for a blockade to make the most stubborn government in the world surrender, they might very well have not made it. The Japanese started the war with us, so if anybody was going to be sacrificed, it was not going to be Americans. The Japanese would have been fighting with sticks and rocks until the cows swam home from across the ocean had it not been for the mega-shocks of the atomic bombs. For the same reasons, we should have used nukes on North Vietnam. South Vietnam would be free today if we had.
3. It guaranteed that the Japanese would not start their crap up again. They have not attacked us since.
4. It told the rest of the world what we will do if anybody else wants to pull a Pearl Harbor type of stunt on us.