RyanShort1 wrote:
Jiggersfromsphilly wrote:
Inspite of what to a man the vets he interviewed said, he felt the bomb was unecessary. I guess the 1Million who would have been casulties in Operation Olympic/ Coronet!
I guess it's just me, and I'll preface this by saying that I'm not trying to be prideful or say that I know more than the generals at the time. That said, I've often wondered if either the US or Japan would've come to some sort of terms waaay before the projected 1 million casualties. I'm kind of sick of hearing how it's OK to murder civilians (that's how I see it) so my father or grandfather who was a soldier didn't have to fight. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad your father / grandfather, and my relatives are still alive, but I am still of the opinion that there are rules and boundaries that apply even to warfare, and that the killing of large civilian populations in their homes - whether by A-bomb or napalm - is wrong.
Ryan
Dude- The A-bomb had a lot of casualties, yes. The Japanese leaders were STILL planning to carry on the war, even after the second one. Guess what though- The B-29 fire raids on Tokyo killed far more people than the two atomic bombs combined. And far more damage occurred. Read up on them- horrific firestorms caused by hundreds of B-29s dropping tons of incendiaries from low level, onto buildings built of flammable materials. And this went on for days at a time.
As to killing civilians, If they are part of the work force supplying the military, then they are fair game, as they offer just as much part of the problem as the man with the gun, and I have no problem with that. Without them to build the gun for him, (or plane, ship, rocket, etc) then he would not have one would he? The Japanese manufacturing plants during WWII were spread out, to the point machinists had lathes and other shop equipment in their homes, where they were operated, to allow production even when the main plant may be damaged, and minimize damage by conventional bombing. This was intentional- and the workers agreed to it: Since their home was part of the manufacturing plant, their home became fair game for targeting.
I am quite happy the bombs both got dropped- my dad would probably have been in on that invasion- and may or may not have survived it.
I still believe that the nuclear bomb has a legitimate purpose in our arsenal, especially when other countries with less scruples than ours, more hot tempered and willing to kill for religion, are either trying to build, or have built, nuclear devices, and have the probable intent to use them. Now is not the time to play "We'll give up ours if you give up yours- look, we give up ours in good faith" because that is when the offer free delivery to you. Horrific casualties? Yes, certainly. Mutual Assured Destruction? Quite Possibly, but it is what kept the two greatest superpowers of the 20th Century at bay from each other for over half a century. And those two kept the secrets relatively well hidden, although not perfectly, until one finally collapsed.
I will stop there- I could go on. Point being, the A-bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki did their jobs- they brought the Emperor to the table, and ended the war, rather than allowing a prolonged assault and combat in a land where every person was a combatant, willing to die for their emperor.(Yes- they were. Today's people have no real concept of such devotion to one person. You can liken it to the Islamic extremists willing to kill and die for their beliefs, and in many cases even more extreme). And, as I said, more people died during the fire raids on Japan than did from the A-bombs, including those who lived for years and died of the effects. Read "Target: Tokyo" about Curtis LeMay's fire bombing raids.
Robbie
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
) that they are going to be treated as combatants. Otherwise, we are no better than our enemy. If we don't hold up a higher moral standard, then how can we accuse them of doing wrong in Nanking?
)
They must have gotten misplaced with the Pearl Harbor warning papers.