Hiroshima: 57 years

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then why didnt all Japanese people kill themselves after a surrender was a fact?<span id='postcolor'>

Because the Americans finally dropped their demand for an _unconditional_ surrender; they would have surrendered much earlier if they had been allowed to negotiate terms they could live with.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Harakiri Toshiba!

[Benze 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A soldier who is happy to live at the expense of murdering civilians is only worth my utter contempt.<span id='postcolor'>

Apparently you don't understand. MORE WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED IN THE INVASION.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This little "story" could have easily been replaced of a German grandfather who is telling his grandchild how good it was that so many Russian civilians were massacred because otherwise he might have been forced to go to the eastern front and would probably have been killed there. <span id='postcolor'>

I'm sure it could, only the analogy is completely false.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then why didnt all Japanese people kill themselves after a surrender was a fact?<span id='postcolor'>

Why would they do that? The government surrendered for them. It was to late to fight and die.

Denoir, you can sit in your chair and speculate, and go on about how evil America is, but the fact is, the bombing saved more lives then it took. People on BOTH sides recognize this fact. If you want to dispute it, which I haven't even seen you even TRY do yet, go ahead and try. I don't know how/why you possibly could.

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, but had I been ordered, I would have done it period. Death by the hands of the enemy is an occupational hazard in the military. You have to accept that or you will be a worthless soldier.<span id='postcolor'>

Easy to say when you're _not_ facing the prospect of dying in the morning; and you're ignoring the fact that very few of these people were volunteer soldiers, most were conscripts who were civilians not long before. How does being drafted magically turn you into a "legitimate" target, when the day before you were a civilian?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nuking cities can hardly be described as "defensive".<span id='postcolor'>

It certainly can when the nation in question declared war on you, and when the people living there are building weapons to use against you. While I largely agree that America pushed Japan into war, deliberately or accidentally, the fact remains that Germany and Japan were the ones who declared war, not America; admittedly Britain did declare war on Germany, but only after they'd invaded their allies.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That however does not say automatically that anything that the allied did was good as you are trying to put it.<span id='postcolor'>

Where did I say any such thing? Having said that WWII should never have been fought, that Pearl Harbor was likely a deliberate attempt by the US government to pull America into a wider war and that the US should have dropped its stupid demand for unconditional surrender to end the war much earlier without the use of nuclear weapons, you might think that people would realise that I'm far from believing that "anything the allies did was good".

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That is an extremely naÄf view of the world you have.<span id='postcolor'>

And I think it's extremely naive to expect people to worry about moral niceties in the middle of a total, global, industrialised war.

[Longinius 1]

"Why would they do that? The government surrendered for them. It was to late to fight and die."

Was it? I could name numerous occasions where governments had been forced into surrendering but the people kept on fighting. The fight is not over just because your government gives up.

"Denoir, you can sit in your chair and speculate, and go on about how evil America is, but the fact is, the bombing saved more lives then it took. People on BOTH sides recognize this fact. If you want to dispute it, which I haven't even seen you even TRY do yet, go ahead and try. I don't know how/why you possibly could."

Well, don't you think the same result could have been achieved by nuking another target? Something not as densely populated? What it boiled down to was proving that you had a nuke and you dared to use it. They could have nuked a non civilian target and still made the point.

[Longinius 1]

"Easy to say when you're _not_ facing the prospect of dying in the morning; and you're ignoring the fact that very few of these people were volunteer soldiers, most were conscripts who were civilians not long before. How does being drafted magically turn you into a "legitimate" target, when the day before you were a civilian?"

Check the Geneva convention. As soon as you wear the uniform and are in fact enlisted you become a legitimate target. As for the draft, well, that is the responsibility of the drafter and not the target his draftees are attacking. Besides, you can and could always refuse.

As for Denoir's comment on following orders. Since he has actually done just that, followed orders, for a living I assume he has actually given it a lot of thought. So I atleast take what he says on the matter seriously. You probably should to.

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for Denoir's comment on following orders. Since he has actually done just that, followed orders, for a living I assume he has actually given it a lot of thought.<span id='postcolor'>

And how many soldiers in the West today have actually fought in a real war where they did face the prospect of taking massive casualties? There's no comparison between 'peace-keeping' duties today and invading a nation which was determined to fight to the bitter end.

[Benze 0]

The fight was over, so it didn't really matter according the the mindset; no need to kill yourself, as you arn't going to get beaten, raped, and killed by the enemy.

They couldn't have nuked another target, that wouldn't make any point. All of the industrial/military centers were inside the city, packed next to civillians. I suppose that maybe they figured we wouldn't "dare"?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

"The choice in the summer of 1945 was not between a conventional invasion or a nuclear war. It was a choice between various forms of diplomacy and warfare." (Sherwin, pg. xxiv).

[Paratrooper 0]

The main thing the Japanese wanted was to keep their Emperor, which they did get.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Easy to say when you're _not_ facing the prospect of dying in the morning; and you're ignoring the fact that very few of these people were volunteer soldiers, most were conscripts who were civilians not long before. How does being drafted magically turn you into a "legitimate" target, when the day before you were a civilian?

<span id='postcolor'>

LOL. Yeah..they draft you and stick you on a ship for the Pacific the very next day!

You need to read some history. Yes, the US had the draft in World War II, but if you read some of the histories of the the war in Europe (Other than Midway the pacific campaign didnt really interest me) the majority of the soldiers were volunteers. It's part of what makes the US Army of WWII so different from any other conscript army... the high percentages of people that volunteered to fight for what was right.

It is very easy to sit here almost sixty years later and play armchair general and say 'there would have been far more allied cassualties and civilian Japanese casualties in an invasion' but the simple fact is that we will never know, because it never happened. Instead Truman decided to demonstrate the power of the US for the Soviet Union to the detriment of the japanese civilians. You can talk all you want about the use of atomic weapons being justified, but in the end it was an atrocity no matter how you slice it. But since it was done by the 'good' guys, history makes all sorts of excuses about how it was right.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Aug. 07 2002,16:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 07 2002,09:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A soldier who is happy to live at the expense of murdering civilians is only worth my utter contempt.<span id='postcolor'>

Any soldier who is happy is only worth my utter contempt.  (I'm not talking about draftees)<span id='postcolor'>

On behalf of anyone who has ever volunteered to defend those weaker than himself, you're welcome.

Of course, for me, "the spinal cord would suffice," so what do I know?

Semper Fi

[foxer 0]

It's easy to sit here though and say dropping the bombs were wrong,and say look at how many people it killed.But what if they didn't drop the bombs.What if they did invaded japan,and millions of people got killed civilians,soldiers(which month earlier they probably was a civilian).If they did invade we probably be sitting here talking about how many civilians the allies killed,and probably be a north japan and south japan.Some people say blockade,but doesn't that sound like sanctions,that soo many of you people are against in iraq.How many people would the sanction killed,millions ?

More i think of it ,if they didn't drop the bomb,what would the future be,It couldn't and wouldn't be same as of now.

[HellToupee 0]

there nukes they could have achived the results with their b29s wich i bet the japs had no plane that could intercept, they were also cut off from any supplies fuel food etc, really the A bomb wasnt needed and 2 were overkill.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Lets look at this from another view. Lets say America had started the war, bombed a Japanese Naval Base. The had progressed with the Japanese slowly betting back the Americans. Now The Americans have been driven back to their homeland. The Japanese can invade, or drop their nuclear weapons on US cities to make them surrender. Seattle and California are destroyed before the US govermenat surrenders. Think about it, how would all you Americans feel? Espicialy lets say for the sake of pretend, the Americans were the big bad guys doing horrible experiments and atriciotes. Well, oitty my 1st century post had to be negetive, maybe post #200 will be a possitive post. If not, 3rd time lucky.

[HellToupee 0]

right on col kurtz cause its there country that did it they try to justfly it with speclations, if it was the other way around well u know the story.

[ralphwiggum 6]

if US did it, US deserved it. that's my position.

look at Vietname, when it turned out that US gov't acted with little thinking, when it ended, the coutry just felt silent and veterans felt betrayed.

not as hard as having A-bomb dropped, but you do the wrong thing, you pay the price.

[Frizbee 0]

No offence Denoir.. but the dropping off the Atomic bomb was an absolute necessity.

It has now been proven that Japan was only a month, maybe 6 weeks from developing their own nuclear weapon. Do you think, (with the way they treated POW's, Civilians, etc.) that they would have hessitated using it against innocent civilians in the Pacific Islands, Australia, and even eventually the United States?

While I'm appalled at the level of destruction that some of these weapons have, I have no qualms about the use of the atomic bomb to end World War 2. It was not a "War Crime" as you put it.

Since WW2, such weapons have been the main reason for sustained peace throughout most of the world. The threat of nuclear bombardment was just too great.

Do you disagree with this forced peace as well?

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Aug. 08 2002,06:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lets look at this from another view. Lets say America had started the war, bombed a Japanese Naval Base. The had progressed with the Japanese slowly betting back the Americans. Now The Americans have been driven back to their homeland. The Japanese can invade, or drop their nuclear weapons on US cities to make them surrender. Seattle and California are destroyed before the US govermenat surrenders. Think about it, how would all you Americans feel? Espicialy lets say for the sake of pretend, the Americans were the big bad guys doing horrible experiments and atriciotes. Well, oitty my 1st century post had to be negetive, maybe post #200 will be a possitive post. If not, 3rd time lucky.<span id='postcolor'>

IF IF IF. If grasshoppers had doorgunners, frogs wouldn't f#@k with 'em. Why keep formulating these "what if" scenarios? Once again, we did not start the war. The lesson to be learned from all this is that if you're ready to attack, you'd better be ready to suffer the consequences.

While we're speculating, what if C-A-T really spelled DOG?

"Wow, Ogre... that's deep."

Semper Fi

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frizbee @ Aug. 08 2002,07:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It has now been proven that Japan was only a month, maybe 6 weeks from developing their own nuclear weapon. Do you think, (with the way they treated POW's, Civilians, etc.) that they would have hessitated using it against innocent civilians in the Pacific Islands, Australia, and even eventually the United States?<span id='postcolor'>

If you are going to make a claim about something like this being 'proven' then I want to see some references, otherwise I am not goingto remotely believe it.

Never mind the fact that Japan had no real long range heavy bomber capable of deliving a nuclear payload...

Sounds like BS to me.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrLaggy @ Aug. 07 2002,15:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A long time, while building up their weapons ready for an invasion. Certainly longer than the allied forces could maintain a naval blockade when the population wanted their sons, fathers, brothers and husbands home.

Why? Those people were building the weapons which would have been used against allied forces, and would have done whatever they could to kill those forces themselves in the event of an invasion; the distinction between 'soldier' and 'civilian' is a minor one in a total war like WWII.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, man. You're talking about Japan! There is NOTHING resourcewise on those small islands. How the hell can you build weapons without metal? How can you drive your economy without gasoline and coal? How can you feed your population without grain?

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Aug. 08 2002,07:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrLaggy @ Aug. 07 2002,15:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A long time, while building up their weapons ready for an invasion. Certainly longer than the allied forces could maintain a naval blockade when the population wanted their sons, fathers, brothers and husbands home.

Why? Those people were building the weapons which would have been used against allied forces, and would have done whatever they could to kill those forces themselves in the event of an invasion; the distinction between 'soldier' and 'civilian' is a minor one in a total war like WWII.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, man. You're talking about Japan! There is NOTHING resourcewise on those small islands. How the hell can you build weapons without metal? How can you drive your economy without gasoline and coal? How can you feed your population without grain?<span id='postcolor'>

grains were exploited from Korea and China, rest of resources were same too.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Aug. 08 2002,08:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">grains were exploited from Korea and China, rest of resources were same too.<span id='postcolor'>

So you should have just let the soviets make a drive for it. I'm sure they could have taken those areas in weeks with their oiled end-of-WWII army if you yanks lacked the balls. Anyway, the resources from China and Korea had to be ferried to Japan, which a naval blockade would have prevented.

I don't think Japs had much time to stockpile anything in Japan, considering that they were on full war production since the start of hostilities.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Aug. 08 2002,08:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Aug. 08 2002,085)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">grains were exploited from Korea and China, rest of resources were same too.<span id='postcolor'>

So you should have just let the soviets make a drive for it. I'm sure they could have taken those areas in weeks with their oiled end-of-WWII army if you yanks lacked the balls.   Anyway, the resources from China and Korea had to be ferried to Japan, which a naval blockade would have prevented.

I don't think Japs had much time to stockpile anything in Japan, considering that they were on full war production since the start of hostilities.<span id='postcolor'>

shows how much you lack in that region's knowledge .

first, naval navigation. goto world map and see how close China, Korea and Japan are. from Pusan, Korea(south easter edge of Korean peninsula) to nearest Japanese port(possibly in Kyoto) is not that far away. same btw China and Korea.

with 20th century ships, that distance was not much. furthermore, JPN laid reilroad tracks that stretched from Pusan, Korea to Manchuria(ironically, they still use it). and allied air raids on those line? not even close. US never went that close to JPN main island either. so naval blockade what?

furthermore, AFAIK, Russia was concentrating its efforts in region north east of 4 northern most JPN islands.(currently occupied by Russians). Soviet did not attack JPN until 2 bombs were dropped. it would imply that they were not ready in timely manner.

and Japan had its power stretched all the way to Manchuria by early 30s. although they might not have stockpiling time, they had no problem getting supplies.

[HellToupee 0]

well there were lots of british american and other forces that were in china beatin up the japs, u would need a naval blockade thru that area cause the land could easliy be occupied if you think it was a good thing bombing japan y not just nuke vetnaim and korea in each war, hell y dont u just nuke iraq, palastine and any other contry USA considers an axis of evil, more like an axis of muslim people, i have a friend from iraq he isnt exactly a terrorist.

I think i mite have sucessfully confused myself there.