Happy Hiroshima Day!!! hundreds of thousands japs zapped in a flash whoohoo!!!!

[Hugo Chavez]

 Remembering Hiroshima

[drkaje]

Geek, LOL!

[Hugo Chavez]

Geek, LOL!

[24KT]

Geek, LOL!

Geek?! That's it?...


Why is it when I made the same argument 2 years ago, I was shouted down?

...and Berserker skates by with a "Geek"?  Life is sooooooooooooo unfair! 

[headhuntersix]

Making em glow for peace....

[Hugo Chavez]

Geek?! That's it?...


Why is it when I made the same argument 2 years ago, I was shouted down?

...and Berserker skates by with a "Geek"?  Life is sooooooooooooo unfair! 

because you use those annoying smileys

[Al-Gebra]

happy curtis lemay day!!1 explains why all these hiroshima shows have been on the tube lately. 

[24KT]

because you use those annoying smileys

{giggle} how's this,
...it's not a smiley

[Al-Gebra]

 i like this board. 

[Camel Jockey]

haha president Truman thought Hiroshima was a military base. 

[powerpack]

No matter what you guys say the Allies would have suffered 100 of 1000s of casualties when they invaded Japan mainland.
The Japanese would never ever have surrendered and their casualties would have been even higher.
Ironically dropping those 2 bombs saved a lot of lives and ended a war that had been carrying on for far to long already.

[24KT]

No matter what you guys say the Allies would have suffered 100 of 1000s of casualties when they invaded Japan mainland.
The Japanese would never ever have surrendered and their casualties would have been even higher.
Ironically dropping those 2 bombs saved a lot of lives and ended a war that had been carrying on for far to long already.

Powerpack, did you read the part about America agreeing to let Japan keep their emperor?
That means the issue was settled. The war would have been over with no need for Americans to invade.

Continue to believe the pablum if that makes you feel better about yourself, ...but understand, the actions of a country's government is not a reflection on the country's citizens, ...except to the extent that the citizenry had the power to prevent those actions and did not. And it certainly is no reflection on the country's citizens of subsequent generations.

[Decker]

No matter what you guys say the Allies would have suffered 100 of 1000s of casualties when they invaded Japan mainland.
The Japanese would never ever have surrendered and their casualties would have been even higher.
Ironically dropping those 2 bombs saved a lot of lives and ended a war that had been carrying on for far to long already.

The men in charge of military operations for WWII thought that use of the atomic bomb in those two instances was not necessary.  Adm. William Leahy, Gen. Douglas MacArthur, Gen. Curtis LeMay, Gen. Henry Arnold, Brig. Gen. Bonner Fellers, Adm. Ernest King, Gen. Carl Spaatz, Adm. Chester Nimitz, Adm. William "Bull" Halsey, and Eisenhower all disagreed with Truman's call to bomb.  The heads of all branches of the military did not want to use the atomic bomb on Japan. 

The Japanese wanted to surrender but the US would not accept the terms. http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html (a libertarian website)

It's kind of like how the strategical situation we had in Iraq in that the political elite were calling the shots while the actual military men were opposed to them or begging for caution.

 

[headhuntersix]

We sent a message to the Soviets. Also there was a coup attempt that would have signaled to the Imperial Army that they, along with the citizenry, the Emperor's intention to figh to the death. Either way it worked out fine. Please don't tell me u guys blame America for ending ww2 in the Pacific. Gimme a break.

[Decker]

We sent a message to the Soviets. Also there was a coup attempt that would have signaled to the Imperial Army that they, along with the citizenry, the Emperor's intention to figh to the death. Either way it worked out fine. Please don't tell me u guys blame America for ending ww2 in the Pacific. Gimme a break.

I don't disagree with the opinions of the military men knowing best the utility and consequences of using atomic warfare. 

It is obvious that you disagree with the group of generals instead taking President Truman's side.

I don't think you saw the part of my post that asserted that the Japanese were trying to surrender to the US and we bombed them.  The Japanese wanted to surrender, even asking the russians for help in brokering a deal...fighting to death did not seem to be at the top of their list. 

Some 200,000 casualties from the two bombings.  http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml

That's a high price to send a message to the soviets.  And to be fair, that's alot of death and misery.  I don't think any reasonable person believes a 'bloodless' war exists, but piling on is a different story.

I will stand with the opinion of the military experts on this one.

[OzmO]

The men in charge of military operations for WWII thought that use of the atomic bomb in those two instances was not necessary.  Adm. William Leahy, Gen. Douglas MacArthur, Gen. Curtis LeMay, Gen. Henry Arnold, Brig. Gen. Bonner Fellers, Adm. Ernest King, Gen. Carl Spaatz, Adm. Chester Nimitz, Adm. William "Bull" Halsey, and Eisenhower all disagreed with Truman's call to bomb.  The heads of all branches of the military did not want to use the atomic bomb on Japan. 

The Japanese wanted to surrender but the US would not accept the terms. http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html (a libertarian website)

It's kind of like how the strategical situation we had in Iraq in that the political elite were calling the shots while the actual military men were opposed to them or begging for caution.

 

I'm suspicious of Generals in this case.   Using the Bomb would likely end the war and not using it would prolong it.  Generals lose much of their purpose when the war ends.

The Japanese were very loyal to their emperor and Tojo among others used this.  The concept of the Emperor being devine needed to be shattered to prevent future military venture by Japan.

Then you have Russia.  Did those bombs stop the escalation of further war in Europe also?

I agree.  Did we need 2?   And I'm very reluctant to say we needed to do it at all.  but considering the circumstances it seems to have saved more lives.

[headhuntersix]

One would appear to be enough to stop the war..two showed the Russians we had plenty...I think we had 1 left. They would have fought on. The Government wanted to stop, but fanatical elements in the military wanted to fight on. They still controled vast parts of the pacific or had troops in those area's.

[rockyfortune]

revisionist history says it wasn't needed..that japan was ready to capitulate anyhow---and that it was really used to show the russians what we had...the russians had just started an offensive against the japanese two or three days prior to the first bomb being dropped.  If this offensive was allowed to continue while the us negotiated with the japanese for a surrender the russians could have expanded their influence in asia....

[Decker]

I'm suspicious of Generals in this case.   Using the Bomb would likely end the war and not using it would prolong it.  Generals lose much of their purpose when the war ends.

The Japanese were very loyal to their emperor and Tojo among others used this.  The concept of the Emperor being devine needed to be shattered to prevent future military venture by Japan.

Then you have Russia.  Did those bombs stop the escalation of further war in Europe also?

I agree.  Did we need 2?   And I'm very reluctant to say we needed to do it at all.  but considering the circumstances it seems to have saved more lives.

The best military minds in the world at the time did not agree with Truman's call.  Of course bombing Japan would end the war at that instant.  The generals thought the bloodshed and destruction would not be necessary to ending the war though.

I am not as certain as you are that the bombing of the cities saved lives.

Who am I to disagree with the generals?  They were there.

[Al-Gebra]

1. we had to keep the russkies out of japan, and the only way to ensure that was a quick surrender. hence the bomb.

2. I don't know where you're coming up with the bullshit about generals disagreeing with Truman's call.  Lemay  was more than on-board with the decision . . . the man loved the bomb.

3. Another Normandy-type invasion would have cost too many american lives.

[Decker]

revisionist history says it wasn't needed..that japan was ready to capitulate anyhow---and that it was really used to show the russians what we had...the russians had just started an offensive against the japanese two or three days prior to the first bomb being dropped.  If this offensive was allowed to continue while the us negotiated with the japanese for a surrender the russians could have expanded their influence in asia....

Your claim of revisionist history is not merited b/c the debate over the veracity of Truman's rationale for bombing (a speedy end the war) is disputed by many historians.  The Russians attacked 2 days after the first bomb was dropped.

[Al-Gebra]

 The Russians attacked 2 days after the first bomb was dropped.

oooh . . . I'm sure the Russian invasion came out of the blue.

[rockyfortune]

1. we had to keep the russkies out of japan, and the only way to ensure that was a quick surrender. hence the bomb.

2. I don't know where you're coming up with the bullshit about generals disagreeing with Truman's call.  Lemay  was more than on-board with the decision . . . the man loved the bomb.

3. Another Normandy-type invasion would have cost too many american lives.

they didn't call him bombs away lemay for nothing...

[rockyfortune]

Your claim of revisionist history is not merited b/c the debate over the veracity of Truman's rationale for bombing (a speedy end the war) is disputed by many historians.  The Russians attacked 2 days after the first bomb was dropped.

that's why it's called revisionist history...


ok..so two days after...but it isn't like it was a spur of the moment thing...russia had wanted a piece of japan since their defeat during the russo-japanese war in 1905...

[OzmO]

The best military minds in the world at the time did not agree with Truman's call.  Of course bombing Japan would end the war at that instant.  The generals thought the bloodshed and destruction would not be necessary to ending the war though.

I am not as certain as you are that the bombing of the cities saved lives.

Who am I to disagree with the generals?  They were there.

My question is then, what did the Generals think would end the war?