View Poll Results: Is it necessary to use Atomic Bomb against Japan ?

Voters
88. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, Japan will surrender earlier

    56 63.64%
  • No, Japan will surrender anyway

    28 31.82%
  • Not sure

    4 4.55%
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 134

Thread: Military Discussion : Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Atomic Bombing 1945)

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Planet Eropagnis
    Posts
    2,944

    Default Re: Military Discussion : Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Atomic Bombing 1945)

    So the atomic weapons did usher in a 'peaceful era'? One that of an uneasy peace?

    But regardless of how hardcore the Japanese military was, no country deserved to have the power of the Solar System unleashed onto them, political reasons or not.
    "Wonders of the Human Mind. Unfathomable to the highest degree."

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Some equitorial, tropical isle
    Posts
    2,398

    Default Re: Military Discussion : Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Atomic Bombing 1945)

    Quote Originally Posted by Spectrum
    I think Vietnam is different. They did not bomb US military facilities anyway.
    But one think I do realise is that the americans won't dare to touch the chinese. As the Korean & the Vietnam war have already taught them the lesson. For those who know a lot more, please add in more cos I don't bother much in war history anyway. Do flame me if you want to....
    But they did use Agent Orange, Napalm and Fuel Air Explosives in Vietnam..... nasties in place of the A-bomb.

    The A-bomb dropped on Japan does have an effect of cautioning further use of this weapon in other conflicts. The nuclear arsenal we have on Earth is capable of destrying the human race several times.

    Now think of all the alternatives we could have if all these resources were used for peaceful reasons.....

  3. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    1 Dalvey Road
    Posts
    474

    Default Re: Military Discussion : Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Atomic Bombing 1945)

    Quote Originally Posted by azul123
    I guess you are also, one to believe the the US landed on the moon? the camera also can play tricks on you, so don't also believe all that you see, too.

    ../azul123
    LOL,
    yeah, i always tell my wedding couples that.,
    'don't believe all that u see,
    years down the road, u might quarrel n wonder
    if those "all happy" pics i took on ur big day r real.
    don't believe them blindly,
    but look into it n see why u were "all happy" then.
    re-live that loving feeling n don't take things for granted.'

    sorri for OT.
    btw, i do believe the moon landing

  4. #44
    Moderator Francis247's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Hougang, Punggol
    Posts
    6,627

    Default Re: Military Discussion : Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Atomic Bombing 1945)

    Let us keep this thread as a polite and healthy one to discuss about the use of Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    War is never meant to be nice; there will be casualties and innocent victims, may it be military or civilians. This is the ugly side of a war and it is really sad. 一將功成万骨枯 meaning one’s general’s success thousands bone wither unless like Sun Tzu said, the best way to win a war is not to have one, or simply to say, to win without fighting.

    Back to the topic of using the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the geographic position of Japan is surrounded by sea, at that time, despite the fact that the Great Japanese Battleship Yamato was sunk by the Allied and the capturing of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the US were still unable to do a massive land invasion as the Japanese land force still reminds strong which is much like a situation of a corner beast whom will fight till the end. The only results will be more casualties on the Allied side if they are to invade from the sea.

    To the Japanese, surrendering is considered as a threat to the Emperor and been loyal to the Emperor of Japan; they will hold their position and die rather than surrender, this is the core of their fighting spirits. Besides that, by pressing on, they are hoping to outlast the US’s appetite for war which will make the Allied weary and retreat.

    The use of Atomic bomb on Hiroshima was to cripple the supplies and resources of the Japanese as this is one way to make them surrender. Literally, the island of Japan is been besieged by the US, with resources and supplies gone, they were hoping to use this move to attack and destroy the Japanese fighting spirit and their will to push on. The sad thing is that the inventors of the Atomic bomb underestimate the destructive power of the bomb which had caused many to suffer and die.

    The second Atomic bomb on Nagasaki is actually uncalled for. But that move is to totally eliminate the Japanese the will to hold on. Besides that, if the Japanese still push on and not surrender, they fear that the US will launch another Atomic bomb right at the heart of the Tokyo where the Imperial palace of Japan is located.

    Looking at this from another perspective, prolong war is disadvantage to the Allied as laying siege on a city wall will drain them off their time and resources in which they had already used up much of it during the war at the German front. People will usually look for a swift battle, but the fighting spirit of the Japanese should not be undermined. During the capturing of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, it had taken a much longer time than the US had anticipated first hence I guess the use of the A-bomb is unavoidable move at that time.
    Last edited by Francis247; 23rd January 2006 at 03:00 PM.
    莫问前程有愧,只求今生无悔. Time pasts, Places changed, Beauty faded, what is left are Photos of MemoriesÖ

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Planet Eropagnis
    Posts
    2,944

    Default Re: Military Discussion : Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Atomic Bombing 1945)

    Seems that no one seems to think the A-Bomb as a political tool which I still firmly believe that it is.
    "Wonders of the Human Mind. Unfathomable to the highest degree."

  6. #46

    Default Re: Military Discussion : Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Atomic Bombing 1945)

    Actually,

    I have a 400+ pages book that deal solely on the decision to use the bomb. You guys should do some reading on this as it was rather fascinating subject. I bought the book in Singapore after my trip to hiroshima.

    From what I can remember reading the book (written by ang mo) 5 years back, Interesting facts

    1) NOT a single bomb was drop on hirshima and nagasaki other than the BIG one. I guess for scientific reasons. Just an experiment of the effects of the bomb. The subjects were kept pristine.

    2) Japan was already on the verge of surrender. They were desperate to surrender. This is a FACT. The only point in contention was "unconditional" surrender. The Japanese wanted reassurance that the emperor will be safe.

    3) as mentioned by someone, Russia was a MAJOR factor in the war. It is commonly accepted I think by historians that the atomic bombs were not used to save American lives. It is to make sure US win the war b4 the Russian entered the pacific front. It is amazing that not many people know of this fact.

    4) There were MANY QUOTES by MANY military commanders that the atomic bomb is NOT necessary to win the war nor to save "many" lives. The biggest proponent for the bomb was a politician, some minister of state. forgot his name.
    Last edited by wind30; 23rd January 2006 at 03:51 PM.

  7. #47

    Default Re: Military Discussion : Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Atomic Bombing 1945)

    Quote Originally Posted by wind30
    Actually,

    I have a 400+ pages book that deal solely on the decision to use the bomb. You guys should do some reading on this as it was rather fascinating subject. I bought the book in Singapore after my trip to hiroshima.

    From what I can remember reading the book (written by ang mo) 5 years back, Interesting facts

    1) NOT a single bomb was drop on hirshima and nagasaki other than the BIG one. I guess for scientific reasons. Just an experiment of the effects of the bomb. The subjects were kept pristine.

    2) Japan was already on the verge of surrender. They were desperate to surrender. This is a FACT. The only point in contention was "unconditional" surrender. The Japanese wanted reassurance that the emperor will be safe.

    3) as mentioned by someone, Russia was a MAJOR factor in the war. It is commonly accepted I think by historians that the atomic bombs were not used to save American lives. It is to make sure US win the war b4 the Russian entered the pacific front. It is amazing that not many people know of this fact.

    4) There were MANY QUOTES by MANY military commanders that the atomic bomb is NOT necessary to win the war nor to save "many" lives. The biggest proponent for the bomb was a politician, some minister of state. forgot his name.
    I travelled to Hiroshima this year, and after the trip, it perked my interest and I read abit more about it when I came back, I came across the points that Wind30 pointed out. The main one was that Japan was ready to surrender, but what the allies wanted was an unconditional surrender. Even with the surrender, one of the condition the Japanese asked for was for the Emperor to remain in power as before, but the allies was not willing to compromise with that or any conditions. If you are going to Japan/Tokyo, I suggest you visit to the Yasukuni shrine, there is a WAR museum there. They give their reasons for the war and their version of it. They claimed that they were forced to attack America due to some policies/situation of that time. Many people would balk at the reasons/stories that you can read there, but rememeber history is written by the victor, the truth is probably in the middle.
    36frames Wedding Photography - http://www.36frames.com
    rueyloon - http://www.rueyloon.com

  8. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Some equitorial, tropical isle
    Posts
    2,398

    Default Re: Military Discussion : Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Atomic Bombing 1945)

    Yeah, i remember reading about the "experiment" aspect of the A-bomb over japan. Not much publicity over this. After all, the allied victory means history as we know it. Anyway, its a cruel way to see the effects of A-bombs. Like I said, at that point in time Japan was already defeated. Kamakasi was a last ditch desperate effort. There were already a shortage of planes and pilots willing to do this.

    I guess from the Japanese point of view, they were probably thinking that they were liberating Asia from the colonial rulers. One side effect is these the formal commonwealth states wanted independance after WW2.


    Anyway, Enola Gay Lyrics for a dreary Monday afternoon...

    Enola gay, you should have stayed at home yesterday
    Aha words canít describe the feeling and the way you lied

    These games you play, theyíre gonna end it more than tears someday
    Aha enola gay, it shouldnít ever have to end this way

    Itís 8:15, and thatís the time that itís always been
    We got your message on the radio, conditions normal and youíre coming home

    Enola gay, is mother proud of little boy today
    Aha this kiss you give, itís never ever gonna fade away

    Enola gay, it shouldnít ever have to end this way
    Aha enola gay, it shouldnít fade in our dreams away

    Itís 8:15, and thatís the time that itís always been
    We got your message on the radio, conditions normal and youíre coming home

    Enola gay, is mother proud of little boy today
    Aha this kiss you give, itís never ever gonna fade away

  9. #49

    Default Re: Military Discussion : Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Atomic Bombing 1945)

    I am thinking wat would Japan had done if they had the bomb first ............................

    They may not have the bomb yet but .........

    Do you want to fight a war, press them into a corner that they cannot back off anymore and yet still able to fight back? I prefer to let them know that they have no capabilty to carry on any more and just end it here and then ...

    Think that the radioactive effects of the A-bomb may only be known on hindsight. I do not think that the Americans do know everything for sure at that point in time. They could have thought that only those who died there and then are the only casulties. Radioactivity was something that they realised after many years when ppl are still dying of cancer and stuff, all attributed to the A-bomb ...

    my $0.02 ...

  10. #50

    Default Re: Military Discussion : Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Atomic Bombing 1945)

    Quote Originally Posted by azul123
    Hmmm... why didn't they use the same argument to bomb Vietnam to save many other lives?

    ../azul123

    Maybe knowing the effects of Radiation ... maybe too many other countries ard ... imagine the radioactive fallout ...

    I am not a American or their supporter. Maybe they dun want to make more enemies ...

  11. #51

    Default Re: Military Discussion : Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Atomic Bombing 1945)

    Quote Originally Posted by Deadpoet
    MAD. Mutual Assured Destruction. Heard about it? At that time, if the US use nuclear weapon in Vietnam, the Soviet and Chinese will likely intervene, and escalation looked inevitable. This is not an option. All through the cold war, MAD was providing the underlying stability for the geopolitical stage. No one dared to make a rash move, hence we ara safe.

    Fiurther, American support for unilaterally using nuclear weapons was zero. REmember, the US was and is run byu public opinion polls. MacArthur did comtemplate using atomic weapons to create a buffer zone north of the Yalu. Luckily, calmer heads prevailed.
    While I agree that your opinion has merit, think that they are more humane than that. Just to consider the political factors would only win the war and would not win them any friends in SEA who would be bearing the fallout ...

  12. #52
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    www.whltelightphotographer.com
    Posts
    1,834

    Default Re: Military Discussion : Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Atomic Bombing 1945)

    Atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are both political and military one. The American had never seen the A-Bombs are nuclear devices that could destory our way of live before this two nuclear bombing. To them this is just an other "explosive device" that could win the war for them. So military wise is just another toy for military to win war.

    The military was edger to test this new toy. That why in the two bombing there will be another few planes beside the one that actually doing the mission just there to record the result of the events. The military knew that they up against a stubbon and determine enemy if they invade the Japan main island . In Okinawa the US lost 18 000 men for a small island and the Japanese lost 120 000 men defending it. Even after the atomic bombing in both cities. There was even a coup in the Japan Imperial Household to prevent the Emperor to tell the Japanese of the decesion to surrender.

    Another hand Truman want to be the President that win the war, he had just become the president because President Roosevelt had just die. He need to prove himself to the American public that he can bring back the troops home alive. The Soviet are planing to go to war with Japan. US will not happy if the Soviet beat them to Tokyo as in Berlin.

  13. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Planet Eropagnis
    Posts
    2,944

    Default Re: Military Discussion : Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Atomic Bombing 1945)

    Perhaps they needed a guinea pig to test. The one in Europe surrendered before they could use the bomb and the bright Sun in the East, driven to a corner and lashing out all its last strength in 2 bloody battles gave most politicians and scientists an excuse to test it.
    "Wonders of the Human Mind. Unfathomable to the highest degree."

  14. #54

    Default Re: Military Discussion : Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Atomic Bombing 1945)

    Quote Originally Posted by jsbn
    So the atomic weapons did usher in a 'peaceful era'? One that of an uneasy peace?

    But regardless of how hardcore the Japanese military was, no country deserved to have the power of the Solar System unleashed onto them, political reasons or not.
    while no country deserves that, any country contemplating war unilaterally should consider the benefits and cost of going down the war path ... How can the road bully complain of being jailed for pushing a fellow driver? Afterall, the punishment is not compatible with the harm.

    But as a civilised world, there is a certain code of conduct to ensure that things are settled in accordance with accepted norms. Otherwise, the security of nations cannot be guaranteed, Singapore included.

    Any country that starts a war cannot complain that their citizens are affected by the bombs that fell. Afterall, it was them who brought this upon their citizens in the first place.

    my $0.02

  15. #55

    Default Re: Military Discussion : Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Atomic Bombing 1945)

    Quote Originally Posted by rueyloon
    I travelled to Hiroshima this year, and after the trip, it perked my interest and I read abit more about it when I came back, I came across the points that Wind30 pointed out. The main one was that Japan was ready to surrender, but what the allies wanted was an unconditional surrender. Even with the surrender, one of the condition the Japanese asked for was for the Emperor to remain in power as before, but the allies was not willing to compromise with that or any conditions. If you are going to Japan/Tokyo, I suggest you visit to the Yasukuni shrine, there is a WAR museum there. They give their reasons for the war and their version of it. They claimed that they were forced to attack America due to some policies/situation of that time. Many people would balk at the reasons/stories that you can read there, but rememeber history is written by the victor, the truth is probably in the middle.
    Was the book written by a Jap?

    Think that I read somewhere that the Japanese history textbook recorded that they started the war to liberate SEA, there are no comfort women and the Nanjing Massacre did not happen ....
    Last edited by paradigm; 23rd January 2006 at 04:39 PM.

  16. #56

    Default Re: Military Discussion : Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Atomic Bombing 1945)

    Quote Originally Posted by jsbn
    Seems that no one seems to think the A-Bomb as a political tool which I still firmly believe that it is.
    Strategic nuclear weapons are political tools, they are never thought of being military tools, maybe with the exception of the mega tonnage bunker buster intended to destroy the ememy land based ICBM. But the threat of MAD itself is political.

    Back to JApan, the 2 bombs did minimal damage to the infrastructure. They killed many people, but not more than what a week of intense strategic bombing won't do. They were political instrument to shock the Japanese government, and the Japanese military in particular, into submission.
    deadpoet
    my portfolio

  17. #57

    Default Re: Military Discussion : Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Atomic Bombing 1945)

    Quote Originally Posted by paradigm
    While I agree that your opinion has merit, think that they are more humane than that. Just to consider the political factors would only win the war and would not win them any friends in SEA who would be bearing the fallout ...
    War in itself is inhumane. If I were ever to go to war in whatever capacity, however repulsive it may be, I like to have the biggest gun and the largest bomb by my side at my disposal.

    Vietnam was a mess, and the American did not learn their lesson well, now they are in Iraq. The American doctrine in Vietnam was never to win an outright victory. They were looking to maintain the status quo of a north and south Vietnam. This north south or east west division, was a by product of the cold war.
    deadpoet
    my portfolio

  18. #58

    Default Re: Military Discussion : Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Atomic Bombing 1945)

    another image forever imprinted on me was a B&W photo my teacher in Primary 5 or 6, showed us. I don't know why she did that but I will forever remember a river FILLED with corpse. The whole river is like filled with dead bodies. You know why?



    Many people did not die immediately from the burns, they all tried to jump into the river to escape from the "burns". So they all died in the river. dunno why the teacher showed a primary class such photos

    That was the reason why for my first trip to Japan, I made a detour down to hiroshima. Hiroshima was REALLY a peaceful place when I went in 1995/6. I liked it better than kyoto and tokyo.

  19. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The heart of the Abyss
    Posts
    2,307

    Default Re: Military Discussion : Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Atomic Bombing 1945)

    Quote Originally Posted by paradigm
    Think that the radioactive effects of the A-bomb may only be known on hindsight. I do not think that the Americans do know everything for sure at that point in time. They could have thought that only those who died there and then are the only casulties. Radioactivity was something that they realised after many years when ppl are still dying of cancer and stuff, all attributed to the A-bomb ...

    my $0.02 ...
    Of course they didn't know.. <- not a sacasm It was totally new after all.

    I mean, there has been documentary showing that US Army thought that radiation fallout was safe, with their troops going for "demo" of the bomb. Those were b/w film footage. Furthermore, not only the Americans, the French did to the Atolls (ie Bikini Atoll, yes was where the swimwear got the name... and how many know of it? ).

    Even the father and mother of radiation, the Curies thought it was safe and had a vial strapped onto their arm while it is glowing to prove it...

    These are basic history that seemed to be ignored by many.

  20. #60
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Hougang
    Posts
    456

    Default Re: Military Discussion : Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Atomic Bombing 1945)

    I guess dropping the two atomic bombs were the lesser of the two evils - the other being the invasion of Japan where allies' casualties was projected at 1 million while the Japanese casualties including civilians could run into millions. Another fact that tilted in the favour of the two bombs were the readiness of the Red Army to go into the Pacific theatre after the surrender of Nazi Germany. SHould this happen, Japan could ended up being split into two just like post war Germany.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •