Hiroshima debate?




 
--
 
August 1st, 2005  
Shadowalker
 
 

Topic: Hiroshima debate?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/4724793.stm

What are your views?
August 1st, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
it's unfortunate but yes the atomic bomb had to be dropped, more horrific casualties (for both sides) would have resulted from the invasion of the japanese homland, and it would've taken ALOT longer for them to get back on their feet.

reading the experiences of survivors of hiroshima/nagasaki certianly brings it home that nukes will hopefully never be used again
August 1st, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Pearl Harbor was surely a factor in dropping the bomb, but I believe the projected 1 million US casualties and up to 30 million Japanese casualties if we had invaded Japan had much more to do with it. That and sending a message to the Russians. Dropping the bomb saved a vast amount of American and Japanese lives and prevented Japan from seeing the division that Germany and Korea did.
--
August 1st, 2005  
Redleg
 
 
Flaming/Off-topic posts removed.

Whispering Death, check your PMs!
August 1st, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
I think this is closest to the truth.

"How could a president, or the others charged with responsibility for the decision, answer to the American people if... after the bloodbath of an invasion of Japan, it became known that a weapon sufficient to end the war had been available by midsummer and was not used?"

I think that the resistance that Japan had shown in the Pacific island hopping campaign demonstrated the futility hope for a Japanese surrender.
August 1st, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missileer
I think this is closest to the truth.

"How could a president, or the others charged with responsibility for the decision, answer to the American people if... after the bloodbath of an invasion of Japan, it became known that a weapon sufficient to end the war had been available by midsummer and was not used?"

I think that the resistance that Japan had shown in the Pacific island hopping campaign demonstrated the futility hope for a Japanese surrender.
i agree, no conspiracy, no evil intent, the decision to drop those bombs was a hard one, but i believe the right one.

it's certianly a lot more straight foward than say, the firebombing of dresden
August 2nd, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewie_nz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missileer
I think this is closest to the truth.

"How could a president, or the others charged with responsibility for the decision, answer to the American people if... after the bloodbath of an invasion of Japan, it became known that a weapon sufficient to end the war had been available by midsummer and was not used?"

I think that the resistance that Japan had shown in the Pacific island hopping campaign demonstrated the futility hope for a Japanese surrender.
i agree, no conspiracy, no evil intent, the decision to drop those bombs was a hard one, but i believe the right one.

it's certianly a lot more straight foward than say, the firebombing of dresden
Ya, the bomb was a gift and a curse. McAruther was against it himself until he saw what the death rate could have been.
August 2nd, 2005  
LeEnfield
 
 
The Japanese had every chance to surrender after the first bomb was dropped, so why did they not surrender, well it was because they still thought that they could fight on. Now by dropping those bombs it brought WW2 to a much quicker end with far less bloodshed that would have happened if an invasion had taken place. Had the invasion taken place then the Allies could have been fighting every man woman and child in Japan. The Japanese army already had plans in place for this to be put into effect, also another thing to consider ids that the Japanese had plans to kill every POW that they could lay there hands on. I worked with a chap who was just out side Nagasaki when the bomb was dropped and he was being march to a death camp, and he was always thankful to the bomb and the Americans that dropped it.
August 2nd, 2005  
skipper
 
Got to agree with that
August 3rd, 2005  
Craftsman
 
I have to disagree, Japan was on the defensive. It's ports were mined and it's ofensive abilities shattered, sure an invasion would have caused alot of allied casualties so why not just sit back and do nothing. It isn't like the allies were short on time.