bob
11-28-2005, 01:45 PM
I think it was a tough decision that President Truman made, but I do believe he made the right choice. I'm not going to list an argument yet, someone start us off. :)

Spiffles
11-28-2005, 01:52 PM
i dont beleive it was right to drop atomic bombs on citys full of innocent civilians...

i'll make some sort of argument later on if i need to.. a bit busy to do it now with the proper material to back up my argument.

bob
11-28-2005, 01:56 PM
More people were worse than the atomic bombs dropped on the two cities, the same with the British bomings of the city of Dresden. One square mile of Tokyo was destroyed by B-29 firebombings, some even consider it a war crime. In fact, 42,700 tons of bombs were dropped on Japan in July 1945. So I don't think that the atmoic bombs were the worst things in the war.

bob
11-28-2005, 02:19 PM
Out of 28,410 houses in the inner city of Dresden, 24,866 were destroyed. An area of 15 square kilometres was totally destroyed, among that: 14,000 homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals, 19 churches, 5 theatres, 50 bank and insurance companies, 31 department stores, 31 large hotels, 62 administration buildings as well as factories such as the Ihagee camera works. In total there were 222,000 apartments in the city. 75,000 of them were totally destroyed, 11,000 severely damaged, 7,000 damaged, 81,000 slightly damaged. The city was around 300 square kilometres in area in those days.

The point being here, that there were many things that happened during the war, were they all justifiable? No, but I don't think that it's fair to say that one single event was the worse part of the war. Yes, I know the Eupopean and the Pacific Theaters were completely different, but I was just drawing a comparison.

More than 120,000 Japanese and 18,000 American troops (72,000 casualties) were killed in the bloodiest battle of the Pacific theater, just 8 weeks before Japan's final surrender. In fact, more civilians died in the Battle of Okinawa than did in the Atomic bombings.

Cornflake
11-29-2005, 07:53 AM
I think he made the right choice. They bombed Japan into submission, rather than invading several spots, which would have cost numerous lives.

skynes
11-29-2005, 07:57 AM
Thats an interesting point...

By dropping the bomb, they killed LOTS of ppl. but if they had invaded with troops, would that not have killed even more? And if he had, would we all be sitting here saying how dumb it was to not nuke em?

agent_c68
11-29-2005, 08:27 AM
The thing is that most civilians (non-military) want to see war come to a clean end, but the reality of war isn't sterile. The Japanesse had a strong spirit, and as long as that spirit was strong they would still fight. We had to show them not only that we had the instrument of their total anniahlation, but the willingness to use it. A weapon is as effective as your willingness to use it, a gun is just a hunk of metal if the shooter's not willing to use it. The Japanesse had to realize that they were doomed to total anniahlation before they would surrender, and it took two cities falling to finally convince them.

frymeskillet
11-29-2005, 08:49 AM
Thats an interesting point...

By dropping the bomb, they killed LOTS of ppl. but if they had invaded with troops, would that not have killed even more? And if he had, would we all be sitting here saying how dumb it was to not nuke em?

I totally agree with this statement. war is something that will happen whether we agree with it or not. and who knows the outcome of the war if we didn't bomb the place up. we wouldn't know. thats the point of it all. we could be dead right now if we didn't take that first step. THE END! :)

-Savannah-

Cornflake
11-29-2005, 10:24 AM
Think of the Assault on the Beach of Normandy... the German forces were playing the defense, while the Allies were playing the offensive. The Axis had an advantage that they had time to know the terrain. They had bunkers and defensive gun mounts.

Think of Japan. They would have had the same advantages. While it was every bit likely the Allies would have prevailed, it would have cost many lives to invade all of Japan, and completely wipe out the Japan Military, because Japanese soldiers were NOT going to surrender.

TheFireBreathes
11-29-2005, 02:09 PM
Think of Japan. They would have had the same advantages. While it was every bit likely the Allies would have prevailed, it would have cost many lives to invade all of Japan, and completely wipe out the Japan Military, because Japanese soldiers were NOT going to surrender.

Exactly, the Japanese were known to keep fighting till the last man is standing. The Japanese were also killing more of the soldiers themselves because of the kamikazee's

disciple
11-29-2005, 04:41 PM
A weapon is as effective as your willingness to use it, a gun is just a hunk of metal if the shooter's not willing to use it.
Hey, <<Vash takes offense to that. ;) :P

All wars should come to a clean end. Both sides should shake hands and have a tea party afterward.

[/sarcasm]

Despite my sorrow on behalf of all the innocent children lost in those bombings, there is nothing I can do to change what has happened for the sake of peace.

TheFireBreathes
11-29-2005, 07:04 PM
Hey, <<Vash takes offense to that. ;) :P

All wars should come to a clean end. Both sides should shake hands and have a tea party afterward.


Why not a slumber party? :D

skynes
11-30-2005, 12:31 AM
Think of the Assault on the Beach of Normandy... the German forces were playing the defense, while the Allies were playing the offensive. The Axis had an advantage that they had time to know the terrain. They had bunkers and defensive gun mounts.

Think of Japan. They would have had the same advantages. While it was every bit likely the Allies would have prevailed, it would have cost many lives to invade all of Japan, and completely wipe out the Japan Military, because Japanese soldiers were NOT going to surrender.

You just made me realise something...

If the allies invaded Japan by land and had a Normandy Beach style assault, would they have had enough troops for D-Day?

Normandy Beach was very hit n miss, a single thing going wrong would have totally blown it all and we'd all be speaking German today :|

So really they needed every man available for D-Day, so they nuked Japan, saving untold thousands of Allied troops, all of which were necessary for D-Day...

Isildur9473
11-30-2005, 08:35 AM
You just made me realise something...

If the allies invaded Japan by land and had a Normandy Beach style assault, would they have had enough troops for D-Day?

Normandy Beach was very hit n miss, a single thing going wrong would have totally blown it all and we'd all be speaking German today :|

So really they needed every man available for D-Day, so they nuked Japan, saving untold thousands of Allied troops, all of which were necessary for D-Day...

And those silly French people hate us. :\

skynes
11-30-2005, 11:08 AM
Those silly French ppl hate everyone, cause they're the only country in the world that's never won a war... Except the Civil War, they won that, but they also lost that too so it doesn't count.

lol

Except for La Garconne. She's alright, wherever she is..

bob
11-30-2005, 02:57 PM
D-Day was in June of 1944, we nuked Japan in August of 1945 . . .

asparagus
11-30-2005, 07:46 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_site

bob
11-30-2005, 07:49 PM
Wikipedia is so useful :D

skynes
12-01-2005, 01:04 AM
D-Day was in June of 1944, we nuked Japan in August of 1945 . . .

Ok... so invert what I said then.
After D-Day 1944, not enough troops for Land Invasion 1945... ::]

bob
12-01-2005, 01:28 PM
Ok... so invert what I said then.
After D-Day 1944, not enough troops for Land Invasion 1945... ::]

Considering that 55 million people signed up to be enlisted in the army after Pearl Harbor (about 7 million were used) I highly doubt that.

Cornflake
12-01-2005, 01:39 PM
Yeah but it takes alot of time to effectively train troops , and also get supplies. If your gonna send a guy on a mission in which death is highly probable.. atleast prepare him and equip him.

bob
12-02-2005, 05:06 PM
Well, of course. All soldiers went through intense training. The training was living hell and it was supposed to be worse than war so war couldn't possibly be any worse. But war was worse, there is nothing you can do to prepare someone for war completely, which is why many men came back home shell shocked.

frymeskillet
12-07-2005, 08:45 AM
Well i think this thread has served its usefulness, i think we should close it now before something else sparks up. :) hey im just repaying the favor.... bobbio!!!

;D -Savannah- ;D

bob
12-07-2005, 11:57 AM
hey im just repaying the favor.... bobbio!!!

;D -Savannah- ;D
I closed that thread to stop all the other members from biting each other's heads off, not because of you.