Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Hiroshima AND Nagasaki?
  • Subject: Hiroshima AND Nagasaki?
Subject: Hiroshima AND Nagasaki?

I Would Have Been Your Daddy

Was that second bomg really necessary? I mean, the emperor of Japan did not surrender after the first but, was it really necessary with a second bomb?

Your opinion?

  • 01.03.2013 11:43 AM PDT

Yes. Absolutely necessary.

  • 01.03.2013 11:43 AM PDT

Posted by: Happy Tissue
Posted by: Set Sail Armada
Why didn't Frodo just stick the ring up his ass?

Because Sam would keep turning invisible.

Posted by: Vinny White
Sex with highschool jailbait
and stamp collecting


Posted by: RockdaleRooster
Yes. Absolutely necessary.

  • 01.03.2013 11:44 AM PDT

"Banhammer" - Post anything on the Waypoint forums -50g
Never forget:
Porch Day
lolReach
Gen Petitt Day
Night of the Living Alts

The US said they would nuke them each day until Japan surrendered.

  • 01.03.2013 11:44 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Necessary. But not right

  • 01.03.2013 11:44 AM PDT

Nothing else was going to stop Japan.

They were going to fight till the very end.

  • 01.03.2013 11:44 AM PDT

“If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do much what as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly.” - John Locke

"How can anyone be enlightened? Truth after all is so poorly lit." - Rush

Evidence suggests that the soviet entry into the war against Japan, not the atomic bombings, caused to Japanese to surrender in the end.

People act like Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the first time the US bombed Japanese civilians, and fail to realize that they were practically the only cities that hadn't been burned to a crisp by the fire-bombing campaign, of which killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. The Americans were incredibly ruthless in their campaign to destroy Japanese civilians, and while the atomic might of the weapons seemed to hasten the Japanese surrender, they surely didn't need to be dropped on primarily civilian targets.

look here for example "Estimates for Japanese civilian losses range from 500,000,[259] to 1,000,000 dead.[260] The lower figure of 500,000 includes those deaths during the war caused by allied bombing and the fighting on Okinawa. The higher estimate of 1,000,000 includes additional post war deaths of persons injured in the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and excess deaths due to adverse post war conditions."

For anyone interested, some further reading on the the Japanese decision to surrender: here
Or check out these texts:

Asada, Sadao. "The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan's Decision to Surrender: A Reconsideration," in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, edited by Robert James Maddox, 24-58. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2007.

Bix, Herbert P. "Japan's Delayed Surrender: A Reinterpretation," in Hiroshima in History and Memory, ed. Michael J. Hogan, 80-115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Frank, Richard B. Downfall: the End of the Imperial Japanese Empire. New York: Penguin, 1999.

Hasegawa, Tsuyoshi. Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005.

[Edited on 01.03.2013 12:39 PM PST]

  • 01.03.2013 11:44 AM PDT

Name: Vien (Sven) 'Quitonm
Age: 19
Species: Sangheili
Height: 6'7"
Weight: 240 Lbs.
Eye Colour: Grey

Well, we could've glassed the entire country.

  • 01.03.2013 11:44 AM PDT

Ask the the thousands of people who would have died in the invasion (on both sides) if it was necessary.

  • 01.03.2013 11:44 AM PDT

They refused to stop fighting. So yes. It was necessary. Which was very unfortunate.

We actually would have lost more lives if we didn't drop the bombs. More soldiers would have been lost than the civilians that were killed in the bombs.

[Edited on 01.03.2013 11:45 AM PST]

  • 01.03.2013 11:44 AM PDT

Who am I?

mah twitter

The first one wasn't necessary either.

  • 01.03.2013 11:44 AM PDT

Call me Stu

Well what would you have proposed?

  • 01.03.2013 11:45 AM PDT

"Banhammer" - Post anything on the Waypoint forums -50g
Never forget:
Porch Day
lolReach
Gen Petitt Day
Night of the Living Alts


Posted by: Vien Quitonmee
Well, we could've glassed the entire country.
So why didn't you do it?

  • 01.03.2013 11:45 AM PDT

"I will show you how a true Prussian officer fights!"

"And i will show you where the iron crosses grow..."

- "Cross of Iron"

Yes it was.

It saved hundreds of thousands of American lives.

  • 01.03.2013 11:46 AM PDT

I Would Have Been Your Daddy


Posted by: Hayabusawarrior
Ask the the thousands of people who would have died in the invasion (on both sides) if it was necessary.
I not sure if the alive but you seam to have sum inside knowlage, Hayabusa sir

  • 01.03.2013 11:46 AM PDT

Name: Vien (Sven) 'Quitonm
Age: 19
Species: Sangheili
Height: 6'7"
Weight: 240 Lbs.
Eye Colour: Grey


Posted by: OdorousLicense3

Posted by: Vien Quitonmee
Well, we could've glassed the entire country.
So why didn't you do it?
Their culture seemed similar.

  • 01.03.2013 11:46 AM PDT

Stop banning me please.

I heard that Japan would have surrendered if the US recognized the emperor of japan

  • 01.03.2013 11:46 AM PDT

Yes and no. No really, the should have threatened to do it again to the emperor for a month or so, then droped the bomb if he refused.

  • 01.03.2013 11:47 AM PDT

Dear tomorrow, Find some sensibility, Respond to emotion.
Dear Politician, Define sagacity,
All chances of survival are beginning to diminish.
Comedy is no excuse for our own blasphemies.
Mass media, Mass pessimism, Mass Denial.
My television tells me to panic, but I don't think I'll listen.
The apathetic force us to persevere, with their backwards priorities.


Posted by: Raptorx7
Yes it was.

It saved hundreds of thousands of American lives.


Exactly. Land invasion was too risky.

  • 01.03.2013 11:47 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

For all questions with answers unknown to you, the proper procedure is to assume the answer is peanut butter.

While that may be true, I'm just going to pretend otherwise.

Yes. We warned them before and after the first bombing. We told them we would continue bombing until they surrendered. It's tragic, but ultimately necessary and it saved more lives than it took.

[Edited on 01.03.2013 11:49 AM PST]

  • 01.03.2013 11:47 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member


Posted by: Make117
The first one wasn't necessary either.
Uh huh... do you know which Japanese we are talking about?

  • 01.03.2013 11:47 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Raptorx7
Yes it was.

It saved hundreds of thousands of American lives.
At the cost of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians lives.

[Edited on 01.03.2013 11:48 AM PST]

  • 01.03.2013 11:47 AM PDT

Posted by: Raptorx7
Once more unto the breach eh Raptor?

  • 01.03.2013 11:48 AM PDT

OMG
Master Chief w/o his Helmet!


Stosh <3's me vicariously... at least someone does...

No. Neither one was.

The reason Japan surrendered was Russia anyways. Those bombs were dropped to intimidate Russia. If they were actually militarily necessary, the US would have dropped them on the Japanese troops instead of on their woman and children.

It was a terrorist act, and far from the first the US made in the second world war.

  • 01.03.2013 11:48 AM PDT


Posted by: lightlamp2

Posted by: Raptorx7
Yes it was.

It saved hundreds of thousands of American lives.
At the cost of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians

If America had invade it would have cost the Japanese millions of civilians. An invasion of the home islands wouldn't have been war it would have been genocide. Look at the casualty estimates as terrible as the bombs were they were the right choice.

  • 01.03.2013 11:50 AM PDT