57 years ago today the US killed 10's of thousands of civilians

[rudder]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
I wonder why they dropped it in the cities where they could kill the maximum number of civilians, instead of on military targets?

I guess its a good way to tell the Soviets to back off, I just don't buy the "it saved millions of american lives" argument.

Every abled body Japanese civilian was taught how to use a weapon. Hmmm I wonder why the Japanese killed hundreds of thousands of Chinese. Why did they just not kill Chinese soldiers? Why did they have to kill (I mean brutally kill) all those women, children and old men as well.

My uncle was a marine and fought at Iwo Jima. After hearing his stories of brutality like finding dead marines with thier penises stuffed in their mouths among other atrocities, I am glad he did not have to invade Japan. Yeh it told the Soviets to back off, and it also told the Japanese to back off as well and it ended the War. And revise history as you may, but it did save many American lives as well as Japanese lives. Even look at Iwo Jima, the first ground invasion of Japanese soil. Look how many marines died in the first 5 days of fighting.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
I wonder why they dropped it in the cities where they could kill the maximum number of civilians, instead of on military targets?

I guess its a good way to tell the Soviets to back off, I just don't buy the "it saved millions of american lives" argument.

They did drop it on millitary institutions. It just happens that the millitary structures happend to be in cities and when dropping bombs of that size you end up with lots of additional damage. You should also keep in mind they DID NOT target the largest cities. Tokyo was the largest and was specifically exlcuded from the list of targets.

I thought Tokyo was 3rd or 4th on the list, but I could be wrong. But think about it, were there ANY military institutions away from cities anywhere in japan at that time?

I think the bombs were not needed, if the US was so concerned with loosing american lives (As the official line goes) they could have let the Soviet finish them off, but that would mean less control....

 

[Nefrodite]

btw, i think some scientist just died yesterday or something and his wife released papers he had on the japanese nuclear program so they were trying..

 

[Sigurd]

God, I'm sickened by the ignornace that plagues these boards. Revisionist history is liberal BS spouted forth with little to no direct evidence and mounds of "theorizing".

How come no one has mentioned the Bataan Death March? How come very few have mentioned that throughout the Pacific campaign, the US took very few Japanese prisoners because they fought to the death? I don't know about you, but considering the size of Japan it shouldn't take 3 days to realize that an entire city had been levelled and send off a very abrupt surrender. Why was Nagasaki and Hiroshima hit? They were HUGE industrial centers.

I've yet to see a single intelligent informed post against the use of nukes in WWII...oh wait, I know why...because they were COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED.

5 million jews, not 6. 5 million jews + 1 million gypsies = 6 million TOTAL. Some of you should just keep your mouths quiet till you get all the facts.

It didn't seem to me that Rahvin was terribly pro japanese; he seemed to say "you're wrong" to someone who was and stay pretty unbiased throughout the thread, but I could be mistaken on that.

 

[DougK62]

Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
I wonder why they dropped it in the cities where they could kill the maximum number of civilians, instead of on military targets?

I guess its a good way to tell the Soviets to back off, I just don't buy the "it saved millions of american lives" argument.

Exactly. I haven't formed an opinion on the use of the atomic bomb in general, but the location of the two that were dropped makes me think of them as a huge mistake. I don't care if the "civilian population" are blind idiots and supporting a wrongful cause, you dont purposely go bombing them. We didn't go bomb cilvilian population centers in Afhanistan even though a large amount of supporters were among them did we?! (well not on purpose at least... well at least thats what they tell us).

Why are the WTC attacks so tragic but not the Pentagon? Not just because of numbers but because one was a civilian center whle the other was a military government institution. For all who said you'd support it all over again... wow... I guess you see nothing wrong if we sent planes full of civilians crashing into a building full of civilians as long as its full of "enemies".

And for those of you suggesting reading a book or taking history classes. Riiiiight, like those aren't biased at all or have a slant on them... riiight.... public education and the public library is filled with completely unbiased material. After all, what your history teacher tells you, is exactly how things went.

I like you.

 

[dleiss]

Japan sent their Jewish residents to China during the war. Blumenthal(sp?) a cabinet officer of a previous administration was raised in one of the China cities.

Why invade Japan? It?s an island!! And the army/air force bombers were killing over 50,000 people a day with their firebombing.

Japan was delaying surrender until we said their emperor would not be killed. Their military was already kaput.

Truman could have shown Russia and Japan the power of the a-bomb by bombing the Nagasaki harbor. Neither bomb target was a military target. And yes, I have read a lot about the bombing. If you don?t think it was racism and revenge, just look how we rebuilt Germany while simply occupying Japan.

BTW, the scientists who developed the bombs have said they were not ready in time to bomb Germany.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
I wonder why they dropped it in the cities where they could kill the maximum number of civilians, instead of on military targets?

I guess its a good way to tell the Soviets to back off, I just don't buy the "it saved millions of american lives" argument.

They did drop it on millitary institutions. It just happens that the millitary structures happend to be in cities and when dropping bombs of that size you end up with lots of additional damage. You should also keep in mind they DID NOT target the largest cities. Tokyo was the largest and was specifically exlcuded from the list of targets.

I thought Tokyo was 3rd or 4th on the list, but I could be wrong. But think about it, were there ANY military institutions away from cities anywhere in japan at that time?

I think the bombs were not needed, if the US was so concerned with loosing american lives (As the official line goes) they could have let the Soviet finish them off, but that would mean less control....

Civillian cities surround nearly every millitary base in the world. I couldn't name a US millitary base that isn't situated in or on the border of a city with significant population. Civilians work in millitary bases, even during times of war. When using nuclear weapons there is also the strategic nature of the strike besides millitary. Is the city a major transport point? A major port? A central communication point? The soviets could have never invaded Japan, they didn't have the amphibious assault capability. And you forget one important item. Japan attacked the US on US soil, we weren't afraid to invade them, we just choose a path that resulted in less loss of life than an invasion would have ever produced.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: rahvin
On August 6th, 1945 the US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshama Japan in an attempt to end WWII. May history never repeat itself.

It, and the second bomb on Nagasaki, wer the first, and so far, only use of the bomb on civilian targets. The "attempt" was successful, and considering the lack or real world understanding of the extended consequenses, such as radiation contamination and poisoning, it can arguably be accepted.

We also gave ourselves, and the rest of the world, a practical demonstration of why it should never be used, again. What I don't understand are maniacs like Iraq, and moronic states like India, Pakistan, and others who, given what is now known, would consider using such weapons.

 

[MadRat]

More Japanese died to incendiary bombs than to the two A-Bombs. The President knew what he was doing when he ordered the bombs used, it was a message to Stalin. It had nothing to do with the Japanese because their fighters for defensing the cities were all but nonexistent by that time. The Japanese didn't have radar-guided flak guns like the Germans, so the B-29s were unlikely to be shot down by ground defenses. Most of the B-29s going in and out of Japanese airspace were also flying so high the Japanese fighters couldn't do anything but watch them come and go. The B-29s were using superchargers, cabin heaters, and oxygen bottles for the crew that allowed much greater altitudes than the Japanese were capable of reaching.

 

[dleiss]

6 million Jews + 1 million gypsies + 4 million others = 11 million TOTAL. There is a museum in D.C. that covers the subject if you are interested.

 

[ajskydiver]

<<Originally posted by: Linflas
it is very easy to sit here and pass judgement based on the standards of 2002 >>

For those of you who doubt the reasoning and thinking of the situation I can solve your problem...I can show you how to visit the past.

1. Go to your nearest Veteran's Hospital.
2. Find a Vet -- they're the older guys, typically in wheelchairs, approximately 80-90 years old.
3. Ask Him (maybe Her) about what was going on.
4. Get ready for an unbelievable story.

Then again, many of you would discount their first-hand experience due to its bias.

~AJ

Edit: I wasn't suggesting you, Linflas...just using your statement for those that are.

 

[Ramsnake]

japan was obviously asking for it....

 

[Gulzakar]

Could you imagine what an invasion of Japan would have been like? Those guys were pretty dedicated to their cause no matter what the cost. It was sad that it took a nuclear weapon to stop them, but it most likely DID save more lives then a full scale invasion. I'm not justifying nuclear war, but then again, the idea of war is "better them than me".

 

[Red Dawn]

God, I'm sickened by the ignornace that plagues these boards. Revisionist history is liberal BS spouted forth with little to no direct evidence and mounds of "theorizing".

Well it's because most of those "Ignoramuses" don't have parents that lived during WW2. They haven't any idea of how horrific the war was and how monsterous and cowardly the attack on Pearl Harbor was.

 

[GoodToGo]

I dont get it, why do you have to "invade" a country to make them surrender? Full military blockade around the island would force them to surrender. No country can remain isolated for so long....not even the US of A. The war would drag on but it definitely would be more humane than an atom bomb and you could have avioded a nuclear arms race.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: rahvin
On August 6th, 1945 the US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshama Japan in an attempt to end WWII. May history never repeat itself.

It, and the second bomb on Nagasaki, wer the first, and so far, only use of the bomb on civilian targets. The "attempt" was successful, and considering the lack or real world understanding of the extended consequenses, such as radiation contamination and poisoning, it can arguably be accepted.

We also gave ourselves, and the rest of the world, a practical demonstration of why it should never be used, again. What I don't understand are maniacs like Iraq, and moronic states like India, Pakistan, and others who, given what is now known, would consider using such weapons.

Thank you Harvey. Your one of the only people on this board who took the thread as it was meant.

 

[GoodToGo]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: rahvin
On August 6th, 1945 the US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshama Japan in an attempt to end WWII. May history never repeat itself.

It, and the second bomb on Nagasaki, wer the first, and so far, only use of the bomb on civilian targets. The "attempt" was successful, and considering the lack or real world understanding of the extended consequenses, such as radiation contamination and poisoning, it can arguably be accepted.

We also gave ourselves, and the rest of the world, a practical demonstration of why it should never be used, again. What I don't understand are maniacs like Iraq, and moronic states like India, Pakistan, and others who, given what is now known, would consider using such weapons.

Oh boy, you sure are smart. On one hand you justify USA's use of the atom bomb and on the other hand you condemn other states for making them? USA very well knew what they were getting into and they did not need a practical demonstration. They are responsible fpr the nuclear arms race and no one else. If anything blame them for all the nukes in the world today.

 

[Ramsnake]

Originally posted by: GoodToGo
I dont get it, why do you have to "invade" a country to make them surrender? Full military blockade around the island would force them to surrender. No country can remain isolated for so long....not even the US of A. The war would drag on but it definitely would be more humane than an atom bomb and you could have avioded a nuclear arms race.

that would be a waste of money...as i said before japan was asking for a spanking....

 

[Red Dawn]

Full military blockade around the island would force them to surrender. No country can remain isolated for so long....not even the US of A.The war would drag on but it definitely would be more humane than an atom bomb and you could have avioded a nuclear arms race.

SO millions starving to death and dying of desiese is more humane than a hundered thousand dying because of those bombs? I don't think so. How many millions died during the siege of Leningrad (St Petersburg)?

 

[rc5]

The US did do many bad things in the past. But dropping the atom bomb was one of the best things it has ever done.

Just think how many innocent civilians were killed by Japanese in WWII, tens of millions!

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

God, I'm sickened by the ignornace that plagues these boards. Revisionist history is liberal BS spouted forth with little to no direct evidence and mounds of "theorizing".

Well it's because most of those "Ignoramuses" don't have parents that lived during WW2. They haven't any idea of how horrific the war was and how monsterous and cowardly the attack on Pearl Harbor was.

That is a key factor. My father was floating around in the Pacific on a destroyer when the bomb was dropped and I can tell you they were all grateful as hell the war was over along with the Kamakazi attacks.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: rahvin
attempt to end WWII. May history never repeat itself.

it wasn't an attempt, it worked, hundreds of thousands of american lives were saved by not having to invade the japanese homeland

i bet you there are people on anandtech that wouldn't have ever been born if the 500,000 - 1,000,000 American soldiers that would have died in an invasion of Japan never had kids in the post-war baby boom

it was the correct call by President Harry S. Truman

As President, Truman made some of the most crucial decisions in history. Soon after V-E Day, the war against Japan had reached its final stage. An urgent plea to Japan to surrender was rejected. Truman, after consultations with his advisers, ordered atomic bombs dropped on cities devoted to war work. Two were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japanese surrender quickly followed.

 

[Red Dawn]

i bet you there are people on anandtech that wouldn't have ever been born if the 500,000 - 1,000,000 American soldiers that would have died in an invasion of Japan never had kids in the post-war baby boom

BINGO!!

 

[Red Dawn]

That is a key factor. My father was floating around in the Pacific on a destroyer when the bomb was dropped and I can tell you they were all grateful as hell the war was over along with the Kamakazi attacks.

My Father was transfered over to a converted Aircraft Carrier at the end. You have to know that ship would have been in the middle of things over in Japan if the war hadn't ended the way it did.

 

[darren]

i believe that hundreds of thousands died over the course of the two bombs.

i think there exists very strong arguments that the dropping of the bomb on hiroshima was not necessary to end the war. read correspondence between high ranking members of the military and presidential administration - been a while - i dont even remember their names.

there also exists a very strong moral argument that killing some 200,000 - 300,000 CIVILIANS via atom bomb is not the same as sending in our troops and suffering MILITARY casualties. theres a reason for the differentiation between soldier and civilian.

targetting civilians for the purpose of affecting political change is quite common in conflicts today. we witness it in the news all the time. people that knowingly target civilians are commonly called TERRORISTS. (i.e. IRA and HAMAS have planned attacks intending to kill civilians or at best knowing that civilians would be killed etc.)

unfortunately when our country does it, people like some patriotic or self-centered people on this board dont call it terrorism; instead they say "we'd do it again!" with a smiley face. wow.
certainly the difference may be that the US is the defender of freedom and therefore is right. perhaps being on the right (or just/fair side) entitles you to means that aren't normally 'allowed'. that is 'ends justify the means' mentality.
i believe that context (ends) does play a role in what are realistic options, but saying "we'd do it again!" with such lax enthusiasm is definitely taking 'ends justify the means' - mentality to the furthest extreme possible - and not being ashamed of it at all.

with that said i believe its really wrong to celebrate and say stuff like "yea! i or we'd do it again".

yes the japanese did kill lots of chinese and in very brutal ways. so lets go kill em.