[Livia]

Originally Posted by arista

No TS
you are wrong

I suppose it's hard to understand their decision if you don't think about the reason for it... if you think of the Japanese as they are today and not as they were then. It's like looking at the Germans of WW2 as if they were like the German population today. The Japanese were cowards and war criminals LONG before the bomb was dropped.

[arista]

Again all I am saying is they dropped
them on Non Military Zones

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

I suppose it's hard to understand their decision if you don't think about the reason for it... if you think of the Japanese as they are today and not as they were then. It's like looking at the Germans of WW2 as if they were like the German population today. The Japanese were cowards and war criminals LONG before the bomb was dropped.

Are you suggesting some ethnicities are inherently war-like?

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by arista

Again all I am saying is they dropped
them on Non Military Zones

Define a military zone though. With a nuke at that time, it wouldn't matter where they chose to target, the majority of casualties would be civilian. Nowadays we have tactical nukes, and nukes where the size of explosion can be controlled, but not in those days.

A decision was made at the time to bring the war to an unequivocal end. That was achieved, therefore it can only be deemed as a success at that point in history.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Define a military zone though. With a nuke at that time, it wouldn't matter where they chose to target, the majority of casualties would be civilian. Nowadays we have tactical nukes, and nukes where the size of explosion can be controlled, but not in those days.

A decision was made at the time to bring the war to an unequivocal end. That was achieved, therefore it can only be deemed as a success at that point in history.

As the op said they didn't want shooting down so picked a less conspicuous urbanised area.

Is that how we should end all wars now because we can, in a cloud of radioactive dust?

[Nedusa]

It was not cowardly but it was an atrocity, one that in my opinion Japan brought upon themselves.

As a nation they lost sight of common values of decency even at a time of war. their collective mindset was worse than the German armies and soldiers because like the Nazi's they degraded human life and followed no moral code when treating captured allied soldiers.

They exhibited barbarism and sadism in equal measure and one could argue almost drew pleasure when inflicting such torture on their (captured) enemy.

Anyone in Japan with any sense could see the War was over and they had lost but to them surrender was not an option and because of this many thousands of Allied soldiers and Japanese soldiers died needlessly.

The US had little choice in trying to end the War and were forced to show Japan overwhelming force in order to bbring Japan to her senses.

It was quite a brave decision in my view.

[Livia]

The Americans did not choose where they bombed because they were scared of being shot down. The Japanese would not have been able to shoot down the planes carrying the atomic bombs because they flew at an altitude too high to be reached at the time by anti aircraft weapons or by fighters.

I agree with Nedusa's post in its entirety.

[Kizzy]

So you condemn a nation during a time of war? that's ridiculous.
What of Sugihara?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Livia

The Americans did not choose where they bombed because they were scared of being shot down. The Japanese would not have been able to shoot down the planes carrying the atomic bombs because they flew at an altitude too high to be reached at the time by anti aircraft weapons or by fighters.

I agree with Nedusa's post in its entirety.

Ditto.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

It was not cowardly but it was an atrocity, one that in my opinion Japan brought upon themselves.

As a nation they lost sight of common values of decency even at a time of war. their collective mindset was worse than the German armies and soldiers because like the Nazi's they degraded human life and followed no moral code when treating captured allied soldiers.

They exhibited barbarism and sadism in equal measure and one could argue almost drew pleasure when inflicting such torture on their (captured) enemy.

Anyone in Japan with any sense could see the War was over and they had lost but to them surrender was not an option and because of this many thousands of Allied soldiers and Japanese soldiers died needlessly.

The US had little choice in trying to end the War and were forced to show Japan overwhelming force in order to bbring Japan to her senses.

It was quite a brave decision in my view.

[Scarlett.]

You can dress it up all you like, give all the reasons you want, I even agree that, perhaps yes, it was needed to end the war, but it still doesn't excuse the deaths of 200,000 innocent people, it doesn't excuse the slow painful deaths that innocent people who had nothing to do with the torture and slaughter had to suffer. America knew what they did was horrific, which was why they tried to hide the after effects for as long as possible.

[Kizzy]

Yep, august 45 with the soviets against Japan at this point too?.... heavy handed, their excuse being they didn't know if they would work? :/

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Define a military zone though. With a nuke at that time, it wouldn't matter where they chose to target, the majority of casualties would be civilian. Nowadays we have tactical nukes, and nukes where the size of explosion can be controlled, but not in those days.

A decision was made at the time to bring the war to an unequivocal end. That was achieved, therefore it can only be deemed as a success at that point in history.

The a-bombs dropped on Japan were actually small ones. Big at the time but essentially prototypes... miniscule by modern standards. Terrifying as that is.



Scares the **** out of me tbh.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Livia

Oppenheimer agrees... and so do I.



How many civilians died at Nanking? Where's the thread calling the Japanese cowards - which they were, without a doubt. How many civilians died in the Blitz? Where's the thread calling that an atrocity? I'm sorry Dezzy, but if those are your real feelings about this I would say, with respect, you really need to look at WW2 a little closer, in particular the Japanese part in it. And also ask yourself... had Japan had the bomb, would they have used it? And if you answer answer honestly your answer will be yes, undoubtedly they would.

Warfare involving only military personnel ended a century ago. Everyone fights a war now. And in WW2 the whole population of countries contributed to their country's war effort and all were targets. I don't say that's right or just, I say it's how it is.

Nanking was an awful and unforgivable situation but I fail to see how that justifies bombing and killing over 200,000 civilians and leaving many of the survivors civilians with serious health issues that affected their families for generations. Why do you think that one atrocity justifies another? Why should the citizens in a dictatorship be held accountable for their government's actions?

I fully understand Japan's role in WW2, and like I said before, the government needed to be dealt with but bombing the civilians who were simply born in the wrong country is not justified, nor will it ever be. If the shoe was on the other foot, I really doubt you'd think that 'everyone fights a war' if it was us that was bombed. You would think it was an atrocity and you would be right to think that.

The nuking of Japan was evil, pathetic and cowardly and hypocritical rationalising won't change that fact.

[bitontheslide]

Carpet bombing was the norm during WW2, thats just how it was, there was no distinction between military and civilian targets. During the war, there was hardly a civilian in the UK that was not involved in the war effort in one way or the other. Factories were completely turned over to supplying the war effort. The same is true of every other country involved in WW2 ... there were no civilians.

[arista]

Well Said Dezzy

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

But then, every country involved in WW2 was involved in or complacent in war crimes by the end of the war... It was a very messy war. What happened happened. However, I do think it's hugely disrespectful to describe what happened to the innocent people of those two cities as anything but a tragedy. You can do that without going into whose "fault" it all was.

This is what I most agree with I think. The debate over how necessary the two bombs were will rumble on for generations. It's true that in the grand scheme of the WWII death toll the two nukes did not inflict incomprehensible loss of life: you can even stay in Japan and look at the fire bombing of Tokyo which killed up to 200,000. Yes, Japan committed appalling atrocities too and those should not be forgotten either. But the whole of WWII was horrific and we should not be afraid to say so: what sets the nuclear bombs apart is that they showcased the potential to obliterate entire cities in a flash in a way that had previously been inconceivable. There is no need to enter into a game of which side was worse to appreciate that and how it serves as a warning against ever engaging in global conflict to that level again.

[Nedusa]

Not sure why the dropping of these bombs provoke such a furore. Was it necessary to stop the war ? Yes, was it necessary to show Japan that they have no response to Americas latest weapons ? Yes. Would the threat of using it make Japan surrender , probably not.

So really the U.S. Had their hand forced and yes it is terrible that so called innocent people perished then at least it finally forced Japan to wake and see sense. However just to reinforce my earlier point about the strange mindset of the Japanese at that time, they actually refused to surrender after Hiroshima and forced the U.S. To drop a second bomb on Nagasaki.

So one could argue that the Japanese by not surrendering after Hiroshima actually sacrificed the lives of the civilians in the next city to be bombed ie Nagasaki.

The was not an act of terrorism as some on here have said. But rather an act of necessity bourne out of the ravages of six years of death and destruction in what seemed like a never ending war, a way to end the bloodshed.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

Not sure why the dropping of these bombs provoke such a furore. Was it necessary to stop the war ? Yes, was it necessary to show Japan that they have no response to Americas latest weapons ? Yes. Would the threat of using it make Japan surrender , probably not.

So really the U.S. Had their hand forced and yes it is terrible that so called innocent people perished then at least it finally forced Japan to wake and see sense. However just to reinforce my earlier point about the strange mindset of the Japanese at that time, they actually refused to surrender after Hiroshima and forced the U.S. To drop a second bomb on Nagasaki.

So one could argue that the Japanese by not surrendering after Hiroshima actually sacrificed the lives of the civilians in the next city to be bombed ie Nagasaki.

The was not an act of terrorism as some on here have said. But rather an act of necessity bourne out of the ravages of six years of death and destruction in what seemed like a never ending war, a way to end the bloodshed.

Yes Drop them
but on the Military Zones
thats the point of this threads.

[arista]

"Scares the **** out of me tbh. "

Yes Isis just need one in a van in a USA City

[Livia]

I thought this thread might have been busier today, with so many old soldiers remembering the dead and telling their stories on TV all day. But... no.

[smudgie]

The way I see it is the biggest/most powerful bombs won.
God knows Britain had enough bombs dropped on its inhabitants during the war.
In war it would be silly to think that only military targets are bombed.

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by arista

Yes Drop them
but on the Military Zones
thats the point of this threads.

But as I explained,95% of civilians were part of the war effort during WW2, its not like things are today. When a country was at war, it was literally the whole country that was involved. So military zones (those areas contributing to the war effort) were across each country in every area.

[arista]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

But as I explained,95% of civilians were part of the war effort during WW2, its not like things are today. When a country was at war, it was literally the whole country that was involved. So military zones (those areas contributing to the war effort) were across each country in every area.

Sure
but these were more wooden homes
with Children and Adults.


Yes The Whole Nation was at War
but there were No Major Military under these attacks

[arista]

Originally Posted by smudgie

The way I see it is the biggest/most powerful bombs won.
God knows Britain had enough bombs dropped on its inhabitants during the war.
In war it would be silly to think that only military targets are bombed.

America Planned this for months
they could have dropped them on
Key Military Zones