was it necessary to drop the atomic bombs on japan?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Indeed. It was the threat of the atomic bomb. They new a weapon like that could easily destroy them. Again, we could have shown the destructive power we wielded without slaughtering innocent people in the process.

Right, because the first bomb that actually DID kill a city full of people totally convinced them, amirite? 🙄

It was more than simply a demonstration of power Tac.... I cannot beleive this is as far as your concern goes...

Originally posted by TacDavey
Not even military strategists would hold to the "do whatever it takes to win" mentality. It's easy to see that there is a line you don't cross when it comes to things like this. If we could have killed Osama Bin Laden by vaporizing the entire Middle East, would you find that an acceptable solution to the problem? Even though we would technically have won?

It's obviously a flawed line of reasoning.

MASSIVE difference in terms of circumstance Tac.... Osama was not running a country, he was not technically "Waging War", he was leading a terrorist organisation. You can't drop nukes on a country your not at war with.

And, on top of this, there was no rush for resolution with a 2nd world power looking for opportunity...

Jeez man, look at the surrounding circumstance before trying to make half-assed justifications based on morality.

Originally posted by TacDavey
By showing them that we have an unbeatable weapon. If that doesn't work, find another way. I certainly wouldn't force a surrender by sending the message of "don't mess with us or we'll kill your civilians."

How is that any different from what the terrorists do?

"Find another way...." Wow.... How incredibly intelligent..... You just demonstrated that you have this massively powerful bomb, but lack the balls and initiative to use it..... Thats genious!

YouTube video

Apparently the fact that Japan itself was at war with the US, and the fact that if the US didn't act VERY damn quick about ending that conflict would result in some disasterous circumstances escapes you... This is nothing like Terrorist acts..... At all.

Destroying a city serves more purpose in a war than simply killing civilians.

Economy.

Production.

Military assets.

Public faith in their leadership.

All of this are priority targets in war, not simply military strategic targets. Do not pretend that the US simply dropped the bombs to kill civilians, especially for it's own sake.

Originally posted by Robtard
Showed our willingness to not use it to kill; considering Japan didn't surrender after the first city was nuked and mass quainties of people were killed, they would have laughed at our idiocy at wasting resources on irrelevant targets and been convinced we turned spineless. But again, you don't deal in realities, you deal in fantasy.

Let's pretend the US had dropped both bombs mostly vacant areas where the death toll was almost nil and Japan still wouldn't surrender to the toothless threat, what then? Drop how many more bombs?

Your question is absolutely ridiculous considering we know for a fact Japan didn't surrender after Hiroshima was nuked and that killed tens of thousands in a moment. So killing one person at a time wouldn't have accomplished anything except possibly further rallying the Japanese citizenry to fight the invaders; thereby prolonging the war.

The question wasn't whether the tactic would work or not. The question was would you be alright with that? Hypothetically speaking, if we decided to pull something like that, regardless of whether or not it would work, would you find that kind of tactic acceptable?

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Right, because the first bomb that actually DID kill a city full of people totally convinced them, amirite? 🙄

It was more than simply a demonstration of power Tac.... I cannot beleive this is as far as your concern goes...

Oh? Then what more was it? The current view on Japans surrender was because we showed them we had atomic bombs.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
MASSIVE difference in terms of circumstance Tac.... Osama was not running a country, he was not technically "Waging War", he was leading a terrorist organisation. You can't drop nukes on a country your not at war with.

And, on top of this, there was no rush for resolution with a 2nd world power looking for opportunity...

Jeez man, look at the surrounding circumstance before trying to make half-assed justifications based on morality.

You can't drop nukes on a country you aren't at war with? Why not? According to you you do whatever it takes to win. If dropping nukes on a country you aren't at war with is what it takes to win, then according to you, that's the route we should take.

You yourself have just admitted that there are things you don't do, regardless of whether they will win you a fight or not.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
"Find another way...." Wow.... How incredibly intelligent..... You just demonstrated that you have this massively powerful bomb, but lack the balls and initiative to use it..... Thats genious!

You are using it. Just not on civilians.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Apparently the fact that Japan itself was at war with the US, and the fact that if the US didn't act VERY damn quick about ending that conflict would result in some disasterous circumstances escapes you... This is nothing like Terrorist acts..... At all.

Destroying a city serves more purpose in a war than simply killing civilians.

Economy.

Production.

Military assets.

Public faith in their leadership.

All of this are priority targets in war, not simply military strategic targets. Do not pretend that the US simply dropped the bombs to kill civilians, especially for it's own sake.

I'm not talking about circumstances, I'm talking about tactics.

And none of those things you listed are reasons the Japanese decided to surrender. They surrendered because of the atomic bomb. The damage we did to their military assets, economy, and public faith had little to nothing to do with it. The Japanese had already shown that they cared little for how many soldiers or military targets we destroy.

Originally posted by TacDavey

Oh? Then what more was it? The current view on Japans surrender was because we showed them we had atomic bombs.
.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Oh? Then what more was it? The current view on Japans surrender was because we showed them we had atomic bombs.

and the will to use them in an effective manner.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You can't drop nukes on a country you aren't at war with? Why not? According to you you do [B]whatever it takes to win. If dropping nukes on a country you aren't at war with is what it takes to win, then according to you, that's the route we should take. [/B]

Ugh! Because it's bad strategy? Why would you risk attacking a country your NOT at war with?

And do not put words in my mouth Tac, if your going to quote me, then quote the whole thing. You would do everything it takes to win against the country your at war with.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You yourself have just admitted that there are things you don't do, regardless of whether they will win you a fight or not.

Your acting retarded now....

Dropping atomic bombs on a country your at war with is hardly the same as dropping atomic bombs on a country your trying to free from an insurgeonist terrorist group.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You are using it. Just not on civilians.

You are not reading either.... They didn't target the cities for their civilian populations.... If that was the goal, they would have dropped the first bomb right on Tokyo and completely ****ed Japan over...

Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm not talking about circumstances, I'm talking about tactics.

The tactics have to fit the circumstances of the situation.... Thats like saying "Lets try sending Regan rolling around in his wheelchair with a handgun in Tokyo hunting for Japanese soldiers...." An incredibly poor tactic.

Originally posted by TacDavey
And none of those things you listed are reasons the Japanese decided to surrender. They surrendered because of the atomic bomb. The damage we did to their military assets, economy, and public faith had little to nothing to do with it. The Japanese had already shown that they cared little for how many soldiers or military targets we destroy.

It showed the ability to stop the Japanese war machine in it's tracks. Now you've blatantly admitted that the right choice was made to drop the bombs.... Why the hell are you still arguing?!

Originally posted by TacDavey
The question wasn't whether the tactic would work or not. The question was would you be alright with that? Hypothetically speaking, if we decided to pull something like that, regardless of whether or not it would work, would you find that kind of tactic acceptable?

No I wouldn't, because I choose to look at the dynamics of WWII in the realm of reality not fantasy. In reality: taking over a city(which would have cost many lives) and killing one civilian per day (or 365 per year) isn't a feasible way in winning a war. It would have had the opposite affect, if anything.

Care to answer the question I posed? Let's pretend the US had dropped both bombs on mostly vacant areas where the death toll was almost nil and Japan still wouldn't surrender (as proven with the 6-7 months of bombings and then Hiroshima) to the toothless threat, what then? Drop how many more bombs?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
...[b]and we had the will to use them in anger against their cities. [/B]

So they surrendered because they were afraid America would kill more civilians?

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
and the will to use them in an effective manner.

Bombing military bases is effective as well.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Ugh! Because it's bad strategy? Why would you risk attacking a country your NOT at war with?

And do not put words in my mouth Tac, if your going to quote me, then quote the whole thing. You would do everything it takes to win [b]against the country your at war with. [/B]

That isn't actually what you said at all. And why is it bad strategy? You'll win the fight easily. No threat to any of your soldiers and no one to strike back at you because they are all dead.

Hypothetically speaking, if vaporizing the Middle east posed no threat of starting another war with anyone else, would you consider this an acceptable tactic to use?

Strategically, it is sound. As it does not require threat to any soldiers, it ends the war quick, and it destroys any chance of a counter attack.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Your acting retarded now....

Dropping atomic bombs on a country your at war with is hardly the same as dropping atomic bombs on a country your trying to free from an insurgeonist terrorist group.

I'm just trying to get a sense of what you consider acceptable military tactics. A little bit ago you said you do whatever it takes. I found it hard to believe you meant that literally. Obviously you don't do whatever it takes. For example, as you said, nuking an entire country is going too far.

So your "do whatever it takes" defense of the bombing of cities needs to be reexamined. At the very least, you have to explain where you think the cut off point is, and why nuking civilians falls inside of it.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
You are not reading either.... They didn't target the cities for their civilian populations.... If that was the goal, they would have dropped the first bomb right on Tokyo and completely ****ed Japan over...

Actually, that seems to be exactly why they chose that target. It had to at least play a significant role in the decision. If they were just trying to destroy military installations, they could have used a normal bombing run.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
The tactics have to fit the circumstances of the situation.... Thats like saying "Lets try sending Regan rolling around in his wheelchair with a handgun in Tokyo hunting for Japanese soldiers...." An incredibly poor tactic.

I... didn't understand this part at all. How is my comparison of the tactics used in bombing Japan and terrorist tactics, anything remotely like suggesting that sending Regan in with a handgun was a good tactical choice?

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
It showed the ability to stop the Japanese war machine in it's tracks. Now you've blatantly admitted that the right choice was made to drop the bombs.... Why the hell are you still arguing?!

I think showing the Japanese we have nuclear weaponry was an acceptable choice. I don't agree that demonstrating the nuclear weaponry on civilians is an acceptable choice.

Originally posted by Robtard
No I wouldn't, because I choose to look at the dynamics of WWII in the realm of reality not fantasy. In reality: taking over a city(which would have cost many lives) and killing one civilian per day (or 365 per year) isn't a feasible way in winning a war. It would have had the opposite affect, if anything.

I said ignore whether the tactic would work or not. Hypothetically, let's say it actually has a chance of working. You don't see anything wrong with this tactic besides the fact that it isn't very good strategy wise?

Originally posted by Robtard
Care to answer the question I posed? Let's pretend the US had dropped both bombs on mostly vacant areas where the death toll was almost nil and Japan still wouldn't surrender (as proven with the 6-7 months of bombings and then Hiroshima) to the toothless threat, what then? Drop how many more bombs?

I don't know. What is your plan b if bombing the cities didn't work?

Originally posted by TacDavey
I said ignore whether the tactic would work or not. Hypothetically, let's say it actually has a chance of working. You don't see anything wrong with this tactic [B]besides the fact that it isn't very good strategy wise?

I don't know.

What is your plan b if bombing the cities didn't work? [/B]

It's a BS question to start with and only meant to deter. Ignoring reality in a debate like this serves no purpose, will you stop? I also already answered it; for reasons stated. But if killing a handful of people meant Japan would have surrendered instead of killing tens of thousands, then obviously yes.

So again, another "don't know" answer, but youhave no problem condemning while taking the moral high-ground based on fantasy scenarios of "do something else."

It did work and it only took two. Keeping bombing them until they're less of a threat and then do the land invasion. Choice of living or dying was in Japan's hands. They could/should have surrendered after the Potsdam Declaration.

Article 13:"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction." They were ****ing warned.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's a BS question to start with and only meant to deter. Ignoring reality in a debate like this serves no purpose, will you stop? I also already answered it; for reasons stated. But if killing a handful of people meant Japan would have surrendered instead of killing tens of thousands, then obviously yes.

I'm not ignoring reality at all. I'm offering a hypothetical situation in order to illustrate the problem I have with the tactics used in the war.

You have not answered the question. You have deemed it strategically unlikely to succeed. That isn't what I'm asking you. Do you find it alright to take an entire city captive and kill innocent people off in horrific ways until Japan surrenders?

Because if this tactic is acceptable to you then we may as well end the discussion right here. That's where we disagree.

I can't see this tactic as anything less than murder. You have rounded up a group of defenseless people, who aren't even fighting back, and are killing them off because your demands aren't being met.

Originally posted by Robtard
So again, another "don't know" answer, but youhave no problem condemning while taking the moral high-ground based on fantasy scenarios of "do something else."

It did work and it only took two. Keeping bombing them until they're less of a threat and then do the land invasion. Choice of living or dying was in Japan's hands. They could/should have surrendered after the Potsdam Declaration.

Article 13:"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction." They were ****ing warned.

So your plan b was infinity worse than mine. Your plan was to bomb them more times, killing tons of more people, and THEN perform the very action that the original bombings were suppose to prevent. The land invasion which was apparently more evil than nuking a city, you have decided to perform on top of nuking the city.

So in my plan b, if I had said to launch a land invasion if the bombs didn't work, it would have actually cost less lives than yours. Making my plan actually better if we base it off of plan A and plan B as a whole.

We don't, though. Which was my point the whole time.

I prefer to go with the tactic that General Sherman used during the Civil War. Forgive me Southerners for bringinning up an old wound:

50 mile wide and 300 mile long march to the sea destroying everything in his path. He used POWs to walk ahead of his corp to find land mines. How they found them was the stepped on them. Burning city after city and states (ie Atlanta, Georgia) and not offering terms to oppossing armies. Imagine Sherman commanding troops during WWII or in Iraq Afghanistan - that would be a true war crime. His famous quote of "War is hell. The crueler it is, the faster it ends" fit perfectly in the Pacific Theatre due to the fact that Japanese troops refused to surrender and sometimes were executed by bloodlusted US military personel.

I do NOT condone the killing of civilians during war. Soldiers fight soldiers and that's why there are 'rules.' But during WWII, there were no rules because it was a global conflict. Hitler tried to kill the Jews, Gypsies, Gays and other 'indesirables' = 12 million total attrocities. Japan killed nearly 10 million on the Asian continent. An example is the rape of Nanking = 200,000 Chinese men, women, children murdered.

The Allies were guilty of war crimes too. The fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo which combined killed 200,000 civilians. American naval units killed Japanese survivors after battles like Guadalcanal.

What I'm trying to say is that in order to end the war, the Allies had to resort to the mass destruction of Japanese cities.

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
I do NOT condone the killing of civilians during war. Soldiers fight soldiers and that's why there are 'rules.'

how can you possibly make that distinction in a situation where the army is conscript?

Lessons learnt from Hiroshima and Nagasaki

- Dead people don't hit back

- Ethnic cleansing with bombs is fun

Originally posted by TacDavey
So your plan b was infinity worse than mine. Your plan was to bomb them more times, killing tons of more people, and THEN perform the very action that the original bombings were suppose to prevent. The land invasion which was apparently more evil than nuking a city, you have decided to perform on top of nuking the city.

So in my plan b, if I had said to launch a land invasion if the bombs didn't work, it would have actually cost less lives than yours. Making my plan actually better if we base it off of plan A and plan B as a whole.

We don't, though. Which was my point the whole time.

Are you retarded? My "plan b" was a hypothetical brought up by you under the conditions that Japan simply would not surrender no matter what. So obviously many more lives would have been lost, as Japan would have been obliterated.

Your "plan B" ignores reality since we can logically conclude that Japan wouldn't have surrender if we dropped nukes on empty fields and said "Ah ha, look! We killed your grass!"

It is also worth noting that, while in its primitive stages, Japan did have a nuclear programme and many active nuclear scientists.

Showing them that America had already developed those bombs, but were unwilling to use them in a strategic way, would have likely kicked their research into hyper-drive. Soviet espionage got the Russians nuclear technology...

Absolutely, I brought it up earlier in the thread. They luckily were behind and lacked several resources, "heavy water" was one ingredient they didn't have or have in quantity, iirc. Their head scientist was brilliant though.

But the plan was to bomb several West Coast cities and force the US to unconditionally surrender in kind.

Even just think about how close the world was to seeing the conventionalization of nuclear weapons.

If America and Japan had exchanged blows with nukes, they would have become standard in every military arsenal on the planet, and we would have seen them used, almost certainly, in Korea, Vietnam, Georgia, Iraq, Tibet, etc etc etc... (I don't know enough about the scuffles the USSR or Maoist China got into to make a full list)

IIRC they were actually putting more resources into the creation of weaponized microwave 'death rays' than they were into an atomic bomb.

From what I read and it was some time ago, the microwave cannon and other more whacky WMD weren't given all that much though and quickly disregarded once it was realized they weren't feasible.

The nuclear program was dropped by one facet of Japan's military in lieu of Radar research while another continued on researching the Atomic Bomb.

from what I have read, Japan didn't really even get as far as the Germans did with their plans (who had theirs totally undermined by an attack on a heavy water plant in Norway).

However, if the Americans demonstrated a proof of concept to the Japanese by nuking a small army base or whatever, I imagine their entire military scientific programme would be put toward creating their own Manhattan Project.

Originally posted by Robtard
Are you retarded? My "plan b" was a hypothetical brought up by you under the conditions that Japan simply would not surrender no matter what. So obviously many more lives would have been lost, as Japan would have been obliterated.

Your "plan B" ignores reality since we can logically conclude that Japan wouldn't have surrender if we dropped nukes on empty fields and said "Ah ha, look! We killed your grass!"

Of course your plan b was hypothetical. It obviously didn't happen. That doesn't change the fact that your scenario was far worse than mine. The point I was making is that plans are not deemed good or bad based off of the plan b. So asking me what my plan b was was irrelevant.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Of course your plan b was hypothetical. It obviously didn't happen. That doesn't change the fact that your scenario was far worse than mine. The point I was making is that plans are not deemed good or bad based off of the plan b. So asking me what my plan b was was irrelevant.

Incorrect; it's irrelevant if we ignore the fact that dropping two nukes on empty fields wouldn't have made Japan surrender considering what we do know as fact.