Would we have dropped the A - Bomb on...

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile
If we'd had the bomb prior to Normandy, I think we probably would have.

Originally Posted by Tobra

at the very least considered it, hand, our thread originator seems to imply it would never happen

Wrong. No such implication. It was a QUESTION posed for DISCUSSION. I STATED that. Maybe read the whole thread before you jump to incorrect conclusions?

Mr 727 sums it up nicely

And you didn't read my response to "Mr 727", right?

D, you should perhaps reread your second paragraph of this thread.

I wrote it. What's your point? More dogmatic defensiveness over an imagined attack on your beliefs?

..

[Gogar]

Originally Posted by dtw

Extreme offensive tactics require extreme retaliation. Keep in mind, these were foes that were willing to fly planes into...

...nevermind. Waste of time.

That's a great point, but no one has discovered the "new" extreme offensive tactics for our problem yet. Where would you point a nuke today if you were an American? It would be a waste of time, and make the problem worse.

I think cocky pride was responsible for the USA using the nuclear bomb. They had just received a swift kick in the nuts from the Japanese, and that's what made it seem justified at the time. If they had the bomb at Normandy, I'm not so sure they would have used it.

AND, it's the last time cocky pride worked for America. Didn't work in the fifties, late sixties, early nineties, or 2002-present.

[DARISC]

[QUOTE=dtw;4055625]Dresden is proof that war is as much about psychological victory as physical devastation./QUOTE]

True. What is controversial to many is the morality of wreaking psychologcal torture on non-combatant citizens (whether accidentally or as collateral damage). Do you agree that that is an issue?

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Gogar

That's a great point, but no one has discovered the "new" extreme offensive tactics for our problem yet. Where would you point a nuke today if you were an American? It would be a waste of time, and make the problem worse.

I think cocky pride was responsible for the USA using the nuclear bomb. They had just received a swift kick in the nuts from the Japanese, and that's what made it seem justified at the time.

AND, it's the last time cocky pride worked for America. Didn't work in the fifties, late sixties, early nineties, or 2002-present.

No, it hasn't.

[1967 R50/2]

Originally Posted by DARISC

Reflecting on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I wonder, had the enemy been on the European continent rather than on islands in the Orient, all other factors being equal, do you believe we'd have dropped the bombs on westerners?

I suspect the answer is that we would not have. It seems that there would likely have been an unspoken, quite likely even unrealized, racial consideration that would have entered into the decision.

Thoughts?

You are very wrong.

To anyone who has read history and understands the politics of the WW2 it is quite clear that race was not a factor. IT IS CERTAIN WE WOULD HAVE NUKED NAZI GERMANY HAD THE TIMING BEEN CORRECT.

1. We started building an atomic bomb not to end the war with Japan, but because we thought HITLER was building the A bomb.

2. Once our bomb was complete it was inevitable it would be used as soon as possible. No US president would want to explain to American mothers, why their sons died when we had a secret weapon which could have ended the war earlier. However, Berlin fell to the Soviets before the Trinity bomb could be tested, otherwise there is no doubt that it or another German city would have been at the top of the list.

3. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were selected because they were militarily important cities that were largely untouched by bombing. Kyoto was originally at the top of the list, but Stimson vetoed it because he recognized it's historic beauty and importance to Japanese culture. He had honeymooned there. A very pragmatic decision which took cultural factors into account. Hardly can be considered racist.

4. Given the mindset of the time, there was no thought that the A-bomb was the be all, end all, horror weapon. It was simply a bigger, badder bomb. The full effects of slow death by radiation would not be realized until after the war was done.

5. For 50 years after the 2nd world war, the Warsaw Pact was the main target of our nuclear arsenal. Last I checked all member states were European and Caucasian. Meanwhile Japan has been one of our best allies.

So I can see no racism in the decision of targets for the nuclear attacks during WW2 or the selection of cold war targets thereafter.

[dtw]

Originally Posted by Gogar

That's a great point, but no one has discovered the "new" extreme offensive tactics for our problem yet. Where would you point a nuke today if you were an American? It would be a waste of time, and make the problem worse.

Agreed. There is a solution, though, and we'd have probably implemented it by now, but the Pentagon and I keep playing phone tag. I'm a North Carolinian (well adoptive one, anyway, I've lived all over the country). We have the highest pork output of any state in the union. We have an excess of pigshiit and hog byproducts. I would send planes over Mecca and Medina night and day, spraying emulsified pig shiit, piss, and entrails, until global jihad was at a standstill.

Am not kidding, though the visual does make me giggle a bit.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by dtw

Extreme offensive tactics require extreme retaliation. Keep in mind, these were foes that were willing to fly planes into...like, The World Trade Center and...?

...nevermind. Waste of time.

Is (?) your implication that you feel that we should do the Nagasaki/Hiroshima thing in the ME? Keep in mind, these are foes that were willing to......

..

[dtw]

[QUOTE=DARISC;4055658]

Originally Posted by dtw

Dresden is proof that war is as much about psychological victory as physical devastation./QUOTE]

True. What is controversial to many is the morality of wreaking psychologcal torture on non-combatant citizens (whether accidentally or as collateral damage). Do you agree that that is an issue?

No. War is hell. Suck it up. We've bent over backwards to prevent collateral damage in this war, using superior logistics, tactics, and technology. It is never enough for the hand-wringers.

[DARISC]

[QUOTE=dtw;4055671]

Originally Posted by DARISC

No. War is hell. Suck it up. We've bent over backwards to prevent collateral damage in this war, using superior logistics, tactics, and technology. It is never enough for the hand-wringers.

I don't dispute what you say about our attempts to prevent collateral damage in this war. That has nothing to do with this thread (you might want to start again at the beginning, dunno) and I'm not wringing my hands at all.

Do you believe our emphasis on keeping collateral damage down was as strong, re the A bombs and Dresden, as it is today?

Do you think we could employ nukes in the ME today and avoid civilian collateral damage on the scale of Japan and Dresden? Maybe we could. Could we control the collateral damage wrought by our foe's retaliation? Is this an issue important to consider?

[dtw]

Originally Posted by DARISC

Do you believe our emphasis on keeping collateral damage down was as strong, re the A bombs and Dresden, as it is today?

No, but of course you knew that. Play your cards already. This must be why I'm a blackjack man and not a poker man. No patience. You're as bad as Soup. Get to the point already.

Originally Posted by DARISC

Do you think we could employ nukes in the ME today and avoid civilian collateral damage on the scale of Japan and Dresden? Maybe we could. Could we control the collateral damage wrought by our foe's retaliation? Is this an issue important to consider?

No, but again, play your ace. We both know the answer to this. Ask me how the current game of wack-a-jihadi would be prosecuted if I were dictator. Oops forgot, this is your special thread. OK, we're on page 2 now, time to lay 'em down.

[911pcars]

Common theory holds that Dresden wasn't a military target and there were few or no military industrials targets there at all. And from the history I learned, it was an attempt to show the Reich that with our air superiority, we could level any town at will, hoping this would lead Hitler to end the war on a faster time table.

Historical facts show otherwise. Dresden was an industrial city that manufactured weapons for the war effort. Dresden was also a large transportation center for men and materials. It was also one of the few cities left untouched by allied bombing. Later, more accurate estimates of people killed were downgraded from 240,000 to 24,000, the former being propaganda-inspired reports by Goebels. As history tells us, Hitler and his men cared more about winning the war than they did Dresden.

As for Japan, I'm not sure we would have had to suffer a lot of casualties in our attack on Japan. At that point in time, the Japanese Navy and Air Force were helpless.

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

This is an entry about Tokyo bombings from Wiki:
".....The first raid using low-flying B-29s carrying incendiaries to drop on Tokyo was on the night of February 24-25 1945 when 174 B-29s destroyed around one square mile (3 km˛) of the city.

Changing their tactics to expand the coverage and increase the damage, 279 B-29s raided on the night of March 9–10, dropping around 1,700 tons of bombs. Approximately 16 square miles (41 km˛) of the city were destroyed and some 100,000 people are estimated to have died in the resulting firestorm, more than the immediate deaths of either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.[1][2] The US Strategic Bombing Survey later estimated that nearly 88,000 people died in this one raid, 41,000 were injured, and over a million residents lost their homes. The Tokyo Fire Department estimated a higher toll: 97,000 killed and 125,000 wounded. The Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department established a figure of 124,711 casualties including both killed and wounded and 286,358 buildings and homes destroyed. Richard Rhodes, historian, put deaths at over 100,000, injuries at a million and homeless residents at a million. "

This seems to suggest that the atom bomb was used more for effect than results since conventional bombing, as shown in the Tokyo bombing statistics, inflicted about the same number of intended casualties. And perhaps Truman tired after 6 months of continuous heavy firebombing w/o any indication of Japan calling it quits.

In hindsight, this Wiki article seems to say the same thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#United_State s_strategic_bombing_of_Japan

"A year after the war, the United States Army Air Forces's Strategic Bombing Survey (Pacific War) reported that they had underestimated the power of strategic bombing combined with naval blockade and previous military defeats to bring Japan to unconditional surrender without invasion."

It's still a controversy as to whether it was the correct thing to do, but when you read the accounts of its affects, the US and any country should heavily weigh the short and long term consequences of its use.

Sherwood

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by dtw

Play your cards already.

I keep stating - I'm NOT trying to make a point, promote a point of view, criticize, whatever.....really! I asked a question because I think it's an interesting question and wonder what others think.

If you're waiting for a punch line or a culminating rant, there isn't one. I don't even play cards.

Do you dislike or distrust discussions where questions are asked, examined, considered and responded to in a thoughtful considered manner? That's all I intended here .

[BeyGon]

What if? the Chinese, whoever was left in Nanking, had the nuke. Would they bomb Japan?

[dtw]

Originally Posted by DARISC

Do you dislike or distrust discussions where questions are asked, examined, considered and responded to in a thoughtful considered manner? That's all I intended here .

GAFB. No. But the whole thread smells of a setup and I'm not the only one saying so. If we're all misinterpreting, more power et. etc.. However, I am not sure of the point of the discussion. As Rick said, tits on a donkey. If you have a present-day context you'd like to weigh in light of Hiroshima/Nagasaki, have at it. I've addressed that too. I'm not one to kill cockroaches with a Mack truck. I'd spray a mist of porcine effluvia over key cities to accrue psychological damage. Then I'd increase special forces ranks by at least two orders of magnitude and start 'disappearing' all insurgent and terrorist personnel from sundown to sunup, in every hot location, every single day.

This would probably win me a seat in Congress from treehugging NC voters who lose all sphincter control everytime an ounce of pigshiit leaks out of a hog lagoon in eastern NC. That would be the first step leading up to my eventual bloodless coup and dictatorship-for-life.

[Bill Douglas]

Originally Posted by Jim727

Tonight I'm having dinner with a gentleman who was fighting in the jungles of New Guinea during WWII.

Jim would you say thank you to him for me.

The Jap's were moving in fast on Australia and New Zealand. And if it wasn't for gentlement like the chap you're having dinner with they would have slaughtered us people.

My grandparents billited (sp) a soldier from North Carolina and they became very good friends. Writing addresses were swapped and both parties were very keen to catch up after the war. He went to New Guinea and they never heard from him again. I believe about 90% of the soliders who went there got killed by the Japons.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by dtw

GAFB. No. But the whole thread smells of a setup and I'm not the only one saying so.

Well what can I tell ya? I don't understand your paranoia about being "set up" (whatever the hell that means). Do questions without readily available black and white answers deeply disturb you? You seem really pissed!

What does GAFB mean?

[dtw]

Originally Posted by DARISC

Well what can I tell ya? I don't understand your paranoia about being "set up" (whatever the hell that means). Do questions without readily available black and white answers deeply disturb you? You seem really pissed!

What does GAFB mean?

Gimme A Fscking Break. Drop the condescension, I've engaged your discussion. Go ahead, let's talk 2008. What's your thoughts on where even low-yield nukes factor into the ME conflict.

[Les Paul]

Cry me a river over Japan. To those of you that think it was horrific you obviously don't know the mindset of the Japanese in 1945. How many history books have you read? How many vets serving in the Pacific have you talked to? They were not going to give up. What about that do you not understand? How many times does it have to be said that it has been the biggest deterrent to another world war before it sinks in?

[alf]

Right or wrong it is done. Learn from it, move on and pray that we will never end up in such a position again.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Unfortunately that conventional wisdom only works against people who value life over death. The next World War will likely involve a good portion of the Muslim world including a significant number of religious extremists that train for martyrdom and are convinced (to varying degrees) that death will bring them salvation. As such, the principles of fearsome weaponry and/or M.A.D. don't apply very well.

How do you fight an enemy that's not afraid to die and in fact looks forward to the opportunity?

Very tough question to answer.