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

[Les Paul]

Not to beat a dead horse but if you recall many many Japanese refused to be taken prisoner? They would kill themselves as a last resort if they didn't die in battle. As F-cked up to me as the Muslim extremists. How many planes did they dive into ships the last couple years of the war? Hundreds. Those poor saps were trained in the rudimentary fundamentals of flying a plane that would try to take out as many ships/people as possible.

[alf]

[QUOTE=Porsche-O-Phile;4055825]
How do you fight an enemy that's not afraid to die and in fact looks forward to the opportunity?

QUOTE]

Do not give them a reason to unify against you and allow them to fight with each other in a contained environment.

[Rick Lee]

[QUOTE=alf;4055881]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

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

QUOTE]

Do not give them a reason to unify against you and allow them to fight with each other in a contained environment.

In other words, appease them and hope they turn on you last.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by dtw

Gimme A Fscking Break. Drop the condescension, I've engaged your discussion. Go ahead, let's talk 2008.

No, you give ME a fcuking break! Why, I don't think you've engaged any discussion at all!

Condescension? Furthest thing from my mind! Just interested in what people's take is on the QUESTION I posed.

You seem to have great difficulty in grasping that it is simply a QUESTION to be pondered, thought about, considered! Is it such a foreign concept to you that someone may ask a question to which the answer might NOT be readily determined in black and white? A question that might be worth considering rather than stiffening into a dogmatic pose inviolable by anyone who might have an interest in what people other than you think?

What's ( What are) (piss you off even more?) your thoughts on where even low-yield nukes factor into the ME conflict.

You want to hijack this thread? Gimme a fcuking break! Start your own thread, "Where do low-yield nukes factor into the ME conflict?"

..

[Mule]

[QUOTE=alf;4055881]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

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

QUOTE]

Do not give them a reason to unify against you and allow them to fight with each other in a contained environment.

You mean like Hiroshima did?

[dtw]

Please re-read your own thread. It has moved beyond the initial question due to what I believe is sufficient response. Now talking modern version of the question which is experiencing interesting discussion. Sorry you hadn't caught up. Perhaps you were too busy squabbling to either catch up or contribute. Would you like to stop squawking and engage now? Doesn't matter to me, I'm out till Monday. Have fun y'all.

Planes loaded with pigshiit as modern Dresden. Discuss.

[m21sniper]

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?

The Japanese people's stature, appearance and culture was very foreign to us at the time (and to many, still is); given Pearl Harbor, many no doubt considered them "subhuman" to have committed such a horrific and cowardly act (what was the number of civilians killed?).

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.

So, we nuked a lot of Japanese. Would we, could we, have nuked a lot of Europeans? It seems many posting on these political threads are proponents of nukeing a lot of Middle Easterners.

Thoughts?

Yes.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

I went to the Nat. Atomic Museum in Albuquerque a few years ago. They had an interesting exhibit on alternatives to dropping the bomb on Japan. One theory was to do a demo detonation in the Pacific with a few of Japan's high-ranking generals to show them what we had in store for them. But the idea was dismissed because we were unsure if the bomb would even detonate. And had it failed then, there would have been no deterrent effect at all except by later detonating one over a city.

I went to Dresden for the first time in 1989 just before the Wall came down. At that time, a lot of the inner city was still fenced off and unrebuilt. The devastation was amazing even 44 yrs. later. I was last there about four years ago and the Frauenkirche was just about done being rebuilt. It truly was the best preserved baroque city in Europe before Feb. 1945. Still, destroying Dresden had little military value. It was full of refugees from the eastern territories at the time we and the Brits bombed it. It was a revenge kinda thing.

Incorrect popular myth.

Dresden was a major transportation hub. And it still is.

Dresden was a big time military target, don't believe the myths.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,341239,00.html

Originally Posted by Gogar

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.

One of the dumbest posts in the history of this forum. Where the hell did you come up with that crazy theory? A comic book?

The bombs were dropped to save 1,000,000 Allied casualties, and millions of japanese casualties. And it worked.

[sammyg2]

The nukes were being developed for our enemies, including Germany. If they hadn't been defeated by the time the bombs were ready I am absolutely sure they would have been the first target. Remember, it was a race to see who would get the nuclear bomb first, US or Germany. The German scientists were working hard to develop a bomb to drop on us and we were developing a bomb to drop on them first. Remember that our scientists were mostly German who escaped and went to work for us.
In fact I'm confident in saying that Germany was the original target and Japan secondary.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by dtw

Planes loaded with pigshiit as modern Dresden. Discuss.

You are close. It goes like this: we load C5's with pic crap & processing plant left overs. We outfit the planes with chipper shredder type devices at the back ramp & a hydraulic ram to feed them. We fly spiral patterns over the islamic world, thereby herding them to one spot. Now all you need is one bomb.

[sammyg2]

BTW after Truman was told of the bomb, he was contemplating if we should use it or not.

His main adviser asked him one question:
"What will you say at your impeachment hearing when they find out you had a weapon that could have ended the war and you didn't use it"?
That's not word for word because it's just from memory but it's reasonably close.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by Gogar

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.

What exactly was this swift kick in the nuts you refer to?

[BeyGon]

In the book "The Rape of Nanking" by Iris Chang there are interviews with Japanese soldiers after the war. They talked freely and unconcerned about what they did in Nanking and throughout the war. To them the Emporer was god, they were nothing. To them, the killing and torture of non Japanese meant nothing, they were less than dogs. It just didn't matter.
The radical Islamists have similar feelings, we are nothing, less than cattle.
So, back to bombing the Japanese, I still believe if it hadn't happened the war could have gone on and on and on. In most other conflicts we underestimate the enemy and their ruthlessness. This is one time we got it right.
We haven't learned much from it, we are still fighting but not necessarily to win.

Edit.
Even in WWII we underestimated the Japanese, FDR knew they would attack Pearl but didn't realize how good they would be.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by BeyGon

We haven't learned much from it, we are still fighting but not necessarily to win.

Agreed.
All too often we end up fighting with one hand tied behind our back (the left hand)

[billh1963]

Originally Posted by Gogar

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.

I think this thread has about as much "dumb ass" in it as I have read in a long time. It really emabarrasses me that the 20-somethings and even the 30/40-somethings have been brainwashed into thinking that every decision was the result of racism or US arrogance.

Some of you should have had a chance to talk to my ex-father-in-law (now deceased) who was a WWII vet. He was on Normandy Beach on D-Day and lost his hearing from a German artillery shell during the Battle of the Bulge. The man had several Purple Hearts as well as two Bronze Stars and a Silver Star. He suffered from night terrors until the day he died. In fact, no one really new some of his stories (he never discussed them) until later in life when he attended a reunion and some of his buddies talked to his family about his heroism (including being involved in hand-to-hand combat during one skirmish). This man saw many of his friends killed as well as the bodies of many civilians.

These heroes did what they had to do to end a war that they did not start nor ask for. They knew that the longer the war went on the longer the killings would continue. Would the bomb have been dropped if developed earlier?...probably so. But why should a bunch of candy-ass internet philosophers feel so self righteous in their abilities to second guess decisions made in the fog of war? The most difficult decisions most of these philosophers make is which new XBox360 game to buy or which girl am I going to try to screw tonight. My father-in-law in his 20's was trying to decide which foxhole would provide more cover, which German to shoot at, when would he get his next hot meal and wondering which day was going to be his last.

I agree that it is worthwhile to examine history and try to learn from past mistakes. I also think that it is the height of arrogance to sit behind a keyboard and second guess decisions that many of us (yes...I include myself) would probably not be capable of making without having the experiences and information that was available at the time. The decision was made....and I firmly believe that based on everything we knew at the time (and know now) it was the RIGHT decision.

[vash]

that book "rape of nanking" was troubling to read. my parents still harbor lots of emotion about the topic.

i have always tried to read about the war. i still have lots to learn. i didnt pay attention much in school. didnt the allies offer up terms of surrender to japan? the potsdam declaration? i thought the japanese stated that they would fight to the very last man, to the death. up till then, the allies learned what type of enemy they were up against, and believed the japanese would fight to the death. so the pres had to drop the bomb.

i had dinner with a japanese family awhile back. the grandparent lived in one of those cities. i cant remember which. the kids remember stories of the rivers being choked with bodies and they had to walk across the bloated bodies to get to safety. war is a mother effer. hard to listen to stories.

[2.7RACER]

Billh1963,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

[scottmandue]

Just my two cents,

I used to think dropping the A bomb on Japan was a horrible atrocity.

Then I watched the WWII documentaries over last memorial day and July 4th.

The Japanese soldiers fought to the death to the last man on every tiny island in the pacific as we worked our way to Japan even after their commanders knew the war was a lost cause. While this was happening women and children at home in Japan were training with swords and spears to defend the homeland.

A demonstration of the A-bomb was discussed however we only had two and it would have taken several months to make another.

As far as Europe the Germans had shown traditionaly that in isolated cases when out numbered and over powered they would surrender.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by billh1963

I think this thread has about as much "dumb ass" in it as I have read in a long time. It really emabarrasses me that the 20-somethings and even the 30/40-somethings have been brainwashed into thinking that every decision was the result of racism or US arrogance.

Even more unfortunate, there are people here in their 40's & 50's that think like that. Sad!

[alf]

[QUOTE=Rick Lee;4055886]

Originally Posted by alf

In other words, appease them and hope they turn on you last.

Not exactly. The British were good at this when they colonized most of the world. They let the various factions fight among themselves and weaken overall, stand in the periphery, watch and control from afar if necessary, when they are weaked enough then come in an take the spoils. The ME was kind of like this till a western power invaded and focused their efforts. Africa is like this now to some extent.

I believe Saddam's Iraq actually kept Iran in check quite well. But that is a whole other topic.

Added: This strategy would not have worked for Japan in WW2, they were unified in their war efforts.