By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - What's your point of view in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb?

theprof00 said:
yanamaster said:

The decision to use the A-bombs was the best possible. the other option was prolonging the war in the pacific by another 6 months or one year. Seeing how the code of honor and nationalistic approach was evident in Japan, it would have been a bloodbath should they have continued to fight, right down to the last man standing.

Of course i will never support the usage of WMD's but at that very time...best possible choice.

Japan had lost its entire fleet, it was done, it had maybe weeks to go before it had to give up.

The nukes were used as a demonstration to russia.

meh.  keep in mind that the americans had to go find the japanese in island after island and fight every one of them.  Given the past experiences and all of the bonzai attacks etc, I think that it is quite rational to assume that the japanese wouldn't surrender for a while. 



Around the Network
raptors11 said:
jonnhytesta said:

JUST one thing, the russians defeated the nazis NOT the US, 7 out 8 germans soldiers wich died in WW2  were killed by the russians.


Agreed. I love how Americans think they won WWII in Europe. Sure they played a vital role but Britain USSR would have beat Germany on their own anyways.

Brits wouldn't have done anything, they ate up 66% of lend-lease with minuscule effect. If anything US contribution to victory was far more valuable.

@OP Victors are not judged (Catherine the Great). That's an old principle that sadly still relevant in this day.



Even though the Atomic bombs were dropped after the defeat of Japan was an obvious eventuality, the assumption that they were on the verge of surrendering is not really all that well supported; and with the tactics used by the Japanese (kamikaze bombers) it would have been reasonable to assume that the Japanese citizens and their leaders would see throwing their lives away in a futile effort to avoid defeat as honorable. Realistically, the death count to Japanese citizens would have probably been an order of magnitude worse if the United States and their allies were forced to take Japan using conventional tactics; and it is plausible that without the Nuclear strike the citizens of Japan would have resisted the United States and their allies even after Japan was captured, resulting in an insurgency which could have had a recurring death toll for decades.

Basically, the Nuclear strikes demoralized the Japanese to such an extent that the war was over instantaneously; and even those that were against the occupation of Japan feared the consequences of resisting the Americans. Millions of lives (potentially tens of millions of lives) were saved and the country was instantaneously stabalized because of these weapons. Could you imagine how many people would have died if the Americans would have needed to invade Japan? Could you imagine how long the Japanese could have maintained an insurgency had it been backed by the USSR in an attempt to create a communist nation?



dallas said:
theprof00 said:
yanamaster said:

The decision to use the A-bombs was the best possible. the other option was prolonging the war in the pacific by another 6 months or one year. Seeing how the code of honor and nationalistic approach was evident in Japan, it would have been a bloodbath should they have continued to fight, right down to the last man standing.

Of course i will never support the usage of WMD's but at that very time...best possible choice.

Japan had lost its entire fleet, it was done, it had maybe weeks to go before it had to give up.

The nukes were used as a demonstration to russia.

meh.  keep in mind that the americans had to go find the japanese in island after island and fight every one of them.  Given the past experiences and all of the bonzai attacks etc, I think that it is quite rational to assume that the japanese wouldn't surrender for a while. 

awesome typo. thats sounds like a  jrpg attack you wont lose too much hp after that.



jonnhytesta said:
dallas said:
theprof00 said:
yanamaster said:

The decision to use the A-bombs was the best possible. the other option was prolonging the war in the pacific by another 6 months or one year. Seeing how the code of honor and nationalistic approach was evident in Japan, it would have been a bloodbath should they have continued to fight, right down to the last man standing.

Of course i will never support the usage of WMD's but at that very time...best possible choice.

Japan had lost its entire fleet, it was done, it had maybe weeks to go before it had to give up.

The nukes were used as a demonstration to russia.

meh.  keep in mind that the americans had to go find the japanese in island after island and fight every one of them.  Given the past experiences and all of the bonzai attacks etc, I think that it is quite rational to assume that the japanese wouldn't surrender for a while. 

awesome typo. thats sounds like a  jrpg attack you wont lose too much hp after that.

b/c i didnt spell banzai correctly?  big deal, i'm not japanese



Around the Network
dallas said:
jonnhytesta said:
dallas said:
theprof00 said:
yanamaster said:

The decision to use the A-bombs was the best possible. the other option was prolonging the war in the pacific by another 6 months or one year. Seeing how the code of honor and nationalistic approach was evident in Japan, it would have been a bloodbath should they have continued to fight, right down to the last man standing.

Of course i will never support the usage of WMD's but at that very time...best possible choice.

Japan had lost its entire fleet, it was done, it had maybe weeks to go before it had to give up.

The nukes were used as a demonstration to russia.

meh.  keep in mind that the americans had to go find the japanese in island after island and fight every one of them.  Given the past experiences and all of the bonzai attacks etc, I think that it is quite rational to assume that the japanese wouldn't surrender for a while. 

awesome typo. thats sounds like a  jrpg attack you wont lose too much hp after that.

b/c i didnt spell banzai correctly?  big deal, i'm not japanese


im joking obviously dont get mad , have you seen my english lol.



dallas said:

meh.  keep in mind that the americans had to go find the japanese in island after island and fight every one of them.  Given the past experiences and all of the bonzai attacks etc, I think that it is quite rational to assume that the japanese wouldn't surrender for a while. 

What you said has nothing to do with the bombs.

There were still japanese surrendering 30 years after the war was over, unaware that a treaty had been signed due to island seclusion.....AFTER the bombing.



jonnhytesta said:
dallas said:
jonnhytesta said:
dallas said:
theprof00 said:
yanamaster said:

The decision to use the A-bombs was the best possible. the other option was prolonging the war in the pacific by another 6 months or one year. Seeing how the code of honor and nationalistic approach was evident in Japan, it would have been a bloodbath should they have continued to fight, right down to the last man standing.

Of course i will never support the usage of WMD's but at that very time...best possible choice.

Japan had lost its entire fleet, it was done, it had maybe weeks to go before it had to give up.

The nukes were used as a demonstration to russia.

meh.  keep in mind that the americans had to go find the japanese in island after island and fight every one of them.  Given the past experiences and all of the bonzai attacks etc, I think that it is quite rational to assume that the japanese wouldn't surrender for a while. 

awesome typo. thats sounds like a  jrpg attack you wont lose too much hp after that.

b/c i didnt spell banzai correctly?  big deal, i'm not japanese


im joking obviously dont get mad , have you seen my english lol.

Nobody's mad testa, where are you from



dallas said:
jonnhytesta said:
dallas said:
jonnhytesta said:
dallas said:
theprof00 said:
yanamaster said:

The decision to use the A-bombs was the best possible. the other option was prolonging the war in the pacific by another 6 months or one year. Seeing how the code of honor and nationalistic approach was evident in Japan, it would have been a bloodbath should they have continued to fight, right down to the last man standing.

Of course i will never support the usage of WMD's but at that very time...best possible choice.

Japan had lost its entire fleet, it was done, it had maybe weeks to go before it had to give up.

The nukes were used as a demonstration to russia.

meh.  keep in mind that the americans had to go find the japanese in island after island and fight every one of them.  Given the past experiences and all of the bonzai attacks etc, I think that it is quite rational to assume that the japanese wouldn't surrender for a while. 

awesome typo. thats sounds like a  jrpg attack you wont lose too much hp after that.

b/c i didnt spell banzai correctly?  big deal, i'm not japanese


im joking obviously dont get mad , have you seen my english lol.

Nobody's mad testa, where are you from

Argentina (Patagonia region, near the chilean border, waiting for a chilean invaision any time soon)



bazmeistergen said:
NKAJ said:

It was definitely right.The Japanese had plenty of chance to surrender,made no visible effort in doing so,and if the war had continued it would have undoubtedly resulted in a much higher loss of life.


Yeah, the debate has moved on since that point. Endlessly repeating the same standard, orthodox opinion is not that exciting.


well I'm sorry,this was my first post in the thread and i didn't really have time to read through all 11 plus pages to see who I should respond to.



"They will know heghan belongs to the helghast"

"England expects that everyman will do his duty"

"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"