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

Forums - Politics Discussion - Article reasoning that what ended World War II was not the atom bomb

sales2099 on 05 June 2013
Ckmlb1 said:
sales2099 said:
Ya......that is just wrong.

Japan had something called honor and didn't believe in surrender.

But when the enemy has a weapon that destroys 2 of your cities in one moment........you tend to rethink your position on continuing the war.


86 cities had already been partially or mostly wiped out with regular air strikes before the atom bombs were ever used. 

Well Japan historically refused to surrender after the first atom bomb......proving this threads theory wrong. They should have saw an out when it first happened but chose to carry on.

Only after the second strike in nagasaki did Japan finally give up.

86 cities......which costed many Allied lives, and money, equipment, but mostly time. This strategy just needed a single pilot and a single plane, and entire cities became destoryed in less then a minute. This was a game changer and this is why the war ended.



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Around the Network
Ckmlb1 on 05 June 2013
Kasz216 said:
Ckmlb1 said:
Kasz216 said:

2) Scale, ignores the main fear of nuclear weapons, even before they got big. Which is that it literally only takes one bomb. There is no real defense or chance of inflicting casualties. 


Sure the Nuclear bombs weren't near the worst bombings to occur in the war, they however were the most "unfair."

At this point instead of trying to cause deaths here and there and negotiate for a better peace it just becomes something a lot more hopeless... even in the terms of just trying to lose but eek out something of value.




Russia was no doubt a major fear and played a big part in it... but Nuclear weapons in the end seems like what forced their hand.

Why would it matter that it was nuclear bombs instead of conventional weapons when 86 other cities were successfully attacked in levels equivalent to nuclear bombs in destruction and civilian casualties? Obviously the Japanese were unable to stop the destruciton of cities at this point by the US air power. 


because the japanese weren't so much trying to stop the bombings... as they were kill americans.  You've got the motivations wrong.



The US burns a Japanese city to the ground, but loses 5-6 planes in the process.  That's what the japanse wanted if you read direct japanese sources at the time.  They simply wanted to grind the US down, trading thousands of lives for small amounts of american ones.

 

When it's just 1 bomb?  That makes it near impossible to ensure any casualties.

Attrition tactics became usless... and that was all they had.


This might be true even though it sounds insane. Giving up whole cities to take out 5 American planes at a time? I don't know how that would improve their situation in the negotiations much later. But military and political leaders throughout history have made some pretty insane calculations so I can't say that what you said is wrong. 



XBL Gamertag: ckmlb, PSN ID: ckmlb

Ckmlb1 on 05 June 2013
sales2099 said:
Ckmlb1 said:
sales2099 said:
Ya......that is just wrong.

Japan had something called honor and didn't believe in surrender.

But when the enemy has a weapon that destroys 2 of your cities in one moment........you tend to rethink your position on continuing the war.


86 cities had already been partially or mostly wiped out with regular air strikes before the atom bombs were ever used. 

Well Japan historically refused to surrender after the first atom bomb......proving this threads theory wrong. They should have saw an out when it first happened but chose to carry on.

Only after the second strike in nagasaki did Japan finally give up.

86 cities......which costed many Allied lives, and money, equipment, but mostly time. This strategy just needed a single pilot and a single plane, and the entire cities became destoryed in less then a minute. This was a game changer and this is why the war ended.


America had all the time in the world compared to Japan, the Japanese didn't after the Soviet Union joined the war it was a short timeline to make decisions. There's another perspective that would argue that because they didn't surrender after the first atom bomb that would mean it didn't make a difference to them whether it was an atomic strike or a conventional strike. 



XBL Gamertag: ckmlb, PSN ID: ckmlb

sales2099 on 05 June 2013
Ckmlb1 said:
sales2099 said:
Ckmlb1 said:
sales2099 said:
Ya......that is just wrong.

Japan had something called honor and didn't believe in surrender.

But when the enemy has a weapon that destroys 2 of your cities in one moment........you tend to rethink your position on continuing the war.


86 cities had already been partially or mostly wiped out with regular air strikes before the atom bombs were ever used. 

Well Japan historically refused to surrender after the first atom bomb......proving this threads theory wrong. They should have saw an out when it first happened but chose to carry on.

Only after the second strike in nagasaki did Japan finally give up.

86 cities......which costed many Allied lives, and money, equipment, but mostly time. This strategy just needed a single pilot and a single plane, and the entire cities became destoryed in less then a minute. This was a game changer and this is why the war ended.


America had all the time in the world compared to Japan, the Japanese didn't after the Soviet Union joined the war it was a short timeline to make decisions. There's another perspective that would argue that because they didn't surrender after the first atom bomb that would mean it didn't make a difference to them whether it was an atomic strike or a conventional strike.

And to that I say they simply had an obsession with honor, which is why they didn't surrender right away.

When your faced with a semmingly impossible technology that can level cities instantly, honor only goes so far. This whole thread is just a conspiracy theory and its upsetting that if enough time goes by, young generations that obviously didn't live in that era, can cook up whatever perspectives they can think of rather then stick to the cold facts.

Guess it boils down to a rebellious spirit of "not believing everything you hear/read".



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Ckmlb1 on 05 June 2013
sales2099 said:
Ckmlb1 said:
sales2099 said:
Ckmlb1 said:
sales2099 said:
Ya......that is just wrong.

Japan had something called honor and didn't believe in surrender.

But when the enemy has a weapon that destroys 2 of your cities in one moment........you tend to rethink your position on continuing the war.


86 cities had already been partially or mostly wiped out with regular air strikes before the atom bombs were ever used. 

Well Japan historically refused to surrender after the first atom bomb......proving this threads theory wrong. They should have saw an out when it first happened but chose to carry on.

Only after the second strike in nagasaki did Japan finally give up.

86 cities......which costed many Allied lives, and money, equipment, but mostly time. This strategy just needed a single pilot and a single plane, and the entire cities became destoryed in less then a minute. This was a game changer and this is why the war ended.


America had all the time in the world compared to Japan, the Japanese didn't after the Soviet Union joined the war it was a short timeline to make decisions. There's another perspective that would argue that because they didn't surrender after the first atom bomb that would mean it didn't make a difference to them whether it was an atomic strike or a conventional strike.

And to that I say they simply had an obsession with honor, which is why they didn't surrender right away.

When your faced with a semmingly impossible technology that can level cities instantly, honor only goes so far. This whole thread is just a conspiracy theory and its upsetting that if enough time goes by, young generations that obviously didn't live in that era, can cook up whatever perspectives they can think of rather then stick to the cold facts.

Guess it boils down to a rebellious spirit of "not believing everything you hear/read".


There's also a school of thought that believes that the victors of wars are the ones that write the history that is supposedly 'cold hard facts' later on. The article isn't a conspiracy theory, the writer puts forward several points to support his argument, he doesn't make anything up. You can claim that the is wrong and present different points but how is this a conspiracy theory? 



XBL Gamertag: ckmlb, PSN ID: ckmlb