Nuklear bomb

[rakinroll]

It is open enough i think.

[Splitter]

Not really.

Should we take that to mean that you think it was unnecessary and did not, in fact, ultimately save lives on both sides?

Splitter

[Friendly_flyer]

1) There were no atomic bombs in 1940

2) Even if it were, or if the SoW:BoB had been a 1945 Pacific sim, I still would not want an atomic bomb included. I don't want a long, boring, unopposed and uneventful mission to destroy a whole city and kill thousands, I want to do daring raids against agaist pinpoint targets.

Let's face it: From a combat flight sim point of view the two atomic bomb missions were extraordinarily boring. They flew too high for being in any real danger from flack or fighters. The aiming of the bombs weren't really that important (though the Hiroshima bomb aimer did a very good job). The flying and navigation was nothing special. The only interesting aspect of the two missions is the immense destructive power of the bombs.

I play this game to fly and occasionally shoot. If I wanted to play God, I'll fire up my old Black & White.

[Azimech]

According to Noam Chomsky, the soviets were already involved in peace talks with the japanese and Truman ordered to drop the bombs anyway, sort of warning the USSR that the USA really had the bomb as part of political leverage.

Yes the japanese armies have done unspeakable atrocities to civilians and captured military personnel but that would've never justified to use two of the worst machines of suffering to punish the japanese people who were just like the german people hostages of their own government.

Dropping them are two of humanity's biggest mistakes ever. Actually all bombing of civilians in any case is dreadful and unethical like all wars are. The fact that I fly a military flight sim is because of the fun fighting other planes. I never bomb cities.

Don't forget Oppenheimer's words: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

[rakinroll]

Originally Posted by Azimech

According to Noam Chomsky, the soviets were already involved in peace talks with the japanese and Truman ordered to drop the bombs anyway, sort of warning the USSR that the USA really had the bomb as part of political leverage.

Yes the japanese armies have done unspeakable atrocities to civilians and captured military personnel but that would've never justified to use two of the worst machines of suffering to punish the japanese people who were just like the german people hostages of their own government.

Dropping them are two of humanity's biggest mistakes ever. Actually all bombing of civilians in any case is dreadful and unethical like all wars are. The fact that I fly a military flight sim is because of the fun fighting other planes. I never bomb cities.

Don't forget Oppenheimer's words: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

Well said.

[Splitter]

"Noam Chomsky". Well, there ya go. He pretty much hates the US.

Just think these few questions:

If the Japanese were ready to capitulate, why did they not surrender after the first bomb was dropped?
If they (or the Nazis) had developed the bomb, would they have used it?
Were the Japanese training civilians, including women and children, to resist invasion forces?
Was the Japanese government indoctrinating its' people as to the brutal treatment they would receive from American soldiers leading many (including women and children) to kill themselves and their families on Okinawa?
What other options did the Allies have?
How many lives would a siege (a blockade) have cost the Japanese? How long would it have taken? Would it have been better to starve the entire population?
In an invasion, how many lives would have been lost on both sides?
If the Empire of Japan had been allowed to remain in existence, would they have remained peaceful?


Would I have wanted to be in the President's shoes and make the call to drop the bomb? No, I am sure that was heart wrenching. Would I fly any simulated mission in a simulated Enola Gay? No.

However, I really think dropping those bombs was the best choice that could have been made at the time with the information on hand.

I know it's cool to hate the US these days, but one has to dig deeper than what "feels good" and see the accompanying realities.

Splitter

[AndyJWest]

"Noam Chomsky". Well, there ya go. He pretty much hates the US.

There's nothing like an ad hominem argument to settle things, eh, Splitter?

Still, how about Dwight D. Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur and Chester W. Nimitz? Did they 'hate the US'?

The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey, written by Paul Nitze, concluded that the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to the winning of the war. After reviewing numerous documents, and interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, Nitze reported:

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

This conclusion assumed that a conventional fire-bombing attack would have continued, with ever-increasing numbers of B-29s, and a greater level of destruction to Japan's cities and population. One of Nitze's most influential sources was Prince Fumimaro Konoe, who responded to a question asking whether Japan would have surrendered if the atomic bombs had not been dropped by saying that resistance would have continued through November or December, 1945.

Historians, such as Bernstein, Hasegawa, and Newman, have criticized Nitze for drawing a conclusion that, they say, went far beyond what the available evidence warranted, in order to promote the reputation of the Air Force at the expense of the Army and Navy.
Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."

Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials), and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings themselves were not even the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, he contends, it was the swift and devastating Soviet victories in Manchuria that forced the Japanese surrender on 15 August 1945, though the War Council did not know the extent of the losses to the Soviets in China at that time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_...a_and_Nagasaki

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

There's nothing like an ad hominem argument to settle things, eh, Splitter?

Still, how about Dwight D. Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur and Chester W. Nimitz? Did they 'hate the US'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_...a_and_Nagasaki

Noam Chomsky is an anarchist. He has disdain for all authority. He is an intellectual elitist. He is anti-capitalist. He has taken every opportunity to criticize American foreign policy that he could. I say consider the source when citing his opinion.

The report you cite assumes that fire bombing would continue. Was fire bombing better? The report was also written after the war when Japanese (who had just been bombed and defeated, btw....they could have been a bit biased I am thinking) officials could be interviewed.

You leave out some facts, however, such as the Japanese plan to meet an invasion on the beach with thousands of kamikazes. And this quote: "We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight.".

Also note that the Soviets had been urged to enter the war for some time, but they refused until after the first bomb had been dropped. Supposedly they had set a date to declare war on Japan. But clearly their objective was to grab a piece of Japanese occupied territory. If, as some believe, the Japanese would have surrendered as soon as the Soviets declared war then those people also have to blame the Soviets for waiting....(not my view, btw).

I understand that it is easier and more popular to believe that the US was and is bloodthirsty and would willingly sacrifice tens of thousands of lives for pure politics. But to come to that conclusion, you have to ignore a lot of facts.

Splitter