Nuklear bomb

[julian265]

I don't see the point of the discussion of the moral correctness of the A-bomb as used on Japan in the second war.

Why? Even counting delayed death to radiation related causes, I think many, many more people were killed in conventional (fire) bombing of cities across Japan. If they didn't drop the A-bombs, they probably would have continued the large-scale bombing raids to the same effect, just over a longer time.

IMO, a discussion more relevant to human suffering would be about the mass bombing of civilian population, regardless of the weapon type. That's not to say that A-bombs aren't worth talking about, I am just puzzled as to why they're talked about as the cruellest thing the west did to Japan, when the numbers say otherwise.

Willing to discuss, of course

[swiss]

But what I'm saying is it took the 2nd bomb to actually get the emperor to the negotiating table.

And that's ok - since this bomb had the name of a different city already painted on it...

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by swiss

And that's ok - since this bomb had the name of a different city already painted on it...

I seem to recall that they had to divert on one of the runs due to weather and the target being obscured...was that the first or second?

Julian: It is one of those misguided things about the war. Both sides thought, at times, that bombing civilians would would weaken their resolve and weaken the enemy's will to make war. I don't think that was ever successful.

Bombing industries was obviously a legitimate exercise and just as obviously worked. The problem was accuracy even when they were going after industrial targets. Factories were close to populations and a LOT of bombs missed. They pretty much had to carpet bomb areas to take out their targets. As usual, civilians paid a heavy price.

I agree with you, Bliss. I wish we would pull back and not be the policemen of the world. Just secure our interests around the world (oil, allies), secure our borders, and let the rest of the world deal with the evil people in power around the globe. I would never want us to get weak again militarily as our "weakness" had been viewed as "opportunity" for aggressors in the past (like Pearl).

We should bring our troops from all around the world home and put out the warning to leave us absolutely alone or else. Trade would be done fairly, no foreign aid. We would make it known that attacks on our shortened list of real allies would be viewed as an attack on the country itself. We would save a ton of money and erase our debt in no time.

The problem is....we would be called back into world politics within a decade or two. China has to go to war with someone sometime soon and there are plenty of other aggressive regimes that would soon get out of control when left to their own devices.

The good news for us would be that once again we would be invited back into world politics like WWI and WWII instead of being seen as "aggressors" as we are now. Face it, no one wants us until they need us.

Splitter

[Hunden]

The good news for us would be that once again we would be invited back into world politics like WWI and WWII instead of being seen as "aggressors" as we are now. Face it, no one wants us until they need us.

Splitter[/QUOTE]

And for how long would they view us in a positive way 10 years? A generation ? The United States liberated Europe and they hate us, how long did that take? some people have the attention span of a rock. I say we pull back secure our own country and let the rest have at it. Cheers

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by Hunden

And for how long would they view us in a positive way 10 years? A generation ? The United States liberated Europe and they hate us, how long did that take? some people have the attention span of a rock. I say we pull back secure are own country and let the rest have at it. Cheers

Weren't you listening? Until they don't need us anymore!

You do realize that we just confirmed every stereotype of the arrogant American some others may have, right? lol. History is a stern master though.

For those commenting on US politics, it's ok. We don't like our politicians either . There is change in the wind though. If those changes do not occur then just leave us alone and we will tear ourselves apart....we do that when left to our own devices. Then we get attacked and unite for a little while....then back to our bickering.

On Rolling Thunder: Not effective (thank Mr. Johnson). Linebacker(s) was effective but was halted due to politics. Here again....don't go to war unless you go all out and mean to win.

But really, this thread is about history.

Splitter

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Splitter

I seem to recall that they had to divert on one of the runs due to weather and the target being obscured...was that the first or second?

Originally, Fat Man was built to force the other party to capitulate.
The fast end oft the war in Europe came faster than expected, consequently the bomb was rescheduled.

It was ment to hit the Führer's party capitol - Nürnberg.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Originally Posted by julian265

I don't see the point of the discussion of the moral correctness of the A-bomb as used on Japan in the second war.

Why? Even counting delayed death to radiation related causes, I think many, many more people were killed in conventional (fire) bombing of cities across Japan. If they didn't drop the A-bombs, they probably would have continued the large-scale bombing raids to the same effect, just over a longer time.

IMO, a discussion more relevant to human suffering would be about the mass bombing of civilian population, regardless of the weapon type. That's not to say that A-bombs aren't worth talking about, I am just puzzled as to why they're talked about as the cruellest thing the west did to Japan, when the numbers say otherwise.

Willing to discuss, of course

That wasn't really the point of the discussion. It was brought up because of talk of the availability or lack there of for the nuke in-game.

The cruelest thing that happened in the war is what started it. Those chain of events, leading up to the present, led to the US being the biggest military on the planet, spending more in defense/military than almost every other country in the world combined. Before the war, we did have a military, of course, but were very content with staying on our own continent and living the "dream." After Pearl we built up and industrialized a huge invasion force/fleet/planes/tanks/ etc., and fought in both the east and west.

Does anyone think how the world would be if WW2 never took place? Or think about what caused the way things are today? I would give anything to have the US of the early 40's again. Now we are spending out of control and our number 1 export is weapons. I have remorse for those innocently killed and, as far as I'm concerned, anyone that dies from any military power.

But I'm far more concerned with the after effects of the world from those few people in power that control millions.

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by SYN_Bliss

The cruelest thing that happened in the war is what started it.

The invasion of Poland?

The deaths of about 5,000 at Pearl Harbour? Wikipedia says less than that:

2,402 personnel were killed[9] and 1,282 were wounded.

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

Pearl Harbour was unexpected, and the Japanese made a complete mess of their Declaration of War that was supposed to precede it, but in actuality was completed after the raid, but there's no way that's the worst thing that happened in WW2.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

The invasion of Poland?

The deaths of about 5,000 at Pearl Harbour? Wikipedia says less than that:


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

Pearl Harbuor was unexpected, and the Japanese made a complete mess of their Declaration of War that was supposed to precede it, but in actuality was completed after the raid, but there's no way that's the worst thing that happened in WW2.

I am not sure where you are from or how much you know of American history, but there is a theory held by some (many?) that we knew about the attack on Pearl ahead of time. In the theory, that's why the carriers weren't there.

The theory stems from the fact that the US was very isolationist between the wars. Many Americans did not want to get involved in a European or Asian war. This is exemplified by our reluctance to aid England. The theory goes that Roosevelt needed something to "jump start" Americans into being willing to go to war and used the Pearl attack as the impetus.

I think most of us here (US) do not believe it for a second. It is logical to assume that the US knew Japan was contemplating such a move, but not the time and place or method.

An above poster may have been talking about the sanctions imposed on Japan as what sparked the war for Japan, but I am not sure. Or maybe the restrictions that had been placed on Germany after WWI. Or both (or neither I guess, I am not sure lol).

Splitter

[ATAG_Bliss]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

The invasion of Poland?

The deaths of about 5,000 at Pearl Harbour? Wikipedia says less than that:


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

Pearl Harbour was unexpected, and the Japanese made a complete mess of their Declaration of War that was supposed to precede it, but in actuality was completed after the raid, but there's no way that's the worst thing that happened in WW2.

You obviously didn't understand the point I was trying to make. The whole world completely changed because of WWII. Please re-read what I said and try to understand I was not talking about the loss of life, but the still present after effects to everything my government/world governments has done, consequence, directly from WWII, and how much different the world would be right now if it hadn't happened. Hence, why I said the cruelest thing that happened was what started the war. It led my government down the path it has to be in currently, policing the world of tyrants for instance.