Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They did not offer to surrender they offered a ceasefire and a return to 41 start lines. After the first atomic bomb the Emperor offered to surrender IF we recognized he was the REAL head of State with no change to their Government. Get your facts straight.A question you have never asked yourself:We had defeated their army, their navy and their air force.
We rolled them back until all they had left was their island...No access to oil, tin, aluminum, iron or the resources needed to continue to "fight".
How many civilians do you suppose would have died had we starved them into surrender?
No point in speculating on fantasy.
We did not "have" to invade to force them to surrender..
In fact the japs offered a conditional surrender if they could be allowed to keep the emperor...The U.S. refused...We thought it would be better to show off for russia and demonstrate what we could do with our new toys....
You ok with nuking civilians?
Glad to see you understand citing the existence of alternatives is, in and of itself, meaningless.I know..it's SO obvious that it went right over your head..sure..sure..twist and spin...LMAO...whatever you say...I see. So there's no real reason to blockade Japan, rather than invade or drop the bombs.Don't try to deflect or muddy up clear water. I never speculated on death tolls...you made that up.Which means of course, there's no way you can argue with any degree o soundness that your idea would cost fewer lives.
That being the case, how can you soundly argue that Blockade/siege it a viable alternative?You have not in any way made a case for choosing any of them; the fact that you cited the existence of other possibilities is only stating the obvious.Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?
I made my points quite well. There were options available other than nuking helpless civilians.
They did not offer to surrender.You and I both understand that you do not want to soundly address the question I asked because doing so will negate the point you tried to make - I therefore accept your concession.Useless specualtion ....and diversion.Your entire post was a speculation on fantasy.No point in speculating on fantasy.A question you have never asked yourself:
How many civilians do you suppose would have died had we starved them into surrender?
Fact is you never once considered how many people would have died has we completely cut japan off from the outside world and waited for them to surrender -- not once.
Now, consider your answer to that question and then tell us how terrible it was to drop the bombs.
Compared to any realistic alternative, dropping the bombs saved American and Japanese lives.
The sooner you accept that, the better off you are.
LMAO...you ask me to debunk a fantasy scenario you made up in your own mind...
Declare "victory" if you feel you need to...I don't mind.
The facts are that we did not have to nuke civilians to get japan to surrender. They OFFERED to surrender conditionally...We refused.
Glad to see you understand citing the existence of alternatives is, in and of itself, meaningless.I know..it's SO obvious that it went right over your head..sure..sure..twist and spin...LMAO...whatever you say...I see. So there's no real reason to blockade Japan, rather than invade or drop the bombs.Don't try to deflect or muddy up clear water. I never speculated on death tolls...you made that up.You have not in any way made a case for choosing any of them; the fact that you cited the existence of other possibilities is only stating the obvious.Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?
I made my points quite well. There were options available other than nuking helpless civilians.
Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?
How, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?That's easy.Glad to see you understand citing the existence of alternatives is, in and of itself, meaningless.I know..it's SO obvious that it went right over your head..sure..sure..twist and spin...LMAO...whatever you say...I see. So there's no real reason to blockade Japan, rather than invade or drop the bombs.You have not in any way made a case for choosing any of them; the fact that you cited the existence of other possibilities is only stating the obvious.Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?
I made my points quite well. There were options available other than nuking helpless civilians.
Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?
To retain the moral high ground as civilized people...
Blockading was rejected in this case because it went against the tenets of military science. Japan had millions of weapons stockpiled for the invasion. They needed civilians to be trained in the use of those weapons. Two and a half million rifles and carbines were available for arming the civilian population which would fight alongside the over four million Japanese military personnel on the mainland. Each day that went by meant more armed and trained enemy. Additionally, a blockade would give the Japanese time to continue building defensive lines, tunnels, etc.Glad to see you understand citing the existence of alternatives is, in and of itself, meaningless.I know..it's SO obvious that it went right over your head..sure..sure..twist and spin...LMAO...whatever you say...I see. So there's no real reason to blockade Japan, rather than invade or drop the bombs.Don't try to deflect or muddy up clear water. I never speculated on death tolls...you made that up.You have not in any way made a case for choosing any of them; the fact that you cited the existence of other possibilities is only stating the obvious.Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?
I made my points quite well. There were options available other than nuking helpless civilians.
Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?
How, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?That's easy.Glad to see you understand citing the existence of alternatives is, in and of itself, meaningless.I know..it's SO obvious that it went right over your head..sure..sure..twist and spin...LMAO...whatever you say...You have not in any way made a case for choosing any of them; the fact that you cited the existence of other possibilities is only stating the obvious.Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?
I made my points quite well. There were options available other than nuking helpless civilians.
Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?
To retain the moral high ground as civilized people...
Against all of that you have "But NUKES!! NUKES!!! OMFG NUKES !!!".Blockading was rejected in this case because it went against the tenets of military science. Japan had millions of weapons stockpiled for the invasion. They needed civilians to be trained in the use of those weapons. Two and a half million rifles and carbines were available for arming the civilian population which would fight alongside the over four million Japanese military personnel on the mainland. Each day that went by meant more armed and trained enemy. Additionally, a blockade would give the Japanese time to continue building defensive lines, tunnels, etc.Glad to see you understand citing the existence of alternatives is, in and of itself, meaningless.I know..it's SO obvious that it went right over your head..sure..sure..twist and spin...LMAO...whatever you say...I see. So there's no real reason to blockade Japan, rather than invade or drop the bombs.You have not in any way made a case for choosing any of them; the fact that you cited the existence of other possibilities is only stating the obvious.Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?
I made my points quite well. There were options available other than nuking helpless civilians.
Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?
Japanese cities were being firebombed and were suffering casualties much greater than what the atom bombs would cause. If anything, it might be concluded the firebombings were far worse than the atom bomb bombings. The firebombings were being carried out by B-29's and they were still suffering losses from anti aircraft and even normal non combat inflicted crashes. Each craft carried 11 crew members. Hence, both the Japanese civilian population and the American military were suffering casualties until the Japanese military and government could be forced into surrender.
www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tokyo.htm
You did not answer the question.sieges and blockades had been used for centuries to effectively break down the will of an enemy without having to attack them in a full frontal assault. That's the purpose of blockades and sieges..How, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?That's easy.Glad to see you understand citing the existence of alternatives is, in and of itself, meaningless.I know..it's SO obvious that it went right over your head..You have not in any way made a case for choosing any of them; the fact that you cited the existence of other possibilities is only stating the obvious.
Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?
To retain the moral high ground as civilized people...
Blockading was rejected in this case because it went against the tenets of military science. Japan had millions of weapons stockpiled for the invasion. They needed civilians to be trained in the use of those weapons. Two and a half million rifles and carbines were available for arming the civilian population which would fight alongside the over four million Japanese military personnel on the mainland. Each day that went by meant more armed and trained enemy. Additionally, a blockade would give the Japanese time to continue building defensive lines, tunnels, etc.Glad to see you understand citing the existence of alternatives is, in and of itself, meaningless.I know..it's SO obvious that it went right over your head..sure..sure..twist and spin...LMAO...whatever you say...I see. So there's no real reason to blockade Japan, rather than invade or drop the bombs.You have not in any way made a case for choosing any of them; the fact that you cited the existence of other possibilities is only stating the obvious.Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?
I made my points quite well. There were options available other than nuking helpless civilians.
Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?
Japanese cities were being firebombed and were suffering casualties much greater than what the atom bombs would cause. If anything, it might be concluded the firebombings were far worse than the atom bomb bombings. The firebombings were being carried out by B-29's and they were still suffering losses from anti aircraft and even normal non combat inflicted crashes. Each craft carried 11 crew members. Hence, both the Japanese civilian population and the American military were suffering casualties until the Japanese military and government could be forced into surrender.
www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tokyo.htm
Blockades and sieges are certainly tactics of warfare. They were not suited for this situation. That was a military evaluation made by the military people responsible for defeating Japan and the military personnel who would be ordering and invasion that experts predicted would cost hundreds of thousand of US military killed and hundreds of thousands more being maimed and injured. Easy for the philosophers to sit back over 75 years later and speculate about fantasy options.How, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?That's easy.Glad to see you understand citing the existence of alternatives is, in and of itself, meaningless.I know..it's SO obvious that it went right over your head..You have not in any way made a case for choosing any of them; the fact that you cited the existence of other possibilities is only stating the obvious.
Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?
To retain the moral high ground as civilized people...
sieges and blockades had been used for centuries to effectively break down the will of an enemy without having to attack them in a full frontal assault. That's the purpose of blockades and sieges..
look...make all the excuses you want.
Most civilized people acknowledge that purposely targeting and murdering civilians is wrong....some people also believe that nuking civilians is wrong too.
You don't. Fine..carry on....no need to play word games about it. Own it.
Against all of that you have "But NUKES!! NUKES!!! OMFG NUKES !!!".Blockading was rejected in this case because it went against the tenets of military science. Japan had millions of weapons stockpiled for the invasion. They needed civilians to be trained in the use of those weapons. Two and a half million rifles and carbines were available for arming the civilian population which would fight alongside the over four million Japanese military personnel on the mainland. Each day that went by meant more armed and trained enemy. Additionally, a blockade would give the Japanese time to continue building defensive lines, tunnels, etc.Glad to see you understand citing the existence of alternatives is, in and of itself, meaningless.I know..it's SO obvious that it went right over your head..sure..sure..twist and spin...LMAO...whatever you say...You have not in any way made a case for choosing any of them; the fact that you cited the existence of other possibilities is only stating the obvious.Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?
I made my points quite well. There were options available other than nuking helpless civilians.
Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?
Japanese cities were being firebombed and were suffering casualties much greater than what the atom bombs would cause. If anything, it might be concluded the firebombings were far worse than the atom bomb bombings. The firebombings were being carried out by B-29's and they were still suffering losses from anti aircraft and even normal non combat inflicted crashes. Each craft carried 11 crew members. Hence, both the Japanese civilian population and the American military were suffering casualties until the Japanese military and government could be forced into surrender.
www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tokyo.htm
You did not answer the question.purposely targeting civilians is wrong. nuking civilians is worse....but I get you now..."murica..fuck yeah!"Against all of that you have "But NUKES!! NUKES!!! OMFG NUKES !!!".Blockading was rejected in this case because it went against the tenets of military science. Japan had millions of weapons stockpiled for the invasion. They needed civilians to be trained in the use of those weapons. Two and a half million rifles and carbines were available for arming the civilian population which would fight alongside the over four million Japanese military personnel on the mainland. Each day that went by meant more armed and trained enemy. Additionally, a blockade would give the Japanese time to continue building defensive lines, tunnels, etc.Glad to see you understand citing the existence of alternatives is, in and of itself, meaningless.I know..it's SO obvious that it went right over your head..You have not in any way made a case for choosing any of them; the fact that you cited the existence of other possibilities is only stating the obvious.
Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?
Japanese cities were being firebombed and were suffering casualties much greater than what the atom bombs would cause. If anything, it might be concluded the firebombings were far worse than the atom bomb bombings. The firebombings were being carried out by B-29's and they were still suffering losses from anti aircraft and even normal non combat inflicted crashes. Each craft carried 11 crew members. Hence, both the Japanese civilian population and the American military were suffering casualties until the Japanese military and government could be forced into surrender.
www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tokyo.htm
You did not answer the question.purposely targeting civilians is wrong. nuking civilians is worse....but I get you now..."murica..fuck yeah!"Against all of that you have "But NUKES!! NUKES!!! OMFG NUKES !!!".Blockading was rejected in this case because it went against the tenets of military science. Japan had millions of weapons stockpiled for the invasion. They needed civilians to be trained in the use of those weapons. Two and a half million rifles and carbines were available for arming the civilian population which would fight alongside the over four million Japanese military personnel on the mainland. Each day that went by meant more armed and trained enemy. Additionally, a blockade would give the Japanese time to continue building defensive lines, tunnels, etc.Glad to see you understand citing the existence of alternatives is, in and of itself, meaningless.I know..it's SO obvious that it went right over your head..
Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?
Japanese cities were being firebombed and were suffering casualties much greater than what the atom bombs would cause. If anything, it might be concluded the firebombings were far worse than the atom bomb bombings. The firebombings were being carried out by B-29's and they were still suffering losses from anti aircraft and even normal non combat inflicted crashes. Each craft carried 11 crew members. Hence, both the Japanese civilian population and the American military were suffering casualties until the Japanese military and government could be forced into surrender.
www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tokyo.htm
I'll re-ask.
Given that purposely targeting and murdering civilians -- like in a blockade -- is wrong, how, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?
Again, you did not answer the question.if you can equate blockading ports with nuclear bombs you're either dishonest or just being contrary...You did not answer the question.purposely targeting civilians is wrong. nuking civilians is worse....but I get you now..."murica..fuck yeah!"Against all of that you have "But NUKES!! NUKES!!! OMFG NUKES !!!".Blockading was rejected in this case because it went against the tenets of military science. Japan had millions of weapons stockpiled for the invasion. They needed civilians to be trained in the use of those weapons. Two and a half million rifles and carbines were available for arming the civilian population which would fight alongside the over four million Japanese military personnel on the mainland. Each day that went by meant more armed and trained enemy. Additionally, a blockade would give the Japanese time to continue building defensive lines, tunnels, etc.Glad to see you understand citing the existence of alternatives is, in and of itself, meaningless.
Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?
Japanese cities were being firebombed and were suffering casualties much greater than what the atom bombs would cause. If anything, it might be concluded the firebombings were far worse than the atom bomb bombings. The firebombings were being carried out by B-29's and they were still suffering losses from anti aircraft and even normal non combat inflicted crashes. Each craft carried 11 crew members. Hence, both the Japanese civilian population and the American military were suffering casualties until the Japanese military and government could be forced into surrender.
www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tokyo.htm
I'll re-ask.
Given that purposely targeting and murdering civilians -- like in a blockade -- is wrong, how, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?
Wonder how you would feel after years of warfare of the kind that was fought in WWII. Like I said, easy to look back 75 plus years and make the kind of holier than thou statements and claim to standing on higher ground than the people who had to make the decisions 75 years ago. When a big percentage of the guys you went to school with haven't been killed or wounded in the war already it is easy to stand on your tower. When watching the Western Union deliverer routinely bringing messages to your neighbors houses about the death of your neighbors is not something you are subjected to, it is easy to hold firm on that pedestal you stand on.Against all of that you have "But NUKES!! NUKES!!! OMFG NUKES !!!".Blockading was rejected in this case because it went against the tenets of military science. Japan had millions of weapons stockpiled for the invasion. They needed civilians to be trained in the use of those weapons. Two and a half million rifles and carbines were available for arming the civilian population which would fight alongside the over four million Japanese military personnel on the mainland. Each day that went by meant more armed and trained enemy. Additionally, a blockade would give the Japanese time to continue building defensive lines, tunnels, etc.Glad to see you understand citing the existence of alternatives is, in and of itself, meaningless.I know..it's SO obvious that it went right over your head..You have not in any way made a case for choosing any of them; the fact that you cited the existence of other possibilities is only stating the obvious.
Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?
Japanese cities were being firebombed and were suffering casualties much greater than what the atom bombs would cause. If anything, it might be concluded the firebombings were far worse than the atom bomb bombings. The firebombings were being carried out by B-29's and they were still suffering losses from anti aircraft and even normal non combat inflicted crashes. Each craft carried 11 crew members. Hence, both the Japanese civilian population and the American military were suffering casualties until the Japanese military and government could be forced into surrender.
www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tokyo.htm
purposely targeting civilians is wrong. nuking civilians is worse....but I get you now..."murica..fuck yeah!"
Wonder how you would feel after years of warfare of the kind that was fought in WWII. Like I said, easy to look back 75 plus years and make the kind of holier than thou statements and claim to standing on higher ground than the people who had to make the decisions 75 years ago. When a big percentage of the guys you went to school with haven't been killed or wounded in the war already it is easy to stand on your tower. When watching the Western Union deliverer routinely bringing messages to your neighbors houses about the death of your neighbors is not something you are subjected to, it is easy to hold firm on that pedestal you stand on.Against all of that you have "But NUKES!! NUKES!!! OMFG NUKES !!!".Blockading was rejected in this case because it went against the tenets of military science. Japan had millions of weapons stockpiled for the invasion. They needed civilians to be trained in the use of those weapons. Two and a half million rifles and carbines were available for arming the civilian population which would fight alongside the over four million Japanese military personnel on the mainland. Each day that went by meant more armed and trained enemy. Additionally, a blockade would give the Japanese time to continue building defensive lines, tunnels, etc.Glad to see you understand citing the existence of alternatives is, in and of itself, meaningless.I know..it's SO obvious that it went right over your head..
Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?
Japanese cities were being firebombed and were suffering casualties much greater than what the atom bombs would cause. If anything, it might be concluded the firebombings were far worse than the atom bomb bombings. The firebombings were being carried out by B-29's and they were still suffering losses from anti aircraft and even normal non combat inflicted crashes. Each craft carried 11 crew members. Hence, both the Japanese civilian population and the American military were suffering casualties until the Japanese military and government could be forced into surrender.
www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tokyo.htm
purposely targeting civilians is wrong. nuking civilians is worse....but I get you now..."murica..fuck yeah!"
How would you have ended the war. You are able to tell as the awful problems and dilemmas, but how would you have ended that war with less death and destruction?
Again, you did not answer the question.if you can equate blockading ports with nuclear bombs you're either dishonest or just being contrary...You did not answer the question.purposely targeting civilians is wrong. nuking civilians is worse....but I get you now..."murica..fuck yeah!"Against all of that you have "But NUKES!! NUKES!!! OMFG NUKES !!!".Blockading was rejected in this case because it went against the tenets of military science. Japan had millions of weapons stockpiled for the invasion. They needed civilians to be trained in the use of those weapons. Two and a half million rifles and carbines were available for arming the civilian population which would fight alongside the over four million Japanese military personnel on the mainland. Each day that went by meant more armed and trained enemy. Additionally, a blockade would give the Japanese time to continue building defensive lines, tunnels, etc.
Japanese cities were being firebombed and were suffering casualties much greater than what the atom bombs would cause. If anything, it might be concluded the firebombings were far worse than the atom bomb bombings. The firebombings were being carried out by B-29's and they were still suffering losses from anti aircraft and even normal non combat inflicted crashes. Each craft carried 11 crew members. Hence, both the Japanese civilian population and the American military were suffering casualties until the Japanese military and government could be forced into surrender.
www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tokyo.htm
I'll re-ask.
Given that purposely targeting and murdering civilians -- like in a blockade -- is wrong, how, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?
Given that purposely targeting and murdering civilians -- like in a blockade -- is wrong, how, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?
I see... you cannot muster the intellectual honesty to answer a question directly related to the soundness of your position; we bioth therefore understand your position is based on nothing more than "OMFG NUKES!!!!"if you can equate blockading ports with nuclear bombs you're either dishonest or just being contrary...Again, you did not answer the question.if you can equate blockading ports with nuclear bombs you're either dishonest or just being contrary...You did not answer the question.purposely targeting civilians is wrong. nuking civilians is worse....but I get you now..."murica..fuck yeah!"Against all of that you have "But NUKES!! NUKES!!! OMFG NUKES !!!".
I'll re-ask.
Given that purposely targeting and murdering civilians -- like in a blockade -- is wrong, how, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?
Given that purposely targeting and murdering civilians -- like in a blockade -- is wrong, how, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?
I did not ask for your opinion. I asked you how you would have resolved the ending of WWII with Japan.Wonder how you would feel after years of warfare of the kind that was fought in WWII. Like I said, easy to look back 75 plus years and make the kind of holier than thou statements and claim to standing on higher ground than the people who had to make the decisions 75 years ago. When a big percentage of the guys you went to school with haven't been killed or wounded in the war already it is easy to stand on your tower. When watching the Western Union deliverer routinely bringing messages to your neighbors houses about the death of your neighbors is not something you are subjected to, it is easy to hold firm on that pedestal you stand on.Against all of that you have "But NUKES!! NUKES!!! OMFG NUKES !!!".Blockading was rejected in this case because it went against the tenets of military science. Japan had millions of weapons stockpiled for the invasion. They needed civilians to be trained in the use of those weapons. Two and a half million rifles and carbines were available for arming the civilian population which would fight alongside the over four million Japanese military personnel on the mainland. Each day that went by meant more armed and trained enemy. Additionally, a blockade would give the Japanese time to continue building defensive lines, tunnels, etc.Glad to see you understand citing the existence of alternatives is, in and of itself, meaningless.
Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?
Japanese cities were being firebombed and were suffering casualties much greater than what the atom bombs would cause. If anything, it might be concluded the firebombings were far worse than the atom bomb bombings. The firebombings were being carried out by B-29's and they were still suffering losses from anti aircraft and even normal non combat inflicted crashes. Each craft carried 11 crew members. Hence, both the Japanese civilian population and the American military were suffering casualties until the Japanese military and government could be forced into surrender.
www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tokyo.htm
purposely targeting civilians is wrong. nuking civilians is worse....but I get you now..."murica..fuck yeah!"
How would you have ended the war. You are able to tell as the awful problems and dilemmas, but how would you have ended that war with less death and destruction?
Already gave my opinion...and it didn't have anything to do with nuking civilians.
