Did we really have to nuke Japan?

[Redfish]

OMG, now the libs want to refight WW2 and blame the USA. The bombs saved millions of US and Japanese lives. The US was gearing up for a land invasion of Japan that would have killed millions and cost billions. Truman made the right call.

You should learn to read and THEN resume posting.

WTF is wrong with you? I give you a compliment and you come back with that shit. I take back the beer toast

 

[NYcarbineer]

OMG, now the libs want to refight WW2 and blame the USA. The bombs saved millions of US and Japanese lives. The US was gearing up for a land invasion of Japan that would have killed millions and cost billions. Truman made the right call.

You should learn to read and THEN resume posting.

WTF is wrong with you? I give you a compliment and you come back with that shit. I take back the beer toast

Because you were accusing 'liberals' of being against using the bomb.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Japan could have developed an atomic bomb but most of her scientists were distracted by being this close!! to inventing the transistor radio.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

They had no means of such delivery. Don't be stupid.

No matter how many times you repeat that same bullshit, it is STILL BULLSHIT!

OK genius, how did the defeated nation without enough men to staff their forces or experienced pilots to fly the very few planes with no fuel remaining have the means to extend forces past the US Navy encircling their nation to deliver a large, experimental bomb on the US mainland when they had not been able to deliver conventional bombs even when they had enjoyed military successes early in the war?

You put it in a submarine and and get as close to LA or San Francisco as you can.

Or you put it on a plane and hit a large US occupied island in the Pacific and let us worry about what more you might be capable of.

You're way out on a limb here. Projecting power like that requires infrastructure, infrastructure that we crushed. The point of the OP is that Japan was already brought to its knees. Protecting its own homeland was top priority and there was no chance they were going to anger the Americans further, especially with an emperor that wanted to stay in power.

Nonsense. Remember, the Japanese would not have known we had the bomb. If they had gotten it, hell, they could used it against the eventual US invasion force, at sea, and wiped it out.

You really don't know a lot about atomic weapons, do you?

 

[regent]

I wonder how the American people would have felt about continuing the war waiting for Japan to surrender? For many Americans the war was about over when Germany surrendered, and would they have been angry at the war's continuance even with a bomb that might motivate a surrender? Would we be debating today that the USSR gained so much for its puny efforts. Would the people have ventilated their anger at the ballot box? In a democracy there can be a political side to decisions.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, possibly Seattle. If they were really ambitious, add Miami, Charleston, New York, or Boston.

They had no means of such delivery. Don't be stupid.

No matter how many times you repeat that same bullshit, it is STILL BULLSHIT!

OK genius, how did the defeated nation without enough men to staff their forces or experienced pilots to fly the very few planes with no fuel remaining have the means to extend forces past the US Navy encircling their nation to deliver a large, experimental bomb on the US mainland when they had not been able to deliver conventional bombs even when they had enjoyed military successes early in the war?

You put it in a submarine and and get as close to LA or San Francisco as you can.

Or you put it on a plane and hit a large US occupied island in the Pacific and let us worry about what more you might be capable of.

You're actually making the case that we should have dropped those bombs on Japan. If we were so afraid they were going to hit us again, then it would behoove us to hit them first, and hard. Did you intend to argue in favor of nuking Japan?

 

[SAYIT]

San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, possibly Seattle. If they were really ambitious, add Miami, Charleston, New York, or Boston.

They had no means of such delivery. Don't be stupid.

No matter how many times you repeat that same bullshit, it is STILL BULLSHIT!

OK genius, how did the defeated nation without enough men to staff their forces or experienced pilots to fly the very few planes with no fuel remaining have the means to extend forces past the US Navy encircling their nation to deliver a large, experimental bomb on the US mainland when they had not been able to deliver conventional bombs even when they had enjoyed military successes early in the war?

You put it in a submarine and get as close to LA or San Francisco as you can.

Or you put it on a plane and hit a large US occupied island in the Pacific and let us worry about what more you might be capable of.

You're actually making the case that we should have dropped those bombs on Japan. If we were so afraid they were going to hit us again, then it would behoove us to hit them first, and hard. Did you intend to argue in favor of nuking Japan?

To pretty much everyone's surprise, NY has been justifying our use of "The Bomb." Evidently he is capable of rational thought. Hell, I even gave him a "Thank You."

 

[Theowl32]

August 6th 1945 Hiroshima bomb dropped.

August 8th 1945 USSR declares war on Japan.

August 9th US drops Nagasaki bomb, which was twice as powerful as the first.

August 15th 1945 Japan surrenders to the US.

If it was true that Japan was going to never surrender then why did they?

No, they were trying to work out something with the USSR so they could save face....and possibly defeat the US with Stalins help.

Logistically the US could not bomb the USSR. Politically it would have been a disaster and there were plenty of Russian defenses along with many many issues.

Here is a hint. The Enola Gay flew the mission unescorted. Japan had no defense.

The bottom line was after the second drop, the USSR backed off and Japan had no choice.

There were no real choices and the bombs had pretty much everything to do with sending the USSR a clear message.

Yes, it did save many many American lives. So in essence it was not a lie. As far as the USSR being an enemy Truman did not want that to get out at that time.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The simple fact is that the Japanese saw the writing on the wall, knew that the Soviet Union would soon enter the Pacific to aid the U.S., and began reaching out to the Soviets to surrender and end the conflict. The idea that the nuclear bombs saved American soldiers' lives is grossly misstated, and completely ignores the fact that an invasion of Japan was completely unnecessary as they were already attempting to end the conflict. The U.S. government refused their conditions, nuked them, and then accepted their conditions after they had vaporized innocent Japanese civilians for no reason.

 

[Theowl32]

The simple fact is that the Japanese saw the writing on the wall, knew that the Soviet Union would soon enter the Pacific to aid the U.S., and began reaching out to the Soviets to surrender and end the conflict. The idea that the nuclear bombs saved American soldiers' lives is grossly misstated, and completely ignores the fact that an invasion of Japan was completely unnecessary as they were already attempting to end the conflict. The U.S. government refused their conditions, nuked them, and then accepted their conditions after they had vaporized innocent Japanese civilians for no reason.

***Liberal propaganda alert!!!****

Typical American hating bullshit perspective right here.

 

[Jarlaxle]

San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, possibly Seattle. If they were really ambitious, add Miami, Charleston, New York, or Boston.

They had no means of such delivery. Don't be stupid.

No matter how many times you repeat that same bullshit, it is STILL BULLSHIT!

OK genius, how did the defeated nation without enough men to staff their forces or experienced pilots to fly the very few planes with no fuel remaining have the means to extend forces past the US Navy encircling their nation to deliver a large, experimental bomb on the US mainland when they had not been able to deliver conventional bombs even when they had enjoyed military successes early in the war?

You put it in a submarine and and get as close to LA or San Francisco as you can.....

Like all those times they had managed to do anything like that during the war before they had been decimated? Yeah...

Submarines bombarded San Franscisco and attacked the Panama Canal.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I don't believe there is any way that we weren't going to use those two bombs. Japan happened to be a nice island separated from any mainland.

 

[hazlnut]

This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.

Then get the fuck out, traitor.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The simple fact is that the Japanese saw the writing on the wall, knew that the Soviet Union would soon enter the Pacific to aid the U.S., and began reaching out to the Soviets to surrender and end the conflict. The idea that the nuclear bombs saved American soldiers' lives is grossly misstated, and completely ignores the fact that an invasion of Japan was completely unnecessary as they were already attempting to end the conflict. The U.S. government refused their conditions, nuked them, and then accepted their conditions after they had vaporized innocent Japanese civilians for no reason.

***Liberal propaganda alert!!!****

Typical American hating bullshit perspective right here.

Wasn't it the liberal Truman who nuked the Japanese, whereas conservatives opposed it?

"I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria." - Herbert Hoover

"The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul." - Herbert Hoover

Days later, David Lawrence, the conservative owner and editor of U.S. News (now U.S. News & World Report), argued that Japan's surrender had been inevitable without the atomic bomb. He added that justifications of "military necessity" will "never erase from our minds the simple truth that we, of all civilized nations . . . did not hesitate to employ the most destructive weapon of all times indiscriminately against men, women and children."

Just weeks after Japan's surrender, an article published in the conservative magazine Human Events contended that America's atomic destruction of Hiroshima might be morally "more shameful" and "more degrading" than Japan's "indefensible and infamous act of aggression" at Pearl Harbor.

Such scathing criticism on the part of leading American conservatives continued well after 1945. A 1947 editorial in the Chicago Tribune, at the time a leading conservative voice, claimed that President Truman and his advisers were guilty of "crimes against humanity" for "the utterly unnecessary killing of uncounted Japanese."

History News Network Why It s Time for Us to Confront Hiroshima

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

Perhaps you're the liberal propagandist with no knowledge of conservatism at all.

 

[Theowl32]

The simple fact is that the Japanese saw the writing on the wall, knew that the Soviet Union would soon enter the Pacific to aid the U.S., and began reaching out to the Soviets to surrender and end the conflict. The idea that the nuclear bombs saved American soldiers' lives is grossly misstated, and completely ignores the fact that an invasion of Japan was completely unnecessary as they were already attempting to end the conflict. The U.S. government refused their conditions, nuked them, and then accepted their conditions after they had vaporized innocent Japanese civilians for no reason.

***Liberal propaganda alert!!!****

Typical American hating bullshit perspective right here.

Wasn't it the liberal Truman who nuked the Japanese, whereas conservatives opposed it?

"I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria." - Herbert Hoover

"The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul." - Herbert Hoover

Days later, David Lawrence, the conservative owner and editor of U.S. News (now U.S. News & World Report), argued that Japan's surrender had been inevitable without the atomic bomb. He added that justifications of "military necessity" will "never erase from our minds the simple truth that we, of all civilized nations . . . did not hesitate to employ the most destructive weapon of all times indiscriminately against men, women and children."

Just weeks after Japan's surrender, an article published in the conservative magazine Human Events contended that America's atomic destruction of Hiroshima might be morally "more shameful" and "more degrading" than Japan's "indefensible and infamous act of aggression" at Pearl Harbor.

Such scathing criticism on the part of leading American conservatives continued well after 1945. A 1947 editorial in the Chicago Tribune, at the time a leading conservative voice, claimed that President Truman and his advisers were guilty of "crimes against humanity" for "the utterly unnecessary killing of uncounted Japanese."

History News Network Why It s Time for Us to Confront Hiroshima

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

Perhaps you're the liberal propagandist with no knowledge of conservatism at all.

Go ahead and explain to us why the USSR declared war on Japan on August 8th and then we dropped the second bomb the very next day.

Go ahead.

You are a fucking fool. The proof is the timeline and the fact that the USSR became our enemy immediately following WWii.

The bombs essentially had little to with Japan and basically everything to do with Stalin.

Fucking American hating fool of the academic commie elite left. Who lives to blame America for everything.

You are nothing but a propagandist of the left wing commie pieces of shit.

Fuck you.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.

Then get the fuck out, traitor.

A Patriot is one that his country from his government...loyalist.

 

[Unkotare]

Japan could have developed an atomic bomb but most of her scientists were distracted by being this close!! to inventing the transistor radio.

Japan Tested Atomic Bomb in NK Before End of WWII

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nobody had hindsight in 1945.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The simple fact is that the Japanese saw the writing on the wall, knew that the Soviet Union would soon enter the Pacific to aid the U.S., and began reaching out to the Soviets to surrender and end the conflict. The idea that the nuclear bombs saved American soldiers' lives is grossly misstated, and completely ignores the fact that an invasion of Japan was completely unnecessary as they were already attempting to end the conflict. The U.S. government refused their conditions, nuked them, and then accepted their conditions after they had vaporized innocent Japanese civilians for no reason.

***Liberal propaganda alert!!!****

Typical American hating bullshit perspective right here.

Wasn't it the liberal Truman who nuked the Japanese, whereas conservatives opposed it?

"I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria." - Herbert Hoover

"The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul." - Herbert Hoover

Days later, David Lawrence, the conservative owner and editor of U.S. News (now U.S. News & World Report), argued that Japan's surrender had been inevitable without the atomic bomb. He added that justifications of "military necessity" will "never erase from our minds the simple truth that we, of all civilized nations . . . did not hesitate to employ the most destructive weapon of all times indiscriminately against men, women and children."

Just weeks after Japan's surrender, an article published in the conservative magazine Human Events contended that America's atomic destruction of Hiroshima might be morally "more shameful" and "more degrading" than Japan's "indefensible and infamous act of aggression" at Pearl Harbor.

Such scathing criticism on the part of leading American conservatives continued well after 1945. A 1947 editorial in the Chicago Tribune, at the time a leading conservative voice, claimed that President Truman and his advisers were guilty of "crimes against humanity" for "the utterly unnecessary killing of uncounted Japanese."

History News Network Why It s Time for Us to Confront Hiroshima

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

Perhaps you're the liberal propagandist with no knowledge of conservatism at all.

Go ahead and explain to us why the USSR declared war on Japan on August 8th and then we dropped the second bomb the very next day.

Go ahead.

You are a fucking fool. The proof is the timeline and the fact that the USSR became our enemy immediately following WWii.

The bombs essentially had little to with Japan and basically everything to do with Stalin.

Fucking American hating fool of the academic commie elite left. Who lives to blame America for everything.

You are nothing but a propagandist of the left wing commie pieces of shit.

Fuck you.

Boring. Was Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of Allied forces during WWII, an "American hating fool of the adademic commie elite left?" Or are you just too ignorant to actually understand the history of your own ideology, let alone that of others?

 

[Syriusly]

I don't buy it.

They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.

A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).

There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.

I think it was a bunch of sick and demented fucks that wanted to demonstrate the power of their new toy to the communist USSR.

Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):

It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon 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.

This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.

We didn't have to even fight the Japanese- we could have just surrendered.

Just to point out- the atomic bombs did far less damage than our conventional bombing of Japan.