First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last
Post Reply Does Japan have the right to complain about America's Atmoic bomb droppings?
49909 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / So Cal
Offline
Posted 4/13/15

justanotherguy_2005 wrote:

Of course they have the right to complain. Is what they did wrong too? Sure. Can those other people complain about Japan? Of course. They needed to be stopped. We didn't care about their lives and only wanted to save our own and save costs. Was it right to just blast them instead of invading them? Doesn't matter at this point. It's been done and over with for a long time. It was a war and shit happens during wars.


You're grossly misinformed. I don't know who has been teaching you this or if you're just making stuff up, but the point of using the bombs was to limit the lives lost. It was the couple hundred thousand lives versus a couple hundred million if the US and Russia had to invade Japan like they were planning.
26420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/13/15

DanteVSTheWorld wrote:


inf1ltrat0rN7 wrote:

The use of atomic weapons was the fastest way to end the war, and the best outcome for Japan. The US was preparing a massive invasion of the mainland from the south, while the USSR was going to strike from the north. The US was preparing for well over a million casualties in the event of a full scale invasion, on their side alone, let alone the USSR, and the Japanese themselves. Plus with a joint US-USSR invasion we would have had a similar outcome to what happened in Germany split into East and West, and in Korea by North and South. While yes atomic/nuclear/thermonuclear weapons cause mass devastation, and leave the survivors sickened by radiation, it still by far the best way to end the war. It limited casualties to roughly 100,000(civilians, though the targets were industrial centers, not civilian population centers) and prevented the further spread of the Stalin era Communist ideology. Also it showed the world just how terrifying nukes are, and may well have prevented the cold war from going hot.


Let me take a quote I posted a while back, because you are wrong.


DanteVSTheWorld
It was unnecessary to drop atomic bombs to end WWII. Generals including Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur, and a lot more people who were in the military then, believed that Japan would've surrendered eventually without dropping atomic bombs. Eisenhower believed atomic bombs were not the answer and refused to support the idea of killing civilians.

Japan having no navy, no air force, getting beaten by the Chinese, and their people starving, Japan was essentially defeated by 1945.

In fact, what ended WWII was the Soviet Union's declaration of war on Japan followed by the subsequent Soviet invasion of Manchuria. Looking back, historians now believe that Japan surrendered specifically on August 15th due to the Soviet intervention. By that date all hope in Manchuria was lost and Japan faced a potential Soviet invasion. The Soviet intervention had a much more profound effect than the atomic bombings (Japan introduced martial law after the Soviets declared war). If the US sat back and did nothing Japan would've still surrendered on August 15th.

The atomic bombs did nothing but kill 250,000 people, of which 20,000 of them were Koreans and 3,200 of them were Japanese Americans. The fact that 3,200 Americans were killed by the atomic bombings compared to 2,300 Americans killed at Pearl Harbour, means that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed more American citizens than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour did.
The decision to use atomic bombs was a total disregard for human life. Lets not forget both bombs were designed differently, probably to see what effects it would of caused, and they were timed to detonate at just the right altitude for maximum damage. The US Government being the terrorists they are just wanted to test the bombs. It is an absolute joke that there are actually people who believe the atomic bombs saved lives.

Lets not even talk about if Nazi Germany happened to use a Nuke against the US, they would of all been hanged for war crimes.


Japan has every right to complain, just because the imperialists done bad things, that don't mean you drop a nuke killing civilians? Like what kind of fucking logic is that.


If you really believe that Japan was going to surrender on Aug 15th 1945 anyway without the atomic bombs, I'm probably wasting my time, but anyway. You do know that there was a failed coup because many in the military high command did not want to surrender even after the two atomic bombs?

After the Army and Navy essentially defeated, why didn't they surrender? They knew Ten Go was a suicide mission, why did they send them? They knew an invasion was coming. They knew that millions of Japanese would die. And they didn't surrender until they were forced to. Japan ignored the Potsdam Declaration and paid the price.

There was going to be an Allied invasion in late 45 early 46 if the war did not end. Russia did not have the means to mount an invasion of Japan, at least not for some time, not before the Allies. Japan was not surrendering because of Russia. In fact they were already making plans to fight off the Allied invasion, which they correctly figured out would start in Kyushu. They were training children to fight to the death. Any invasion would have killed many more than the two atomic bombs. Therefore, the bombs saved lives. Its not hard to understand.
KoA21 
11143 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 4/13/15
It's only natural for countries to forget the bad things they did. The fact is all sides did bad things.

However even though I am against the use of weapons such as the atomic bomb. I do think it was necessary.
49909 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / So Cal
Offline
Posted 4/13/15

DanteVSTheWorld wrote:



That is all speculation. You can't say 'this would of happened and that would of happened'. If you read my post you would see Japan surrendered the moment Russia become a real threat to them. They didn't surrender because of the nukes, if that was the case they would of surrendered on the say of the second nuke but they didn't, it was 2 weeks later because of the Russians. Only people that think it was justified is that have it in their minds that 'oh this and that would of happened' lmao.


Dear Mr. Speculator calling people speculators.

My shit is documented with written accounts of Japanese officials. Next time you want to get all self righteous and call me out on speculating, you might not want to do it by just speculating.

Sincerely, someone who reads.


P.S. "lmao"
Posted 4/13/15 , edited 4/13/15

Phersu wrote:


justanotherguy_2005 wrote:

Of course they have the right to complain. Is what they did wrong too? Sure. Can those other people complain about Japan? Of course. They needed to be stopped. We didn't care about their lives and only wanted to save our own and save costs. Was it right to just blast them instead of invading them? Doesn't matter at this point. It's been done and over with for a long time. It was a war and shit happens during wars.


All in all, more Japanese probably survived the bomb than they would have if a full scale invasion was held. Plus, bombs weren't just dropped without warning. Fliers warning civilians to evacuate the cities were dropped first.

Not that I condone it, but, ultimately, it's time we moved on. Not just Japan, but America as well. It's pointless condemning the children and grandchildren of those in the war for the actions of their fathers and grandfathers. Hatred just breeds hatred.

As an aside, I've visited the Nagasaki Peace Park in Nagasaki, Japan. The people there weren't hateful of Americans that I saw. Somber? Sure. But not hateful or angry towards Americans.


Yea. That was pretty much my point. It was a long time ago and those who were involved can go ahead and go back and forth with each other for all I care but it's pointless for the younger uninvolved generations. I just wanted to be a bit technical about how anyone has the right to complain versus should they complain.

Interesting about the evacuation notice though. I was either never taught about it or just forgot about it but it doesn't sound familiar. Not that it changes how I feel or anything just interesting to learn something new about such an old topic.


BearSol wrote:


justanotherguy_2005 wrote:

Of course they have the right to complain. Is what they did wrong too? Sure. Can those other people complain about Japan? Of course. They needed to be stopped. We didn't care about their lives and only wanted to save our own and save costs. Was it right to just blast them instead of invading them? Doesn't matter at this point. It's been done and over with for a long time. It was a war and shit happens during wars.


You're grossly misinformed. I don't know who has been teaching you this or if you're just making stuff up, but the point of using the bombs was to limit the lives lost. It was the couple hundred thousand lives versus a couple hundred million if the US and Russia had to invade Japan like they were planning.


As I said it was definitely to limit our own lives lost and I will agree that it did cost less lives for Japan as well. But what guarantee was there that it would make Japan surrender? If they hadn't then the invasion would still have been necessary and the bombs would have essentially been a pretty awful weapon to use without a really good result.
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 4/13/15
Yes, a lot od civilians were hit by that bomb and that was the goal.
To hit the people that did nothing wrong simply because that was the greatest concentration of the population.
And they were still trialed, so getting bombed wasn't like a form of punishment.
Now there are laws to protect regular people.
49909 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / So Cal
Offline
Posted 4/13/15 , edited 4/13/15

justanotherguy_2005 wrote:


BearSol wrote:


justanotherguy_2005 wrote:

Of course they have the right to complain. Is what they did wrong too? Sure. Can those other people complain about Japan? Of course. They needed to be stopped. We didn't care about their lives and only wanted to save our own and save costs. Was it right to just blast them instead of invading them? Doesn't matter at this point. It's been done and over with for a long time. It was a war and shit happens during wars.


You're grossly misinformed. I don't know who has been teaching you this or if you're just making stuff up, but the point of using the bombs was to limit the lives lost. It was the couple hundred thousand lives versus a couple hundred million if the US and Russia had to invade Japan like they were planning.


As I said it was definitely to limit our own lives lost and I will agree that it did cost less lives for Japan as well. But what guarantee was there that it would make Japan surrender? If they hadn't then the invasion would still have been necessary and the bombs would have essentially been a pretty awful weapon to use without a really good result.


A weapon like that had never been used and would have eventually been used anyways. The US weren't the only ones working on it at the time. The results would definitely have been unknown, but so would the result of using canons for the first time. I doubt the first victim of canon-fire surrendered after the first shot, even though the awesome power must have seemed overwhelming.

We were about to launch a full-scale invasion if the 2nd didn't work, but nobody wanted that. With the US to the South and the USSR to the North, those two bombs were all they needed to realize the war was lost for them and that was good for everyone.
8701 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Definitely not EU
Offline
Posted 4/13/15 , edited 4/13/15


It's not about what I 'believed' it's about what happened. It's you other people that 'believe' the nukes were justified. And yes, I know of plans to attack Japan head on, that's what you do in a war, you plan, and plan some more, plan ahead, and have a backup plan, however all that became meaningless when Russians posed a threat to Japan which caused them to surrender. If you really think the Nukes would of made Japan surrender, why did it take 2 nukes, and it wasn't until 2 weeks later? I guess they wanted to do some more killing before calling it a day? Makes no sense what so ever to say they surrendered 2 weeks later because of a nuke.



The only factual stuff in your post was the causalities. The rest of it is your own made up comment that isn't documented. Saying 'they needed a shock', wtf. What I said is a fact anyway, they did surrender because of the Russians go read it up, if your opinion is different then it's wrong. 'Japanese officials' didn't say what you written, so don't try make it seem your comment is valid.
867 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / ihlok
Offline
Posted 4/13/15
1 bomb, i don't think so. 2 bombs, 1 uranium based and the other plutonium based. why does that feel like live bomb testing?
27705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / TX
Offline
Posted 4/13/15 , edited 4/13/15

BearSol wrote:




We were about to launch a full-scale invasion if the 2nd didn't work, but nobody wanted that. With the US to the South and the USSR to the North, those two bombs were all they needed to realize the war was lost for them and that was good for everyone.


I haven't had the pleasure of speaking to any one who fought for the Japanese but I have had the pleasure of talking to some veterans several months ago. I listen to the stories they had about what the Japanese had done to p.o.w's and how they were stationed to be the first wave for an ground invasion. All of them spoke about what they were thinking about how they tried there best to sleep but " forgive me I don't remember what time they drop the bombs" while they were resting preparing to invade the next day they all felt an quake and were jostled awake. Then they found out later that the U.S. drop a bomb and they were not needed for a ground invasion just security and cleanup. They thank god for the men who made the bomb because they were sure they all were going to die if they had to try a ground invasion. Personally I believe the bombs saved more lives in the end.

I won't discuss the morality of the bombs that has been augured and will be discuss every year till the end of time.

":On topic"
I believe you could regret the your past actions as a necessary evil and move forward to prevent a repeat of past mistakes. If you allow the pass hold you down then no progress can be made to go forward. Every nation did something that cost thousands of lives but that is a side effect from war. The Germans, Russians, Japanese and Americans. Every one did something that is lamentable but to prevent it from holding discussions that could allow you to move forward is what is truly sad. If every nation moved forward and forgive past transgression then the world will be a slightly better place then it is now. Here's hoping Japan and America will continue to work as allies in the future.
9565 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Laguna Hills, Cal...
Offline
Posted 4/13/15 , edited 4/14/15


DanteVSTheWorld
It was unnecessary to drop atomic bombs to end WWII. Generals including Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur, and a lot more people who were in the military then, believed that Japan would've surrendered eventually without dropping atomic bombs. Eisenhower believed atomic bombs were not the answer and refused to support the idea of killing civilians.

Japan having no navy, no air force, getting beaten by the Chinese, and their people starving, Japan was essentially defeated by 1945.

In fact, what ended WWII was the Soviet Union's declaration of war on Japan followed by the subsequent Soviet invasion of Manchuria. Looking back, historians now believe that Japan surrendered specifically on August 15th due to the Soviet intervention. By that date all hope in Manchuria was lost and Japan faced a potential Soviet invasion. The Soviet intervention had a much more profound effect than the atomic bombings (Japan introduced martial law after the Soviets declared war). If the US sat back and did nothing Japan would've still surrendered on August 15th.

The atomic bombs did nothing but kill 250,000 people, of which 20,000 of them were Koreans and 3,200 of them were Japanese Americans. The fact that 3,200 Americans were killed by the atomic bombings compared to 2,300 Americans killed at Pearl Harbour, means that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed more American citizens than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour did.
The decision to use atomic bombs was a total disregard for human life. Lets not forget both bombs were designed differently, probably to see what effects it would of caused, and they were timed to detonate at just the right altitude for maximum damage. The US Government being the terrorists they are just wanted to test the bombs. It is an absolute joke that there are actually people who believe the atomic bombs saved lives.

Lets not even talk about if Nazi Germany happened to use a Nuke against the US, they would of all been hanged for war crimes.


Finally someone who knows there history!
20904 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 4/13/15
Bro Do you even geopolitics?! Do you even History? Do you even law?! I mean it is not like Germany Greece stuff you know, Japan is a close allied to US now at day who would like to complain when the 2 countries economies are merged together.
49909 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / So Cal
Offline
Posted 4/13/15


And if you want to learn the facts about what I said, you could also, in your own words, "look it up."

You forgot your lmao and now I can't P.S. with one.
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 4/13/15 , edited 4/14/15
Christ, kids today.



The only reason Japan is still Japan is because of Fat Man and Little Boy. Otherwise that would be Southern US Base Nippon and Russian Atlantic Fleet Command Yaponiya

36990 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Bellingham WA, USA
Offline
Posted 4/13/15
Also if Russia had installed a Communist regime in the north, the island could have become another Korea. Between them and the Chinese the Korean war could have become a nuclear world war 3 since using the bomb would have been a more appealing prospect with nobody having seen the real ramifications of using it.

I don't know, there's just a lot of interesting scenarios that could have played out if it had come to land invasion. I'm not convinced that the world would have been better off. But who really knows in such a 'what if' situation like that?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.