ralian said:I hope that we can avoid the usage of atomic bomb on people permanently.
I've read this somewhere before, "we are like monkeys playing with matches. "
☝
Maciamo said:Sensuikan San, I agree on Truman's decision to drop the bombs. The A-bomb may be a fearsome invention, but it has prevented a higher and bloodier death toll in regular fighting,
.
We could also imagine that if the US had finally defeated Japan without using the A-bomb, the first use of the A-bomb in war would have been during the cold war between the US and Russia, when both of them would have had the bomb.
So it could be that the example of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have prevented a subsequent worldwide nuclear holocaust.
Dream Time said:had America not dropped the two bombs on Japan, Japan would have fought til the last man standing.
... is a commonly made assertion but not one capable of proof.Dream Time said:had America not dropped the two bombs on Japan, Japan would have fought til the last man standing.
Dream Time said:had America not dropped the two bombs on Japan, Japan would have fought til the last man standing.
PaulTB said:... is a commonly made assertion but not one capable of proof.
Maciamo said:One of the evidence was the Battle of Okinawa (April to June 1945, just 2 months before the A-bomb was dropped), where everybody, including civilians, women, children and elderly fought the US troops or committed mass suicide, as they were told it was better than being taken prisoner by the barbaric Americans that would rape and torture them (it's only natural the Japanese would believe that, as it was the way the Japanese soliders treated the locals in conquered countries). This sole battle cost the lives of over 100,000 civilians and 76,000 soldiers. That's already more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, and Okinawa is one of the least populous region of Japan !
Dream Time said:had America not dropped the two bombs on Japan, Japan would have fought til the last man standing.
Anthraquinone said:Japan opened fire on Dec. 08, 1941....
The president of the united states ignored the japanese attack
although he knew the attack comes in advance.
Maciamo said:This sole battle cost the lives of over 100,000 civilians and 76,000 soldiers. That's already more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined
Index said:Not really. Estimates of the casualties come to about three hundred and fifty thousand, taking into account long term radiation damage.
Anthraquinone said:The president of the united states ignored the japanese attack
although he knew the attack comes in advance.
I think they intended to declare war when it was too late to do much about it.Index said:like PaulTB said, the Japanese intended to declare war on the U.S., but the declaration got lost in the paperwork and in the meantime Pearl Harbour happened.
Index said:Here's some more if you're interested.
PaulTB said:That counts as evidence to the likelihood of certain outcomes but it doesn't count as proof.
That sort of 'if world' speculation is all very well but however well founded it is it isn't Fact.
Index said:The Pearl Harbour attack is a terrible example of bureaucratic red tape though; like PaulTB said, the Japanese intended to declare war on the U.S., but the declaration got lost in the paperwork and in the meantime Pearl Harbour happened.
Not at all. It just needs an "I think", an "Available evidence suggests" or similar sentiment.Maciamo said:But this kind of thinking unfortunately kills all discussions.
Maciamo said:Anyhow, psychologists will tell you that it is better to manipulate the public opinion, call for a war effort and recruit soldiers to wait for an attack on one's soil (Pearl Harbor, 9/11...) than to be ready for the attack and counter-attack before any damage is done. So even if the US knew about the intention of the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbour, it was probably preferable from the government's point of view to wait, get hit, then call for a massive revenge. That's how US politics work.
Maciamo said:Sensuikan San, I agree on Truman's decision to drop the bombs. The A-bomb may be a fearsome invention, but it has prevented a higher and bloodier death toll in regular fighting, and later prevented the cold war to degenerate into an open war. What's more the total death toll for both Nagasaki and Hiroshima was lower about 100x lower than the total number of civilians killed by the Japanese around Asia. So it is a "measured atrocity", probably necessary to avoid more horrendous atrocities to happen.
We could also imagine that if the US had finally defeated Japan without using the A-bomb, the first use of the A-bomb in war would have been during the cold war between the US and Russia, when both of them would have had the bomb. The probability of an open nuclear war would have been higher, as nobody would have been sure of the destructive power and side-effects of the bombs, and therefore thought less about using it. So it could be that the example of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have prevented a subsequent worldwide nuclear holocaust.
PaulTB said:Cite? As far as I know Japan intended to announce the attack shortly before it actually occurred but its delivery was delayed and the decyphered message was actually handed over after the attack had already taken place.