Posted on 08/08/2015 4:27:51 AM PDT by Kaslin
Wow, so you’re justifying a sneak attack on the U.S. when war had not been declared by either nation? Are you sure you’re on the right web site?
And to answer your last question - it ended the war and saved many, many more lives than it cost, including Japanese lives. If you don’t think that’s the case, you need a history lesson.
That would echo through the mountains but otherwise accomplished nothing. Nuking Mecca however, is another story.
We should have celebrated 08 August by flying a formation of B-52s from the US, over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and back, just to remind the entire world that we not only don’t owe the Japanese an apology but that we are ready to repeat the treatment whenever and wherever it is needed...
We really need to nuke someone again.
Nobody believes that we’d ever use a nuke gain, sonukes are not a threat.
Nuke ISIS just once and I’d bet that we have 50 years without having to worry about muzzie terroists.
I'm sure this is why al-Qaeda had no qualms about the death toll on 9/11.
And your belief that there was no state of war between the U.S. and Japan before Pearl Harbor is delusional at best, and deceptive at worst. Do some research on a guy by the name of Claire Lee Chennault. The U.S. military had drafted plans to bomb Japanese cities from mainland China before December of 1941, and began shipping the aircraft and munitions there in October of that year.
war sucks, the point is to win, the Germans bombed civilians in England in an attempt to demoralize them, the japanese took out Pearl Harbor in an attempt to castrate our navy and demoralize us, the United states fire bombed Germany and Japan in an attempt to demoralize the people. I don’t think you can play the justification game with war, if you’re in it you have to do your best to win. It is apparent in korea and Vietnam what happens when you go half assed.
War is hell.
Exactly what are the proper limitations in war?
Compared to the firestorms in other Japanese cities from incendiary bombs, the Atomic Bombs were simply more efficient, although their production more or less negated that efficiency.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valid military targets. Fact.
Any reservations about the use of our Atomic Bombs is absurd. In the end, their use finally pushed the Japanese to capitulate. Millions of lives on both sides of the war were thus spared. Fact.
Are you suggesting there aren't any?
Really? By that rationale, would New York City be a valid military target today?
Any reservations about the use of our Atomic Bombs is absurd.
No, it's not. It's based on sound moral principles, in fact.
As for NYC, possibly, but that is a typically ridiculous semantic.
Moral principles? Nonsense.
What was the ultimate difference between the results of Hiroshima being bombed and Tokyo being bombed?
From what I understand, the two cities on which the bombs were dropped were where their factories of war equipment and ammunition were produced. Also, the US dropped leaflets for days before the bombs were dropped, warning them to evacuate those cities. The blame rests solely on the back of the emperor, who did not order the evacuation. At least warning was given. There was no warning for the sailors at Pearl Harbor.
I have a hypothetical question. Let’s say the Imperial War Council after the bombs had fallen refused to surrender. It was a close vote so it could easily have happened. No more bombs immediately available for at least a while. What should have the US done then? Wait for more bombs meanwhile continuing conventional bombing or set about to invade with conventional land forces as well or something else?
Nothing. I've never suggested that there was a difference.
As for NYC, possibly, but that is a typically ridiculous semantic.
Certainly not to Osama bin Laden.
That goes right to the heart of one of my primary objections to what the author of this article has stated. If the Japanese "deserved to be nuked," then why did the emperor live out his days in peace and die a natural death?
If the emperor was solely to blame, then wouldn't it logically follow that any military action -- with weapons designed for mass destruction, mind you -- that didn't involve the destruction of the emperor's palace was clearly misguided and (ultimately) unjustified?
Again, a distinctly different motive and rationale, along with an undeniably incomparable “setting”.
The Japanese surrendered after the two atomic bombs were dropped. Therefore, these two massive strikes on civilian populations were justified.
It doesn't work that way. Everything I've read indicates that the U.S. only had two atomic bombs at the time, so there must have been a scenario in place to deal with a situation where the Japanese did not surrender after the second one was dropped. If the Japanese didn't surrender after the firebombing of Tokyo in March of 1945, then surely there couldn't have been any certainty that the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have different results.
Such as? Under the circumstances, the use of two atomic bombs was morally sound. The alternative (your alternative) is stalemate and a militarized Japan that remains a threat until they develop nuclear weapons. Then, if we are lucky, a Cold War in which we hope Japan does not ally with the Soviets.
Your other question is what are the limits to war? There are none and destruction of the world is possible. But it would not be the USA destroying the world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.