Would you have used the atom bomb on Japan in WWII if you were Prez?

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by slackercruster, Feb 20, 2017.

?

Would you have used the atom bomb on Japan in WWII if you were Prez?

  1. Yes

    85 vote(s)
    67.5%
  2. No

    41 vote(s)
    32.5%
  1. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    YOU claim dropping the atom bombs was mass murder. Most of your "experts" either directly participated or could have stopped it, but did not. Therefore, in YOUR statements YOUR experts were knowingly accessories to mass murder - and they knew it as they did so - according to you. I say it was ending the murdering and ending the war. General Marshall's opinion of other commanders is irrelevant to anything.It is ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS that you think it is.

    Marshall wanted the war to end ASAP so he did not have to keep writing letters to American parents, wives and children that their son, husband, father had been killed by the Japanese. He was the military commander who got it 100% right. The killing ended because the war ended.
     
  2. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know, but can't post it.
     
  3. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dude General Marshall approved of those attacks. So YOUR expert is then a mas murderer too! LOL
     
  4. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, you really do not understand how American government works. The President made the call. Most of your experts were as much involved, but according to you they believed it was mass murder as they were doing so. General Marshall saw it as ending the war and saving lives, and he was correct. It was your experts who decided they would go along with what they believed was mass murder, not Marshall. He knew using the bombs would save millions of lives.
     
  5. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    General Marshall did as he was told. The president made a political call....and it was an atrocity
     
  6. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah, the view that the only good Chinaman is a dead Chinaman, huh? You think the Japanese should at least been given a few more weeks to slaughter Chinese.

    Name ANY time ANY Japanese commander ever surrendered when defeat was certain. You are claiming that is what the Japanese would have done. So name ONE TIME the Japanese ever did? ONE TIME the Emperor or military commander ordered their troops anywhere to surrender when defeat and slaughter of the Japanese troops was inevitable.

    That is your claim, so give one example, any example.
     
  7. ThirdTerm

    ThirdTerm Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2012
    Messages:
    4,318
    Likes Received:
    456
    Trophy Points:
    83
    There was another war going on in China at the time, which was fought between the Kuomintang (KMT)-led government and forces loyal to the Communist Party of China (CPC). At least 8,000,000 people lost their lives because of the Chinese civil war, while the number of casualties killed in the war against the Japanese military was 6,000,000.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2017
    hoosier88 likes this.
  8. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are speaking of 2 different conflicts. The number estimated killed by the Japanese is as high as 14 million. Because the Chinese engaged in starvation tactics, biological warfare from disease to poisoning water to deadly slave labor, the total number can not be calculated. The civil war was another matter, also with millions of casualties.
     
  9. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hiroshima was Japan's primary (and largest) military port. It was the port from which all of their genocidal invasions of their neighbors were launched from. At the time of the bombing it held tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers, many of them awaiting deployment to resist our invasion, giving it the highest soldier/civilian ratio of any Japanese city, and the highest number of soldiers overall of any Japanese city other than Tokyo (which was a much larger city).

    Hiroshima also held the military headquarters in charge of repelling any invasion that we made in the southern half of Japan.

    The second A-bomb exploded over an industrial district to the north of Nagasaki, directly between two large weapons factories, the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works and the Mitsubishi Ordnance Works.

    The Mitsubishi Ordnance Works was closely connected to the Pearl Harbor attack, as the harbor had been regarded as immune to air-dropped torpedoes because the water was so shallow that the torpedoes would simply embed themselves in the mud. Japan had to come up with specially-modified torpedoes in order to attack Pearl Harbor, and the Mitsubishi Ordnance Works was the place that did it.


    What principle of law is supposed to have been violated?

    As for the question of whether people living today would have used the bombs, there are a lot of variables that can impact that answer. Are we presuming that we know only what Truman knew when he made the decision?

    Or are we presuming that we know all the information that is available to us today?

    If we are incorporating later information, do we consider that not ending WWII with A-bombs would probably mean a much larger and more horrific nuclear war later on?


    Looking at it from hindsight, it appears that Japan gave up on their plan to bleed us once we overran their defenses on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. They must have figured that if we could do that, we could also overrun Honshu.

    But the Soviet war declaration certainly put a stop to their plan to have the Soviets mediate for them.


    I've always heard that Japan killed 23,000,000 Chinese (and 30,000,000 Asians overall).

    I remember I once jumped into a thread about the A-bombings on an Asian board, and due to the language difficulties someone from Vietnam thought that I was a Japanese person complaining about the A-bombs. I received a long lecture on just how horribly Japan had treated all of their neighbors.

    Given my country's own awkward history with Vietnam, and because I didn't want to embarrass the guy from speaking out on the matter in the future, I decided to just withdraw rather than set the record straight. But wow. There are still some very hard feelings there in Asia. Northern Ireland has nothing on those guys.


    Likewise, you keep attacking the enemy right up until the end. Thus the two A-bombs, both of which came before any surrender offers.


    Very unlikely.

    You certainly haven't provided any evidence to contradict me.


    Aside from Ike voicing unpersuasive opposition to only a single person (and only just before they were dropped when it was already too late to stop them regardless), not one of the military leaders tried to oppose using the A-bombs.


    But aside from Ike's incredibly feeble opposition, you didn't cite any of them trying to oppose the A-bombs.


    Well, you didn't cite any of them trying to oppose the A-bombs (except for Ike, and his opposition was too feeble to count for anything).

    You certainly cited them saying other things.


    I've seen that aside from Ike's incredibly feeble opposition, none of your quotes were about any attempt to stop the A-bombs.


    Ike said that to a single person, unconvincingly, just before the A-bombs were dropped when there was no way to stop them regardless.

    None of the other military leaders tried to oppose using the A-bombs.


    No. Decisions over whether to attack the enemy are a military call.

    And attacks on military targets are not atrocities.


    Thermobaric weapons are great ways to incinerate terrorists. But they are not replacements for nuclear weapons.

    Speaking of incinerated terrorists, Trump's expanded drone strikes nailed a major al-Qa'ida leader about a month ago.


    If I replied individually that would swamp the thread with my replies. Plus, until very recently this place automatically gathered multiple replies into one post.


    Anti-Semitism is really really horrible.:(


    The question wasn't about dates. The question was what modern-day statute or principle do you believe would have been violated.


    That's how the law works. Statutes clearly spell out what actions are prohibited.


    Do you think that such people exist?


    There is no statute or legal principle today that would outlaw anything of the sort.


    Your post was quite easy to understand. You can't point to any modern statute or legal principle that would have outlawed the A-bombings.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2017
  10. WittySocrates

    WittySocrates Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I would lean towards no (that is how I voted) but I would like to have access to all the information that the president (which I doubt would be possible) before I made a final decision.
     
  11. ThirdTerm

    ThirdTerm Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2012
    Messages:
    4,318
    Likes Received:
    456
    Trophy Points:
    83
    From the invasion of China in 1937 to the end of World War II, the Japanese military regime murdered near 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most probably almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war.

    https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM

    I think my previous estimate was actually accurate, according to the University of Hawaii, and it could be as low as 3,000,000. The Chinese are prone to exaggeration, often ten times higher than actual death tolls, and the Communist government can also control information at will for propaganda purposes just like North Korea does.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2017
  12. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No way to really know for the reasons given. The Japanese are major economic players in Hawaii so it likely the estimate would be on the low side. China probably on the high side. But when disease, starvation and other ultimate causes of deaths the number is likely quite high. It could depend on what is counted as being killed by the Japanese. For example, would disease and starvation deaths resulting from the Japanese war in China be counted as deaths caused by the Japanese? This would be almost impossible to calculate.

    My point was that it was not just the war between the USA and Japan that was going on, but the massive war going on in China that predated our entry into the war - and was still going on.
     
  13. Ninian

    Ninian Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,902
    Likes Received:
    756
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What principle of law was violated, when Joseph Stalin massively resettled nations, that had potential of collaborating with Nazy during world war? What principle of law was violated when Polish uprising and Soviet Union did not cooperated, which resulted in failure of rebellion and mass repressions of polish people by germans? What principle of law was violated when germans mass bombed cities of Soviet Union during their initial attack, slaughtering civilians in thousands in just a few hours? What principle of law was violated, when British airforce bombed the Dresden into a dead wasteland? What principle of law was violated when USA firebombed Tokyo?

    What principle of law is violated by atrosities, in which thousands suffer, loose their homes, their beloved, get injured or die?


    ...and what we worth, if we ever repeat these mistakes?
     
    Diamond likes this.
  14. WCH

    WCH Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    196
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Hiroshima was a major military target and Nagasaki was a secondary target selection but, because of weather conditions, was selected. Much of their civilian population was spared.

    http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=49

    As mentioned before, rules set forth by the Geneva convention didn't happen until after WWII.

    If you are interested in how the targets were selected;

    http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2017
    JakeJ likes this.
  15. Diamond

    Diamond Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,850
    Likes Received:
    376
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You don't know how that trillion dollars was spent? We for starters it was spent in hardware and supplies, shipping costs and fuel, munitions and medical, and finally $10 billion dollars a year following the conclusion of the war in reconstruction. The hardware (vehicles) alone aren't cheap to build, maintain, fuel. Some of that expensive hardware is either destroyed or (at best) shipped back for resale at a fraction of the price in the 1033 program. However, billions of dollars worth of perfectly fine hardware is left behind because bring it back home cost more than that hardware is even worth. This is where having allies in a region become critical, because to avoid shipping costs we often store our hardware in allied nations (kept on ready status), but that comes with a cost also. Israel has reserved the right to tap into our storage depot they house (in the case of emergency) plus they already receive more foreign aid than any other nation in the world (primarily from the US, and primarily military aid). Yet there is also a "cost" in abandoning perfectly good military hardware on the battlefield (to avoid shipping costs) when it falls into enemy hands as a result (like happened in Iraq with ISIS). It becomes a catch-22, forcing the US to redeploy (with new equipment) and repeat the costly process all over again. If you are unfamiliar with these cost it isn't hard to research (I could link several sources on this but the information is vast and not hard for anyone to discover on their own). Oh, and I almost forgot the VA cost that follows every war.
     
  16. Diamond

    Diamond Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,850
    Likes Received:
    376
    Trophy Points:
    83
    That's funny, because I think the most bigoted anti-Semitic people on Earth are the ones that call themselves Zionists.
     
  17. Diamond

    Diamond Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,850
    Likes Received:
    376
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Are you unfamiliar with this? If so, you should take some time today to review it? If you're too lazy to do this little homework exercise then don't expect me indulge in your fantasy conversation of willful ignorance. And lets be clear about what "Law" is; Law is a reflection on a society's learning-curve to maintain civility and order (key word being "learning"). Once it is discovered that something is a "bad idea", rules are written to prevent other from continuing to repeat the same mistake.

    Here (in this thread) we are discussing if nuking Japan was the best way to defeat Japan in WWII. But Japan never had to be "defeated" to bring about their surrender. And it most definitely didn't need to be done at the cost of innocent civilian lives. Neutralizing Japan's Navy was all that was ever required to eliminate their advancements in WWII. Your Japanophobia ignores that today Japan is a crucial ally of the US. Stiring the pot of Japanese being sub-human isn't helping, perhaps there should be some sort of law against that also because right now (as a result of such sentiment) Japan is seeking it's military emancipation from the US. They want their independence back, and if they get it you can kiss goodbye the cars, computers, cell phones. You can kiss goodbye Taiwan, and lets not forget, China is not a US ally, so if China and Japan get into it again then we lose not only access to Chinese trade deals, but also all of our outsourced Jobs in SE Asia take a heavy hit. And today, the US is not the only one with nukes. If you don't think Pakistan is going to get caught in the cross-fire you are highly mistaken. And then India would jump on Pakistan, all of Asia will errupt. Oh but excuse my hyper-bowling because that would never happen, because nobody is stupid enough to allow that to happen (right?)
     
  18. Diamond

    Diamond Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,850
    Likes Received:
    376
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Is China a US ally (prior to WWII, during WWII, or following WWII)?
    In total, 49 civilians were killed and 35 wounded during the attack on Oahu.
    Civilians

    Ewa

    Yaeko Lillian Oda, 6 Francisco Tacderan, 34
    Honolulu

    John Kalauwae Adams, 18 Joseph Kanehoa Adams, 50
    Nancy Masako Arakaki, 8 Patrick Kahamokupuni Chong, 30
    Matilda Kaliko Faufata, 12 Emma Gonsalves, 34
    Ai Harada, 54 Kisa Hatate, 41
    Fred Masayoshi Higa, 21 Jackie Yoneto Hirasaki, 8
    Jitsuo Hirasaki, 48 Robert Yoshito Hirasaki, 3
    Shirley Kinue Hirasaki, 2 Paul S. Inamine, 19
    Robert Seiko Izumi, 25 David Kahookele, 23
    Edward Koichi Kondo, 19 Peter Souza Lopes, 33
    George Jay Manganelli, 14 Joseph McCabe, Sr., 43
    Masayoshi Nagamine, 27 Frank Ohashi, 29
    Hayako Ohta, 19 Janet Yumiko Ohta, 3 months
    Kiyoko Ohta, 21 Barbara June Ornellas, 8
    Gertrude Ornellas, 16 James Takao Takefuji, aka Koba, 20
    Yoshio Tokusato, 19 Hisao Uyeno, 20
    Alice White, 42 Eunice Wilson, 7 months
    John Rodgers Airport

    Robert H. Tyce, 38
    Kaneohe Bay Naval Air Station

    Kamiko Kookano, 35 Isaac William Lee, 21
    Pearl City

    Rowena Kamohaulani Foster, 3
    Wahiawa

    Chip Soon Kim, 66 Richard Masaru Soma, 22
    Waipahu

    Tomoso Kimura, 19
    Honolulu Fire Department

    Hickam Field

    John Carriera, 51 Thomas Samuel Macy, 59
    Harry Tuck Lee Pang, 30

    Federal Government Employees
    Hickam Field

    August Akina, 37 Philip Ward Eldred, 36 Virgil P. Rahel, age unknown
    Pearl Harbor

    Tai Chung Loo, 19
    Red Hill

    Daniel LaVerne, 25
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2017
  19. WCH

    WCH Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    196
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    28
    It's common for the military to give away, discard or bury used hardware. [I grew up next to the largest military installation in the US]

    I have it on good word from military people in my family that most of the vehicles had their axles cut so the enemy couldn't use them.

    Regardless, war is Hell and it's expensive....it terms of hardware and personnel.
     
  20. Diamond

    Diamond Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,850
    Likes Received:
    376
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yes it is expensive, but contrary to what people in your family are familiar with how the US goes about disabling equipment left behind, those policies weren't done in Iraq because right now ISIS is driving around in US Humvees and M1-Abrams
    [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  21. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Another message that takes the view that the only good Chinaman is a dead Chinaman since isolating Japan - which you claim was possible - would not have eliminated the Japanese military in China. With your stance that Japan would not be bombed and allowed to rebuild also means Japan could turn all its attention to the war in China. The short naval distance meant trying to blockaid Japan from China would be a slaughter of US ships by Kamikazi planes off the mainland - which your plan is to allow them to build all the planes the Japanese wanted to.

    Why would Japan surrender? Japan never would surrender. In every instance when the Japanese military faced certain defeat and annihilation on island after island, neither the Emperor, the commander of the Japanese on the island, nor the commander of the Japanese military ever allowed or ordered the troops to surrender. They were ordered to fight to the last Japanese and rather than surrender they would do suicide charges.

    NAME ANY TIME THE JAPANESE SURRENDERED? EVER? You can't. Claiming the Japanese would have surrendered if we just left them alone is so absurd and so contrary to reality that it can only stem from the Democrat Party duty to hate the USA, the USA's history and Americans in general.

    The challenge is to you. Name anytime the Japanese surrendered even when facing certain defeat, starvation, and annihilation? It had been Japan's culture for centuries of death before the dishonor of cowardly surrender. It is just arrogance to believe they and everyone else all live and die by YOUR values. They did not and this proven over and over and over - at the expense of tens of thousands of American casualties.

    The Emperor stated why he surrendered. He believed the atom bombs meant the literal extinction of the Japanese people. Without them Japan would have never surrendered. If left alone Japan would have rearmed with their more advanced weapons and continued to kill Americans, Chinese and Russians.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2017
  22. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The absurd level of bias is evidenced in your leaving Japan off your list of killing civilians. It seems fairly clear you think Japan was in the right, was entirely correct in their military actions, and should rightly have won the war. Mostly that Japan was right to slaughter millions of Chinese and regrettably the atom bombs forced the just and noble Japanese ended the Japanese killing evil Chinese civilians.

    The mistake of defeating the Japanese in WW2? The mistake of ending the the war?
     
  23. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Japan was counting on people such as their supporters on this thread who did not have the stomach to actual win the war if Japan used their civilians as human shields. Thus, Japan could never be defeated and could fight on within increasingly advanced weapons and an endless supply of troops among their 70 million population.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2017
  24. AlifQadr

    AlifQadr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2016
    Messages:
    3,077
    Likes Received:
    899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I voted no for the simple fact that Nippon was surrendering, so there was no need to use the Nipponese people as test dummies. Heck, if the atomic bomb was not used on Deutschland, where more lives were actually lost in the European Theater, why use said bomb on Nippon?
     
  25. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Germany never surrendered until every inch of Germany defeated and occupied. The reason more lives lost in Europe is because we had to overrun Germany. The casualty prediction to overrun Japan was 1+million Americans and tens of millions of Japanese.

    Japan was not surrendering. That is nieve. Surrender was cowardice to the Japanese and they did not share your surrender perspective. Their's was victory or death - always. Neither the Emperor or Japanese military ever ordered surrender on any island even if the troops faced total starvation or annihilation. They were ordered to fight to the last person. Give ANY example of Japan surrendering other than with the atom bombs?
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2017
    ArmySoldier likes this.

Share This Page