Has any single plane ever saved so many lives?

[Dowding]

Dago, just ignore Dowding. That guy will argue anything, just to hear his own keyboard, I think.

I think I'm going to cry into my beer.

[Thrawn]

In my opinion a Nagasaki = a Dresden.

It's the willfull targeting of noncombatants.  And that is immoral.  I imagine just about everyone would agree with that in this day and age.

Look at how war is perpetrated now.  Every procaution is taken to minimize civilian causalities.  And they certainly aren't targeted.  At least not usual.  And if some group decides to target civilians.  We call them terrorists.


I noticed that most people, who defend the atomic bombings of Japan, like to think that there were only two options.  Of course, this is necessary in order for thier arguements to be valid.  The see the US as having only the option of bombing Japan, or invading Japan.


However, Animal did bring up a third option.  Demostrating the power of atomic weapons without targeting Japan itself.  

Martlet speculated that this won't have had the desired effect.  To Martlets speculation, I ask, wouldn't it have been better for the US government to try it out instead just speculating, especially with tens of thousands of civilian lives on the line?

[DiabloTX]

Originally posted by Thrawn
In my opinion a Nagasaki = a Dresden.

It's the willfull targeting of noncombatants.  And that is immoral.  I imagine just about everyone would agree with that in this day and age.

Look at how war is perpetrated now.  Every procaution is taken to minimize civilian causalities.  And they certainly aren't targeted.  At least not usual.  And if some group decides to target civilians.  We call them terrorists.


I noticed that most people, who defend the atomic bombings of Japan, like to think that there were only two options.  Of course, this is necessary in order for thier arguements to be valid.  The see the US as having only the option of bombing Japan, or invading Japan.


However, Animal did bring up a third option.  Demostrating the power of atomic weapons without targeting Japan itself.  

Martlet speculated that this won't have had the desired effect.  To Martlets speculation, I ask, wouldn't it have been better for the US government to try it out instead just speculating, especially with tens of thousands of civilian lives on the line?

It is unfortunate that civilians had to perish as a result of these bombings.  However, understand that what preceded the bombings;

Japan, via Russia, was trying to obtain a CONDITIONAL surrender and not an UNCONDITIONAL surrender as demanded (and TOTALLY justified) by the US.  Truman takes over after FDR passes away in April, 1945.  He is then told about a weapon that can end the war sooner with the potential (read that word again, POTENTIAL) to save hundred's of thousands of lives on BOTH sides.  The only drawback is he only has 3 of them at his disposal.  You have just spent the largest amount of money and resources on this weapon over the last 3 years than on any other weapons program and until testing is done it still may not work.

Demonstrating the weapon to a group of Japanese representatives may or may not have any positive results.  Using the weapon on a hard target has a much better chance of getting the desired results but no guarantees.  The result?  He decides to shorten the war and use them.  2 cities lay in ruins and even after that the Japanese military still wants to continue the fight.  Only in the Emperor's intervening actually starts the peace movement within Japan.  

Yes, the casualties of Olympic are guesstimates at best, but with 2,000,000 troops and 9,000 aircraft ready I don't feel the losses would have justified NOT dropping the bomb.  You can't compare what is being done to today with 60 years ago.  All I know is that Pearl Harbor, the Bataan Death March, the rape of Nanking, and the invasion of Korea and the Phililppines by the Japanese were more than enough to justify using nukes.  It seems most of the anti-nuke people are non-US citizens.  Well, thank Oppenheimer, Leslie Groves, Paul Tibbets and the rest that you aren't speaking Japanese.

[Pooh21]

Originally posted by Dowding
Interchange it with the Ju-88 if it makes you feel better.

Ju-88Gs did save lives

[GRUNHERZ]

From what I know a "demonstration" atomic blast was considered during the war and that option was rejected as they felt the Japanese authorities would percieve it as a trick and so not beleive the impact of the new weapon, end of story.

[SaburoS]

Favor to ask some of you. Please stop referring to "Japs" when you're talking about the Japanese. It is not neccessary. For some it is offensive. That War's over  ( I am half-Japanese from my mother's side ) Thanks in advance.

I don't think warning the Japanese to watch out for "something special" is neccessarily the most prudent move. No telling what interceptors they might have for the waiting reception.

The first one dropped on Japan I don't object to at all. That war was a total war. I'd bet any of the major combatants would have used it on the other side to get a surrender (had they had the capability to deliver it also).

The second one was totally unneccessary IMHO at least for the reasoning of having the other side surrender unconditionally.
The second one was to demonstrate our capabilty to the Soviets, my guess.

Speaking to my Japanese relatives and friends, I got the impression of not a fanatical, suicidal populace willing to go do battle with the invaders, but of total fear of their lives. They believed the American soldiers to be devils that would rape and kill them. Some of them would commit suicide rather than face that "evil." Swords, knives, and spears are no match against an army bearing modern firearms.

Atomic bombings, fire bombings, conventional bombings all that level whole cities and towns are tragic. Sad what humans would do to each other out of hate. That's war for you.

These 20/20 arguments are kind of silly. What's happened we can't change. We can only hope we learn from our mistakes and successes to improve our lot.

Regards.

[SaburoS]

BTW, both B29s can have the claim for individually destroying the most lives and potentially saving the most in their single bombing.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by SaburoS
Favor to ask some of you. Please stop referring to "Japs" when you're talking about the Japanese. It is not neccessary. For some it is offensive. That War's over  ( I am half-Japanese from my mother's side ) Thanks in advance.

 

I wasn't aware "Japs" was offensive.  It wasn't my intent.   My apologies.   I can't keep up with what is PC and what isn't anymore.

[LoneStarBuckeye]

I don't think there is any mystery in why we dropped the bomb.  We did so because we could.  

I would imagine that if you asked the average American that had lived through the horror of WWII, you would have found that he or she would have been willing to trade hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives to save even a few Americans.  I don't think you can underestimate the allure of vengeance.  The fact that we can look at the events of over half a century ago calmly and analytically and through the lens of modern sensibilities will never change the fact that, in 1945, we hated the Japanese and did not weep at the devastation the A-bombs inflicted on the Japanese populace.

I would sum up my feelings on the matter like this:  Dropping the bombs unquestionably saved American lives.  The loss of innocent Japanese lives was a tragedy.  Ultimate responsibility for that tragedy lies with the Japanese government.

[SaburoS]

A question for you all. You are the leader of one of the countries
involved in WWII.You're scientists invented a new super weapon and delivery system that in a single drop will destroy an entire city. It will most likely force an unconditional surrender of the other side as they don't have anything like that yet. I don't care if you speak for Japan, England, Germany, USA, etc. The year is sometime in 1943. You'll be able to hit a target in late '43.

Do you use it?

I would and in a heartbeat.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Martlet
I wasn't aware "Japs" was offensive.  It wasn't my intent.   My apologies.   I can't keep up with what is PC and what isn't anymore.

Thank you, sir.

[Ripsnort]

I stopped using the word "Jap" along time ago out of respect.  Lately, I have found the word "Yank" or "Yanks" offensive, so if you guys would...please refrain from it. I'm serious too, no joking around.

[Curval]

Animal,

Your idea regarding the dropping of the leaflets and then exploding a bomb offshore is a good one, and it was actually considered by the planners.

Problem was....they only had two bombs.....and they had no certain way of knowing whether it would actually go off the way it should.  

The US would have looked very silly advertising the dropping of a bomb if it didn't blow.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Curval
Animal,

Your idea regarding the dropping of the leaflets and then exploding a bomb offshore is a good one, and it was actually considered by the planners.

Problem was....they only had two bombs.....and they had no certain way of knowing whether it would actually go off the way it should.  

The US would have looked very silly advertising the dropping of a bomb if it didn't blow.

Hehe, yeah...like, I love young guys that think that they've thought of something that the US Brass hadn't thought of during this time (Waves to Animal)  (Sigh, guess I too had "all the answers" when I was young, too ...)

Can you imagine..."Hey Japan, watch THIS! {Fizzzzzzzle}..."Er, wait 6 months, we'll be RIGHT BACK!"

[Furball]

Haven't read all posts, but what i have read im suprised no one has mentioned Russia's involvement in the manchuria campaign.  This was also one of the reason's that japan surrendered apparently.

Personally i agree that the atomic bombs were justified - if only to get payback for the POW's - let alone to save 100,000's of lives of not only the allies, but also japanese themselves.

Also the demonstration of power may have stopped future nuclear war because all countries were scared of it. So who knows how many lives it really saved?

War is hell.