The Japanese would rather die with honor than ever surrender. The shit they taught EVERY citizen... I doubt they'd even surrender if it wasn't for the Emperor. If the Emperor told them to keep fighting, they would.
They thought he was a living God. I think the U.S. even made him admit he wasn't to his people.Cybargs wrote:
The Japanese would rather die with honor than ever surrender. The shit they taught EVERY citizen... I doubt they'd even surrender if it wasn't for the Emperor. If the Emperor told them to keep fighting, they would.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
He is pretty much still a living god today. The US just told him to tell the people to surrender and cooperate with the occupation later on. That's why you don't see mass attacks on American troops.-Sh1fty- wrote:
They thought he was a living God. I think the U.S. even made him admit he wasn't to his people.Cybargs wrote:
The Japanese would rather die with honor than ever surrender. The shit they taught EVERY citizen... I doubt they'd even surrender if it wasn't for the Emperor. If the Emperor told them to keep fighting, they would.
At this point I have to question why so many obvious pacifists happily play a game in which the ultimate goal is to shoot their opponent in the head with the main gun of a tank or to gain the satisfaction of watching the rag doll body of their enemy fly through the air after a well tossed grenade. Actually, it does make complete sense because games like these have desensitized people from what war actually is. If this is your base then you could presume that war is very neat and fought only between two different groups of well defined soldiers while civilians magically disappear from sight.
As I've said in a previous post, if a people do not stop their government from waging offensive wars then they are just as guilty of aggression as the lowliest private or the leader of that nation. Whether uniformed or not, they are all soldiers in the struggle for their government, and their culture, to prevail. Unless you flee the country at the start of hostilities, you are giving your approval for the actions of your government, and you become a valid target.
Edit - the previous assumes a modicum of free will in the populace. Serfs and slaves would obviously be innocent but happily they no longer exist in the modern world.
As I've said in a previous post, if a people do not stop their government from waging offensive wars then they are just as guilty of aggression as the lowliest private or the leader of that nation. Whether uniformed or not, they are all soldiers in the struggle for their government, and their culture, to prevail. Unless you flee the country at the start of hostilities, you are giving your approval for the actions of your government, and you become a valid target.
Edit - the previous assumes a modicum of free will in the populace. Serfs and slaves would obviously be innocent but happily they no longer exist in the modern world.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-05 07:52:55)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Ok, just one of those peeves, ya know...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Oh I have seen the debate on it, but I honestly have not seen (or do not remember) this argument that "the Japanese were in the midst of surrendering and we knew it but we dropped the second bomb anyways."
It seems absurd, and if it were true it pretty much invalidates any other argument at least for the second bomb. I have a really hard time believing it's true.
I'm sure you've seen the debate about the leadership in Japan was shaky. This basically is why the argument comes up - the "Peace Party". I've seen articles about them - basically a group debating with the emperor. The argument is eventually the peace party would have won out, because it had contacted the Allies about options...supposably. Of course, right after that happened most of the Peace Party ceased to exist once the emperor found out. So it's one of those - "if their was enough time" arguments.
As far as the need for the second bomb - there was intense pressure to end the war. The bomb = shortest. The invasion = next shortest. Politics = really long time. The major point here is they were going to invade within a few months. A political solution would take longer and would not have guaranteed an outcome acceptable to the Allies (get back on the island, do not keep Korea)
I thought the Emperor was the one who wanted to surrender? AFAIK it was the military officials that were with the whole die with honor before surrender shit. Emperor had little power when it comes to Japanese politics.Pug wrote:
Ok, just one of those peeves, ya know...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Oh I have seen the debate on it, but I honestly have not seen (or do not remember) this argument that "the Japanese were in the midst of surrendering and we knew it but we dropped the second bomb anyways."
It seems absurd, and if it were true it pretty much invalidates any other argument at least for the second bomb. I have a really hard time believing it's true.
I'm sure you've seen the debate about the leadership in Japan was shaky. This basically is why the argument comes up - the "Peace Party". I've seen articles about them - basically a group debating with the emperor. The argument is eventually the peace party would have won out, because it had contacted the Allies about options...supposably. Of course, right after that happened most of the Peace Party ceased to exist once the emperor found out. So it's one of those - "if their was enough time" arguments.
As far as the need for the second bomb - there was intense pressure to end the war. The bomb = shortest. The invasion = next shortest. Politics = really long time. The major point here is they were going to invade within a few months. A political solution would take longer and would not have guaranteed an outcome acceptable to the Allies (get back on the island, do not keep Korea)
What about the Military Coup d'etat that was attempted even after the dropping of both bombs? You think that faction would stand by as the government surrendered without even the motivation that the US had some extremely powerful bombs that could kill hundreds of thousands in one shot? If they were going to surrender at all, they were likely going to surrender to the Russians. Don't you think a communist Japan would have been a little troubling to the US, especially in a time when Cold War tensions were building?Dilbert_X wrote:
The Japanese were more than ready to surrender, it was taking time to grind through their internal political processes but it was going to happen.
The US was well aware of this.
But how many people would the seige kill? Bombings of the cities into oblivion would most likely continue, famine would kill tens of thousands, and the Navy and Air Force who had been preping for an invasion of Japan had plenty of Kamikaze bombers and pilots ready to dive headfirst into American Ships.Dilbert_X wrote:
The US was also well aware Japan is an island with few natural resources, and no Navy or Air Force left.
They could have been surrounded and isolated, there was no need for an invasion.
Oh really? The Americans broadcasted a message saying,Dilbert_X wrote:
You can almost argue the first bomb was 'necessary', although not really.
There is no way you can argue the second bomb was, the Japanese were given no chance to surrender after the first one.
You can hear some of it hereTruman wrote:
The British, Chinese, and United States Governments have given the Japanese people adequate warning of what is in store for them. We have laid down the general terms on which they can surrender. Our warning went unheeded; our terms were rejected. Since then the Japanese have seen what our atomic bomb can do. They can foresee what it will do in the future. The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost. I urge Japanese civilians to leave industrial cities immediately, and save themselves from destruction. I realize the tragic significance of the atomic bomb. Its production and its use were not lightly undertaken by this Government. But we knew that our enemies were on the search for it. We know now how close they were to finding it. And we knew the disaster which would come to this Nation, and to all peace-loving nations, to all civilization, if they had found it first. That is why we felt compelled to undertake the long and uncertain and costly labor of discovery and production. We won the race of discovery against the Germans. Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans. We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan's power to make war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us
As you can see we told them we had more and if they did not surrender immediatly we would use another one. I agree 1 might have been enough if we had waited longer, they could have just as easily shrugged it off and continued to fight thinking that the US is bluffing or something like that. Mind you, the Little Boy was the less powerful then the implosion type devices, so when they dropped the "Fat Man" on Nagasaki the full power of the A-bombs became apparent. There was probably some skepticism among the Japanese about what happened at Hiroshima even being something the US did. I know for a fact that there was a lot of speculation as to what caused the flash that the survivors of Hiroshima saw and what caused the fires. Some though the US had dropped Magnesium powder which had ignited when it hit the phone lines, others believed Americans had parachuted in and set fire to the city. When it happened at Nagasaki it became apparent that whatever it was, this was something the US could do in any city they wanted.
They had already tested the implosion type bomb and they could have tested "Little Boy" just like they had tested Trinity . I take it you are suggesting that they wanted to test it on a city to see what happened. I will not deny that the scientists did want to see how the bomb would affect a densely populated urban center, but that does not diminish the fact that Both bombs were necessary. Yes they did want to frighten the Russians, the russians had spies in the Manhattan project the Nuclear arms race would have occured regardless of whether those bombs were dropped or not. I will not comment on your last statment.Dilbert_X wrote:
The bottom line is the US had two shiny new bombs to test, and they wanted to frighten the Russians back into their hole.
The US was incendiary bombing Japanese cities right from the Doolittle raids onwards, the plan was to annihilate Japan so the US could dominate the Pacific.
Japanese would NEVER surrender to anyone... And never to an enemy they have defeated in the past.
No shit. From a military perspective the war was going to be won either way. From a political and a humanist perspective there were pros and cons to each.Dilbert_X wrote:
So it was a political, not military decision.
You have not a single quote from the only guy that matters.
Who cares any country would have done the same thing in the same situation, probably lucky that out of all the countries it was the US that got the bomb first rather than Japan, or Germany or Russia
He quoted the same people that believed that air power alone won the war, military politicians, and the commanding general in Europe who hadn't fought the Japanese himselfFlaming_Maniac wrote:
No shit. From a military perspective the war was going to be won either way. From a political and a humanist perspective there were pros and cons to each.Dilbert_X wrote:
So it was a political, not military decision.
You have not a single quote from the only guy that matters.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Gotta tell ya, I believe air power did win the war. Air Power alone saved England, and air power alone stopped the invasion of Japan.JohnG@lt wrote:
He quoted the same people that believed that air power alone won the war, military politicians, and the commanding general in Europe who hadn't fought the Japanese himselfFlaming_Maniac wrote:
No shit. From a military perspective the war was going to be won either way. From a political and a humanist perspective there were pros and cons to each.Dilbert_X wrote:
So it was a political, not military decision.
You have not a single quote from the only guy that matters.
Air power alone, stopped the German war machine from producing oil and equipment. Air power allowed ground forces to advance and hold. Japan and Germany lost air supremacy then the war.
Can the air force take and hold ground? The Gulf War proved that it takes more than a dominant display of air power to force an enemy to capitulate. Hap Arnold, Billy Mitchell and Curtis LeMay all thought that with the advent of aviation, all other military branches were obsolete. They also felt that the true role that the air force should play was in long range high altitude bombing. Close air support and interdiction was beneath them. They pushed their doctrine after the war quite hard which is why we ended up with such a gigantic strategic bombing force (B-52s and the like) which proved to be almost useless in the conventional war of Vietnam.lowing wrote:
Gotta tell ya, I believe air power did win the war. Air Power alone saved England, and air power alone stopped the invasion of Japan.JohnG@lt wrote:
He quoted the same people that believed that air power alone won the war, military politicians, and the commanding general in Europe who hadn't fought the Japanese himselfFlaming_Maniac wrote:
No shit. From a military perspective the war was going to be won either way. From a political and a humanist perspective there were pros and cons to each.
You have not a single quote from the only guy that matters.
Air power alone, stopped the German war machine from producing oil and equipment. Air power allowed ground forces to advance and hold. Japan and Germany lost air supremacy then the war.
Those three are among the most arrogant that have ever walked the face of the earth, with egos to match. Of course they thought that Japan would surrender to air power alone!
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-05 16:34:09)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Yes dropping the two nukes was the right thing to do given the alternatives.
Battlefield 2 is just a game, its not real life, and we're all well-aware that we're not actually shooting anybody. War games on computer are the modern day equivilant of buffalo bill and commando comics.JohnG@lt wrote:
At this point I have to question why so many obvious pacifists happily play a game in which the ultimate goal is to shoot their opponent in the head with the main gun of a tank or to gain the satisfaction of watching the rag doll body of their enemy fly through the air after a well tossed grenade. Actually, it does make complete sense because games like these have desensitized people from what war actually is. If this is your base then you could presume that war is very neat and fought only between two different groups of well defined soldiers while civilians magically disappear from sight..
I could be wrong, but this is about the first time I think I've read a post of yours (or even heard of you), but you've already established yourself as a drama queen. Perhaps the topic should be "why should we lend serious debate to a thread that begins so histrionicaly?"-Sh1fty- wrote:
Not that you're ever serious most of the time and are complete assholes to me, so that sort of loses points in your favor unless you debate properly. But I'm not out to win any popularity contest anyway.
Strategic bombing did work, eventually. The USAAF and RAF wasted a lot of time, energy, and lives, on bombing tactical targets and cities. When we finally figured out going after targets like oil plants worked, we almost shut down the German military. There is a reason German tanks ran out of gas during the Battle of the Bulge.JohnG@lt wrote:
Can the air force take and hold ground? The Gulf War proved that it takes more than a dominant display of air power to force an enemy to capitulate. Hap Arnold, Billy Mitchell and Curtis LeMay all thought that with the advent of aviation, all other military branches were obsolete. They also felt that the true role that the air force should play was in long range high altitude bombing. Close air support and interdiction was beneath them. They pushed their doctrine after the war quite hard which is why we ended up with such a gigantic strategic bombing force (B-52s and the like) which proved to be almost useless in the conventional war of Vietnam.lowing wrote:
Gotta tell ya, I believe air power did win the war. Air Power alone saved England, and air power alone stopped the invasion of Japan.JohnG@lt wrote:
He quoted the same people that believed that air power alone won the war, military politicians, and the commanding general in Europe who hadn't fought the Japanese himself
Air power alone, stopped the German war machine from producing oil and equipment. Air power allowed ground forces to advance and hold. Japan and Germany lost air supremacy then the war.
Those three are among the most arrogant that have ever walked the face of the earth, with egos to match. Of course they thought that Japan would surrender to air power alone!
When looking at Japan, we had targeted most of their cities, and used almost 10 times as many tons of bombs as we had against Germany. Japan had already lost, they just refused to admit it. After we dropped the bombs, the Emperor realized he faced surrender or complete annihilation.
Remember Halsey's quote “Before we're done with them, the Japanese language will be spoken only in Hell!”
We gave the Japanese a reason to fear that might actually happen.
The Japanese did surrender to air power alone.JohnG@lt wrote:
Those three are among the most arrogant that have ever walked the face of the earth, with egos to match. Of course they thought that Japan would surrender to air power alone!
Eisenhower - Ground Forces
Leahy - Naval
Nimitz - Naval
were of the same opinion as the air force guys BTW.
Fuck Israel
Not exactly dude. An aircraft cannot take land, you need boots on the ground for that. All that 'island hopping' was primarily the work of ground forces.Dilbert_X wrote:
The Japanese did surrender to air power alone.JohnG@lt wrote:
Those three are among the most arrogant that have ever walked the face of the earth, with egos to match. Of course they thought that Japan would surrender to air power alone!
Eisenhower - Ground Forces
Leahy - Naval
Nimitz - Naval
were of the same opinion as the air force guys BTW.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Okinawa proved that an invasion of Japan would be extremely bloody on both sides.
But Japan DID surrender to air power, not one American boot set foot on Japan before they surrendered.Spark wrote:
Not exactly dude. An aircraft cannot take land, you need boots on the ground for that. All that 'island hopping' was primarily the work of ground forces.
Fuck Israel
Dilbert and a few others would have had a seizure if I had said "it was war, all's fair."SEREVENT wrote:
What about London/Coventry/any other city that was blown up?Macbeth wrote:
Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki = ending the war quickly and not killing many more people and destroying the lands of Japan during a land invasion.AussieReaper wrote:
And the population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not innocent civilians?
If you guys want to complain about unnecessary war action talk about Dresden.
What about any war?
No, the Emperor surrendered. Japan had her colonies fucked over by Island hopping.Dilbert_X wrote:
But Japan DID surrender to air power, not one American boot set foot on Japan before they surrendered.Spark wrote:
Not exactly dude. An aircraft cannot take land, you need boots on the ground for that. All that 'island hopping' was primarily the work of ground forces.
Don't forget the atrocities committed by the Japanese in World War 2.
The Japanese raped my family back then, they should all die. stupid japs
The events that led up to that didn't matter? That seems to go against your prior contention.Dilbert_X wrote:
But Japan DID surrender to air power, not one American boot set foot on Japan before they surrendered.Spark wrote:
Not exactly dude. An aircraft cannot take land, you need boots on the ground for that. All that 'island hopping' was primarily the work of ground forces.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The Japanese surrendered after a long period of aerial bombing, simple enough.
Fuck Israel