considering that our Intelligence department found out all there weapons(Japan was close to fiquring out how to make a A bomb) I guess we had no choice. at least they surrended at 2 cause we planned to drop 7xX[Elangbam]Xx wrote:
I mean think about it, WWII was to crush a bunch or crazy racist dictators from controlling the world. I mean we lost over 5 millions people altogether but probably a hell of a lot more. I mean we still have nazis and this supremist groups everywhere. People go calling others jews as an insult but say that nazis suck? wtf, and then these mexican haters.
Moving onto the atom bomb. Japan was already losing and yet we dropped 2, not 1 atom bombs on innocent civilians. Although pearl harbor was bad, they were soldiers and they had enlisted for this type of stuff but the Japanese had women and children that although were trained were still just civilians so I really don't see why we had to use the atom bomb.
A-bomb was tottaly worth it coz japan is just gonna go on forever, stop bitching about "omg they bombed civilians!!" why would u waste a bomb that took decades of research on a civilian target? Einstein was using uranium as an energy source, not a weapon. the US gov asked him to help in the war, so he showed them how uranium reacts, then here comes the manhatten project
it must have been a heavy burden to bare to make that decision to drop that bomb i cant even imagine it(scary)
some scientists thought the A-bomb would burn up the atomsphere, at least it wasnt as powerful as they thought
one question about the A bomb, some guy like on the 2nd page said it was the Man Haten project? I haven't heard this theory (that the project was named for Man Haten) I just want to know if this is because they guy spelled it wrong accidentally or did it on purpose
It was called the Manhattan Project to confuse spies that it was being worked on in Manhattan, which is a large district in New York City.xX[Elangbam]Xx wrote:
one question about the A bomb, some guy like on the 2nd page said it was the Man Haten project? I haven't heard this theory (that the project was named for Man Haten) I just want to know if this is because they guy spelled it wrong accidentally or did it on purpose
lol spelling, yeah freebirdpat is right
Alright so some people think dropping the bomb was alright, others who have the hindsight of history believe it wasn't. I really don't care.
What I find interesting is what happened after. Japan was rebuilt, but who did most of the helping?
Furthermore touching base for those worried about current events with China, look at China's neighbor who was rebuilt by US (Japan). Japan's got a navy almost on par with the US. The only exception is that Japan has no carriers (nuclear or regular). How did it get such a nice navy? Old decomissioned US ships. They look like crap but they have been revamped and upgraded to modern caliber. Also, look at the history between China and Japan, no love at all between the two. I'll start worrying when Japan decides China can do whatever the hell it wants.
What I find interesting is what happened after. Japan was rebuilt, but who did most of the helping?
Furthermore touching base for those worried about current events with China, look at China's neighbor who was rebuilt by US (Japan). Japan's got a navy almost on par with the US. The only exception is that Japan has no carriers (nuclear or regular). How did it get such a nice navy? Old decomissioned US ships. They look like crap but they have been revamped and upgraded to modern caliber. Also, look at the history between China and Japan, no love at all between the two. I'll start worrying when Japan decides China can do whatever the hell it wants.
Heres' the thing...
WWII was actually PROBABLY wished for by Roosevelt - if it wasn't for the war machine our country would have been stuck in the depression for who knows how much longer.
As for the bomb, I have a take on this. We knew that if we took control of the Japanese main islands, we would lose over a half million men - it would be worse than D Day. Furthermore, since the Japanese weren't really keen on keeping prisoners, any prisoners they had on the island would immediately be killed, to cover up any war crimes (if you don't believe me on this point, read about Wake Island - even civillian contractors were murdered).
We would only accept unconditional surrender from Japan. We dropped an atom bomb on Hiroshima on August 6th, and one on Nagasaki on August 8th. I believe the first bomb was necessary, while the second one was not. We should have waited for more than 2 days (think about the prep time it would take to drop one - we really did not wait for a surrender). For an entire country to say that their Emperor (who was revered as a God) was simply a man, should take more than 24 hours of thought IMO.
As for todays relationship between US and CHina/Japan, I believe Japan has no Navy - if anything I think it would be like a coast guard. I KNOW they have no Army - there was recently a discussion in Japan about whether or not they should make an Army to protect themselves from China, because they are still under their treaty from WWII about not having an Army.
WWII was actually PROBABLY wished for by Roosevelt - if it wasn't for the war machine our country would have been stuck in the depression for who knows how much longer.
As for the bomb, I have a take on this. We knew that if we took control of the Japanese main islands, we would lose over a half million men - it would be worse than D Day. Furthermore, since the Japanese weren't really keen on keeping prisoners, any prisoners they had on the island would immediately be killed, to cover up any war crimes (if you don't believe me on this point, read about Wake Island - even civillian contractors were murdered).
We would only accept unconditional surrender from Japan. We dropped an atom bomb on Hiroshima on August 6th, and one on Nagasaki on August 8th. I believe the first bomb was necessary, while the second one was not. We should have waited for more than 2 days (think about the prep time it would take to drop one - we really did not wait for a surrender). For an entire country to say that their Emperor (who was revered as a God) was simply a man, should take more than 24 hours of thought IMO.
As for todays relationship between US and CHina/Japan, I believe Japan has no Navy - if anything I think it would be like a coast guard. I KNOW they have no Army - there was recently a discussion in Japan about whether or not they should make an Army to protect themselves from China, because they are still under their treaty from WWII about not having an Army.
Agreed and agreed.As for the bomb, I have a take on this. We knew that if we took control of the Japanese main islands, we would lose over a half million men - it would be worse than D Day. Furthermore, since the Japanese weren't really keen on keeping prisoners, any prisoners they had on the island would immediately be killed, to cover up any war crimes (if you don't believe me on this point, read about Wake Island - even civillian contractors were murdered).
We would only accept unconditional surrender from Japan. We dropped an atom bomb on Hiroshima on August 6th, and one on Nagasaki on August 8th. I believe the first bomb was necessary, while the second one was not. We should have waited for more than 2 days (think about the prep time it would take to drop one - we really did not wait for a surrender). For an entire country to say that their Emperor (who was revered as a God) was simply a man, should take more than 24 hours of thought IMO.
Note: A month ago I had to do an exam on THIS VERY TOPIC, so I think this may have some merit. And I don't mean to brag, but it was an exam I aced.
However, there are some historians who believe (and have plenty of evidence at that) that Japan would have surrended anyway (without the use of the Bomb or the Soviet Decleration of War). All that was needed was a change in the peace treaty terms from the allies (like letting the Emperor live, for example. That was the main one actually...). Others, (like me) think that this was a longshot. The Japanese would not surrender if their life depended on it (literally. A series of photos come to mind in which a Japanese soldier, on being called to surrender, blew himself up with a 'nade). That would mean an invasion of Japan. By the way the Japanese fought on home soil (Okinawa, Iwo Jima), the deaths would have been innumerable. The most famous and well-known figure (I can't remember who by, but I think it was by the Secretary of State) was 500000 US deaths alone, as TehSeraphim. This would translate to about 2 million Japanese deaths, perhaps more. Another (rather wild) figure puts the US deaths at 4 MILLION = About 10 million Japanese deaths. Just on the basis of that alone, an Atomic Bomb seems almost a reprieve.
However, there are others (again, like me and TehSeraphim) who think the dropping of the second bomb was nothing short of a war crime. You've made your point. You've just dropped a bomb that has the power of the stars in it. You've just obliterated a whole city and turned thousands upon thousands of people into shadows on the walls. Why the fuck do you need another one???? You should never have planned to drop the second one at all. Once the Soviets enter the war like they did on 8 Aug, the Japanese will surrender for all money. Or was it because of the US' secret agenda, to try and end the war before the Soviets got involved?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
The reason for the naming is a little bit different. To quote: "In the summer of 1942, Col. Leslie Groves was deputy to the chief of construction for the Army Corps of Engineers and had overseen construction of the Pentagon, the world's largest office building. Hoping for an overseas command, Groves vigorously objected when Somervell appointed him to take charge of the weapons project. His objections were overruled and Groves resigned himself to leading a project he thought had little chance of succeeding. Groves appointed Oppenheimer as the project's scientific director, to the surprise of many. (Oppenheimer's radical political views were thought to pose security problems).freebirdpat wrote:
It was called the Manhattan Project to confuse spies that it was being worked on in Manhattan, which is a large district in New York City.xX[Elangbam]Xx wrote:
one question about the A bomb, some guy like on the 2nd page said it was the Man Haten project? I haven't heard this theory (that the project was named for Man Haten) I just want to know if this is because they guy spelled it wrong accidentally or did it on purpose
The first thing he did was rechristen the project The Manhattan District. The name evolved from the Corps of Engineers practice of naming districts after its headquarters' city (Marshall's headquarters were in New York City). At the same time, Groves was promoted to brigadier general, which gave him the rank thought necessary to deal with the senior scientists in the project."
Yay Bee.
I kinda find it sad that Germans know more about our History than most Americans do....
I kinda find it sad that Germans know more about our History than most Americans do....
ok enough about A-bomb for now, we already discussed in previus posts that it was worth it.
on WW2 hitler was an idiot to fight against the russians, coz they all go like: " ahhh motherland!!!" and die of patriotism. but the allied invasion on d-day was successful because of the paratroopers on the 101st airborne, 506th regiment, easy company. they did hell to the germans
on WW2 hitler was an idiot to fight against the russians, coz they all go like: " ahhh motherland!!!" and die of patriotism. but the allied invasion on d-day was successful because of the paratroopers on the 101st airborne, 506th regiment, easy company. they did hell to the germans
believe me, it has nothing to do with the country you come from. It is merely a matter of personal interest.TehSeraphim wrote:
Yay Bee.
I kinda find it sad that Germans know more about our History than most Americans do....
In general, german teenagers will have as much or little interest in their country's history as american teenagers.
Although I have heard people say ( even americans ) that americans are generally less educated as far as history is concerned. I wouldn't know if that is true, though.
Then close the topic and start a new one.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
ok enough about A-bomb for now, we already discussed in previus posts that it was worth it.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
too lazy and it will be considered spamming
I do admit, that I have an unfair advantage in this topic... I have an University degree in history...TehSeraphim wrote:
Yay Bee.
I kinda find it sad that Germans know more about our History than most Americans do....
All said and Down it was worth it to use the Atom Bomb it save US live and Japanese lives also, As for WWII?
I hope to hell the USA sits the next one out. Fuk em,
I hope to hell the USA sits the next one out. Fuk em,
if its alright could you please start this debate again?
because i really think USA shouldnt have droped nukes on Japan
because i really think USA shouldnt have droped nukes on Japan
what about the use of napalm i tokyo it killed 100.000.
why should the nukes not have been used, wold you rather have wanted to invade the japanese homeland, and fought an enemy who were suicidal. losing hundreds of thosends of American soldiers
why should the nukes not have been used, wold you rather have wanted to invade the japanese homeland, and fought an enemy who were suicidal. losing hundreds of thosends of American soldiers
Wasn't it just the fires that killed a ton of Japanese in Tokyo, cos the whole damn place was built of wood? Anyway, I think the nuke decision was the correct one. The point of the second nuke was to assure the Japanese that US was capable of producing more than one of these "wonder weapons" and that it wasn't just a one-off thing.
And of course it is now easy to analyze and speculate on the events, knowing all that we do about every side of the conflict. However, the leaders back then didn't have all the facts, didn't know what was going in the heads of their adversaries, and tried to play it safe to minimize their own casualties. More than that, they were trying to win a war that already took millions of lives, and not a popularity contest.
And of course it is now easy to analyze and speculate on the events, knowing all that we do about every side of the conflict. However, the leaders back then didn't have all the facts, didn't know what was going in the heads of their adversaries, and tried to play it safe to minimize their own casualties. More than that, they were trying to win a war that already took millions of lives, and not a popularity contest.
only reason that japan wanted to keep fighting was because the Americans didnt mention about how they are going to treat the emperor. I guess you could say the first nuke strike in Hiroshima was needed to make the Japanese surrender but why the second one? Second nuke was droped in Nagasaki because Nagasaki was a city the Americans bombers saw through the clouds randomly and they just wanted to drop the nukes some where. Nuke should have been droped near Japan not on Japan to make them surrender. It is clear that Americans wanted to drop 2 nukes anyway to test out the diffrence between nuke made out of platonium and uranium. So America shouldnt have droped nuke on Japan since they were gonna surrender anyway and even they didnt Japan didnt have power to fight back.
Again sorry for extremely bad and non understandable english. Please dont bother correcting the grammer and spelling. Im not a native english speaker...
Again sorry for extremely bad and non understandable english. Please dont bother correcting the grammer and spelling. Im not a native english speaker...
there was a translation problem when the first nuke dropped, the japanese translators couldnt translate the message fast enough, and here comes a uranium-238 bomb...blue frog wrote:
only reason that japan wanted to keep fighting was because the Americans didnt mention about how they are going to treat the emperor. I guess you could say the first nuke strike in Hiroshima was needed to make the Japanese surrender but why the second one? Second nuke was droped in Nagasaki because Nagasaki was a city the Americans bombers saw through the clouds randomly and they just wanted to drop the nukes some where. Nuke should have been droped near Japan not on Japan to make them surrender. It is clear that Americans wanted to drop 2 nukes anyway to test out the diffrence between nuke made out of platonium and uranium. So America shouldnt have droped nuke on Japan since they were gonna surrender anyway and even they didnt Japan didnt have power to fight back.
Again sorry for extremely bad and non understandable english. Please dont bother correcting the grammer and spelling. Im not a native english speaker...
hiroshima = uranium-235
nagasaki = uranium-238 (mistaked as plutonium bomb)
sorry my bad. i always thought one of the bomb was plutonium bomb. thx for telling me. i am now a little smarter!!
no problemblue frog wrote:
sorry my bad. i always thought one of the bomb was plutonium bomb. thx for telling me. i am now a little smarter!!
the main reason the bomb saved many lives coz if the US had done an attack on mainland japan, it would be like the suicide bomber problem in iraq