[Stammer]

Look up Operation Downfall, the planned invasion of Japan.

[quote:fce83]General Marshall, in conference with President Truman, estimated 31,000 in 30 days after landing in Kyushu. Admiral Leahy estimated that the invasion would cost 268,000 casualties. Personnel at the Navy Department estimated that the total losses to America would be between 1.7 and 4 million with 400,000 to 800,000 deaths. The same department estimated that there would be up to 10 million Japanese casualties. The ‘Los Angeles Times’ estimated that America would suffer up to 1 million casualties.[/quote:fce83]

It was a necessary evil that saved more lives than it took away.

[Madmartagen]

Originally Posted by Pyro

They were dicks true...doesn't justify a Nuke. It is like saying that all of our mothers need to sacrifice themselves because of an army they have nothing to do with.

heh, when you are at total war how would that even factor into the equation? i got a superweapon but i dont want to use it because its gonna fuck up their shit? the allied ultimatum wasnt an empty threat and using the nuke wasnt punishment for the millions who suffered under japanese occupation, but the incineration of thousands of belligerant and defiant people who benefited from said suffering was the fuckin cherry on top of the sundae.

[Short Hand]

2 Nukes droped just outside of Tokyo would have had the Japenese surrendering within hours. If they some how don't surrender after seeing what the bomb can do when droped right in front of their faces.....Then by all means go and drop it on the city. . Less people could have been killed is all I am saying, considering they surrendered in the first place and didn't fight on while being nuked to shit says something. THEY would have surrendered regardless. ed: .

[Colonel]

[quote="Short Hand":c805e]2 Nukes droped just outside of Tokyo would have had the Japenese surrendering within hours. .[/quote:c805e]

The fact that we didn't drop it on Tokyo shows that we were considering loss of life in the equation. In addition, Hiroshima was a military target. Tokyo was not. Further, it is a good thing that it was not dropped "just outside Tokyo" either. No one knew the long term destructive power of radiation. Dropping the bomb near Tokyo would have had devastating health effects on the many more Japanese people, and ultimately would have led to more deaths, than dropping directly on Hiroshima and Nagaski did.

[Tripper]

[quote=Colonel]

Originally Posted by "Short Hand":cd5bd

2 Nukes droped just outside of Tokyo would have had the Japenese surrendering within hours. .

The fact that we didn't drop it on Tokyo shows that we were considering loss of life in the equation. In addition, Hiroshima was a military target. Tokyo was not. Further, it is a good thing that it was not dropped "just outside Tokyo" either. No one new the long term destructive power of radiation. Dropping the bomb near Tokyo would have had devastating health effects on the many more Japanese people, and ultimately would have led to more deaths, than dropping directly on Hiroshima and Nagaski did.[/quote:cd5bd]

Absolutely. See, Short Hand? It pays to read up on BOTH sides before you jump in a conversation with a half-assed argument against one side and stated with absolute conviction...

[Trunks]

[quote=Madmartagen]

Originally Posted by "Short Hand":c717e

Ya... 2 wrongs make a right ? don't they old timer...... oOo:

wasnt really a case of dropping bombs to punish them for their crimes, we dropped the bomb to end the war. retribution came through the hangings later on.[/quote:c717e]I know this isnt the subject of the thread but oh well. I believe that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, truly horrible acts... Now dont get me wrong, I realize US soldiers would have died if the cities had not been bombed and the bombings helped bring an end to the second world war, and save american lives, however, the americans that would have died were soldeirs, but the people who died in the bombings were all civilians, women, children, and babies were incinreated and many of those who survived have horrible problems now because of teh radiation. Now, again, all sides and countries committed atrocities, so dont get me wrong, im not trying to make america look guilty but in my humble opinion, the bombings are inexcusable acts of genocide against civilains. I am not sure on the exact number but I know apporximately 150 thousand people died immidiately from the bombings. Of course, Russians raped german women, pillaged and destroyed villages, and shot german soldiers as they tried to surrender. And France and britain also committed attrocities... But as shorthand said, two wrongs dont make a right, and just because another country does somethin bad does not make it okay for us to follow in suite.

[Tripper]

Originally Posted by Trunks

But as shorthand said, two wrongs dont make a right, and just because another country does somethin bad does not make it okay for us to follow in suite.

No-one ever said two-wrongs DID make a right. Short Hand assumed thats what everyone was getting at.

The issue was that it had to happen. It's horrible, but the other option could have possibly been alot worse. Probably just as many civilians would have died in bombings and artillery and anything else involved with a full scale invasion against a truly relentless enemy that was willing to train its women and child citizens to fend off an attack.

Now the difference between this atrocity and the rape of nanking is that this one had to happen. There was no other real option. The rape of nanking didn't need to happen. It wasn't in the name of ultimately saving lives or forcefully ending a war, it was thousands of Japanese soldiers running rampant on a city in China, raping, and murdering based on pure hatred and disregard for human feelings. They weren't even ordered to do it, the only possible reason is that they enjoyed doing it. The bombs however, were based on ending a war. That's where the difference is.

They're both horrible, and given a choice, ONE of them wouldn't have happened....The other happened despite having a choice to avoid it.

"Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." - The japanese ignore and refuse to show public remorse for the rape of nanking, and at the same time make a huge deal about the nuclear bombs. That's what the issue was before it got blown out of proportion by Short Hand, simply because it was stated by an American.

[Colonel]

Originally Posted by Tripper

...the only possible reason is that they enjoyed doing it. The bombs however, were based on ending a war. That's where the difference is..

well said Tripper.

[Short Hand]

[quote=Tripper]

Originally Posted by Colonel

The fact that we didn't drop it on Tokyo shows that we were considering loss of life in the equation. In addition, Hiroshima was a military target. Tokyo was not. Further, it is a good thing that it was not dropped "just outside Tokyo" either. No one new the long term destructive power of radiation. Dropping the bomb near Tokyo would have had devastating health effects on the many more Japanese people, and ultimately would have led to more deaths, than dropping directly on Hiroshima and Nagaski did.

Absolutely. See, Short Hand? It pays to read up on BOTH sides before you jump in a conversation with a half-assed argument against one side and stated with absolute conviction...[/quote:e0819]

Tripper jump off the fucking fanboi wagon, will ya ? He is spewing corrosive crap out of his mouth. For one, the effects of radiation were seen ACROSS Japan from the droppings on the citys. You can't escape it. 2 that is complete bullshit, dropping a bomb right in the middle of a major urban [b]center[b] HAD A MUCH higher effect then dropping 20 to 30 miles outside of Tokyo would of ever had. MY "conviction" is properly placed. All this is about is a half ass rubtle attempt for a slack ass fucking comment he made. (For which he should have noted, then corrected himself/apologized for etc". To top it all off, your trying to ride it and convince yourself of it just to further your anti shorthand" agenda. stay in the IRC/Hood thug. Your childish persona really is starting to fcking tire me out. rolleyes:

[Colonel]

I found the following on a Japanese website......Looks like a demonstration near Tokyo would not have had much of an effect, at least the deaths of more people than were killed at Hiroshima did not have any effect. BTW - The Emperor was told exactly what happened in Hiroshima (it was not hidden from him - only from the Japanese people) but he chose to fight on. Furthermore, the effects of radiation were not seen all across Japan. The harmful effects were concentrated around the epicenter of the blast.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 9,1945, a force of B-29 aircraft dropped 19,000 incendiary bombs on the southern part of Tokyo. Sixteen square miles of the city was destroyed, killing 84,000 people.... Japan continued, no let-up in sight.

In April, May and June of 1945 65 cities were hit with 154,000 tons of incendiaries killing 250,000 people and rendering 8 million homeless. The Americans dropped leaflets all over Japan telling the Japanese people that more bombing would follow unless Japan surrendered. But the only response from the ruling party was defiance and an increase in their resolve. The Japanese decision makers seemed to be immune to the hardships being suffered by their own people.

An assault landing was the alternative left, short of using the Atomic bomb. The attack was to be made in two phases. The first phase called

Operation Olympic was for our forces to land on the southern island of KYUSHU on November 1, 1945 with a force of 750,000 troops. Expected casualties: killed 194,500, wounded 375,000, missing 2,500.

The second phase, called Operation Coronet, was to be a landing on the beaches north of Tokyo. A force of 1,800,000 men would land on March 1, 1946. Expected losses: Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson projected 1,000,000 casualties.

These estimates were based on the number of casualties on Okinawa, a small campaign in comparison, where there were 48,000 American casualties.

The estimate of the number of Japanese troops defending the KYUSHU landing was 350,000 ... the actual number was 790,000. It was estimated that the Japanese had 2,500 aircraft available for defense of Japan.... The actual number was 6,000 army aircraft and 7,000 navy aircraft.

The Japanese military leaders had proudly proclaimed to their citizens that they were eagerly waiting for an American invasion. Every home was made into a weapons depot or manufacturing facility. School children were kept out of school to assist in the manufacture of various weapons of destruction.

The American landing on the island of KYUSHU was to be at the Miyazaki Beach, the only site possible for such an invasion. But it was terribly shallow and immediately behind it rose a range from which murderous artillery, mortar and rifle fire would have poured onto the invaders. And of course, our prison camp was on the island of KYUSHU, where orders were given to "Annihilate all prisoners, and do not leave any traces. Do so individually or in groups, do it with mass bombing, poisonous smoke, poisons, drowning, decapitation, or what, just dispose of them as the situation dictates."

Clearly, the most important decision of WW II in the Pacific, was that of President, Truman to use the Atomic bomb to end the war. The decision was made on one overriding consideration: To save countless thousands of American lives that were bound to be the price of having to overwhelm the Japanese on their home-front.

[Short Hand]

Their is a difference between a nuke and firestorm. We can not even know whaT would have been the high commands decision after seeing the nucleaer bombs force. So neither of us can really prove that point wrong, all we can point out though is that not all options were explored" before its use. Which has been my point all along. If the Japenese would have been ignorant enough to hold out after seeing that, then by all means drop it.

[Colonel]

[quote="Short Hand":5647b]We can not even know whaT would have been the high commands decision after seeing the nucleaer bombs force.[/quote:5647b]

True dat. But keep in mind, it's not like today when we have enough nukes to blow the whole planet up. At the time we only had, I think, three bombs. I'm sure they felt they couldn't afford to "waste" one a demonstration. And since the Japanese leadership seemed so irrational - at least to our Western sensibilities - Truman probably felt a mere "demonstration" would not have any impact on them.

[quote="Short Hand":5647b]If the Japenese would have been ignorant enough to hold out after seeing that, then by all means drop it.[/quote:5647b]

Even though we disagree about whether it was right to drop the bomb on Hiroshima, I'm sure Truman appreciates your support of his decision to drop the bomb on Nagasaki.

[Jimbo@]

Short Hand, I dont think you understand the circumstances here. I bet if you were a chinese, who had grandparents in Japanese occupied territory your opinion would be vastly different. Imagine the millions of people in the Japanese empire who were suffering terribly under the burden every minute and every day. If the Americans had invaded Japan instead of dropping the nuclear bomb thousands of Americans and Japanese but also civilians under Japanese occupation would had to endure the war for months. The Japanese liked to lash out their anger on the occupied victims, usually after a defeat from the Americans or bombing by them. You can say the nuke not just effectively saved more Japanese and American lives, but also the ones in the rest of Asia.
The Japanese were given many chances to surrender, but they didnt. After all those bombings, defeats and even after a nuclear attack. They kept on fighting. It was apparent to the US high command the Japanese military government had every intention to fight to the last man.

[Trunks]

Personally, I dont think we would have needed to invade at all. If i were in charge, I would set up a naval blockade of all four major islands. Bombing runs would occur systematically against military targets. Any and all airports, civilian or not would be bombed and destroyed. And tehre we go. Cut the japanese isalnds off from themselves and teh rest of the world, and they are hopeless. In time, the growing desperation of the situation would have forced japan to surrender.

[Tripper]

[quote="Short Hand":ca023]Tripper jump off the fucking fanboi wagon, will ya ? He is spewing corrosive crap out of his mouth. For one, the effects of radiation were seen ACROSS Japan from the droppings on the citys. You can't escape it. 2 that is complete bullshit, dropping a bomb right in the middle of a major urban [b]center[b] HAD A MUCH higher effect then dropping 20 to 30 miles outside of Tokyo would of ever had. MY "conviction" is properly placed. All this is about is a half ass rubtle attempt for a slack ass fucking comment he made. (For which he should have noted, then corrected himself/apologized for etc". To top it all off, your trying to ride it and convince yourself of it just to further your anti shorthand" agenda. stay in the IRC/Hood thug. Your childish persona really is starting to fcking tire me out. rolleyes:[/quote:ca023]

For fucks sake - There is no " fanboi wagon" you've just dreamt that up when you see and can't deal with the fact that most people disagree with your argument and have proved you wrong with factual evidence, when you have nothing but weak, unbackedup possibilities and hokey claims. Everything I have said in this thread has been a valid point.
Just because you have been proven wrong fairly, this is how you act - Like a fucking baby throwing a tantrum.

Keep your bullshit opinions of me out of the History forum, and out of this thread. If you can't handle the heated debates around here without bowing down to immature wankery statements, then maybe you should leave.

I have better and more interesting things to talk about than you, at this time. You certainly think highly of yourself.

Back ontopic:

He isn't spewing corrosive shit. It's totally factual points from a website, If you can't handle the truth, it's not his problem.

The radiation may have been seen across Japan, the long-term effects aren't. Modern Tokyo looks pretty nice to me.....
"You can't escape it" Um, it's not actually that bad. Have you seen Japan, ever? Even in a photo or a video??

BTW,

Originally Posted by SH

All this is about is a half ass rubtle attempt for a slack ass fucking comment he made. (For which he should have noted, then corrected himself/apologized for etc". To top it all off, your trying to ride it and convince yourself of it just to further your anti shorthand" agenda. stay in the IRC/Hood thug. Your childish persona really is starting to fcking tire me out. rolleyes:

...I dont know about any of that, I've just been reading points I didn't agree with and arguing against them. That is all. Don't be so arrogant as to believe that all I can think about is trying to flame you....You're not that wonderful.