|
|
|
opus
Skeptic Friend
Canada
50 Posts |
 Posted - 05/31/2002 : 12:24:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Wouldn't be so quick to say that. There are those that would argue otherwise.
quote:
It is tactic the US no longer uses
sure they miss from time to time. But it is well understood now that you win wars by destroying the opponents tactical capability. Thats is you knock out the tanks, planes and the command and all the rest falls apart. This is to me a seperate issue from whether it should be done.
|
 |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2002 : 12:51:58 [Permalink]
|
Odd. I wonder what that lady that I quoted way back was referring to when she said that the warnings that the U.S. dropped were collected by the government? Donnie B. is right, I can't find any mention that Hiroshima was warned specifically of an imminant attack resulting in complete destruction.
They did drop leaflets warning citizens of bombings in general to many cities.
However, in reading up on it during my search, this certainly does nothing to persuade me that the bombing was a CaH. In fact, the details pretty much confirm to me that at the time, it was most likely the best decision based on all the factors.
quote:
American officials did consider inviting the Japanese to witness a demonstration of the bomb. They also thought about exploding it in a remote area, away from cities, and explored the possibility of issuing a more explicit warning to the Japanese (a more general warning had been issued at Potsdam). In the end, these options were rejected. The atomic bomb was a new, technically complex weapon--what if a demonstration failed? What if an explicit warning caused the Japanese to place American prisoners of war near the bomb's aim point? Most importantly, Americans relied on the sudden, dramatic, and unmistakably destructive appearance of the bomb to shock the Japanese--who at Okinawa and Iwo Jima had shown a willingness to fight to the death--into surrender. In General Marshall's words: "it seemed quite necessary to shock them into action....We had to end the war; we had to save American lives."
quote:
The decision to use the A-Bomb was not taken lightly by Truman or his advisors. The final move to
defeat Japan had to result in unconditional surrender with the fewest number of American casualties possible,
prevent Soviet occupation of territory, and inflict the minimum number of Japanese civilian casualties. The
atomic bomb met the first three conditions, and possibly the fourth, but alternatives were considered.
Using the bomb in a demonstration on an evacuated city or uninhabited area was seriously considered
but rejected on two grounds. The U.S. only had two A-Bombs at this point, and using one in a manner that may
be less than decisive was deemed too risky. Second, if the demo bomb were to be a dud, such a grand failure
would likely fuel Japanese resistance making a full-scale invasion the only alternative.
A second option was an economic war. In 1945 massive bombing raids laid waste to entire cities and
decimated Japan's war industry and a naval blockade was preventing most imports into the country causing
shortages of food and raw materials. But this was not provoking serious calls for surrender from Japanese
leaders even though it resulted in horrendous collateral damage killing at least 300,000 civilians and leaving 8.5
million others homeless. However, strategic air offensives had not been decisive for the Germans against
Britain or for the Western Allies against Germany. At best this option would require many months, possibly
more than a year, to produce a surrender, and in the process result in several hundred thousand civilian deaths,
the total destruction of Japan's cities and infrastructure and Soviet occupation of large portions of Asia.
Invasion was the last resort. An assault of the heavily populated, mountainous, island of Kyushu, the
southern most island of Japan, was scheduled for November 1, 1945. 800,000 assault troops would be involved
in this initial stage, five times the number involved in the D-Day landings. In April an invasion seemed
plausible, but by July, Japanese forces on Kyushu had tripled to over 650,000. If the recent battle |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2002 : 12:53:26 [Permalink]
|
Ummmmm, depending on the war it might be useful to knock out facilities that produce weapons of war. You might also want to make it difficult to sustain life in the immediate area so no one goes to repair the facility. You could destroy the living accomodations of the people that live there and all the services that make it a nice place to live. Obviously this doesn't apply to places like Afghansistan where all war materials are imported but it would apply to Germany and Japan. If I was in charge that is what I would target. Then, as you destroy the planes and tanks, you know that there will be no replacements.
I play some online wargames and the first time I played vs real people over the internet rather than vs the computer AI I had a horrible shock. While I went for the military pieces, my enemy went right for my town and production. I lost badly every time until I adjust my tactics and went right for the enemy heartland. This way you don't just win the battle. You win the war.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2002 : 13:21:11 [Permalink]
|
If Japanese were so psychotic as to fight to the last man's last breath then a couple of atomic bombs wouldn't have stopped them, would they?
quote:
Most importantly, Americans relied on the sudden, dramatic, and unmistakably destructive appearance of the bomb to shock the Japanese--who at Okinawa and Iwo Jima had shown a willingness to fight to the death--into surrender.
[/quote]
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2002 : 13:38:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If Japanese were so psychotic as to fight to the last man's last breath then a couple of atomic bombs wouldn't have stopped them, would they?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most importantly, Americans relied on the sudden, dramatic, and unmistakably destructive appearance of the bomb to shock the Japanese--who at Okinawa and Iwo Jima had shown a willingness to fight to the death--into surrender.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fact: Previously the Japanese had fought to the last man's breath.
Fact: After dropping the second atomic bomb the Japanese did surrender.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2002 : 14:46:46 [Permalink]
|
Your statements contradict each other. Had they fought to the last man's breath, there would have been no one to surrender. Your premise is faulty and probably racist. That's why I mentioned slanty eyes before. Sounds like Nazis trying to justify killing Jews. They were CRAZY! I tell ya!
quote:
Fact: Previously the Japanese had fought to the last man's breath.
Fact: After dropping the second atomic bomb the Japanese did surrender.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2002 : 15:30:15 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo you need to stop, maybe even think or read some of the other stuff posted here instead of going off into your anti-American BS mode. If you had read the post by Tokyodreamer you might have noticed this:
quote:
American officials did consider inviting the Japanese to witness a demonstration of the bomb. They also thought about exploding it in a remote area, away from cities, and explored the possibility of issuing a more explicit warning to the Japanese (a more general warning had been issued at Potsdam). In the end, these options were rejected. The atomic bomb was a new, technically complex weapon--what if a demonstration failed? What if an explicit warning caused the Japanese to place American prisoners of war near the bomb's aim point? Most importantly, Americans relied on the sudden, dramatic, and unmistakably destructive appearance of the bomb to shock the Japanese--who at Okinawa and Iwo Jima had shown a willingness to fight to the death--into surrender. In General Marshall's words: "it seemed quite necessary to shock them into action....We had to end the war; we had to save American lives."
I think that the dropping of the atomic bomb did just that. It shocked them into action. There is nothing racist about this. The evidence and facts point to the Japanese fighting to the end if their leaders asked it of them. Remember, this is the same nation that produced kamikaze pilots and had fought damn near to the last man. These are simple facts. Your attempts at showing this to be racist are pathetic and truly give your anti-Americanism away though you deny it. You are not just criticizing the US here.
There is also the fact that after accepting the Japanese surrender we treated the Japanese people very respectfully, helped rebuild their nation and returned control of Japan to the Japanese. You have no built no case of racism. It's just one of your unfounded beliefs.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2002 : 16:14:50 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, and an angel descended from Heaven and sat upon Harry Truman's shoulder. Stop your anti-reality BS and read something other than Pentagon handouts on the subject.
quote:
Gorgo you need to stop,
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2002 : 16:30:32 [Permalink]
|
I noticed you rarely, if ever, actually present any evidence to support your wild accusations. You are not going to impress anyone this way.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2002 : 17:37:54 [Permalink]
|
I think I have, while you've done nothing but snipe at people and insult them and say "hmmm."
quote:
I are not going to impress anyone this way.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
opus
Skeptic Friend
Canada
50 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2002 : 08:34:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Ummmmm, depending on the war it might be useful to knock out facilities that produce weapons of war. You might also want to make it difficult to sustain life in the immediate area so no one goes to repair the facility. You could destroy the living accomodations of the people that live there and all the services that make it a nice place to live. Obviously this doesn't apply to places like Afghansistan where all war materials are imported but it would apply to Germany and Japan. If I was in charge that is what I would target. Then, as you destroy the planes and tanks, you know that there will be no replacements.
I play some online wargames and the first time I played vs real people over the internet rather than vs the computer AI I had a horrible shock. While I went for the military pieces, my enemy went right for my town and production. I lost badly every time until I adjust my tactics and went right for the enemy heartland. This way you don't just win the battle. You win the war.
@tomic
You are quite right it might be useful to destroy everything. The point is not whether it is a tactic to concider, but rather whether it is a crime or not. Since before WWII it has been concidered a crime by international treaty. This has been my point all along.
Online war games are not real war. I have no idea what game you are playing so it is impossible to comment further. Germany was bombed constantly from 43 on and was still able to increase production throughout the war until the last few months. It's airforce became ineffective not from a lack of planes, but from a lack of trained pilots.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2002 : 11:12:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It's airforce became ineffective not from a lack of planes, but from a lack of trained pilots.
If you kill the pilot the combat missions will not be flown until another pilot is trained-a matter of weeks.
If you blow up the planes and destroy the ability to make planes no more combat missions will be flown until a new factory and all the equiptment in it is build-that could take months if not years. It is much better stragegy to destroy the enemy's ability to continue making war , it puts your own people at much less risk.
And once you have conquered them it makes for a much more stable peace if they are unable to rearm themselves.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2002 : 03:59:34 [Permalink]
|
If you don't behave ethically, no one will want to play with you anymore.
quote:
If you blow up the planes and destroy the
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2002 : 09:34:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If you don't behave ethically, no one will want to play with you anymore.
If by 'play with you' you mean ---not declare war, make a sneak attack on you and murder thousands of your people---then I only wish you were correct.
Frankly while reading this board I find myself scratching my head in wonder at some of the naive things that are being written. It's like we are talking about a sporting match and not total war.
The Germans and the Japanese started the war and immediately tossed out 19th century codes of combat (actually these were European codes that the Japanese never had so they didn't actually toss them out) But you want the US to follow them because two wrongs don't make a right.
The point in total war is to win, not be likeable. They die, you stay alive--simple.
Let me now punish you with an old man's debating trick--the interminable personal anecdote. Get someone to wake you up when it's over.
My first week in school in the USA I was beset by the class bully and his two toadies. He was a big bruiser being a year older than the rest of the class, and add to that the fact that I had been put ahead a grade because of the mistaken idea that, being a European, I must actually know something. He didn't like me because I was small, and I talked funny and I wore glasses. Everyday ended with me being shoved around.
The Mother told me not to fight. I wouldn't find new friends in New York by fighting, be nice, turn the other cheek. I listened to her.
But that Friday I committed the ultimate offence--I wore my cap to school. It was announced to me at lunch that I was gonna be "kilt" on my way home that afternoon. And sure weren't the three of them blocking the side-walk a block from school at 3:00 o'clock as promised. The shoving started again and one of the toadies grabbed my cap.
"Give me back my hat," I demanded of the bully, not the toady.
"I ain't got ya hat," B
"Here it is, " said toady #1 as he tossed it to toady#2
"Give me back my hat," I demanded again of the bully.
"Waddaya gonna do about it, Mick," he demanded?
Four minutes later he was on the sidewalk crying his eyes out with blood gushing from his nose.
"You fight dirty!" he sobbed.
"Yeah, that's right. I do."
"It's not fair," he blubbered ignoring the three to one odds and the size difference.
"No, it isn't," I agreed.
"I never hit you that hard!!!"
"That's why you're the one on the sidewalk."
"I'm gonna tell my mom!" and he left to do just that.
The two toadies who had stood by during this cursed at me and threw my cap into the street.
When Monday came the bully once again accused me of fighting dirty.
"You would never have known how I fight if you had left me alone," I replied.
A reputation as a dirty fighter (and an accent and glasses) didn't win me any friends among my classmates. But the bully did lose his toadies over his defeat and ceased to behave like a bully, so the rest of the kids did benefit.
That's what we have here. The bully (Japan) has run to his Mommy (you) because the poor sap (the USA), that he thought he could beat the shit out of, turned out not to be such a poor sap after all.
Wah, wah, wah…you didn't play by the rules! You hit too hard!!!
Well, that's why you're the one signing the unconditional surrender. You'd have never have known that if you had just left us alone.
And if the other kids (nations) don't want to play, at least they aren't dominated by the Pacific bully anymore.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2002 : 09:49:03 [Permalink]
|
So, as always, we are limited to two extremes where in every scenario there are never two sides to a story. Give up and feel bad about it, or do something extreme. I don't know what your story was meant to show for sure. Had you bombed the kid's family and his uncle's family and his neigbor's uncle's family and everyone the kid ever talked to or was going to talk to, we might come close to talking about the same thing.
Or, in the case of Afghanistan, let's bomb people that are complete strangers to the bully, victims of the bully in fact instead of using our resources to actually improve the situation.
quote:
If by 'play with you' you mean ---
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
