| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Japan, Germany, WWII | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 12 2004, 11:39 AM (265 Views) | |
| Admiralbill_gomec | May 12 2004, 12:59 PM Post #16 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Here's why we dropped the atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki: It was calculated that there would be over ONE MILLION Allied casualties in an invasion of the home island. This was based on the casualties incurred from the invasions of Okinawa and Iwo Jima, two tiny islands. We were still conducting bombing missions over Japan AFTER the bomb was dropped. They still hadn't surrendered.
We already had Japan blockaded, and they didn't surrender. It was simply against Bushido to surrender. Look up what happened on Saipan when Allied forces liberated it. Oh, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945, two days after we dropped Fat Man. They declared war then because they wanted disputed territory. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | May 12 2004, 01:00 PM Post #17 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
Even if the jets weren't enough, they could still do massive damage. The blockade would never cause Japan to surrender. Every male on the island was being trained to use a rifle. Every citizen was in the effort to make new weapons. Given Japan's ability to produce food, the blockade would be in effect to this day! What if we left? It took Japan only a couple of DECADES to build themselves up from a minor power to one of the most powerful forces on earth. They would be reclaiming colonies within 5 years. So what would we do then? Bomb their industries and farmlands to force them out of the war? That would have caused a higher death toll then both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not only that, but Japan would be in shambles both industrially and agriculturally. Thousands would die from famine. Unless you can find some other solution, I would have to conclude that the atomic bombs were not only the best solution for America, but the best solution for post-war Japan also. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | May 12 2004, 01:02 PM Post #18 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
One comment about the Imperial Japanese Air Forces... by August 1945, their primary function was kamikaze attacks. They didn't need a lot of fuel for a one way trip (an interesting sidebar, from a munitions standpoint... a nearly empty fuel tank makes for a larger explosion because the fuel vapor and air combination explodes, while liquid fuel burns). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | May 12 2004, 01:06 PM Post #19 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
I doubt many Japanese people would agree. While in China, there were lots of Japanese students at the university with me. I met a girl from Nagasaki with a bloching skin disease who told me the cancer rate there is higher than anywhere else in Asia. The casulaties from the atomic bomb goes way past the initial shockwave. You guys are entitled to your opinion, it's pretty hard to know what might've happened, it's all speculation. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | May 12 2004, 01:08 PM Post #20 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
Given what happened on Okinawa and Iwo Jima, I would say that you are wrong. We knew what would happen if we tried to take Japan by force. Also, if we merely bomber Japan back into the stone age, I believe that the effects of that would be much more far reaching then that of the atomic bombs. You also still have yet to provide a viable alternative. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | May 12 2004, 01:09 PM Post #21 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Of course they wouldn't... they were the defeated. Don't you think that, if there was actually another way, it would have been tried? Hell, Allied planes firebombed Dresden, which had far more casualties than Hiroshima. Would this have been preferred? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | May 12 2004, 01:28 PM Post #22 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Did the Japanese really have jet aircraft towards the end of WWII ? That's news to me - what makes you think that. As to Japanese oil reserves - near their coast ? ??? (a little bit in the north but it's not the same size as Base Strait or the North Sea. Japan was , and still is totally dependent on energy imports, they invade SE Asia and China in persuit of secure energy and coal and iron ore reserves , as they have bugger all of their own. China has huge coal reserves (coal seams more than a km think in some places, as well as oil, and natural gas, and copious ore bodies. SE has huge oil and gas reserves, as well huge deposits of copper and tin and nickel and molybdenum. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | May 12 2004, 01:38 PM Post #23 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
What makes me think that? Seeing the video of it being tested. "The Kikka (Orange Blossom), though a bit smaller than the Messerschmitt Me 262, was clearly inspired by the German jet fighter. Its primary claim to fame is that it was the very first Japanese aircraft to take off under jet power, even if it did so only once. Aside from that, it was yet again a case of too little, too late, since only the one prototype actually flew, although a second one was just a few days short of readiness when Japan capitulated." If we had tried to blockade Japan, this would have given Japan all the time that it needed to ready these planes. By oil reserves, I meant oil kept in depots on the mainland. Japan did not have any great need for gas except to power its military force. That meant that any supplies that they had to maintain their land force could be extended for a long time. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | May 12 2004, 01:39 PM Post #24 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Yes, the Japanese had jet aircraft toward the end of WWII. Most didn't fly. Nakajima built and tested a jet that looked a lot like the Me-262. Yokosuka built the Ohka, which was basically a manned, jet-powered anti-ship cruise missile (looked like a V-1). There was also a Mitsubishi rocket-powered plane that was modeled on the Me-163. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | May 12 2004, 06:44 PM Post #25 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
First I would like to say that nuking Japan was probably the best solution for the USA at the time. In the cold war the nuclear bomb took on the dooms-day aura that it became a taboo device, but in 1948 it was just a more powerful bomb. By today's standards, using a nuke is what you do as the very last resort, but back then it was throw everything you have at them. The nuclear attacks had lower death tolls than a few of the carpet bombing attacks on Japan and Tokyo, but it was 'nuclear' Aaaaaauuuuuggggghhhhhh! so that makes it really bad. We fire bombed Tokyo and Dreseden and killed hundreds of thousand more people, but they were conventional chemical explosives, not that this matters to the dead. An extended invasion of Japan by the USA who had already been in a World War for more than 4 years? We had already lost enough people to fight off the Japanese and liberate Europe, it was time to end it. An invasion would have cost so many more American lives for what? The destruction of the Japanese Empire. And in a World War, the most important consideration is the lives of your own, not your enemies. A blockade? Japan was on the way to developing nuclear weapons of their own. Do we give them the chance to make this happen? Not me. Japan, early in 1945 could see that it's defeat was immenant. They should have negotiated for a conditional surrender, but chose to take this fight to the last man approach. And it cost them dearly. Not our fault. In a war, the military's job is to make the other guy die for his cause, not give him a chance. Nuking Japan was the right decision in 1948. In 2004, however, I don't believe nuking the Iraqis is a good idea. There are better ways to deal with them. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Sgt. Jaggs | May 12 2004, 08:01 PM Post #26 |
|
How about a Voyager Movie
|
The Soviets knew of The Manhattan Project. Part of the Political thinking of dropping the second atomic bomb on a second city was a bit of a Big Stick 'throwback' type of policy, showing the Soviets that we have more than one, and we are not afraid to use them. Audio Books: American History by Kenneth C. Davis provided me with that perspective that is "generally accepted" as part of Truman's likely reasons and thoughts at the time. I believe there was a Potsdam conference at which our relations with the Soviet Premier were not solidly cemented. I remember that some said it went badly for us. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | May 12 2004, 11:17 PM Post #27 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
The war for the Russians could have gone better. Even though they were able to push the Germans back from their borders, there was a consistant call for a second front to be opened by America and Britain. However, the West was not willing to make that large a commitment yet. This made Stalin more and more distrustful of the West. When the war with Germany was nearly over, FDR gave the conquest of Berlin to Stalin as a bit of a gift for the tribulations that Russia had endured. Not only would this give Russia the satisfaction of defeating the enemy that had nearly destroyed it, but it would promote them to the status of a superpower. It would also give them great influence in the region. In hindsight, this was probably a miscalculation as the Cold War was much more tense with Russia at Western Europe's doorstep. Stalin still mistrusted the West so he used FDR's gift to try to do as much damage to the West as possible without starting another war. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | May 13 2004, 01:40 AM Post #28 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Weren't the Russian's a bit wary of the Japanese , afterall at the turn of the century the Japanese destroyed the Russian Pacific Fleet in the Russian - Japanese War, their generals and admirals - the ones who had survived the purges in the 1920's and 1930's would remember that. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| fireh8er | May 13 2004, 02:58 AM Post #29 |
|
I'm Captain Kirk!
|
Not really. The Russian Military had changed since the Czarist time. They soundly beat the Japanese in a border dispute in 1939. A lot of General staff officers were purged, but not Zhukov. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | May 13 2004, 10:57 AM Post #30 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
Not only that, but the Japanese signed a treaty with Russia after the US entered the war. Japan knew that they couldn't fight a war on two fronts. They were actually hoping that they could have destroyed the American carriers along with crippling most of the battleships so that they could force the Americans to concede power in tne Pacific. Admiral Yamamoto knew that he couldn't beat the US in a one on one fight and predicted quite accurately how long Japan could hold off our forces. In any case, the land in the Soviet Far East was not really worth taking over. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2




9:12 AM Jul 11