MrSmith Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 The civilians are the aggressors? MrSmith is going too far. Japan was the aggressor and they are responsible for all the civilian deaths on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 No. It's because the number actually means something to me but clearly not to everyone since for some people think the two nuclear bombs were "a good thing". But the number killed during the attack upon Tokyo doesn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 No. It's because the number actually means something to me but clearly not to everyone since for some people think the two nuclear bombs were "a good thing". "Good" is relative...the bombs brought on a quicker end to the war than would otherwise have happened..saving more lives..both civilian and military.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 No. It's because the number actually means something to me but clearly not to everyone since for some people think the two nuclear bombs were "a good thing".Why does 'your' 200,000 casualties mean more than, say, the 150,000 (at least...however routinely exaggerated to nearly 500,000) Dresden casualties at the hands of the Allies, using conventional ordnance? Is it the extra 50,000 bodies, or the nuclear tech that is at issue? EDIT - after that one, let's have a chat about a country willing to obtain a nuclear weapons for "deterrent purposes", yet ready and willing to let 10s of 1,000s of its children partake in frontline combat with Iraq less than 3 decades ago, shall we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chorba Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 ................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chorba Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 ............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Why does 'your' 200,000 casualties mean more than, say, the 150,000 (at least...however routinely exaggerated to nearly 500,000) Dresden casualties at the hands of the Allies, using conventional ordnance? Is it the extra 50,000 bodies, or the nuclear tech that is at issue? EDIT - after that one, let's have a chat about a country willing to obtain a nuclear weapons for "deterrent purposes", yet ready and willing to let 10s of 1,000s of its children partake in frontline combat with Iraq less than 3 decades ago, shall we? And you didn't even mention mention that its estimated that Japan killed about 1 million Chinese civilians in their air raids, and the figure goes up into the 10s of millions of civilian casualties when you factor in their invasion of China as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Why did Americans use two nuclear bombs and not one? Surely one nuclear bomb would have been enough to dissuade Japanese to continue the war. So why two? Because you are wrong and one wasn't enough to dissuade them from continuing the waw, they did not surrender until after the second one was dropped, and even then might have kept on fighting were it not for the fact that the soviet union declared war on them as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 There is a reason why the nuclear bomb is seen as a danger. It is very very powerful. They could have targeted military bases instead of arbitrary dropping a nuclear bomb on civilians. It was estimated by allied leaders both military and civilian that taking the Japanese mainland by force would cost the allies anywhere from 500,000 to 1,000,000 casualties. The Japanese leadership were literally determined to fight to the last man irrespective of casualties to their own people which would have far surpassed those incurred by the two A-bombs These estimates of allied casualties were predictions of men who had fought the war in the Pacific against Japan for three years and I'm certain knew far more on the subject than you or I As an afterthought Japanese cities had already suffered catastophic damage as a result of conventional bombing. Most of the houses and buildings were made of flimsy highly flammable material and burned like crazy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 It was estimated by allied leaders both military and civilian that taking the Japanese mainland by force would cost the allies anywhere from 500,000 to 1,000,000 casualties. The Japanese leadership were literally determined to fight to the last man irrespective of casualties to their own people which would have far surpassed those incurred by the two A-bombsTo be fair some of the estimates go a lot lower than that. But what none of them take into account is the number of japanese civilian casualties that will have been prevented by not invading. Now obviously that wasn't what was being considered at the time, but it's worth considering now. The number probably goes easily into the millions. As an afterthought Japanese cities had already suffered catastophic damage as a result of conventional bombing. Most of the houses and buildings were made of flimsy highly flammable material and burned like crazyCouldn't resist getting some pathetic little nationalist jibe in could you? *our houses are better than yours na na na na na* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.