Why America Dropped the Bomb
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Hey bright one. One of the major conspiracy fantasies of Japanese apologists is that United States knew about the Japanese plans to attack Pearl Harbor.
Surprise.. PoliNick is still unable to follow a thread!
Ok...
PWNED
Korea? The US started the Korean War!?!?!
The whole world knows that Canada started the Korean War.
Lets all get stupid!!!!
Yes we did it we used it successfully. Whoop!
And we all know that Canada helped build it and provided the Uranium!
The history of nuclear science in France goes back over one hundred years. It began in 1896 when Antoine Henri Becquerel first discovered natural radioactivity. Since that time, a long line of French scientists (including Pierre and Marie Curie) have developed the technology for creating artificial radioactivity and for harnessing the power of nuclear fission
In your own words an attack was expected. So if it was expected in the Phillipines why was the entire pacific fleet at Pearl? That doesn't sound like a good strategy to me, leaving a base basically undefended during a time when you are expecting it to be attacked. Please do explain this if it wasn't to allow the Japanese a free run at Suvik Bay....or Pearl....or both.
Hey (not so) bright one....I said the US wanted the Korean 'conflict' (never was called a war, LOL) to start. Just like with Vietnam there were US advisors urging the fight to start. Both Korea and Vietnam were deemed to be beneficial to the US position in SE Asia which was to gain a foothold in the region with concerns for China and the Soviets.
Typical American a$$hole....celebrating killing 2 entire cities. You do show your true colors with that comment.
STILL unable to follow along huh? Still unable to comprehend?
Now you're trying to dictate military strategy? How foolish. Clearly you have no clue on how fleets work and operate.
War... conflict... whatever. Is semantics all you have?
You're so idiotic. It was 1950 and we had a larger presence in the region than we do today. Japan was still under occupation bright one.
Who were we advising... the N. Koreans to invade our allies the S. Koreans.
You're brain dead.
Celebrating the end of the war chump! That's right we did it and Canada helped us make it as did Britain.
Did you miss the question mark? I am simply asking who the military genius is that recalled the fleet to Pearl when an attack on Suvik Bay was expected and why would they do that? It doesn't make sense in any strategy unless there was a hidden agenda that included giving the Japanese an easy target. If you can't actually answer the question just say so.
Call it semantics if you like. I was simply pointing out the hilarity of calling it a 'police action' instead of a war. Don't know who came up with that but I know it was because the US population would not support a 'war'.
Yawn!
Maybe you should be more clear in your posts and say 'I'm glad it ended the war' because it reads like "we dropped the bomb and killed 2 entire cities, yeah!"
2042 people died in the attack. Only 57 were civilians. The rest were military.
The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed 150,000 to 250,000 people, and nearly all were civilians.
The unprovoked US attack and occupation of Iraq killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians (possibly more than a million) and turned millions more civilians into refugees. If Americans were concerned about about killing innocent civilians, then they'd probably have at least a good idea of how many Iraqi civilians have died as a result of their actions in Iraq. Certainly the American news never talks about the total number of civilian deaths in Iraq. IMO, the American public doesn't care about innocent civilian deaths, unless their idiot box tells them its important.
Americans were no more concerned about innocent Chinese deaths back in the 1930's than they are concerned now about innocent Iraqi deaths, or innocent Vietnamese/Cambodian deaths during the Vietnam war. US propaganda at the time mostly ignored Japanese atrocities. In the early 1930's the US was somewhat pro-Japan and anti-China. Japan was a US Allie during WW I. The US tried to maintain good relations with Japan and ignoring Japan's post WW I atrocities helped smooth trade relations. But as Japanese atrocities grew ever more outrageous they eventually became too big to ignore. The 1937 Rape of Nanking did make the US news and Roosevelt condemned it. But he also ordered the withdrawal of American troops from most of China, leaving the Chinese to fend for themselves. While the Japanese raped and slaughtered innocent Chinese civilians, the US continued to sell war materials to Japan. If the Rape of Nanking outraged the US, then why did they continue trading with Japan for another two years????
BTW, I agree with the US embargo against Japan... I just said that once the US cut off Japan from oil, war was the most likely consequence. The Pearl Harbor attack was successful as a result of careful Japanese preparation and American incompetence. After Pearl Harbor the US military has tried to maintain a constant level preparedness for another Pearl Harbor like attack.
The US, UK and France bombed Iraq daily-weekly after the ceasefire agreement 1991. It just didn't make our news very often. Once in a while Iraq would defend themselves from American ceasefire violations and our propaganda would portray their defense of their sovereign territory from hostile attacks inside Iraq as offensive. The propaganda was so twisted, most Americans still believe US bombing missions inside Iraq were defensive. (no-fly zones and other related BS)
BTW, I agree with what the US did in the northern Iraq. US ceasefire violations probably averted a bloodbath in Northern Iraq, so I'm not criticizing the action, just the propaganda which lied about it
Technically, when a US military aircraft flies into Iraqi airspace and bombs Iraqi military sites, the US is attacking Iraq. Claims that Iraq was attacking the US would be similar to claiming that someone attacked me, by using their face to hit my fist. American propaganda also created a perception that these American attacks against the Iraqi military were backed by a UN Resolution, but they weren't. The same propaganda also created a perception that Iraq still possessed WMD stockpiles, even though UN weapon inspectors were more or less certain that Iraq no longer possessed WMDs back in 1998 before Operation Desert Fox.
Iraqi Sanctions: Myth and Fact
Anyone actually read the weapon inspector reports, would have known that US claims about Iraqi WMD stockpiles was 100% BS. That was known in 1998 and in March 2003 just a couple of weeks before the US led invasion:
Security Council 7 March 2003
Our news never reported anything which did not support the case for war.
Regarding nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki... I don't believe President Truman, his cabinet or the generals understood the destructive power of nuclear weapons. They were given numbers, but in people's minds, the numbers didn't translate to leveling an entire city and killing hundreds of thousands of people. If Truman understood how destructive the bomb was, he may not have used it on cities, but demonstrated it to the Japanese as many scientists working on the Manhattan project recommended:
"The Scientists' Petition:" A Forgotten Wartime Protest
Last edited:
It never does. Propaganda to manipulate the minds of the population at it's finest.
I think they did know or at least had a pretty good idea. They had done their test in the desert and seen the results clearly. They had to realize just how devastating the result would be if dropped on a major population center. They also had a good idea of how radiation sickness would affect any survivors.
With even a basic knowledge and understanding of the potential result giving the order to drop the bomb was one of the most inhuman acts of war in history. Dropping the second bomb after seeing the results of the first was, without a doubt, the most inhuman act of war ever.
Recalled the US Fleet from what you are calling Suvik? First off its Subic Bay. Do you research anything? The US Pacific Fleet wasn't even stationed there. The US Pacific Fleet was actually moved from San Diego to Pearl Harbor early in 1941. If you knew anything about the US Navy at the beginning of WWII you would know that the Japanese Navy was much stronger in the Pacific than the US Pacific Fleet. Arguably it was stronger all around.
In short the US Pacific Fleet was not recalled from Subic Bay. Another example of you not knowing what you are talking about.
The Subic Bay facilities were not even able to support the whole fleet and why would you even want to put your fleet so close to a superior Japanese fleet? That would have given the Japanese a real easy target.
Pick up a book.
I'll stick to my original as it coincides with my other post. We successfully dropped two A-Bombs. Checkmate.
Indeed they were. They probably should have thought of that before they attacked the US huh?
False.
I won't even bother to responding to the other babble.
Ummm Nick- You might want to take a look at some of the goings on in the concentration camps in Poland.
Well, maybe 20% of two entire cities. There's no doubt about it, this probably rated among the top 50 world disasters (mostly of their own making) of the 20th century. But it never reinforces your point to grossly exaggerate. Like I pointed out recently, before you instigate aggression, make sure you are aware of how much you can lose.
Absolutely - they brought it all on themselves. The only part I regret is the innocent civilians, but the aggressors obviously didn't care about them. The P.O.W.s didn't deserve what they got either!
After the first bomb it would probably have been a good time to surrender eh? But no... the Japanese in their arrogance told the Emperor that the US only had one bomb.
And what makes it more inhuman than the many other conventional bombings? Because it was only one bomb? Should the US had fire bombed like they did in Tokyo? Or the more devastating attack on Dresden by the RAF and the Royal Canadian AF.
My apology for the spelling error...
I never claimed the fleet was stationed there nor recalled from there, I question why they were not in the area if an attack there was expected. Was it a case of trying to protect the fleet at the expense of suBik bay or was it just providing the Japanese with an open run to an undefended target.
Just when did the civilian population launch attacks and start wars? Those are things decided by a few select people in government and the military. Would not a fair analogy be me killing anyone related to you because you hit me in a bar. Just like you buy the propaganda of your government the Japanese bought the propaganda of theirs as did the Germans.
So, just to be clear, you are saying it is ok to kill 100's of thousands of civilians for the decisions of a few people who control the military.
Considering I had family in Dachau I probably have a good idea. A couple made it out, a few more didn't.
20%???? What history are you looking at? Once again I ask if the 200,000 citizens gave the orders in the war? Why are the innocent women & children held accountable for the actions of military dictators? Are you ok with that?
They saw a movie of a mushroom cloud in a desert, not a leveled city. The impact on the psyche is completely different. I agree these events were inhumane, but the most inhumane??? That's a pretty big claim. Man's inhumanity toward man seems to know no limits. The Allied firebombing of Dresden was about as inhumane as nuking a city. Dresden was a university and culture city, had no significant military targets and was harboring hundreds of thousands of refugees. That atrocity did not change the outcome of the war and was more about punishing the Germans for bombing London. Also the various purges by Stalin and Mao resulted in millions of senseless deaths. The Holocaust?...
The Washington Treaty of 1922 initially limited the Japanese to 315,000 tons of capital ships, 60% of the 525,000 tons allowed to the United States. The United States and Britain had to reduce their navies (the United States scrapped 15 battleships and cruisers that had been under construction) while the Japanese had to build up to get to their "limitation." With the stroke of a pen, Japan reduced the size of the US Navy while being allowed to increase the size of its own navy. This was followed by the 1930 London Treaty that further restricted Japanese naval strength by limiting the Japanese to 108,400 tons of heavy cruisers, 60.23% of the American heavy cruiser force, to 100,450 tons of light cruisers, 70% of the American allowance, and 52,700 tons of submarines.
The Sino-Japanese and Russo-Japanese wars spawned a unique Japanese approach to naval thought that dominated strategic and tactical discussion up to World War II. Forbidden by treaty from matching America quantitatively, Japan sought to exploit operational and technological niches to inflict disproportionate damage. Under the rubric of "using a few to conquer many," the Japanese developed comparative advantages such as long-range torpedo combat, night operations by surface units, and a tactic of outranging the U.S. fleet with subsurface, surface, and air forces. The Imperial Navy also designed and produced weapons needed to implement its strategy. During the early 1930s it deployed the first oxygen-propelled (Type 93) torpedo, whose range, speed, and payload far exceeded American and British models. In 1940 it fielded the Mitsubishi A6N "Zeke," the world's foremost carrier-based fighter.
While Japan lagged behind the United States and Great Britain in high-technology systems like radar, it built less-advanced sensors, including superior optics and searchlights. By 1940 the Japanese were much the equal of their British and American foes in training, technological innovation, and tactical proficiency.
The Imperial Japanese Navy was a pioneer in naval aviation, having commissioned the world's first built-from-the-keel-up carrier, the 'Hosho'. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, it experimented with its carriers, perfecting their design and construction. As result, by 1941 it possessed a fantastically effective naval aviation force.
In 1907, the same year the US Navy began working on its Orange Plan for rescuing the Philippines from Japan, the United States became for the Japanese navy the "budgetary enemy." Despite the fact that Japan had been an ally during World War I, American war planning in the interwar years focused on war with Japan, and Japanese planning focused on the United States. In June 1940 Japan sought and received the French Vichy government's permission to land forces in French Indochina. Japanese Prime Minister Matsuoka Y�suke announced the idea of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (Dai-to-a Kyoeiken, variants: Dai Toa Kyoeiken, Daitoa Kyoeiken, Daitoa="Greater East Asia", Kyoeiken="Co-Prosperity Sphere") in August 1940. In September 1940 Japanese troops started occupying northern parts of French Indochina.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration reacted by placing an embargo on steel and scrap iron from the United States, an event the Japanese termed an "unfriendly act." In July 1941 Japan demanded more Indochinese bases, and when Japan moved to occupy these bases, the United States, Great Britain, and the Netherlands froze Japanese assets. They also imposed an all-out embargo against Japan, including the export of oil. Japan imported all of the oil it used and had now lost access to almost all of its sources.
In August 1941 Japanese war planning increased as the military leaders realized that war with the United States was more likely everyday. In response to the American embargo, the Imperial Staff developed the "Southern Operation," a plan for capturing the industrial rich Dutch East Indies and Malaya. Japan realized this action would force the United States and Great Britain into war, so the plan also called for seizing the American-held Philippines and Guam and the British possessions of Hong Kong and Burma. Once the southern areas were secured, Japan would occupy strategic positions in the Pacific and fortify them, thus forming a tough defensive perimeter around Japan and its newly acquired resource areas. Once the perimeter was secure, Japan would try to negotiate for peace. The planners thought it would take six months to accomplish all the tasks and had to be free of interference from the American Navy during that time. Yamamoto had the plan for ensuring that the US Pacific Fleet would not interfere for six months.
On December 7, 1941, Japanese navy airplanes raided the Pearl Harbor (Hawaii) base of the United States....
IJN Imperial Japanese Navy / ( Nihon Kaigun )
You mean the Japanese leadership not the general population right?
What makes it worse than conventional warfare is the know effects both immediate and long term. The US leadership was well aware of the potential damage from radiation on the population both within the blast radius and in the surrounding ares. I fail to understand how your country's leadership and general citizenry can rail so loud against Iraq using chemical weapons on the Kurds and other such events while condoning the use of the biggest & baddest WMD of all. Just a little hypocritical IMO especially when the largest cache of WMDs belongs to the US.
It's war Nick, the Japs chose to go there, not the Americans. Check out how many innocent civilians died in London.
Before you get too weepy about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Nick, you might want to take a gander at the attached.............Japanese war crimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia...........
America didn't destroy two entire Japanese cities. It destroyed all Japanese cities. Except for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all of the Japanese cities were firebombed. It's called total war.
Good post. Our little friend might want to read: Amazon.com: Soldiers of the Sun: The Rise and Fall of the Imperial Japanese Army (9780679753032): Meirion Harries: Books
Actually the US leadership was under much pressure from its allies to enter the war and purportedly wanted to and believed entry was inevitable at some point. It was the simple fact that the general population was against entrance that stopped it happening earlier. The attack on Pearl was the catalyst that changed public opinion and allowed the govt to honor its agreements with the allied forces. Any logical disection of these facts leads to the theory that the Japanese attack was allowed to happen to achieve this change in opinion. I can believe that there was possibly some mistake about the target but given the fact that the US had broken the Japanese codes and were listening to what they were doing I find it hard to believe they knew nothing.
Dropping the bomb was a war crime by definition both under 'mass killings' and 'chemical weapons'. Almost all countries have committed war crimes to some extent and the US is near the top of the list. Some of the actions in Vietnam should have led to tribunals to rival Nuremburg. A lot of the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq are war crimes by definition including the actual invasions themselves. Even Canada does not have clean hands here as we are now condoning torture by our allies to get what is most likely useless intel. I don't think it is at all a good idea to point the finger at another country for its actions in war....it is a war after all and the object is to win.
My apology for the spelling error...
Spelling error? You've been calling it Suvik Bay the whole time. That's just you not knowing what you're talking about.
Again... you've no clue about what it takes to operate a fleet so far from its Main Base. You've no clue on the condition of the US Navy at the time of Pearl Harbor and how it stacked up against the IJN. Your ridiculous posts attest to it. Facilities, fuel, supplies, etc. Ever hear of logistics? The US Pacific Fleet could not sustain itself operating out of the Philippines.
An open run to an undefended target. I am guessing you are calling the Philippines undefended?
Why am I even bothering explaining. You're too dense to understand.
WW2 was TOTAL WAR. It was Total War and the nation of Canada was right up there in the slaughter of civilians with regards to bombing. In WW2 every country's population was a target.
Revisionism.
Atomic Bombs are chemical weapons? You're softer each post!
Last edited:
Years ago I read a book about the Manhattan project. If I recall the military planners decided against the demonstration option (Japan could use American POWs as human shields or shoot down the bomber) and instead decided to drop two nukes without warning in quick succession, then demand the Japanese surrender. They did not expect the Japanese to surrender after just two nukes. The US was geared up to produce three nukes per month. the plan was to drop them on Japan as they came off the production lines until they surrendered or no more cities remained to be bombed. Operation Downfall (the invasion of Japan proper) was scheduled to start after every major Japanese city had been nuked or firebombed. The war planners believed that Japan would surrender after they nuked about 20-30 Japanese cities but before Operation Downfall.
Great Interview with the Paul Tibbets!
Paul Tibbets Interview
Wouldn't a plan to occupy a radioactive land indicate the powers of the day had no idea of how dangerous their Bomb really was?