Originally Posted by goober

This was the first time people had to come up with a strategy to use nuclear weapons.
And it was a very small group by necessity that had the discussion, no great public debate was possible, no consultation with the great minds of the day, with philosophers and theologians and the great moralists of the time, just a few people who could only discuss it in a very closed framework.


First, every Purple Heart awarded from 1945 to this very day comes from the batch ordered in preparation for the invasion of Japan. They expected the invasion to cost a tremendous amount of lives.

Second, there was a secret deal with Stalin, if the war with Japan went beyond a certain date, the Soviet Union would declare war on Japan, but if the war could be ended before that date, the Soviet Union would have no part in post war Japan.

Third, they only had two bombs, one design had been tested once, the other design had never been tested.


Truman needed to make a decision without precedent, the reasoning went that the use of the bomb had to be dramatic, and that the second had to be used a few days later to create the impression that this would become a regular event.
In fact it would have been months before another bomb was ready.

Truman did consider the civilian casualties, and believed that civilian casualties would be reduced by using the bomb to bring a quick end to the war. Civilian casualties in the case of an invasion would have run into the millions.

Originally Posted by namvet

what was the deadliest in your opinion???

Originally Posted by namvet

also Japan was trying to make its own A bomb to use against us. just as Hitler was

Originally Posted by Speedyer

I don't know, that's a tough question, and I'm not an expert on WWII weaponry nor would I know how to answer that question. The deadliest to who? Non-combatants? Anyway what I do know is that more people probably died during the firebombing raids then both bombs combined, and yet the bomb is perceived to have been the greater evil. Of course how exactly do you do that, measure death? Not an exactly perfect solution, death is death is death no matter what the weapon or who the murder.

Where those who died by the atomic bomb more worthy of life than the massive amounts of the Chinese the Japanese killed? Or any of the other countless civilians killed by both sides during WWII? All I can really do to answer is quote Sherman, "War is Hell".

While interesting, and entirely plausible, there is no real proof that the Japanese were close enough to be a threat. All we really know is that they did have a nuclear weapons program. The problem is the dependence upon Germany for enriched uranium makes it doubtful that they got very far (I mean if Germany didn't have a working bomb, why is it likely Japan did?). Even if they had had a bomb, the worst they could of done would have been to sink some US ships though you can be absolutely sure they would of used it on our soil if they had the chance.

Originally Posted by namvet

I want your opinion. NOT your scorn. in spite of what you think i did not give the order. ok?????

Originally Posted by htperr6565

what, didn't want to answer my argument, so you call it scorn??? my entire post was directed at your statements, not at you.

One more chance:

no bombs and no invasion were neccessary. the japanese had no navy by that point, therefore no means to project their will on anyone but themselves. that would have been fine by me. But truman wanted to make a point and move on to the next war, which thankfully did not happen.

Respond with substance, please.

Originally Posted by namvet

Im after your opinion. NOT your scorn. don't shoot the messenger. I did NOT give the order. ok?????

Originally Posted by htperr6565

what, didn't want to answer my argument, so you call it scorn??? my entire post was directed at your statements, not at you.

One more chance:

no bombs and no invasion were neccessary. the japanese had no navy by that point, therefore no means to project their will on anyone but themselves. that would have been fine by me. But truman wanted to make a point and move on to the next war, which thankfully did not happen.

Respond with substance, please.

Originally Posted by namvet

I want your opinion. NOT your scorn. in spite of what you think i did not give the order. ok?????

Originally Posted by AJG

He's obviously refusing to discuss what we typed when it's clear we expressed no scorn at all.

Originally Posted by htperr6565

yep, he is surprised that there are multiple ways to disagree with the use of nuclear bombs. he was only expecting the more normal one.

Originally Posted by namvet

thanks for both of your opinions.

you apporve of the bombings.

Originally Posted by namvet

thanks for both of your opinions.

you apporve of the bombings.

Originally Posted by AJG

Again it appears you don't want to discuss the topic. You refuse to discuss our posts you refuse to discuss the topic.

Originally Posted by namvet

oh ill be glad to. once we get past your test bombs.

Originally Posted by htperr6565

no bombs and no invasion were necessary. the japanese had no navy by that point, therefore no means to project their will on anyone but themselves.