The A Bombs Of Japan: necessary ??? - Page 4 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

namvet · #46 (**permalink**) 09-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJG

What are you talking about?

im taking about what you said. in your own words:

Quote:

One of the points of the A-Bomb was to show Japan our raw power. What if we showed them what the A-Bomb could potentially do instead of without warning dropping a massive bomb on a populated place? The Japaneese government was obviously afraid of our power and that's why the surrendered. Why couldn't we scare them without actually killing so many people?

Well, if that wouldn't work then I would rather have hundreds of thousands die instead of a few million.

Quote:

Well, wouldn't you say it would have atleast been better to get their attention? I'm sure there were less populated places where they could have set off the bomb.

Quote:

But why does it matter where they set it off? Perhaps little boy might not have detonated at all either. Fortunately or unfortunately it did, so that would mean if they tried it on a (not necessarily a deserted island) less populated area then it would have worked there.

Quote:

For there to be any impact at all it needs to effect the lives of the Japanese. For that to happen the bomb must land in place where there's atleast people and roads and such so it effects the government. That way it would atleast get attention and they will know what kind of power the US holds over Japan. They didn't need to display their might while killing hundreds of thousands. Better a few thousand than hundreds of thousands

Quote:

It was weak. It neither effected or scared the Japanese. It needed an impact for the scare tactic to work (perhaps destroying a network of roads or a town with a low population).

Quote:

I'm not talking about test bombs. I'm talking about the real deal. Fat man and little boy. They could have threatended the country with a larger target each time. That in my book would be a very effective scare tactic. Theaten to use it. No response. BOOM! Lands in a small small town. No response. BOOM! Lands in a slightly more populated area. No response. BOOM! Lands in a small city. By the time you reach the small city they would be very afraid of the how large the next target will be.

your "testing" is scare tactics to make them surrender. and if they don't. then what????? more testing???? how many bomb testing do you need???? still no surrender. now what??? how many "tests" do you need. where is the limit???? how far are you prepared to go??? is there a limit to this???? if you use the 2 bombs we have and they still won't surrender then what????

htperr6565 · #47 (**permalink**) 09-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speedyer

Yet they didn't surrender after we destroyed their navy, they didn't surrender after Germany fell, and they didn't surrender after we took their outer Islands and threatened invasion. Instead they fought to the last man with whatever they had, ontinued Kamikaze attacks and prepared school children for invasion. .

What you fail to realize, is that a surrender was not needed, if you are not an egoist in washington.

The whole spat with Japan was about them expanding, not existing. They had not ability to expand on the eve of the drop. Who cares if they surrender? They were stuck on their island surrounded by the biggest navy in the world. a one year blockade could have produced a surrender without vaporizing half a million. why let the military government decide the fate of thousands? i thought america was above stuff like that, not just another calculating country.
no fight was needed. the fight in all practical sense was over. the japanese war machine was crushed.

why was a surrender so important? the war was not all or nothing at the beginning (japan just wanted to slap our navy out of the way while they picked up a resource empire, similar to ours). why did it become so at the end?

namvet · #48 (**permalink**) 09-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by htperr6565

What you fail to realize, is that a surrender was not needed, if you are not an egoist in washington.

The whole spat with Japan was about them expanding, not existing. They had not ability to expand on the eve of the drop. Who cares if they surrender? They were stuck on their island surrounded by the biggest navy in the world. a one year blockade could have produced a surrender without vaporizing half a million. why let the military government decide the fate of thousands? i thought america was above stuff like that, not just another calculating country.
no fight was needed. the fight in all practical sense was over. the japanese war machine was crushed.

why was a surrender so important? the war was not all or nothing at the beginning (japan just wanted to slap our navy out of the way while they picked up a resource empire, similar to ours). why did it become so at the end?

looks like he's on to you liberal. so pull back and wait. huh???? for them to rearm and re supply from Manchuria using the emperor's lake. finished you said???? they took the fire bombing in stride. no effect at all. yawn.......

Speedyer · #49 (**permalink**) 09-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by htperr6565

What you fail to realize, is that a surrender was not needed, if you are not an egoist in washington.

The whole spat with Japan was about them expanding, not existing. They had not ability to expand on the eve of the drop. Who cares if they surrender? They were stuck on their island surrounded by the biggest navy in the world. a one year blockade could have produced a surrender without vaporizing half a million. why let the military government decide the fate of thousands? i thought america was above stuff like that, not just another calculating country.
no fight was needed. the fight in all practical sense was over. the japanese war machine was crushed.

why was a surrender so important? the war was not all or nothing at the beginning (japan just wanted to slap our navy out of the way while they picked up a resource empire, similar to ours). why did it become so at the end?

So does that mean you support the actions of the Japanese during WWII? That wasn't a freaking spat, this was an attack against our nation and you want us not to take it seriously? Hey what's a few lives here and there, it's Japan's right to expand and alley with Germany!

Surrender is important to make sure Japan doesn't remilitarize sometime in the future. Or do you think taking Japan's word not to start any new wars in the future is enough?

namvet · #50 (**permalink**) 09-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speedyer

So does that mean you support the actions of the Japanese during WWII?

yeah I think he does. he'd rather save them and fill up Arlington cemetery

AJG · #51 (**permalink**) 09-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by namvet

im taking about what you said. in your own words:

your "testing" is scare tactics to make them surrender. and if they don't. then what????? more testing???? how many bomb testing do you need???? still no surrender. now what??? how many "tests" do you need. where is the limit???? how far are you prepared to go??? is there a limit to this???? if you use the 2 bombs we have and they still won't surrender then what????

Was little boy a test bomb?

AJG · #52 (**permalink**) 09-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by namvet

yeah I think he does. he'd rather save them and fill up Arlington cemetery

I think he has a valid argument. If we just keep watch over them eventually they would have to surrender. There would be no way they could build up a navy that could even come close to even scratching our own. They would need foreign aid. If we cut them off from the world they may have eventually surrendered when the going got too tough.

namvet · #53 (**permalink**) 09-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJG

Was little boy a test bomb?

that's the impression you gave me pal. use them both to scare the Japs into surrending. what else would you use ?????

AJG · #54 (**permalink**) 09-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by namvet

that's the impression you gave me pal. use them both to scare the Japs into surrending. what else would you use ?????

Little boy. The bomb that wasn't a test bomb.

namvet · #55 (**permalink**) 09-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJG

I think he has a valid argument. If we just keep watch over them eventually they would have to surrender. There would be no way they could build up a navy that could even come close to even scratching our own. They would need foreign aid. If we cut them off from the world they may have eventually surrendered when the going got too tough.

and the emperor's lake???? which kept supplying them

AJG · #56 (**permalink**) 09-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by namvet

and the emperor's lake???? which kept supplying them

Emperor's lake???

namvet · #57 (**permalink**) 09-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJG

Little boy. The bomb that wasn't a test bomb.

gee no kiddin. what do you do with it if your in charge?????

namvet · #58 (**permalink**) 09-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJG

Emperor's lake???

I rest my case

AJG · #59 (**permalink**) 09-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by namvet

I rest my case

What is it? Sorry, I don't know as much about it as you (which doesn't surprise me since you were probably alive during the war).

CYDdharta · #60 (**permalink**) 09-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by htperr6565

What you fail to realize, is that a surrender was not needed, if you are not an egoist in washington.

The whole spat with Japan was about them expanding, not existing. They had not ability to expand on the eve of the drop. Who cares if they surrender? They were stuck on their island surrounded by the biggest navy in the world. a one year blockade could have produced a surrender without vaporizing half a million. why let the military government decide the fate of thousands? i thought america was above stuff like that, not just another calculating country.
no fight was needed. the fight in all practical sense was over. the japanese war machine was crushed.

why was a surrender so important? the war was not all or nothing at the beginning (japan just wanted to slap our navy out of the way while they picked up a resource empire, similar to ours). why did it become so at the end?

How would starving the population of Japan for a year be more compassionate than bombing them?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode