Hiroshima ....just an experiment on the already defeated?

Japan got what they were asking for sadly. They would not have stopped as their soldiers were brainwashed and fanatically devoted to their Emperor. Japanese soldiers were being found in heavily forested areas many years after the war had ended even. They only understood one thing: fight till death or dishonor the Emperor.

part experiment, part demonstration

all revenge

Originally posted by kman420
Well all you Americans sure have allot of input, I wonder what a japanese person would say...

Oh wait, i know a few, they think you are baby killing tyrants too, what a conincidence.

Only stating the obvious, Both sides did horrable things, I wonder how japanese were "really" treated in concentration camps?

but even though the Japanese may think that...they wouldn't say it from their mouths when standing face to face with the very American they said it about.

they would wait until the American was fully intoxicated enjoying a moment of celebration to say it.

that's what many consider to be bravery and masculinity

many in the middle east behave in this manner as well.

.

reply to post by michaelbrux


can we stop insulting entire cultures already? What you wrote is pretty offensive there. Please and thank you.

Everyone, lets just keep telling everyone is was Dolphin and Whale!

www.ecorazzi.com...

reply to post by stoptheinsanity2012


you are missing the point in that God's plan is bigger than our own. so let's fight and argue and live and love and at the end we will see his plan...

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
Everyone, lets just keep telling everyone is was Dolphin and Whale!

www.ecorazzi.com...

edit on 15-4-2012 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)

Nonsense, that was a cover-up.

The real culprits were Chicken and Cow..





The real bombers

CHICKEN AND COW?? CHICKEN AND COW??? CHICKEN AND COW USE POOR DOLPHIN AND WHALE AS SCAPEGOAT! THIS IS OUTRAGE!!!

(by the way, thank you for smashing that gigantic softball i just lobbed up to you!)

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by Dr Expired

 

You might be interested to know that Japan was almost finished with their Atom Bomb that they acquired from Germany . We didn't know they were working on it . Would they have used it? Yes ! Three weeks of armed resistance could have given them enough time to nuke us .

Just googled that. Very interesting, something I never knew.

The History Channel had a good special on Japans Bomb. Japan had two programs going, one by the Army, the other by the Navy. US bombing destroyed the headquarters of the Army program, without realizing what was destroyed. The Japanese Navy program was based in Korea, which was a Japanese colony, every since Theodore Roosevelt told Japan it was ok to occupy Korea. Japan did successfully test one bomb. There was footage from around 1990, when one of the Japanese scientists working on the program was interviewed. He clearly knew how to make a bomb. When Russia declared war on Japan, Russia overran the nuclear facility, which is where Russia probably learned how to make the bomb.
Eisenhower and MacArthur both argued against dropping the bomb. Giving a demonstration may have worked just as well. The Japanese felt if they surrendered, the Americans would rape all the Japanese women, and they would cease to exist as a people. Therefore, they thought it was better to fight to the death. The Emperor insisted on a surrender, overruling his military, who almost decided to ignore the Emperor.

reply to post by aching_knuckles


There are no such thing as war crimes. That is a bunch of contrived BS. You win at war or you lose... period.

countries can agree on paper all they want. Do you know what those agreements are for and what they mean???

They are only to prevent a country from going to war over perceived injustices committed either against that country or an ally.

Other than avoiding unnecessary bloodshed, the enactment of war crimes agreed upon by countries means nothing.

War sucks... It is sometimes necessary though. When it is necessary, you do whatever you have to, to win and you live with it.

Otherwise, you will be the one six feet under or living under the boot heel of a narcissist dictator.

I'm tired of little pansy asses thinking and saying WAR is BAD, WAR is BAD without having even the first inkling of an understanding of what war is or why it's necessary on occasion and on regular occasion if you desire to avoid the results of what comes when those with Machiavellian intent are left to their machinations.

Jaden

reply to post by Dr Expired

The US had made real progress in destroying the bulk of the Japanese warfighting capability at sea, but the overwhelming bulk of the Japanese army was not on the Pacific islands, it was in Mongolia and China. As others have stated, continuation of a conventional land war against the Japanese army easily would cost a low estimate of 1 million lives. Ending a war quickly, no matter the horrible nature of the weapon, leads to far less loss of life in the long term. As a student of military history I also have little sympathy for those who served in the Japanese army, especially those who served in China. The wholesale atrocities committed by those who believed themselves to be soldiers for the emperor is far beyond the pale. My thinking, in looking back on the decisions Harry Truman made is that it is too bad the weapons could not have been delivered on Japanese strongholds in China or Mongolia - it would have cost the lives of far more of their soldiers. The truth is that we had no way to deliver such a weapon until we were able to bomb the Japanese Homeland. Besides, striking there left no doubt of the full nature of the new weapons.
Mr. Truman made the rational choice.

That's weird... I always thought we dropped the first bomb, and Japan still refused to surrender, so then we dropped the second bomb, which made them surrender. I never knew it was one after the other. So, they wanted to surrender after the first bomb but we just bombed them again anyway? Or were the bombs dropped within minutes or hours of eachother? I always thought there were a few days between the bombings. If that was the case then you know our governments were in contact between the bombings... So which is it? Either they wanted to surrender after the first bomb and we dropped the second anyway, or like i always thought, they refused to surrender after the first bomb and the second bomb made them surrender?

reply to post by Bakatono


Most people will hate what you just said. Purely for the fact that it's right.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Dr Expired

Well when the Allies were faced with an enemy who had vowed to fight to the death rather than surrender,the potential allied loss of life ,should the option to invade the Japanese home islands,have been taken would have been enormous,so in those circumstances far from being "vengeance" driven,you optimise the weapons you have at your disposal.
Quite honestly,although it is always appaling when non combatants,especially children,are killed in war,perhaps if you could have asked the Chinese,Burmese,Phillipinos and countless other nations whom the Japs invaded and whose citizens they treated appalingly,if they shed any tears when the bombs were dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki,I imagine that they would have cheered,along with allied POW's who were treated abysmally by their Japanese captors.
I don't think that the bombs were used on an already defeated nation,they were used on an enemy who still had the potential to inflict major casualties on their oponents.

Regarding developing a viable weapons program that could have a reasonable expectation of producing a functional nuclear device...

Developing the then new and leading edge theory of fission to a level where applying the knowledge to a weapon design is possible, while extremely challenging in itself, is actually only a small part of the problem. It is not simply a matter of figuring out the mechanics then building it.

Economically processing the fuel is the major obstacle. The infrastructure required to refine enough fissionable material at the purity needed for a critical mass is mindboggling. 90% of the 2 billion dollar (25 billion in today's money) Manhatten Project funding was used to develop the factories, equipment, employee housing, roads etc needed.

Even after the centrifuges or calutrons needed to refine the uranium were built (the U.S. actually had to raid the U.S. Treasury the thousands of tons silver to build the calutron magnets in Savannah Georgia), they took a huge amount of power to operate necessitating building entire dedicated power generating stations.

Wartime Japan did not have anything even remotely approaching the economic or industrial resources needed to produce a nuclear weapon as the U.S. postwar investigation clearly revealed.

This hard truth is something that the adherents to the myth of an advanced Japanese nuclear program don't fully appreciate and routinely ignore.

The source goes back to a couple of sensational claims that have been made over the years by hack authors which have been thoroughly refuted by many accredited people including the actual scientists and physicists that were involved.

reply to post by Dr Expired


Japan was defeated before they attacked us. They just did not have the man power or industry to keep up. Their admiral who planned Pearl Harbor said as much before the attack. If we want to discuss the foreign policies that led up to the war and the reasons Japan became an industrialized nation in the first place, then America's role starts to look a lot different.

Having said that, Japan was not going to just give up. We had enough problems island hopping to get within bomber range. Like a guy on the first page said, their culture during that time mandated fighting to the death. Kamakazi pilots and even piloted bombs were used towards the end of the war.

The problem I have with this whole argument is that once people hear A bomb they act like that was the number one killer or scoff at the idea that it may have saved lives. Try comparing the civilian losses due to conventional bombing to the totals from both A bombs. Not even close. War sucks but its war... It's not like we were the ones to declare it initially anyways... In today's soft core wars,civilians are supposedly to be left out of the fight. In those days (and to this day when we really think about it) There is the enemy that fights and the enemy that arms, feeds, and supply's said combatants. In national wars there can be no civilians in the warm fuzzy sense used today.

Like I said, there are other parts of the war that should be brought to light. However, the A Bomb was much more politically important than the loss of life it cause compared to conventional methods being used at the time in both theaters

Originally posted by rlrsar
Ending the war with the atomic bombs saved at least 1 million lives of American soldiers and Japanese soldiers/ civilians.
Had they not been used the Japanese would have "fought to the last person to protect their homeland"

If they were willing to "fight to the last person" then why did japan surrender? because they did not "really" want to fight to the last person.

reply to post by jimmyx


It's not literally about starving an enemy out. To continue fighting, the Japanese would need constant access to various goods and materials from off-shore sources; Even Japan itself is composed of islands. The large-scale import of ammunition, raw materials etc. etc. is what they'd look to intercept.

Michaelbrux: I'm not sure if you actually wholeheartedly believe your US patriotic 'gods-nation' rants, or if they're just trolling in action, but either way this website is about denying ignorance, not perpetuating it. Short of some substantial evidence of God, and his leanings toward the United States, please keep your religious views for relevant threads - thank you.