hiroshima

By this logic, terrorists are people who aim to get their way by frightening opponents into submission. But consider the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima: it . . .



I NEED BLOOD

It was an act of war, on a nation we declated as a wartime enemy.

Very different, don't you think?

Or perhaps you have a very liberal high school history teacher with a pony tail who is feeding revisionist pablum to you.


So tell me... why did you post this topic in the "Political Scandalism" forum?





[Edited on 17-11-2002 by William]

You're comparing Hiroshima to terrorism? Thereby concluding the US were acting as terrorists in WWII?

Hiroshima may have not been terrorism but it was also unecissary. It is simply an example where the President gave into the Military's demands.

The Military refused to use it as a "display" of force, for the actual turn out which was an actual weapon.

I don't really know why though...I seemed to remember seeing somewhere that it was because they thought it wouldn't be effective enough, or that it wouldn't be a good judgement of what the bomb could really do if they were to just blast it off shore of say Tokyo.

But those claims are foolish (albiet only from our stand point) why would anyone continue to fight if you were to blow one of those off just before dawn about 5 or 10 miles off shore of Tokyo.

All the Japanese waking up to OUR RISING SUN. Unecissary in my opinion, at least, Nagasaki was DEFINATELY unecissary.

America and her allies have done quite a bit of Unecissary things, but so far it has all been in good intent.

Sincerely,
no signature

UNNECESSARY was the human misery pain and toture the Emperor put Asia through as well as Americans.

UNNECESSARY was that he continued to chosse war after it was evident that thee was no chance for a Japanese victory.

UNNECESSARY was that surrender did not come immediately after the bomb on Hiroshima was dropped.

AVOIDED was the hundreds of thousands of lives, both enemy and allied, being unnecessarily taken in an invasion of the Japanese mainland.

No terrorism there, just a winning attitude in war.

Japanese dead=lots
US and Allied dead = none

Japanese surrender
Allies win

No bombs - more people die
Two bombs -fewer people die

Worse bombing of Japan -conventional bombing of Tokyo
Less worse bombing - H & N.

It was a war -this is called "winning it"

Try the fluoride in the toothpaste forum.

I must agree with the mods here.

I remember watching a film about the dropping of the Atomic bombs. Distinctively I remember watching the actor playing the president of that time ill in bed, and he was thinking about the ten thousand american lives that was lost in capturing IWO JIMA, ( I think). Anyway this had an effect on his decision in the end to use the bombs. He was in great shock and distraught at losing ten thousand men for just an island, so he could not bring himself to go ahead with the desicision to invade and lose not tens but maybe hundreds of thousands of troops. His military advisors said that it would take no less than 1 million troops to invade and secure a victory. the thought of sending this many men was too much for him to take so he opted for the Bombs. Just think how much greater the magnitude of invasion it would have been compared to DDAY. Dday was an hard enough decision, let alone sending a million to Japan.

What a decision to have to make though.

It might be best not to base your perception of history on a movie. While occasionally accurate, artistic license can often distort reality.

I was looking for a book i have on the Fire bombing of Toyko...*sigh cant find it*

But i believe Estrogen is correct..the relentless Fire bombing of Toyko produced more casulities then the A-bombs..War sucks no matter how you slice it..

Boomslang

Originally posted by FreeMason
Hiroshima may have not been terrorism but it was also unecissary. It is simply an example where the President gave into the Military's demands.

The Military refused to use it as a "display" of force, for the actual turn out which was an actual weapon.

I don't really know why though...I seemed to remember seeing somewhere that it was because they thought it wouldn't be effective enough, or that it wouldn't be a good judgement of what the bomb could really do if they were to just blast it off shore of say Tokyo.

But those claims are foolish (albiet only from our stand point) why would anyone continue to fight if you were to blow one of those off just before dawn about 5 or 10 miles off shore of Tokyo.

A. The US only had 3 bombs ready to go. So it is illogical to waste it on a demonstration.

B. A demonstration was considered in Tokyo Bay. However a demonstration would not have worked. It took the loss of 2 cities instantly, to overide the voices of fanatism within in the government.

And honestly, why should the Americans incur hundreds of thousands of more casualties storming the Japanese home islands.

We are condemning the use of nuclear weapons and arms YET we were the only ones to really use it??

Funny, isnt it!

OrionSirius