(08-08-2015 03:21 PM)I45owl Wrote:  There was a documentary on PBS recently - which was heavily influenced by an author that thought that the bombing was unnecessary - that indicated that Truman was unaware of the Manhattan project until Roosevelt died, and that Truman may never have been presented with the option to decide to drop the bomb or not drop it. He may merely have been informed that it was ready, and was going to be dropped.

That would represent a tremendous failure in leadership, so I have to wonder whether the scenarios were planned and approved ahead of time.

Excellent post.

History isn't about what might have happened. It's about what actually happened.
[/quote]


You're contradicting yourself. You're saying that we might not have had to use the bomb.

(08-07-2015 02:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-07-2015 12:04 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  (Consider this a flashback to the old ESPN board, where this was an annual thread.)

Justified or not?

I vote justified.

Justified? No

Nevessary?

Maybe.

It is never justified to kill innocent people.

They declared themselves enemy combatants when they swore to fight to the last man woman and child. They were not innocents and there is not telling how many lives were saved by bombing two cities with militarily significant targets.

One of the books I've read about WWII and the bombings, talks about Gen Douglas MacArthur's opposition to dropping the A-bomb. It suggested that MacArthur opposed the bombing not on moral grounds but only because he was jealous of the adulation Eisenhower received after Operation Overlord. His ego demanded that he lead an invasion so that he could share in the glory.

(08-08-2015 01:44 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 11:46 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 11:19 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 10:52 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 10:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  It is very likely that Japan would have surrendered once we reached the island.

Upon what do you base this assertion?

Japan's leadership was still debating surrender when the second bomb was dropped.

I base this assertion on the same premise that people base the assertion that dropping the bomb saved lives. ...........pure speculation.

I'll trust the historic record on Japanese culture and attitudes in war in 1945 over your 21st century Monday morning quarterbacking.

Jesus, did you really teach history?

You remind me of my wife when she comes home from shopping and tells me how much money she saved instead of how much money she spent. It's insanity.

The bomb didn't save lives. The bomb killed hundreds of thousands.

That's a fact Jack.

When my students ask about that event, I give them the facts.

Exhibit A as to why we are so far behind everybody else in the developed world in education.

(08-08-2015 10:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Bull Shite. There is no proof that we would have had to do what you say. It is very likely that Japan would have surrendered once we reached the island. There was no need to kill innocent women and children. What a horrible stain on America's history.

You are a fool. Sorry.

You do know that many still in caves on some of those obscure islands were STILL fighting, even after the unconditional surrender, right? They would throw themselves off cliffs to avoid surrendering. And further, a lot of these "innocent women and children" were part of the war machine, and many of these children were already in training to protect the mainland.

There's nothing very likely about that in the least.

(08-08-2015 03:21 PM)I45owl Wrote:  There was a documentary on PBS recently - which was heavily influenced by an author that thought that the bombing was unnecessary - that indicated that Truman was unaware of the Manhattan project until Roosevelt died, and that Truman may never have been presented with the option to decide to drop the bomb or not drop it. He may merely have been informed that it was ready, and was going to be dropped.

That would represent a tremendous failure in leadership, so I have to wonder whether the scenarios were planned and approved ahead of time.

Nonsense. He's Commander in Chief. He makes that call.

Quote:As Harry Truman, the president who ordered the dropping of the bomb, told Tibbets when they met in 1948: "I'm the guy who sent you. If anybody gives you a hard time about it, refer them to me."

And his other quote, to paraphrase- If I had another bomb I would've dropped it too. Something like that.

But, people will make up stuff for whatever reasons they have, but you can't erase what actually happened.

double post. It gave me some BB error thing then appeared twice. *shrug.

(08-08-2015 03:18 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(08-07-2015 02:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-07-2015 12:04 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  (Consider this a flashback to the old ESPN board, where this was an annual thread.)

Justified or not?

I vote justified.

Justified? No

Nevessary?

Maybe.

It is never justified to kill innocent people.

I think that you've hit on the correct question - whether it was necessary or unnecessary.

I don't think the war would've continued much longer. I do think the structure of the surrender would've been much different. But, that's really speculating.

The way that WWII was fought was brutal, and I don't think the atomic bombs were the worst of it. Firebombing of cities, including London, Dresden, and Tokyo, set a precedence whereby the atomic bomb was only an incremental change rather than something truly transformative.

I think that question is reversed. Was it necessary? Not really, in that the US could still have invaded Japan without that and been successful. But it was justified.

Anybody read "Downfall" by Richard Frank? It talks about what was going on with the Japanese leadership at the end of the war. Even after the 2nd bomb was dropped the leaders were essentially at a stalemate, with many of them wanting to continue the war. And even after the Emperor decided they had to end it, some planned to continue to prosecute the war anyway, which fortunately didn't happen.

Even more so than in Europe, the US was going to have to thoroughly bomb the Japanese out of their entrenched positions. Based on how they fought on Okinawa, Iwo Jima, etc. you can pretty much guarantee it was going to be the same type of fanatical battle on their homeland, only this time the "innocent" civilians would have been more closely tied to the battlefront in their last ditch efforts to repel the U.S.

(08-08-2015 07:05 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 10:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Bull Shite. There is no proof that we would have had to do what you say. It is very likely that Japan would have surrendered once we reached the island. There was no need to kill innocent women and children. What a horrible stain on America's history.

You are a fool. Sorry.

You do know that many still in caves on some of those obscure islands were STILL fighting, even after the unconditional surrender, right? They would throw themselves off cliffs to avoid surrendering. And further, a lot of these "innocent women and children" were part of the war machine, and many of these children were already in training to protect the mainland.

There's nothing very likely about that in the least.

That's what terrorist all over the world think about America.

(08-08-2015 04:02 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  History isn't about what might have happened. It's about what actually happened.

You're contradicting yourself. You're saying that we might not have had to use the bomb.
[/quote]

That's what I am saying but that's not what I teach. I teach the facts.

We killed almost 200 thousand civilians.

(08-09-2015 11:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 04:02 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  History isn't about what might have happened. It's about what actually happened.

You're contradicting yourself. You're saying that we might not have had to use the bomb.

That's what I am saying but that's not what I teach. I teach the facts.

We killed almost 200 thousand civilians.
[/quote]

so, you can be replaced by a computer that won't make a mistake.....

I'm all for that....

(08-09-2015 11:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 04:02 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  History isn't about what might have happened. It's about what actually happened.

You're contradicting yourself. You're saying that we might not have had to use the bomb.

That's what I am saying but that's not what I teach. I teach the facts.

We killed almost 200 thousand civilians.
[/quote]

So?

We didn't start the war, they did.

(08-09-2015 11:24 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 03:18 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(08-07-2015 02:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-07-2015 12:04 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  (Consider this a flashback to the old ESPN board, where this was an annual thread.)

Justified or not?

I vote justified.

Justified? No

Nevessary?

Maybe.

It is never justified to kill innocent people.

I think that you've hit on the correct question - whether it was necessary or unnecessary.

I don't think the war would've continued much longer. I do think the structure of the surrender would've been much different. But, that's really speculating.

The way that WWII was fought was brutal, and I don't think the atomic bombs were the worst of it. Firebombing of cities, including London, Dresden, and Tokyo, set a precedence whereby the atomic bomb was only an incremental change rather than something truly transformative.

I think that question is reversed. Was it necessary? Not really, in that the US could still have invaded Japan without that and been successful. But it was justified.

Anybody read "Downfall" by Richard Frank? It talks about what was going on with the Japanese leadership at the end of the war. Even after the 2nd bomb was dropped the leaders were essentially at a stalemate, with many of them wanting to continue the war. And even after the Emperor decided they had to end it, some planned to continue to prosecute the war anyway, which fortunately didn't happen.

Even more so than in Europe, the US was going to have to thoroughly bomb the Japanese out of their entrenched positions. Based on how they fought on Okinawa, Iwo Jima, etc. you can pretty much guarantee it was going to be the same type of fanatical battle on their homeland, only this time the "innocent" civilians would have been more closely tied to the battlefront in their last ditch efforts to repel the U.S.

that's an assumption....plausible, but an assumption nonetheless....it was assumed vietnam was a gimmee too....

(08-09-2015 11:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  We killed almost 200 thousand civilians.

Not a single person is disputing this. What you can't seem to get through your melon is the context in which the decision was made.

Want facts in a vacuum? It hasn't rained in three days. It never rains.

(08-09-2015 11:57 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 11:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 04:02 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  History isn't about what might have happened. It's about what actually happened.

You're contradicting yourself. You're saying that we might not have had to use the bomb.

That's what I am saying but that's not what I teach. I teach the facts.

We killed almost 200 thousand civilians.

So?

We didn't start the war, they did.
[/quote]

That is correct. And until Bush invaded Iraq, we had the moral high ground in that regard for over 200 years.

(08-09-2015 11:58 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 11:24 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 03:18 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(08-07-2015 02:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-07-2015 12:04 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  (Consider this a flashback to the old ESPN board, where this was an annual thread.)

Justified or not?

I vote justified.

Justified? No

Nevessary?

Maybe.

It is never justified to kill innocent people.

I think that you've hit on the correct question - whether it was necessary or unnecessary.

I don't think the war would've continued much longer. I do think the structure of the surrender would've been much different. But, that's really speculating.

The way that WWII was fought was brutal, and I don't think the atomic bombs were the worst of it. Firebombing of cities, including London, Dresden, and Tokyo, set a precedence whereby the atomic bomb was only an incremental change rather than something truly transformative.

I think that question is reversed. Was it necessary? Not really, in that the US could still have invaded Japan without that and been successful. But it was justified.

Anybody read "Downfall" by Richard Frank? It talks about what was going on with the Japanese leadership at the end of the war. Even after the 2nd bomb was dropped the leaders were essentially at a stalemate, with many of them wanting to continue the war. And even after the Emperor decided they had to end it, some planned to continue to prosecute the war anyway, which fortunately didn't happen.

Even more so than in Europe, the US was going to have to thoroughly bomb the Japanese out of their entrenched positions. Based on how they fought on Okinawa, Iwo Jima, etc. you can pretty much guarantee it was going to be the same type of fanatical battle on their homeland, only this time the "innocent" civilians would have been more closely tied to the battlefront in their last ditch efforts to repel the U.S.

that's an assumption....plausible, but an assumption nonetheless....it was assumed vietnam was a gimmee too....

I would say it's much more likely than unlikely. Also, in WWII we had a different mindset than in Vietnam.

(08-09-2015 12:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 11:58 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 11:24 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 03:18 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(08-07-2015 02:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Justified? No

Nevessary?

Maybe.

It is never justified to kill innocent people.

I think that you've hit on the correct question - whether it was necessary or unnecessary.

I don't think the war would've continued much longer. I do think the structure of the surrender would've been much different. But, that's really speculating.

The way that WWII was fought was brutal, and I don't think the atomic bombs were the worst of it. Firebombing of cities, including London, Dresden, and Tokyo, set a precedence whereby the atomic bomb was only an incremental change rather than something truly transformative.

I think that question is reversed. Was it necessary? Not really, in that the US could still have invaded Japan without that and been successful. But it was justified.

Anybody read "Downfall" by Richard Frank? It talks about what was going on with the Japanese leadership at the end of the war. Even after the 2nd bomb was dropped the leaders were essentially at a stalemate, with many of them wanting to continue the war. And even after the Emperor decided they had to end it, some planned to continue to prosecute the war anyway, which fortunately didn't happen.

Even more so than in Europe, the US was going to have to thoroughly bomb the Japanese out of their entrenched positions. Based on how they fought on Okinawa, Iwo Jima, etc. you can pretty much guarantee it was going to be the same type of fanatical battle on their homeland, only this time the "innocent" civilians would have been more closely tied to the battlefront in their last ditch efforts to repel the U.S.

that's an assumption....plausible, but an assumption nonetheless....it was assumed vietnam was a gimmee too....

I would say it's much more likely than unlikely. Also, in WWII we had a different mindset than in Vietnam.

you're right....we fought to win wars up until that point....

and yes, I would agree it was likely....but at what cost?

I really don't understand you libtards......

(08-09-2015 12:29 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 12:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 11:58 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 11:24 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 03:18 PM)I45owl Wrote:  I think that you've hit on the correct question - whether it was necessary or unnecessary.

I don't think the war would've continued much longer. I do think the structure of the surrender would've been much different. But, that's really speculating.

The way that WWII was fought was brutal, and I don't think the atomic bombs were the worst of it. Firebombing of cities, including London, Dresden, and Tokyo, set a precedence whereby the atomic bomb was only an incremental change rather than something truly transformative.

I think that question is reversed. Was it necessary? Not really, in that the US could still have invaded Japan without that and been successful. But it was justified.

Anybody read "Downfall" by Richard Frank? It talks about what was going on with the Japanese leadership at the end of the war. Even after the 2nd bomb was dropped the leaders were essentially at a stalemate, with many of them wanting to continue the war. And even after the Emperor decided they had to end it, some planned to continue to prosecute the war anyway, which fortunately didn't happen.

Even more so than in Europe, the US was going to have to thoroughly bomb the Japanese out of their entrenched positions. Based on how they fought on Okinawa, Iwo Jima, etc. you can pretty much guarantee it was going to be the same type of fanatical battle on their homeland, only this time the "innocent" civilians would have been more closely tied to the battlefront in their last ditch efforts to repel the U.S.

that's an assumption....plausible, but an assumption nonetheless....it was assumed vietnam was a gimmee too....

I would say it's much more likely than unlikely. Also, in WWII we had a different mindset than in Vietnam.

you're right....we fought to win wars up until that point....

and yes, I would agree it was likely....but at what cost?

I really don't understand you libtards......

Well then we're even because I can't understand your English (if that's what it is) most of the time.

It would have been at a high cost but at that point we had so much skin in the game already. Plus, we could seal off Japan, while Vietnam could easily get help from China. Like I said though, the cost would have been enough both for the U.S. and for Japan that dropping the bombs was justified.

(08-09-2015 12:34 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 12:29 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 12:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 11:58 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 11:24 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  I think that question is reversed. Was it necessary? Not really, in that the US could still have invaded Japan without that and been successful. But it was justified.

Anybody read "Downfall" by Richard Frank? It talks about what was going on with the Japanese leadership at the end of the war. Even after the 2nd bomb was dropped the leaders were essentially at a stalemate, with many of them wanting to continue the war. And even after the Emperor decided they had to end it, some planned to continue to prosecute the war anyway, which fortunately didn't happen.

Even more so than in Europe, the US was going to have to thoroughly bomb the Japanese out of their entrenched positions. Based on how they fought on Okinawa, Iwo Jima, etc. you can pretty much guarantee it was going to be the same type of fanatical battle on their homeland, only this time the "innocent" civilians would have been more closely tied to the battlefront in their last ditch efforts to repel the U.S.

that's an assumption....plausible, but an assumption nonetheless....it was assumed vietnam was a gimmee too....

I would say it's much more likely than unlikely. Also, in WWII we had a different mindset than in Vietnam.

you're right....we fought to win wars up until that point....

and yes, I would agree it was likely....but at what cost?

I really don't understand you libtards......

Well then we're even because I can't understand your English (if that's what it is) most of the time.

It would have been at a high cost but at that point we had so much skin in the game already. Plus, we could seal off Japan, while Vietnam could easily get help from China. Like I said though, the cost would have been enough both for the U.S. and for Japan that dropping the bombs was justified.

having a monday morning qb stance is easy....

the fact you discount cost of dollars/life vs gambling on success/failure is revealing....

hence, the libtard view that doesn't make sense....it's beyond contradiction relative to war.....it's flat out stupid.