Related Information to Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombs

Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombs - Page 5

That is why I stated that it was a military target with a significant civilian population. Of course there were military objectives to each site, Hiroshima (the harbor and industry) and Nagasaki (the armory) also had significant civilian populations. I am not stating that killing people was their only objective, but rather responding to a previous post that made it sound as though we were trying to hit military targets and spare all civilian casualties like in todays wars. That was not the case in WWII were firebombing of major cities was used by both sides with great effect and that effect was to demoralize the population. Attacking military and civilian targets, typically together, was a tactic in the war as ugly and as nasty as it sounds.

The soviets had agreed to support a ground war in Japan. Actually, I believe it was like 1 or 2 days after Russia declared war on Japan that the 1st bomb was dropped. However, with the speed that they had massed troops for a Japan assult even before declaring war was faster and more than what the US could muster up that quickly. There is a debate on if there would have been that many casualties with a ground assult. Many of our generals at the time were not in favor of dropping the bomb, because they believed that Japan was ready for a surrender as long as the Emporer was allowed to remain in charge. Others say that the Japanese military were making unrealistic demands for a surrender (like they get to keep all the land that the held at the moment). However, Truman knew a ground assult would mean more lives lost and a significant number of lives. How many is debatable. He also knew that if he waged a ground assult that there might not be much of Japan to invade by the time that Russia came down from the north.

Seriously, if you look at Japan on the map, Russia had very little standing in its way on the road to Kyoto. Osaka might have proven to be a bit difficult, but after that it would have been smooth sailing to Kyoto. Hokkaido and the nothern portion of the main island were sparsely populated and that would have made it easy for Russia to get 50% of Japan before we every really made much headway to Tokyo. The southern half of the island was far more populated an protected with military then the northern half.

Truman took all the factors into consideration when he decided to drop the bomb (the Russians, US casualties and to some degree the Japanese).

Bombs Nagasaki Hiroshima

I don't remember saying anything about trying to spare civilian casualties.

Hiroshima was bombed August 6. The Soviets declared war August 8. Nagasaki was bombed August 9.

It would have been at least as bad as Normandy.

They prepared half a million purple hearts, which would indicate they felt that casualties could well reach that high.

Many of the generals spoke out against dropping the bomb long after the war was over, not during the war when the decision was being made.

Admiral Leahy did oppose the bomb on moral reasons during the war (and also widely insisted that there was no way it would ever work anyway).

Ike claims to have opposed it, but his claim is highly suspect.

There were a couple who wanted to do a demonstration drop before hitting a city, but didn't actually oppose its use.

None of the above people had any say in the actual decision over the use of the bomb though.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombs History & Civil Business Politics

As mentioned, clearly both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were of military value. And the civilian population was supporting the war machine. While I agree that we should not target innocents during war, I am not sure how we arrived at the notion that civilians supporting a military machine against an enemy are not a valid target.

That this viewpoint has gained ground in the modern era makes war drag on longer (in my opinion), since the civilians aid the terrorism against a declared enemy, while getting to proclaim innocence from any kind of attack (whether direct or indirect). It allows guerrilla warfare to continue, with civilians comfortable knowing/believing that they are safe.

I think we would have LESS war if we also had more CRUDE weaponry (since the civilians would NOT tolerate it).

Edited: tortdog on 11th Sep, 2007 - 1:28pm

Page 5 Bombs Nagasaki Hiroshima

Tortdog:

I suppose we are speaking about the many innocent children that have died as a consequence of these bombs as well as other children survivors who have been left either mutilated or with abnormalities....as well as generations later of children born with problems due to these two idiotic, absolutely insane bombs the US dropped. In my mind, they cannot be considered "valid targets". It's insane.

Bombs Nagasaki Hiroshima

Then don't place children in the war path. It really is that simple.

Fact is, if you want to manufacture tanks to kill people and you don't want your OWN people to be killed, then put that tank factory some place far away from innocents.

And that still does not resolve why people who support a country's leadership in a war are not a fair target - to some extent.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombs

Tortdog:

Non-sense. Is it your fault the kind of parents you have? Why these kids had to pay for it? You are obviously justifying these two bombs to the point that to kill civilians it's okay. I think is insane because in my view, every life is worth BUT I am not really surprised by your statement. Unfortunately, most US citizens I met feel the same way not only towards this issue but other related issues, of course until the drama hits home and the issue becomes a completely different scenario for them. Go figure.

Hiroshima Nagasaki Bombs - Page 5

Maybe this is why God states that the sins of the parents will be upon the heads of the children. Because how parents raise their children DOES affect them, e.g., Palestinian parents teaching children that bombs against Jews are blessed by Allah.

Because their parents won't remove them to places of safety, and continue to support the killing of Americans.

Not quite. I do not see that a civilian who lives next to a tank factory should have an expectation that he is free from being killed by an enemy attack against that factory.

Do you understand my point, that by insisting that civilians are to be spared from attack while they support military strikes against an enemy makes war all the more dangerous, and likely to continue?

Hiroshima Nagasaki Bombs Politics Business Civil & History - Page 5

Tortdog:

This is not the Religion board so I am not going to comment on this point.

Oh, I do understand, I just do not agree with your reasoning. You are putting the "War" HIGHER in importance than any human life. Scary.