| Author |
Topic:
Was it really necessary for liberals to nuke Japan [Locked] |
|
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Was it really necessary for liberals to nuke Japan |
paulg_68 posted:
Japan started the war and refused to surrender when they were beaten.
Had we not used the bombs, we could have saved tens of thousands of Japanese lives at the cost of thousands of American lives. Why should we make that tradeoff? We weren't responsible for the war and we weren't responsible for protecting Japanese lives.
They could have quit anytime. The fact that they didn't quit after Hiroshima is proof of just how irrational they were.
Minor point. An invasion of Japan would have killed far more Japanese than the two bombs did. They were shooting civilians who refused to toss themselves off a cliff for God sake. This was the best way to end the war. I wish we did not have to do it but I'm glad we did.
-----signature-----
There are three kind of liberals;
Stupid, ignorant or evil
The result is always evil but the intent is not always evil. Not that it makes much difference in the long run.
No one here is exactly as they seem. - G'Kar
|
Yukishiro1  Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Was it really necessary for liberals to nuke Japan |
|
There was no need to invade Japan either way. The alternative to the atomic bombings was shutting up shop and waiting for a surrender, not a full scale ground invasion.
|
__Bonk__  Posts: 5,122
Registered: 2009-7-25 03:04:52
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Was it really necessary for liberals to nuke Japan |
Yep no need to invade. The US just needed to say the emperior could stay on his throne. We didnt say that but after the war we did just that.
The thing was the US had to give them face but the US and Ally policy because of WW1 was only unconditional surrender was acceptable. This is because in WW1 the allies didnt ask for this and this caused WW2
-----signature-----
I keep my eyes fixed on the sun!
A change in feeling is a change in destiny.
|
Yukishiro1 Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Was it really necessary for liberals to nuke Japan |
__Bonk__ posted:
Yep no need to invade. The US just needed to say the emperior could stay on his throne. We didnt say that but after the war we did just that.
That's the perverse part.
If the U.S. had actually got rid of the existing power structure at least those lives wouldn't have been completely in vain. But as soon as the U.S. got its unconditional surrender it decided to let the emperor stay, which was the only real issue stopping a surrender earlier.
As is there was no point at all except pride. 250,000 civilians died because the leaders of both nations cared more about pride than lives.
|
__Bonk__ Posts: 5,122
Registered: 2009-7-25 03:04:52
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Was it really necessary for liberals to nuke Japan |
The more I think of it the more I now believe it was the ally policy of unconditional surrender. I believe that the allies all met and they all agreed that this was the only option. Dont know why more people dont focus on this aspect.
FDR I believe was the one that really believed that this was the only way. Truman followed his lead.
The US didnt care about the emperor. IT only wanted unconditional surrender which the Japanese refused to offer
-----signature-----
I keep my eyes fixed on the sun!
A change in feeling is a change in destiny.
|
Clackdor  Posts: 163
Registered: 2001-9-21 12:10:52
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Was it really necessary for liberals to nuke Japan |
Maybe they shouldn't have started a war with the US. 
-----signature-----
If we can hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.
|
Yukishiro1 Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Was it really necessary for liberals to nuke Japan |
|
They could have easily worked something out then. All they had to do was tell the Japanese "psst, we promise to let you keep the emperor if you surrender 'unconditionally'" and that would have done it without killing 250k innocent civilians.
|
Yukishiro1 Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Was it really necessary for liberals to nuke Japan |
Clackdor posted:
Maybe they shouldn't have started a war with the US.
I'm sure all those dead civilians regretted voting for the war and felt like they had been taught a good lesson.
Ohwait.
|
__Bonk__ Posts: 5,122
Registered: 2009-7-25 03:04:52
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Was it really necessary for liberals to nuke Japan |
So true Yuki. I also believe that the goal was to use the bomb to send a post war message to the soviets and to also prevent the soviets from getting half of Japan like they did with other countries. The US wanted Japan totally under its control after the war. Its a complex issue I think.
I think that the nuking of japan and the firebombing of the japanese cities and the bombing of german cities were war crimes.
-----signature-----
I keep my eyes fixed on the sun!
A change in feeling is a change in destiny.
|
Yukishiro1 Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Was it really necessary for liberals to nuke Japan |
|
I think part of it was Truman's insecurity, too.
I'm not sure FDR would have used the bombs if he had still been alive. But Truman was living in FDR's shadow and felt he had to overcompensate. He didn't want to lose his chance to use the bomb.
|
|
