Japanese man survives 2 atomic bombs!
 

Here is an interesting piece I picked up. poor old sod. Got bombed not once but twice and was injured in both! I know tht there are plenty of arguments for and against us bombing Japan but in my eyes, not our proudest moment. Also since we targeted civilians with terror, would that not make us terrorists?

http://timesonline.typepad.com/times...ckiest-or.html:-?

There is no way to get proud in any form of war, but i think if U.S. didnt finish the war with the bomb, the cost of lives civilians or soldiers would be far more, imagine if the U.S. had to invade Japan.:dead:

Yes the atomic bomb was a terror like attack because its sole intention was to force them to surrender by fear of additional attacks on the polulace.

We have no right to argue either way. It was war that BOTH sides were prepared to see to the bloody end and if they had the weapon they would have used it as well.

There IS no right answer when it comes to nukes.

but to refer to yourselves as terrorists for using the bomb is wrong.

it was a different type of war to those fought today by us, in the sense that anyone and everything on the enemy's land was fair game. the more dead, the less of them to come at you.

always, always remember the mindset of the time

Interesting then, that we don't make an allowance that the enemy might still be using that mindset. Kind of unfair to call for a "Kill All" mindset when it is convenient for us, and then "close the gate" when it is not.

I agree completely. hence the words "by us".

i can think of one enemy who abides by that mindset completely.

But going into that too much detracts from the thread, and the lucky SOB who srvived both bombs

This guy either has the best luck in the world or the worst luck in the world. I'm not sure which!

The scary thing is that even with the atomic bombing, the massive firebombings previous to those, and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria the war still could have been prolonged. The Japanese militarists denied what had struck Hiroshima was even an atomic bomb. The Japanese cabinet remained split over surrender and the Emperor had to break the deadlock. A group of field officers organized a coup to halt the surrender and seized the Imperial Palace during the night of August 14-15 1945. The coup ultimately failed, however when War Minister Anami refused to participate. He chose to commit suicide instead.

Despite the Emperor's radio broadcast of the Imperial Rescript ending the war senior officers overseas refused to comply at first. The Emperor had to issue a second Rescript to finally bring Japanese commanders in the field to finally lay down their arms. Some still refused to comply and chose suicide. So, hard as it is to believe, even with the horrible tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan's surrender was still a close run thing.

There's no doubt we used terror to conclude the war. But that doesn't make us terrorists.

First off, the US being victorious over Japan was a foregone conclusion. The only question was how many American lives would be lost. Terrorists are unable to achieve their ends using any other method, whereas we merely chose the path of least resistance.

Secondly, we were openly militarily engaged with Japan. Terrorists NEVER openly engage (unless defensively only, in which they almost always try to run).

It's silly to think that, due to the bomb we are somehow "terrorists". ALL wars involve "terror" as a weapon to one degree or another ... the difference is whether or not the weapon is used for expediency or as a sole resort.

I dont know, state of war and all that. :doh:

Both World Wars were total wars, that means that everybody, including civilians, is a legitimate target

Ignoring the fact that either bomb killed less people than the March 10 firebombing attack on Tokyo, which seems to be constantly forgotten. An invasion of Japan would've resulted in the deaths of a lot more civilians, and might even have resulted in the same sort of shaky truce that ended World War I if the invasion failed...

So, the way I see it, if the Allies went ahead with Operation Downfall, people right now would probably be complaining about the fact that they should've just dropped the A-Bombs and spared everybody of the slaughter

Agreed....it was estimated that had an invasion taken place, the allies might have suffered over a million casualties.

Taking into account the mindset of the Japanese and the by then well known facts regarding their inhumane treatment of their foes, I doubt any POTUS or any other allied leader for that matter would have been able to justify the potential losses to their people.

Oh ok, only American military lives matter, Japanese civilian lives are worth less.

What do you mean terrorists don't openly engage? Organisations referred to as terrorist organisations almost always release a declaration of war against their enemy. There is no rule of war that says that one should "openly engage" the enemy in any way.

Well isn't that kind of what makes the whole thing morally questinable? What you call terrorists are fighting an asymmetrical war, the US would have had the option of using traditional military force or the nukes, and they chose nukes.

So what you are saying is that "terrorism" is just a concept, a word used to demonize a particular group. State terrorism is another concept, used to describe states that use terror methods.

Here we go again :nope:

I don't usually engage in never-ending debates, but maybe just this once

If the bombs weren't dropped, the Allies would have had only 2 clear courses of action:

1. Keep blockading and firebombing Japan until they surrender, which would have required massive military forces to remain mobilized and ultimately caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of civilians

2. Implement Operation Downfall, which would also have caused the deaths of millions of civilians, seeing as Japanese civilians have been taught to resist the invaders at all costs, and could very well have failed, leading to some kind of less-than-satisfactory peace agreement

The bombs were not used to terrorize the population, but rather to shock the Japanese government into surrendering, which they did (Although just barely)

Personally I would like tohave seen the war prolonged so that I could play more missions in SH4. (Just yoking....) Just curious though, does anyone here have any insight as to why Nagasaki and Hiroshima was targeted from a tactical standpoint?

IIRC, Hiroshima was targeted because it was supposed to be a major assembly and communication hub for Japanese troops in the invasion (It was also left completely unscathed by the firebombing campaign)

Nagasaki, which was a major port and industrial center (also rather untouched by firebombing), was actually the secondary target of Bockscar. Kokura, the primary target, was obscured by clouds on that morning

There were plans to drop several more nukes after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

Interestingly Hiroshima was not bombed with traditional bombing so it was in pristine condition giving the Americans a chance to test the effects of the bomb. So in part the bombing of Hiroshima was just a test with real people.

Also it's good to know that allied P.O.W's also died in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_...a_and_Nagasaki

One rationale for the dropping of the bombs was that there was supposed to be a fierce resistance on the Japanese mainland. However, by that point the Japanese airforce with the last ditch weapons such as the Kamikaze-attacks had pretty much seized to exist. So it was just a fight between the remaining Japanese land troops on the continent against the allied air-, sea- and landpower.

Were there any fixed resistance points such as bunkers etc. on the Japanese mainland? Were the Japanese land forces in a state to continue fighting at that point? I've never seen any reliable info on these types of issues.

I'm just going to throw this in here.

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afterburne...ic_Bombs/1808/

It was meant as a rebuttal against Jon Stewart for calling Harry Truman a war criminal, but for just over 15min it is about as comprehensive as you can get.

Japanese leaders didn't stumble through 1945 in a blind trance. They devised a shrewd military and political strategy called Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive) It's premise was that American morale was brittle and could be broken by inflicting an enormous bloodletting in the initial invasion of Japan. Even if that invasion succeeded, Japanese leaders believed that American politicians would would recoil from the causalities and give up the effort to continue the conquest of Japan.

Imperial Headquarters embarked on a huge program of homeland reinforcement. From Manchuria came four divisions (2 armored and 2 infantry) But far and away the largest increase in strength came from a February 26th, 1945 order for a gigantic three-phase mobilization program. Once it was complete the homeland's defenders would muster 60 divisions. (36 field and counterattack) 22 coastal combat, two armored and 34 brigades (27 infantry and 7 tank) The combined strength of the homeland armies would reach 2,903,000 men, 292,000 horse, and 27,500 motor vehicles.

In addition under the "National Resistance Program" all able-bodied civilians regardless of age were called up for possible combat. This involved all males ages 15 to 60 and all females ages 17 to 40. The Japanese also had around 10,700 aircraft hoarded for homeland defense.

Japan was far from just a burnt-out shell that would have crumbled when the first American troops stepped ashore. While I think American troops would have gotten ashore eventually with the aid of a massive naval bombardment the fight inland would have been prolonged and bloody. Japan is a mountainous country, perfect for the defensive and guerrilla operations. Like Raptor 1 said above, the question would have been why didn't we just drop the bomb and be done with it?