Japanese man survives 2 atomic bombs!

[Freiwillige]

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

[Nicolas]

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.

[Zachstar]

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.

[baggygreen]

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

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

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.

[baggygreen]

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

[Aramike]

Also since we targeted civilians with terror, would that not make us terrorists?

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.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Aramike

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).

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.

Terrorists are unable to achieve their ends using any other method, whereas we merely chose the path of least resistance.

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.

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.

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.

[Jimbuna]

Here we go again

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

Also since we targeted civilians with terror, would that not make us terrorists?

I dont know, state of war and all that.

[Raptor1]

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

[Raptor1]

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)

[Frame57]

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?

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by Frame57

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