Truman

[NetNerdsRevenge]

Was he right or wrong?

[NOFXdesendents5]

Think : Would you rather have 300,000 Squinting Soldiers, 700,000+ Japs and 100,000 Americans die, or 180,000 Japanese?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by NOFXdesendents5
Think : Would you rather have 300,000 Squinting Soldiers, 700,000+ Japs and 100,000 Americans die, or 180,000 Japanese?

it was more like 500,000 US dead

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by NOFXdesendents5
Think : Would you rather have 300,000 Squinting Soldiers, 700,000+ Japs and 100,000 Americans die, or 180,000 Japanese?
honestly dude, i agree with you on that it was the right descision, but shy away from the name calling, "nuke the chinks" or "kill the gooks" isnt exactly helping the cause.
Also to add, the nuking of Japan was the only way to get Japan to surrender. If we sent soldiers into Japan, it would be a bloody massacre. This way no Americans die, and it is game over quickly. In fact the guy who was a key member of the Manhattan Project won a Nobel PEACE prize. It sucked that we had to nuke Japan, but it was the only way to go. The Japanese few planes into ships, suicide bombers trying to defend Okinowa, a piece of shit island that was only for strategic use. Imagine what they would have done if we had gone to their home and tried to take it.

[kidinthecorner]

It was absolutely the right way to go. Japan was getting ready for every able-bodied person to defend the homeland to the death, so there was no way around the A-bomb.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by kidinthecorner
It was absolutely the right way to go. Japan was getting ready for every able-bodied person to defend the homeland to the death, so there was no way around the A-bomb. well there was away around it, but it would have been costly, prolonged, and bloody.

[kidinthecorner]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
well there was away around it, but it would have been costly, prolonged, and bloody.

Thats pretty much the point i was making...

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by kidinthecorner
Thats pretty much the point i was making...
and i was just reiterating it. i mean we had a debate over it in class. one kid came up with the idea of dropping a nuke on an empty island. what is the point of that i asked? to scare Japan into surrenduring. can you believe that? SCARE japan into surrenduring. can you say kamikaze (sp)? Not only is that stupid, it burned half of our nuclear arsenry. there is liberal logic for you.

[NOFXdesendents5]

BrandNewRock05, I thought you at least would realize I NEVER am politcally correct. Especially to some fuckers who attacked us because we refused to give them the supplies to rape China. Although the Chinese arent being friendly either.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by NOFXdesendents5
BrandNewRock05, I thought you at least would realize I NEVER am politcally correct. Especially to some fuckers who attacked us because we refused to give them the supplies to rape China. Although the Chinese arent being friendly either.
I do realize that, and I am hardly politically correct either, but I find that more people listen to you when you arent being a jackass. It works...try it.

[NOFXdesendents5]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
more people listen to you when you arent being a jackass.

so, no ethnic slurs or swearing = success, eh?:eek:

[kidinthecorner]

Originally posted by NOFXdesendents5
so, no ethnic slurs or swearing = success, eh?:eek:

Sometimes it would appear that way, yes.

[evil zach]

as much as I hate to say it, I don't really think that there was any way around using atomic bombs. Maybe using 2 was a bit overkill though.

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by evil zach
as much as I hate to say it, I don't really think that there was any way around using atomic bombs. Maybe using 2 was a bit overkill though. They really didn't show any sign of giving up after the first, so the second was necessary.

[NOFXdesendents5]

Well, we may have been able to use one, if the weather had been better, or the people in the White House hadnt want to film the bombing.

On the day we bombed Hiroshima, the weather was very cloudy and windy over Tokyo, our primary target. The US wanted to see pictures of the destruction immediatley, and with no delay. So they chose Hiroshima. Hiroshima had not been bombed yet, and it was a clear day. Since Hiroshima was only a major city, not the capitol, the Japanese did not surrender. Forcing the Allies to nuke Nagasaki.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by NOFXdesendents5
Well, we may have been able to use one, if the weather had been better, or the people in the White House hadnt want to film the bombing.

On the day we bombed Hiroshima, the weather was very cloudy and windy over Tokyo, our primary target. The US wanted to see pictures of the destruction immediatley, and with no delay. So they chose Hiroshima. Hiroshima had not been bombed yet, and it was a clear day. Since Hiroshima was only a major city, not the capitol, the Japanese did not surrender. Forcing the Allies to nuke Nagasaki.

Tokyo was never our first target, it was already completely bombed.
The cloud story has to do with the bombing of Nagasaki, which wasn't our first choice that day, Kyoto (i think) was the first choice but there was heavy cloud covering it, so they switched cities to nagasaki.

[Alex Djaferis]

ugh yeah i mean, the A bomb fucking sucks ass but in the situation they were in...with the Japanese ready to fight to the very last soldier (theres a whole cultural issue with that...family pride etc) ...i guess the only way was the Bomb...but it sucked so bad. My friends grandparents died in the second blast.

[xTSTLx]

im not sure if we can even comment on this, we have no idea what the situation was like in the 40s during this war, although, i do agree it was the right thing to do

[yeat182]

if you've read at all about wwII then you know what the situation was, if you have no idea, then you probably shouldn't comment.

[xTSTLx]

the only thing we know is that our history books have told us, we can have no idea the morale of the nation when this was going no from out history teahers

[yeat182]

we have first person accounts from people who where there, and books written and researched by historians. i think we can have a pretty good idea.

[xTSTLx]

you can have as many first person accounts as you want, but they are only going to be telling you their side of the story

[EmoMoose86]

Originally posted by evil zach
Maybe using 2 was a bit overkill though.

I agree.

[Alex Djaferis]

Originally posted by xTSTLx
you can have as many first person accounts as you want, but they are only going to be telling you their side of the story

yeah, but thats why people gather tons of sources, and the they deduct the parts that seem the most reliable and shape history that way.