M
miles
Guest
I never really thought about the option for dropping the atom bomb off the coast to demonstrate the destructive capabilities of it. The way I always thought on it was this;
Choice one. Invade Japan and see the same loses that America had seen on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. From both Japanese and American military service men. Also the civilian losses inflicted on the local residence from fear generated by the Japanese war propaganda machine that essentially said that the Americans were going to torture and rape them.
Choice two. Use a new weapon that had never been used in combat and could potentially end the war with a single trigger pull. At the time the US government created a special panel for the sole purpose of choosing military target for the atom bomb. They originally choose Kokura, the site of one of Japans largest munitions factories, Hiroshima, an embarkation port, industrial center, and home to a major military HQ, Yokohama, a manufacturing center for aircraft, machine tools, docks, electrical equipment, and oil refineries, Niigata, a port with industrial factories ranging from steel and aluminum to oil refineries, and Kyoto, another industrial center.
Notice that Nagasaki is not on that list. Nagasaki wasn't originally considered because of the intense bombing already focused on it do to being a major ship building city and large military port. It wasn't considered until after Kyoto was removed for being to important of a cultural, religious an historical significance. After the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima the next target was to be Kokura but do to weather conditions that target was changed to Nagasaki. For those two reasons Nagasaki ended up being the second target.
I agree that dropping an atom bomb off the coast COULD have ended the war without the loss of life but find this to be very unlikely. Imperial Japan didn't surrender after the first bomb. While yes, this was partly do to the fact that they found unconditional surrender to be unacceptably terms. It also show the psychological mind set of the Japanese leadership and their willingness to allow themselves to be completely destroyed in order for them to keep their "honor." Japanese society at this time was still a warrior society and considered surrendering to be the ultimate dishonor one could commit.
At the end of the day American was left with terrible options that would result in the loss of life. It is my opinion that at the end of the day the Truman administration choose the lesser of two EVILs in order to end an all ready bloody conflict that had spanned more than five years and took the lives of millions.
To the user 4est_4est_Gump I agree that the liberal agenda through out the cold war was one of appeasement and disarmament. I disagree however that President Obama would go so far as to eliminate our capabilities in the face of a world that has increasing nuclear capabilities itself and one that over the last decade has seen an increase in the amount of war and strife affect the world at large. I would also disagree that the self proclaimed Islamic Caliphate is founded on traditions of "Shia and Sunni Islam" but rather on a perversion of Islam. One that gives no one other than men deemed "worthy" basic human rights.
To the user phrodeau, while yes the Japanese were also facing a war on two fronts similar to that of the Nazis before them it would be naive to say that anything other than the COMBINED might of the Allies defeated the Imperial Japanese with the dropping of the atom bombs.
To the user Doom_Guy, the fact is the USA is doing anything but colluding with ISIS and to suggest other wise is at most hate mongering and at least uniformed and irrational. Secondly while I also believe the world has gone become a worse off place in recent years, suggesting that it should out right be destroyed is ludicrous. Over coming adversity in the face of terrible odds is part of the human experience. It is impossible for the 1% to hold power for any length of true time do to the simple fact that 99%ers out number them at a ratio several million to one. The only thing that keeps them in power is either the exploitation of hate and greed or being able to let go of their egos and do what right by the 99% not what is right just for them.
To the user miles if your not going to add to a discussion in a calm, RATIONAL manner you do not belong in the thread.
To other user that have commented, yes banks are partly to blame, as is the gun industry and humanity in general. Greed, avarice, hate, and anger are very powerful motivators and there are a lot of people who make billions upon long drawn out conflicts. Should the world end up using nuclear weapons again we would, as a species no longer exist and those who profit from war are smart enough to see that if that ever came to be they would lose everything that they had gained if the world were to use the nuclear option.
Almost everyone who is alive today agrees that using nuclear weapons would be a terrible and horrible thing. Which is why, when politicians start to use rhetoric and threats of nuclear bombs it should be viewed simply as posturing and a temper tantrum to get attention. Saying that it also should be noted that while that is going on, people shouldn't be dumb enough just to assume that the person making the threats isn't stupid enough to actually carry them out and should take all precautions and necessary steps to protect and avoid such an outcome.
Four posts in almost three years. At least have the nuts to post under your real name.
