The Hiroshima Cover-Up - Page 2

rdeyes · 08-06-2005, 07:46 PM

then maybe they should have surrendered before the hot winds of death came calling ..

geRV · 08-06-2005, 07:49 PM

sleeping:

Johnj · 08-06-2005, 08:25 PM

I read that the Emperor went to the military counsel on 8/12 and told them there was a burden they MUST accept. Until then there was no hope of the Japanese surrendering. Operation Cornet was estimated to lose 1 million Allied and 10 million Japanese.

Wilko · 08-07-2005, 06:39 AM

I Believe that that attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a necessary evil, and I do stress "Evil".

They saved many, many more lives than they took. It's not just the US and Japanese casualties on Japan itself that must be considered, but also the lives of soldiers in captivity, civilians in subjugated countries and the like. The shortening of the war would have saved the lives of countless POW and civilian lives.

Bombing a civilian population to win a war is morally repugnant, and should never be entered into lightly, especially with such devastating weaponry. But at the end of the day, it was the best thing for the situation; a situation that humanity will hopefully never find itself in again

08-07-2005, 11:06 AM

Imagine if they dropped the bomb on Tokyo....

Johnj · 08-07-2005, 12:14 PM

Some of the fire-bomb attacks on Toyko took more lives then the a-bomb attacks. One attack in April 1945 took over 120,000 lives.

Short Hand · 08-07-2005, 12:38 PM

Why not drop the bomb outside the city and show the Japenese the power ? They would have surrendered in Days with little loss of life. I was watching a Bio over the history channel the other day... "Victory in The Pacific" or something along that lines, it had color camera film showing a Japenese girl.. no more then 1 year old shaking with pain.... fear.... She had rubble from the blast all over her, Her eyes wide open not really knowing what to do, all alone in a city blasted out...Suffering from radiation sickness.. I can't really figure out why a better way could not have been found....

AND Johnj.. please support this claim of the emperor telling his military council to struggle onward...I have never heard such a claim..even so this claim was made before the visaul of what the bomb could do.

Johnj · 08-07-2005, 01:57 PM

The Emperor didn't tell them to carry on the struggle. The Emperor told them they had to surrender. Perhaps you should have enrolled in a remedial English class this summer. History would also help. The bombs were dropped on the 6th and the 9th.

Tripper · 08-07-2005, 02:59 PM

[quote="Short Hand":92650]Why not drop the bomb outside the city and show the Japenese the power ? They would have surrendered in Days with little loss of life.[/quote:92650]

We've had about 3 debates on this issue relatively recently, and everytime, you bring up that one same point. No matter how many times I counter it with something along the lines of "No one surrendered within the THREE DAYS after the first bomb, what makes you think they would have surrendered if they hadn't even dropped it on a city?" To which you never seem to counter....

Short Hand · 08-07-2005, 05:31 PM

Communication was scattered. " The true depth of what had happned had not really been fully explained until a day after the dropping of the 2nd bomb.

and john, if you need to know.... rolleyes: I had a great final semester in Academic English, which in turn helped me get enrolled in a great program @ Seneca/York U for this fall. I simply misread what you said.

Johnj · 08-07-2005, 06:29 PM

I see just another stupid mistake. Damn the luck.

Tripper · 08-07-2005, 06:50 PM

[quote="Short Hand":8a2e6]Communication was scattered. " The true depth of what had happned had not really been fully explained until a day after the dropping of the 2nd bomb.[/quote:8a2e6]

That's just not good enough, I'm also thinking the source is fairly questionable - and that maybe you have exaggerated a totally minor insignificant phrase. Either way, it doesn't change anything. It's irrelevant. If they didn't realise the extent of damage 3 days after a bomb had hit a CITY how do you possibly believe dropping it outside of a city would help at all?

Colonel · 08-07-2005, 08:36 PM

[quote="Short Hand":1771c]Communication was scattered. " The true depth of what had happned had not really been fully explained until a day after the dropping of the 2nd bomb.[/quote:1771c]

That's not what they say at the Peace Memorial in Hiroshima. Our Japanese tour guide told us that the Emperor knew the damage but that they tried to keep it from the Japanese people.

BTW - Ktog, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military towns with significant military equipment manufacturing. That's why they were chosen.

KTOG · 08-07-2005, 08:40 PM

Yeah I know;however, that really wasn't the intent of my post, sorry if it was unclear. The Pearl Harbor attack was more strategic on the Japanese behalf. Yes the bomb targets in Japan were strategically picked, but I don't like the tactic.

Tripper · 08-07-2005, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KTOG

Those are official dates. They were already waning on the Pacific theater, it was n't necessary to vaporize to towns.

I think given the circumstances, it was. Think about the casualties and devastation a full scale invasion of mainland Japan would have caused....

It took them long enough to surrender after being nuked twice, I can imagine they would have resisted more relentlessly than the Germans, and have the Allies push right up through the country before they even considered surrender. This is only speculation, but based on the facts and intelligence, I'd like to think its a pretty fair judgement.

I know what you mean about people not expressing remorse though, it's definitely a horrible thing to have happened. It's an awful part of history....But given the situation of the time, it seems as though it was necessary. I personally can't think, even with the knowledge we have now, of any other possibility that would have worked better.