|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-06-2007, 10:29 PM
There was another way. Most of Japanese officers knew they can't win the war and was ready to capitulate. But as I said before americans wanted to trial the emperor and strip him of his throne and that was just unthinkable for people who believed him to be a god. Not to mention that japanese ruling dynasty is one of the oldest on the world (I'm pretty sure it's the oldest).
Americans realized that Japan will never surrender if they won't drop those demands so they did. But what if they did that before all those bombardments? Maybe Japan would just surrender. With soviet invasion being prepared and most of the cities burned to the ground it's very likely. As to the defence plans: US already prepared plans for invasion of Iran, does that mean you will do it? 
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-06-2007, 10:30 PM
Quote:
Why couldn't they have tried a land based battle for lets say 15 day?... that would have cost roughly 83,000 deaths from BOTH SIDES (according to the estimate), not just 200k japanese and 0 US... And then, if the americans realised that the death toll will only increase and increase and increase for NO REASON, THEN drop the A-bomb... And i will use the civilians argument because the civilians were not becoming soldiers... They might have been told to/(believed it was right to) fight for their country, but they certaintly didn't have the weapons to and will/training to be called a soldier... IF you say that the civilians were becoming soldiers, then that will JUSTIFY ALL killings of civilians during a war.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-06-2007, 10:34 PM
Quote:
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-06-2007, 10:37 PM
Quote:
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-06-2007, 10:46 PM
Quote:
Invasion: You can't simply divide the estimate number of deaths over number of days you invade. In an invasion you don't have the same death toll on day 1 as you do on day 15. On D-Day 10,000 soldiers (out of an invasion of 150,000) were killed in just a few hours. The invading force would have been much higher, and so would have the casualties on both sides. Keeping the random number 3 months (though I doubt they planned on it taking that long) I would say half of the deaths would have occurred within the first 1/4 of that time period. That's 3 weeks and 250,000 deaths. Still higher than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Good military leaders don't get into situations where "the death tolls increase and increase and increase for NO REASON". Switching strategies mid-stream ALWAYS leads to higher death tolls, so you have to engage in a winnable plan. That's just military strategy. So I am afraid that option wouldn't have been on the table very long.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-06-2007, 10:49 PM
Quote:
The military commander's "what if" (i.e. What if we attack on the ground) were what if's, and gave a large range of estimates of casualties. The MOST CONSERVATIVE of those estimates was over twice the numbers of deaths as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Again with "something else" We just haven't seen what that "something else" is...
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-06-2007, 10:55 PM
Quote:
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-06-2007, 11:44 PM
Quote:
Last thing's first as well... I see, so that's the reason why Bush is still in Iraq? hmmm, that makes sense, don't change to a better plan because its guranteed to cost you more deaths than the plan you are on now...????? You're not getting the point i'm trying to make. This idea was off the top of my head in a couple of seconds... With careful planning, and real strategy, an A-bomb could have been a last resort... Just like it is now... Please, tell me, why doesn't Bush use them right now? Civilians are attacking american soldiers... oh sorry, civilians fighting back/attacking = soldiers... i forgot... Joint Chiefs of Staff in April made a study saying a 90-day (the 3 months i was talking about) Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties (the rougly 500,000 we've been talking about) In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties). Anyway, i'm gonna stop here because this isn't getting anywhere... The point that you're not seing is Truman made a mistake... A HUGE mistake that even officials in America called it a cowerdly act to save american lives and to show off power when the japanese were on the brink of defeat anyway!!! Here's a quote from an american!!!! "In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-07-2007, 12:11 AM
Quote:
It took the Emperor to make the deciding vote to decide to surrender. After two A-bombs were dropped on two cities, half of the Japanese leadership wanted to continue to fight...which essentially was suicide, but by the code of bushido, was the honorable way to go. I don't quite understand your last sentence. Truman was NOT interested in killing as many Japanese as possible. Quite the opposite. He knew the leadership, especially Toho (who I think was out by then, but I could be wrong) would lead every man, woman, and child to their deaths unless it was shown they would be killed without dying in battle. Where is JAPAN'S responsibility in this argument?
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-07-2007, 12:31 AM
Quote:
I agree with you 100% that the dropping of the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are two of the saddest acts America ever committed as acts of war. They are truly tragic events. Yes, it brought a speedy end to a very bloody and devasting war, but it erased the lives of 105,000 instantly, and that number doubled as a result soon after. But even by your own numbers and facts America's other option: a ground attack, would have led to at least twice that number of casualties, soldiers and civilians, over a much longer and drawn out period of time. Initially the thoughts are 100,000 vs. 500,000. End the war in a week, or stretch it out over three months. Zero American deaths vs. Massive American deaths. Every number. Every statistic. Every estimate. Every strategy points at using the bomb. How could a President, whose job as the top military leader is to protect his country and protect his soldiers choose a strategy which took 1) More time, 2) More human loss of life 3) More civilian loss of life and 4) more American soldier loss of life? How could he turn to his country and say "We have a way that will end this war tomorrow, and protect our troops and our country, but instead, I am going to put our boys on the ground, in the most dangerous form of combat in war."? He would have been impeached, if not worse, in days. I don't feel the need to go on much more either. It's been interesting reading up on this topic, as it is certainly a fascinating one...(look how far we got from the original question). I want to be able to agree with you, I really do. But War is Hell. Sometimes decisions have to be made where there is no good option. I think this was one of those decisions. He chose what he beleived to be the lesser of the two evils.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
