American in Hiroshima...

[noodle]

Originally Posted by samurai007

What's more, most soldiers and their families would have been furious if it ever came out that the US had worked so hard to develop the atomic bombs, (which were no more devastating than the combined power of the firebombs dropped on Tokyo and elsewhere), but refused to use them, choosing instead to have several million US soldiers give their lives, and kill 10 million+ Japanese soldiers and civilians in a needless invasion.

I don't think thats right... It's like saying, why doesn't America just nuke its enemies NOW... From what you just said there, it sounds like you are FOR using nuclear weapons. And seems like you would agree with the government if they decided to use an A bomb on Iraq for example!!!... I don't call that war.. Its just unfair, especially as the US, doesn't want anyone else having A bombs....

[MMM]

Originally Posted by noodle

This is a bit random, but have you seen "lions for lambs". Its a new film!

Actually, its not so random, the reason i mention this cos your post reminded me of something, and its simply a question...
Do you think that the disapproval is low now because of things like "this war has lasted longer than the world war?", or "people are fed up and arn't happy with the number of americans dying", or "because USA is getting a negative image"?

I wonder, if a poll like this was made in the first couple of years of the war, how many people would have agreed? even though, america (in my opnion), had nothing to do in the middle east!

At the beginning of the War most of America agreed with invading Iraq and we had a lot of world support. That was because we we working with misinformation. Saddam and Al Queda had nothing to do with each other. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, and at that time, Iraq was not harboring "terrorists". (None of the attackers on 9/11 were from Iraq, must mostly from our "ally" Saudi Arabia.)

As the truth began to come out, peoples trust in our leader at the most important time of all: wartime, began to waver. If we weren't there to prevent Iraq from attacking us, then why were we still there? I think Americans are frustrated at timelines that are never followed, the money-pit the war has turned into when millions of Americans can't afford insurance and schools are cutting programs, and the feeling that our soldiers are dying for no purpose. Though a reputation isn't as important as people's lives, I think many Americans are embarrassed by the actions of Bush and his administration, and I agree, we have no business acting like the world's police.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by MMM

At the beginning of the War most of America agreed with invading Iraq and we had a lot of world support. That was because we we working with misinformation. Saddam and Al Queda had nothing to do with each other. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, and at that time, Iraq was not harboring "terrorists". (None of the attackers on 9/11 were from Iraq, must mostly from our "ally" Saudi Arabia.)

As the truth began to come out, peoples trust in our leader at the most important time of all: wartime, began to waver. If we weren't there to prevent Iraq from attacking us, then why were we still there? I think Americans are frustrated at timelines that are never followed, the money-pit the war has turned into when millions of Americans can't afford insurance and schools are cutting programs, and the feeling that our soldiers are dying for no purpose. Though a reputation isn't as important as people's lives, I think many Americans are embarrassed by the actions of Bush and his administration, and I agree, we have no business acting like the world's police.

Thats good to hear... You should watch that film. "Lions for Lambs"... It comes up with some interesting points... It's all basically against the WAR

[MMM]

Originally Posted by noodle

I don't think thats right... It's like saying, why doesn't America just nuke its enemies NOW... From what you just said there, it sounds like you are FOR using nuclear weapons. And seems like you would agree with the government if they decided to use an A bomb on Iraq for example!!!... I don't call that war.. Its just unfair, especially as the US, doesn't want anyone else having A bombs....

That's not what's being said at all.

The war had to end. To end the war a price had to be paid. Which is better...200,000 lives or 5,000,000 lives? There is no third option where no one is killed. That's why they say "War is hell."

[MMM]

Originally Posted by noodle

Thats good to hear... You should watch that film. "Lions for Lambs"... It comes up with some interesting points... It's all basically against the WAR

I do want to see it. I also recommend "No End In Sight" which just came out on DVD in the US.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by MMM

That's not what's being said at all.

The war had to end. To end the war a price had to be paid. Which is better...200,000 lives or 5,000,000 lives? There is no third option where no one is killed. That's why they say "War is hell."

Are those estimates ever accurate? Also, that question is not fair. Because its like someone saying, Which is better. Use an atomic bomb so that we have lets say 100 deaths on our side. Or lets fight a war in a fair manner and have a loss of 10,000?

I agree war is hell. I think modern warfare isn't fair either. Especially when the US is envolved cos its TOOOO powerful and it doesn't want anyone to become as powerful as them. Thus the fear of China

[MMM]

Originally Posted by noodle

Are those estimates ever accurate? Also, that question is not fair. Because its like someone saying, Which is better. Use an atomic bomb so that we have lets say 100 deaths on our side. Or lets fight a war in a fair manner and have a loss of 10,000?

I agree war is hell. I think modern warfare isn't fair either. Especially when the US is envolved cos its TOOOO powerful and it doesn't want anyone to become as powerful as them. Thus the fear of China

Let's assume the estimates are accurate. And the death toll would be higher on both sides if the bomb isn't used. That's the choice our president had to make.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by MMM

Let's assume the estimates are accurate. And the death toll would be higher on both sides if the bomb isn't used. That's the choice our president had to make.

There is always another way... The situation can't of just been "Use atomic bomb" or "America loses millions of its soldiers".

Please tell me i'm mistaken, but to me it sounds like you justify hiroshima and nagasaki.

And to be honest with you, I would rather more people die because they were fighting and wanted to fight, rather than just people that had nothing to do with the war getting killed! At least the people that die fighting had a choice to fight or not and they knew that there was a possibility of death... People in hiroshima couldn't do anything, they didn't have a choice.. Thats the sickest part about it!

[Enkidu22]

Originally Posted by noodle

There is always another way... The situation can't of just been "Use atomic bomb" or "America loses millions of its soldiers".

Exactly, as I said before it's likely that A-bomb use was absolutely innecesary. Japanese army wasn't really afraid of A-bomb so much as many believe today, they knew that US can't produce those bombs fast enought to replace carpet bombardments and CB was in fact more devastating. We have to remember that early atomic warheads were nothing compared to modern ones.
Also Japan wanted to fight to the very end becouse USA wanted to trial the emperor, who was living god for 90% of japanese. They would do anything to prevent that. When USA dropped this demand they surendered.
Seriously use of A-bomb wasn't necesary and wasn't the key to Japan's surrender. USA just wanted to show their new weapon to Soviets (and the whole world), becouse they knew they would become enemies.

You have to remember that history is written by the victors and they often like to justify their decisions.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by noodle

There is always another way... The situation can't of just been "Use atomic bomb" or "America loses millions of its soldiers".

Please tell me i'm mistaken, but to me it sounds like you justify hiroshima and nagasaki.

And to be honest with you, I would rather more people die because they were fighting and wanted to fight, rather than just people that had nothing to do with the war getting killed! At least the people that die fighting had a choice to fight or not and they knew that there was a possibility of death... People in hiroshima couldn't do anything, they didn't have a choice.. Thats the sickest part about it!

I am not going to repeat what Samurai wrote, but those issues you are raising are addressed perfectly by Samurai.

I am not going to say I justify or don't justify, I am saying this was the choice that President Truman had to make. I think you and Tenchu have this fantasy idea that there were all these choices that could have been made, or that he relished in the slaughter of thousands and thousands of people. It's easy to say "There is always another way..." Well, what is it, then? What way do you have that could have saved more lives? Why couldn't hundreds of advisors, generals, and leaders from all over the world not find it?

The fact is that Truman dropped the bomb to save lives. Many have tried to rewrite history to imply otherwise, but that is the truth.

Keep in mind that Japanese saw the emperor as a god. They were fanatically nationalistic, and had already engaged in suicide attacks on American ships. The civilians had already begun training, and followed the samurai code of the greatest honor was to die in battle. This included women and children. Innocent or not, they were all going to fight, and were happy to die for thier country.

What can't be denied is that the bombings did end the war earlier than if they hadn't occurred. The massive loss of life was smaller than the firebombings that occurered in Tokyo and other parts of Japan, and it can't be denied that the loss of American AND Japanese life would have been greater than 100,000 (Hiroshima and Nagasaki deaths combined) if America had launched a ground assualt. The only other viable option to end the war.