COMMENTS:
Not all history say's it was crucial, America does. And history is written by the victors. But not agreeing with you does not make people intellectually inept. Japan were about to surrender regardless anyway but the US needed a test subject and Japan served its purpose.
by B_P on Fri Jun 17, 05 7:12am
[+]
To answer your question, I didn't know they were. I am ignorant of that which you speak!
by mojo on Fri Jun 17, 05 7:19am
[+]
No, Japan was looking to surrender under their terms, in which they would not have to relinquish control over land in China and other areas of the Pacific that the United States had not yet forced them out of. Also, the surrender in question was being done without the knowledge of the Japanese military, to the Russians of all people, who the Japanese were not even at war with at the time. This was not a surrender at all they were looking for, it was a way for them to back out of a war that THEY started with the United States, in such a way that they would be able to maintain a foothold in the pacific and to remain a military power, something that the United States was, understandably, completely unwilling to accept.
In the days leading up to the use of the atomic bomb, Japan had FOUR MILLION soldiers trained up, ready to fight to defend the homeland. Also, nearly every man, woman, and child was being taught combat skills, many using just sharpened bamboo sticks, in order to repel any invasion attempt by the American Military. The repeated cry by both the Japanese military and civilians alike during this training was simple: "American Soldiers, I Kill!!", it was screamed over and over during combat drills.
The destruction of the two Japanese cities caused Emperor
Hirohito to invoke his inner cabinet, made up of three military commanders
and three civilians. They were split on whether to continue the war, Bethe
said, and Hirohito decided to surrender.
What would have happened without those weapons? There were plans to
invade Japan. The estimates were that it would take 1 million American
lives. It was certain it would have taken far more Japanese casualties.
So the atom bomb saved lives, mostly
Japanese lives. And the Soviets were eager to participate in an invasion. How about that for a little tricky turnabout for the very people the Japanese were trying to work out this so called 'surrender' with? That occupation would have been far more oppressive on Japan in the long run.
Also, there are a good number of historians and military commanders alike who are certain that, had a nuclear deterrent not been in place from 1946 through the late 1980's, that another World War would have occurred involving the United States and the Soviet Union as the primary players, along with the members of both NATO and the Soviet Bloc countries being dragged in immediately and simultaneously.
Another consideration to make here, without the advancements made during the Manhattan project, nuclear provided electricity would have been many years further along in development.
And, the very idea that the use of the atom bomb was needed as 'a test subject' is completely preposterous. Certainly there would be interest in the aftermath as to what would happen, but the very suggestion that the need to test the bomb on civilians was a decisive factor in the decision to use the bomb is laughable at best. Truman was said to have lamented the use of the bomb not only before they were dropped, but for years after, even up to his death. American scientists were quite certain of the results due to tests, as long as the bomb detonated.
The only significant reason the bombs were dropped was to save lives in the long run, and to shorten an already devastating war.
I meant, I didn't know that people didn't realize. My dad told me all about it at an early age.
by mojo on Fri Jun 17, 05 8:02am
[+]
Well, jappys response pretty much said what I was going to say.
I know people who were alive at the time who believe the bombs were dropped to scare the Soviets and that Japan would've surrendered without an invasion. But who the hell knows?
Jappy
You look like youve been waiting to get that off your chest for sometime?
I hate nuclear Bombs
Well, Japan had never surrenedered in its history till they got their ass wooped that time. So Im betting they would have at least tried to repel an invasion before they gave up.
Japan wasn't going to surrender, B_P. Japan didn't even surrender under the first bomb. It took us TWO atom bombs before Japan surrendered. They're samuraii warrior code says to kill yourself if you're losing, instead of surrendering. Before they surrendered they'd kamakazi us to death. We needed a sure-fire way to wipe them out because Japan was relentless. No more Americans needed to die.
heh, don't for a minute think I enjoy having nuclear bombs around, it's not like I'm going to drag one into my living room, cover it with shag carpet and call it a scratching post, but I understand that there was a specific need at one point for them.
Me neither, if I sounded like i love nuclear bombs i didn't mean to..
Those who are intellectually honest disagree with you.
this is my choice - I forgot to log in. I think the statement that people who don't agree with you are intellectually inept is intellectually immature. Whichever side of this argument you may find yourself on, to qualify the other side as stupid or inept or just plain wrong because they don't agree with you is not much of an argument as well as being dishonest and immature.
|
