Was it good that the U.S dropped the atomic bombs?

Discussion in 'History' started by Possumking, Apr 23, 2006.

  1. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    typing "usaaf bombing survey" (without the quotes) yeilds the following website
    http://www.447bg.com/library/survey.html

    the war with japan was mainly a naval and marine engagement
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. glenn239 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    202
    Strategic bombing formed a core element within the American strategy to defeat Japan in 1945. In Europe, the systematic suppression of rail communications was implemented as a key strategy - one might say the key strategy - in the pursuit of victory. This included the destruction of nets in France and Germany much more difficult to interdict than Japan's. In Asia in 1945, the USAAF by and large refrained from any attacks of this type save for secondary effects arising from the area bombing of Japanese cities.

    Theories as to why this was so do not interest me. What I have observed is that it appears difficult to reconsile this failure of action with the idea that an acceptable Japanese surrender was judged improbable via the methods employed prior to 6 August.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. glenn239 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    202
    As a direct response to the notion that the Americans somehow "forgot" that they knew a thing or two about rail interdiction tactics,

    "But American naval aircraft gave a foretaste of far worse things to come. Patrol planes of Fleet Air Wing One disrupted Korean rail lines and halted traffic for five days in early July. Continued attaks compelled considerable changes in plans for shipping raw materials from northern China and Manchuria to Korean ports. An extensive study of rail bridges highlighted the vital role of the bridge at Seisen. On July 31, six PB4Y Privateers destroyed one span of the bridge. As an American intelligence summary explained, this one stroke, "effectively cut off Southern Korea, except for branch lines of little comparatively small capacity." This episode served notice of how readily bulk-commodity shipments could be drastically reduced or halted on a limited rail net."

    Downfall, Richard Frank, pp156
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dravyga ... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    33
    Not a good thing at all to kill 100,000-200,000+ civilians. It may have been decisive, but not a good thing at all.
     
  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    nobody told japan to bomb pearl harbor.
    she did it of her own free will

    if you pick a fight with somebody and they thoroughly kick your ass, well i for one will not feel sorry for you.
     
  9. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    Somehow too many people have home upon the opinion that we are supposed to be using teargas and rubber bullets in a freaking war.
    Its war, dammit. People are expected to die in droves.
     
  10. Dravyga ... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    33
    No, in a war, Soldiers are supposed to die. Not civilians.
     
  11. glenn239 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    202
    I think the events of 1945 proved quite...therapeutic...to American-Japanese relations. Never underestimate the healing power of a really good beating.

    Where I question matters is the potential incompetence of an American strategy that threw away all its strengths and allowed a post-war order in the former Japanese Empire completely at odds with American interests.
     
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    what america didn't realize was the tremendous phsycological effect that the bombs had on the japanese

    to be honest the japanese people were ready for a change
    prior to the end of the war marriages were arranged, you, in all probability, were married to someone you didn't even love much less liked. of course that ended with the war
     
  13. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,224
    Was it good? No. Nothing in war ever is.
    Was it necessary? One hundred percent.
     
  14. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    glenn 239 (Where I question matters is the potential incompetence of an American strategy that threw away all its strengths and allowed a post-war order in the former Japanese Empire completely at odds with American interests.)

    You have just proved that the U.S. dosen't subjugate and opress nations we defeat in war, we let them develope their own systems of goverment and economics as long as they are non-agressive. The Foiley's of the forum should take notice, this was also done with Germany, and Italy, and then compair what shape eastern europe was left in for decades under Soviet Oppression and Domination, wich they are finally recovering from!
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2006
  15. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    from a military standpoint civilians are a countrys asset
    civilians are future soldiers

    poisoning food and water supplies are also justified

    war is a nasty, ugly and brutal business.
    if you or i do not like the horrors of war then we should do everything in our power to prevent it
     
  16. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    By waging war?
     
  17. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    By changing the equasion, wich we did in Germany and Japan, sometimes it the only way.
     
  18. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,224
    That kind of thinking may have been perfect a few hundred years ago, in the 1770s, but this is the modern world. A brutal, harsh environment where if you are in the wrong at the wrong time, then it's tough shit.
     
  19. candy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,074
    Civilians have always died as a result of warfare. Real war is not a tidy toy soldier board game. War is a vicious mean sprited dirty cruel event that we should try to avoid but when it becomes necessary you do what ever is needed to protect your troops in a combat area.
     
  20. glenn239 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    202
    Well said.

    My problem with American policy towards Japan in 1945 is that it was so incompetent that huge swaths of territory in the Japanese empire (Vietnam, China, Manchuria, Korea) were permitted to slip from the American sphere of influence into the Soviet. This poisoned the development of the areas in question and caused all sorts of trouble in subsequent decades. It remains to be seen how much trouble this avoidable folly has yet to cause to us. I've got no problem with a big China, but I'd feel a lot more comfortable if that China looked more like Taiwan...
     
  21. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Yes Glenn, but we had the same problem after WWII that we have today, peace at any price liberals, who don't understand, that peace comes at a price, and that if you appear weak, you invite attack, and every time we have negotiated from a position of non-agression we have had our heads handed to us!
     
  22. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    Indeed. Prior to WWII, the very vocal pacifistic and isolationist groups damn near made us give up on the idea of a standing military. We basically had to regear every industry in the nation to produce war goods and draft like mad for the entire length of the war to make up for that mistake.

    One of the truest rules in this world is that you must always have bigger fangs than the next beast over and must never be afraid to use them. When you bite, you go for a killing blow. Mercy to the enemy is treachery to your own men because you can be sure that your opponent would slam a knife into your belly for your efforts.
     
  23. Facial Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,225
    No, it is not a good thing that the U.S. dropped the atomic bombs.

    There is more evidence that Japan would've surrendered soon enough anyway without the bombs.
     

Share This Page