So I understand Japan needed some whoop-your-ass convincing to end the war, but why use the A-bomb? And how the hell is it ok to obliterate a civilian city? Civilian city bombing is another thing - the majority of them aren't killed and civil life is disturbed, which is the entire aim - but when your aim to to shock and force to surrender, why bomb a city - better to blow up military strongholds/ bases/ goverment areas, no?
How could US drop the a-bomb on Civilians?
- Thread starter aaqucnaona
- Start date
Ya think? No A bomb here.
But a-bombs have farther reaching consequences than just property destruction - almost all of the residents die - radioactivity remains a problem for a long time.
Many times governments will locate their industrial plants nearby a city so that the employees can easily get to and from work. There's very few ways to separate the people from the work that they do and with unsophisticated weapons of the WW2 era the more they bombed the better the chances they actually destroyd the industry. Another thing is pcychological warfare that makes the will of the people break by saturating bombing the entire area thereby breaking the "we can win" mentality from those who are willing to work for the war effort.
Fire bombing many of the major cities of Japan destroyed more than one A-bomb ever did but the psychological edge the A-bomb gave the allies was the edge they needed to bring about a swift end to the war with fewer allied losses. The fire bombings killed more civilians than both A-bombs ever did but that didn't bring the war to its end which was why they tried that at first. So whether or not an A-bomb should be used on civilians is going to happen by the country that either wants to win at any cost or the country that's losing the war and has nothing to lose. The question should be when it will be used not if it should be used in todays war torn world. Those in charge only want to get what they want and need no matter what the cost or who it costs.
Fire bombing many of the major cities of Japan destroyed more than one A-bomb ever did but the psychological edge the A-bomb gave the allies was the edge they needed to bring about a swift end to the war with fewer allied losses. The fire bombings killed more civilians than both A-bombs ever did but that didn't bring the war to its end which was why they tried that at first. So whether or not an A-bomb should be used on civilians is going to happen by the country that either wants to win at any cost or the country that's losing the war and has nothing to lose. The question should be when it will be used not if it should be used in todays war torn world. Those in charge only want to get what they want and need no matter what the cost or who it costs.
because that is what it was developed for, for use in war.
dunno.
ask the germans.
they did a fairly decent job on london and rotterdam, and a few more to boot.
Many times governments will locate their industrial plants nearby a city so that the employees can easily get to and from work. There's very few ways to separate the people from the work that they do and with unsophisticated weapons of the WW2 era the more they bombed the better the chances they actually destroyd the industry. Another thing is pcychological warfare that makes the will of the people break by saturating bombing the entire area thereby breaking the "we can win" mentality from those who are willing to work for the war effort.
Fire bombing many of the major cities of Japan destroyed more than one A-bomb ever did but the psychological edge the A-bomb gave the allies was the edge they needed to bring about a swift end to the war with fewer allied losses. The fire bombings killed more civilians than both A-bombs ever did but that didn't bring the war to its end which was why they tried that at first. So whether or not an A-bomb should be used on civilians is going to happen by the country that either wants to win at any cost or the country that's losing the war and has nothing to lose. The question should be when it will be used not if it should be used in todays war torn world. Those in charge only want to get what they want and need no matter what the cost or who it costs.
I find it odd how a country can complain so bitterly about the loss of 3000 of its own citizens while defending the atrocities IT and its allies committed during WW2 as "right". Just because it wasn't judged "Illegal" by the changes in international law which were retrospectively imposed on Germany doesn't mean it was right.
No, not "almost all the residents die".
Less than half the residents of Hiroshima died from the bomb.
And no, Hiroshima is a bustling city today, radiation is not an issue.
The fact is the bombs ended the war, and in doing so can be justified in the saving of lives that would have been lost had we continued with conventional warfare including invasion of the Mainland, which was expected to cost a million or more Japanese lives and as many as 50,000 more American lives.
Could you explain what atrocities the allies made and compare them to the atrocities that both Japan and Germany committed against prisoners and their own citizens in the case of Germany and the holocaust.
So the Germans got a raw deal after WW2?
Really?
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005140
The firebombing of Drasnia, the fire bombing of Toko, the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, compared to blowing up 3 buildings with 4 planes, one an actual millatary target and THAT'S supposed to be the biggest war crime since the holocaust?
You miss the fact that the war machines of both Germany and Japan were only kept running YEAR AFTER YEAR by the efforts of the civilian population who were indeed putting everything they had into keeping the war machine supplied with ships, planes, bombs and bullets.
Which is why they were legitimate targets in that declared World War.
Such does not apply to the people just going to work at non-military jobs in the Twin Towers that day, nor the people on the plane that was flown into the Pentagon.
It's pretty sad that you can't see the difference.
Which is why they were legitimate targets in that declared World War.
Such does not apply to the people just going to work at non-military jobs in the Twin Towers that day, nor the people on the plane that was flown into the Pentagon.
It's pretty sad that you can't see the difference.
Last edited:
Perhaps you didn't understand what I asked of you, you do that sometimes. I asked that you describe the atrocities that both Germany and Japan did and then compare them to what the allies did. You always want to see your point of view as being the only one when there's another side to your story that you seem to refuse to acknowledge, why is that? :shrug:
World War II was a total war - probably, the definitive total war. What that means is that there was little or no distinction between military and civilians.
The firebombing of Tokyo killed more civilians than the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Part of the reason that the latter two cities were selected as targets, was that the area bombing campaigns had already reduced most other major Japanese cities into ruins. Not sure where you got these rosy ideas about what (non-nuclear) bombing of a city involves. The nuclear bombings were by no means the most destructive or disruptive bombing attacks in World War II. They just have the distinction of requiring only a single bomb per city, making one big explosion, radiation effects, and the novelty and surprise of a new weapon. But, once can easily do just as much damage (or more) with conventional bombs.
In the first place, those two categories are not mutually exclusive.
In the second place, I don't see any reason that bombing a city wouldn't induce more shock than bombing some isolated military stronghold.
i must disagree in regards to germany.
germany herself had little in the way of military industry.
the rest came from other conquered countries.
the people of these countries were working for their livelihood, not for the military might of germany.
it was the primary reason hiroshima was selected, it totally escaped being bombed.
the perfect test bed to ascertain the blast effects in an actual city.
War is all about atrocities. Everybody uses whatever weapons they have. Nobody builds an even more lethal than the previous weapon just to scare the enemy: all weapons are for using on people, all weapons and instruments of torture are invented, refined, developed and manufactured for the sole purpose of causing pain, injury, damage and death. Humans have always done these things and will go on doing these things until either we destroy the entire species or it undergoes a profound change.
There is no need for any of it. All explanations and justifications are bogus.
Why probe the rationale for one atrocity among so many?
There is no need for any of it. All explanations and justifications are bogus.
Why probe the rationale for one atrocity among so many?
Surely you are not serious?
When the war started the Blitzkrieg was all based on German produced Military tanks and planes and weapons.
Virtually all the planes, tanks, ships, rockets and other weapons were built in Germany.
I want some of whatever it is that you are smoking.
Which would also argue that the WTC was a legitimate target designated by an organization that had declared war on the US. The civilian population of the US is heavily invested in the attempts to hunt down Al Qaeda. Engineers develop UAV's, banks finance defense contractors to develop new smart bombs etc.