Hiroshima 70 years ago

[Gawdzilla]

As for LeMay, there were ten cities on the Do Not Bomb list.

You know LeMays overall track record? Up to 1962 when he was but one step away from GungHoing the world into nuclear World War III? He was as big a fuck as Edward Teller.

And?

[abaris]

And?

And - that piece of shit certainly didn't care how many civilians he killed. The attack on Hiroshima, as well as the one on Dresden (but that was rather the british than the Americans) had nothing to do with military necessities, but everything with a demonstration of power.

[Gawdzilla]

And?

And - that piece of shit certainly didn't care how many civilians he killed. The attack on Hiroshima, as well as the one on Dresden (but that was rather the british than the Americans) had nothing to do with military necessities, but everything with a demonstration of power.

Well, you're wrong, but I doubt you'll ever figure out how badly. Have a nice life. And enjoy the HyFy channel.

[abaris]

Well, you're wrong, but I doubt you'll ever figure out how badly.

Yes, great argument. Got anything more than your original 5000 troops strawmen? Otherwise, well....

[Gawdzilla]

Well, you're wrong, but I doubt you'll ever figure out how badly.

Yes, great argument. Got anything more than your original 5000 troops strawmen? Otherwise, well....

Yeah, you might start with Truman and the Hiroshima Cult, or Operation Downfall: Alternative to the Bomb, or Hell to Pay or Codename Downfall: The Secret Plan to Invade Japan, or Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire. They're all available on Amazon. 

And you should look up "strawman argument", you don't know jack about how to use that term.

[Shinagami]

The bomb wasn't needed. It was used to see how it would work and to intimidate the Soviets from advancing further south. The claim that more civilians would have died in a ground invasion is pure speculation. But even forgetting all that, it's disgusting that Americans can't honor the innocent people killed in Hiroshima and always launch into some lengthy defense of the bomb. Even conflating Pearl Harbor, a military target, with Hiroshima, a city with little if any strategic importance.

[Anomalocaris]

As if Japan distinguished between the military and the civilian in the area it occupied, or that she is now humble and apologetic for having failed to do so, so she could reproach others for not having distinguished her civilian from her military.

Military strategy is all about intelligent speculation.  That more Japanese civilians would die is a very intelligent speculation, but hardly relevant.  That more Americans would die is the intelligent speculation that is paramount because in total war, one does not offer to die so the enemy, civilians or military, may live.

[Minimalist]

Japanese civilians were going to die no matter what.  They would either,

A) starve to death during the winter whether we invaded or not,

B) die in absurd human wave attacks armed with bamboo spears, if we landed



Or  c) we could have continued the incendiary raids until there was literally nothing left to burn compounding the slaughter we had already unleashed.

Considering that the terms ultimately given to the Japanese ( they would surrender and the emperor would not be harmed) our insistence on unconditional surrender in the abstract seems to have meant very little.

[Anomalocaris]

And?

And - that piece of shit certainly didn't care how many civilians he killed. The attack on Hiroshima, as well as the one on Dresden (but that was rather the british than the Americans) had nothing to do with military necessities, but everything with a demonstration of power.

Demonstration of power is a military necessity.   You kill a few so that many would not make you prove you can kill them as well.  That way you economize on bullets and possibly reduce the risk to yourself.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

As Chuck said, by 1945 the Japanese were totally defenseless.  General Curtis Lemay began repeated low-level, nighttime, incendiary raids in March 1945.  The Japanese had no night fighters to oppose the B-29s and losses were light even though the B-29s were stripped of most of their guns. 

Had we wanted to burn Hiroshima and Nagasaki we could have done so with ease.  Which frankly makes it looks like they were being saved for the sacrifice.  I don't know that it was our finest moment.

The nukes actually saved lives because the Japanaese military was willing to fight to the last person.  We were also willing to kill every Japanese without mercy.  So the best thing to happen was that they got nuked and the war ended just like that.  It was actually a win-win for everyone.  Look at Japan today.  Imagine how it would have looked if we had killed everyone there in 1945.