70th Anniversary of Hiroshima - Page 2

AlpineZone

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31
  1. #11
    Bombing Tokyo instead of the other two, not after. I have a degree in Political Science from UNH and had a professor who was from the State Dept. during the cold war. That's were I got a lot of my mindset. It's easy for you to be dovish having not lived through this period. England could have easily fallen and the U.S. would have been next. I don't think you realize what that would have meant.

    make snow not war
    Waterville Valley, bought to be sold

  2. #12
    Tin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    ZooMass Slamherst
    Posts
    2,988
    Quote Originally Posted by freeski View Post
    Bombing Tokyo instead of the other two, not after. I have a degree in Political Science from UNH and had a professor who was from the State Dept. during the cold war. That's were I got a lot of my mindset. It's easy for you to be dovish having not lived through this period. England could have easily fallen and the U.S. would have been next. I don't think you realize what that would have meant.
    Bombing Tokyo means no second plan. You leveled their biggest, now go after smaller ones? From a cultural standpoint taking out leaders would have led to an infuriated, "dug-in", and out for revenge Japanese people versus a population crippled with fear. Tokyo first means no surrender, having to level every city, then still dealing with resistance.


    The British handled things in the Battle of Britain and Barbarossa sealed the fate of the Third Reich. The Japanese had not encountered anything close to U.S. military strength during their imperialistic spread. Once they did, yes the U.S. casualties were high and Guadal was close, but the Japanese victories were tactical or mere bombing raids.
    Last edited by Tin; Aug 6, 2015 at 2:58 PM.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Tin View Post
    Bombing Tokyo means no second plan. You leveled their biggest, now go after smaller ones? From a cultural standpoint taking out leaders would have led to an infuriated, "dug-in", and out for revenge Japanese people versus a population crippled with fear. Tokyo first means no surrender, having to level every city, then still dealing with resistance.
    Not to mention that Tokyo had already been decimated by months of firebombing. Over 100,000 civilians were killed in a single night in March of 1945 alone. This, together with the defeat of the Nazis and the entry of the USSR into the war with Japan, probably rendered the first bomb (and almost certainly the second) completely unnecessary (assuming the use of nuclear weapons (or carpet bombing for that matter) against civilian targets could ever be considered "necessary" or even justifiable).

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by freeski View Post
    We should have hit Tokyo. They were evil animals. Maybe 3 bombs could have taken out the ring leaders.
    How does the above translate to "instead"? You clearly called for three bombs.

    My aunt was a Russian translator for the CIA during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Her clearance level was so high she wasn't allowed to divulge to family where she even worked until 25 years after she left the job. I can assure you her opinion doesn't align with your professor's.

  5. #15
    No looking back, at least on this particular issue. The best military and political minds in America decided we had to do what we had to do. Not only did the war end soon after, but the world saw the horrific power of nuclear weapons, the cold war stayed fairly cold, MAD worked, and to this day we haven’t seen another nuke used in attack mode.

    BTW, I’m for the Iran Nuke Deal, one of the few things I align with Obama on.

    PS: I studied under this guy in college, Dr. Gordon Prange: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_W._Prange
    He had seen Hitler speak as a grad student in Nazi Germany and served as MacArthur’s chief historian in occupied Japan. He was so good I took four military history classes from him and became a History Minor. He would actually reenact excerpts from Hitler’s speeches in class, fluid German, goose-stepping included!?!
    Last edited by jimk; Aug 6, 2015 at 3:18 PM.

  6. #16
    If Germany, Japan or both had nukes and the ability to deliver them to the U.S. mainland how would they have proceeded?
    make snow not war
    Waterville Valley, bought to be sold

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by deadheadskier View Post
    How does the above translate to "instead"? You clearly called for three bombs.

    My aunt was a Russian translator for the CIA during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Her clearance level was so high she wasn't allowed to divulge to family where she even worked until 25 years after she left the job. I can assure you her opinion doesn't align with your professor's.
    You'd need more than one for Tokyo. I think three would have done the trick (all on Tokyo). The argument that there would have been no one with authority to surrender may have some validity.
    make snow not war
    Waterville Valley, bought to be sold

  8. #18
    Tin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    ZooMass Slamherst
    Posts
    2,988
    Quote Originally Posted by freeski View Post
    If Germany, Japan or both had nukes and the ability to deliver them to the U.S. mainland how would they have proceeded?

    But they didn't and we knew they didn't! Both, specifically Germany, put their efforts into aircraft, rockets, jets, etc. They were not even attempting to really build one. Japan did not start thinking about the bomb and gathering uranium until spring of 1945.

    Bombing Tokyo would have been the greatest one day mass casualty in human history. It had a population density double and almost quadruple that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In the initial blast it is easy to say 200k dead, who knows about after effects. Initially Hiroshima was estimated to be at 70-80k dead. That total doubled.

    Putting hypotheticals into history is fun, but all logic gets thrown out the window...as seen here. What if Napoleon's army didn't get yellow fever? Would we all be speaking French?
    Last edited by Tin; Aug 6, 2015 at 4:18 PM.

  9. #19
    200K is low. In looking for deaths in WWII I came across the following:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

    All things considered the U.S. and our allies were very generous in the way we ended the war. Also, China was devastated by Japan and you never hear about it. The Nazis had nothing on Japan on the evil scale during this time period. I don't have anything against the Japanese or the Germans, but I do hold a grudge against the generation that fought against the U.S.

    edit: I won't post anymore on this topic. Too nice a day for this darkness. Gonna hop on my mountain bike and go to the woods.

    Kind Regards
    Freeski
    make snow not war
    Waterville Valley, bought to be sold

  10. #20
    steamboat1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn,NY/Pittsford,VT.
    Posts
    6,613
    Fun facts.

    Russian WWII Vets get free medical from American VA hospitals as do all other forces aligned with us during WWII.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:21 AM.