WWIV

7/18/2006 1:08:25 AM

I didn't bother to read entire thread, but Americans don't attack or bomb an area with the intent of causing terror among the masses - we do it to accomplish specific military objectives.

7/18/2006 2:31:51 AM

so do "terrorists"

7/18/2006 1:17:03 PM

7/18/2006 1:17:40 PM

sdf

[Edited on July 18, 2006 at 4:00 PM. Reason : sdf]

7/18/2006 1:24:30 PM

enough of this shit

[Edited on July 18, 2006 at 4:00 PM. Reason : -gunzz]

7/18/2006 1:24:53 PM

sdf

[Edited on July 18, 2006 at 4:00 PM. Reason : sdf]

7/18/2006 1:25:27 PM

oh, the cacaphony of sounds!!1

7/18/2006 1:25:38 PM

sdf

[Edited on July 18, 2006 at 4:00 PM. Reason : sdf]

7/18/2006 1:26:10 PM

sdf

[Edited on July 18, 2006 at 4:00 PM. Reason : sdf]

7/18/2006 1:29:16 PM

sdf

[Edited on July 18, 2006 at 4:00 PM. Reason : sdf]

7/18/2006 1:31:21 PM

7/18/2006 1:32:26 PM

This getting close to ban-worthy shit right here.

7/18/2006 1:35:42 PM

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua must be trolling. Ten million Japanese dead? That's crazy."

Its a legitimate estimate, whether you believe it or not.

Quote :

"What's your source? Truman doesn't count."

Quote :

"A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan. Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000–1,000,000 fatalities, and were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties_for_Downfall

Numerous contemporary studies also produced similar figures.

Quote :

"The military is always planning everything."

Pardon me. Truman was still committed to an invasion on August 15.

Quote :

"Your numbers are bullshit, but the numbers don't really matter. Murder one person to save another is never a moral act."

Why are my numbers bullshit? Because you don't like them? Do you think that fewer than 300,000 japanese would have died during the three months of continued firebombing of Japanese citizens that would have preceded the November 1 launch of the invasion? There were about one million Japanese soldiers on the home islands. Looking at Iwo Jima (22,000 killed, 1,000 captured) and Okinawa (110,000 killed, 7,000 captured) its safe to say that the vast majority of those soldiers would have fought to the death. That by itself is at least 800,000 japanese soldiers KIA. That doesn't even begin to figure in the percentage of the 70 million civilians who inhabited Japan at the time and who would have been pressed into the defense of the empire.

Quote :

"if the japanese were so determined to not surrender and rather jump off cliffs why was there magically peace after two atomic bombs?"

Because the Japanese hoped to inflict massive casualties during the invasion and then wait for an armistice when the allied armies were exhausted. The use of the atomic bomb showed them that an invasion wasn't necessary and that the US could destroy Japan from the air with impunity. The bombing was followed with the bluff that US could rain atomic bombs all over Japan as necessary (although the US had exhausted its supply of plutonium and uranium on the two bombs used).

American leaflet dropped on Japan following the bombing:

Quote :

"ATTENTION JAPANESE PEOPLE. EVACUATE YOUR CITIES. Because your military leaders have rejected the thirteen part surrender declaration, two momentous events have occurred in the last few days. The Soviet Union, because of this rejection on the part of the military has notified your Ambassador Sato that it has declared war on your nation. Thus, all powerful countries of the world are now at war with you. Also, because of your leaders' refusal to accept the surrender declaration that would enable Japan to honorably end this useless war, we have employed our atomic bomb. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s could have carried on a single mission. Radio Tokyo has told you that with the first use of this weapon of total destruction, Hiroshima was virtually destroyed. Before we use this bomb again and again to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, petition the emperor now to end the war. Our president has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender. We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better, and peace-loving Japan. Act at once or we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war. EVACUATE YOUR CITIES. Source: Harry S. Truman Library, Miscellaneous historical document file, no. 258."

7/18/2006 2:25:17 PM

Oh Christ.

7/18/2006 2:26:41 PM

for every "legitimate" post in this thread I am going to reply with a chit chat worthy answer. There is a place for this discussion, and this ain't it.

sdf

[Edited on July 18, 2006 at 4:01 PM. Reason : sdf]

7/18/2006 2:26:48 PM

this thread is FUBAR

7/18/2006 2:27:27 PM

moved to the lounge
you people are irritating

7/18/2006 4:02:55 PM

would Japan be what it is today had we not dropped the A-Bomb, if we had invaded do you think that Japan would have been as prosperous. Debating about something that happened 60 years ago under different circumstances is like comparing apples to oranges.

7/18/2006 4:19:18 PM

Quote :

"Its a legitimate estimate, whether you believe it or not."

No it isn't.

Quote :

"A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan."

Shockley study was a) based on an incorrect assumption and b) wasn't even completed before the end of the war. It should be completely discounted. The military estimated around 31,000-132,500 casualties (killed, wounded, and missing) for the invasion of Kyushu (which would have been more than enough). Even that invasion wouldn't have been needed and probably wouldn't have happened at all.

Quote :

"Why are my numbers bullshit?"

Because they're more than ten times higher than the actual military estimates.

Quote :

"Do you think that fewer than 300,000 japanese would have died during the three months of continued firebombing of Japanese citizens that would have preceded the November 1 launch of the invasion?"

Killing people with conventional bombs is exactly the same, morally, as killing 'em with nukes. The real question should be over bombing cities, not the two nukes that were just an extension of previous U.S. strategy.

Quote :

"its safe to say that the vast majority of those soldiers would have fought to the death."

No it isn't. The political situation was changing in Japan. She most likely would have given up before even the invasion of Kyushu, much less of the main islands.

Quote :

"That doesn't even begin to figure in the percentage of the 70 million civilians who inhabited Japan at the time and who would have been pressed into the defense of the empire."

You think 14% percent of them would be willing to die? Come on.

Quote :

"Because the Japanese hoped to inflict massive casualties during the invasion and then wait for an armistice when the allied armies were exhausted."

The crazy military types did, sure. That doesn't mean anyone would have actually gone along with them.

7/18/2006 4:34:43 PM

how can anyone say killing someone with regular bombs is worse. an abomb is 10 times worse. if you think differently go look at the pics in the beggining of the thread.

7/18/2006 9:36:24 PM

your point??

7/18/2006 10:01:00 PM

Quote :

"The political situation was changing in Japan."

We know that in hindsight.

7/18/2006 10:04:09 PM