Nukemap

[conway429]

Maybe you're too dumb to know what highlight means.
It's there, in white.

edit: ahhh ok, I get what you did... writing things in white is pretty lame...

[nymetsrule]

The atomic bombs saved millions of lives, mostly Japanese, by preventing an invasion. To state otherwise is revisionist history

this isn't really accurate...

Pearl Harbor happened 4 years before the bombings.
Also, according to some, the Japanese wanted to surrender long before the bombs were dropped.
but the US bombed them anyways, probably to humiliate a country as payback for Pearl Harbor.
Japan was beaten, and Pearl Harbor was long in the past. the bombings were very unnecessary.

p.s. don't get started on 9/11 as an "unprovoked terrorist attack"

As someone who actually knows what he is talking about, we dropped the bomb on Japan to tell Russia to back the **** up and show them that we are the real military superpower because they were running high after taking Berlin. We also never had any plans of being long term allies with Stalin and communism. We let them take the war in the west because we didn't want them to control Japan and be on our border on both sides.

[JNev]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9AMtUeyDP0

Wow.

[Ezekial]

edit: ahhh ok, I get what you did... writing things in white is pretty lame...

I am pretty lame... The only reason i brought it up to him is because he quoted me and it shows up in quote.

[The Schmooze]

Obviously the only country to have ever used the atomic bomb(twice, and on civilians) must be in the position to dictate who can or cannot have the technology.

[Chitown Sparty]

I'm not really gonna get into it, but 99% of Americans knowledge of history is taught in American schools and "history is written by the victors"
I'm not sure I've ever heard an American acknowledge an American military mistake at any point in history.

You can't really make a definitive statement like that one because this issue has been heavily debated for a long time. the Japanese were done, the war was over. I find it hard to believe there was a need to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and poison the survivors with radiation.
Hiroshima was mostly civilians but Nagasaki especially had zero military significance, it was families. Unnecessary to use a plutonium bomb....

the bombings (IMO) were about ego, humiliation and petty revenge

They weren't done and they werent surrendering. They were preparing to resit an invasion of the home islands with every Japanese citizen. Little kids who strap explosives to their chest and run under tanks. Men, women, children were being trained to fight the allied troops with spears, knives, anything they had. When taking account the casualty figures from Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and Saipan (where thousands of Japanese civilians jumped off a cliff into the ocean rather than be taken alive by advancing Marines) the casualty figures on the US side alone were projected at 200k+ dead, (that projection was made in early spring of 45, and the military had routinely underestimated casualty figures during the war), with millions of Japanese civilians dead. Even after the 2nd bomb, hardliners were still advocating war(despite the Soviet Union having invaded Manchuria as well).

It isnt "victor writing the history." Post-war analysis of the invasion/defense plans of the home islands, and projecting casualties based upon other battles fought in the Pacific (particularly Okinawa, which was considered a part of the homeland, and not a distant colony) concluded that actual war-time casualty projections were conservative. The war would have dragged on at least another year (Operation Coronet, the invasion on Honshu, was not schedule until Spring of 46, and that was dependent on the success of the first part of the operation. In the meantime, famine, continued bombing, and the actual fighting would have killed far more people than the atomic bombs did, while untold tens of thousands of Allied POW (both military and captured civilians) would continue to be tortured and murdered by their Japanese captors

A prolonged blockade would have resulted in a massive famine in Japan, which would have disproportionately impacted the Japanese civilians, and even then it is uncertain if this would have been enough to convince the emperor to surrender (as hundreds of thousands of civilians had already died during the American bombing campaign with no impact on his desire to fight). Any continuation of the war would have resulted in higher casualties in Manchuria against the Soviets, and an increase in Soviet atrocities against the civilian population.

As horrific as it sounds, the atomic bombs saved a significant number of Japanese and American lives.

[aNYer]

honestly if I know nukes are heading to America, I would just drive downtown Cincinnati. I would rather die fast and not know what happened. I've seen pictures of people who survived the Japan bombing and I think I'd rather die.

I'd bet Cinci will be safe and sound even if they decided to bomb like their top 35 targets in the US.

[nymetsrule]

They weren't done and they werent surrendering. They were preparing to resit an invasion of the home islands with every Japanese citizen. Little kids who strap explosives to their chest and run under tanks. Men, women, children were being trained to fight the allied troops with spears, knives, anything they had. When taking account the casualty figures from Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and Saipan (where thousands of Japanese civilians jumped off a cliff into the ocean rather than be taken alive by advancing Marines) the casualty figures on the US side alone were projected at 200k+ dead, (that projection was made in early spring of 45, and the military had routinely underestimated casualty figures during the war), with millions of Japanese civilians dead. Even after the 2nd bomb, hardliners were still advocating war(despite the Soviet Union having invaded Manchuria as well).

It isnt "victor writing the history." Post-war analysis of the invasion/defense plans of the home islands, and projecting casualties based upon other battles fought in the Pacific (particularly Okinawa, which was considered a part of the homeland, and not a distant colony) concluded that actual war-time casualty projections were conservative. The war would have dragged on at least another year (Operation Coronet, the invasion on Honshu, was not schedule until Spring of 46, and that was dependent on the success of the first part of the operation. In the meantime, famine, continued bombing, and the actual fighting would have killed far more people than the atomic bombs did, while untold tens of thousands of Allied POW (both military and captured civilians) would continue to be tortured and murdered by their Japanese captors

A prolonged blockade would have resulted in a massive famine in Japan, which would have disproportionately impacted the Japanese civilians, and even then it is uncertain if this would have been enough to convince the emperor to surrender (as hundreds of thousands of civilians had already died during the American bombing campaign with no impact on his desire to fight). Any continuation of the war would have resulted in higher casualties in Manchuria against the Soviets, and an increase in Soviet atrocities against the civilian population.

As horrific as it sounds, the atomic bombs saved a significant number of Japanese and American lives.

This is all dated. The use of an A-Bomb did not save any lives. It was nothing more than the US flexing its global muscles to show Russia that we have a weapon that can defeat them if they decided to push their luck. By 1945 we were done with fighting fascism and the Japanese, we were ready to fight with communism. We wouldn't become allies with Japan after A-bombing them if we didn't want to prevent communism from spreading.

[Chitown Sparty]

This is all dated. The use of an A-Bomb did not save any lives. It was nothing more than the US flexing its global muscles to show Russia that we have a weapon that can defeat them if they decided to push their luck. By 1945 we were done with fighting fascism and the Japanese, we were ready to fight with communism. We wouldn't become allies with Japan after A-bombing them if we didn't want to prevent communism from spreading.

no, its not dated. Yes, post-war geopolitical concerns played some role in deciding to use the bomb, but the primary factor for Truman was ending the war as quickly as possible while limiting the loss of American lives. If the US didn't use the bomb, what was going to force the Japanese to surrender?

And the Russians already knew we had the bomb, several leading scientists were Soviet spies, and the head of the NKVD was placed in charge of the Soviet nuclear program (stealing much of the information needed, which is why they were able to so quickly develop their own bomb).

[nymetsrule]

no, its not dated. Yes, post-war geopolitical concerns played some role in deciding to use the bomb, but the primary factor for Truman was ending the war as quickly as possible while limiting the loss of American lives. If the US didn't use the bomb, what was going to force the Japanese to surrender?

And the Russians already knew we had the bomb, several leading scientists were Soviet spies, and the head of the NKVD was placed in charge of the Soviet nuclear program (stealing much of the information needed, which is why they were able to so quickly develop their own bomb).

Since when has American lives (especially soldiers) been the concern of the government?

[The Schmooze]

Since when has American lives (especially soldiers) been the concern of the government?

Not since wayyyyyyyyyyyy far back in our history when we were at war in Afghanistan.

[Chitown Sparty]

Since when has American lives (especially soldiers) been the concern of the government?

not sure if serious or trolling, but it has always been a concern of the US military to achieve their objectives with the fewest casualties possible, knowing that the American public, especially in the 20th and now 21st century, will not tolerate massive loss of life.

While casualties in WWII on the US side were high compared to other wars (given the nature of the war), the military still took actions to try to limit the number of casualties, knowing still that some operations/objectives that were required to end the war had the risk of huge number of casualties (many of the battles in the Pacific, Normandy)

[abe_froman]

This is all dated. The use of an A-Bomb did not save any lives. It was nothing more than the US flexing its global muscles to show Russia that we have a weapon that can defeat them if they decided to push their luck. By 1945 we were done with fighting fascism and the Japanese, we were ready to fight with communism. We wouldn't become allies with Japan after A-bombing them if we didn't want to prevent communism from spreading.

it saved many lives,the invasion of japan would have been bloody as hell,not only for us soldier's but for the japanese.and as chitown sparty said,the russians already knew we had the bomb,they had spies in every level of the manhatten project.

[ThisIsTheYear]

I just nuked the entire middle east.

I started out there and somehow ended up on street view in Italy checking out some chicks huge rack.

Im starting to think I have ADD