StarDestroyer.Net BBS

salm wrote: kills 150 000 at once,

Better than hundreds of thousands. By the way, what the fuck does the length of time it takes matter?

a couple more in the next centuries,

Evidence please.

contaminates the area for ages.

Thats why Hiroshima is a thriving city today

salm wrote:kills 150 000 at once, a couple more in the next centuries, contaminates the area for ages.

The current population of Hiroshima is over one million and over 400,000 people live in Nagasaki. If these regions were truly dangerous to live in, then how do you explain these figures?

Oberleutnant wrote:

Evil Sadistic Bastard wrote:Current Japanese culture isn't so bad... at least IMO. They're becoming more Westernized anyway.

I doubt it. Perhaps superficially, but using high-tech does not make them anyway more "western". I have no personal experience about dealing with the Japs, so don't take my word for granted.

It's not just that.
Japanese youths embrace Western values more and consume more Western products. Souns like they're becoming mroe Western to me.

salm wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:

salm wrote: the usa would have joined the war sooner or later anyway. droping the bombs would not have been necessary.

WTF? 6th and 9th of August mark the events which lead to an END of the war. America had been fighting Japan and Germany for years at that point. The only thing that would end the war was shocking Japan into surrender with the bombs or an all out invasion. One kills 130-150,000, the other kills millions.

kills 150 000 at once, a couple more in the next centuries, contaminates the area for ages.

Which is why background radiation levels are not significantly elevated today, or in the 1970's for that matter.

BTW, even your body count is still mabey 25% of that an invasion or prolonged blockade would produce.

I consume many Japanese products but does that make me more Japanese? Ok, it's a weak argument but I'm not buying the idea that they can simply abandon their ages old values just like that.

Salm, don't make me get my copy of Richard Frank's Downfall and beat you in the head with it.

I should point out, however, the fallacy of the widespread notion that neither a test-drop on a relatively uninhabited area or a longer delay between the two bombs would have provoked the Emperor's surrender. It is something of a false dilemma to claim that two bombs on populated cities within three days were the only alternative to a full-scale land invasion.

The Japanese were not cowed by the loss of life; they had lost more in firebombing. They were cowed by the sheer power of the weapon, and the implication of the incredible ease with which the Americans could proceed to smash the rest of Japan at minimal risk to themselves. Two bombs in such short succession were not necessary, and it could be easily argued that a test drop on a sparsely populated area would have been just as effective a demonstration.

Most of the rebuttals to this line of reasoning centre around the "Japs were insane!" argument, which is somewhat racist and belies actual conditions at the time. The Emperor knew that defeat was inevitable, and despite some fanatics in the upper echelons, surrender was inevitable too.

Oberleutnant wrote:I consume many Japanese products but does that make me more Japanese? Ok, it's a weak argument but I'm not buying the idea that they can simply abandon their ages old values just like that.

Yet Japan is facing unemployment, increasing drug abuse, juvenile delinquency...
Just like most Western countries.

I've heard that the Japanese emperor Hirohito wanted to end the war ASAP and had told his ambassadors to seek peace with the Allies since the early 1945. He was afraid that the military leaders with Tojo in charge would attempt a coup if they knew about his intentions.

Darth Wong wrote:I should point out, however, the fallacy of the widespread notion that neither a test-drop on a relatively uninhabited area or a longer delay between the two bombs would have provoked the Emperor's surrender. It is something of a false dilemma to claim that two bombs on populated cities within three days were the only alternative to a full-scale land invasion.

The Japanese were not cowed by the loss of life; they had lost more in firebombing. They were cowed by the sheer power of the weapon, and the implication of the incredible ease with which the Americans could proceed to smash the rest of Japan at minimal risk to themselves. Two bombs in such short succession were not necessary, and it could be easily argued that a test drop on a sparsely populated area would have been just as effective a demonstration.

Most of the rebuttals to this line of reasoning centre around the "Japs were insane!" argument, which is somewhat racist and belies actual conditions at the time. The Emperor knew that defeat was inevitable, and despite some fanatics in the upper echelons, surrender was inevitable too.

Even with two cities wiped off the map in three days there was STILL an attempted coup to prevent the surrender. They where only stopped because they could not find the record with the Emperors recording.


Then there's the question of why? Japanese where as you said Asian Nazi's they killed millions, both cities where defended and in use for war production. They where also only intact in August because they where being preserved as targets for atomic attack.

Also, the Japanese military council was (IIRC, may be wrong...Steve, I think it's in Downfall) in the middle of telling the Emperor that the Americans couldn't possibly have built more than one bomb when the report came in that Nagasaki was gone. That seems to have pushed him over the edge of surrender.

Also, for casualties, China alone suffered roughly 34 million, 25 million of which were non-combatant. Those 25 million are more than double the civilians killed by the Nazis in the concentration camps. Japan got out of WWII pretty bloody lucky, if you ask me. We wrote them a new consitution, helped rebuild their nation, and pretty much ignored them until they began taking over American jobs. East Germany in particular ended up much worse off.

[edit]Must admit I am slightly biased, though, since Japan is one of our allies who does the most spying on us. I believe they're third on the list[/edit]

salm wrote:the days of infamy were 6th and 9th of august a couple of years later.

Hey Salm...............your ignorance of history is showing. I'm sure by now you have been educated.

Kamakazie Sith wrote:

salm wrote:the days of infamy were 6th and 9th of august a couple of years later.

Hey Salm...............your ignorance of history is showing. I'm sure by now you have been educated.

Well, yes and no. It is agreed that the real infamy happened in China, but it is also agreed that, like it or not, Pearl Harbour was a legitimate military target even if clear warning was not given (I reiterate that this is hardly unusual; the notion that you should warn your enemy before attacking him is frankly a little bizarre), so it's rather disproportionate, given all of the other things that happened in this war, to call Pearl a "day of infamy" over and above all of those other things.

The whole "day of infamy" just comes from Roosevelt's speech. I've seen a photocopy of the original draft done by his writers, and thank goodness he rewrote it! Their drivel makes GW Bush look good by comparison.

While I saw it on the History channel and therefore doubt the total truthfulness of it, the Japanese had plans for launching a biological attack on San Diego September 28, 1945. They would use a submarine aircraft carrier to launch a plane which carried a two-stage ceramic bomb which, when airbursted, would scatter as many as 300,000 fleas carrying the most virulent strain of the bubonic plague they could muster over the city.

Given the utter decimation involved with such an attack, it seems a bit more difficult to argue against our use of the atomic bomb to force an early surrender. Obviously, hindsight is 20/20 and the U.S. had no idea until the war trials what Japan had up their sleeve, but in this case, it's clear that it's the lesser of two evils.

That reminds of something that pissed me off when 9/11 occurred. The newscasters kept saying it was the first time American soil had been attacked since the War of 1812. False! A Japanese submarine-based floatplane dropped four bombs on Oregon during World War II, inflicting minor damage to...the forest. Apparently they were trying to start a forest fire, but only had HE bombs! I would also add (IIRC) that two of the Aleutian Islands were occupied during the Bale of Midway, but those were only a territory at the time, not a state.

Alferd Packer wrote:While I saw it on the History channel and therefore doubt the total truthfulness of it, the Japanese had plans for launching a biological attack on San Diego September 28, 1945. They would use a submarine aircraft carrier to launch a plane which carried a two-stage ceramic bomb which, when airbursted, would scatter as many as 300,000 fleas carrying the most virulent strain of the bubonic plague they could muster over the city.

Given the utter decimation involved with such an attack, it seems a bit more difficult to argue against our use of the atomic bomb to force an early surrender. Obviously, hindsight is 20/20 and the U.S. had no idea until the war trials what Japan had up their sleeve, but in this case, it's clear that it's the lesser of two evils.

IJN had a lot of screwy sub plane plans in the works in 1945. Unlikely any would have worked, both because the sub would likely be sunk and the weapon to be used. The flea bomb got used in China, didn't work. They also tired releasing hoards of infected rats and that also didn't work. BP is pretty hard to spread among people who have even slightly better sanitation then those of Europe in the dark ages.

The Dark wrote:The whole "day of infamy" just comes from Roosevelt's speech. I've seen a photocopy of the original draft done by his writers, and thank goodness he rewrote it! Their drivel makes GW Bush look good by comparison.

Not exactly a fair comparison. Presidents don't seem to write their own speeches anymore. And though I disagree with many of his New Deal policies (among other things), I give every man his due - FDR was a very compelling speaker, and one of the most charismatic politicians in U.S. history. When it comes to oratory, not many people can come off looking good next to him.

And (mounts soapbox for a moment) thank GOD we don't have Al Gore in the White House!!! (descends soapbox)

Well, this thread was 'orginally' for rememberance. So, here's a salute.


¤§¤

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Alferd Packer wrote:While I saw it on the History channel and therefore doubt the total truthfulness of it, the Japanese had plans for launching a biological attack on San Diego September 28, 1945. They would use a submarine aircraft carrier to launch a plane which carried a two-stage ceramic bomb which, when airbursted, would scatter as many as 300,000 fleas carrying the most virulent strain of the bubonic plague they could muster over the city.

Given the utter decimation involved with such an attack, it seems a bit more difficult to argue against our use of the atomic bomb to force an early surrender. Obviously, hindsight is 20/20 and the U.S. had no idea until the war trials what Japan had up their sleeve, but in this case, it's clear that it's the lesser of two evils.

IJN had a lot of screwy sub plane plans in the works in 1945. Unlikely any would have worked, both because the sub would likely be sunk and the weapon to be used. The flea bomb got used in China, didn't work. They also tired releasing hoards of infected rats and that also didn't work. BP is pretty hard to spread among people who have even slightly better sanitation then those of Europe in the dark ages.

History Channel said the tests in Manchuria were effective, and they had working sub carriers. Well, there you go: that's why I don't believe everything I see on the idiot box.

The Dark wrote:That reminds of something that pissed me off when 9/11 occurred. The newscasters kept saying it was the first time American soil had been attacked since the War of 1812. False! A Japanese submarine-based floatplane dropped four bombs on Oregon during World War II, inflicting minor damage to...the forest. Apparently they were trying to start a forest fire, but only had HE bombs! I would also add (IIRC) that two of the Aleutian Islands were occupied during the Bale of Midway, but those were only a territory at the time, not a state.

Actually they did drop incendiaries and did start fires. Problem was Oregon had just had heavy rain for several days and both quickly went out. There was also the whole balloon bomb thing. Several hundred bombs reach North American, both only four or it might have been five people got killed. A family found a dud while out for a picnic and it went off when disturbed.

Attu and Kisk where captured by the Japanses durning midway.

Perinquus wrote:

The Dark wrote:The whole "day of infamy" just comes from Roosevelt's speech. I've seen a photocopy of the original draft done by his writers, and thank goodness he rewrote it! Their drivel makes GW Bush look good by comparison.

Not exactly a fair comparison. Presidents don't seem to write their own speeches anymore. And though I disagree with many of his New Deal policies (among other things), I give every man his due - FDR was a very compelling speaker, and one of the most charismatic politicians in U.S. history. When it comes to oratory, not many people can come off looking good next to him.

I think we're saying the same thing here. Roosevelt was a very good public speaker, but his writers were worse than Bush's. They were so worried about having everything grammatically correct that it sounded like something an 87-year-old English teacher would write to her sister in Duluth. If Roosevelt had tried to just go off that speech, it would have been nothing big, and would have faded into anonymity.

the days of infamy were 6th and 9th of august a couple of years later.

dresden was worse anyway and unlike these cities was not a exactly a military target.

only what Germany did in the USSR can really compare to the Japanese in asia during WW II.

The Dark wrote:That reminds of something that pissed me off when 9/11 occurred. The newscasters kept saying it was the first time American soil had been attacked since the War of 1812. False! A Japanese submarine-based floatplane dropped four bombs on Oregon during World War II, inflicting minor damage to...the forest. Apparently they were trying to start a forest fire, but only had HE bombs! I would also add (IIRC) that two of the Aleutian Islands were occupied during the Bale of Midway, but those were only a territory at the time, not a state.

The Japanese alse conducted a bombing campaign using balloons. The American authorities were able to suppress that information, which shows how effective it was. Then there was the shelling of that one town on the West coast. Hawaii and Alaska were just territories at the time, but that's still US soil. Attu, Kiska, and Pearl Harbor all count.

EDIT: They also captured Agattu. Plus when they were invaded the Philippines were still under US control.

Alferd Packer wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Alferd Packer wrote:While I saw it on the History channel and therefore doubt the total truthfulness of it, the Japanese had plans for launching a biological attack on San Diego September 28, 1945. They would use a submarine aircraft carrier to launch a plane which carried a two-stage ceramic bomb which, when airbursted, would scatter as many as 300,000 fleas carrying the most virulent strain of the bubonic plague they could muster over the city.

Given the utter decimation involved with such an attack, it seems a bit more difficult to argue against our use of the atomic bomb to force an early surrender. Obviously, hindsight is 20/20 and the U.S. had no idea until the war trials what Japan had up their sleeve, but in this case, it's clear that it's the lesser of two evils.

IJN had a lot of screwy sub plane plans in the works in 1945. Unlikely any would have worked, both because the sub would likely be sunk and the weapon to be used. The flea bomb got used in China, didn't work. They also tired releasing hoards of infected rats and that also didn't work. BP is pretty hard to spread among people who have even slightly better sanitation then those of Europe in the dark ages.

History Channel said the tests in Manchuria were effective, and they had working sub carriers. Well, there you go: that's why I don't believe everything I see on the idiot box.

The sub carriers worked, but only three of the seven they need for the attacks they planned got completed, the I-400 class, and all where still running trials when the war ended. The planes they where to carry never entered production.

Manchuria held the Japanese bio weapons laboratory. Any successful test there would have been in controlled conditions. There operational deployment was an utter failure.

Trust nothing from the History Channel. At best they get half truths and just love to exclude key facts in favor of "The biggest loss of life at Pearl harbor was when the destroyer Arizona was bombed" commentary from expert morons.