F CHARLIE Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 estimates are just that; estimates. there's really no telling how many people would have died. even if you knew already, it's not good enough to justify nuclear attacks. by that logic, any country would be better off nuking any country the moment a war starts because of estimates you can just pull out of your asshole the same worrying logic can be applied to any number of scary scenarios, but basically you're justifying saving lives with mass genocide based off a crystal ball and unknown maths. you're almost presenting the stats in such a way that the USA did the Japanese a favour by dropping 2 nuclear weapons on their island. No, we did ourselves a favor. The estimates were based on their expierience. How do you value an unusual? Expierience. You are a fool and a troll. Japan knew they were going to loose the war, we had already killed 125k with fire bombs in Tokyo. Why didnt they surrender before this event? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whopz Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 rabble rabble, murica, fuk yeah use nukes on civilians for peace because their grandkids kids will take over america in the next generation (maths) if america killed so many, why didn't they surrender? LOL. it's a war america won by brute force. it had nothing to do with saving lives, it was to show who had the biggest dick. in the end Japan had no option other than being an island of dust, or taking it up the ass from america. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F CHARLIE Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 @whopz What nation are you from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seminal Inhalation Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 I don't see how this could be good in any shape/form. Yes, I agree it did end the war but also cost thousands if not millions of lives of innocent women, men and children as well, so its a debatable question whether it turned out to be good or turned out to be bad but for me its somewhere where neutral stands. So you would rather have a full on invasion and have 20x more deaths? We nuked them to save lives, because they knew if they went on and invaded that there would be a much bigger death toll and more innocent civilian deaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seminal Inhalation Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 rabble rabble, murica, fuk yeah use nukes on civilians for peace because their grandkids kids will take over america in the next generation (maths) if america killed so many, why didn't they surrender? LOL. it's a war america won by brute force. it had nothing to do with saving lives, it was to show who had the biggest dick. in the end Japan had no option other than being an island of dust, or taking it up the ass from america. Can't tell if you're serious... or just being an idiot... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puddingkip Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 Whopz I don't like America at all in general. But seriously the Japanese didn't actually have a strong legacy of surrendering like the French. They would fight to the death, and if need be beyond that (kamikaze etc.) The small islands in the pacific they defended with extreme endurance. Just imagine if they were to defend their very homes. And Japanese mountains actually can quite well be a spot for Guerrilla warfare. There is a reason the Americans had stopped conquering Pacific islands, the Japanese would kill too many Americans for a small piece of ground that was not worth it at all. The Japanese HAD to surrender, they would not be defeated very easily. In fact, the US people quite possibly would have gotten tired of the endless losses of American soldiers in an operation that would not be going well. Popular support for the war would drop, senatorial support would drop and the economic costs would devastate the country. If the war would go on much longer the Americans might have been forced to sue for peace and the terms would have been much worse for them. The Japanese obviously weren't surrendering because of military defeats, nor were they surrendering because their cities were being bombed continuously. Not even after an atomic bomb did they surrender, only when the second one was dropped surrender became a possibilty Can't tell if you're serious... or just being an idiot... I'm pretty sure it's the latter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F CHARLIE Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 Whopz I don't like America at all in general. But seriously the Japanese didn't actually have a strong legacy of surrendering like the French. They would fight to the death, and if need be beyond that (kamikaze etc.) The small islands in the pacific they defended with extreme endurance. Just imagine if they were to defend their very homes. And Japanese mountains actually can quite well be a spot for Guerrilla warfare. There is a reason the Americans had stopped conquering Pacific islands, the Japanese would kill too many Americans for a small piece of ground that was not worth it at all. The Japanese HAD to surrender, they would not be defeated very easily. In fact, the US people quite possibly would have gotten tired of the endless losses of American soldiers in an operation that would not be going well. Popular support for the war would drop, senatorial support would drop and the economic costs would devastate the country. If the war would go on much longer the Americans might have been forced to sue for peace and the terms would have been much worse for them. The Japanese obviously weren't surrendering because of military defeats, nor were they surrendering because their cities were being bombed continuously. Not even after an atomic bomb did they surrender, only when the second one was dropped surrender became a possibilty I'm pretty sure it's the latter It was a different time then. People didn't get to see the war like they did in Korea or Vietnam. A poll of Americans at that time showed a 20%+ wanted to illiminate every single Japanese person. That is an astoneshing number if you think about it. Not a single one left. To end WW2 we would have decimated them. There was complete support in this country to what was needed and then some. As I mentioned, we had already killed 125,000 people in Tokyo with standard, but immoral, fire bombs (see Dresden). Truman warned Japan after the first bomb that we would annihilate them if the did not surrender. The truth is we would have done as much damage to them as we could have before we put a single person on the ground. The American public did not see any of the damage until after the war. The news only showed victories and patriotism. Five years later, the media felt they could not do that again and began to show people what was being done. Since then, the nature of war has changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puddingkip Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 It was a different time then. People didn't get to see the war like they did in Korea or Vietnam. A poll of Americans at that time showed a 20%+ wanted to illiminate every single Japanese person. That is an astoneshing number if you think about it. Not a single one left. To end WW2 we would have decimated them. There was complete support in this country to what was needed and then some. As I mentioned, we had already killed 125,000 people in Tokyo with standard, but immoral, fire bombs (see Dresden). Truman warned Japan after the first bomb that we would annihilate them if the did not surrender. The truth is we would have done as much damage to them as we could have before we put a single person on the ground. The American public did not see any of the damage until after the war. The news only showed victories and patriotism. Five years later, the media felt they could not do that again and began to show people what was being done. Since then, the nature of war has changed. Yes they wanted it. When tens of thousands of men would die for seemingly useless things the public opinion would shift (Germany WWI) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F CHARLIE Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 Yes they wanted it. When tens of thousands of men would die for seemingly useless things the public opinion would shift (Germany WWI) You could be right. That may have been part of the reason the 2 bombs were dropped but from what I've read I would say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSC159753 Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 rabble rabble, murica, fuk yeah use nukes on civilians for peace because their grandkids kids will take over america in the next generation (maths) if america killed so many, why didn't they surrender? LOL. it's a war america won by brute force. it had nothing to do with saving lives, it was to show who had the biggest dick. in the end Japan had no option other than being an island of dust, or taking it up the ass from america. They attacked us and they refused to surrender, why would we offer them chances to surrender, if we wanted to "show how big out ddicks are." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimes Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 rabble rabble, murica, fuk yeah use nukes on civilians for peace because their grandkids kids will take over america in the next generation (maths) if america killed so many, why didn't they surrender? LOL. it's a war america won by brute force. it had nothing to do with saving lives, it was to show who had the biggest dick. in the end Japan had no option other than being an island of dust, or taking it up the ass from america. Japan's people at the time had a similar mindset that the North Korean people do now. They hated the west, and were ready to die for their emperor/god in defence of their country. The US needed to scare the shit of its people and their commanders. More civilians would have died facing US and Russian soldiers in an invasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Radiated Banana Posted May 15, 2014 Author Share Posted May 15, 2014 Minimum estimates of the invasion: 400,000 US fatalities 5 Million Japanese fatalities Fatalities resulting from Nuclear Bomb: 185,000 These estimates are only the US estimates and do not consider Russian participation. Russia would obviously suffer fatalities as well as increase the Japanese fatality rate. These estimates are probable as German fatalities were between 7 - 9 million. The nuclear bombs were the best option for both sides. Japan did not surrender after the first bomb and its war ministers had not intention of surrendering. Their scientists estimated that we had probably three such bombs (which was true) and they had decided to weather those bombs and continue the war. After the second bomb the Emporer and parts of the military command subdued those responsible for that decision and surrendered. Estimates. Japan might have surrendered when they saw that the american invasion would overpower them :/ even less casaulties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSC159753 Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Estimates. Japan might have surrendered when they saw that the american invasion would overpower them :/ even less casaulties I highly doubt it and besides, why would it be worth the chance of losing so many allied troops and even more axis troops? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seminal Inhalation Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Estimates. Japan might have surrendered when they saw that the american invasion would overpower them :/ even less casaulties No. Japan fights and dies while killing their enemies. If we invaded then we would have more casualties. With the nukes, they were dying for nothing and realized that they were all going to die for nothing and snapped them out of their own brainwashed kamikaze minds and came to their senses. Honestly don't get why you people are so ignorant about this, like you guys think the generals and scientists had no clue what they were doing and just did it because YOLO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puddingkip Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Estimates. Japan might have surrendered when they saw that the american invasion would overpower them :/ even less casaulties Hmm like they did on all the tiny islands in the Pacific where a couple hundred Japanese held out against thousands of Americans with superior quality everything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimes Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Hmm like they did on all the tiny islands in the Pacific where a couple hundred Japanese held out against thousands of Americans with superior quality everything http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima Note the numbers for the Japanese; Started with 22,000 men, finished with 18,000 killed. They simply did not surrender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whopz Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 probably because they were at war with the west and didn't want to lose, but were wiped out with war crimes by the west. it's ok though, because america can do it for peace as long as you do some back of the envelope maths on how many americans you could potentially save Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Radiated Banana Posted May 15, 2014 Author Share Posted May 15, 2014 probably because they were at war with the west and didn't want to lose, but were wiped out with war crimes by the west. it's ok though, because america can do it for peace as long as you do some back of the envelope maths on how many americans you could potentially save Because america>everyone huh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whopz Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 exactly. they should have just a-bombed the middle east over the last 10 years. it would have saved thousands of americans and scared the middle east into submission, because they will just keep fighting the west anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puddingkip Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 exactly. they should have just a-bombed the middle east over the last 10 years. it would have saved thousands of americans and scared the middle east into submission, because they will just keep fighting the west anyway I'll attempt to talk to you one last time. The Japanese had a culture of no surrender, no defeat. The middle east doesn't. If you watched the movie 300 (which is totally historically incorrect in most aspects) you can see the Spartan idea of no surrender. The Japanese had a similar idea, read the article on Iwo Jima or many of the other pacific islands. Japanese warrior culture preferred suicide above surrender, and the army sure as hell used that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F CHARLIE Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 exactly. they should have just a-bombed the middle east over the last 10 years. it would have saved thousands of americans and scared the middle east into submission, because they will just keep fighting the west anyway Where your analogy breaks down is that there is no nation that anyone is at war with in the Middle East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seminal Inhalation Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 exactly. they should have just a-bombed the middle east over the last 10 years. it would have saved thousands of americans and scared the middle east into submission, because they will just keep fighting the west anyway You have comprehension problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muffin Button Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Even though Japan did bomb pearl harbor and did ally with the nazi's during the time of world war 2, Merica didn't need to drop 3 nuclear bombs one of which is the strongest recorded nuclear blast in world history, killing countless civilian lives and ruining places to live in Japan. And also, Japan used regular bombs, Merica used nukes First off it was nowhere near the strongest recorded nuclear blast in history. The strongest recorded nuclear explosion was the Tsar Bomba, the bomb had the yield of 50 to 58 megatons, it had a radius of almost 35 kilometers, just take a look at this picture, it compares the Hiroshima bomb to the Tsar Bomba. Hiroshima is barely visible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Radiated Banana Posted May 31, 2014 Author Share Posted May 31, 2014 First off it was nowhere near the strongest recorded nuclear blast in history. The strongest recorded nuclear explosion was the Tsar Bomba, the bomb had the yield of 50 to 58 megatons, it had a radius of almost 35 kilometers, just take a look at this picture, it compares the Hiroshima bomb to the Tsar Bomba. Hiroshima is barely visible. It wasnt the most powerful, it was the most fatal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muffin Button Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 It wasnt the most powerful, it was the most fatal I was responding to Mapleman after he said that the Hiroshima bomb was the most powerful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.