View Single Post
Old 08-31-2006, 05:15 AM   #22
Dagobahn Eagle
@Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
"In order to save our own asses, we must slaughter your country's innocent children."
That was the US's attitude, yes. And it's possible that they did it in part to show off (the "bigger dick"-statement).

But the end result is that it spared a good deal of American and Japanese lives. It saved the hides of the cities which were not destroyed, but which would be in ruins if a conventional war had to be fought. It spared what was left of the infrastructure of Japan so they could more easily re-build. It spared vast sums of money that would otherwise be used on the invasion and the subsequent battles.

You are forgetting the fact that Japan was for the most part already defeated and on the path to surrender BEFORE THE BOMBS WERE DROPPED.
On the path to surrender? That'd the be reason why they were training and arming their elderly and children to fight, German Volkstorm-style, then. Because they were ready to surrender.

Oh, and maybe you should've read the "Support" part of that Wiki' article as well as the "Opposition"-half. You'd come across this:
While some members of the civilian leadership did use covert diplomatic channels to begin negotiation for peace, on their own they could not negotiate surrender or even a cease-fire.
Looks to me like they were not ready to surrender more than the US is ready to pull out of Iraq. "Some" members of the leadership who "on their own could not negotiate even a seize-fire"?

Given from what I've read about the war in the Pacific, you'll forgive me if I doubt the authenticity of some of those quotes.
Me too.

I did try to look up the Nimitz quote, and the footnote pointed not to a credible source but to this biased essay which does not inform me of from where it got the quote.

Miserable battles are typically part of a war. If you don't want miserable battles then don't fight in a war. That simple.
But when you're in the war, surely you should try to avoid battle when they unnecessary. Or would you fight them even when you don't have to because "battles are part of war"?

Norway and Denmark were not invaded by the Allies in World War II. Why? Because Allied Command deemed it unneccessary to liberate us and focused their attention on France, Italy, Germany, and Africa.

Just for one second, think about what it would be like if it was your country where the bombs were dropped.
Appeal to emtion.

Just for one second, think about what it would be like if you lived in Normandie when the Allied forces invaded in June '44.

Does that make D-Day wrong?

But to answer the question, if I was in the city and survived, I'd be pretty furious. If I volunteered to aid the survivors and found myself with radiation sickness, I'd be reasonably angry. If I lived in another part of Japan and read about the horrors of Hiroshima, the news wouldn't make me happy.

But get this: If I was given a rifle and had to fight an American tidal wave of tanks, airplanes, troops, bombs, bombardment, naval blockades, and other contraptions of death, I'd not be happy about that either. Especially if the children and elderly I know had to fight, too.

Picture that - a random child you know with a rifle, killing Americans. Your favourite elderly person with a rocket launcher, sent to charge American tanks.

Not a happy picture.

You put them in a box, like we had Saddam in.
It didn't work on Cuba, it didn't work on Iraq, and it wouldn't work on Japan.


More from Wikipedia: Operation Downfall - the planned invasion of Japan.

Scrolling down to "Estimated casualties for Downfall" reveals these cozy numbers (emphasis mine):
A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.74 million American casualties, including 400,000800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities[*]. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.
*In contrast, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima killed "only" 140 000 people, counting the number who died later from radiation.

Edit 2:
The civilians were there and died as a side effect. Label it what you will.
They were all Hizbollah fighters anyway.

Last edited by Dagobahn Eagle; 08-31-2006 at 08:16 AM.
Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: