Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

let's just remember that

ps I don't want to use blast pictures here, bacause it considered as "beautiful"

 Freakazoitt wrote:
we shouldn't forget that it didn't repeat

Keep that quote in mind in three days when it's the 70-year anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Freakazoitt wrote:
we shouldn't forget that it didn't repeat

Keep that quote in mind in three days when it's the 70-year anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki.

Oh, I mean "we shouldn't forget in order that it do not repeated"

 Freakazoitt wrote:


let's just remember that

ps I don't want to use blast pictures here, bacause it considered as "beautiful"

Excellent. On this day the end of Japan began.
BOOM

Time to play some Social D!

It's a good day to watch The Wind Rises

I know that it was probably the best way to end the war.


But I still feel sorry for the two cities that America wiped off the face of the earth.


I really think that a bomb dropped of the coast of Japan first as a warning would have been best. Then hit a city afterwards.

Or even better, Sands of Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal Diary, or In Harm's Way.

 welshhoppo wrote:
I know that it was probably the best way to end the war.

It was not really. It was more flexing in Russia's direction as they were becoming a clearer threat to the US. Their forces joining in on the 15th pushed them more in the end than the nukes.

But I still feel sorry for the two cities that America wiped off the face of the earth.
.

I feel sorry for all the Chinese, Koreans, Indochinese, Malaysians, Australians, British, Americans, Filipinoes, Burmese, Thais, and Indigenous island populations that suffered from Japan's great "I want an empire NOW" freakout. I'm sure I missed a few.

Japanese during the war, not so much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 n0t_u wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I know that it was probably the best way to end the war.

It was not really. It was more flexing in Russia's direction as they were becoming a clearer threat to the US. Their forces joining in on the 15th pushed them more in the end than the nukes.

More rewriting of history nonsense.

This is what it took to get Japan to surrender.
*Destruction of their Navy.
*Killing of several hundred thousand Japanese soldiers
*Firebombing of over a dozen cities, and destruction of over a hundred major targets in the home islands.
*Destruction of all their air forces except 10,000 hidden kamikaze planes.
*Loss of the Phillipines, Okinawa, and blockade.
*the Hiroshima bomb
*The obliteration of their troops in Manchuria by the Soviets.
*the Nagasaki bomb.

Only then, and only after a failed coup, did they surrender.

 Frazzled wrote:
Or even better, Sands of Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal Diary, or In Harm's Way.

Well, replace Jiro Horikoshi with J. Robert Oppenheimer, and 'air plane' with 'the atom' and the themes of the film carry perhaps even more solemnly

The harnessing of the atom was a monumental scientific achievement. The harnessing of the building blocks of the universe in human hands... The very first thing anyone did with such wondrous power was blowing a city to ashes. There's a cold tragedy in that.

 Frazzled wrote:

But I still feel sorry for the two cities that America wiped off the face of the earth.
.

I feel sorry for all the Chinese, Koreans, Indochinese, Malaysians, Australians, British, Americans, Filipinoes, Burmese, Thais, and Indigenous island populations that suffered from Japan's great "I want an empire NOW" freakout. I'm sure I missed a few.

Japanese during the war, not so much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 n0t_u wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I know that it was probably the best way to end the war.

It was not really. It was more flexing in Russia's direction as they were becoming a clearer threat to the US. Their forces joining in on the 15th pushed them more in the end than the nukes.

More rewriting of history nonsense.

This is what it took to get Japan to surrender.
*Destruction of their Navy.
*Killing of several hundred thousand Japanese soldiers
*Firebombing of over a dozen cities, and destruction of over a hundred major targets in the home islands.
*Destruction of all their air forces except 10,000 hidden kamikaze planes.
*Loss of the Phillipines, Okinawa, and blockade.
*the Hiroshima bomb
*The obliteration of their troops in Manchuria by the Soviets.
*the Nagasaki bomb.

Only then, and only after a failed coup, did they surrender.

They were stuck to trying to preserve the imperialist culture, the nukes didn't convince all of the war party to surrender but the threat of the Russian land invasion possibly turning them to a socialist country did. That is why they seemingly opposed the complete surrender offered by the US because they had the assumption the imperialist culture would be lost and if they were to negotiate they would have tried to find a way to preserve that, likely leading to issues later on as with most dictatorships. The US tried to cover their ass for the nukes to make it sound more justified just like they worked with the Japanese at the end to pin everything onto Tojo to save the emperor instead of both having to completely account for their actions.

The joint land invasion with Russia would have succeeded as they were weakened by all those other things, however Roosevelt saw the threat of Russia acquiring resources from that sort of thing so in the end they spread the propaganda that it was more beneficial just to nuke it.

Roosevelt was already dead.

 Frazzled wrote:
Roosevelt was already dead.

Right, about four months before it.
Regardless in the end it was not a better idea to do such a thing the losses from the land invasion would have been smaller in the long run, though I'm unsure how aware they would have been on the affects of radiation poisoning.

Actually the first time I've slipped up with a mistake on this subject.

 Frazzled wrote:
Roosevelt was already dead.

You can just change the date of his death!

 n0t_u wrote:

Regardless in the end it was not a better idea to do such a thing the losses from the land invasion would have been smaller in the long run, though I'm unsure how aware they would have been on the affects of radiation poisoning.

A land invasion would have had LESS casualties?

I'm really not sure how you can say that. A land invasion would have included bombing more cities, destroying even more infrastructure, prolonged the war (which means things like disease and starvation kill more civilians) and so on. And then you have to consider allied losses. The Enola Gay didn't lose any one. An amphibious landing would have been pretty damned bloody.

 nels1031 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Roosevelt was already dead.

You can just change the date of his death!

Well we do have Zombie Reagan. but FDR wasn't a zombie. He was a steampunk cyborg. I'll never forget when they hooked him up to one of the first Pershing tanks and he did the old crush and grind on Himmler, all the while shouting "THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TO FEAR IS F..OH THATS GOTTA HURT!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

Regardless in the end it was not a better idea to do such a thing the losses from the land invasion would have been smaller in the long run, though I'm unsure how aware they would have been on the affects of radiation poisoning.

A land invasion would have had LESS casualties?

I'm really not sure how you can say that. A land invasion would have included bombing more cities, destroying even more infrastructure, prolonged the war (which means things like disease and starvation kill more civilians) and so on. And then you have to consider allied losses. The Enola Gay didn't lose any one. An amphibious landing would have been pretty damned bloody.

He can say it because he's what we call ignorant.

The Battle of Okinawa resulted in 72,000 US casualties in 82 days, of whom 12,510 were killed or missing (this is conservative, because it excludes several thousand US soldiers who died after the battle indirectly, from their wounds). The entire island of Okinawa is 464 sq mi (1,200 km2). If the US casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had been only 5% as high per unit area as it was at Okinawa, the US would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing).

 CptJake wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

Regardless in the end it was not a better idea to do such a thing the losses from the land invasion would have been smaller in the long run, though I'm unsure how aware they would have been on the affects of radiation poisoning.

A land invasion would have had LESS casualties?

I'm really not sure how you can say that. A land invasion would have included bombing more cities, destroying even more infrastructure, prolonged the war (which means things like disease and starvation kill more civilians) and so on. And then you have to consider allied losses. The Enola Gay didn't lose any one. An amphibious landing would have been pretty damned bloody.

I too share the opinion that a land invasion would have been even bloodier. I'm not certain to what extremes the fanaticism of the Imperial Japanese for their Emperor would take them, but I still think it would have been worst considering their behaviour in the islands.

Why don't discuss how Japan "evil" was to in another thread? It doesn't matter, this thread about city wiped out in seconds.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Why don't discuss how Japan "evil" was to in another thread? It doesn't matter, this thread about city wiped out in seconds.

The WHY it was wiped out is highly pertinent. Dropping it is an excellent way to make Japan look like the victim.

 Frazzled wrote:


The WHY it was wiped out is highly pertinent. Dropping it is an excellent way to make Japan look like the victim.

They dropped bomb because they had it. Other things doesn't matter. Bomb itself was more evil than Japan, USA and whatever.

 Freakazoitt wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


The WHY it was wiped out is highly pertinent. Dropping it is an excellent way to make Japan look like the victim.

They dropped bomb because they had it. Other things doesn't matter. Bomb itself was more evil than Japan, USA and whatever.

Two wrongs don't make a right.


However this thread does show something important about these attacks. People from America tend to feel far less remorse about it that people from other countries do.

 Frazzled wrote:

The Battle of Okinawa resulted in 72,000 US casualties in 82 days, of whom 12,510 were killed or missing (this is conservative, because it excludes several thousand US soldiers who died after the battle indirectly, from their wounds). The entire island of Okinawa is 464 sq mi (1,200 km2). If the US casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had been only 5% as high per unit area as it was at Okinawa, the US would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing).

300,000? For an entire invasion? That is nothing. Both Russia and Germany lost that many just in the Battle for Moscow alone.
The bombs may have caused less casualties, but I think it was bad because it was a deliberate murder of civilians.

 CptJake wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

Regardless in the end it was not a better idea to do such a thing the losses from the land invasion would have been smaller in the long run, though I'm unsure how aware they would have been on the affects of radiation poisoning.

A land invasion would have had LESS casualties?

A joint land invasion with the Soviets? Yes it would. Japan had pulled all of its forces to the south of the main island. A joint assault by the Soviets and Americans would have split that force in half and thrown their resistance into a mess.

The USA had complete air and sea dominance, Japan was starving. Just wait a couple of months until they are literally to weak to fight and roll in.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The Battle of Okinawa resulted in 72,000 US casualties in 82 days, of whom 12,510 were killed or missing (this is conservative, because it excludes several thousand US soldiers who died after the battle indirectly, from their wounds). The entire island of Okinawa is 464 sq mi (1,200 km2). If the US casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had been only 5% as high per unit area as it was at Okinawa, the US would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing).

300,000? For an entire invasion? That is nothing. Both Russia and Germany lost that many just in the Battle for Moscow alone.

Yes. And that doesn't mean it's ok. Any government should do what they can to minimize their losses, it's their people's lives we are talking about, they aren't exactly playing with "Imperial Guard".

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Freakazoitt wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


The WHY it was wiped out is highly pertinent. Dropping it is an excellent way to make Japan look like the victim.

They dropped bomb because they had it. Other things doesn't matter. Bomb itself was more evil than Japan, USA and whatever.

Two wrongs don't make a right.


However this thread does show something important about these attacks. People from America tend to feel far less remorse about it that people from other countries do.

Remorse? I'm going to eat some freaking barbeque in celebration.
Had they had the memorial to all civilians who died in WWII I'd be onside. To me this is no different than the battle of Berlin.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Freakazoitt wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


The WHY it was wiped out is highly pertinent. Dropping it is an excellent way to make Japan look like the victim.

They dropped bomb because they had it. Other things doesn't matter. Bomb itself was more evil than Japan, USA and whatever.

Two wrongs don't make a right.


However this thread does show something important about these attacks. People from America tend to feel far less remorse about it that people from other countries do.

I doubt the Chinese or the Koreans feel as much remorse as you apparently do.

USA rules, Japan Drools.

Take your revisionist history BS to the other thread. Nukes saved lives. Period.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The Battle of Okinawa resulted in 72,000 US casualties in 82 days, of whom 12,510 were killed or missing (this is conservative, because it excludes several thousand US soldiers who died after the battle indirectly, from their wounds). The entire island of Okinawa is 464 sq mi (1,200 km2). If the US casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had been only 5% as high per unit area as it was at Okinawa, the US would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing).

300,000? For an entire invasion? That is nothing. Both Russia and Germany lost that many just in the Battle for Moscow alone.
The bombs may have caused less casualties, but I think it was bad because it was a deliberate murder of civilians.

I was being conservative. Other estimates were 1mm allied casualties (not sure if that included naval casualties) alone.

USA rules, Japan Drools.

Until they break out the robot suits and godzilla, then its all attack to the rear! until we can activate our hidden cyborg comanche army.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Freakazoitt wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


The WHY it was wiped out is highly pertinent. Dropping it is an excellent way to make Japan look like the victim.

They dropped bomb because they had it. Other things doesn't matter. Bomb itself was more evil than Japan, USA and whatever.

Two wrongs don't make a right.


However this thread does show something important about these attacks. People from America tend to feel far less remorse about it that people from other countries do.

Ask someone from China, Vietnam, the Philippines, or the Koreas how they feel about the dropping of the atomic bombs.

Or any of the POWs or soldiers from the Allied forces who fought against the Japanese.

 Frazzled wrote:


Remorse? I'm going to eat some freaking barbeque in celebration.
Had they had the memorial to all civilians who died in WWII I'd be onside. To me this is no different than the battle of Berlin.

If that is how you want to react to the wholesale murder of civilians, then that is your right.