1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Would you use the Atomic Bomb in WWII

Discussion in 'History Forum' started by Phillip, Jan 17, 2005.

?

Would you use the Atomic Bomb in WWII

  1. I would you use the bomb just as used in WWII to end the war?

    23 vote(s)
    88.5%

  2. I would demonstrate the bomb to the Japanese as discussed in WWII?

    3 vote(s)
    11.5%

  3. I would you use the bomb in another way? Post how if you wish.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%

  4. I would invade Japan -- no nukes.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Top Posters
Page 2 of 2
  1. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    Been there, I spent three years serving in the US Army in the late 70's. The peace memorial stands as a reminder that the desire for worldwide dominance through force cannot be tolerated. Even after the US dropped the bombs on Japan we stayed and rebuilt the country that attacked us. Japan is what it is today because of the US and our reconstruction of that country. As I said earlier the dropping of the bombs did two important things,

    1. It brought an immediate end to the war

    2. It ultimately saved more lives

    It also can be argued that it also kept things in order through the cold war as the other countries knew we had to the resolve to use our neuclear arsenal if need be.

    No one likes to use these kinds of weapons. Sometimes it is necessary. Remember we did not just indiscriminately drop a bomb on an unsuspecting country.

    Bro Tony
     
    #21 Bro Tony, Jan 20, 2005
  2. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    An invasion would have been more catastrophic to the Japanese civilians and to top that. There would have been no memorial to mourn the sadness of the loss of life because it would have been scattered all over the Island.

    An invasion would have started by dropping incendiary bombs on the "paper" houses and starting massive fires in the residential areas, including Tokyo.

    Just like in modern warfare, we would have pounded their country hard from the air before stepping foot on the island. Its either THAT or we loose more people than the Japanese.

    Once a global reaching war, such as the one Japan started--it is sad, but if you do not kill the enemy---he WILL kill you.
     
    #22 Phillip, Jan 21, 2005
  3. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    It is okay to have your opinion, but assume that you are in charge of the United States military during WWII. How would you have forced the Japanese surrender? ...and what would have been the total cost, in Japanese lives and in American lives?
     
    #23 Phillip, Jan 21, 2005
  4. blackbird

    blackbird Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    11,898
    Likes Received:
    4
    If you study recon photos taken---they will show "Before & After" shots of B-29 bombings of Tokyo-----before the "BIG ONES" were even dropped on Hiroshema---Tokyo "looked like" Hiroshema did after Enola Gay dropped the "Big One" --- there were no "paper houses" left in Tokyo---strategic bombing was being coordinated and carried out long before "the Big One" in preparation of the ultimate invasion that fortunatly did not have to come!!
     
    #24 blackbird, Jan 21, 2005
  5. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    blackbird, yes you are right. I was a little young for that war and my father is my chief information source. You are very correct in that Tokyo was bombed very heavily and anything that would burn was pretty much gone.

    My point also was that even though certain preparations had been made, much more bombing would have taken places out that had not yet been bombed, primarily on the coastal defenses; some of which had been bombed and lot of which were not yet bombed. My only point was that a lot more life would have been lost through both preparations and the invasion itself. Sure Japan took a beating and they would have taken an even bigger one if invasion would have occurred. That's the only point that I was making. Sorry, if I didn't get the facts about Tokyo correct.
     
    #25 Phillip, Jan 21, 2005
  6. Stratiotes

    Stratiotes New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2004
    Messages:
    670
    Likes Received:
    0
    And Tokyo was not alone in the firebombings. Interesting to note, Robert McNamara indicated that General Curtis Lamay, who planned those bombings, said to him that if America lost the war they both would most assuredly be tried as war-ciminals. Which rather begs the question - what is it about winning that gives one the high moral ground? Why is one act a war crime for the loser and "necessary" force for the winner?
     
    #26 Stratiotes, Jan 24, 2005
  7. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,401
    Likes Received:
    553
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Making a bigger bomb makes you a criminal? What kind of logic is that?

    Pity the poor buy who gave up spears and clubs and came up with the bow and arrow.

    Or the Chinaman who invented gunpowder.
     
    #27 Dr. Bob, Jan 24, 2005
  8. Stratiotes

    Stratiotes New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2004
    Messages:
    670
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the inability to distinguish between civilians and combatants is the problem - not whether or not a bigger weapon is immoral.

    Few would call me immoral if I killed someone in self-defense or in defense of my family. But, if I killed the attacker then went to his house and killed the rest of his family, it would be immoral. The morality question is not in the descrutive capabilities of the weapon but in the descrimination of its use.
     
    #28 Stratiotes, Jan 25, 2005
  9. solja

    solja Guest

    Making a bigger bomb makes you a criminal? What kind of logic is that?

    Pity the poor buy who gave up spears and clubs and came up with the bow and arrow.

    Or the Chinaman who invented gunpowder.     </font>[/QUOTE]If you can't see a difference in using an atomic bomb in defenseless old men, women and children in a metropolitan city and conventional combat at a military target, then my participation in this discussion is pointless. I will just let you guys with gun-racks in your pickups continue slapping each other on the back.

    It is very true that "whoever wins the war, writes the history".

    I wonder who will write the history of Iraq, my money is on ..."watch this space".

    Bless Ya
     
    #29 solja, Jan 27, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 2
Loading...