Atomic bomb

A miss nomer

There will always be civilian casualties in a war, and there will always be war.
Be that human shields, misses, or deliberate.

War has 2 rules
#1 People die
#2 You can't change rule number one.

I'm not the one whining, then, now, or any time in the future.

I didn't say they were all cannibals! You said I did.(for the purpose of Drama), to support your "the view".
I said some were on New Guinea.

If you know how to avoid war (and its 2 rules),
please enlighten us all.

I'm flattered that you think I know the Bible that well, but that wasn't my quote, your playing the (mix & match) game... more Drama.

Why don't you start us off... apologizing for what France did to Libya, Indochina, Canada, and to their own people during their "Revolution", their part in the Spanish Inquisition, their poison gas usage against Germany in WW 1. their selling of weapons worldwide (Mirage fighters/Exocet missiles) on and on and on.

People in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones.

Looking for a monster?
Look in the mirror

 

Country/Pop.1939/Military dths/Civilian dths/Jewish Hlcst dths/Total dths/% of pop.
Albania 1,100,000 28,000 200 28,200 2.56%
Australia 7,000,000 40,400 100 40,500 0.58%
Austria 7,000,000 45,000 65,000 110,000 1.57%
Belgium 8,400,000 12,100 52,000 24,000 88,100 1.05%
Brazil 41,500,000 1,000 1,000 2,000 0.00%
Bulgaria 6,300,000 22,000 22,000 0.35%
Burma 17,500,000 60,000 60,000 0.34%
Canada 11,300,000 45,300 45,300 0.4%
China 530,000,000 3,000,000 7,000,000 10,000,000 1.89%
Czechoslovakia 15,300,000 25,000 63,000 277,000 365,000 2.39%
Denmark 3,800,000 1,300 1,800 100 3,200 0.08%
Estonia 1,100,000 40,000 1,000 41,000 3.73%
Ethiopia 14,100,000 5,000 200,000 205,000 1.45%
Finland 3,700,000 95,000 2,000 97,000 2.62%
France 41,700,000 212,000 267,000 83,000 562,000 1.35%
French Indo-China 24,600,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 4.07%
Germany 69,300,000 5,500,000 1,840,000 160,000 7,500,000 10.82%
Greece 7,200,000 20,000 209,000 71,000 300,000 4.17%
Hungary 9,200,000 300,000 80,000 200,000 580,000 6.3%
Iceland 120,000 200 200 0.17%
India 386,000,000 87,000 1,500,000 1,587,000 0.41%
Indonesia 70,500,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 5.67%
Iran 14,000,000 200 200 0.00%
Iraq 3,700,000 1,000 1,000 0.03%
Ireland 4,250,000 100 100 0.00%
Italy 43,800,000 306,400 145,100 8,000 459,500 1.05%
Japan 72,000,000 2,000,000 600,000 2,600,000 3.61%
Korea 23,400,000 60,000 60,000 0.26%
Latvia 2,000,000 147,000 80,000 227,000 11.35%
Lithuania 2,500,000 212,000 141,000 353,000 14.12%
Luxembourg 300,000 1,000 1,000 2,000 0.67%
Malaya 5,500,000 100,000 100,000 1.82%
Malta 300,000 1,500 1,500 0.5%
Mexico 19,800,000
Mongolia 700,000 300 300 0.04%
Netherlnd 8,700,000 7,900 92,000 106,000 205,900 2.37%
Newfoundland 300,000 1,000 100 1,100 0.37%
New Zealnd 1,600,000 11,900 11,900 0.74%
Norway 2,900,000 3,000 5,800 700 9,500 0.33%
Phlppnes 16,400,000 57,000 90,000 147,000 0.9%
P Islnds 1,900,000 57,000 57,000 3.0%
Poland 34,800,000 400,000 2,200,000 3,000,000 5,600,000 16.09%
Romania 19,900,000 316,000 56,000 469,000 841,000 4.23%
Singapore 700,000 50,000 50,000 7.14%
S Africa 10,300,000 11,900 11,900 0.12%
USSR 168,500,000 10,700,000 11,500,000 1,000,000 23,200,000 13.77%
Spain 25,500,000 4,500 4,500 0.02%
Thailand 15,300,000 5,600 5,600 0.04%
UK 47,800,000 382,600 67,800 450,400 0.94%
USA 132,000,000 407,300 11,200 418,500 0.32%
Yugoslav 15,400,000 446,000 514,000 67,000 1,027,000 6.67%
Totals 1,971,470,000 24,456,700 32,326,700 5,754,000 62,537,400 3.17%

 

It is interesting to see the numbers in relationship to population. Ten million died in China, but it was a small part of the population. I apologize for how unreadable it is, but it did not transfer too well.

 

Seadog,

Estimates in China reach beyond 20 million not 10.

 

Maybe so, but the numbers of dead in some countries will never be truly known. I used Wikipedia for the data, as they had it in a convenient chart and are usually prety accurate.

 

Yes Seadog, I know the chart that you are talking about.

 

http://www.francewatcher.org/

I'm not saying anyone is clean,
What I am saying is...
everyone's dirty

 

It's amazing when you think about it, that at the cost of approxiamtely 100,000 Americans KIA they utterly destroyed the entire Japanese Empire.

The Japanese had one of the largest and most modern navy's in the world supported by excellent naval fliers, and a large veteran army, honed by years of fighting in China.
This entire military apparatus was run into the ground by the USA over four and a half years of combat. It's remarkable that the cost was so low [relatively] to America.

 

This is not the subject of the thread.

We are talking about Pacific War, and more specificaly about nuking 2 major cities.

The fact you react like a stressed child with your "France has been bad too in history – US is not the only country who comitted crimes" kind of crap just proves that you feel uncomfortable on this subject from a moral point of view, trying to hide behind things that have no relation with the subject.

If I was Russian you would probably talk about Stalin, if I was German, you'd talk about Hitler etc...).

You are impotent to make your point, so you attack the locutor (me) about his country...

Reminds me the pro nazis who think it's smart to beat a dead horse repeating that Stalin was very evil, just like if it could tone down Hitler's crimes.

If I was dumb as you are, I'd say "As long as USA nuked Nagasaki, I don't feel guilty that France did to Lybia" lol....you are just getting better and better.

It is just as stupid as if I said USA deserved the WTC 9.11 tower demolition, because of the May Lai massacre during Vietnam war....bullshit ! 9.11 was a crime against civilians, and there's no excuse for that, did the WTC victims deserved what happened ?

I gave my personal opinion about a fact, I don't judge a country neither a people, but maybe this is beyond your capabilities.

Just keep on asking Fox News to explain to you how the world goes.

I pity you, but I won't loose anymore time answering you, in your schoolyard "maybe it's a crime but your country is not better than mine" debate.

 

As I said, (almost) everybody is (in a war) dirty...

Singling out specific grains in a pile, is...

Who judges what is crime and what is not? You?

Subjective, Yes.

Hypocrisy? No?

Everyone should "CAN" the sanctimonious act.

Everything about a war is lousy.

 

Directed to chocapic:

So what is your solution to the atomic bombs?

I, as an American feel no guilt of my country, for the atomic bomb. It had to be done. It was war. The japanese "civilians" were making swords and spears. The so called "civilians" would soon become combatants. Unlike Europe where we fought the german military. In the Pacific we fought the japanese military and its civilians. We didn't just fly over and drop the bomb. We specifically chose high military industry cities with a low population. Can you imagine what would have happened if we dropped in on Tokyo. As stated by Paul Tibbits "I don't feel bad about dropping the bomb. I feel bad that those people were there and had to be killed. But it had to be done. We had to drop it. We all knew that, and we just wanted to get it over with and end the war.".... End the war. It ended the war. The U.S. doesn't have to apologize for the atomic bomb. It was war. Japan had no military strength left. All it had were "civilians" soon to be combatants. It wouldn't surrender. So all we had left to bomb were cities.

Did you ever stop to think how many Allies and how many Japanese would have died if we chose the alternative to the A bomb? Winston Churchill estimated a million dead Americans and half that number of British. And millions of Japanese. Japan would have been completely destroyed. Look at pictures of stalingrad from the war. Thats what the whole Japan would have looked like if we invaded. The Atomic bomb actually saved lives. Allied and Japanese lives. Believe it or not.

If we had never dropped the A bomb then this topic would not be a disscusion about the results of the Atomic bomb but a disscusion of the results of the invasion of japan. And I am confident that you Sir, would be on this forum complaining of the numbers of lives lost and the amount of destruction that was a result of that invasion. Saying "we should have dropped the atomic bomb instead of invading and destroying the entire japan and wiping out its people!". And you would still want the U.S. to apologize to japan. For destroying the entire country and decimating it's population. So before you start preaching about how wrong we were for dropping the A bomb and that we should apologize for such a "crime" (as you call it). You should stop and think about what would've happened if we chose the alternative to dropping the atomic bomb.

If there was never an attack on Pearl Harbor. There would have been an atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

It had to be done.

that's YOUR opinion

All it had were "civilians" soon to be combatants. It wouldn't surrender. So all we had left to bomb were cities.

speculation

Did you ever stop to think how many Allies and how many Japanese would have died if we chose the alternative to the A bomb? Winston Churchill estimated a million dead Americans and half that number of British. And millions of Japanese. Japan would have been completely destroyed. Look at pictures of stalingrad from the war. Thats what the whole Japan would have looked like if we invaded. The Atomic bomb actually saved lives. Allied and Japanese lives. Believe it or not.

speculation, again. Allied lives for sure, Japanese civilians how many ? Maybe alot maybe not, the whole question is nuking on the basis of a maybe. Please read Eisenhower's comments, who a more subtle approach


And I am confident that you Sir, would be on this forum complaining of the numbers of lives lost and the amount of destruction that was a result of that invasion. Saying "we should have dropped the atomic bomb instead of invading and destroying the entire japan and wiping out its people!". And you would still want the U.S. to apologize to japan.

more speculations (*)

If there was never an attack on Pearl Harbor. There would have been an atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Pearl Harbor was a military agression, and the start of a war, which is also a crime in my mind higly condemnable (even if not aimed at civilians in itself).

Don't get me wrong, in absolutely no way USA can even compete with Japan in the war crimes committed during WWII league, WWII came to USA in the form of an agression from an hegemonic empire, and not only USA defended itself but also they freed other countries which had fallen to facism, at the cost of thousands american lifes, not even speaking about the $ spent on war effort.


* What is pissing me off is : I can't express my personal opinion that aiming at civilians is criminal, uncluding Hiroshima and Nagasaki, without having some people react like if I was anti American, despising USA and it's people, which IS WRONG.

Why can't some people accept that I don't share at all their opinion on this subject without being their enemy or the enemy of their country ?

 

How can you bomb anything of military value in Japan that does not include civilians among the casualties at that time? Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both military targets. I hold the allies round the clock bombardment of Dresden and the firebombing of Tokyo to be more criminal than the A-bomb attacks. The negative reation to the A-bombs is not that it killed so many people, but that one plane, carrying one bomb, could do it. The concept was scary then, and it is even scarier now. Never in the history of mankind, have we made such a leap in distructive ability.

People imagine that if Hitler, or Tojo had developed the bomb first, what could have happened. Instead of fighting off hundreds of bombers, it would only take one getting through to level London. One seaplane sneaking in, could wipe out Pearl Harbor, San Diego or San Francisco.

Fear changes people. Even though there are many ways that our enemies today, can create destuction and chaos, we collectively have a greater fear of nuclear bombs than most anything else.

 

Of course when invasion of Japan would come, the Allied troops (not only US) would not exactly be received with flowers. Estimates exist (speculation, you will say, but when will speculation be statistics, when they suit your taste?) on likely casualties on both sides and numbers are much higher than the actual casualties from the 2 bombes.

The alternative as viewed at the time was to drop the bombs as a show of force in order to impress on the Japanese leadership the need to surrender. It worked.

Is it unfortunate that civilians died? Certainly. Civilians were dying in appalling numbers especially during city bombings, be they Guernica, Rotterdam, Coventry, London, Hamburg, Berlin, Essen, Osaka, Kobe, Tokio, whatever. In terms of cold numbers, the casualties caused by the 2 atomic bombs were not extraordinary as compared to a regular large raid on Tokio, so why single them out? For emotional reasons?

At the time the atomic bombs were viewed as something like extremely large bombs, Grand Slam king-size. They did not carry the emotional load that was later generated during the Cold War. No CND at the time (the discussions I used to have in my Cold War days - not about this, but about the neutron bomb etc - had this dream quality and left me with an impression that I was banging my head against a wall!)

All this has been discussed in higher forums and by brighter minds than ours. We must not generate bad blood over a question on which we are not reaching consensus, that is quite frankly above our heads, and will still be running long after we are all dead.

In short, in my opinion yes, civilian deaths are unfortunate (hell, I'm a civilian!) and yes, the bombs were justified.

 

Quote by Ted
______________________________________________________________________________________

Winston Churchill estimated a million dead Americans and half that number of British.
______________________________________________________________________________________


Can't see where half a million British casualties would come from.

With the exception of a part of the British Pacific Fleet, the Operation was to be a strictly American operation. It called for using the entire Marine Corps, the entire Pacific Navy, and elements of the 8th Army Air Force, the 8th Air Force (recently deployed from Europe), the 20th Air Force and the American Far Eastern Air Force. More than 1.5 million combat soldiers, with 3 million more in support -- more than 40 percent of all servicemen still in uniform in 1945 -- would be directly involved in the two amphibious assaults.


Just saw another Atomic bomb/invasion debate on T.V. last night with two military historians from the university of Edinburgh and Sandhurst Military Academy, and both agreed that the atomic bombings themselves weren't the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, they contend, it was the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Stalin's August 8 declaration of war that forced Hirohito's message of surrender on August 15, 1945. Certainly the fact of both enemies weighed into the decision, but they say it was more the fear of Soviet occupation that hastened Japan's acceptance of defeat.

 

Za : where the hell did I wrote that aiming at civilian is bad when it's nuke, and OK if it's conventional, like in Guernica or Dresde or Tokyo or Varsaw or Moscow etc etc ???. Please quote me or stop put words in my mouth.

I am not singling out Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it's just the subject of this topic !!!!

so go ahead Sir, open a thread on Varsaw bombing, Belgrade bombing, , London bombing, etc etc and I'll gladly post that I consider this was criminal.

Some personalities from this era (Eisenhower) some historians (see Anzac's post above) are far from being affirmative as some people here about the heavy casualties avoided this way, and some others think that other factors (Soviet attacks) weighted at least as much as the nuke into Japan's capitulation, so it doesn't matter if you like it or not, whether the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a "necessary evil" is a debatable subject, and this is the purpose of this thread.

If the "too bad,but war is hell" argument was worth something, why would such a concept as war crime exist ?

If killing civilians was only a matter of sparing one's soldiers lifes, tell me why USA hasn't nuked or burnt to ashes big cities each time they had an armed conflict since then (especialy in case the target or the target's allies could not nuke back) ?

Because it's not in the US governments habits to use of the military means at their disposal against civilians.

But I respect your contrary opinion, Truman was no monster, I believe he made a murderous mistake, thats all.

 

Take it easy, Chocapic, from your words I get the impression that you are about to nuke me

I did not say you were meaning "bad when nuke, ok when conventional", I was not misquoting you, those were my words (well, they weren't), saying both were the same or perceived as such at the time.

But let's say using the bombs was a matter of choosing between two evils, the people in power at the time chose what appeared to to them as the lesser evil. If it was or wasn't, we will never be able to know.

[ 27. October 2006, 05:56 AM: Message edited by: Za Rodinu ]

 

War Crimes...
Have...

No geographic boundries.
(only her and not there)
EVERYWHERE

No specific weapons.
(this but not that)
ALL

No expiration date.
(times up on that one)(ne-ner ne-ner, ne-ner)
SINCE TIME BEGAN UNTIL NOW

You wanna open that can of worms?

It's everything, everywhere, at any time.

All else is (pick and choose) Hypocrisy.

We can go back to Atilla the Hun, Alexander the Great, Vlad the Impialer, Black Beard, the list is endless.

Then what?

Sue the realitives?

How much groveling, kissing up would be necessary before everyone is satisfied?

Who decides?

How much money is to be paid (in adjusted dollars, Pesos, Drakmas, Pieces of Eight), and to who?

Who decides?

Who starts first?

Who decides that?

What a quagmire!

Shake hands, call it even (shoolyard) start over.

Live you OWN life the best you can.

If you want to Preach (especially morals), open a church, and above that, make sure your own house is "squeaky clean", and always has been.

 

SW, now you're making blank verse poetry?

 

@ Za : OK then, and I agree Hiroshima is more "emotional" for most people than Dresde (except if you were in Dresde during the firebombing )


about nuking you, a few days ago you had an avatar wearing an uniform and therefore, you were eligible for a free nuke.

Lucky you, you've changed your avatar, I guess I'll have to call back the bombers