Justified.

The goal was the end the war. BTW the single most deadliest event was not the A bombs, it was the napalm firebombing
of Tokyo in March of 45'. More people died from that bombing raid than the one of the A Bombs.

Never fight a war you don't intend to win. That was the fastest way to win the war. So you do it. And don't look back.

Truman was worried that the Soviets, who gad sat the war in the Pacific out, were getting ready to make a major push against Japan. They declared war, IIRC, the day after Hiroshima. Truman wanted to end the war before the Soviets got involved. He knew what he was facing in Europe, and tried to avoid the same in Asia. That plan fell apart to some extent when the communists took over in China. But it was what Truman was pursuing in August 1945.

(08-08-2015 07:33 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  was necessary not only due to the conditions of the war at that point, but it also showed the world how humans can destroy with the push of a button.....it changed warfare moving forward...I would argue the deterring of future wars was the most valuable result by unleashing that power to the world

it's not a coincidence that world wars essentially became obsolete at that point....they are fought differently now....

IMO, it's no different than any other weapon that changed the game of warfare with the exception of exponentially increasing the range of one's destructive power....and that's a pretty large deterrent for a rogue nation that might have eyes on gaining more pieces of pie....

Correct. The A bomb finally did what Gatling and Maxim thought their respective weapons would achieve albeit limited; the end of total war.

(08-07-2015 02:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-07-2015 12:04 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  (Consider this a flashback to the old ESPN board, where this was an annual thread.)

Justified or not?

I vote justified.

Justified? No

Nevessary?

Maybe.

It is never justified to kill innocent people.

Your mistake is believing that there are any innocent persons in a combat zone in the era of total war.

Bull Shite. There is no proof that we would have had to do what you say. It is very likely that Japan would have surrendered once we reached the island. There was no need to kill innocent women and children. What a horrible stain on America's history.

(08-08-2015 10:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  It is very likely that Japan would have surrendered once we reached the island.

Upon what do you base this assertion?

Japan's leadership was still debating surrender when the second bomb was dropped.

The majority of Japan's military strength was on the home island. The idea that they would have surrendered just as we "touched base" is straight retarded and shows a complete lack of historical knowledge. That simply is shockingly stupid. It's embaressing.

(08-08-2015 10:52 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 10:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  It is very likely that Japan would have surrendered once we reached the island.

Upon what do you base this assertion?

Japan's leadership was still debating surrender when the second bomb was dropped.

I base this assertion on the same premise that people base the assertion that dropping the bomb saved lives. ...........pure speculation.

(08-08-2015 10:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  It is very likely that Japan would have surrendered once we reached the island.

Which means, of course, that it is also very likely that they would not have done so.

And even if it is true that they would have, and that's debatable at best, there was no way to know that at the time the decision had to be made.

(08-08-2015 11:19 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 10:52 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 10:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  It is very likely that Japan would have surrendered once we reached the island.

Upon what do you base this assertion?

Japan's leadership was still debating surrender when the second bomb was dropped.

I base this assertion on the same premise that people base the assertion that dropping the bomb saved lives. ...........pure speculation.

I'll trust the historic record on Japanese culture and attitudes in war in 1945 over your 21st century Monday morning quarterbacking.

Jesus, did you really teach history?

(08-08-2015 10:52 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 10:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  It is very likely that Japan would have surrendered once we reached the island.

Upon what do you base this assertion?

Japan's leadership was still debating surrender when the second bomb was dropped.

Don't feed him. It's times. Like these where his Troll status is most evident.

(08-08-2015 11:46 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 11:19 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 10:52 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 10:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  It is very likely that Japan would have surrendered once we reached the island.

Upon what do you base this assertion?

Japan's leadership was still debating surrender when the second bomb was dropped.

I base this assertion on the same premise that people base the assertion that dropping the bomb saved lives. ...........pure speculation.

I'll trust the historic record on Japanese culture and attitudes in war in 1945 over your 21st century Monday morning quarterbacking.

Jesus, did you really teach history?

You remind me of my wife when she comes home from shopping and tells me how much money she saved instead of how much money she spent. It's insanity.

The bomb didn't save lives. The bomb killed hundreds of thousands.

That's a fact Jack.

When my students ask about that event, I give them the facts.

(08-08-2015 01:44 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 11:46 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 11:19 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 10:52 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 10:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  It is very likely that Japan would have surrendered once we reached the island.

Upon what do you base this assertion?

Japan's leadership was still debating surrender when the second bomb was dropped.

I base this assertion on the same premise that people base the assertion that dropping the bomb saved lives. ...........pure speculation.

I'll trust the historic record on Japanese culture and attitudes in war in 1945 over your 21st century Monday morning quarterbacking.

Jesus, did you really teach history?

You remind me of my wife when she comes home from shopping and tells me how much money she saved instead of how much money she spent. It's insanity.

The bomb didn't save lives. The bomb killed hundreds of thousands.

That's a fact Jack.

When my students ask about that event, I give them the facts.

If the war had raged on for another 2 years, cost half a million American casualties, God knows how many Japanese (but probably in the millions), and the ******* Russians had put boots on the ground in Japan, you'd be bitching because Truman had a weapon that would end the war quickly and didn't use it.

Pure speculation? This was the specter The Allies were staring the the face. Fact.

Truman made a hard call with the facts he had at hand.

Quoth Cormac McArthy, "You never know what worse luck your bad luck saved you from."

Damn Monday morning quarterback.

(08-08-2015 01:57 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 01:44 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 11:46 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 11:19 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 10:52 AM)Smaug Wrote:  Upon what do you base this assertion?

Japan's leadership was still debating surrender when the second bomb was dropped.

I base this assertion on the same premise that people base the assertion that dropping the bomb saved lives. ...........pure speculation.

I'll trust the historic record on Japanese culture and attitudes in war in 1945 over your 21st century Monday morning quarterbacking.

Jesus, did you really teach history?

You remind me of my wife when she comes home from shopping and tells me how much money she saved instead of how much money she spent. It's insanity.

The bomb didn't save lives. The bomb killed hundreds of thousands.

That's a fact Jack.

When my students ask about that event, I give them the facts.

If the war had raged on for another 2 years, cost half a million American casualties, God knows how many Japanese (but probably in the millions), and the ******* Russians had put boots on the ground in Japan, you'd be bitching because Truman had a weapon that would end the war quickly and didn't use it.

Pure speculation? This was the specter The Allies were staring the the face. Fact.

Truman made a hard call with the facts he had at hand.

Quoth Cormac McArthy, "You never know what worse luck your bad luck saved you from."

Damn Monday morning quarterback.

Scroll back to my original post where I said the bomb was likely necessary.

I just don't like to sugar coat it by telling kids it saved lives. It's that kind of commentary on history that we spend a lot of time trying to undo.

If you want to criticize Truman for dropping the bomb, do it with one rule in mind. You can base your argument only upon facts known to him at the time he made the decision. 20/20 hindsight is an inappropriate standard.

(08-08-2015 02:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 01:57 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 01:44 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 11:46 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 11:19 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I base this assertion on the same premise that people base the assertion that dropping the bomb saved lives. ...........pure speculation.

I'll trust the historic record on Japanese culture and attitudes in war in 1945 over your 21st century Monday morning quarterbacking.

Jesus, did you really teach history?

You remind me of my wife when she comes home from shopping and tells me how much money she saved instead of how much money she spent. It's insanity.

The bomb didn't save lives. The bomb killed hundreds of thousands.

That's a fact Jack.

When my students ask about that event, I give them the facts.

If the war had raged on for another 2 years, cost half a million American casualties, God knows how many Japanese (but probably in the millions), and the ******* Russians had put boots on the ground in Japan, you'd be bitching because Truman had a weapon that would end the war quickly and didn't use it.

Pure speculation? This was the specter The Allies were staring the the face. Fact.

Truman made a hard call with the facts he had at hand.

Quoth Cormac McArthy, "You never know what worse luck your bad luck saved you from."

Damn Monday morning quarterback.

Scroll back to my original post where I said the bomb was likely necessary.

I just don't like to sugar coat it by telling kids it saved lives. It's that kind of commentary on history that we spend a lot of time trying to undo.

Yet you are sugar coating it, by depriving them of the information those in charge at the time had to deal with. It was either kill half a million Japanese, or lose possibly tens of millions of young men on BOTH sides in blood and treasure. We all know you take the former and put your very obvious liberal spin on it, and ignore the latter.

(08-08-2015 02:56 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 02:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 01:57 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 01:44 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 11:46 AM)Smaug Wrote:  I'll trust the historic record on Japanese culture and attitudes in war in 1945 over your 21st century Monday morning quarterbacking.

Jesus, did you really teach history?

You remind me of my wife when she comes home from shopping and tells me how much money she saved instead of how much money she spent. It's insanity.

The bomb didn't save lives. The bomb killed hundreds of thousands.

That's a fact Jack.

When my students ask about that event, I give them the facts.

If the war had raged on for another 2 years, cost half a million American casualties, God knows how many Japanese (but probably in the millions), and the ******* Russians had put boots on the ground in Japan, you'd be bitching because Truman had a weapon that would end the war quickly and didn't use it.

Pure speculation? This was the specter The Allies were staring the the face. Fact.

Truman made a hard call with the facts he had at hand.

Quoth Cormac McArthy, "You never know what worse luck your bad luck saved you from."

Damn Monday morning quarterback.

Scroll back to my original post where I said the bomb was likely necessary.

I just don't like to sugar coat it by telling kids it saved lives. It's that kind of commentary on history that we spend a lot of time trying to undo.

Yet you are sugar coating it, by depriving them of the information those in charge at the time had to deal with. It was either kill half a million Japanese, or lose possibly tens of millions of young men on BOTH sides in blood and treasure. We all know you take the former and put your very obvious liberal spin on it, and ignore the latter.

History isn't about what might have happened. It's about what actually happened.

(08-07-2015 02:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-07-2015 12:04 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  (Consider this a flashback to the old ESPN board, where this was an annual thread.)

Justified or not?

I vote justified.

Justified? No

Nevessary?

Maybe.

It is never justified to kill innocent people.

I think that you've hit on the correct question - whether it was necessary or unnecessary.

I don't think the war would've continued much longer. I do think the structure of the surrender would've been much different. But, that's really speculating.

The way that WWII was fought was brutal, and I don't think the atomic bombs were the worst of it. Firebombing of cities, including London, Dresden, and Tokyo, set a precedence whereby the atomic bomb was only an incremental change rather than something truly transformative.

There was a documentary on PBS recently - which was heavily influenced by an author that thought that the bombing was unnecessary - that indicated that Truman was unaware of the Manhattan project until Roosevelt died, and that Truman may never have been presented with the option to decide to drop the bomb or not drop it. He may merely have been informed that it was ready, and was going to be dropped.

That would represent a tremendous failure in leadership, so I have to wonder whether the scenarios were planned and approved ahead of time.

The Japs had it coming.