That wouldn’t be sporting. 
Okay, give them a 30-second head start.
And then drop an A-bomb on them.
That is complete bullshit. I missed where conventional bombing causes radiation burns. Take a look at the pictures in the earlier thread and then say conventional bombing is comparable. Nukes are far worse weapons.
Warning: Disturbing photo ahead.
I would say it’s comparable.
Neither way is particularly humane. War is hell. That’s why it’s supposed to be avoided.
I apologise if I violated a NSFW issue with a war photo…
Oh sure…I can see where these people are happy that at least they weren’t nuked.
(WARNING: Disturbing images below! NSFW probably!)
Dresden 1
Dresden 2
Tokyo 1
Tokyo 2
Tokyo 3
Tokyo itself after raid (looks a lot like Hiroshima)
Napalm victims (post WWII)
100,000+ were killed in Tokyo. More than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
30,000 or so dead in Dresden.
Glad you see the horror in nuclear bombs.
Sorry you miss the horror that is war anyway.
The only thing “worse” about nuclear weapons at that time was the long term effects. And I don’t think we knew about those. People were essentially vaporized in the center of conventionally created firestorms too.
Some thought they could. Frankly, I don’t know of any convenient online sources. You’d have to go dig through your local library.
Oh…they had a good idea of the effects of radiation. Afterall a few people building the things died gruesomely from radiation exposure. Perhaps a lot of fiddly details remained to be filled in but it wasn’t a surprise to anyone I don’t think.
Without looking at the urls, can you honestly tell immediately which one of these was caused by a nuclear device?
The radiation was a very unpleasant side effect, granted. But that’s sadly the nature of the beast, bombing raid after bombing raid wasn’t doing anything to the Japanese will not to surrender. The fact that one bomb from one plane can have the same effect though, and they surrender after the second one.
If I can side track the conversation a bit, since the question isn’t really worth its own thread; what would have happened if, say, the coup attempt had succeeded and Japan refused to surrender after Nagasaki? Would the U.S. have sat back and dropped more nuclear bombs until they got the message? Would some modified version of Olympic have been used in combination with the bombings?
I missed where you cided that this was even known in August 1945. I’m glad your hindsight is so good, but I think we need to examine what the choices open to Truman and his advisors were.
They had a good idea of the effects of radiation, but not of the range that the radiation would spread. The general consensus at the time was that anyone who was close enough to the explosion to receive a lethal dose of radiation would be close enough to be incinerated by the explosion anyway. The bomb’s designers didn’t see radiation poisoning as a signifcant after effect of the bombing.
The Japanese publicly stated they would fight to the bitter end while they were asking Russia to broker surrender with us. They said that because it was the only bargaining chip they had. If they said they would give up ,we could have dictated the terms. The day of the bombing , Russia attacked Manchuria. It was through, all they could do was try to get the best terms possible.
Keep in mind, gonzomax, the Japanese actions during WWII weren’t much different from that of Nazi Germany:
(Warning – some of the images - as well as the article! – are extremely disturbing)
Unit 731 (Sounds like Dr. Mengele would fit right in, eh?)
People always talk about how evil the Nazis were, but not too many know that the Imperial Japanese were just as bad.
Of course they were. And what the atom bombs did was focus their minds on what the best terms they could get were. Hell, by that stage, they wouldn’t have had much of a right to complain if the country had been plowed up and sowed with salt.
What minimum terms do you feel would be acceptable, with the goal of avoiding Japanese civilian war casualties in mind?
Does Japan get to keep any overseas possesions?
The U.S. and Allied war terms were not crafted with the goal of minimizing Japanese casualties. I assume they were crafted with a post-war geo-political goal in mind. (Japan does not rearm and start the war anew in ten years time, for example.)
How far backwards must the Allies have to had bent to accept the terms from a beaten Japan, a nation they had just spent almost four years in brutal (total) war, and many lives on all sides, to defeat?
Who had that goal? The bomb was an anti civilian weapon of the highest order. We killed 100 thousand civilians in an instant.
I read the Japanese did not teach Pearl Harbor as part of their history classes. They did not want to make their country look bad. We do the same with our defense of the bomb. It is hard to admit what we did was unnecessary and cruel. Any war is sanitized by the politicians and historians of the country. The children are taught what we want them to believe. It is expected.
So are incendiary bombs, but we dropped plenty of them. I’m not seeing the massive distinction that says 1,700 tons of bombs dropped on Tokyo = grim reality of war, 1 bomb dropped on Hiroshima = completely unacceptable.
Cruel, maybe, but “not necessary”?
Japan wasn’t close to surrendering. Even after we vaporized two cities, there were still a significant number of hard core types that refused to surrender. They even tried a coup against their own Emporer.
Sitting back for a year, waiting for the blockade to take effect would have killed millions in a very slow way.
This has been said repeatedly. Why do you ignore it?
You offer nothing but fiat-statements that Nukes are bad. Well, no duh.
The USSR wasn’t gonna wait it out long, either. (The USSR may also have been sabotaging Japan’s peace feelers, too. The USSR wanted to grab some territory before an armistace was reached.)
How so? How, pray tell, do we “do the same with our defense of the bomb?”