Damn Those Pesky Muslims!

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

Several thousand civillians? More like several hundred thousand. And never mind that the death toll due to the bombs continued to rise even decades after the war.
Mac Arthur believed that the atomic bombings were unnecessary, I'd agree with him. Japan's infrastructure was shattered, they may not have been surrendering, but the truth of the matter is that had America simply invaded, it's probable that fewer people would have died, in all reality. The Japanese very simply couldn't have done much about it. They didn't have what they needed to fight off anybody for any real length of time. They had already "surrendered" (though they weren't about to use that word or admit it directly) to Russia (believe it or not, this is the exact moment also, that Russia declared war on Japan) and there's no way they could have done much of anything at all about an invasion - it's very hard to swallow that anybody honestly thought that they could've dragged out the war for another year or so.
I think the bombs were used because the government had already spent so much time and money on them, and they had an opportunity to use them, even if it wasn't actually necessary.

I think muscletang is right on this one.
The Allies had quite rightly decided that Japan must have unconditional surrender. One only needs to look at the their vast, barbaric acts (ie:against China) used to build their Empire in the 20's and 30's to know this was required.
There was a great documentary on PBS about this. The Allies, mostly the US, had extensive plans about the invasion of mainland Japan. The Japanese homeland defenses were extensive (5000 aircraft, thousands of fortified concrete bunkers, hardened communications and transport routes and millions of fanatical Japanese willing to fight to the death. )

It would have been a massive, lengthy, bloody and hugely expensive effort to have done this, enough to have made D-Day and the Eastern Front combined look like kindergarten. (Think Okinawa times 1000) At the time, the Whitehouse and the Pentagon seriously considered that a conventional war against the Japanese was not winnable, that is, insufficient manpower and a willingness to fight by US troops for the months on end that would be required. They felt that after 3 and a half years of all - out war, US infantry was exhausted and a long Japanese campaign would be excessively demoralising for the troops and the civillians at home.
Furthermore, the Allies had alreadly lost half of Europe to Soviet influence and they were unwilling to let half of Japan fall to the soviets either.

[DGB454]

I came in late on this one so please forgive me if I state something already stated.

In the article it said
"The survey found 44 percent favored at least some restrictions on the civil liberties of Muslim Americans."

Which civil liberties are they referring to?


"The survey showed that 27 percent of respondents supported requiring all Muslim-Americans to register where they lived with the federal government. "

Doesn't everyone who pays taxes already do that?

"Twenty-two percent favored racial profiling to identify potential terrorist threats."


The arguement against racial or religious profiling has always bothered me. If you know that most of the terrorist attacks are being done by people of a certain nationality or a certain religon then how can you help not profiling those groups? It wouldn't make sense to investigate everyone on the face of the earth. You have to narrow down your scope to the most likely canidates. Otherwise you are waisting huge amounts of resources. Do we choose to be P.C. or do we choose to be more efficient?


"And 29 percent thought undercover agents should infiltrate Muslim civic and volunteer organizations to keep tabs on their activities and fund-raising."

Only if they are suspected of supporting terrorist activities. And this goes for any organization Muslim or otherwise.

[mellowboy]

Originally Posted by Muscletang

Then what were we suppose to do mr. general?
Our other option was to invade Japan and as I stated they were in a kamikaze state. This factor made the estimated casualty toll for the Americans close to 1 million.
So what would you of done? We kill 200,000 of their people, 50,000 being military personal, and we possible end the war.
Or we don't have to use the bombs, we could invade and possible send 1 million american soldiers to their deaths.
So what would YOU of done? 200,000 Japanese or 1 million Americans?

Im pretty damn sure its more than 200,000 civilians. You know what, you're like a psycho murderer coming up with an excuse like that tryin to JUSTIFY there actions against the civilians.I must say your dumb as donkey. There was lots of children and women that has NOTHING TO DO WITH WAR and yet you're still backing it up with that LAME ASS excuse to kill the innocent. Way to go

[Raz_Kaz]

Originally Posted by DGB454

"The survey found 44 percent favored at least some restrictions on the civil liberties of Muslim Americans."

Which civil liberties are they referring to?

Does it really matter which one/s they want to revoke? Even the thought of it is wrong nevere mind which one they think should be gone.

"Twenty-two percent favored racial profiling to identify potential terrorist threats."

The arguement against racial or religious profiling has always bothered me. If you know that most of the terrorist attacks are being done by people of a certain nationality or a certain religon then how can you help not profiling those groups? It wouldn't make sense to investigate everyone on the face of the earth. You have to narrow down your scope to the most likely canidates. Otherwise you are waisting huge amounts of resources. Do we choose to be P.C. or do we choose to be more efficient?

Agreed. Racial profiling exists and theres no way of eliminating it. But you have to diffirentiate between racial profiling and discriminating.

"And 29 percent thought undercover agents should infiltrate Muslim civic and volunteer organizations to keep tabs on their activities and fund-raising."

Only if they are suspected of supporting terrorist activities. And this goes for any organization Muslim or otherwise.

No. That's just plain stupid. When have you ever heard of any Muslim community or organization in the US funding terrorists? The only thing you can get from keeping a close eye on those Msulims in the STates is a false sence of security and wasted money.

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by mellowboy

Im pretty damn sure its more than 200,000 civilians. You know what, you're like a psycho murderer coming up with an excuse like that tryin to JUSTIFY there actions against the civilians.I must say your dumb as donkey. There was lots of children and women that has NOTHING TO DO WITH WAR and yet you're still backing it up with that LAME ASS excuse to kill the innocent. Way to go

All in all, probably 250,000 people died in the bombings of Japan. Around 80,000 died in the first bombing and less died in the second, the rest were killed by radiation poisoning.

I'm a psycho murderer?
If anything you are for wanting to of sent many more Americans to their deaths by an unnecessary invasion. You never even answered my question in the first place.
If you were Truman what would YOU of done? Would you of killed 250,000 Japanease with the two atomic bombs, or would you of sent Americans to invade Japan where estimated casualties were around a million?
You also talk about many of these people hand NOTHING to do with the war, sorry that isn't so. Did you know that every man, woman, and child able was issued a 6 ft sharpened pipe so they could kill any American invaders? Did you know that many of these "innocent" civilians were ready to drive boats into the invading ships?
Also, these people had a chance to leave the city. American bombers dropped thousands upon thousands of fliers telling the Japanease that these certain cities would be bombed unless Japan surrendered. The people had a chance to escape, they didn't and got ready to fight.
If you still say you'd rather invade and the bombs were "wrong" you obviously have no idea the sacrific American soldiers went through so you could sit here today and say what you want to say.

Also, people don't realize but more people were killed in the fire bombing raids of Tokyo than almost all of the 250,000 that died due to the atomic bombs. Again almost more people died in the bombings of Dresden and Cologne in German than both atomic blast, but I don't hear people on here saying those were wrong either.

[TRD2000]

i was aware of the Tokyo firebombing killing more.

Bombing on a NK city in the Korean war killed more than those combined i think.

I am actually glad the US nuked japan. here is my reasoning.

whether or not it was needed to force japan to surrender is debatable. I do not believe it was as Japan was already trying to negotiate peace through the Soviet's as America had declined peace talks. HOWEVER, had the US not used nukes at that time it may not have scared the crap out of people enough to avoid using them in the future. Rather than seeing the grid-lock of the cold war we may have, and i believe would have, seen nuclear weapons used in a major conflict. (read WW III) and ultimately this would have been very bad for a lot more people than those who lost their lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

just my opinion, but hopefully you see the logic.

[TRD2000]

side query.

if these cities were of such military significance. why were the military targets in them deliberately avoided? why did the cities see no bombing prior to the attacks? obviously the military targets were not significant enough to worry about.

[Muscletang]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were avoided because if they would of been fire bombed like Tokyo then there would of been nothing left. Americans left potential nuclear targets alone.
About 60% of Tokya had been totally destroyed in the fire bombing raids. If America would of dropped a nuclear bomb on it then it would of been a waste, seeing as how most of the city was already destroyed.

[TRD2000]

i concur. unfortunately though that strengthens the case that there was not sufficient military targets in either city to justify the attack as being anything other than civilian oriented. If the US were so worried about winning the war they would have bombed ANY military targets they could.

[Muscletang]

Well Japan's military was nothing at this point in the war and it would of been a waste of a bomb to drop it on nothing but a military target. They not longer had a navy, air force, and very little of an army. There was no huge military base they could of bombed so that left cities.

[RedLightning]

wow, is this an actual civil debate in the political forums!?(between Muscletang and TRD200) Now ive seen everything. But id have to agree with muscletang, first what we did was right with nuking japan and that those cities were as good a pic as ever. Pluss if we had invaded not only would around 1 million allies die, I bet alot more Japanese would have died if the defense of Japan then those that died in the bombings.

[TRD2000]

unfortunately lightning that defies the fact that japan was already looking for peace and had been cut off from negotiations by the US, therefore they had turned to russia in the hope that they may be listened to. (remember at the end of the war in europe Russia and the US were allies) perhaps if america hadn't been so keen to test their new toys there may have been a way for a lot less lives to have been lost.

in response to muscletang, you are somewhat right, japan had been reduced to almost nothing at that point, however when it comes down to it, what would have been a worthwhile military target anyway? Those cities had been deliberately selected and reserved for atomic testbeds, it would have been a shame to miss them. Valley locations even heightened the effect of the bomb by ricocheting the shockwave.

as far as effect goes, the administration was presented with the option of exploding the bomb over Tokyo harbour at a higher elevation, where it would have been witnessed by far more people and quite possibly had an even bigger effect on the countries moral, without the civilian casualties inflicted.

I do however maintain though, that in hindsight (20/20's a wonderful thing) dropping the bombs was a worthwhile thing, and the people killed did not die in vein as the awareness that the ongoing deaths had on the world conciousness, i believe, has so far helped avoid a nuclear war. At the time i don't think it was justified as there were other, just as effective ways of ending the war with or without demonstrating US military might. Talking being a good one, though I believe that the two bombs dropped (out of a planned 17 over the next few months) were as much about revenge/punishment as they were military necessity, and understandably so, perhaps thats why the US wouldn't end the war without them.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by Muscletang

Well Japan's military was nothing at this point in the war and it would of been a waste of a bomb to drop it on nothing but a military target. They not longer had a navy, air force, and very little of an army.

Makes you wonder if they really needed to drop them at all.

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by TRD2000

Talking being a good one, though I believe that the two bombs dropped (out of a planned 17 over the next few months) were as much about revenge/punishment as they were military necessity, and understandably so, perhaps thats why the US wouldn't end the war without them.

Actually the two bombs they dropped were the only two they were going to use. If the two they dropped didn't cause Japan to surrender then the U.S. would of gone ahead with the November invasion of Japan.

Also, people say the U.S. "cut" off negotiations with Japan, they didn't. The U.S. wanted Japan's unconditional surrender and that's all they wanted. They weren't going to negotiate anything, they wanted them to surrender.

Finally I'm a little mad nobody has answered my question. If you were Truman what would you of done? Would you of dropped the bombs and hopefully ended the war without an American based invasion? Or would you of skipped that and went ahead with the American invasion that, I've said several times, was estimated to have 1 million casualties? What would be more important to you, killing some Japanease civilians and saving American lives, or sending many, many more American soldiers to their deaths but not look bad by dropping the bombs?

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by Muscletang

Actually the two bombs they dropped were the only two they were going to use. If the two they dropped didn't cause Japan to surrender then the U.S. would of gone ahead with the November invasion of Japan.

Also, people say the U.S. "cut" off negotiations with Japan, they didn't. The U.S. wanted Japan's unconditional surrender and that's all they wanted. They weren't going to negotiate anything, they wanted them to surrender.

Finally I'm a little mad nobody has answered my question. If you were Truman what would you of done? Would you of dropped the bombs and hopefully ended the war without an American based invasion? Or would you of skipped that and went ahead with the American invasion that, I've said several times, was estimated to have 1 million casualties? What would be more important to you, killing some Japanease civilians and saving American lives, or sending many, many more American soldiers to their deaths but not look bad by dropping the bombs?

Those two bombs that were used WERE the only 2 available.
At the time, the only way of extracting and refining the fissionable material was using cyclotrons, a very expensive, inefficient and slow process. It would have taken months for the US to have refined more and made a third bomb. IMHO if the Japanese government knew this, they may not have been so quick to surrender.

Finally, in a round-about way I did answer your question in my last post at the top of page 4. IMHO Truman made the correct decision, (at least in dropping the first one,) considering the limited supply of bombs at the time.
Was dropping the second one required?? Maybe not.