Were the atomic bombs necessary (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

adek670 -> Were the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 5:27:00 PM)

http://en.alalam.ir/news/1660845#sthash.lZWDv5Kk.dpuf

Interesting Russian move against the U.S.

What is the opinion of the board here ?



AW1Steve -> RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 5:44:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reaper

http://en.alalam.ir/news/1660845#sthash.lZWDv5Kk.dpuf

Interesting Russian move against the U.S.

What is the opinion of the board here ?


Opinion of what? The Russian's ridiculous claim? (Russian's accusing American's of war crimes? Please look up under "pot calling the kettle black). And btw , that question comes exceedingly close to being current political , so maybe we should not touch that one.

Now
Was the Atomic bombing of Japan necessary? That comes down to questions like....would it have better to lose millions of American and many more Japanese lives that devastated two cities? That's a moral question. To me , lives saved versus lives lost. From a sheer numbers point of view , yes it was necessary. It gave the Japanese way to surrender while maintaining some "face". Even the Emperor cited "this terrible weapon". Much easier to give by saying "I didn't stand a chance due to his invention ", than "he beat me in a fair fight , that oh by the way , I started". This way the Japanese people can feel some superiority that "the allies cheated" in some way. Otherwise , they would feel obligated to fight to the death.[:(]



warspite1 -> RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 5:45:52 PM)

I think it best to allow USS Alabama's (Go Bama!) Captain Ramsey to provide his opinion at this point [;)]

Capt. Ramsey: ............If someone asked me if we should bomb Japan, a simple "Yes." By all means sir, drop that ****er, twice!

Thank-you Captain Ramsey - 'nuff said.



comte -> RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 5:46:03 PM)

Yes they were necessary.



AW1Steve -> RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 5:49:34 PM)

I once interviewed a survivor of the Asiatic fleet who spent 4 years as a "Guest of the Emperor ". He said to me "I'm sorry that we nuked those two Japanese cities". I was very impressed by this. Till he growled "I wish we'd nuked 22 cities!". But he did have reasons to hold a grudge. [:)]



AW1Steve -> RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 5:52:34 PM)

Shall we set the timer and see how long before this thread is locked? [:(]



USSAmerica -> RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 6:00:36 PM)

Come on, Steve! Where's your Christmas Spirit? I'm sure that all the forum posters will keep Christmas in their hearts while they post nothing but factual, logical opinions on the question. [:'(][:D]

For me, it had to happen from the "scorecard" of projected dead (on both sides) from either option. As you mentioned, the two bombs likely saved many millions of lives.



HansBolter -> RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 6:04:57 PM)

Besides, who can take anyone seriously who has a permanent sneer etched into his face.

Just look at the guy, one side of his nose and mouth are higher than the other side from his lifelong sneer.

Sorry, no credibility.

On a more serious note....

Was it really necessary for Japan to refuse to surrender when clearly beaten militarily?

Was it really necessary for the Japanese military to train women and children to attack Marines with bamboo stakes?

So long as the Japanese were willing to fight to the last human being HELL YES it was necessary!



Orm -> RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 7:32:08 PM)

I do not understand why it is relevant if the bombs were necessary or not. Neither do I understand the relevance of the argument that the bomb saved lives, or not.

To me it depends on how war crimes are, or were, defined.

That Russia brings this up now has more to do with the current political situation and the possibility of NATO expanding.



adek670 -> RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 9:05:05 PM)

Guys

Interesting comments above. For me Orm's comment is the most credible .

For me Justification that that the bombs saved lives is a fallacy

But to witp-ae:
How many people on the allied side have used the bombs to gain victory here and how many have not --- I wonder if modern perspectives on what is considered a war crime actually changes the way we play the end game.

reaper



pontiouspilot -> RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 9:05:25 PM)

The bombs were not militarily necessary. As far as that goes, neither was an invasion of the home islands necessary. The Japanese had already been bombed into the dark ages. The Allies merely needed to maintain a blockade and air bombardment...the later on a much reduced scale, and the country would have shrivelled up and died a slow death. The terrible irony in all of this is that by hastening the surrender the bombs saved many more Japanese lives than Allied lives.



warspite1 -> RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 9:33:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Reaper

For me Justification that that the bombs saved lives is a fallacy

warspite1

Sorry that sentence does not make sense. For clarity are you saying that you don't consider the saving of lives to be a valid justification for their use, or that their actual dropping did not save lives I.e. as many died with their dropping than would have been the case without (and the war ending by conventional methods)?

Thanks.



John 3rd -> RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 9:37:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I think it best to allow USS Alabama's (Go Bama!) Captain Ramsey to provide his opinion at this point [;)]

Capt. Ramsey: ............If someone asked me if we should bomb Japan, a simple "Yes." By all means sir, drop that ****er, twice!

Thank-you Captain Ramsey - 'nuff said.


Completely concur...



adek670 -> RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 9:38:50 PM)

I mean that the statement - dropping them saved lives is a logical fallacy --they didn't actually save any lives per se -- logical fallacies are often used as the basis for arguments but they are still flawed -- that's what I mean



AW1Steve -> RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 9:44:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Reaper

I mean that the statement - dropping them saved lives is a logical fallacy --they didn't actually save any lives per se -- logical fallacies are often used as the basis for arguments but they are still flawed -- that's what I mean

Then per haps you'd be so good as to explain in detail EXACTLY what you mean in your questions , what you want for a response , and be specific. Otherwise , you appear to be what some people would call "trolling" , and others "**** stirring". Neither is acceptable on this forum , as is trying to introduce "current politics", so I strongly advise you to think carefully before you respond.



witpqs -> RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 9:47:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Reaper

I mean that the statement - dropping them saved lives is a logical fallacy --they didn't actually save any lives per se -- logical fallacies are often used as the basis for arguments but they are still flawed -- that's what I mean

I think your assertion is mistaken.



adek670 -> RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 9:49:01 PM)

-- aw1steve

My question very well presented and already posted

But to witp-ae:
How many people on the allied side have used the bombs to gain victory here and how many have not --- I wonder if modern perspectives on what is considered a war crime actually changes the way we play the end game.

Hope that answers you question - didn't take me too long -- sorry if u missed it



warspite1 -> RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 9:52:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Reaper

I mean that the statement - dropping them saved lives is a logical fallacy --they didn't actually save any lives per se -- logical fallacies are often used as the basis for arguments but they are still flawed -- that's what I mean
Warspite1

Okay, understood, but surely you can estimate whether the bombs saved lives though.

Cost of lives lost by dropping the bombs = x
Cost of lives lost by not dropping and carrying out a conventional attack = y
Or maybe, no bombs and no invasion, and instead a long slow strangulation and starvation of Japan = z

Assuming these (or any other assumptions) are seen as options that will end the war, you can guesstimate which option results in less loss of life - and thus which will result in saving most lives.



witpqs -> RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 9:55:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Reaper

I mean that the statement - dropping them saved lives is a logical fallacy --they didn't actually save any lives per se -- logical fallacies are often used as the basis for arguments but they are still flawed -- that's what I mean
Warspite1

Okay, understood, but surely you can estimate whether the bombs saved lives though.

A Cost of lives lost by dropping the bombs = x
B Cost of lives lost by not dropping and carrying out a conventional attack = y
C Or maybe, no bombs and no invasion, and instead a long slow strangulation and starvation of Japan = z

Assuming these (or any other assumptions) are seen as options that will end the war, you can guesstimate which option results in less loss of life - and thus which will result in saving most lives.


And in the case of options B or C, what would the Soviets have done without regard to the wishes of the other Allies?



warspite1 -> RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 9:57:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Reaper

I mean that the statement - dropping them saved lives is a logical fallacy --they didn't actually save any lives per se -- logical fallacies are often used as the basis for arguments but they are still flawed -- that's what I mean
Warspite1

Okay, understood, but surely you can estimate whether the bombs saved lives though.

A Cost of lives lost by dropping the bombs = x
B Cost of lives lost by not dropping and carrying out a conventional attack = y
C Or maybe, no bombs and no invasion, and instead a long slow strangulation and starvation of Japan = z

Assuming these (or any other assumptions) are seen as options that will end the war, you can guesstimate which option results in less loss of life - and thus which will result in saving most lives.


And in the case of options B or C, what would the Soviets have done without regard to the wishes of the other Allies?
Warspite1

Indeed - in both Europe and Asia.



adek670 -> RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 10:05:00 PM)

Warspite

I guess that's essentially it -- but how does this play out in witp-ae??

I'm playing the AI in the standard GC and am in late 44 -- do many people that get to 45 consider the bombs as aiding victory ? Or isn't that really a factor given that the political dimension is not modelled beyond pp



warspite1 -> RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 10:07:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

The bombs were not militarily necessary. As far as that goes, neither was an invasion of the home islands necessary. The Japanese had already been bombed into the dark ages. The Allies merely needed to maintain a blockade and air bombardment...the later on a much reduced scale, and the country would have shrivelled up and died a slow death. The terrible irony in all of this is that by hastening the surrender the bombs saved many more Japanese lives than Allied lives.
warspite1

Why is that a terrible irony? Surely the saving of those Japanese lives (mostly civilian) and ending the war quickly is a good thing? Apologies if I have read you wrong but you seem to be saying it would preferable to slowly starve the population (with the possibility that, like on so many islands, they refuse to give up) than drop the bombs and hopefully end it quickly. The former is unthinkable surely?



warspite1 -> RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 10:09:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Reaper

Warspite

I guess that's essentially it -- but how does this play out in witp-ae??

I'm playing the AI in the standard GC and am in late 44 -- do many people that get to 45 consider the bombs as aiding victory ? Or isn't that really a factor given that the political dimension is not modelled beyond pp
Warspite1

Having only played Coral Sea (and tried and failed at Guadalcanal) I'll let someone qualified answer that!!



mind_messing -> RE: Were the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 10:46:07 PM)

RE: US against Russia issue - both countries are as bad as each other. One just has better a better public relations team.


Regarding the atomic bombs - both were completely unnecessary.

Japan was on the verge of mass starvation thanks to the USN's submarine fleet, it's military was completely shattered and the majority of major cities were smouldering heaps of ash.

The Soviet invasion of Manchuria was the knockout blow to the Japanese will to fight.



geofflambert -> RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 10:50:36 PM)

If the only alternative to invading the home islands were a-bombs, then they saved soldiers lives (on both sides, same for civilians). I don't think blockading Japan was considered. If it had been done, that would've saved lives because the Korean peninsula would have been united under communism, so no Korean War. I don't believe a blockade would have caused their surrender for ten years or more, even if the population was starving. In any case, the a-bomb attacks were merely an extension of the fire bombing attacks we'd already been doing for some time, without result. A blockade would have been quite expensive and I believe, not politically viable.



mind_messing -> RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 10:52:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

The bombs were not militarily necessary. As far as that goes, neither was an invasion of the home islands necessary. The Japanese had already been bombed into the dark ages. The Allies merely needed to maintain a blockade and air bombardment...the later on a much reduced scale, and the country would have shrivelled up and died a slow death. The terrible irony in all of this is that by hastening the surrender the bombs saved many more Japanese lives than Allied lives.
warspite1

Why is that a terrible irony? Surely the saving of those Japanese lives (mostly civilian) and ending the war quickly is a good thing? Apologies if I have read you wrong but you seem to be saying it would preferable to slowly starve the population (with the possibility that, like on so many islands, they refuse to give up) than drop the bombs and hopefully end it quickly. The former is unthinkable surely?


Examples please?

I can't seem to recall any other island nations in history that endured complete military defeat, an iron-clad blockade and starvation amongst large sections of the population.

Britain during the World Wars wasn't even close to the Japanese experiance of blockade.



mind_messing -> RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 10:57:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

If the only alternative to invading the home islands were a-bombs, then they saved soldiers lives (on both sides, same for civilians). I don't think blockading Japan was considered. If it had been done, that would've saved lives because the Korean peninsula would have been united under communism, so no Korean War. I don't believe a blockade would have caused their surrender for ten years or more, even if the population was starving. In any case, the a-bomb attacks were merely an extension of the fire bombing attacks we'd already been doing for some time, without result. A blockade would have been quite expensive and I believe, not politically viable.



That is simply laughable.

If you think that the Japanese population would be quite happy to sit for ten years and starve while any food that is grown goes straight to the army, then I think you under-estimate the lengths people will go to when their families are hungry.

The Japanese Emperor would be far from the first Asian ruler to be overthrown by a population subject to starvation. It is hard to keep your armed forces loyal when the rank-and-file can see their families and neighbours starve.

Also, I find the notion that a blockade would be deemed "too expensive" when the US spent millions on developing the atomic bombs.



adek670 -> RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 11:01:59 PM)

I think In fact that the answer maybe whether you accept that Japan was ready to surrender

I found a useful article which suggests surrender terms were discussed in jan 45

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/129964




geofflambert -> RE: Were the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 11:02:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

RE: US against Russia issue - both countries are as bad as each other. One just has better a better public relations team.


Regarding the atomic bombs - both were completely unnecessary.

Japan was on the verge of mass starvation thanks to the USN's submarine fleet, it's military was completely shattered and the majority of major cities were smouldering heaps of ash.

The Soviet invasion of Manchuria was the knockout blow to the Japanese will to fight.


I'd like to see a citation on that. The Soviets would not have been able to do amphibious landings on Japan, their will to fight I believe was undiminished as far as that goes. Surrendering the Home Islands was a great humiliation that would not have been done without brute force being applied to the Home Islands, which only the US could do. I wouldn't have liked to be Harry Truman on this issue, but it bothered him not a whit.



Chickenboy -> RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary (12/26/2014 11:05:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Reaper

I mean that the statement - dropping them saved lives is a logical fallacy --they didn't actually save any lives per se -- logical fallacies are often used as the basis for arguments but they are still flawed -- that's what I mean


Dropping them probably saved lives. I don't see the fallacy you cite. Please enlighten us.

The alternatives to *not* dropping the bombs to end the war would-by all credible estimates-have caused greater loss of life than the two bombings. What's so hard to understand about that?

There were bonafide plans to invade the home islands. There were bonafide plans to defend the home islands. There were alternative strategies to starve an entire people into submission, likely killing large percentages of the entire nation.

I agree with AW1Steve. This 'wonder weapon' was a way out for the Japanese to save face and not die of starvation.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.7226563