RE: Japan=Nukes? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

UncleBuck -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/16/2004 11:47:21 PM)

Hey Black Jack Shelak, is that a sign that In November Canada is Invading Vermont?

[:'(]



Arnir -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/16/2004 11:50:05 PM)

She's not that bad looking.

And to steal a line, "Is it any wonder why the world hates Candians? Trying to tell everyone how to live. Why don't they just mind their own business." [:D][:D]



mdiehl -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/17/2004 12:21:18 AM)

quote:

Damn Nazis are everywhere, but you are history in November...


That's a little over the top. UNCS is a provocateur, IMO, not a black shirt. "Nazi" borders on the edge of a mortal insult. Since there's really no way to hold someone responsible for insults delivered electronically, they shouldn't be used at the drop of a hat.

I say this as one who has been given offense and, at times, given it back. It's not worth the mess that it causes.

That attachment... fascinating. A slap in the face that makes you want to look twice.



Oznoyng -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/17/2004 12:32:09 AM)

Dead is dead. People die in war. Soldiers and civilians alike. All this talk about "weapons of mass destruction" is irrelevant ***wrt to WW2***. We killed similar numbers of people using nukes as we did fire bombing in Germany. The appoximately 200,000 Japanese that died in the attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were just as dead as those that died in firebombing of German cities, the bombing of London, the Rape of Nanking, the Holocaust, etc.

War is not about nobility. It is about winning with the fewest losses that you can. If I have a better weapon and I am at war, I use it. Objectively, I should use any weapon that allows me to destroy my enemy while surviving myself. If a weapon allows me to kill my opponent without risking myself, I would be a fool not to use it. And they would be fools not to surrender. We did not keep using Wildcats when we had Corsairs - and we would have stopped using firebombs if we had more nukes.

WW2 was not just about killing each other's tanks, ships, and planes - it was about removing your opponents ability to wage war. It included the farms, ranches, oil wells, mines, foundries, and factories that supported the war effort. And it included the civilians that made the weapons, grew the food, and raised the soldiers. I doubt anyone here would argue that the reason the Allies won the war was the United States. We had a huge, self-contained economy that was untouched throughout the war and only got better at turning out the weapons of war. Without the US, Europe, Russia, and Asia would be German/Italian/Japanese provinces.

The body count on the other side does not matter. What matters is the one on *my* side. For that reason, I do not believe Olympus would ever have happened. Japan would have simply become one vast nuclear wasteland. As soon as we got the bomb, one of two things had to happen to end the war: Japan had to surrender, or we had to get sick of the slaughter. As an American, I am simply glad that they gave up and we didn't have to slaughter more of them than we did.



kaleun -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/17/2004 12:41:36 AM)

And that, just about sums it all up!



Mr.Frag -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/17/2004 12:46:26 AM)

quote:

As an American, I am simply glad that they gave up and we didn't have to slaughter more of them than we did.


I don't really think that is just an American sentiment. I think you'll find everyone would agree with that point.



Bandkanon -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/17/2004 2:14:36 AM)

The Japanese Home Guard had lots of weapons. Old turn of the century rifles and lots and lots of sharpened bamboo spears like you see in "The Seven Samurai". THe IJ High Command was planning a national kamikaze campaign against Operation Olympic and Coronet. I think they really meant it when they announed to their people "Let one hundred million die together..." The Bomb was defintely the least of two evils. It saved Americans and Japanese from killing another.



UndercoverNotChickenSalad -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/17/2004 7:46:05 AM)

Gee I guess I should just agree with everything you say, and never talk about anything meaningfull

typical liberal. Speak crap about USA where its only just " reasonable discourse " and ppl cannot safely inform you that you are full of **** (w/out you crying to the mod like a little girl). If you wanna talk ****, take it to Mad Cow [8|]



eltaco -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/17/2004 8:28:11 AM)

I guess everyone fails to forget about the nuke question is.....................


The usa warned japan also of delivering a weapon of "great destruction"

and in modern day we warned other countries we would invade way ahead of time ie ...iraq

do other countries do this?

also General billy ............says sadam used chemical on iran because being outnumbered 5 to 1

what about the people of northern iraq ? 5k dead his own people?



general billy -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/17/2004 9:43:31 AM)

@Oznoyng, I like the way you wrote that, and I agree with you [:)]



@eltaco, I wouldn’t say that the Kurds are his very own people, they were a group of people that are in Iraq that wanted independence, and weren’t exactly trust worthy in the eyes of saddam since they helped Iran during the iran/iraq war. Too me, I see America doing the same, trying to suppress the kurd/shia(Islamic) uprising just like saddam, they are a problem for Iraq some would say. Using weapons of mass destruction shouldn’t be used [:-], but sometimes it solves the problem i.e. the A-Bomb. Instead of losing ur own men, why not just send the chemicals or radiation to kill them its saves a lot of work.
Infact the British was the first to try out chemical weapons on the Kurds [X(], it really solved their problems during their stay in Iraq.
http://www.againstbombing.org/chemical.htm

However today, we expect better from nations, hopefully no nation will ever use weapons of mass destruction again.



Tophat -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/17/2004 10:09:40 AM)

What???

I wouldnt say that the kurds are his very own people, they were a group of people that are in iraq that wanted independence, and werent exactly trust worthy in the eyes of saddam. Too me, I see america doing the same trying to surpress the shia(islamic) uprising just like saddam, they are a problem for iraq some would say.



So are you also of the mindset that the "evil americans" have simply manufactured the current world situation?



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/17/2004 10:34:34 AM)

If this was such a universal technology, why are we still here? Let's just nuke everything! The US only had a few nukes by 1950...a country not touched by a bombing campaign, but many still think that Germany and Japan could have equalled the Manhattan Project?!? Read more than a few comics, people. Germany was barely able to function with synthetic fuels, Japan?...played with hard water coolants but could not manufacture decent material for aircraft production. No way these countries could have developed these technologies, considering the victors took so long.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/17/2004 10:40:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mavraam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jack Shelak

Japan did have an atomic bomb program, how far they got no one knows:

http://vikingphoenix.com/public/JapanIncorporated/1895-1945/jp-abomb.htm

What I find interesting is that although Germany had deadly nerve gases (e.g. Sarin) and Japan had biological wepons, only the U.S. used weapons of mass destruction. Just an observation, call off the home guard!!


Churchhill wanted to use chemical weapons (mustard gas?) but was advised by his military experts that it was an inefficient way to bomb because it would just kill some people but not destroy idustry. Plus, Germans would have just had their workers put on gas masks during air raids and it would have been useless.

I'm sure the Germans came to the same conclusion. Certainly morality never figured in any of their decisions.

BTW, Japan did use bio-weapons against both Koreans and Chinese IIRC.

And one could argue that concentration camps and gulags were weapons of mass destruction of sorts.


And the Americans were willing to use mustard gas in Europe. The German attack on Bari Italy showed that the US was more than willing.



rroberson -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/17/2004 11:08:51 AM)

Im reading The Invasion of Japan: Alternative to the Bomb by John Ray Skates it goes into great depth regarding the possible invasion and the necessity of the bombs. I havent decided if he is bending his opinion to suit revisionist history yet, but I am enjoying the read....



spence -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/17/2004 11:09:05 AM)

Every major belligerent in WWII was capable of waging chemical warfare. But every major belligerent understood that chemical weapons were not a battlefield wonderweapon likely to effect in any major way the strategic situation. They were worried considerably by the possible effect of their enemies using chemical weapons against their untrained and unprotected civilian populations.......so rather than give their enemy an excuse to do so the various countries refrained. Everybody was ready to retaliate should their enemy violate the unwritten agreement though (witness Bari).
I am pretty sure that even the Japanese refrained from chemical weapons use once they got themselves into a shooting war with countries that also had the means to retaliate in kind. Their uses of chemical and biological weapons pre-dated Pearl Harbor (I think).

WHATS THIS STUFF ABOUT A CANADIAN INVASION OF VERMONT? INFILTRATING OLD ORCHARD BEACH AND CAPE COD UNDER COVER OF CONSTRUCTION HOLIDAY TO BOOT BEFORE STRIKING!!!!!!!!!!! PERFIDIOUS CANADIANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



kaleun -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/17/2004 2:34:41 PM)

quote:

I wouldnt say that the kurds are his very own people, they were a group of people that are in iraq that wanted independence, and werent exactly trust worthy in the eyes of saddam. Too me, I see america doing the same trying to surpress the shia(islamic) uprising just like saddam, they are a problem for iraq some would say


They WERE his own people; a different ethnic or religious group, but still as Iraqis as the Shia or Sunni. Did they want independence? Yes; so do the Norhtern Irish Catholics; Are they not UK subjects then? Of course the UK would never gas the Northern Irish, but that is PRECISELY the difference, the UK would not gas their own subjects, neither would Spain gas the Basques, or France the Corsicans (Two other countries with Independence seeking areas).



Mike Scholl -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/17/2004 3:27:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: andytimtim

this question has been bother me for awhile after finding out about this game...Can Japan build Nuclear Bombs and drop them on the West Coast?
-Sorry if this has been brought up before!!


In answer to the original question..., You gotta be kidding? The cost and effort the US
expended on the Manhattan Project EXCEEDED Japan's whole economic war effort.
Japan had about as much chance of creating an A-Bomb in the 40's as she did of
landing a man on the moon.



swatter555 -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/17/2004 3:58:13 PM)

"Japan did have an atomic bomb program, how far they got no one knows:

http://vikingphoenix.com/public/JapanIncorporated/1895-1945/jp-abomb.htm

What I find interesting is that although Germany had deadly nerve gases (e.g. Sarin) and Japan had biological wepons, only the U.S. used weapons of mass destruction. Just an observation, call off the home guard!!"

In this forum I am a bit surprised such discussions can be started. This isnt a game widely known in the popular culture. If your playing WitP, you are a history nut, plain and simple. Can a person's current political views influence a sane view of history?? I guess so.

The fact is, the dropping of the atomic bombs was horrible, and the long-term after affects devastating. People being burned into the sidewalk are not a thing I ever want to see. Yet, it saved many more lives then it took. I suggest that the above poster go back and read more books. You logic is rusty and you are far to biased to be taken seriously.

First off, Japanese culture prohibited surrender. Even after the atomic bombs were dropped, there was almost a successful coup which would have prolonged the war. If the Japanese thought they could kill Americans and possibly cause us to tire, they would have continued the fight to the very end.

The Japanese not only had a fully equipped army of at least a couple million on the home islands, they also mobilized a civilian militia which would have conducted suicide attacks on soldiers. From previous fighting experience with the Japanese, Allied casualties in the million range probably wouldn’t be unlikely. Also, from previous experience the Japanese would have taken 10x as many casualties, mostly dead. If the civilian reaction to invasion would have been similar to Okinawa, its possible millions of civilians would have committed suicide.

If a full-scale invasion of the home islands took place, I wouldn’t be surprised if 10 million Japanese died. The atomic bombs were certainly an evil, but definitely a lesser evil.

Even if my figures are cut in half, the argument is still just as strong. It’s a weird thing to say, in a larger scope, the atomic bombs actually saved millions of lives.



swatter555 -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/17/2004 4:12:52 PM)

"I wouldnt say that the kurds are his very own people, they were a group of people that are in iraq that wanted independence, and werent exactly trust worthy in the eyes of saddam. Too me, I see america doing the same trying to surpress the shia(islamic) uprising just like saddam, they are a problem for iraq some would say."

Wow, can we at least keep this related to the pacific theater during WWII? If your here and interested in playing a game like WitP, I assume you have a good interest in history. If this is the case, please try and keep your views rational and based on something. Lets keep popular culture and the brainless opinions the popular culture pervades out of here.



rlc27 -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/17/2004 4:27:03 PM)

The whole notion of "weapons of mass destruction" is a product of the past 5 years.
But I don't think anyone has ever adequately defined exactly what one is.
You could argue that a single bomb dropped from a B-17 is a "weapon of mass destruction."
The term simply did not apply back in '45, especially since we were at that time in a "world war." In any case, what people always forget are that the mass firebombing B-29 raid on Tokyo caused more casualties than *both* atomic bombs put together. That Germany would have used the bomb if it had it is nearly certain, recall the London Blitz and the V-2.

Some historians argue that dropping the bombs saved more Japanese lives than American ones, which I would tend to believe looking at how Okinawa turned out for the Japanese.

Not sure what everyone is arguing out.[:-]



hithere -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/17/2004 5:18:28 PM)

i think that this thread should be locked or at least moved. it clearly no longer has anything to due with the game. the original question has been answered several times. ofcourse that it just my opinion.



kaleun -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/17/2004 5:19:06 PM)

Second!



mjk428 -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/17/2004 9:39:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

And the Americans were willing to use mustard gas in Europe. The German attack on Bari Italy showed that the US was more than willing.


The US didn't pledge to never use chemical weapons against the Axis. Roosevelt pledged not to use them first. Implicit in that was that we would use them in retaliation. Since Germany had their chemical weapons at hand, we needed to have ours at hand in order to respond. That's all Bari Italy showed. The US kept its pledge.

So Jack Shelak is right. Except of course for the chemical agents the Germans used at their death camps; and except for the biological and chemical weapons used by the Japanese in China (before & after 12/7/41); the US was indeed the only country to use WMD in WW2.[8|]

http://www.marshallnet.com/~manor/ww2/unit731.html

http://www.geocities.com/onemansmind/hr/methods/Inject.html



Chijohnaok2 -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/19/2004 2:30:32 AM)

quote:

now just say the US was being invaded by the nearly the whole world and there was no hope in winning, i have a strong feeling that the US would use again Nukes just to survive, look at afganistan, they were using daisy cutter which are like miniture nukes, on guys that was using 1950's weopons


General Billy, since you've brought up the subject of using advanced weapons against an enemy equipped with inferior weapons and have made a moral judgement for someone doing that, can you please explain the British's use of biological warfare in the 18th century in not just one but possibly two different wars?

Please review the following information I pulled from the BBC website:

>>>
In the 18th century, the British fought France and its Indian allies for possession of what was to become Canada during the French and Indian Wars (1754-63). At the time of the Pontiac rebellion in 1763, Sir Jeffrey Amherst, the Commander-in-Chief of the British forces in North America, wrote to Colonel Henry Bouquet: 'Could it not be contrived to send smallpox among these disaffected tribes of Indians? We must use every stratagem in our power to reduce them.' The colonel replied: 'I will try to inoculate the [Native American tribe] with some blankets that may fall in their hands, and take care not to get the disease myself.' Smallpox decimated the Native Americans, who had never been exposed to the disease before and had no immunity.
<<<<<

Weren't the Native American's largely armed with tomahawks and bows and arrows. Following your implied logic, it does not sound really sporting for someone armed with muskets and cannons to be fighting against an opponent armed with tomahawks and sticks tipped with little stones......and then to resort to biological weapons to add insult to injury.....

Sounds to me as if the British in this case were seeking the genocide of the Native Americans.

And if that's not enough, there is the following possible incident of use of biological warfare by the British again:

>>>>>>It has been alleged that smallpox was also used as a weapon during the American Revolutionary War (1775-83). During the winter of 1775-76, American forces were attempting to free Quebec from British control. After capturing Montreal, it looked as if they might succeed. But in December 1775, the British fort commander reportedly had civilians immunised against the disease and then deliberately sent out to infect the American troops. A few weeks later a major smallpox epidemic broke out in the American ranks, affecting about half of the 10,000 soldiers. They retreated in chaos after burying their dead in mass graves<<<<<<

You can find both these at http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/coldwar/pox_weapon_01.shtml

PS I won't even touch upon the war the British fought against the Zulu's in the 1870's...repeating rifles against an enemy equipped with spears.....

I do not recall who said it (and may just be paraphrasing here), but a wise person once said "Those who live in glass houses should avoid throwing rocks". [:-][:-][:-][:-]



myros -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/19/2004 3:31:25 AM)

Interesting discussion ... if a little off topic ;)

It seems to me that we really need to keep the past in context with the ideas and politics of the time it occured in. It can be easy for us to sit here with the benefit of hindsight to assess and judge the actions of leaders from WWII but many actions taken then would be considered the worst kind of "evil" now. Just look at the amount of time and money that is spent avoiding or minimising civilian casualties these days, when you look back at WWII there are many cases where the civilian sector was deliberatly targeted (the a-bombs being 2 of those cases among many.) It was modern 'terrorism' in its infancy and IMO all such acts were immoral and criminal ... justifiable? Perhaps. But to me that just stinks of the "end justifies the means" concept which can lead to all kinds of madness. Would 2 bombs dropped in mostly unihabited spots not have been just as an effective warning? Guess we'll never know.

Myros



Blackhorse -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/19/2004 5:21:24 AM)

According to Richard Frank, author of Downfall: The End of the Japanese Empire, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff had a broad range of estimated likely casualties for an invasion of Japan.

The invasion (Operation Downfall) would have been in two parts; a November 1st invasion of Kyushu (Operation Olympic), and a March 1st, 1946 invasion of Honshu, around Tokyo (Operation Coronet).

The plans for Olympic called for 767,000 US soldiers to invade Kyushu, capture the Southern third of the island within 90 days, and build airfields to support the decisive invasion in 1946. US casualties just for the first invasion were projected to be between a low of 149,000 (29,000 Kia) based on protracted campaigns in Europe, and a high of 514,000 (135,000 Kia) based on the casualty rates sustained thusfar in the Pacific amphibious campaigns.

Frank believes that even the high estimate, based on Okinawa and other fights against the Japanese, was understated. The US invasion plans, and casualty estimates, were based on the expectation that the Japanese would have about 350,000 combat troops on Kyushu. But the Japanese High Command had divined the intentions of the Allies, and had at least 680,000 troops on the island, butressed by hundreds of thousands of semi-trained auxillaries.

Frank's 'conservative' estimate of deaths from Operation Olympic alone are:

Allied Army: 135,000
Allied Navy: 7,000 (mostly from kamikazes)
Japan Army: 200,000
Jpn civilian: 380,000
TOTAL 722,000 dead in 90 days of fighting . . .

. . . and then they'd do it all over again in March of 1946. [:(]



Mike Scholl -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/19/2004 10:02:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: myros

Would 2 bombs dropped in mostly unihabited spots not have been just as an effective warning? Guess we'll never know.

Myros



Anyone who's IQ has three digits can figure it out. If losing the Marianas, Iwo Jima,
and Okinawa; and total control of the skies over their own homeland hadn't been
enough to convince the Japanese war leaders that it was time to quit..., why do fools
think they would have been impressed by the dropping of a couple of bombs in an
uninhabited area? They probably would have used the event as propaganda saying
the Americans were so afraid of Japanese defenses that they purposely dropped their
bombs way off target. By the 8th of August the IJA was already trying to convince
people that white clothing was adequate protection against A-Bombs.



Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/19/2004 10:42:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jack Shelak
What I find interesting is that although Germany had deadly nerve gases (e.g. Sarin) and Japan had biological wepons, only the U.S. used weapons of mass destruction. Just an observation, call off the home guard!!
Relevancy?

The US was also the only country to conduct to conduct a precision bombing campaign, while the Germans were the only ones to conduct a protracted strategic campaign with rockets. The US was the only nation to effectively carry out a submarine/U-boat campaign (the Germans tried, but they were not all that effective). So?



Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/19/2004 10:49:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: general billy
The US took the easy way out, but I think that weopons of mass dustruction should be used only as a last resort if you losing badly in a war, not to be used if you winning. I heard saddam hussian used chemicals weopons because he was outnumbered 5 to 1 when he was fighting Iran and shia rebels in his country that allied with Iran, some would say he done a good job because he saved the sunni minority but we consider him a bad guy. [8|]
Actually it was the British, who having found the bombing of industry to difficult, resort to simply killing civilians, as the goal of Butcher Harris was simply to annihilate the German civilian population. Unfortunately for the Brits, it was so poorly done that for every six German children killed, they were losing a trained crewman. They tried to take the easy way out, but it actually was very costly.



Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/19/2004 10:50:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: general billy

By the way, did the US warn the japs that they were going to nuke a few of their cities if they didnt stop the war??
Yes.

We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark.
Anyway we "think" we have found the way to cause a disintegration of the atom. An experiment in the New Mexico desert was startling - to put it mildly. Thirteen pounds of the explosive caused the complete disintegration of a steel tower 60 feet high, created a crater 6 feet deep and 1,200 feet in diameter, knocked over a steel tower 1/2 mile away and knocked men down 10,000 yards away. The explosion was visible for more than 200 miles and audible for 40 miles and more.
This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.

He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful...


Harry S. Truman, Diary, July 25, 1945




In May 1945, Manhattan Project officials set up a committee to pick the best targets.

The committee examined the range of a fully loaded B-29, identified cities undamaged enough to serve as a measure of the bomb's destruction, examined weather conditions and considered the military value of potential targets.

By late July, the group had a list of four cities:

Kokura, which had one of Japan's largest munitions plants.

Hiroshima, a major staging area for Japan's army and navy and the site of several industrial plants.

Niigata, a major port on the Sea of Japan with an oil refinery, a tanker terminal and an iron works.

Kyoto, the former capital of Japan, a major industrial city with plants producing parts for machinery, aircraft and artillery.

Stimson wanted Kyoto off the list because of its religious and historical significance to Japan.

Gen. Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, wanted Kyoto to remain on the list because he believed it was a legitimate military target, and because its huge size made it a good gauge for the effects of an atomic blast. Stimson overruled Groves, and Nagasaki was added in Kyoto's place.

For the first mission, Hiroshima would be the primary target, Kokura would be the second choice and Nagasaki the third.

On the second mission, Kokura would be the target, and Nagasaki would be the backup. Niigata was too far away to be a practical third choice.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.734863