Hiroshima mon amour.

[Husar]

Other courses; i.e. not dropping the bomb; could lead to more deaths; which is expected when one fight for national interests.

And how are more deaths suddenly to be expected and somehow better than less deaths?
It's not like the Japanese weren't fighting for national interests either and killing a majority to "save" a minority is no better than killing a minority to "save" a majority.

[Viking]

And how are more deaths suddenly to be expected and somehow better than less deaths?

It's expected, but not better. I still do not intend to have civilians killed; however there would have been as I was not the one in charge.

It's not like the Japanese weren't fighting for national interests either and killing a majority to "save" a minority is no better than killing a minority to "save" a majority.

I am not saying the Japanese are any better; quite on the contrary, they started this part of WW2.

[Martok]

Wow, I never thought I'd find myself in simultaneous agreement with both PanzerJaeger and Krook. Guess I'll have to look out for the flying pigs now.

The bombings are a part of the 'greater good' nonsense.

No, they're not. In fact, it's patently absurd that anyone can say it was nonsense. As horrible as the bombings were, they *did* save lives -- far more than the poor souls lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Even the most conservative estimates show that were we to have invaded the Home Islands, American casualties alone would have been at least 500,000, with Japanese casualties (both military and civilian) in the millions. Some of the more pessimistic numbers estimated 2-4 million U.S. casualties and over 20 million Japanese. While I'll admit the latter estimates are probably a bit extreme, even the lower numbers are still horrifying.

Don't get me wrong: I don't like what we did. I don't like that our primary concern was to minimize American casualties at the cost of Japanese civilians who'd never harmed anyone. From a military perspective, though, I feel we made the right decision. The simple, brutal truth is that when the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki died, they ended up saving not only the lives of American GI's, but millions of their own countrymen as well.

Even if they had to be used there was no military reason to hit civilian targets. This was a show of force and new capability, and a bit of bluff as USA did not have many bombs, and a remote area or military target could have been found instead. They did not have to destroy cities to get the attention of the Japanese government.

I disagree. If we'd only hit military targets, I don't think the Japanese government would've reacted the same way. By deliberately targeting civilians, we were finally demonstrating a willingness to be as savage & inhumane to them as they had been to us. I honestly believe that it was that which finally got through to them.

[Viking]

No, they're not. In fact, it's patently absurd that anyone can say it was nonsense. As horrible as the bombings were, they *did* save lives -- far more than the poor souls lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Perhaps if one compare to the option of invading Japan, which I do not.

From a military perspective, though, I feel we made the right decision.

Yes, from a military point of view it was an excellent decision, as history shows. I do certainly not contest that.

[CBR]

I disagree. If we'd only hit military targets, I don't think the Japanese government would've reacted the same way. By deliberately targeting civilians, we were finally demonstrating a willingness to be as savage & inhumane to them as they had been to us. I honestly believe that it was that which finally got through to them.

US had made that perfectly clear by the firebombing of Japanese cities months before they dropped the A-bombs. One example would be the air raid on March 9-10 1945 that killed an estimated 88,000 people.

In that sense the A-bombs were no different except using a new much more devastating weapon.


CBR