70 Years Ago We Killed A Ton Of People

cobra_commanderlol
We went to Somalia with operation Restore Hope right after Desert Storm. The casualties from Gothic Serpent were influential in keeping the US from getting involved in Rwanda a year latter. Something the UN and most people wished we had stopped. President Obama got yelled at by the GOP for getting involved in Libya. The 101st Airborne deployed to West Africa to help fight Ebola just last fall.

Needless to say, we have been involved in Africa and will continue to do so. We have several lower profile FID missions across Africa currently. You mentioned Botswana in another thread. I have personal experience working with the Botswana military.

France also generally prefers to take the lead on many African issue.

onenerdykidBut it didn't end the war on the spot and Japan kept on fighting (and would have for sure) until Russia declared war on Japan too. That was what (at least historically is thought to) brought an end to the war.



The US government definitely had an idea of the destruction and amount of civilian death dropping those bombs would total since they tested one in the desert of New Mexico. They knew full well what they were doing and what it would do to the innocent people there and the city itself. The huge loss of civilian life (people like you & me who were not fighting the war) is one of the reasons why no country has used one since.





In modern warfare, we don't target civilians on a small scale nor a large, especially an entire city large. While yes we have devices locked onto certain cities should an attack be provoked towards us, it's possibility is what is mainly used as a deterrent towards other nuclear armed countries. What the US did to Japan 70 years ago is completely deplorable- there is no way around that. Civilians are not the targets in warfare and when they are, it is completely immoral and wrong.

californiagrownfire bombing

californiagrownYou are using today's standards and today's weapons to judge a war fought 70 years ago. That is moronic.

The fire bombing of Tokyo was a far, far worse act. But because that falls under the umbrella of normal weaponry it doesn't receive the same criticism as dropping the nukes.

Saving 1 more American life by ending the war was worth it IMO.

onenerdykidBeing opposed to killing innocent people is moronic? I'm sure killing innocent civilians was morally wrong 70 years ago as it was 5,000 years ago since there really isn't a time limit on it.

And you can have your opinion, but saying that 1 American life is worth more than any number of Japanese lives is pretty ridiculous. From their point of view, it could have been that saving 1 Japanese life is more important than saving any number of American lives, which is equally as foolish.

californiagrownThe USA didn't want the war. Japan did. Americans shouldn't have to suffer for a war they didn't start.

onenerdykidPerhaps, but Japanese civilians shouldn't bear the brunt of a US military attack, especially when the Japanese military attacked a US military base not a US civilian city.

californiagrownYou seem to forget that in a draft, civilians are drafted onto the military. Japan was killing our once civilian population.

Again, saving one American life in a war we didn't start is worth it.


What should America have done? Japan knew Russia was coming and didn't surrender. Only after Nagasaki did they surrender.

theabortionatorSo 70 years ago yesterday and 2 days from now we(USA) killed a massive amount of people, many of them civilians in Japan.

At the same time, we consistently remember Pearl Harbor, mourn it, talk about it, watch movies about it when that date comes yet seem to ignore these dates completely.

I don't get it. We killed as many as 100 times more people in Japan, many of them civilians, versus the much smaller amount of people, who were almost exclusively military killed at Pearl Harbor.

Why do we do this with history? If somebody wrongs us, we'll have movies, books, and any other media coming out about it a million years after, accounts of how horrible it was, how bad the people were who did it etc. Yet on the other hand, we can do some fucked up shit, and then casually brush it off because, we were on the other side, and we've already spun the history books to support us/make us feel better.

I jumped around the webz a bit while this tab was open and saw that a few places did actually write articles or at least mention the attack this year. That's nice to see.

We talk about other countries nuclear policies as if we've got our shit together yet we're the only country to nuke anyone, we did it twice, we don't even acknowledge that it was wrong, or generally really mention it at all.

THEBONEdude honestly how have fucking time to write this bullshit??

when was the last time you even got laid? you sound so mother fucking frustrated

S.J.WFrom the wars America has been involved in, you've been to Africa once. Along with 14 other countries helping Somilia.

And why do you think every republican is so pissed off about Obama making a deal with Iran? Because there's no money to be made in a deal. There's money to be in a war.

THEBONEdude honestly how have fucking time to write this bullshit??

when was the last time you even got laid? you sound so mother fucking frustrated

A-cAllThe one thing people don't seem to think about is the war of a attrition we would have had to fight across japan. In this time in Japanese culture, death or annihilation were preferred over capture or surrender. Honor in battle was a huge thing, and a big factor in unleashing those bombs was that it showed the Japanese there was no honor to be had in the rest of the war against the weapons the US had.

theabortionatorNo. This is actually the onr horrible argument that everybody tries to make. Thier culture wasnt one to surrender therefore killing that many civilians was not only judtifiable, but the prefered route.

Its fucked how casually people shrug it off.

johnnyBuzI haven't read any of the responses so pardon me if it's been mentioned, but for those that are unaware, we actually killed far more Japanese with napalm strikes than both atom bombs combined. Napalm is a nasty nasty weapon.

theabortionatorSo 70 years ago yesterday and 2 days from now we(USA) killed a massive amount of people, many of them civilians in Japan.

At the same time, we consistently remember Pearl Harbor, mourn it, talk about it, watch movies about it when that date comes yet seem to ignore these dates completely.

I don't get it. We killed as many as 100 times more people in Japan, many of them civilians, versus the much smaller amount of people, who were almost exclusively military killed at Pearl Harbor.

Why do we do this with history? If somebody wrongs us, we'll have movies, books, and any other media coming out about it a million years after, accounts of how horrible it was, how bad the people were who did it etc. Yet on the other hand, we can do some fucked up shit, and then casually brush it off because, we were on the other side, and we've already spun the history books to support us/make us feel better.

I jumped around the webz a bit while this tab was open and saw that a few places did actually write articles or at least mention the attack this year. That's nice to see.

We talk about other countries nuclear policies as if we've got our shit together yet we're the only country to nuke anyone, we did it twice, we don't even acknowledge that it was wrong, or generally really mention it at all.

cobra_commanderWould you have preferred the U.S. Got involved in the Rhodesian Bush War

theabortionatorSo 70 years ago yesterday and 2 days from now we(USA) killed a massive amount of people, many of them civilians in Japan.

At the same time, we consistently remember Pearl Harbor, mourn it, talk about it, watch movies about it when that date comes yet seem to ignore these dates completely.

I don't get it. We killed as many as 100 times more people in Japan, many of them civilians, versus the much smaller amount of people, who were almost exclusively military killed at Pearl Harbor.

Why do we do this with history? If somebody wrongs us, we'll have movies, books, and any other media coming out about it a million years after, accounts of how horrible it was, how bad the people were who did it etc. Yet on the other hand, we can do some fucked up shit, and then casually brush it off because, we were on the other side, and we've already spun the history books to support us/make us feel better.

I jumped around the webz a bit while this tab was open and saw that a few places did actually write articles or at least mention the attack this year. That's nice to see.

We talk about other countries nuclear policies as if we've got our shit together yet we're the only country to nuke anyone, we did it twice, we don't even acknowledge that it was wrong, or generally really mention it at all.

theabortionatorSo 70 years ago yesterday and 2 days from now we(USA) killed a massive amount of people, many of them civilians in Japan.

At the same time, we consistently remember Pearl Harbor, mourn it, talk about it, watch movies about it when that date comes yet seem to ignore these dates completely.

I don't get it. We killed as many as 100 times more people in Japan, many of them civilians, versus the much smaller amount of people, who were almost exclusively military killed at Pearl Harbor.

Why do we do this with history? If somebody wrongs us, we'll have movies, books, and any other media coming out about it a million years after, accounts of how horrible it was, how bad the people were who did it etc. Yet on the other hand, we can do some fucked up shit, and then casually brush it off because, we were on the other side, and we've already spun the history books to support us/make us feel better.

I jumped around the webz a bit while this tab was open and saw that a few places did actually write articles or at least mention the attack this year. That's nice to see.

We talk about other countries nuclear policies as if we've got our shit together yet we're the only country to nuke anyone, we did it twice, we don't even acknowledge that it was wrong, or generally really mention it at all.

HappynomadFuck u john muir just be happy ur not working factory for Nippon u privileged fuck ur not worth the salt of you ancestors fuck off and die.

AnGaperThey killed 2000 Americans unprovoked, at which point we had no choice but to fight back. There would have been twice the amount of deaths in Japan if we hadn't dropped the bombs. Japanese wouldn't have stopped fighting, and we wouldn't have stopped killing everyone.

theabortionatorWork on your trolling game for next time. Better yet, ditch the alias, and maybe just ditch the internet in general.



I mean, they killed 2000 American MILITARY members. Fighting back is fine, dropping a nuclear bomb on CIVILIANS isn't.

And fuck this excuse that everyone tries to make about their being more deaths in the scenario where we didn't drop the bomb. We killed ridiculous amount of civilians and we never really took the blame for it. It's fucked up, America fucked up.

If this happened the other way, it would be Terrorism, but because we're America somehow we've spun ourselves into heroes for the history books once again

theabortionatorWork on your trolling game for next time. Better yet, ditch the alias, and maybe just ditch the internet in general.



I mean, they killed 2000 American MILITARY members. Fighting back is fine, dropping a nuclear bomb on CIVILIANS isn't.

And fuck this excuse that everyone tries to make about their being more deaths in the scenario where we didn't drop the bomb. We killed ridiculous amount of civilians and we never really took the blame for it. It's fucked up, America fucked up.

If this happened the other way, it would be Terrorism, but because we're America somehow we've spun ourselves into heroes for the history books once again

Monsieur_PatateOne would think that people could easily agree that targeting innocent civilians during a war is a shit thing to do, no matter the reason. But not on NS apparently.

And if you think it was somehow justified, I'd like to point out that Gore Vidal is one of many who have exposed "the great myth" that Harry Truman dropped his two atom bombs because he feared that a million American lives would be lost. Admiral Nimitz, on the spot in the Pacific, and General Eisenhower, brooding elsewhere, (Churchill too) disagreed. The Japanese had already lost the war, they said, and had been trying to surrender since the May 1945 devastation of Tokyo by the US B-29 bombers, with a minimum loss of "face".

But I know, why would you trust people like Churchill and Eisenhower when you have "cobra_commander" dropping knowledge on NS, right?

Each trip to NSG is a thrill, I'm discovering people are still debating things I believe were settled a long time ago.
I'll just add this topic to the list. You know, next to "Is climate change a real thing?", and "Is there statistical proof from all around the world that gun control laws actually reduce gun deaths?".

Explaining things to idiots is very exhausting.

S.J.WThe US and Kuwait were not allies at the time though. If anything the US only cared about Persian Gulf for shipping and not actually Kuwait and it's soveignty.

And the US was still in Iraq from 91 up until 911. So I wouldn't exactly call it unprovoked.

S.J.WThen how come the US isn't helping with the problems in Africa? Is it possible because the US has no economic benefit from helping Africa?

S.J.WThe US and Kuwait were not allies at the time though. If anything the US only cared about Persian Gulf for shipping and not actually Kuwait and it's soveignty.

And the US was still in Iraq from 91 up until 911. So I wouldn't exactly call it unprovoked.

S.J.WIf you have two countries that both need help,and those countries are 100% equal. In my opinion, the country which gets the help is the country that is more likely to be invaded or fall back in trouble once forces pull out. If you base your choices on who you choose to help with which country will give you the most money then you end up with a dependence on war and a military industrial complex. Like the one that already exists in the US.

A-cAllThe one thing people don't seem to think about is the war of a attrition we would have had to fight across japan. In this time in Japanese culture, death or annihilation were preferred over capture or surrender. Honor in battle was a huge thing, and a big factor in unleashing those bombs was that it showed the Japanese there was no honor to be had in the rest of the war against the weapons the US had.

Dustin.You literally just described Afghanistan. Like, the most poor and useless country in the world. You unproved your own point in 2 sentences, I'm actually impressed. And you are pointing a lot of fingers at America as if Canada isn't part of nearly everything the US does these days. Are book illegal where you live? Is this a joke? I'm really confused.

californiagrownThe issue is, you are wrong. The Japanese weren't trying to surrender. They were trying to end the war while leaving the imperialistic military and government in power.

But you probly believe that we should have granted the Japanese those concessions, right?

mirozWere you there?

As you know, history is written by the victor - at least, to the victor's people. We (Americans) learn that the bombs ended the Pacific campaign. Japanese schoolchildren learn that the end of the war was caused by a Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the loss of potential mediation with Moscow. They learn that the bombs were just US posturing for the beginning of the Cold War.

So which side is right? And does it matter? Is military action targeting civilians ever okay? I think that question is more ideological than it is dependent on circumstance...

californiagrownThe Japanese weren't trying to surrender. They were trying to end the war while leaving the imperialistic military and government in power.

But you probly believe that we should have granted the Japanese those concessions, right?

californiagrownmaybe for the same reason german kids aren't taught at all about the holocaust... To keep patriotism alive in the country.

Monsieur_PatateIf you want to be taken seriously, you should try to have proper sources to back up your claims. Just saying something on the Internet doesn't make it true.

The idea that it was militarily necessary to drop the atomic bomb in 1945 is now discredited. The first exhaustive examination of Japanese, Soviet and US archives, by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, confirms the argument that Truman went ahead in order to get Japan to end the war quickly before the Soviet Union came into the Pacific war and demanded a say in Asia.

With 62 Japanese cities destroyed by firebombs and napalm, Japan was not overwhelmed by the destruction of one more. The army minister, General Korechika Anami, told the supreme war council that he would fight on. What actually brought about surrender was the combination of the Soviet Union's entry into the war on August 8 and the US decision to let Japan retain the emperor.

You just don't know what you are talking about.



What on earth are you talking about? German kids learn about the holocaust from like age 9 or 10, they even make school trips to concentration camps.

Everything you say is just wrong, man. You need to do some research before spreading your uneducated "opinions" when we're talking about facts. You are the reason so much misconceptions spread on the Internet.

Monsieur_PatateIf you want to be taken seriously, you should try to have proper sources to back up your claims. Just saying something on the Internet doesn't make it true.

The idea that it was militarily necessary to drop the atomic bomb in 1945 is now discredited. The first exhaustive examination of Japanese, Soviet and US archives, by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, confirms the argument that Truman went ahead in order to get Japan to end the war quickly before the Soviet Union came into the Pacific war and demanded a say in Asia.

With 62 Japanese cities destroyed by firebombs and napalm, Japan was not overwhelmed by the destruction of one more. The army minister, General Korechika Anami, told the supreme war council that he would fight on. What actually brought about surrender was the combination of the Soviet Union's entry into the war on August 8 and the US decision to let Japan retain the emperor.

You just don't know what you are talking about.



What on earth are you talking about? German kids learn about the holocaust from like age 9 or 10, they even make school trips to concentration camps.

Everything you say is just wrong, man. You need to do some research before spreading your uneducated "opinions" when we're talking about facts. You are the reason so much misconceptions spread on the Internet.

Monsieur_PatateIf you want to be taken seriously, you should try to have proper sources to back up your claims. Just saying something on the Internet doesn't make it true.

The idea that it was militarily necessary to drop the atomic bomb in 1945 is now discredited. The first exhaustive examination of Japanese, Soviet and US archives, by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, confirms the argument that Truman went ahead in order to get Japan to end the war quickly before the Soviet Union came into the Pacific war and demanded a say in Asia.

With 62 Japanese cities destroyed by firebombs and napalm, Japan was not overwhelmed by the destruction of one more. The army minister, General Korechika Anami, told the supreme war council that he would fight on. What actually brought about surrender was the combination of the Soviet Union's entry into the war on August 8 and the US decision to let Japan retain the emperor.

You just don't know what you are talking about.



What on earth are you talking about? German kids learn about the holocaust from like age 9 or 10, they even make school trips to concentration camps.

Everything you say is just wrong, man. You need to do some research before spreading your uneducated "opinions" when we're talking about facts. You are the reason so much misconceptions spread on the Internet.

californiagrownPlease cite said study... Cause there isn't one.

And no, Germans were taught pretty much nothing about the holocaust because if they were they would find out their grandparents and parents were nazis and were complicit in genocide.

corgESpeaking of research...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

californiagrownPlease cite said study... Cause there isn't one.

And no, Germans were taught pretty much nothing about the holocaust because if they were they would find out their grandparents and parents were nazis and were complicit in genocide.

Pill_CosbyYou just told him he needs sources to be taken seriously, then proceed to use no sources yourself. Youre a fucking idiot

californiagrownPlease cite said study... Cause there isn't one.

And no, Germans were taught pretty much nothing about the holocaust because if they were they would find out their grandparents and parents were nazis and were complicit in genocide.

Monsieur_PatateWell, it's the first time, so I'll take the time to answer to you, even though you obviously have some kind of mental disability.
As I said, I'm basing my argument on the work and findings of Tsuyoshi Hasegawa. ("Tsuyoshi Hasegawa is a Japanese historian, who teaches at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where he is director of the Cold War Studies program. He received his Ph.D. from University of Washington in 1969."). You can go now.