If preemptive strikes are justified....Follow

Speaking of cites, show me your evidence that they just picked these cities out of a hat or asked the pilots where they wanted to fly to that day on?

"Well, boys, I'm in the mood to do some Japanese sightseeing. Nah, don't bother taking all those parachutes along, we got those bombs clutering up the joint-- not enough room on the plane. Let's dump those things on the way to Tokyo-- I want some pictures to show the grandkids of the emperor!"

Arbitrary, my a$$.

Totem

Your argument only works if the following is the case:

They didn't have a prior list of targets with Hiroshima and Nagasaki on them, but decided they had intresting topology and that they'd be good choices.

Are you really comfortable with that?

I disagree. I belive it was the fastest, most effective way to end the war. I also belive it lead to less casualties then would have happened if we invaded Japan.

This is a small quote on how casualtie ratios would be calculated by the U.S. Army-Airforce at the time of World War II.

Here is the link: http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/invade.htm

"In our Saipan operation, it cost approximately one American killed and several wounded to exterminate seven Japanese soldiers. On this basis it might cost us half a million American lives and many times that number wounded . . . in the home islands."

This "Saipan ratio" set the standard for strategic-level casualty projections in the Pacific. Together with the experience of combat attrition of line infantry units in Europe, plus the assumption that fighting in Japan could stretch nearly as far as 1947, it provided the basis for the Army and War Department manpower policy for 1945, and, thus, the pace for the big jump in Selective Service inductions and expansion of the training base even as the war in Europe was winding down.^48

A minimum of 104 copies^49 of "Operations Against Japan Subsequent to Formosa" were distributed to the Secretary of War, all four members of the JCS, their deputies, certain OPD group chiefs, and a wide variety of officers and support staff. Like virtually all JCS materials, the document was classified "top secret," but this did not prevent its contents from being widely discussed by senior officers well beyond the <page 536> confines of Washington. For example, upon General Curtis LeMay's arrival in the Marianas to assume command of the XXI Bomber Command on 19 January 1945, Twentieth Air Force Chief of Staff General Lauris Norstad, Arnold's personal watchdog over the buildup and employment of airpower from the islands,^50 briefed LeMay that "General Arnold needed results." Not mincing words, Norstad said:

You go ahead and get results with the B-29. If you don't get results, you'll be fired. . . . If you don't get results, it will mean eventually a mass amphibious invasion of Japan, to cost probably half a million more American lives.^51

Historians today can say we would have lost less, but based on what we had seen and been through, this is what our military minds figured we would lose then.



Actually American Generals were not well versed in radiaton sickness. This is why one thought was to use Atomic bombs to soften up beach heads for when U.S. forces would land.

Yeah, fascinating.

Shame none of it supporte your arguemtns.

Yes, thats about right.

European theater was won by the Russian juggernaught in the East and the D-Day Inavasion in the west, and the taking of Italy in the south. The fire bombing did not win the war, or even shorten the duration.

Pacific theater ended shortly after the Atomic bomb was dropped. This had a direct effect on the war.

Pacific theater ended shortly after the Atomic bomb was dropped. This had a direct effect on the war.

So to be logically consistent, nuking Baghdad or Hanoi would have been fine if sped the conclusion of either war.

Correct?

You were claiming most historians don't belive that the casualty perdictions were correct, but just used to justify the bomb being dropped.

This source sites how the casualty perdictions were arrived at, and what those perdictions were

Yes, I can read. The relevance to your argument is zero. Your argument is only relevant if it's ACCURATE that an invasion would have occured without dropping the bombs. Citing figures created SPECIFICALLY as leverage to get the bombs dropped does nothing for it.

I would have to say this would be my numbers thinking:

1) American soldiers would lose more then 500,000.
2) Enemy soldiers would be over 1 million.
3) Civilians of enemy country would be over 1 million also.

When you can show me where anyone who was there says we would have lost less and the Japanese would have lost less then I would agree. But all reading I have done on the Japanese mainland attack would lead me to belive it would have been higher numbers then the ones I quoted.

When you can show me where anyone who was there says we would have lost less and the Japanese would have lost less then I would agree. But all reading I have done on the Japanese mainland attack would lead me to belive it would have been higher numbers then the ones I quoted.

When you can show me that the only way to avoid invasion was dropping nuclear weapons on people, give me a ring. When you can show that those numbers are even vaguely in the realm or reality, give me a ring.

Point one: There was no gurantee that invasion would not still be required. The first weapon didn't preclude an invasion. What if the second didn't? I assume we keep dropping nuclear weapons no people untill incasion is precluded?

Point two: There is no indication that a technical demonstration of a weapon would not have accomplished the same goal with no loss of civillian life.

Point three: There is no indication the same goal couldn't have been accomplished using conventional weapons which would not have left a legacy of ill health for generations.

Point four: There is no indication that the force depletion and project to kill numbers were anywhere near accurate, based as they were on various erronious assumptions including the likes of "The *** will use his children as weapons to protect his land"

Point five: Why does it become morrally correct to kill a single innnocent person to spare the lives of those who's work is killing and maiming?

Your representation above is a bit vague as to the what was actually going on. The article below might offer a bit more information to decide whether or not Israel was justified in striking first.


Full article here

War is a horrid something, no matter how you spin it.
Nobody should be forced to fight in a war, and certainly not over something as territory, money, oil or whatever.

And that's unfortunately what every single war is about.

To get back on topic: The nukes were deployed simply to terrify (hey, isn't that T word in Terrorism too.) the population (and thus, the governement.) into ending the war. And it failed the first time, so they dropped a 2nd one. What if that failed?
keep dropping bombs till nobody's left to oppose you I suppose.
Sounds like terrorism to me, even by the definition back then.

No matter how high the dead count would have been, America had no right to deploy a weapen they *knew* (and they did.) would kill thousands of people, most of them innocents. No matter the circumstances.

To turn that question around: suppose somehow, the bombs would have only targeted soldiers and left innocents alone. Would that have been okay?