Ignore Mazda. He's an idiot. By the way, I can agree that the A-bombings could have been a war crime (though not nearly as bad as the crimes Japan was committing). In particular, they seem likely to have violated the requirement for proportionality: Rule 14. - Launching an attack which may be expec...

Captain Mazda wrote:

Oralloy wrote:What? Your diversion to the West Bank??

What's your real username?

It's always amazing the tactics people use when they don't like facts but have no real argument against them.....

The reason we dropped the bombs was to make Japan surrender. And the other reason you dropped the bombs was to nuke civilians. Nope. We didn't drop bombs because we wanted to nuke civilians. The bombs were intended to make Japan surrender. Testing the weapon effects and scaring the Russians into ci...

Dark Metal wrote:lulz.

Excellent troll.

What? Your diversion to the West Bank??

So it's ok that for every 1 soldier killed at Hiroshima, 2.5 civilians died immediately and another 1.5 died over the next 3 decades. 4 civilians to every 1 soldier killed. Actually it is probably more like 5 or 6 civilians killed at Hiroshima for each soldier killed at Hiroshima. However, not in t...

I'm pretty sure I addressed all your points. Do you really think so? I know so. Because from here it looks like you're ignoring every single rational counter argument to your incredibly naive and authoritarian views of what happened. Pointing out historical reality is hardly naive or authoritarian....

I'm not sure how you get that from me pointing out that military targets are military targets. But considering the number of A-bombs that would have been showered on Japan if they prolonged the war, they would have been in some trouble. Well, at the time the US only had 3, so that's an unlikely sce...

It could be said a million times in this thread, but it would still be completely false. No...it would be correct. No it wouldn't. The reason we dropped the bombs was to make Japan surrender. Testing the weapon effects and scaring the Russians into civility were afterthoughts. There were only three...

I'm pretty sure I addressed all your points. I'm pretty sure you haven't. You have made no rebuttal to the fact that a large, URBAN AREA was requisite as a target for an A-bomb. Well, yes. I only rebutted all the falsehoods. Why would I rebut a fact? Instead you claim the civilians were collateral ...

Whether something is a military target depends on the nature of the target, not on the nature of the weapon used to attack it. So, by your logic, the Americans could have used atomic weapons to wipe out the entire country because they were at war with them? I'm not sure how you get that from me poi...

GONNAFISTYA wrote:He - quite simply - is refusing to address that part of the discussion.

I tried to troll it out of him but it's obvious he won't touch it.

I'm pretty sure I addressed all your points.

Dark Metal wrote:He's right, they are both legitimate military targets, had they been bombed conventionally.

Whether something is a military target depends on the nature of the target, not on the nature of the weapon used to attack it.

The US didn't target civilian life. Hiroshima was a military target. We did target infrastructure though -- the war industry of Nagasaki was a great example of infrastructure being targeted. The WTC attack was an example of civilians being targeted. Explain again how targeting an entire city full o...

Scourge wrote:My question is how many civilians were killed on either side apart from the bombings?

edit: I have a reason for asking.

This page is about all casualties, but it has a chart that lists civilian casualties in their own column:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

EDIT: And of course the terms on Japan were harsh because Japan had committed enormous atrocities against other nations and had to be fully accountable. Furthermore, Japan was in no position to negotiate the U.S. demands. In fact, your argument that Japanese pride prevented them from agreeing to US...

That doesn't make Japan give up everything. I think we were extremely generous. The two terms that I listed were utterly impossible to accomplish...that's how they were designed to be rejected. And that's only two of them. If you read them again you'll find there was no way Japan could guarantee th...

Nah. We stop when they say "I surrender". Typical arrogant, shortsighted response. The US had an absolute meltdown that "changed the nation" when a few thousand people were tragically killed in '01. While the reaction of fear and anger are understandable to such an event it stri...

Whiskey 7 wrote:

Hannibal wrote:I am a history buff and I'd sooner eat broken glass than touch on WWII topics in this forum. YMMV

me too Hannibal but I appreciate the banter

Actually, I'm not finding the Hiroshima debating all that bad here.

You wouldn't believe some other boards around the internet.

What exactly was moronic about the Potsdam terms? They were actually quite generous. The terms that Japan wanted to "surrender" under were more a ceasefire than a surrender. They included such gems like: "No occupation of Japan" "No war crimes trials for Japanese soldiers u...

At any rate, why would we pause the fighting each time we landed a blow to see if they were finally ready to surrender?? That sounds like a recipe for losing a war. You stop when your enemy has just lost a city in an instant, is backed into a corner with nowhere to go, and has little left in the wa...

Historically, Japan did not believe that the U.S. had developed a working atom bomb and even after the bomb on Hiroshima, upper levels of Japan's military were in absolute shock and paralysis. They were not entirely sure what had occurred, having received conflicting reports. The second bomb over N...

GFY - Can you perhaps enlighten us as to the details of the deal that the Japanese were trying to make? Don't recall anyone trying to bargain on Okinawa... Japan had been given the Potsdam ultimatum from Washington on July 26, 1945. However - like Iraq - America had approached the deal from an &quo...

I don't think an invasion of the main island would have been necessary, however Honshu would have been a terrible battle. There are of course two side to this coin, as how many Japanese civilians would have died if the US had decided to blockade the mainland and starve them into submission? Hard to...

sigh Japan didn't need to be invaded or bombed. If anyone has read a real history book the Japanese were fucked and trying to make a deal...and were ignored. The first time the government of Japan contacted the United States about any deal was on August 10. The A-bombs were dropped on August 6 and ...

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets, however, there was absolutely no need to drop nuclear weapons over them to end the war. The Japanese were defacto defeated in the Pacific. The bombs were dropped to demonstrate this new weapon, and to scare the Russians. Unfortunately th...