1945-1998 - A history of nukes in animated art
- Thread starter thrustbucket
- Start date
[quote name='UncleBob']I find your numbers highly suspect.
Within 2-4 months after the bombings, http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa1.html says 150,000 - 246,000 people died. And that's just after four months. That doesn't include those who died from radiation-related causes from exposure.[/QUOTE]
I have to say that his numbers are off but regardless I think we can conclude based on the islands that we did invade, that more people would have died had we invaded and not used the bombs.
Within 2-4 months after the bombings, http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa1.html says 150,000 - 246,000 people died. And that's just after four months. That doesn't include those who died from radiation-related causes from exposure.[/QUOTE]
I have to say that his numbers are off but regardless I think we can conclude based on the islands that we did invade, that more people would have died had we invaded and not used the bombs.
[quote name='Knoell']I have to say that his numbers are off but regardless I think we can conclude based on the islands that we did invade, that more people would have died had we invaded and not used the bombs.[/QUOTE]
How many innocent civilians would have died though?
If two soldiers die fighting each other, it's sad, but they're soldiers. It's what they do.
If two children die because we dropped a bomb that killed them trying to kill other soldiers... well, that's a whole different story.
How many innocent civilians would have died though?
If two soldiers die fighting each other, it's sad, but they're soldiers. It's what they do.
If two children die because we dropped a bomb that killed them trying to kill other soldiers... well, that's a whole different story.
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']I find your numbers highly suspect.
Within 2-4 months after the bombings, http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa1.html says 150,000 - 246,000 people died. And that's just after four months. That doesn't include those who died from radiation-related causes from exposure.[/QUOTE]
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml
Meh, don't believe my estimates then. They were just an amalgamation of many sources most citing casualties between 190 to 225 thousand. My estimate was my own from studying the subject extensively. Doesn't miss the point that a couple of hundred of thousand is better than 10-20 mill (not my estimate but from Paul Johnson)
Secondly, the japanese government were forcing millions of civilians to fight and arming them with spears and bows and arrows. Do you consider them soldiers? If you do than 26 mill were going to be deployed to defend the capital from invasion forces, plus many more at different areas. Again it is hard to estimate because this never happened and you can only try to guess the number with what the Japanese anti invasion plans were. 26 mil comes from their military estimates before the atomic bombs were used and the surrender was called.
Within 2-4 months after the bombings, http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa1.html says 150,000 - 246,000 people died. And that's just after four months. That doesn't include those who died from radiation-related causes from exposure.[/QUOTE]
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml
Meh, don't believe my estimates then. They were just an amalgamation of many sources most citing casualties between 190 to 225 thousand. My estimate was my own from studying the subject extensively. Doesn't miss the point that a couple of hundred of thousand is better than 10-20 mill (not my estimate but from Paul Johnson)
Secondly, the japanese government were forcing millions of civilians to fight and arming them with spears and bows and arrows. Do you consider them soldiers? If you do than 26 mill were going to be deployed to defend the capital from invasion forces, plus many more at different areas. Again it is hard to estimate because this never happened and you can only try to guess the number with what the Japanese anti invasion plans were. 26 mil comes from their military estimates before the atomic bombs were used and the surrender was called.
[quote name='cindersphere']Secondly, the japanese government were forcing millions of civilians to fight and arming them with spears and bows and arrows. Do you consider them soldiers? If you do than 26 mill were going to be deployed to defend the capital from invasion forces, plus many more at different areas. Again it is hard to estimate because this never happened and you can only try to guess the number with what the Japanese anti invasion plans were. 26 mil comes from their military estimates before the atomic bombs were used and the surrender was called.[/QUOTE]
And those numbers were shown to be very optimistic (i.e. low) for both sides after studies were conducted on what the Japanese were planning to do, almost every one of our assumptions about their forces and disposition were wrong.
The Japanese were planning to inflict casualties high enough for the war to lose support from the American public, without regard to how many of their own people they lost, in the hope that they could reach some kind of settlement that allowed them to remain in power. It had a very good chance of succeeding given the political climate in America after Germany was defeated.
Thats why some Japanese apologists resent the bomb so much. They were denied a final battle to preserve their dignity.
And of course a Japanese source is going to skew higher (with regard to the casualties at Hiroshima and Nagasaki). The difference is not very significant anyway when we're comparing that to tens of millions. Japan's total casualties for the war (nukes and all) were under 3 million. People would rather have 10 times more of them die because they don't like the bomb? Why?
And those numbers were shown to be very optimistic (i.e. low) for both sides after studies were conducted on what the Japanese were planning to do, almost every one of our assumptions about their forces and disposition were wrong.
The Japanese were planning to inflict casualties high enough for the war to lose support from the American public, without regard to how many of their own people they lost, in the hope that they could reach some kind of settlement that allowed them to remain in power. It had a very good chance of succeeding given the political climate in America after Germany was defeated.
Thats why some Japanese apologists resent the bomb so much. They were denied a final battle to preserve their dignity.
And of course a Japanese source is going to skew higher (with regard to the casualties at Hiroshima and Nagasaki). The difference is not very significant anyway when we're comparing that to tens of millions. Japan's total casualties for the war (nukes and all) were under 3 million. People would rather have 10 times more of them die because they don't like the bomb? Why?
[quote name='UncleBob']How many innocent civilians would have died though?
If two soldiers die fighting each other, it's sad, but they're soldiers. It's what they do.
If two children die because we dropped a bomb that killed them trying to kill other soldiers... well, that's a whole different story.[/QUOTE]
What dafoomie said. If you just research what happened on Okinawa and Iwo Jima you would know that the japanese wont surrender easily. In some cases out of the 10s of thousands that fought to protect those islands only a 100 or so survived. They fought to the death, and if there was no hope to fight, they committed suicide. Can you imagine what invading a Japanese city would have been like?
If two soldiers die fighting each other, it's sad, but they're soldiers. It's what they do.
If two children die because we dropped a bomb that killed them trying to kill other soldiers... well, that's a whole different story.[/QUOTE]
What dafoomie said. If you just research what happened on Okinawa and Iwo Jima you would know that the japanese wont surrender easily. In some cases out of the 10s of thousands that fought to protect those islands only a 100 or so survived. They fought to the death, and if there was no hope to fight, they committed suicide. Can you imagine what invading a Japanese city would have been like?
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
Is this one of those tired ass arguments about the war being more humane without the bomb?
Want to hear a true story?
My paternal grandfather was already there. My maternal grandfather was on a boat going there. They were cannon fodder.
A good 20 million Americans owe their existence to the bomb.
Want to hear a true story?
My paternal grandfather was already there. My maternal grandfather was on a boat going there. They were cannon fodder.
A good 20 million Americans owe their existence to the bomb.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
My Grandfather was there days after the bomb as well, to help 'clean up' I guess.
Chuplayer
CAGiversary!
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']I'm pretty that sure the Japanese would have surrendered if the bomb had been demonstrated offshore or in an unpopulated area. No need whatsoever to kill thousands of civilians TWICE.[/QUOTE]
They didn't surrender after they were bitchslapped with the bomb once. What makes you think they would have surrendered after watching a demonstration?
They didn't surrender after they were bitchslapped with the bomb once. What makes you think they would have surrendered after watching a demonstration?
[quote name='Chuplayer']They didn't surrender after they were bitchslapped with the bomb once. What makes you think they would have surrendered after watching a demonstration?[/QUOTE]
The conspiracy theorists have an explanation for that. "That big meany Truman wanted to prove he was tough so he bombed the second city even after they surrendered."
The conspiracy theorists have an explanation for that. "That big meany Truman wanted to prove he was tough so he bombed the second city even after they surrendered."
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
Truman was a well known racist.
bread's done