Close Combat Series :: View topic

through

[^/[Print]\]
Goto page 1, 2 Next :| |:
Close Combat Series -> The Mess

#1: Japan's surrender Author: Blackstump, Location: Hunter Valley Australia

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 7:27 am
—
The American decision to drop an A bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Must have make Bomber Harris's dilema, pale by comparison. With Japan's navy defeated , thousands of experienced troops traped without supply on numerous islands, the American Airforce freely able to cover Japan. The decision was made to save American lives with an invasion by using The Bomb ! now the question is, was it a moral issue or a show of strength once again ?... to my way of thinking... Japan could have been strangle with in 3 months no troops need to attack... the islands, instead of killing many Australians, should have been left to rot... except the prison camps who should have been attacked alot earlier....

Last edited by Blackstump on Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:05 am; edited 1 time in total

#2: Author: Megadeth,

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:27 pm
—
for what i know they dropped the bomb just to see how powerful it was and maybe a show of strenght too

#3: Author: Dima,

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:21 pm
—

Quote:

for what i know they dropped the bomb just to see how powerful it was and maybe a show of strenght too

rite.

Recently came upon US report that stated that they could inflict same damage to Hiroshima using 100 B-29 and to Nagasaki using 150 B-29 or so.
Now compare it to Dresden bombing and many other Smile

#4: Author: Pzt_Mac, Location: Oregon

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:14 pm
—
The US did test the bomb before they dropped it.

Regardless, yes the same effects could have been done using conventional means, and maybe that would have been better. However, I don't think it would have had the psychological effect the H bomb did. That's what ended the war, not neccessarily the loss of life or destruction which had been witnessed many times over by then. There was no going underground, no leaving the island, no wearing down the allies into a more "advantagous" surrender. Pretty cut and dry. Not arguing right or wrong, just the reasons why.

#5: Author: Pzt Hornet,

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:50 pm
—
Hirohito had decided as early as june to try and work out some sort of surrender.Granted at first he wanted concessions but later realized that was impossible that the Allies would want an unconditional surrender.

It was during the Potsdam conference that Truman decided that he must drop the bombs.Not so much to speed along Hirohito's decision because that was pretty much a forgone conclusion,but to show Stalin that the west had the greater power.With Soviets not renewing their non agression pact and having already beaten a large and experienced Japanese army Truman made sure that Stalin knew we had a secret weapon that could end the war quickly.Stalin already knew of the a-bombs but doubted if the US would ever use such a weapon.Truman did two things when he dropped those bombs.One was to let Stalin know that Yes we have the balls to use it and yes we have more than one.That put the west at some advantage because their was little doubt that if Stalin was to aggressive the US would have had no problems using it on them as well.

#6: Author: rufus,

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:02 pm
—
totally agree with hornet,plus it also had the possibilty but smaller bonus of speeding up of the japanese surrender which was important at the time.so it was a win win situation.from the u.s point of view

#7: Author: Blackstump, Location: Hunter Valley Australia

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:02 am
—
Recently came upon US report that stated that they could inflict same damage to Hiroshima using 100 B-29 and to Nagasaki using 150 B-29 or so.
Now compare it to Dresden bombing and many other Smile

.[/quote]
The dust that settles from HE is significantly different from the dust that settles from an Atomic bomb.Survivers from Coventry and Dresden where able to rebuild there lives and continue to have families. Survivours of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had there dna wiped from the gene pool. so in effect its an entire generation of killing = 30 years

#8: Author: Dima,

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:01 am
—

Quote:

Survivours of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had there dna wiped from the gene pool. so in effect its an entire generation of killing = 30 years

the effect of the N. bombs (and particulary those dropped on Japan) is grossly exhaggerated.

Even Chernobyl accident (that was much stronger than those bombs) didn't affect most of people lived around nuklear plant.

Good insight, Hornet!

Quote:

One was to let Stalin know that Yes we have the balls to use it and yes we have more than one.That put the west at some advantage because their was little doubt that if Stalin was to aggressive the US would have had no problems using it on them as well.

u know what is funny?
Most of modern russian historician tell that it was one of the main Stalin's achievement that he could convince Western Allies that RA was strong enuf in late 1945.
But that's the topic for another thread Very Happy

#9: mmm Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:46 am
—
Mmmmm?

Radiation long term effects of Chernobyl? Read more at SDC homepage:
Studie done over ppl in contaminated aria.

""At the moment of the Chernobyl accident 91% of the population at the age of 35-37 had no health problems. Five years later (1991) only 67% of respondents of the same age said they were healthy. ""
More info:
http://www.chernobyl.info/index.php?userhash=17322772&navID=575&lID=2

This one is good, here many major reserch in subject:
http://www.chernobyl.info/index.php?userhash=17322772&navID=161&lID=2

Thyroid cancer in children and adolescents is up 30 times after Chernobyl in aria, A direct link between the accident and this type of cancer was only recognised by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1995
http://www.chernobyl.info/index.php?userhash=17322772&navID=25&lID=2

Thats all really

Stalky[/quote]

#10: Author: mooxe,

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:03 pm
—

Quote:

Even Chernobyl accident (that was much stronger than those bombs) didn't affect most of people lived around nuklear plant.

Then why is the town emptied, and you need government permission to enter?

Maybe because Dima is on the inside he hears a different story. After all it would be in the best interests of the governments not to let the people know the full extent of the after effects. I have seen the studies Stalky posted, and I believe them. There is no reason not to.

#11: Author: Pzt_Wruff, Location: Pzt Befehl Hauptsitz

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:27 pm
—
Hornet is right on target.

The cold war had already begun. Russia had already secured the East Block ("Iron Curtain" as Churchill first dubbed it), and the US/west couldn't allow the russians to control Japan as well. Russia was already moving in and the US thought to end it quick and end it now. + showing the Russians what kind of firepower the US had and was willing to use. Stalin had a rather thick skull and Truman figured that was sure to leave an impression on him. Which of course it did.
There's also the speculation about the cost of a US invasion of the japanese mainland. The US not wanting to throw many thousands of american fighting men to their deaths invading a country that was for all intents and purposes already beaten. Japan just needed to be convinced of the fact. The bombs certainly did that. Convinced russia of a few things too.
Not to mention the probability of having to fight russia there once the Japanese surrendered as a result of combined conventional warfare with the US and Russia. As was always the case with russia then, once the common enemy was out of the way then they (US/Russia) would have to fight eachother. Those two bombs sure prevented all of that.

#12: Author: king_tiger_tank, Location: the Band and State of Kansas

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:11 am
—
i guess it was better not to lose 1 million amercians fighting for japan but it seemed like overkill in a way. Sad

#13: Author: B_Grim, Location: the Lizard Cornwall

Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 1:58 am
—
my pennies worth..
i think whoever made an atomic device
first, would have used it..
the germans were close to developing
a bomb and japan was sent atomic materials
before germany colapsed, to develop it further.
the allies knew they were winning a while before
it ended,so then the cost in lives to your own
becomes political rather than survival

hard to see all the sides on this one!

#14: Author: Badger-Bag,

Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:30 am
—
They really are just big bombs.

Sure, there are fall out and longer term results from an atom bomb, but thats just MAGNITUDE again, isn't it.

Obviously there is "Fallout" from other bombs. The burnt components produce poisons, most damaging ones with the incenidary bombs like napalm. Napalm makes dioxin and a fenol of its own substance, and various other toxins from the materials it burns. When you burn oil, the result is poison.

And for all the claims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, people live in them to this day, never moved out.

People were bombed in London, Berlin. They inhaled carcinogines from the bombs and the pulverised parts of everyday life. That caused long term damage and deaths.
Atom bombs are not a difference in kind, just one of magnitude. And given that the long term damage of radioactive fallout is mitigated by dispersal ( and the fact that MOST of the people exposed to the largest amount, are dead LONG before the RADIATION damage kills them, because the normal bomb damage gets them first ) I think that if you used similar yeilds of normal explosives as an a-bomb delivers, you would get almost similar amounts of secondary poisons into the enviroment.

Lots of people think that burning stuff, or using a fuel, or setting off a bombs components "Magically" makes it disappear. Of course, if you explode X amount of TNT, you make EXACTLY X amount of waste product too, and it isn't apples or chockolate, it is outright poison.

#15: Author: B_Grim, Location: the Lizard Cornwall

Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:56 pm
—
this brave lady drives a 1100 kawazaki bike
to within spitting distance of Chernobyls
reactor.stopping to take photos on the way.
apparently tarmac or asphalt very good
against radiation,poor absorbtion rate?
lots of photo's including the sarcophagus.

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/default.htm

scroll down.chaptors at the foot of the page

#16: Author: AT_kampf,

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:31 pm
—
[quote="Dima"]

Quote:

Survivours of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had there dna wiped from the gene pool. so in effect its an entire generation of killing = 30 years

#17: Author: Badger-Bag,

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:54 am
—
"Survivours of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had there dna wiped from the gene pool"

Or, as it would be written in actual ENGLISH

"Survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic attacks, had their DNA wiped from the gene pool".

This would be a surprise to Nakashima Manabu san and his new wife/child bearing partner Hirose san. My mate Manabu, now an Auckland resident, parents born and raised in Nagasaki, born and raised there himself, married soon to Hirose san, also a graduate of Hiroshima girls hgh school.

What with his DNA being all wiped out. Rolling Eyes

ACTUALLY, people live still in both cities, that were alive and there on the day. I met some. No cancers visible. I was introduced to them by their children, their perfectly normal children.
Nagasaki, for one, is wall to wall young people.

Perfectly vibrant, thriving, normal cities. No one asks you "Did you wear a radiation suit?" no one hesitates to shake your hand.

I had two Hiroshima girls help me cook dinner ( Okinomiyaki, suki? ) for a house load of Japanese guests. There is no race in the world more conscious of health threats and "Dirtiness", than the Japanese. No guest refused to eat dinner because "Hiroshima = radiation/genetic damage".

The two cities are LESS polluted with radiation, than any twenty US cities, I am sure.

Did you know ceramic tiles give out very large amounts of radiation?.

#18: Yeh Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 10:00 am
—
Hm,

Gen damage show it self not only in 1 st generation born by parents exposed, the research shows its more problems in 3 rd and 4 th generation than in the 1 st generation … How about 5 th and 6 th ?

“I have a grand daddy who have driven a car without safety belt for 60 years, he say it’s totally harmless” Yeh, If we look at him and take that as a proof… But it’s a larger picture isn’t it?

Stalky

#19: Author: Pzt_Coyote, Location: Zwolle, The Netherlands

Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 7:57 pm
—
Exactely Stalky, no offense Badger, but your reasoning is VERY flawed. There are survivors from concentration camps aswell, ... holocaust didn't happen either ? Mad

Just cause you know a few people from nagasaki personally without cancer or other health problems doesn't undo all the scientific evidence there is for the extreme radiation which was there the years after the blast, also it doesn't undo all the kids who were born with open backs , without arms etc etc Rolling Eyes

#20: mmm Author: ANZAC_Lord4war, Location: Sydney Australia

Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 10:32 pm
—
dont see how Horishima/Nagasaki and Chernobyl can be compared.
2 are nuclear explosions
1 is leakage from a nuclear powerplant.
only thing in common with both is radiation

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Goto page 1, 2 Next :| |: Page 1 of 2