Tweet
Wasn't really going to bother making this, but the bombs keep coming back up in the other thread. And I do want to discuss this further to get a better view on the events.
To start off, my perception of the events. The bombs were dropped on cities, not military bases or anything. The military didn't have a specific target, just a list of cities to choose from depending on the conditions when the plane was in the air and over Japan. Knowing this I thought that killing civilians, who were on the verge of surrendering, to save the lives of american soldiers was fairly despicable. I specifically say American soldiers because the government told everyone that unless the bombs were dropped, 800,000 more american soldiers would die. I thought that was questionable since japan was on the verge of surrendering and had their munitions and industries firebombed. However if those civiliians were trained and ready to fight as soldiers, that does cast a different light on the matter. I was not really aware of that until Pedersen mentioned it. So was killing civilians really the best way to go? What about a starvation blockade the navy was ready to do?
I thought that the way the military also handled the bombings was suspicious. the first bombing was pretty much done in secrecy, but then on the second bombing they allowed a reporter to tag along and watch. I figured the reason for that was they were unsure of the first bombing and how people would react, but then they wanted to make sure their side of the story was told so they allowed a reporter to come on the 2nd run. Also the article itself seemed like a propaganda piece. (if I can find it online, I'll be sure to link to it.)
I am starting to see how the bombing might have been needed to scare the Japanese people from fighting, but was dropping two bombs really necessary? Wouldn't just one have gotten the point across? The fact that two, different type bombs were dropped contributed itself to my suspicion that the military partly just wanted to experiment.
Would a ground battle on Japan really have been inevitable if the bombs had not been dropped? I read that a starvation blockade was already prepared by the Navy, wouldn't that have done anything?
To start off, my perception of the events. The bombs were dropped on cities, not military bases or anything. The military didn't have a specific target, just a list of cities to choose from depending on the conditions when the plane was in the air and over Japan. Knowing this I thought that killing civilians, who were on the verge of surrendering, to save the lives of american soldiers was fairly despicable. I specifically say American soldiers because the government told everyone that unless the bombs were dropped, 800,000 more american soldiers would die. I thought that was questionable since japan was on the verge of surrendering and had their munitions and industries firebombed. However if those civiliians were trained and ready to fight as soldiers, that does cast a different light on the matter. I was not really aware of that until Pedersen mentioned it. So was killing civilians really the best way to go? What about a starvation blockade the navy was ready to do?
I thought that the way the military also handled the bombings was suspicious. the first bombing was pretty much done in secrecy, but then on the second bombing they allowed a reporter to tag along and watch. I figured the reason for that was they were unsure of the first bombing and how people would react, but then they wanted to make sure their side of the story was told so they allowed a reporter to come on the 2nd run. Also the article itself seemed like a propaganda piece. (if I can find it online, I'll be sure to link to it.)
I am starting to see how the bombing might have been needed to scare the Japanese people from fighting, but was dropping two bombs really necessary? Wouldn't just one have gotten the point across? The fact that two, different type bombs were dropped contributed itself to my suspicion that the military partly just wanted to experiment.
Would a ground battle on Japan really have been inevitable if the bombs had not been dropped? I read that a starvation blockade was already prepared by the Navy, wouldn't that have done anything?
Comment