bootlegga bootlegga:
It’s easy for you to say that the effects of nuclear weapons are “minimal at best” given that you haven’t experienced it. Studies have shown that people present at both cities have suffered a variety of illnesses directly related to the attacks, such as increased rates of cancer and leukemia.
What I meant was the knowledge of said effects was minimal at best, that's why I brought in the John Wayne example. Were the bomb effects devastating, after we realized their true capacity on people? Yes, that's why nuclear weapons aren't dropped in every war we fight.
$1:
...but they knew it was far different from the 2000 lb bombs they dropped from B-17s.
Again, had the Japanese used chemical or biological weapons on cities (US or otherwise), then there would definitely be justification for using the bomb, but they never used either type of weapon on civilian targets in a similar fashion. In this matter, I’m talking about killing thousands of people with a mustard gas strike on Shanghai or something, not the barbaric tests that Unit 731 did on Chinese subjects (which was truly horrible).
Of course they knew the difference. But back in 1945, they saw the atomic bomb as a super weapon. Instead of dropping 10,000 bombs, they can achieve the same effect with just 1.
Once again, you're making it sound like everybody knew it was a WMD. That it had a side effect of torturing its target, at least the ones that survived. Nobody knew the hell the radiation effects would cause until much later. And just because we know now, does not mean the decision was not correct back then. You can't use hindsight, and the knowledge we now know over 64 years of research, studies, and nuclear technological advancement, to say the bombs were not justified back then in 1945.
$1:
Because the USAF Strategic Bombing Survey Report tells me so;
"Ninety-seven percent of Japan's stocks of guns, shells, explosives, and other military supplies were thoroughly protected in dispersed or underground storage depots, and were not vulnerable to air attack."
97%. That's not including the fact the massive preparations of the Japanese government to have its civilian population fight to the death. The civilian government was always more willing to surrender compared to its military counterparts, and as such, surrender could not be achieved if the military was still fighting us.
In the end, that report is another hindsight report. If we did this, or that, and this, the war would have been over and the US Navy/Air Force would of reaped all the benefits. SUCK THAT MARINES AND ARMY.
The Army made a report saying an invasion would have been necessary if the atomic bombs didn't work. And their theory/strategy was accepted because of the time the conflict would have been dragged out, on top of the massive resources it would have been needed.
The fact the report said there were 2 million soldiers and 9000 aircraft still available, as well as 97% of all munitions, and the whole, using the civilian populace as a weapon (suicide subs, for example) would have made a blockade a much bloodier operation.
$1:
Sorry, but you’re wrong. After the second bomb was dropped, Truman ordered a halt to more atomic bombs being dropped.
[/quote]
I know he did, but the US military was still preparing for more bomb drops. If Japan didn't surrender as it did, they would of prepared for more bomb drops upon "Truman's order (which was his authority anyway) if US shipping was being ravaged by kamikaze attacks, and if the Japanese were still wanting a conditional surrender, the chances of another bomb drop would have increased.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/72.pdfIt's a difficult read, I know, but the next bomb drop would have been possible by the 19th of August, and you can see the military was under the assumption that invasion would have been needed, thus the plan to use the bombs "tactically", and of course, totally unaware of the radiation effects.
CKA Super Elite 
CKA Elite 
