Days of Infamy

[Robert]

Somehow, I can't imagine Bono carrying a bomb around. But perhaps it could have been carried by the V-2!
Eddie

LOL .. Thanks for catching the typo

Robert

[Robert]

But it's true that both Germany and Japan had excellent atomic research programs in place. Japan was quite a few months behind Germany, but they were still a threat in that area. Still, I can't see how our bombing of their civilian population would serve any logical purpose in dissuading them from continuing their research.

Eddie

Would that only the military encored the casualties...Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not randomly singled out, in all modern wars it is the civilian industrial power that supports them, were there not significant industrial productions in both cities? This is the reality of war that not only the military forces conduct it.

Robert

[MuddyEddie]

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not randomly singled out, in all modern wars it is the civilian industrial power that supports them, were there not significant industrial productions in both cities?

True. There were targets of strategic importance in both cities. Hiroshima had a number of military bases that provided support to the forces, and Nagasaki was a fairly important seaport city.

But it's also interesting to note that Hiroshima was never attacked by our military at all, until the dropping of the bomb. It was almost like we forgot about the military significance of the city until we were choosing targets for our weapons of mass destruction.

Some have speculated that the reason that we left it alone was because we wanted to see just how destructive the bomb would be. If the city had already been bombed or fire-bombed then it would be hard to gauge the destructive power of the atomic bomb. If that were the case, then it goes back to my original point that the only reason we dropped the bombs was to make it a real-world test. That, to me, is reprehensible.

Others have said that the structures in Hiroshima were made of reinforced concrete, and that conventional bombs would have little effect on the military buildings there. If that is true then I would say that our attacks might be able to be somewhat justified. Still, it was a tragic way to bring an end to a war that, by almost all accounts, had already ended.

Back on the original catalyst for this topic, however... The attack on our base at Pearl Harbor was just as reprehensible as our attack on Japan. The Japanese had never formally declared war on the United States. Launching an unprovoked attack (unprovoked in a military sense) on a U.S. territory was not the act of a civilized nation. Japan needed a good ass-kicking!

I just wish that so many women and children didn't have to pay the price for the reprehensible actions of their leaders.

Eddie

[Robert]

I just wish that so many women and children didn't have to pay the price for the reprehensible actions of their leaders.

Eddie

Agreed!!

Robert

[bbjohn]

.....Back on the original catalyst for this topic, however... The attack on our base at Pearl Harbor was just as reprehensible as our attack on Japan. The Japanese had never formally declared war on the United States. Launching an unprovoked attack (unprovoked in a military sense) on a U.S. territory was not the act of a civilized nation. Japan needed a good ass-kicking!

I just wish that so many women and children didn't have to pay the price for the reprehensible actions of their leaders.

Eddie

Amen, Eddie!

Big Bad John

[Duncan Edwards]

Yes, both Japan and Germany committed atrocities. I won't even deny that. But to try and make the United States sound innocent...

Eddie

The United States did those things. I don't know that anyone ever actually sat down and totaled who committed the most but Dresden was British and you could always point to Coventry. None of that really matters because it is an argument without end.

Until now. Thread locked.