Post: What the United States should have done, to Japan. If a bomb had to have been dropped
Options
04-28-2011, 11:21 PM
#1
Gambler....
Guest
90,000–166,000 killed in Hiroshima
60,000–80,000 killed in Nagasaki
The United States even gave Japan a few extra days to surrender, and they didn't listen so they dropped it on August 6th a day that the U.S changed to because of clouds perventing them from dropping it on the scheduled day. As many of you may know when Japanese children are born they are taught to never give up, I respect that. That's what hurt them at the end of WW2 they could have surrenderd but had to much pride in their country. Do you guys think the United States should have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, bombed a military base first and if they didn't surrender then attack civilians or just not even bombed them to keep WW2 going so more lives would have been lost?
---------- Post added at 07:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:19 PM ----------
Couldn't get poll to work sorry.
04-28-2011, 11:52 PM
#20
Millz
Worth the Weight
Yeah. No.
Japan was a country that were taught to never give up from the start. Americans were trying their best, however it wasn't getting them very far. The Japanese took prisoners, and the Americans feared that they will eventually overpower them at this rate. They refused to give up, so they bombed them. Guess what, they still didn't want to slow down, and continued to attack them. So they bombed them again. This time, things were different. People died, and thousands of soldiers and dollars were lost.
Now, people think that America just bombed and left. No, actually America helped Japan to re-build and get their places up and running.
Now, Do I agree with their judgement? Yes. Was it the best way to end a war? No. Did they have alternatives which would spare more lives? Yes.
Japan was a country that were taught to never give up from the start. Americans were trying their best, however it wasn't getting them very far. The Japanese took prisoners, and the Americans feared that they will eventually overpower them at this rate. They refused to give up, so they bombed them. Guess what, they still didn't want to slow down, and continued to attack them. So they bombed them again. This time, things were different. People died, and thousands of soldiers and dollars were lost.
Now, people think that America just bombed and left. No, actually America helped Japan to re-build and get their places up and running.
Now, Do I agree with their judgement? Yes. Was it the best way to end a war? No. Did they have alternatives which would spare more lives? Yes.
04-28-2011, 11:55 PM
#21
Gambler....
Guest
04-29-2011, 12:03 AM
#24
Gambler....
Guest
04-29-2011, 12:22 AM
#27
TTS.
< ^ > < ^ >
Originally posted by Gambler
I personally feel sorrow for the Japanese civilizans at the end of World War II seeing as they weren't the bad guys in the war. Instead in my opinion if a bomb had to have been dropped, hit a military base first so it wouldn't have killed so many people, and also if the Japanese didn't surrender then drop the bomb on Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
90,000–166,000 killed in Hiroshima
60,000–80,000 killed in Nagasaki
The United States even gave Japan a few extra days to surrender, and they didn't listen so they dropped it on August 6th a day that the U.S changed to because of clouds perventing them from dropping it on the scheduled day. As many of you may know when Japanese children are born they are taught to never give up, I respect that. That's what hurt them at the end of WW2 they could have surrenderd but had to much pride in their country. Do you guys think the United States should have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, bombed a military base first and if they didn't surrender then attack civilians or just not even bombed them to keep WW2 going so more lives would have been lost?
---------- Post added at 07:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:19 PM ----------
Couldn't get poll to work sorry.
90,000–166,000 killed in Hiroshima
60,000–80,000 killed in Nagasaki
The United States even gave Japan a few extra days to surrender, and they didn't listen so they dropped it on August 6th a day that the U.S changed to because of clouds perventing them from dropping it on the scheduled day. As many of you may know when Japanese children are born they are taught to never give up, I respect that. That's what hurt them at the end of WW2 they could have surrenderd but had to much pride in their country. Do you guys think the United States should have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, bombed a military base first and if they didn't surrender then attack civilians or just not even bombed them to keep WW2 going so more lives would have been lost?
---------- Post added at 07:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:19 PM ----------
Couldn't get poll to work sorry.
You also got to understand the US POV I mean it was either using the bomb or continue to fight and lose more soldiers
04-29-2011, 12:28 AM
#28
Gambler....
Guest
Copyright © 2026, NextGenUpdate.
All Rights Reserved.
