The Atomic Bombs

You're right, it may be true. But for now it is a conspiracy and until someone comes forth and confesses, it will stay that way.

I know you never said Bush's name, but you were inferring a government involvement while talking about WTC7. But that is a whole other issue, that is not what this thread is about.

 

The Bush family were oil barons, as where the extended family of Osama Bin Laden. There is no suggestion that Osama had any relationship with any of the Bush family members however.

 

brilliant thread i dont think most of the world has enough courage to drop a atomic bomb it would devastate the world and would only end up in regret. But thier is always the eager ones (iran and such sort)

 

I believe that its justified as many more lives would probably have been lost if they had engaged Japan head on.

 

Dropping the bombs ended the war very quickly, much more so than an invasion could accomplish. People talk about how 200,000 people or so died from the bombs, but on a whole that isn't TERRIBLE, considering the alternatives. Firstly, the Japanese had already lost a lot of people, like with the firebombing of Tokyo that took place in early to mid 1945. On March 10, about 100,000 Japanese civilians were killed by the 334 B-29 bombers, yet that isn't much looked at by people focusing on the atomic bombs. Also, again during the same year, the invasion of Okinawa, the Japanese suffered 110,000 deaths only in the military, and somewhere between 40,000 and 150,000 civilians. The atomic bombs, while much faster in their killing method, only killed about the same number of people as the other attacks.
About engaging Japan head on, as henghuishen pointed out, the United States had in plan Operation Olympic, which called for 767,000 Americans to invade Kyushu, which held about 900,000 Japanese soldiers. Judging by casualties from the invasion of Okinawa, where the United States had about 30% casualties, this would be much higher as now they were outnumbered. The Japanese too would lose many men, maybe 600,000 to 700,000, again judging by the Okinawa data. 200,000 from the atomic bombs vs ~1,000,000 from an invasion seems like a clear choice to go with the bombs.

...Not to say that the United States didn't have other reasons to drop the bomb. For example, Congress would have been angry at President Truman for spending $2 billion on the Manhattan project if he had not done anything with it ($22 billion today). It's difficult dealing with them. Also, the public was angry at Japan and wanted to kill the Japanese, so dropping the bombs also made Truman more likely to get reelected (oh look, he did). Some also speculate that he was trying to show off his power to Stalin, but I currently don't have any evidence. Nobody really knows what Truman's true intentions were, even by reading any notes he took in his journal.

Now, there was another problem with this plan, which was that the Japanese were planning on surrendering. People who met with the Japanese diplomats all knew that surrender was soon. Dropping the bombs, and even the assault probably would have been unnecessary. It may have hurt the world, actually, as the Japanese were planning on surrendering to Stalin, but after the bombing surrendered to Truman. This angered Stalin, which may have led to the Cold War, eventually costing more lives.




But who knows, eh?

 

Don't forget all those poor, conscripted German teenagers that the brutal American war machine murdered.