Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Warpy

(111,130 posts)

5. I'm reasonably sure the bombs were necessary

Reply to uppityperson (Original post)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 07:29 PM

Aug 2015

and no more destructive overall than carpet bombing of Tokyo had been.

My complaint was always the choice of two non military targets because scumbag generals wanted to see what happened to a "pristine" target.

Their words.

The first bomb got their attention. The second bomb made them think "good grief, how many of these things do they have?" They didn't know we had only the two. However, the second one made them surrender quickly and unconditionally.

So I think the bombs were most likely necessary. The non military targets made them war crimes.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

25 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

It's that time of year again. [View all] uppityperson Aug 2015 OP

If they had told Oppenheimer the truth and let them see it from afar it would have ended as soon . orpupilofnature57 Aug 2015 #1

I thought this was going to be about Colorado peaches... pipoman Aug 2015 #2

I'm pretty convinced that, at the time, they felt both bombs were necessary. Maedhros Aug 2015 #3

General Eisenhower, among others, didn't think the atomic bombings were necessary Art_from_Ark Aug 2015 #14

Eisenhower has IMHO been unfairly discounted as a thinker. He saw it but stevenleser Aug 2015 #15

There is a lot about the Pacific War that most Americans do not know Art_from_Ark Aug 2015 #16

Truman and others obviously thought differently. Maedhros Aug 2015 #24

The story of the final days of the war is very complex Art_from_Ark Aug 2015 #25

I think at the time the first was felt necessary, the second because they wanted to show they could uppityperson Aug 2015 #4

I'm reasonably sure the bombs were necessary Warpy Aug 2015 #5

I reasonably sure that you are dangerously wrong. GeorgeGist Aug 2015 #6

Good. Warpy Aug 2015 #12

Yes, both were necessary according the books I've read Lurks Often Aug 2015 #7

Each was more necessary than the Nanking Massacre Codeine Aug 2015 #8

Don't know. moondust Aug 2015 #9

Innocent women, children, and men should never be a target of war. Deadshot Aug 2015 #10

Plans were for us to drop 3-4 of them per month until surrender. roamer65 Aug 2015 #11

This seems relevant...Gar Alperovitz Cheese Sandwich Aug 2015 #13

They probably saved about a million lives all told Recursion Aug 2015 #17

I'm going to vote "neither" to balance out the poll. redgreenandblue Aug 2015 #18

I'm with you. My thinking has changed over the years from hell no, to maybe Hiroshima after talking uppityperson Aug 2015 #22

I don't comment on these threads usually. joshcryer Aug 2015 #19

So killing people who for the most part didn't participate in atrocities... redgreenandblue Aug 2015 #20

Nope. joshcryer Aug 2015 #21

As bad as the A bombs were sarisataka Aug 2015 #23