Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Re-enactment

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Gauz wrote:Then what were they? Don't bring up total war.

They were the non-combat section of the Japanese military. They built the guns and the tanks. They cooked the food. They paved the airfields. They packaged the supplies. And they were prepared to become members of the combat section in the event of an invasion.

Civ wrote:Essentially, they were the minutemen of the Japanese military.

Seath wrote:Civillians are essentially what supports the Military. No more civilians and the military will not be able to fight

Seath wrote:and that makes them non-targets why?

Rot wrote:Not really. It was the only real option. All other options resulted in more Allied casualties, more Axis casualties, and more civilian casualties.

aukele wrote:it all boils down to soldiers are people too and honestly they are the better people the arent the criminal element the slacking element or the elder element which to be honest doesnt do much for a warring or regular society the men and women of militaries proudly put there lives on the line to save innocent lives so if every once in awhile a few civilians have to die to save a great number of soldiers im good

ReconToaster wrote:

aukele wrote:it all boils down to soldiers are people too and honestly they are the better people the arent the criminal element the slacking element or the elder element which to be honest doesnt do much for a warring or regular society the men and women of militaries proudly put there lives on the line to save innocent lives so if every once in awhile a few civilians have to die to save a great number of soldiers im good

Your thinking completely undermines the purpose of a soldier.

Soldiers are "the better people" BECAUSE they are willing to give their lives in place of the innocent.

Also, not being in the military does not make you a "slacker" or a "criminal." What about women and children that weren't allowed into the military in the first place?

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. - Paul Nitze

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan. - Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion , and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. - Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

BBJynne wrote:they were gonna bomb tokyo but the weather was bad


tough break hiroshima...........

Gauz wrote:Hiroshima was a target mainly for pyschological effect, as it only had few military industries in it.

Nagasaki was a port city and manufactured the torpedo's that attacked Pearl Harbour?

Gauz wrote:Hey grammar jew, GTFO