安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
Perfectly normal for a colony. Look at Singapore or any of the Baltic nations. Or developed African nations like Nigeria.
Like I said: the whole point of the war was to punish them for trying to end their economic colonization. No oil embargo, no war. No independence, no embargo.
One day soon the Japanese will return to Hiroshima & Nagasaki.
Three years of Napalm fire bombing of women and children was ok then.
CNN headline 'Napalm Girl' at 50: The story of the Vietnam War's defining photo.
yet no 'Napalm Girl' at 70: The story of the Japans War's defining photo.
The R&D fire incendiary bombing of Japan lead to the perfection of Napalm as called in final year of war.
With the dropping of the 2nd Atomic bomb, end of war, the continuous Napalm bombing ceased, if the war did not stop thousand more women/children would have died, every single Napalm bomb raid woman and children would have continued to have been burnt alive.
A one two punch combo stopped the fight.
Also as the Atomic bomb was destructive sorely in it's ~one mile radius of effect, rather than a prolonged full on invasion causing higher levels/area of destruction, Japan was in a quick position to rebuild, many factories and port were in tact, fully functional, didn't take long for Japan to become a world leader again, but it took Germany decades of investment to rebuild.
In fact as I said the area of destruction by the atomic bombs were within a small area, a mile/two miles, in comparison to country wide thousands of miles of Napalming, there is discrepancy in the official figures of death by the two bombs, the US figures greatly inflated by war propaganda machine and eager beaver Generals. (the thing cost a trillion dollars need a trillion deaths)
Maybe fear that French Indochina would fall, or British Hong Kong ?
could try using encyclopedia.com / britannica.com / Reference.com rather than g00gle
Nobody really knows how many deaths the bombs caused.
They'd been grounded for months.
The only people flying at that point were intelligence officers managing Korea and China, and they'd stopped because the US kept hitting their runways during major takeoff and landing times.
The "kamikaze pilots" being trained were just regular pilots, most of whom never saw a sortie and none of whom were going to have an entire plane wasted on them. They were being lied to.
The few who did leave their standby camps were assigned to fly intelligence officers around.
It had severe logistical problems, their fleet was basically done for in total, Tokyo and many other cities already burned to ash for large amount from fire bombings.
It could be entirely plausible that Japan would have offered some form of surrender 2 weeks later, with the knowledge we have know of what went on behind their political and diplomatic curtains.
But I do think the nucleair bombing instantly made it into an unconditional surrender and what is also very important: There was no more need to invade the main land of Japan to force an unconditional surrender, which would have been a very deadly undertaking of years to come on a people that would really fight for their homeland.
Was unconditional surrender even necessary, or was it just another way to assert economic control over Japan? Which was the cause of the war in the first place.
And again: Japan was in no way unified at this point. It was in the middle of a civil war. Ideas about its political structure are based on a fascist coup after the fact.
They wanted to test the other design they had to see if it was better than Little Boy.
It wasn't about testing; it was about people seeing the bomb happen.
They'd done plenty of tests already, and there was an argument about blowing up the captured navy vessels instead. But there was no way to ensure that people saw that and accepted it as the work of one bomb.
Testing the bomb on an urban target was secondary to displaying its power, and if it had boiled down to testing the war council would have voted against it. Bad look for an unpopular war, and this thing was supposed to be a secret weapon that made Germany shake too.
Plenty of arguments against even using it at all at the time. Most of the people involved had never even seen a test and conceived of it as just another bomb.
I wonder if this thread is part of an internal struggle they are having right now. Trying to find perch on a driftwood of moral standards/principles in this ocean of confusion, uncertainty and violence.
Armchair psychologist mode off.
I think the bombs were to scare the Russians into standing down and not to destroy Japan.
If America didn't drop it, Russia would've.... or Japan... or somebody else.
The threat of nuclear weapons HAD to be demonstrated to the world.
How do you get people to fear a weapon? You fire it.
They had two different designed bombs, One the USA designed and one captured from Germany's program.