Pearl Harbor

Theresa · **Sat Dec 08, 2001 6:59 pm**

Since Sept. 11th is being compared so much to Pearl Harbor, and the anniversary date was yesterday, I thought I'd bring it up,

So what's everyone's theories on this? Did the President know that it was going to happen? Post whatever theories and/or myths/truths that you have heard.

BTW, I just watched the movie, it was great,

1 OF 1 · **Sat Dec 08, 2001 9:50 pm**

He had no idea. We just discussed this in my World Civilization class.

Crell Moset · **Sun Dec 09, 2001 4:15 pm**

it is hard to say! no one really expected this to happen!
only one thing i can say is that i hope that it will never happen again!........................................

1 OF 1 · **Sun Dec 09, 2001 8:44 pm**

Hopefully not.

1 OF 1 · **Mon Dec 17, 2001 12:05 am**

It's pretty bad that this Terrorist Attack was worst than Pearl Harbor.

Theresa · **Mon Dec 17, 2001 11:24 am**

I'm not sure, personally. It is something that I choose not to beleive. There is not one shred of evidence to support it, but then again, there is nothing that directly disproves it either. I just can't see the President being that cold and callous. He reacted w/ way too much emotion for someone who had prior information about the attack on Pearl Harbor.

1 OF 1 · **Mon Dec 17, 2001 3:47 pm**

Maybe.......I think he based it on the death tolls. Either way...It stinks.

Mulder · **Sun Dec 30, 2001 4:23 am**

The FBI got one warnig but they didnt take it serious, maybe if they did it could have been prevented.

Mulder · **Tue Feb 19, 2002 3:36 am**

anyone knows the game Pearl harbor Defend the fleet?

Curtis · **Tue Feb 19, 2002 12:31 pm**

I never saw the movie yet, or that game; however, I have discussed the subject of it in History class...I feel bad for those who lost their lifes.

Vulcanmanmike · **Wed Feb 20, 2002 9:53 pm**

I lost a uncle inPearl Harbor.

Chinesetrekkie · **Wed Feb 20, 2002 10:06 pm**

Well, I really wished that people would understand that the japanese not the chinese bombed PH

Dr. Jetrel · Rear Admiral Joined: 21 Dec 2001 Posts: 4705

I think you can better compare it with hiroshima or nagasaki only there it was to stop a war not start one!!!

Curtis · **Tue Feb 26, 2002 9:18 pm**

I don't really think we needed to use the bomb....that probably caused half as much damage as the Japanese inflicted.

Dr. Jetrel · Rear Admiral Joined: 21 Dec 2001 Posts: 4705

Curtis · **Wed Feb 27, 2002 7:59 pm**

My point exactly!

Lita · **Thu Mar 07, 2002 7:56 pm**

I saw Pearl Harbor the Movie and it reminded me of the attacks on 911 or 9-11, I feel very sad for the people who lost loved ones on 9-11.

Curtis · **Fri Mar 08, 2002 9:15 am**

True, very true.

ElisaAzure · **Sun Mar 17, 2002 10:54 am**

After learning about Hiroshoma and Nagaskai in History class I believe America had no right to attack them with Nuke bombs.

They were defenceless towns and millions of innocent civillians! The war was nearly over and Japan was almost ready to surrender.

Pearl Harbor though sad was a military base on the front line in a war. The people there knew they were going into battle, they signed up knowing they might die in battle or in the line of duty. The people in those Japaese towns never knew what had hit them. The effects are also still being felt today. The radiation left by the bombs is causing more suffering.

I have a friend who's grandfather survived the nuke bomb at a teriible cost his eye's were disintergrated by the radiation. He never saw his son or his grandson grow up.

I am not saying Japan is innocent in all this as my teacher and accounts have portrayed terrible treatment of American prissinors that Japan held, also the fact that they wished to be on the Nazi's side was a bad move.

I do not mean to offend anyone by this, it is only my view. I do not dislike America, I and others are greatful for their help in the world wars. I personally don't like the whole human race as we are all greedy and violent. Britain (where I live) has done even worse things throught it's History.

I just wish we could learn that blowing each other up is never the answer for anything.

Theresa · **Sun Mar 17, 2002 11:00 am**

Really?

I studied this indepth, and they, both sides, have said that dropping the bombs most likely saved tons of lives. That only 1/10 of the number that would have died, i.e., soldiers, and civilians alike, died. And the war would have lasted at least another year. I'll try to locate this information again. Like you, I am not trying to antagonize anyone, just stating facts, as I know them.

Theresa · **Sun Mar 17, 2002 11:07 am**

Best I can do on short notice.

The Controversy

U.S. military officials believed that such a massive demonstration of U.S. military power was the only reasonable way to force an unconditional Japanese surrender. Though the islands' supply lines had been cut, the Japanese air force was a shambles, and Tokyo was nearly in ruins, it was still widely believed that no conventional military action short of an invasion could make Japan surrender. In her entire history, Japan had never been invaded or defeated. Even after the destruction of Hiroshima, she refused to capitulate.

The decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki�the first and last use of atomic weapons in combat�remains one of the most controversial in military history. Altogether, the two bombings killed an estimated 110,000 Japanese citizens and injured another 130,000. By 1950, another 230,000 Japanese had died from injuries or radiation. Though the two cities were nominally military targets, the overwhelming majority of the casualties were civilian.

Needless tragedy or prudent military decision?

Because of robust Japanese defenses and the topography of the islands themselves, an amphibious assault would have taken a heavy toll on U.S. forces. Military officials estimated that such an invasion might have incurred up to a million U.S. casualties, with corresponding Japanese military and civilian losses. Two fire bombing raids on Tokyo earlier in 1945 had already killed 140,000 citizens and injured a million more. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then, might actually have spared hundreds of thousands of Japanese and American lives.

This justification, however, is not universally accepted. Some sources' estimates of U.S. casualties are significantly lower�perhaps as low as 50,000 men. It is also not entirely clear that an unconditional Japanese surrender was impossible, especially if Russia had entered the war before the bombing (Russia officially declared war on Japan on August 8, two days after the destruction of Hiroshima).

Some suggest that Truman, fearing a Soviet attempt to dominate the postwar Asian order as it had the Eastern European, ordered the bombing to force Japan's surrender before Russia had the chance to enter the fray (and thus earn the right to affect the peace settlement). Truman may also have wanted to intimidate his potential rival Stalin with the United States' new destructive capability.

Whether the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki constituted a needless tragedy or a prudent military decision will never be certain. Those who made the decision, as well as most of the survivors, are long gone. The effects, though�the lingering scourge of radiation, the memory of the ghastly civilian casualties, the psychological impact of simply knowing that such a destructive force exists�remain. One can only hope that those who now wield the tools of armageddon will remember the lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for a long time to come.

_________________

[ This Message was edited by: Maquis74656 on 2002-03-17 10:09 ]

Curtis · **Sun Mar 17, 2002 11:17 am**

I didn't know you knew that much about it T.

Theresa · **Sun Mar 17, 2002 11:45 am**

I copied that, but I am fascinated by history, and as you know, the military.

Curtis · **Sun Mar 17, 2002 11:53 am**

Of course...that's why JAG is your fav. show

Kate Janeway · **Sun Mar 17, 2002 3:16 pm**

JAG is also my favorite show,partly because of the military.