The Atomic bombs

Discussion in 'Military' started by RetiredGySgt, Sep 30, 2007.

  1. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,581
    Thanks Received:
    5,905
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,002
    Since we have a cycle of people making ignorant revisionist claims about why we dropped the bombs here is a link to a host of source documents. The site makes no claims as to whether we should or should not have used the bombs but ti does provide source documents to provide the critical information available before and after the war.

    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm
     
  2. doniston
    Offline

    doniston Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    874
    Thanks Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +28
    Very strange comment. To my knowlege, I am the SINGLE participant in this Cycle of ignorant revisionists. --- seems to be mostly in your imagination. and further, What I said is stated in general terms in these reports. so it is hardly revisionist.
     
  3. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Quite simply, we were at war back when people fought wars to win. The estimated amount of casulties we would suffer invading mainland Japan was around a million.

    You win a war by taking away the enemy's ability and will to fight while suffering the fewest casualties possible on your own side. Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki acoomplished just that.

    Your "humanitarian" play by some arbitrary rules crap has resulted in Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq. Fight to win or stay home.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,581
    Thanks Received:
    5,905
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,002
    None of the documents linked to say anything about Japan willing to surrender EXCEPT the proposal they floated before and after the first bomb, that being " hey we will let you quit fighting us if you agree to just leave us with everything we still have" You know a militarist Government, Korea, Manchuria, Vietnam, The Penisular that has Singapore on it, occupation of part of China. No accountability for war crimes and no occupation. Now that WAS offered, if your delusional enough to think that was a reasonable offer your beyond help.
     
  5. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    We have Truman and the post WW2 US foreign policy establishment to thank for changing the war fighting philosophy from fighting to win to letting the enemy set the rules. MacArthur wanted to fight and destroy the Communists in NE Asia, and even China. He considered using all military means at America's disposal to accomplish that goal. While Truman and the foreign policy establishment in Washington simply wanted to contain the Communists. MacArthur refused to be led down that path and was fired. Truman's decision led to Mao's further consolidation of power and many future negative unintended consequences, including the deaths of millions of Chinese: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm. Moreover, if MacArthur had been permitted to decisively defeat the Chinese Communists, there might have been no Viet Nam War. From where would the Viet Minh have been supplied? But that particular Triumph Forsaken is another story. Regardless that he was wrong, Truman had clear constitutional authority to fire MacArthur. It is counterintuitive that a nation can have the political will to engage in wars, such as Korea, Viet Nam and Iraq, but simultaneously not have the political will to win. It is for this contradiction that future generations will justly criticize us.

    http://www.triumphforsaken.com/
     
  6. DeadCanDance
    Offline

    DeadCanDance Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,414
    Thanks Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +127

    Nuking two japanese cities was far from moral. But war in never moral. Given the situation, dropping the bomb probably saved many, many lives in that conflict.

    As for vietnam, korea, and iraq: those nations don't and didn't threaten the security of the united states. Fighting to "win", is only responsible when it is in our self interest to do so. If you want to fight and die for iraqis, or kuwaitis, or whatever, its quite easy to click over to goarmy.com and enlist to fight over there.
     
  7. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    What about the ideal that everyone is entitled to be free?

    Why is it the people who think Iraq, Vietnam and/or Korea are none of our business are the very same who have no problem helping themselves to my wallet thinking some starving, 3rd world kids ARE my problem?

    The political hypocrisy is astounding.
     
  8. DeadCanDance
    Offline

    DeadCanDance Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,414
    Thanks Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +127

    What about the ideal that everyone is entitled to be free?



    Drinking much tonight? :lol:

    We don't fight wars to "free" people. Gulf war 1? We fought for a corrupt, kuwaiti monarch. Vietnam? We fought for a corrupt, non-democratic south vietnamese regime. Sure, the communists were as bad or worse. But we weren't fighting for "freedom". Korea? We were facing down communist aggression. We weren't fighting for jeffersonian democracy.

    What minuscle foreign aid we do give, is mostly military aid. And mostly to israel, egypt, and pakistan. I doubt any tax money that goes to feeding african kids costs you more than a few pennies a year in taxes.
     
  9. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    So anyone who doesn't agree with your cynicism must be drinking?

    Without your spin, "facing down communist aggression" is basically fighting for freedom, right? Nobody said it has to be for Jeffersonian democracy.

    So, in the case of Korea, Vietnam, and Kuwait, we fought against aggressors to free one side from the other. That you do not approve of the side we chose to defend is separate topic, and your points not without merit.
     
  10. doniston
    Offline

    doniston Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    874
    Thanks Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +28
    Read your own link again. you might learn something.
     

Share This Page