The Atomic bombs

In other words, while I have rock solid proof that Japan had no intent to surrender before the bombs were dropped, rock solid proof that the Emperor ordered the surrender BECAUSE of the bombs and the Soviet Invasion, you have nothing. Yep everyone CAN see who the idiot here is.

Thats just it.. You DONT have rock solid proof of shit beyond individual SPECULATION. If I posted Eisnteins quote as ROCK SOLID proof that Japan would have surrendered without the bomb then I would be in error for attributing SPECUALTION as "rock solid"... which is what you are doing by waving around quotes that, while primary, are no more evidence of fact than any other projected guess.


It's still fun to watch you parade around in a nieve little red faced fluster though so, please, stick around...

I have NOTHING, eh? So, then I guess you DO want to call my quotes fakes, eh? Everyone I posted probably are liberal figments of a boogeyman imagination, eh?

hehehe.. At least you are right about one thing... it IS easy to tell which of us is the complete fucking idiot here.
 
Hindsight IS what we have as proof that Japan was not going to surrender, It is why we know that the bombs DID work. It is why we know that if the war had gone on even without an invasion the Japanese population would have suffered HUGE losses due to bombing, starvation and lack of fuel.

this is one of the dumbest fucking posts I've read in weeks on this board.


hindsight is NOT proof that Japan was not going to surrender without nuking civilians just like hindsight is NOT proof that the holocaust was necessary for the creation of Israel. WOULD HAVE? tell me, dummy, is that SPECUALTION OR FACT? If you answer FACT I hope you have your own 900 number.


and Im STILL waiting for those lottery numbers.


Again, all you are doing is rationalizing shit that was controversial then and remains such. Your tune changes according to WHO is dropping the bomb. Selective and transparently full of more bravado than brains.




“As the bomb fell over Hiroshima and exploded, we saw an entire city disappear. I wrote in my log the words: "My God, what have we done?"”

Capt Robert Lewis

“The bomb that fell on Hiroshima fell on America too. It fell on no city, no munition plants, no docks. It erased no church, vaporized no public buildings, reduced no man to his atomic elements. But it fell, it fell.”

Hermann Hagedorn


“Every positive value has its price in negative terms... the genius of Einstein leads to Hiroshima.”

Pablo Picasso


“What has kept the world safe from the bomb since 1945 has not been deterrence, in the sense of fear of specific weapons, so much as it's been memory. The memory of what happened at Hiroshima.”

John Hersey


Once I got to Hiroshima, my feeling was that for the first time a weapon of mass destruction of civilians had been used.
Wilfred Burchett


Dropping those atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime.
George Wald
 
Is hindsight proof?:lol:

What proof was there in July of 1945 -- that is, without the benefit of hindsight -- that the Japanese were ready to surrender?

Remember -- withouth the benefit of hindsight. You dont get to cite material that might have existed in July of 1945 that came out after the end of the war.
 
“What has kept the world safe from the bomb since 1945 has not been deterrence, in the sense of fear of specific weapons, so much as it's been memory. The memory of what happened at Hiroshima.”
-John Hersey

Yes. Imagine wha might have happened in October of 1962 had we not seen what happened at Hiroshima.

Once I got to Hiroshima, my feeling was that for the first time a weapon of mass destruction of civilians had been used.
-Wilfred Burchett
Wilfred: Did you visit Tokyo?
More death, more destructon.
How was Hiroshima worse?
 
I answered that little riddle when you first asked it. I said that targeting CIVILIAN populations is bad when terrorists do it and when WE do it.


Remember? I'll raise you DRESDEN?


What proof was there in July of 1945 -- that is, without the benefit of hindsight -- that the Japanese were NOT ready to surrender without the use of nukes?


See, the speculation shit works both ways.
 
War is always about revenge, it's an irrefutable fact that needs no proof.

That is an idiotic opinion. In fact every war America has ever waged we have then rebuilt the countries we fought against, even Indians were taken care of, poorly to be sure but never the less...
 
HA!

yea dude.. the natives sure were taken care of!

Ya we wiped them out didn't we? Wait, we didn't. In fact some of those reservations are filthy rich from gambling that they pay NO taxes on. And from selling alcohol and cigerettes with no tax applied to non Indians.

But your right we wiped them out. Just like we wiped out Germany, Austria Hungary, Turkey, Italy, Thailand and of COURSE Japan.
 
Except for the whole documented proof we have from the Japanese side that without the Bombs the war would NOT have ended any time soon. And even WITH the bombs the ARmy tried to continue to fight and refused to surrender even after their "God" the Emperor ordered it.

As to estimates we have the DOCUMENTED results of what happened on Saipan and Okinawa with the Japanese civilian population and we have the full war time experience of what happened with the Japanese military. Hardly uneducated guesses as to the results of an invasion.

Remind me again why a guess in Science is good but a guess in war is bad? Both based on substantial information and very educated guesses?

Its much easier to predict things which don't have free will.
 
Its much easier to predict things which don't have free will.

Your going to stick with that? I knew you played with words but this takes the cake.

So as not to be accused later of misrepresenting your opinion... answer the following questions please.

In your opinion, should we have used the Atomic bombs on Japan?

In your opinion did we end the war by using said bombs?

Is it your opinion that Japan was going to surrender in August 1945 without the use of the Atomic bombs?

Is it your opinion that a forced invasion of Japanese Home islands would not have caused massive death amongst the Japanese population on said island?

Is it your opinion that comparing the numbers of Japanese defenders on previously invaded islands and the casualties they caused to the invaders could not be used to have a general idea of the casualties that might be inflicted on an invading force on the Japanese home Islands?

Is it your opinion that arming the Japanese civilian population with bamboo spears and using them in human wave attacks against an invasion would not have happened? That such attacks would not have resulted in massive casualties to the civilian population?

Is it your opinion that the Japanese civilians on the home Islands invaded would not have done as those on Saipan and Okinawa did and commit suicide rather then surrender? If they committed suicide is it your opinion THIS would not have caused massive death tolls among Japanese Civilians?

I won't hold my breath for you to answer. Your well known for never actually stating what you believe, always leaving that wiggle room to claim later you didn't really say something.
 
I already responded to those questions. And you never answered mine. Would you have nuked Miami and Dallas instead of Nagasaki and Hiroshima for the same result?
 
I already responded to those questions. And you never answered mine. Would you have nuked Miami and Dallas instead of Nagasaki and Hiroshima for the same result?

You have not answered them, and asking me if i would nuke our cities is ridiculous.

A fair question would be as follows.

If Germany was in control of Europe and we had the bombs should we have used them on Germany or Italy.

And my answer is a simple one, if the situation were as it was with Japan, I would have ordered them used on Germany or Italy. Just as I would have ordered them used on the Soviet Union in the late 40's if they started world war 3 and we were in dire straits.

I also would use them now if another country used them on us. I would use them as bunker busters in Iran if I thought we could solve the problem without causeing more problems.

Now answer my questions or I will assume what your answers are and when you disagree will point you back to here and remind you of your refusal to answer.
 
You have not answered them, and asking me if i would nuke our cities is ridiculous.

Actually I have. See post #76. As to nuking Miami and Dallas...you thinking thats ridiculous puts a lie to your words. You don't care about which will cause the least deaths...you care about what will save American lives, and fuck the Japanese.

Fascinating that you can think that killing 200k (or so) civilians in Japan is conclusively justified, but yet even suggesting killing the same number of American citizens is "ridiculous". NOW do you get why you should always question deeply before massacreing civilians no matter what nationality they happen to be? Because it is FAR easier to justify it when you are doing it to another country. But those Japanese civilians were no less innocent than the American civilians would be if you massacred them. But yet one is ok with you.

Now answer my questions or I will assume what your answers are and when you disagree will point you back to here and remind you of your refusal to answer.

Re-read post #76. I answered those questions then. And feel free to assume whatever, but don't get all whiny and pissy when I point out the stupidity in doing so.
 
Actually I have. See post #76. As to nuking Miami and Dallas...you thinking thats ridiculous puts a lie to your words. You don't care about which will cause the least deaths...you care about what will save American lives, and fuck the Japanese.

Fascinating that you can think that killing 200k (or so) civilians in Japan is conclusively justified, but yet even suggesting killing the same number of American citizens is "ridiculous". NOW do you get why you should always question deeply before massacreing civilians no matter what nationality they happen to be? Because it is FAR easier to justify it when you are doing it to another country. But those Japanese civilians were no less innocent than the American civilians would be if you massacred them. But yet one is ok with you.



Re-read post #76. I answered those questions then. And feel free to assume whatever, but don't get all whiny and pissy when I point out the stupidity in doing so.

Your a fucking moron. Americans would have no reason to NUKE AMERICAN cities NUMNUTS. Further Americans are not suicidal like the Japanese are or were. You wanted to know if i would nuke "white" people and i answered.


Here let me clarify for you. Lets pretend that movie where we accidently nuked a Soviet city happened. And the Soviets gave us the choice of all out Nuclear war or we nuke one of our cities. I would nuke one of our cities. Next time you ask a relevant question.
 
Your a fucking moron. Americans would have no reason to NUKE AMERICAN cities NUMNUTS. Further Americans are not suicidal like the Japanese are or were. You wanted to know if i would nuke "white" people and i answered.

As I said before, don't assume what I think. It had nothing to do with nuking white people, race played no part in it. And no shit Americans would have no reason to nuke American cities. I am asking you a thought experiment. You know, something thats not real. So...please answer the question, as opposed to a gross caricature of my question which gives it no relevance, such as the one below.

Here let me clarify for you. Lets pretend that movie where we accidently nuked a Soviet city happened. And the Soviets gave us the choice of all out Nuclear war or we nuke one of our cities. I would nuke one of our cities. Next time you ask a relevant question.
 
I'm providing a different view. Its extremely easy to justify massacreing civilians when its the other side you are killing.



I'm so arrogant that I know everything, but yet I never say anything conclusive, right RGS? I don't make conclusive statements because I am well aware of my own ignorance. Should we have dropped them? I don't know. I do, however, recognize the danger in saying we definitely should have dropped them, or saying the choice was obvious. The decision to kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians should never be obvious, nor should we forget that we cannot know what would have happened in an alternate reality. You can guess, but as we well know predictions about the future are often inaccurate.

I am also pointing out the tendency of most people, and you are no exception, to justify atrocities against the enemy while pointing out ones that are committed against ones own side. Think of the damage 9/11 did to this country. Now imagine 50 9/11s...not a pleasant thought. Ah, but when its against another country...in the guise of "war is war" and anything to win...well then it seems much more acceptable, eh?

Ask yourself this. Would you have been willing to nuke Miami and Dallas to end the war and save all of those lives? If not, why not?

Here is post 76. You did not answer at all. You left all the room in the world to claim anything you want in the future.

Further you ignore the fact that in 1945 the President of the United States made a decision based on what HE knew at the time, with expert advice from military and science and political advisors. He LIVED the war as a LEADER. Now 60 years later retards and rejects and apologists are making ignorant claims that simply are not true ( thats not directed AT you). The claim Japan was on the verge of Surrender is patently false. EVEN AFTER 2 NUKES and a Soviet Invasion the Emperor had to intervene against the Government and even then, even though he was revered as a GOD, the Army tried to stop him from surrendering.
 
Here is post 76. You did not answer at all. You left all the room in the world to claim anything you want in the future.

I said...

Should we have dropped them? I don't know.

What part of I DON'T KNOW are you failing to understand?

Further you ignore the fact that in 1945 the President of the United States made a decision based on what HE knew at the time, with expert advice from military and science and political advisors. He LIVED the war as a LEADER.

Umm, yes I am ignoring it, since its irrelevant to our conversation. I'm not referencing him at all, merely your zealous defense of his actions.
 
As I said before, don't assume what I think. It had nothing to do with nuking white people, race played no part in it. And no shit Americans would have no reason to nuke American cities. I am asking you a thought experiment. You know, something thats not real. So...please answer the question, as opposed to a gross caricature of my question which gives it no relevance, such as the one below.

I answered you, your question makes NO sense. There is no reason in 1945 to nuke two American cities. Hypothetical I answered. If the option were save 300 million Americans by killing 10 million and there was NO way out, no way to wiggle free, no other option, I would KILL the 10 million Americans. BUT you better be damn sure I would look for another option, just as I believe Truman looked for another option in 1945.

My personal opinion is that we should not have dropped the second bomb so quickly. I think that the military did that by stretching Truman's order. BUT we were justified in dropping both weapons. I also believe that if we had waited we would still have had to drop the second one.

You must understand that at the time the belief was that if Japan was going to surrender because of the bombs they would do it quick, They had already suffered overall MUCH worse damage through out their country with out surrendering.
 
I have never meant to say the choice to drop was obvious. If you got that it is in error. I defend Truman's action because FROM THE EVIDENCE after the fact his advisors were right, the Japanese were not going to surrender and an invasion would have potentially wiped out the Japanese race. The idea we would have just stopped like Japan wanted was never going to happen.

Our losses would have been huge BUT in the end that alone would not have justified ( to me) the dropping of the bombs. Though even that is ignorant on my part, we killed more people in fire bomb raids then died by nukes. Our losses coupled with the potential of loss to Japan made those bombs the right choice.

Could something else have happened? Maybe. But like you say we will NEVER know. ALL we can do is look at what DID happen and be HONEST about why.

The claim Truman Nuked Japan for revenge is ignorant. Some of those generals might have done that for revenge, I am sure of that. Truman did NOT.
 
I answered you, your question makes NO sense. There is no reason in 1945 to nuke two American cities. Hypothetical I answered. If the option were save 300 million Americans by killing 10 million and there was NO way out, no way to wiggle free, no other option, I would KILL the 10 million Americans. BUT you better be damn sure I would look for another option, just as I believe Truman looked for another option in 1945.

No...the hypothetical is ONLY would you have bombed Miami and Dallas with the knowledge that Truman had at that time. And the question makes perfect sense, you just can't detach yourself enough to consider it.

Its easy to say that you would kill 10m Americans to save 300m. But how easy is it to kill an unknown number of Americans to save an unknown number? Is it harder or easier to kill an unknown number of Japanese to save an unknown number of Americans? This has nothing to do with race...only with an in group/out group mentality that makes it easier to massacre foreign civilians and discount it as necessary without realizing the true cost. If your argument is as you presented it before that "it would save more lives", then you should be as willing to bomb Miami and Dallas to end the war (not knowing how many lives it will actually save) as you are to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I don't think that the only consideration is for how many lives will be saved. As I've said before...I think you, and others, think it more justified because we are killing Japanese civilians...which somehow lessens the cost than killing American civilians.
 

Forum List

Back
Top