The Atomic bombs

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Your simply full of it. Truman did not authorize the bombs JUST to save American lives. He did so to save Japanese lives. It is obvious to a casual observer. The loss of lives in JAPAN to the Japanese people was included in all discussions, it was part of the methodology of the reasoning for the bombs.

I have been clear. The bombs were used to save lives Japanese as well as American. MORE Japanese than American. You can pretend now 60 years later that no one could possibly know the deaths in the invasion and you would be wrong.

Saipan and Okinawa showed CLEARLY what the Japanese Civilian population would do if about to be captured. SUICIDE. Add in the fact that the Japanese were preparing to use human wave attacks with bamboo armed civilians and it pales. The death toil to the Japanese would have been horrendous. Some believed the race could cease to effectively exist. Talk about Genocide.

 

[Gunny]

are you going to gas his family with xylon B? Are you going to burn down his house? Are you going to hunt down and kill his parents who had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT? Perhaps go ahead and take out the whole damn block with cluster bombs just to make sure of a win? How far does it HAVE to go, Gunny? Again, dropping the bomb on Japan opened the world up to the tenants of Mutually Assured Destruction. We don't have a monopoly on nukes and I'd direct you to the very problem that Einstein saw in dropping nukes on Japan. If you can rationalize keeping everything on OUR table then take a wild guess at what THEY are going to do. Playing to annihilate civilians instead of military targets is for terrorists.

If his family or house gets between me and him I will take them out too.

Dropping the bomb on Japan spared an estimated 1 Million American lives, and brought WWII to an end.

And to save a million US, lives Hell yes I'd use it. Tactically, it's sheer stupidity not to.

 

[eots]

If his family or house gets between me and him I will take them out too.

Dropping the bomb on Japan spared an estimated 1 Million American lives, and brought WWII to an end.

And to save a million US, lives Hell yes I'd use it. Tactically, it's sheer stupidity not to.

Nuclear Files: Educators: Study Guides: The Decision to Drop the BombIf the object were solely Japanese surrender, then one bomb – or, as some scientists proposed, even a demonstration test before captured Japanese generals ...
www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/educators/study-guides/history_decision-to-drop-bomb.htm

 

[Gunny]

Nuclear Files: Educators: Study Guides: The Decision to Drop the BombIf the object were solely Japanese surrender, then one bomb – or, as some scientists proposed, even a demonstration test before captured Japanese generals ...
www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/educators/study-guides/history_decision-to-drop-bomb.htm

The Japanese gov't was informed we had a new weapon that was far more devastating than anything they had ever seen. Twice, they declined to surrender. They got two bombs. The third time was the charm.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Nuclear Files: Educators: Study Guides: The Decision to Drop the BombIf the object were solely Japanese surrender, then one bomb – or, as some scientists proposed, even a demonstration test before captured Japanese generals ...
www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/educators/study-guides/history_decision-to-drop-bomb.htm

A nearly fair piece. The only problem being the claim that there is "substantial" evidence that Japan was ready to surrender without the use of the Bombs.

Source Documents I have already linked to at least twice before show clearly that the Japanese "peace" offer was nothing more than an attempt to broker a deal with the Soviet Union to call off the Allies. The Japanese intended in these "offers" to keep all still possessed conquered areas, to "discuss" a neutral Manchuko, to deny any disarmament, to not allow any change in the Government of Japan, to not allow any trials of any Japanese for war crimes, claiming they would review the information and conduct any trials themselves, a bar to any allied or Soviet Forces in Japan. In other words, no surrender, just getting the Allies to stop fighting.

Further SOURCE documents show that the Controlling authority in the Japanese Government ( the Army) were dead set against any surrender. Even after 2 nukes and a Soviet Invasion the ruling Army generals REFUSED to surrender. It took a reluctant Emperor, shocked by the power of the bombs, to order surrender. Even then the Army attempted a Coup to prevent him from surrendering.

I do agree that it may have been possible for a single Bomb to have resulted in surrender, but I doubt it, after the first the Emperor still vacilated. The second is what got him to act. This is all clear in the Japanese records captured after the war.

The idea of using the bomb in some remote place and convincing the Japanese to surrender is unfounded by what actually happened even after the bombs were USED on Japan. The claim that both bombs were used to prove they worked to cow the Soviets is baseless. My personal opinion is that Truman was less than clear on the second bomb and gave much to much leeway to the Generals in theater. But both would have been required it seems from the actually records from the Japanese side.

Other than that complaint this link is attempting to be fair. They have a clear bias but presented both sides of the argument.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

As an American, at war with Japan -- why shouldnt he 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...

We killed FAR more than that with conventioal weapons.
Why does it matter what sort of bomb we used?

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.

Civilians die in war. It cannot be helped.

 

[Shogun]

funny how callous you people become about dead civilians when they are not falling out of the world trade center.

 

[Shogun]

If his family or house gets between me and him I will take them out too.

Dropping the bomb on Japan spared an estimated 1 Million American lives, and brought WWII to an end.

And to save a million US, lives Hell yes I'd use it. Tactically, it's sheer stupidity not to.

then you would be one psycho nutjob who would soon enjoy a pretty small cell. How can you justify such vigilante attitude while demonizing the exact same retributive motives of those who hate America? You are not Dirty Harry and neither is America when it comes to selectively choosing whose civilian massacres are valid and which ones are terrorism.

Dropping the bomb was PROJECTED as saving that many lives. It's called rationalizing. They can rationalize too.

I guess flying planes into buildings were a little too tactically tempting too, eh? I wonder if they thought it would be stupid NOT to cause 9/11 and save themselves from a full on military assault too. Certainly, they saved millions of lives, American and Muslim, by simply not invading too! See, now aren't you glad that 9/11 happened instead of a ground assault? I mean, it's not like the US would roll over and surrender, right? They kill civilians, WE kill civilians. I mean, civilians die in conflict and there is nothing anyone can do about it, yes?

 

[doniston]

Wow.

You're -so- stymied by the questions, you have to resort to personal attacks. I expect that on a day-care playground, but not here.

Really -- they're simple questions. I cannot imagine why you're having so much trouble with something so simple.

Perhaps the concepts they refer to are indeed too complicated for you?
Perhaops you don't understand the questions, and how they relate to the issue of the propriety of dropping the bombs?

If you dont understand any of these things, just let me know and I'll help explain them better.

Oh, and I gotta know:



Are you comfortable playing the fool?

I have ppointed out the stupidity of your approach. If you can't undertand or recognize it. There is nothing that can be done for you. You are the fool, not I

 

[RetiredGySgt]

then you would be one psycho nutjob who would soon enjoy a pretty small cell. How can you justify such vigilante attitude while demonizing the exact same retributive motives of those who hate America? You are not Dirty Harry and neither is America when it comes to selectively choosing whose civilian massacres are valid and which ones are terrorism.

Dropping the bomb was PROJECTED as saving that many lives. It's called rationalizing. They can rationalize too.

I guess flying planes into buildings were a little too tactically tempting too, eh? I wonder if they thought it would be stupid NOT to cause 9/11 and save themselves from a full on military assault too. Certainly, they saved millions of lives, American and Muslim, by simply not invading too! See, now aren't you glad that 9/11 happened instead of a ground assault? I mean, it's not like the US would roll over and surrender, right? They kill civilians, WE kill civilians. I mean, civilians die in conflict and there is nothing anyone can do about it, yes?

There is a HUGE body of proven evidence of what wouold have happened had we invaded Japan, Almost 4 YEARS worth of evidence. Your right they are estimates, but guess what numnuts, the previous estimates all were to small for EVERY other opposed landing. The numbers did not appear magically out of the air. That you pretend otherwise is ignorance at its finest. That Larkinn agrees with you is stupidity.

Making the claim you make is beyond ignorance. Somehow we are to believe after 4 years of battles, after massive casualties in every battle, after civilian suicides at almost 100 percent, we are to believe an invasion would have been a cake walk, that the estimates were just made up on a whim.We are to believe civilians armed with bamboo stakes charging machine gun positions would have resulted in few casualties on either side.

You have not provide one SHRED of evidence for your opinion NOT ONE. I on the other hand can provide source documents from the time that prove every point I have made.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have ppointed out the stupidity of your approach. If you can't undertand or recognize it. There is nothing that can be done for you. You are the fool, not I

I guess you really -don't- understand the questions. Wow.
You really need to make sure you're wearing a helmet when you go outside.

Of course, there's another possibility:
You don't -want- to answer the questions, as you know the answers to them will make it impossible for you to condem the 'terribleness' of the bombings.

Either way -- its noted that you can/wont stand and deliver.

 

[Shogun]

There is a HUGE body of proven evidence of what wouold have happened had we invaded Japan, Almost 4 YEARS worth of evidence. Your right they are estimates, but guess what numnuts, the previous estimates all were to small for EVERY other opposed landing. The numbers did not appear magically out of the air. That you pretend otherwise is ignorance at its finest. That Larkinn agrees with you is stupidity.

Making the claim you make is beyond ignorance. Somehow we are to believe after 4 years of battles, after massive casualties in every battle, after civilian suicides at almost 100 percent, we are to believe an invasion would have been a cake walk, that the estimates were just made up on a whim.We are to believe civilians armed with bamboo stakes charging machine gun positions would have resulted in few casualties on either side.

You have not provide one SHRED of evidence for your opinion NOT ONE. I on the other hand can provide source documents from the time that prove every point I have made.

Estimates like how the Iraq war would find WMDs and pay for itself? Spare me your support of OPINIONS. I've posted the OPINIONS OF OTHERS TOO. If you want to believe THE OPINION that dropping the bombs saved lives then so be it. Hell, if Fred Phelps can believe that 9/11 was caused because God doesn't like our policy on gays then I guess you can believe what you want to believe too. I, and others, ahve posted EVIDENCE that suggests that you are hiding behind an excuse. noting more, nothing less. SPECULATION. ESTIMATES. PROJECTION. hardly worth ignoring the post-bomb debate on war criminality...


HOLY SHIT this slendertone commercial is annoying.

You seem to rely on ESTIMATES like it is the bible or something. Hell, the last 6 years of your president's war should tell you a thing or two about who will say what just to achieve a fucked up plan. You originally insisted that there was NO sense o revenge when dropping them and then, miraculously, refined that to insisting that TRUMAN wasn't vengeful. Indeed, I guess that's what happens when I remind you that this wasn't exactly a fucking mandated course of action. That very MANY people saw this as a war crime. Indicated by quotes that you still choose not to read. It's ok, dude... Again, we sure do see which of us is the fucking moron by looking at who insists that no one else has posted evidence besides your own estimates and projections...

 

[doniston]

There is a HUGE body of proven evidence of what would have happened had we invaded Japan, Almost 4 YEARS worth of evidence.

Do you ever add the slightest bit of logic to your comments? Tjer is a large body of e3vidence as to whqt DID happen in the past. ABsolutely NONE for what would have happened had the Japanese surrendered before the bombs were actually used. The fact is that those projections didn't come true when we actually did occupy Japan.

we are to believe an invasion would have been a cake walk,

It was, in fact, a relative Cakewalk

You have not provide one SHRED of evidence for your opinion NOT ONE. I on the other hand can provide source documents from the time that prove every point I have made.

Look stupid, people DO NOT (repeat) DO NOTprovide evidence of their opinions--only of the facts (Not their supposition and misreading of the accounts, as you have done.)

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Estimates like how the Iraq war would find WMDs and pay for itself? Spare me your support of OPINIONS. I've posted the OPINIONS OF OTHERS TOO. If you want to believe THE OPINION that dropping the bombs saved lives then so be it. Hell, if Fred Phelps can believe that 9/11 was caused because God doesn't like our policy on gays then I guess you can believe what you want to believe too. I, and others, ahve posted EVIDENCE that suggests that you are hiding behind an excuse. noting more, nothing less. SPECULATION. ESTIMATES. PROJECTION. hardly worth ignoring the post-bomb debate on war criminality...


HOLY SHIT this slendertone commercial is annoying.

You seem to rely on ESTIMATES like it is the bible or something. Hell, the last 6 years of your president's war should tell you a thing or two about who will say what just to achieve a fucked up plan. You originally insisted that there was NO sense o revenge when dropping them and then, miraculously, refined that to insisting that TRUMAN wasn't vengeful. Indeed, I guess that's what happens when I remind you that this wasn't exactly a fucking mandated course of action. That very MANY people saw this as a war crime. Indicated by quotes that you still choose not to read. It's ok, dude... Again, we sure do see which of us is the fucking moron by looking at who insists that no one else has posted evidence besides your own estimates and projections...

WW2 and Iraq have ZERO in common which if you had any intelligence you would know. Estimates for an Invasion of Japan and any estimates involved in Iraq have ZERO in common. Which any 6 year old can be taught. That you pretend otherwise and without a shred of evidence is ignorance that astounds even a simple mind.

Do keep pretending that somehow the estimates of what would happen in an Invasion of Japan were simply whims and fantasy of a vengeful Government bent on murder. FUCKING hilarious if it were not so ignorant. Keep on trying to compare the decision to use nukes in japan after 4 years of war as the same as anything dealing with Iraq, you are pathetic.

 

[doniston]

A nearly fair piece. The only problem being the claim that there is "substantial" evidence that Japan was ready to surrender without the use of the Bombs.

Source Documents I have already linked to at least twice before show clearly that the Japanese "peace" offer was nothing more than an attempt to broker a deal with the Soviet Union to call off the Allies. The Japanese intended in these "offers" to keep all still possessed conquered areas, to "discuss" a neutral Manchuko, to deny any disarmament, to not allow any change in the Government of Japan, to not allow any trials of any Japanese for war crimes, claiming they would review the information and conduct any trials themselves, a bar to any allied or Soviet Forces in Japan. In other words, no surrender, just getting the Allies to stop fighting.

Further SOURCE documents show that the Controlling authority in the Japanese Government ( the Army) were dead set against any surrender. Even after 2 nukes and a Soviet Invasion the ruling Army generals REFUSED to surrender. It took a reluctant Emperor, shocked by the power of the bombs, to order surrender. Even then the Army attempted a Coup to prevent him from surrendering.

I do agree that it may have been possible for a single Bomb to have resulted in surrender, but I doubt it, after the first the Emperor still vacilated. The second is what got him to act. This is all clear in the Japanese records captured after the war.

The idea of using the bomb in some remote place and convincing the Japanese to surrender is unfounded by what actually happened even after the bombs were USED on Japan. The claim that both bombs were used to prove they worked to cow the Soviets is baseless. My personal opinion is that Truman was less than clear on the second bomb and gave much to much leeway to the Generals in theater. But both would have been required it seems from the actually records from the Japanese side.

Other than that complaint this link is attempting to be fair. They have a clear bias but presented both sides of the argument.

The only one seeming to be biased is you, the rest of us seem to recognize the possibility of peace without the bombs.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The only one seeming to be biased is you, the rest of us seem to recognize the possibility of peace without the bombs.

Provide evidence. All you have are a couple intercepts that CLEARLY indicate Japan was NOT going to surrender but rather wanted "peace" by keeping what they had and just getting the allies to leave them alone. Further we have proof that after 2 BOMBS they did not want to surrender.

 

[Shogun]

yea.. funny how the mass murder of a civilian population with a new weapon that lead directly to mutually assured destruction tactics might do that....



Hey nevermind, it's "projected estimations are the same thing as proof" day!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

yea.. funny how the mass murder of a civilian population with a new weapon that lead directly to mutually assured destruction tactics might do that....



Hey nevermind, it's "projected estimations are the same thing as proof" day!

I am done with you on this matter. YOU are a FUCKING IDIOTIC MORON on this issue. You can not provide one shred of evidence, you casn not provide one refutable piece of proof to any of the estimates , all you have is trying to twist WW2 into somehow equalling Iraq.

I would suggest you learn History and then learn the ability to reason past political brainwashing but I know that would be wasted on your IGNORANCE in this matter.

When you provide something other then "nanananana, it is cause i say it is, nananananana" maybe we can talk. Tell then take your rant to the preschool play yard where it belongs.

 

[Shogun]

Bitch, I posted just as much in OPINIONS as you did.

Shall I quote you admitting that your "evidence" amounted to ESTIMATES? OPINIONS? You really didn't post anything profound, dude. Flailing your arms around like you have the cure for cancer in your pocket is fucking laughable.

the bottom line is that people like you opened the door for Mutually Assured Destruction in the cold war and the hunt for nukes by rogue states now by making excuses for what would have been a war crime has a muslim nation dropped nukes on ANYONE then OR now. You want to cry like a bleeding pussy about 9/11, which was horrible, while shrugging off the annihilation oh Japanese CIVILIANS, which too was horrible, just so you can rationalize a double standard. Thats why it's so fucking ironic when YOU think that it is YOUR job to police the globe's nukes while being the only ones to ever USE a fucking nuke. GUESS how many may have died all you want. PRETEND that estimates are concrete if you must. IGNORE the very real controversy suggested by he very words of Albert Fucking Einstein if you need to.


But spare me one more minute of this "I posted evidence and you didn't" act. SPARE me your dense fucking opinion that no one in AMERICA saw dropping nukes on Japan as revenge for Pearl Harbour. SPARE me you self-righteous blather about learning history. You want to wash your hands like Pilot but, unfortunately, your towels keep setting off the geiger counter.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Bitch, I posted just as much in OPINIONS as you did.

Shall I quote you admitting that your "evidence" amounted to ESTIMATES? OPINIONS? You really didn't post anything profound, dude. Flailing your arms around like you have the cure for cancer in your pocket is fucking laughable.

the bottom line is that people like you opened the door for Mutually Assured Destruction in the cold war and the hunt for nukes by rogue states now by making excuses for what would have been a war crime has a muslim nation dropped nukes on ANYONE then OR now. You want to cry like a bleeding pussy about 9/11, which was horrible, while shrugging off the annihilation oh Japanese CIVILIANS, which too was horrible, just so you can rationalize a double standard. Thats why it's so fucking ironic when YOU think that it is YOUR job to police the globe's nukes while being the only ones to ever USE a fucking nuke. GUESS how many may have died all you want. PRETEND that estimates are concrete if you must. IGNORE the very real controversy suggested by he very words of Albert Fucking Einstein if you need to.


But spare me one more minute of this "I posted evidence and you didn't" act. SPARE me your dense fucking opinion that no one in AMERICA saw dropping nukes on Japan as revenge for Pearl Harbour. SPARE me you self-righteous blather about learning history. You want to wash your hands like Pilot but, unfortunately, your towels keep setting off the geiger counter.

Moronic drivel from an expert. Do continue on this tact, you prove to all what a fucking loser you are. Go ahead and remind us again how WW2 and Iraw are the same you retard.