The truth about Truman’s bombing Japan

[Mushroom]

either you are totally unaware about the usage of Agent Orange and it's color relatives, or you might have reasons to believe that a herbicide isn't a chemical substance

It is a defoliant. And like DDT, Red Dye #3, and saccharine was believed at the time to be safe to humans.

By your definition, if we had sprayed the jungles with artificial sweetener, that would have been the use of chemicals also.

 

[BothWings]

Yes, but with an additional half million Allied fatalities, and from 5 to 10 million Japanese fatalities.

Civilians really don't deserve to die because of political or imperial wars. At least it would have been naval and air battles mostly, with some guerilla warfare on the Pacific Islands leaving civilians mostly out of it. Soldiers dying and armies thinning out is the only reason wars should be lost or won. Half the time civilians are already somewhat oppressed by whatever regime is sending their boys off to war. That's bad enough that an entire city of families should blown up or spend years living with lingering radiation.

 

[Redfish]

Civilians really don't deserve to die because of political or imperial wars. At least it would have been naval and air battles mostly, with some guerilla warfare on the Pacific Islands leaving civilians mostly out of it. Soldiers dying and armies thinning out is the only reason wars should be lost or won. Half the time civilians are already somewhat oppressed by whatever regime is sending their boys off to war. That's bad enough that an entire city of families should blown up or spend years living with lingering radiation.

yes, war is bad, we all know that already.

 

[Mushroom]

Civilians really don't deserve to die because of political or imperial wars.

Yes, and your point is what, exactly?

They lived near those bases, they even provided most of the workforce. Nagasaki in particular, which was one of the largest shipyards in Japan and was working 24 hour shifts to prepare submarines to attack the Allied forces before they made it ashore.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, and your point is what, exactly?

They lived near those bases, they even provided most of the workforce. Nagasaki in particular, which was one of the largest shipyards in Japan and was working 24 hour shifts to prepare submarines to attack the Allied forces before they made it ashore.

the revisionist don't care that the two cities were valid military targets they just don't care.

 

[Mushroom]

the revisionist don't care that the two cities were valid military targets they just don't care.

Or that estimates predicted as many at 10 million Japanese deaths in an invasion. And that was just battlefield casualties, not counting the number of suicides like was seen on Saipan.

Combat in Japan would have made the battles in Eastern Europe seem like a cakewalk.

 

[Kruska]

Agent Orange was an Herbicide, NOT a chemical weapon. It was never intended to harm humans, in fact at the time it was considered harmless to people. The dosage you trumpet was tiny, one-liter weighs 2.2 pounds, so fifty million liters weighed ELEVEN MILLION POUNDS divide that by 375 equals .2933333 parts per million of dioxin. That's about as far from a lethal dose as can be found. A lethal dose of Dioxin is about twenty milligrams. You'd have to drink hundreds of gallons of Agent Orange to get that much dioxin. No reputable agency or organization has ever classified ANY herbicide as a chemical weapon.
Did it turn out to have bad effects over time? Sure, but no one knew it at the time. Remember DDT also had bad effects but it was used for over a hundred years before people figured it out.

It was a chemical weapon - and if one uses a chemical weapon, that party is conducting chemical warfare, there is IMO no discussion about this necessary.
Nowhere is it stated that chemical warfare is only or solely conducted directly towards humans - same goes for bio-weapons. It was produced via a chemical process even beholding dioxin
It wasn't just intended to act solely as a defoliant - but it also was intended to-and actively did destroy crops and disrupted rice production. That an ultimate dangerous substance such as dioxin would thus enter the food chain was also known. What longtime impact this chemical would have on the food-chain and therefore humans - might not have been known to it's full extend at the time of usage. Just as radiation and it's impact on humans was known (A-bombs on Japan) - but longtime symptoms and it's actual severeness were logically not known at the time.

The conducting of chemical warfare via Agent Orange and it's color relatives was the main cause for the Vietnam war to be termed - Americas first official "dirty war".

If you are interested to know about it - simply type "Did the USA conduct chemical warfare in Vietnam" into e.g. google
You will come up with endless topics to pick, e.g.

How U.S. chemical warfare in Vietnam unleashed an enduring disaster

In the end, the military campaign was called Operation Ranch Hand, but it originally went by a more appropriately hellish appellation: Operation Hades. As part of this Vietnam War effort, from 1961 to 1971, the United States sprayed over 73 million liters of chemical agents on the country to...

phys.org

or e.g.

Chemical Warfare in Vietnam: Legal or Illegal? | Netherlands International Law Review | Cambridge Core

Chemical Warfare in Vietnam: Legal or Illegal? - Volume 18 Issue 2

www.cambridge.org

On March 24, 1965, the American Government recognized for the first time the use of chemical substances in Vietnam. This news provoked a storm of protest throughout the world, leading eventually to a bitter debate in the United Nations in 1966, which resulted in Resolution 2162 B (XXI) adopted on Dec. 5. This Resolution called “for strict observance by all States of the principles and objectives of the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June, 1925, and condemns all actions contrary to those objectives”.

 

[Mushroom]

It was a chemical weapon - and if one uses a chemical weapon, that party is conducting chemical warfare, there is IMO no discussion about this necessary.

Well, your opinion means exactly nothing. Personal opinions are rather like diapers.

Here is how the Geneva Convention and UN defines them:

1. “Chemical Weapons” means the following, together or separately:
   1. Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;
   2. Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;
   3. Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).
2. “Toxic Chemical” means:
   Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere. (For the purpose of implementing this Convention, toxic chemicals which have been identified for the application of verification measures are listed in Schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals.)

Article II – Definitions and Criteria

Definitions and Criteria

www.opcw.org

So both the Geneva Convention and the UN say you are wrong. Your opinion is read, considered, and flushed.

 

[DudleySmith]

the revisionist don't care that the two cities were valid military targets they just don't care.

They just wish more Americans had been killed. They don't really care about civilians, and they don't care that the Soviets were the biggest imperialists of the post WW I era; they simply hate America and anything they did to stop the Soviets and Red Chinese imperialism. There really is no need to pretend they're anything but sociopaths and psychos or Russian propaganda peddlers. They shill for the two biggest mass murderers of the 20th Century, Russia and the Red China.

 

[Kruska]

Well, your opinion means exactly nothing. Personal opinions are rather like diapers.

Here is how the Geneva Convention and UN defines them:

Article II – Definitions and Criteria

Definitions and Criteria

www.opcw.org

So both the Geneva Convention and the UN say you are wrong. Your opinion is read, considered, and flushed.

Why don't you simply read up your own quoted sources??!!!!

Only born deniers like you, will start to discuss about facts, and will resort towards distorting facts via unproven statements.

Agent Orange is clearly a toxic chemical - simply due to beholding dioxin - the effects of dioxin are documented scientifically and well known by millions of Vietnamese and
by tens of thousands of your own US veterans.

Agent Orange Effects & Symptoms

Agent Orange was a toxic herbicide used during the Vietnam conflict from 1962 to 1971. The herbicide causes several health risks and cancers.

my.clevelandclinic.org

Agent Orange was a toxic, plant-killing chemical (herbicide) that the U.S. military used to clear foliage during the Vietnam conflict. Exposure to the herbicide causes Agent Orange effects, which include cancer, congenital (birth) disorders and life-threatening health complications.
Agent Orange was extremely deadly because the U.S. sprayed 20 times more than the manufacturer recommended in the environment.
The U.S. banned the use and production of the herbicide in 1971 after evidence of the deadly and harmful effects of Agent Orange became apparent.

Toxic Chemicals: according to your own given source:
1. “Chemical Weapons” means the following, together or separately:

1. Toxic chemicals.....

2. “Toxic Chemical” means:
Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals.

 

[Unkotare]

That is disingenuous BS meant to bury any guilty feelings that might come with a clear, sober evaluation of history. It is most certainly NOT "anti-American" to look at history directly and objectively, and anyone who cannot do so due to emotion is no historian.

.

 

[Unkotare]

Hiroshima and the Myths of Military Targets and Unconditional Surrender

Every year, in early August, new articles appear that debate whether the dropping of the atomic bombs in 1945 was justified. Earlier this month, the 75th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, was no exception.

www.lawfareblog.com

 

[braalian]

Since Japan must have known they had no chance in a war against the USA, the British Empire and potentially the USSR, why on earth didn’t they surrender before things got out of hand? Was keeping their stupid emperor really that important?

 

[Unkotare]

Since Japan must have known they had no chance in a war against the USA, the British Empire and potentially the USSR, why on earth didn’t they surrender before things got out of hand? Was keeping their stupid emperor really that important?

The idea wasn't to "win." It was to convince the world to stay out of a "sphere of influence." Kinda like what China is trying to slow-roll today. Didn't work then, won't work today.

 

[braalian]

The idea wasn't to "win." It was to convince the world to stay out of a "sphere of influence." Kinda like what China is trying to slow-roll today. Didn't work then, won't work today.

Yeah, but when they realized they were in over their head, why didn’t they surrender? They should’ve tapped out way sooner.

 

[Unkotare]

Yeah, but when they realized they were in over their head, why didn’t they surrender? They should’ve tapped out way sooner.

They tried. Fdr wasn’t interested.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

They tried. Fdr wasn’t interested.

You cannot, in fact, cite a single instance where the Government of Japan offered to surrender before the Emperor did after 2 atomic bombs.

 

[Unkotare]

Aug 14, 1965, page 1 - Chicago Tribune at Newspapers.com - Newspapers.com

View the digital scanned newspaper from Chicago Tribune dated Aug 14, 1965, page 1.

www.newspapers.com

 

[Unkotare]

https://wyso.weebly.com/uploads/2/2/9/0/22903824/trohan_article.pdf

 

[Unkotare]