Ethics and The A-Bomb

[CurveLight]

From everything I've read, and talking with people at my Grandpop's lodge, this is the version I believe. I think the Truman Administration did the right thing to save American lives as terrifying as it was.

I cannot get any pro-bomb person to answer a couple of questions so maybe you can.

If we dropped the bombs to force an unconditional surrender, then why is it the US changed its surrender terms instead of Japan?

Do you realize that after the bombs were dropped it was not Japan who changed their conditions for surrender but the US?

If it was worth nuking two civilian populations to try and force an unconditional surrender then why did we give up? The nukes didn't change Japan's terms for surrender so why didn't we invade? Why didn't we continue firebombing, blockades and air raids?

I have no idea. Invasion would have cost American lives. If it came down, as I understand it did, to American servicepeople dying or Japanese, it is a no brainer. Remember Pearl Harbor.

Why didn't we nuke panama, grenada, afghanistan, iraq or somalia? If it came down to choosing between our Troops dying or the enemy we should have nuked those places too. Correct?

I do appreciate your honesty in saying you have no idea but do you realize a land invasion was not necessary for several reasons even if we didn't drop the nukes?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your argument is a false analogy. Choose something more equivalent.

A land invasion may well not have succeeded. The casualties were going to be incredible even if the Allied armies managed to consolidate beach heads, much less push inland. The bombs were necessary. There is no real argument about this anymore. It's one of those flat historical facts that is indisputable.

 

[CurveLight]

Your argument is a false analogy. Choose something more equivalent.

A land invasion may well not have succeeded. The casualties were going to be incredible even if the Allied armies managed to consolidate beach heads, much less push inland. The bombs were necessary. There is no real argument about this anymore. It's one of those flat historical facts that is indisputable.

That must be why you work so hard to avoid simple questions. Quentin posted a boat load of facts you people won't even pretend to address.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Your argument is a false analogy. Choose something more equivalent.

A land invasion may well not have succeeded. The casualties were going to be incredible even if the Allied armies managed to consolidate beach heads, much less push inland. The bombs were necessary. There is no real argument about this anymore. It's one of those flat historical facts that is indisputable.

That must be why you work so hard to avoid simple questions. Quentin posted a boat load of facts you people won't even pretend to address.

He posted no facts. He cl;aimed as you have that Japan offered to surrender before the Atomic Bombs, that is a BALD FACED lie. All Japan offered was to cease the war and return to the 1941 start lines. And after one bomb they still demanded their terms be meet.

It took 2 bombs, a Soviet Invasion AND the DIRECT intervention of the Emperor to end the war. Even then the Army attempted a Coup.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your argument is a false analogy. Choose something more equivalent.

A land invasion may well not have succeeded. The casualties were going to be incredible even if the Allied armies managed to consolidate beach heads, much less push inland. The bombs were necessary. There is no real argument about this anymore. It's one of those flat historical facts that is indisputable.

That must be why you work so hard to avoid simple questions. Quentin posted a boat load of facts you people won't even pretend to address.

If new facts invalidate the old facts, the discussion is over.

 

[JakeStarkey]

RGS: It took 2 bombs, a Soviet Invasion AND the DIRECT intervention of the Emperor to end the war. Even then the Army attempted a Coup. //

And a very worried Strategic Planning Committee that had been from mid=June of 1945 developing serious doubts about the invasion's chances of success.

 

[namvet]

they had their chance and blew it. the Japs brought the destruction on themselves. even a beaten dog knows when to run

[youtube]LIOqL86jfg4[/youtube]


[youtube]rT0UI4-oOwE[/youtube]​

 

[namvet]

leaflets dropped after Hiroshima

 

[JakeStarkey]

namvet: mutter bugret sherlock mutter onna bun mutter mutter

 

[namvet]

Starkey: mutter bugret sherlock mutter onna bun mutter mutter gu gu ca ca

 

[namvet]

RGS: It took 2 bombs, a Soviet Invasion AND the DIRECT intervention of the Emperor to end the war. Even then the Army attempted a Coup. //

And a very worried Strategic Planning Committee that had been from mid=June of 1945 developing serious doubts about the invasion's chances of success.

Starkey: mutter bugret sherlock mutter onna bun mutter mutter gu gu ca ca

 

[namvet]

Your facts and your documentation are wrong. Check it out for your own creditability's sake, curve.

What facts are wrong? If you know then you should have stated what they were and proven them wrong.

You ignored the earlier posting, so I moved it to here.

Because you have not bothered to read the declassified material from the 1945 strategic planning ops for the Japanese invasion that have been released in the last decade. It turns out that Leahy, Eisenhower, and Macarthur were all wrong, and that Truman made the right decisiohttp://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_downfall3.htmln
.
Now did you really suggest that Japanese offered to surrender in January 1945? Really? Oh, my.

Starkey: mutter bugret sherlock mutter onna bun mutter mutter gu gu ca ca

 

[namvet]

Your argument is a false analogy. Choose something more equivalent.

A land invasion may well not have succeeded. The casualties were going to be incredible even if the Allied armies managed to consolidate beach heads, much less push inland. The bombs were necessary. There is no real argument about this anymore. It's one of those flat historical facts that is indisputable.

That must be why you work so hard to avoid simple questions. Quentin posted a boat load of facts you people won't even pretend to address.

If new facts invalidate the old facts, the discussion is over.

Starkey: mutter bugret sherlock mutter onna bun mutter mutter gu gu ca ca (the discussion is over)

 

[CurveLight]

Your argument is a false analogy. Choose something more equivalent.

A land invasion may well not have succeeded. The casualties were going to be incredible even if the Allied armies managed to consolidate beach heads, much less push inland. The bombs were necessary. There is no real argument about this anymore. It's one of those flat historical facts that is indisputable.

That must be why you work so hard to avoid simple questions. Quentin posted a boat load of facts you people won't even pretend to address.

He posted no facts. He cl;aimed as you have that Japan offered to surrender before the Atomic Bombs, that is a BALD FACED lie. All Japan offered was to cease the war and return to the 1941 start lines. And after one bomb they still demanded their terms be meet.

It took 2 bombs, a Soviet Invasion AND the DIRECT intervention of the Emperor to end the war. Even then the Army attempted a Coup.

He posted no facts? Holy ****. Dishonest people like you should have to pay other posters.

 

[CurveLight]

Your argument is a false analogy. Choose something more equivalent.

A land invasion may well not have succeeded. The casualties were going to be incredible even if the Allied armies managed to consolidate beach heads, much less push inland. The bombs were necessary. There is no real argument about this anymore. It's one of those flat historical facts that is indisputable.

That must be why you work so hard to avoid simple questions. Quentin posted a boat load of facts you people won't even pretend to address.

If new facts invalidate the old facts, the discussion is over.

You completely ignored the question in 196. You claimed my facts are wrong but haven't done a fuxxing thing to support that claim. Damn namvet.....are you ever honest on this issue?

 

[namvet]

i posted the vids and docs. not good enough???? piss off

 

[CurveLight]

i posted the vids and docs. not good enough???? piss off

You've already admitted you don't care if it was ethical or not.

 

[Samson]

Admiral William Leahy told President Truman: "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done."
Hiroshima

Just when I thought you couldn't get more idiotic



You posted only HALF the quote!!!

Admiral William Leahy told President Truman: "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives."

I was fully prepared for you to try and jump on that and had Leahy's quote from his book ready to use in response. What you fail to understand is his prediction that it would not go off has absolutely nothing to do with the fact he said the bombs were not necessary.

FAIL



"But....But...But....what you fail to understand...."



You babbling imbecile.

 

[namvet]

i posted the vids and docs. not good enough???? piss off

You've already admitted you don't care if it was ethical or not.

if your capable, and i doubt it, read the ENTIRE post shit for brains

 

[CurveLight]

Just when I thought you couldn't get more idiotic



You posted only HALF the quote!!!

I was fully prepared for you to try and jump on that and had Leahy's quote from his book ready to use in response. What you fail to understand is his prediction that it would not go off has absolutely nothing to do with the fact he said the bombs were not necessary.

FAIL



"But....But...But....what you fail to understand...."



You babbling imbecile.

More proof this has to be one of the worst ******* boards on the net. When ***** like you know you are wrong you do nothing but whine and ignore the info.