Ethics and The A-Bomb

[Samson]

The question of the bombs' role was not in trying to figure out how to end WW2. They were used to figure out how to start what became known as The Cold War.

Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense......

You could not think of any better way to demonstrate what an idiot you are.

 

[CurveLight]

Despite the Germans having already surrendered I think we should have dropped an A bomb on Berlin, or at least Hamburg, simply as a gesture of good will to the Japanese, to prove to them that Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a racist attack.

Meh......in the spirit of multiculturalism, we should have also dropped one on Nairobi, and Mexico City, and maybe an Alutian Island to pick off some eskimos.

In terms of killing people the bombs have been overrated. What was and is so amazing is the force unleashed by a single weapon and the radiation field it leaves behind.

 

[Samson]

Despite the Germans having already surrendered I think we should have dropped an A bomb on Berlin, or at least Hamburg, simply as a gesture of good will to the Japanese, to prove to them that Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a racist attack.

Meh......in the spirit of multiculturalism, we should have also dropped one on Nairobi, and Mexico City, and maybe an Alutian Island to pick off some eskimos.

In terms of killing people the bombs have been overrated. What was and is so amazing is the force unleashed by a single weapon and the radiation field it leaves behind.

Its really the thought that counts.

 

[CurveLight]

The question of the bombs' role was not in trying to figure out how to end WW2. They were used to figure out how to start what became known as The Cold War.

Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense......

You could not think of any better way to demonstrate what an idiot you are.

You're one of many who lack basic knowledge about the end of WW2. The bombs were used to prevent Japan from surrendering through a deal with Russia. Why? The US would have had to share the spoils of war and we were not about to do that. Also, we were never really allies with Russia as our only common goal was defeating the third Reich in Europe.

But feel free to continue calling people an idiot because they say something beyond your comprehension capabilities. It makes you look oh so cool!

 

[Samson]

The question of the bombs' role was not in trying to figure out how to end WW2. They were used to figure out how to start what became known as The Cold War.

Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense......

You could not think of any better way to demonstrate what an idiot you are.

You're one of many who lack basic knowledge about the end of WW2. The bombs were used to prevent Japan from surrendering through a deal with Russia. Why? The US would have had to share the spoils of war and we were not about to do that. Also, we were never really allies with Russia as our only common goal was defeating the third Reich in Europe.

But feel free to continue calling people an idiot because they say something beyond your comprehension capabilities. It makes you look oh so cool!

Excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta

 

[CurveLight]

Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense......

You could not think of any better way to demonstrate what an idiot you are.

You're one of many who lack basic knowledge about the end of WW2. The bombs were used to prevent Japan from surrendering through a deal with Russia. Why? The US would have had to share the spoils of war and we were not about to do that. Also, we were never really allies with Russia as our only common goal was defeating the third Reich in Europe.

But feel free to continue calling people an idiot because they say something beyond your comprehension capabilities. It makes you look oh so cool!

Excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta

Shircia, fov huzy deramia!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The question of the bombs' role was not in trying to figure out how to end WW2. They were used to figure out how to start what became known as The Cold War.

Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense......

You could not think of any better way to demonstrate what an idiot you are.

You're one of many who lack basic knowledge about the end of WW2. The bombs were used to prevent Japan from surrendering through a deal with Russia. Why? The US would have had to share the spoils of war and we were not about to do that. Also, we were never really allies with Russia as our only common goal was defeating the third Reich in Europe.

But feel free to continue calling people an idiot because they say something beyond your comprehension capabilities. It makes you look oh so cool!

Once again you ******* MORON I have the meetings from the Japanese Government. They were never going to surrender to the allies before the A bombs and there were no deals to surrender to the Soviets as the Japanese did not believe they would attack them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No to all those questions. He even uses magic intercepts for his claims. He is twisting the information and in some cases outright lying.

But what is the point if you refuse to even read the documents?

I have glanced through all the URLs, sir. Each seems to support the factual allegations the posters have claimed they would. But BOTH scenarios cannot have occurred, and at this point, I am kinda sorta thinking this is as far as I'm gonna get.

I'm heavily inclined to believe what you have posted, RetiredGySgt, but I still have some doubts. More or less the same place I was in when this thread started.

The info they are pointing to is an incomplete picture.

In many ways, what you are saying about both scenarios being impossible to co-exist is exactly what was taking place. There was the "official" position that the nukes were the only way to force japan to an unconditional surrender then there was the more factual position that japan was trying to surrender.

In both countries there was a power struggle between the military and civilian leadership, but their agendas were in role reversals. In Japan the civilian side was more apt to seeking peace than the military but in the US it was the military that was pushing for peace more than the civilian leadership under Truman.

In regards to your OP question about the "necessity" of the bombs, what does it tell you that every top US military leader has agreed that the bombs were not necessary?

And yet you IGNORE the fact that until the second Atomic Bomb was dropped the Japanese had NO INTENTION of surrendering and even after the second attack it took direct intervention from the Emperor to force the Army to surrender.

Once again pea brain the Japanese never offered to surrender. The offer to the Soviets to intercede for them with the allies was NOT a surrender. And after the first bomb they made no credible offer either. I have the FACTS to back me up. The meetings of the Japanese Government.

 

[Madeline]

I don't give a damned if it was ethical or not. it ended the war and saved millions of AMERICAN lives. bottom line for me.

and i not going with this innocent civilian crap. they were working in factory's and making weapons to kill us.

the Japs murdered million of women and children in occupied countries. or do we let that slide??? they got what they deserved.

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." fleet Admiral Yamamoto after the Pearl Harbor attack

Yes, women and children died in the Phillipines and elsewhere. They ALSO died in Germany, at the hands and bombs of the Allies. Civilians in battlefields do die. If the Japanese Army engaged in widespread genocide of the peoples of the Pacific Islands, I have not heard that. Genocide in/by Germany yes, but Japan no.

But since when are unarmed civilians, especially children, cannon fodder? How many infants died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, namvet? What weapons did they help manufacture? What sort of warfare ethics AIMS to kill civilians?

The POV I take is that if we ONLY dropped the A-Bomb to show off our shiney new weapon to scare the Russians, etc., it was wrong. If we did it to force the surrender of Japan, it was right.

 

[amiam*]

Was it ethical to use the A-bomb on the Japanese?

If so, was it ethical to bomb both Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I do not know what is ethical about war. I have never considered the ethics of war. I doubt if any soldier even considers this. His main concern is necessity and self preservation.

As to the dropping of the first a bomb...I wonder if any Jap wrote a poem about the excessive sunburn that the population of Hiroshima experienced?

Indeed, that which was of the Sun did shine on the Land of the Rising Sun............

 

[CurveLight]

Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense......

You could not think of any better way to demonstrate what an idiot you are.

You're one of many who lack basic knowledge about the end of WW2. The bombs were used to prevent Japan from surrendering through a deal with Russia. Why? The US would have had to share the spoils of war and we were not about to do that. Also, we were never really allies with Russia as our only common goal was defeating the third Reich in Europe.

But feel free to continue calling people an idiot because they say something beyond your comprehension capabilities. It makes you look oh so cool!

Once again you ******* MORON I have the meetings from the Japanese Government. They were never going to surrender to the allies before the A bombs and there were no deals to surrender to the Soviets as the Japanese did not believe they would attack them.

"This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor."
Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html


Have you never realized the Potsdam Declaration was designed to inhibit Japan's surrender so the a-bombs could be used?

 

[CurveLight]

I don't give a damned if it was ethical or not. it ended the war and saved millions of AMERICAN lives. bottom line for me.

and i not going with this innocent civilian crap. they were working in factory's and making weapons to kill us.

the Japs murdered million of women and children in occupied countries. or do we let that slide??? they got what they deserved.

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." fleet Admiral Yamamoto after the Pearl Harbor attack

Yes, women and children died in the Phillipines and elsewhere. They ALSO died in Germany, at the hands and bombs of the Allies. Civilians in battlefields do die. If the Japanese Army engaged in widespread genocide of the peoples of the Pacific Islands, I have not heard that. Genocide in/by Germany yes, but Japan no.

But since when are unarmed civilians, especially children, cannon fodder? How many infants died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, namvet? What weapons did they help manufacture? What sort of warfare ethics AIMS to kill civilians?

The POV I take is that if we ONLY dropped the A-Bomb to show off our shiney new weapon to scare the Russians, etc., it was wrong. If we did it to force the surrender of Japan, it was right.

Here are two facts that should answer the question, if not in the very least examine the bombings more closely.

Top US military leaders told Truman the bombs were not necessary for Japan to surrender before they were used.


After we dropped the bombs we accepted a conditional surrender.

 

[Samson]

You're one of many who lack basic knowledge about the end of WW2. The bombs were used to prevent Japan from surrendering through a deal with Russia. Why? The US would have had to share the spoils of war and we were not about to do that. Also, we were never really allies with Russia as our only common goal was defeating the third Reich in Europe.

But feel free to continue calling people an idiot because they say something beyond your comprehension capabilities. It makes you look oh so cool!

Once again you ******* MORON I have the meetings from the Japanese Government. They were never going to surrender to the allies before the A bombs and there were no deals to surrender to the Soviets as the Japanese did not believe they would attack them.

"This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor."
Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html


Have you never realized the Potsdam Declaration was designed to inhibit Japan's surrender so the a-bombs could be used?

No wonder you are such an idiot: Poor, poor Curvey believes
Harry Elmer Barnes whose career as a professor and then as a journalist was aborted by his contentiousness and his cavalier disregard not only for accuracy but also for truth. He produced no original scholarly work but synthesized information from his vast reading in a series of prolix and repetitious works on the history of Western civilization.

 

[Madeline]

Was it ethical to use the A-bomb on the Japanese?

If so, was it ethical to bomb both Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I do not know what is ethical about war. I have never considered the ethics of war. I doubt if any soldier even considers this. His main concern is necessity and self preservation.

As to the dropping of the first a bomb...I wonder if any Jap wrote a poem about the excessive sunburn that the population of Hiroshima experienced?

Indeed, that which was of the Sun did shine on the Land of the Rising Sun............

But there are warfare ethics, aren't there? Don't we have them laid out in the Geneva Convention? Don't we teach them at the Naval Academy, etc.?

 

[Madeline]

Once again you ******* MORON I have the meetings from the Japanese Government. They were never going to surrender to the allies before the A bombs and there were no deals to surrender to the Soviets as the Japanese did not believe they would attack them.

"This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor."
Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html


Have you never realized the Potsdam Declaration was designed to inhibit Japan's surrender so the a-bombs could be used?

No wonder you are such an idiot: Poor, poor Curvey believes
Harry Elmer Barnes whose career as a professor and then as a journalist was aborted by his contentiousness and his cavalier disregard not only for accuracy but also for truth. He produced no original scholarly work but synthesized information from his vast reading in a series of prolix and repetitious works on the history of Western civilization.

So the documents relied on by CurveLight are suspect, Samson? I have to admit, I hope that you and RetiredGySgt and namvet are right, and Quartermass and CurveLight are wrong.

This country has enough to feel shame over without a gratitutous A-Bombing or two to add to that black list.

 

[Samson]

"This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor."
Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html


Have you never realized the Potsdam Declaration was designed to inhibit Japan's surrender so the a-bombs could be used?

No wonder you are such an idiot: Poor, poor Curvey believes
Harry Elmer Barnes whose career as a professor and then as a journalist was aborted by his contentiousness and his cavalier disregard not only for accuracy but also for truth. He produced no original scholarly work but synthesized information from his vast reading in a series of prolix and repetitious works on the history of Western civilization.

So the documents relied on by CurveLight are suspect, Samson? I have to admit, I hope that you and RetiredGySgt and namvet are right, and Quartermass and CurveLight are wrong.

This country has enough to feel shame over without a gratitutous A-Bombing or two to add to that black list.

Curvey's only resource is some nut-case-historical-revisionist.

 

[Madeline]

No wonder you are such an idiot: Poor, poor Curvey believes
Harry Elmer Barnes whose career as a professor and then as a journalist was aborted by his contentiousness and his cavalier disregard not only for accuracy but also for truth. He produced no original scholarly work but synthesized information from his vast reading in a series of prolix and repetitious works on the history of Western civilization.

So the documents relied on by CurveLight are suspect, Samson? I have to admit, I hope that you and RetiredGySgt and namvet are right, and Quartermass and CurveLight are wrong.

This country has enough to feel shame over without a gratitutous A-Bombing or two to add to that black list.

Curvey's only resource is some nut-case-historical-revisionist.

Please check your InBox. I'm grateful to you, and so you have a present.

 

[CurveLight]

Once again you ******* MORON I have the meetings from the Japanese Government. They were never going to surrender to the allies before the A bombs and there were no deals to surrender to the Soviets as the Japanese did not believe they would attack them.

"This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor."
Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html


Have you never realized the Potsdam Declaration was designed to inhibit Japan's surrender so the a-bombs could be used?

No wonder you are such an idiot: Poor, poor Curvey believes
Harry Elmer Barnes whose career as a professor and then as a journalist was aborted by his contentiousness and his cavalier disregard not only for accuracy but also for truth. He produced no original scholarly work but synthesized information from his vast reading in a series of prolix and repetitious works on the history of Western civilization.

I never referenced barnes as a source you lying ****.

 

[CurveLight]

So the documents relied on by CurveLight are suspect, Samson? I have to admit, I hope that you and RetiredGySgt and namvet are right, and Quartermass and CurveLight are wrong.

This country has enough to feel shame over without a gratitutous A-Bombing or two to add to that black list.

Curvey's only resource is some nut-case-historical-revisionist.

Please check your InBox. I'm grateful to you, and so you have a present.

So you're relying on Samson to tell you my sources instead of asking me? How much sense does that make? One source is an article from August 1945:

"In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)"


Samson claimed my "only resource" is barnes when in fact I've never referenced barnes at all. So you just thanked Samson for outright lying.

 

[CurveLight]

Madeline, have you ever responded to the fact our top military leaders all agreed the bombs were not necessary?