Little Boy Decimates Hiroshima 70 Yrs ago

[Iceweasel]

It did not save American lives, but it did terminate many innocent Japanese lives.

Yes, it saved American lives. Who knows how many thousands. Japanese were killing themselves wholesale, including civilians. They refused to surrender, some would strap bombs on themselves and run into our forces. Groups would charge with pitch forks. Just one determined suicidal zealot can do a lot of damage.

Watch the show "World War 2 from Above". I saw it yesterday and leaves all doubt that it was the right thing to do. I learned a lot. One interesting thing is the cost of the atomic bombs. Over 600,000 people were employed and the cost was about 25 billion in today's money. One of the reasons it was so expensive was they weren't sure which would work, plutonium or uranium so they developed both. Fat Boy and Little John were different, they both worked.

It did not save lives. It ended lives of many innocent civilians.

And even if you believe the lie that is saved lives, is it ethical and moral to terminate the lives of untold numbers of innocent women, children, and old men of a defeated and defenseless nation wanting to surrender, to save the lives of your troops?

Repeating your errors don't make them come true. They didn't want to surrender, they refused to. We didn't bomb them for pleasure.

 

[Correll]

Winning the war against the Japanese and saving American lives....

It did not save American lives, but it did terminate many innocent Japanese lives.

Using a bomb instead of an invasion to end the war, obviously saved American lives.

False choice.

No invasion was ever necessary. Japan had been trying to surrender for months..even years, but FDR and Truman told them unconditional surrender or we will **** you up...leading to thousands of unnecessary deaths on both sides.

"Necessary"?

That's an interesting choice of words.

Sure. I guess if we agreed to their conditions, we could have just walked away.

So, were their conditions reasonable?

Do you even know their conditions? I suspect not.

All they asked is that the Emperor stay on the throne and not be charged a war criminal, which Truman agreed to AFTER he incinerated thousands of innocent women, children, and old men.

Link.

 

[gipper]

It did not save American lives, but it did terminate many innocent Japanese lives.

Yes, it saved American lives. Who knows how many thousands. Japanese were killing themselves wholesale, including civilians. They refused to surrender, some would strap bombs on themselves and run into our forces. Groups would charge with pitch forks. Just one determined suicidal zealot can do a lot of damage.

Watch the show "World War 2 from Above". I saw it yesterday and leaves all doubt that it was the right thing to do. I learned a lot. One interesting thing is the cost of the atomic bombs. Over 600,000 people were employed and the cost was about 25 billion in today's money. One of the reasons it was so expensive was they weren't sure which would work, plutonium or uranium so they developed both. Fat Boy and Little John were different, they both worked.

It did not save lives. It ended lives of many innocent civilians.

And even if you believe the lie that is saved lives, is it ethical and moral to terminate the lives of untold numbers of innocent women, children, and old men of a defeated and defenseless nation wanting to surrender, to save the lives of your troops?

Repeating your errors don't make them come true. They didn't want to surrender, they refused to. We didn't bomb them for pleasure.

You are not informed. You have chosen to believe the lies of a lying politician and the state that covered for him. Why?

Read this and when done, I will give you more homework.
Was Hiroshima Necessary

 

[gipper]

It did not save American lives, but it did terminate many innocent Japanese lives.

Using a bomb instead of an invasion to end the war, obviously saved American lives.

False choice.

No invasion was ever necessary. Japan had been trying to surrender for months..even years, but FDR and Truman told them unconditional surrender or we will **** you up...leading to thousands of unnecessary deaths on both sides.

"Necessary"?

That's an interesting choice of words.

Sure. I guess if we agreed to their conditions, we could have just walked away.

So, were their conditions reasonable?

Do you even know their conditions? I suspect not.

All they asked is that the Emperor stay on the throne and not be charged a war criminal, which Truman agreed to AFTER he incinerated thousands of innocent women, children, and old men.

Link.

See above and I have many more, but will the truth change your mind?

I have posted credible sources on this forum numerous times as have others, but no amount of truth seems to sway believers in the state.

 

[Correll]

Using a bomb instead of an invasion to end the war, obviously saved American lives.

False choice.

No invasion was ever necessary. Japan had been trying to surrender for months..even years, but FDR and Truman told them unconditional surrender or we will **** you up...leading to thousands of unnecessary deaths on both sides.

"Necessary"?

That's an interesting choice of words.

Sure. I guess if we agreed to their conditions, we could have just walked away.

So, were their conditions reasonable?

Do you even know their conditions? I suspect not.

All they asked is that the Emperor stay on the throne and not be charged a war criminal, which Truman agreed to AFTER he incinerated thousands of innocent women, children, and old men.

Link.

See above and I have many more, but will the truth change your mind?

I have posted credible sources on this forum numerous times as have others, but no amount of truth seems to sway believers in the state.

The Unconditional Surrender policy had it's reasons.

Would you really want a surviving German or Japanese government that was NOT rebuilt from the ground up?

Would you really want a repeat of the "stabbed in the back" myth that Hitler used in to achieve power and to demonize the Jews?

One can imagine scenarios that might have gone better with some possible negotiations.

But one can just as easily imagine such efforts leading to disasters.

The bomb was used. The war ended. Japan rebuilt as a peaceful member of the world community.

 

[namvet]

funny we had pay in the end to build these killers back up

 

[JimBowie1958]

Winning the war against the Japanese and saving American lives....

It did not save American lives, but it did terminate many innocent Japanese lives.

Lol, are you an absolute dribbling idiot?

Japan showed no signs of surrendering, and instead was preparing to use their civilians as a militia to fight us on every inch of that country, just like they had on all the little islands we took from them to base our fleet and air force to bomb them. If we had to actually invade Japan millions of civilians would have died the old fashioned way; a lethal bullet. Hundreds of thousands of American lives would have been lost or maimed.

And to all this you simply repeat your slogan like some coffee house Marxist stooge.

Please, go piss on yourself.

 

[JimBowie1958]

funny we had pay in the end to build these killers back up

Actually, no , we didn't have to, but we did.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Winning the war against the Japanese and saving American lives....

It did not save American lives, but it did terminate many innocent Japanese lives.

Using a bomb instead of an invasion to end the war, obviously saved American lives.

False choice.

No invasion was ever necessary. Japan had been trying to surrender for months..even years, but FDR and Truman told them unconditional surrender or we will **** you up...leading to thousands of unnecessary deaths on both sides.

"Necessary"?

That's an interesting choice of words.

Sure. I guess if we agreed to their conditions, we could have just walked away.

So, were their conditions reasonable?

Do you even know their conditions? I suspect not.

All they asked is that the Emperor stay on the throne and not be charged a war criminal, which Truman agreed to AFTER he incinerated thousands of innocent women, children, and old men.

Bullshit.

They also wanted their military leaders to not be prosecuted. The Emperor was never in any danger as we knew he was one of our best sympathizers. the Japanese military basically had him hostage and used him to control a religious people.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Yep.... Island hopping and invading Japan would have involved alot less casualties....... Lmfao

 

[regent]

The Japanese offer to surrender was a farce, they would not accept occupation by foreign troops, they would try their own war criminals, their government would continue intact and so on.

 

[gipper]

The Japanese offer to surrender was a farce, they would not accept occupation by foreign troops, they would try their own war criminals, their government would continue intact and so on.

Not true by July 1945.

 

[Correll]

It did not save American lives, but it did terminate many innocent Japanese lives.

Yes, it saved American lives. Who knows how many thousands. Japanese were killing themselves wholesale, including civilians. They refused to surrender, some would strap bombs on themselves and run into our forces. Groups would charge with pitch forks. Just one determined suicidal zealot can do a lot of damage.

Watch the show "World War 2 from Above". I saw it yesterday and leaves all doubt that it was the right thing to do. I learned a lot. One interesting thing is the cost of the atomic bombs. Over 600,000 people were employed and the cost was about 25 billion in today's money. One of the reasons it was so expensive was they weren't sure which would work, plutonium or uranium so they developed both. Fat Boy and Little John were different, they both worked.

It did not save lives. It ended lives of many innocent civilians.

And even if you believe the lie that is saved lives, is it ethical and moral to terminate the lives of untold numbers of innocent women, children, and old men of a defeated and defenseless nation wanting to surrender, to save the lives of your troops?

Repeating your errors don't make them come true. They didn't want to surrender, they refused to. We didn't bomb them for pleasure.

You are not informed. You have chosen to believe the lies of a lying politician and the state that covered for him. Why?

Read this and when done, I will give you more homework.
Was Hiroshima Necessary

"Designated War Criminals"? Designated by whom? Was this to be done BEFORE any investigation could be done?

And all the discussion of the suffering of the civilian population does not address the projected resistance.

Yes, the leadership of the US was "inured" to civilian casualties by that point. Who's fault was that?

The whole world was inured to civilian casualties by that point.

It might seem like a couple of minor sticking points to us today, but to me, it is understandable that the leadership that had just gone though WWII, was not in a compromising mood.

Arguing that a conditional surrender might have been a better policy, is not the same as saying the actual policy was a crime.

 

[gipper]

War...is ALWAYS the health of the state! Total war is a crime and those who prosecute it are criminals.


All war is a crime. There is no such thing as a “good war.” As the great Benjamin Franklin said, “there is no good war; and no bad peace.”

We are now in the midst of the annual debate over the atomic bombing of Japan by the United States. Seventy years ago this week, the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, killing or injuring some 140,000 people. A few days later, a second atomic weapon was dropped on Nagasaki, causing 80,000 casualties. Most of the dead in both cities were civilians.
What s Worse LewRockwell.com

 

[Iceweasel]

It did not save American lives, but it did terminate many innocent Japanese lives.

Yes, it saved American lives. Who knows how many thousands. Japanese were killing themselves wholesale, including civilians. They refused to surrender, some would strap bombs on themselves and run into our forces. Groups would charge with pitch forks. Just one determined suicidal zealot can do a lot of damage.

Watch the show "World War 2 from Above". I saw it yesterday and leaves all doubt that it was the right thing to do. I learned a lot. One interesting thing is the cost of the atomic bombs. Over 600,000 people were employed and the cost was about 25 billion in today's money. One of the reasons it was so expensive was they weren't sure which would work, plutonium or uranium so they developed both. Fat Boy and Little John were different, they both worked.

It did not save lives. It ended lives of many innocent civilians.

And even if you believe the lie that is saved lives, is it ethical and moral to terminate the lives of untold numbers of innocent women, children, and old men of a defeated and defenseless nation wanting to surrender, to save the lives of your troops?

Repeating your errors don't make them come true. They didn't want to surrender, they refused to. We didn't bomb them for pleasure.

You are not informed. You have chosen to believe the lies of a lying politician and the state that covered for him. Why?

Read this and when done, I will give you more homework.
Was Hiroshima Necessary

Do your own homework, moron.

Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - World War II - HISTORY.com
General Douglas MacArthur and other top military commanders favored continuing the conventional bombing of Japan already in effect and following up with a massive invasion, codenamed “Operation Downfall.” They advised Truman that such an invasion would result in U.S. casualties of up to 1 million.

In order to avoid such a high casualty rate, Truman decided–over the moral reservations of Secretary of War Henry Stimson, General Dwight Eisenhower and a number of the Manhattan Project scientists–to use the atomic bomb in the hopes of bringing the war to a quick end. Proponents of the A-bomb–such as James Byrnes, Truman’s secretary of state–believed that its devastating power would not only end the war, but also put the U.S. in a dominant position to determine the course of the postwar world.

 

[martybegan]

The Japanese offer to surrender was a farce, they would not accept occupation by foreign troops, they would try their own war criminals, their government would continue intact and so on.

Not true by July 1945.

100% true even in August 1945. The Military controlled the cabinet, and only after the bombs was the Emperor able to force them to accept the surrender terms, including disarmament, occupation, and allied led war crimes trials. They held to keeping the emperor, and the allies only agreed to let him remain under the auspices of the military occupation.

 

[Iceweasel]

War...is ALWAYS the health of the state! Total war is a crime and those who prosecute it are criminals.


All war is a crime. There is no such thing as a “good war.” As the great Benjamin Franklin said, “there is no good war; and no bad peace.”

We are now in the midst of the annual debate over the atomic bombing of Japan by the United States. Seventy years ago this week, the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, killing or injuring some 140,000 people. A few days later, a second atomic weapon was dropped on Nagasaki, causing 80,000 casualties. Most of the dead in both cities were civilians.
What s Worse LewRockwell.com

Lew Rockwell? Bwaaaahaaaahahaaa

 

[gipper]

It did not save American lives, but it did terminate many innocent Japanese lives.

Yes, it saved American lives. Who knows how many thousands. Japanese were killing themselves wholesale, including civilians. They refused to surrender, some would strap bombs on themselves and run into our forces. Groups would charge with pitch forks. Just one determined suicidal zealot can do a lot of damage.

Watch the show "World War 2 from Above". I saw it yesterday and leaves all doubt that it was the right thing to do. I learned a lot. One interesting thing is the cost of the atomic bombs. Over 600,000 people were employed and the cost was about 25 billion in today's money. One of the reasons it was so expensive was they weren't sure which would work, plutonium or uranium so they developed both. Fat Boy and Little John were different, they both worked.

It did not save lives. It ended lives of many innocent civilians.

And even if you believe the lie that is saved lives, is it ethical and moral to terminate the lives of untold numbers of innocent women, children, and old men of a defeated and defenseless nation wanting to surrender, to save the lives of your troops?

Repeating your errors don't make them come true. They didn't want to surrender, they refused to. We didn't bomb them for pleasure.

You are not informed. You have chosen to believe the lies of a lying politician and the state that covered for him. Why?

Read this and when done, I will give you more homework.
Was Hiroshima Necessary

Do your own homework, moron.

Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - World War II - HISTORY.com
General Douglas MacArthur and other top military commanders favored continuing the conventional bombing of Japan already in effect and following up with a massive invasion, codenamed “Operation Downfall.” They advised Truman that such an invasion would result in U.S. casualties of up to 1 million.

In order to avoid such a high casualty rate, Truman decided–over the moral reservations of Secretary of War Henry Stimson, General Dwight Eisenhower and a number of the Manhattan Project scientists–to use the atomic bomb in the hopes of bringing the war to a quick end. Proponents of the A-bomb–such as James Byrnes, Truman’s secretary of state–believed that its devastating power would not only end the war, but also put the U.S. in a dominant position to determine the course of the postwar world.

Statist propaganda.

The war was well over before Truman murdered thousands of innocent civilians in cold blood, by dropping the a-bombs and untold number of conventional bombs.

 

[Correll]

War...is ALWAYS the health of the state! Total war is a crime and those who prosecute it are criminals.


All war is a crime. There is no such thing as a “good war.” As the great Benjamin Franklin said, “there is no good war; and no bad peace.”

We are now in the midst of the annual debate over the atomic bombing of Japan by the United States. Seventy years ago this week, the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, killing or injuring some 140,000 people. A few days later, a second atomic weapon was dropped on Nagasaki, causing 80,000 casualties. Most of the dead in both cities were civilians.
What s Worse LewRockwell.com

I'm no fan boy for FDR, but his anti- Nazi and anti- IMperal Japaneses policies seem reasonable to me.

I doubt having Asia and/or Europe dominated by either would be in the interests of the US citizens or State. Or just about anyone else either.

 

[Correll]

Yes, it saved American lives. Who knows how many thousands. Japanese were killing themselves wholesale, including civilians. They refused to surrender, some would strap bombs on themselves and run into our forces. Groups would charge with pitch forks. Just one determined suicidal zealot can do a lot of damage.

Watch the show "World War 2 from Above". I saw it yesterday and leaves all doubt that it was the right thing to do. I learned a lot. One interesting thing is the cost of the atomic bombs. Over 600,000 people were employed and the cost was about 25 billion in today's money. One of the reasons it was so expensive was they weren't sure which would work, plutonium or uranium so they developed both. Fat Boy and Little John were different, they both worked.

It did not save lives. It ended lives of many innocent civilians.

And even if you believe the lie that is saved lives, is it ethical and moral to terminate the lives of untold numbers of innocent women, children, and old men of a defeated and defenseless nation wanting to surrender, to save the lives of your troops?

Repeating your errors don't make them come true. They didn't want to surrender, they refused to. We didn't bomb them for pleasure.

You are not informed. You have chosen to believe the lies of a lying politician and the state that covered for him. Why?

Read this and when done, I will give you more homework.
Was Hiroshima Necessary

Do your own homework, moron.

Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - World War II - HISTORY.com
General Douglas MacArthur and other top military commanders favored continuing the conventional bombing of Japan already in effect and following up with a massive invasion, codenamed “Operation Downfall.” They advised Truman that such an invasion would result in U.S. casualties of up to 1 million.

In order to avoid such a high casualty rate, Truman decided–over the moral reservations of Secretary of War Henry Stimson, General Dwight Eisenhower and a number of the Manhattan Project scientists–to use the atomic bomb in the hopes of bringing the war to a quick end. Proponents of the A-bomb–such as James Byrnes, Truman’s secretary of state–believed that its devastating power would not only end the war, but also put the U.S. in a dominant position to determine the course of the postwar world.

Statist propaganda.

The war was well over before Truman murdered thousands of innocent civilians in cold blood, by dropping the a-bombs and untold number of conventional bombs.

No, it was not.

One can reasonable argue that a more nuanced policy on Surrender might have had ended the war early with many lives saved, but that does not mean the Japanese were not still waging war as effectively as they could.