The Atomic bombs

[RetiredGySgt]

Since we have a cycle of people making ignorant revisionist claims about why we dropped the bombs here is a link to a host of source documents. The site makes no claims as to whether we should or should not have used the bombs but ti does provide source documents to provide the critical information available before and after the war.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

 

[doniston]

Since we have a cycle of people making ignorant revisionist claims about why we dropped the bombs here is a link to a host of source documents. The site makes no claims as to whether we should or should not have used the bombs but ti does provide source documents to provide the critical information available before and after the war.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

Very strange comment. To my knowlege, I am the SINGLE participant in this Cycle of ignorant revisionists. --- seems to be mostly in your imagination. and further, What I said is stated in general terms in these reports. so it is hardly revisionist.

 

[Gunny]

Very strange comment. To my knowlege, I am the SINGLE participant in this Cycle of ignorant revisionists. --- seems to be mostly in your imagination. and further, What I said is stated in general terms in these reports. so it is hardly revisionist.

Quite simply, we were at war back when people fought wars to win. The estimated amount of casulties we would suffer invading mainland Japan was around a million.

You win a war by taking away the enemy's ability and will to fight while suffering the fewest casualties possible on your own side. Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki acoomplished just that.

Your "humanitarian" play by some arbitrary rules crap has resulted in Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq. Fight to win or stay home.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Very strange comment. To my knowlege, I am the SINGLE participant in this Cycle of ignorant revisionists. --- seems to be mostly in your imagination. and further, What I said is stated in general terms in these reports. so it is hardly revisionist.

None of the documents linked to say anything about Japan willing to surrender EXCEPT the proposal they floated before and after the first bomb, that being " hey we will let you quit fighting us if you agree to just leave us with everything we still have" You know a militarist Government, Korea, Manchuria, Vietnam, The Penisular that has Singapore on it, occupation of part of China. No accountability for war crimes and no occupation. Now that WAS offered, if your delusional enough to think that was a reasonable offer your beyond help.

 

[onedomino]

Quite simply, we were at war back when people fought wars to win. The estimated amount of casualties we would suffer invading mainland Japan was around a million.

You win a war by taking away the enemy's ability and will to fight while suffering the fewest casualties possible on your own side. Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki accomplished just that.

Your "humanitarian" play by some arbitrary rules crap has resulted in Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq. Fight to win or stay home.

We have Truman and the post WW2 US foreign policy establishment to thank for changing the war fighting philosophy from fighting to win to letting the enemy set the rules. MacArthur wanted to fight and destroy the Communists in NE Asia, and even China. He considered using all military means at America's disposal to accomplish that goal. While Truman and the foreign policy establishment in Washington simply wanted to contain the Communists. MacArthur refused to be led down that path and was fired. Truman's decision led to Mao's further consolidation of power and many future negative unintended consequences, including the deaths of millions of Chinese: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm. Moreover, if MacArthur had been permitted to decisively defeat the Chinese Communists, there might have been no Viet Nam War. From where would the Viet Minh have been supplied? But that particular Triumph Forsaken is another story. Regardless that he was wrong, Truman had clear constitutional authority to fire MacArthur. It is counterintuitive that a nation can have the political will to engage in wars, such as Korea, Viet Nam and Iraq, but simultaneously not have the political will to win. It is for this contradiction that future generations will justly criticize us.

http://www.triumphforsaken.com/

 

[DeadCanDance]

We have Truman and the post WW2 US foreign policy establishment to thank for changing the war fighting philosophy from fighting to win to letting the enemy set the rules. MacArthur wanted to fight and destroy the Communists in NE Asia, and even China. He considered using all military means at America's disposal to accomplish that goal. While Truman and the foreign policy establishment in Washington simply wanted to contain the Communists. MacArthur refused to be led down that path and was fired. Truman's decision led to Mao's further consolidation of power and many future negative unintended consequences, including the deaths of millions of Chinese: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm. Moreover, if MacArthur had been permitted to decisively defeat the Chinese Communists, there might have been no Viet Nam War. From where would the Viet Minh have been supplied? But that particular Triumph Forsaken is another story. Regardless that he was wrong, Truman had clear constitutional authority to fire MacArthur. It is counterintuitive that a nation can have the political will to engage in wars, such as Korea, Viet Nam and Iraq, but simultaneously not have the political will to win. It is for this contradiction that future generations will justly criticize us.

http://www.triumphforsaken.com/

Nuking two japanese cities was far from moral. But war in never moral. Given the situation, dropping the bomb probably saved many, many lives in that conflict.

As for vietnam, korea, and iraq: those nations don't and didn't threaten the security of the united states. Fighting to "win", is only responsible when it is in our self interest to do so. If you want to fight and die for iraqis, or kuwaitis, or whatever, its quite easy to click over to goarmy.com and enlist to fight over there.

 

[Gunny]

Nuking two japanese cities was far from moral. But war in never moral. Given the situation, dropping the bomb probably saved many, many lives in that conflict.

As for vietnam, korea, and iraq: those nations don't and didn't threaten the security of the united states. Fighting to "win", is only responsible when it is in our self interest to do so. If you want to fight and die for iraqis, or kuwaitis, or whatever, its quite easy to click over to goarmy.com and enlist to fight over there.

What about the ideal that everyone is entitled to be free?

Why is it the people who think Iraq, Vietnam and/or Korea are none of our business are the very same who have no problem helping themselves to my wallet thinking some starving, 3rd world kids ARE my problem?

The political hypocrisy is astounding.

 

[DeadCanDance]

What about the ideal that everyone is entitled to be free?

Why is it the people who think Iraq, Vietnam and/or Korea are none of our business are the very same who have no problem helping themselves to my wallet thinking some starving, 3rd world kids ARE my problem?

The political hypocrisy is astounding.

What about the ideal that everyone is entitled to be free?



Drinking much tonight?

We don't fight wars to "free" people. Gulf war 1? We fought for a corrupt, kuwaiti monarch. Vietnam? We fought for a corrupt, non-democratic south vietnamese regime. Sure, the communists were as bad or worse. But we weren't fighting for "freedom". Korea? We were facing down communist aggression. We weren't fighting for jeffersonian democracy.

What minuscle foreign aid we do give, is mostly military aid. And mostly to israel, egypt, and pakistan. I doubt any tax money that goes to feeding african kids costs you more than a few pennies a year in taxes.

 

[Gunny]

What about the ideal that everyone is entitled to be free?



Drinking much tonight?

We don't fight wars to "free" people. Gulf war 1? We fought for a corrupt, kuwaiti monarch. Vietnam? We fought for a corrupt, non-democratic south vietnamese regime. Sure, the communists were as bad or worse. But we weren't fighting for "freedom". Korea? We were facing down communist aggression. We weren't fighting for jeffersonian democracy.

What minuscle foreign aid we do give, is mostly military aid. And mostly to israel, egypt, and pakistan. I doubt any tax money that goes to feeding african kids costs you more than a few pennies a year in taxes.

So anyone who doesn't agree with your cynicism must be drinking?

Without your spin, "facing down communist aggression" is basically fighting for freedom, right? Nobody said it has to be for Jeffersonian democracy.

So, in the case of Korea, Vietnam, and Kuwait, we fought against aggressors to free one side from the other. That you do not approve of the side we chose to defend is separate topic, and your points not without merit.

 

[doniston]

None of the documents linked to say anything about Japan willing to surrender EXCEPT the proposal they floated before and after the first bomb, that being " hey we will let you quit fighting us if you agree to just leave us with everything we still have" You know a militarist Government, Korea, Manchuria, Vietnam, The Penisular that has Singapore on it, occupation of part of China. No accountability for war crimes and no occupation. Now that WAS offered, if your delusional enough to think that was a reasonable offer your beyond help.

Read your own link again. you might learn something.

 

[DeadCanDance]

So anyone who doesn't agree with your cynicism must be drinking?

Without your spin, "facing down communist aggression" is basically fighting for freedom, right? Nobody said it has to be for Jeffersonian democracy.

So, in the case of Korea, Vietnam, and Kuwait, we fought against aggressors to free one side from the other. That you do not approve of the side we chose to defend is separate topic, and your points not without merit.

You're changing the topic, and backpedaling rapidly away from your assertion that we were fighting for freedom in those wars. We weren't. Korea, Kuwait, and South Vietnam were nowhere close to being free, independent, democratic governments. The history of Korea, Kuwait and Vietnam are easily available on the internet. I suggest you read them.

 

[onedomino]

Nuking two japanese cities was far from moral. But war in never moral. Given the situation, dropping the bomb probably saved many, many lives in that conflict.

As for vietnam, korea, and iraq: those nations don't and didn't threaten the security of the united states. Fighting to "win", is only responsible when it is in our self interest to do so. If you want to fight and die for iraqis, or kuwaitis, or whatever, its quite easy to click over to goarmy.com and enlist to fight over there.

The expansion of Communism did not threaten the security of the US? It was not in our self-interest to defeat or even contain Communism in NE Asia? Only the extremist Left and communists agree with that position. One result of our efforts in NE Asia was a democratic and economically powerful South Korea. Was that not in our self-interest?

 

[Larkinn]

What about the ideal that everyone is entitled to be free?

Why is it the people who think Iraq, Vietnam and/or Korea are none of our business are the very same who have no problem helping themselves to my wallet thinking some starving, 3rd world kids ARE my problem?

The political hypocrisy is astounding.

So everyone is entitled to free...and we will kill as many people as possible to make the remaining ones "free"?

Where is the freedom of someone else setting up your government for you?

Where is the freedom in death?

And you really can't see why people might want to force Americans to give money for a cause, but be unwilling to force Americans to die for a cause? One seems just a wee bit more extreme than the other to me.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Read your own link again. you might learn something.

I have a better idea, provide the specific source YOU claim supports your position. Who wants to bet he can't do it?

 

[DeadCanDance]

The expansion of Communism did not threaten the security of the US? It was not in our self-interest to defeat or even contain Communism in NE Asia? Only the extremist Left and communists agree with that position. One result of our efforts in NE Asia was a democratic and economic powerful South Korea. Was that not in our self-interest?

Vietnam was a civil war we should never have been involved in. The communists ultimately took over the south and...ooops....nothing bad ever happened to us as a result. Now, we have pretty good relations with the communist government there.

As for Korea, it may well indeed have been in american interests to prevent a north korean takeover of the south. That was a clear cut case of a war of aggression by the north against the south. The UN in fact sanctioned the war there, against the north.

I'm objecting to the naive notion that we were over there fighting for "freedom". I'm sure you're aware (or maybe your not) that South Korea was ruled by military dictators, and brutal authoritarians (with our support) right up until the late 1980s, when the cold war ended. In short, it wasn't until koreans themselves forced democratic reforms on their nation, that they removed the yolk of authoritariansism. . We weren't there acting as magical, wonderful angels of democracy and freedom. Lets not kid ourselves with such naive grade school emotion. We were there to counter chinese and soviet influence, in an area we considered to be strategically important to us and to Japan.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ok on the matter of the claim that we knew the Japanese were prepared to surrender and thus the bombs were not needed...

From my link of SOURCE documents....

Document 29 and 30 are the only 2 that even really apply for the claim japan was ready to surrender, but both are clear that Japan will not surrender except under their own terms.

Document 33 CLEARLY states that NO UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER is acceptable. That instead Japan will fight to the death.

Read document 4o and document 42, both show japan is not ready to quit EXCEPT under their own terms.

EVEN after the first bomb is dropped and the Japanese are faced with Soviet Invasion there is no consensus on surrender. The Army insists it can force peace on its terms. Document 55b, 62 and 64b.

Document 69 shows that the Japanese peace party believes the 2 bombs and Soviet invasion have HELPED make surrender possible. Which on the contrary would mean it was unlikely BEFORE those 3 events.

As to that even after all that the ARMY tried to prevent surrender. Read Documents 71, 73 and 74.

 

[DiogenesDog]

We have Truman and the post WW2 US foreign policy establishment

http://www.triumphforsaken.com/

Please read some history in depth. Start with Stillwell's China. Then look at those civilizations that continued in seeming triumphalism into their downfall. Check into Toynbee for that.

Counter measures applied over time in an intelligent and resourceful way do more to overcome external threats than the personal vanity of a brilliant but aging and flawed American shogun assigned to nurture Japan into a new age.

I respectfully call your information and conclusions overdrawn, absent of substance and that which usually is seen in childish petulance.

Read something in depth!

I AM











`

 

[onedomino]

Please read some history in depth. Start with Stillwell's China. Then look at those civilizations that continued in seeming triumphalism into their downfall. Check into Toynbee for that.

Counter measures applied over time in an intelligent and resourceful way do more to overcome external threats than the personal vanity of a brilliant but aging and flawed American shogun assigned to nurture Japan into a new age.

I respectfully call your information and conclusions overdrawn, absent of substance and that which usually is seen in childish petulance.

Read something in depth!

I AM











`

Thanks for the insulting remarks. "Stillwell's China" might have well been on diffferent planet than the reality that became Mao's China. You disparaged my remarks but made no refutations or counter oberservations. You deliver great vacuum.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Thanks for the insulting remarks. "Stillwell's China" might have well been on diffferent planet than the reality that became Mao's China. You disparaged my remarks but made no refutations or counter oberservations. You deliver great vacuum.

In my personal opinion from what I have read and learned over the years Mac Arther was the direct cause of Chinese intervention in Korea. His mouth enabled the Soviets to convince a reluctant China to intervene. The Communist Chinese were in no great position in 1950, they had only with in the last year or 2 managed to conquer all of mainland China.

If he had kept his mouth shut and not spouted off repeatedly to the press about Invading and nuking China I believe the Soviets would have had a hard sell. Would they have acted with out his mouth? Maybe, we did push right to the Chinese boarder. But I am not positive they would have invaded if he had just shut up.

 

[onedomino]

Vietnam was a civil war we should never have been involved in. The communists ultimately took over the south and...ooops....nothing bad ever happened to us as a result. Now, we have pretty good relations with the communist government there.

As for Korea, it may well indeed have been in american interests to prevent a north korean takeover of the south. That was a clear cut case of a war of aggression by the north against the south. The UN in fact sanctioned the war there, against the north.

I'm objecting to the naive notion that we were over there fighting for "freedom". I'm sure you're aware (or maybe your not) that South Korea was ruled by military dictators, and brutal authoritarians (with our support) right up until the late 1980s, when the cold war ended. In short, it wasn't until koreans themselves forced democratic reforms on their nation, that they removed the yolk of authoritariansism. . We weren't there acting as magical, wonderful angels of democracy and freedom. Lets not kid ourselves with such naive grade school emotion. We were there to counter chinese and soviet influence, in an area we considered to be strategically important to us and to Japan.

Civil War? The Communists took over the North at the point of a gun in 1954 after the French ran away. There were no elections. Viet Nam was a war of Communist aggression just as much as Korea. They invaded the South, just like the North Koreans invaded South Korea. Nothing bad happened? How about the deaths of 2 million Cambodians that would have never happened had America fought to win in Viet Nam.