The Atomic bombs

[AllieBaba]

Thank God that people with his mindset were not running the war.

Unfortunately, however, I fear that those with his mindset will be running a future war...

Naw, people with his mindset can't pull themselves away from the crack pipe long enough to get anything accomplished.

Never fear, they just sit around in their nice cozy armchairs, pulling those disability/worker's comp/social security/welfare or trust checks and flapping their lips.

 

[Shogun]

"Your an idiot on this"

And YOU are a bloviating pussy trying to rely on projected estimations that amount to excuses. I bet it takes an American hating muslim as much energy to rationalize flying a plane into New York buildings. ooops.. do as I say, not.. gotcha.


, WE did not nuke anyone for Revenge. In fact those nukes SAVED lives and ended a war that would have , if it continued, caused MILLIONS of dead , mostly Japanese. I have provided ample proof of this. Shall i go find you that link to SOURCE documents that prove Japan would not have surrendered with out their use?


On the contrary. We didn't enter the war UNTIL Pearl Harbour and you can't prove that a sense of revenge wasn't in the air after dropping two NUKES onto civilians. You identify with the side that dropped the nukes so OF COURSE you want to believe that dropping nukes saved lives. You have provided source docs that SUGGEST that lives were saved, MOSLTY AMERICAN SOLDIERS, but falls WAY short of being some crystal ball peak into what may have been the case without the nukes. In case you haven't noticed, nations tend to polish their own turd. hell, look at what lengths YOU will go to validate the Iraq war this side of the Phantom WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION scare. Sure, you can rationalize nukes just like a nazi could rationalize the final solution and a jihadist can rationalize 9/11. Why don't you gather something from JAPAN that admits as much as you'd like to believe from an AMERICAN source? I guess they might be a little slow to agree with you.

Here: Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard
"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"[50]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki


Even assuming, which is a BIG assumption considering even after 2 nukes and a war with the Soviets did not budge the ruling members of the Japanese Government, that Japan eventually surrendered before we invaded, it would have been months, during which we bombed them, and they starved because they had no shipping left to bring in food and fuel.


Oh hey.. Can I make shit up and pretend that it's true too? I tellya, your crystal "FUTURE-O-matic" ball didn't work in 2001 and it sure as fuck doesn't hold much water here. But, I guess if you bomb enough CIVILIANS lot's of things are possible, right buddy? Ever stop to wonder who took notes on America's ability to rationalize while planning a trip on a commercial airliner?

Why don't you stick to the facts that you can prove instead of speculating? Once again, speculation isn't something you have a monopoly on.

An Invasion would have seen millions of dead Japanese , civilian and military. We would have lost hundreds of thousands, the predictions were 1 million casualties on the invasion force. Lets look at Iwo Jima , 1 in 3 military personnel that landed on that island became a casualty over 26 thousand, of which over 6 thousand died. 75000 were eventually landed on the island over all. Yet as I recall there were no where near that number of Japanese troops there.

Can you give me tonights lottery numbers while you are at it? hell, imagine how many MORE would ahve died in ww1 if not for the mustard gas and trenches! Hell, I can assume that a gazillion more would have died without the use of napalm in vietnam too! Doesn't make it any truer than any other speculation but I'll remember that when someone nukes an American city and you call foul.. Here, let me hit you with the actual words behind the Japanese surrender. Let's see if you notice the disdain for an America who actually used a nuke:

Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki



The Japanese plan for defense of the Home Islands included the order that all civilians get bamboo spears and that they charge allied positions in human wave assaults to drive the invaders off the island. Further when that failed Saipan and Okinawa showed graphicly that the surviving civilian and military population would commit suicide rather than surrender. Nearly the entire Japanese race could have died on the first Island we invaded. And there is no reason to think the Army Generals that controlled the Government would have surrendered even then.[/QUOTE]



Oh well yea, RGS! the OBVIOUS alternative to bamboo poles is obviously NUKING THE FUCK OUT OF THEM!

indeed... your humanity is a pillar of altruism!



Dr. James Franck, seven scientists submitted a report to the Interim Committee (which advised the President) in May 1945, saying:

"If the United States were to be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race for armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons."[1

CHECK!


In 1946, a report by the Federal Council of Churches entitled Atomic Warfare and the Christian Faith, includes the following passage:

"As American Christians, we are deeply penitent for the irresponsible use already made of the atomic bomb. We are agreed that, whatever be one's judgment of the war in principle, the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible."

Takashi Hiraoka, mayor of Hiroshima, upholding nuclear disarmament, said in a hearing to The Hague International Court of Justice (ICJ):

"It is clear that the use of nuclear weapons, which cause indiscriminate mass murder that leaves [effects on] survivors for decades, is a violation of international law".[23][24]


, the mayor of Nagasaki, declared in the same hearing:

"It is said that the descendants of the atomic bomb survivors will have to be monitored for several generations to clarify the genetic impact, which means that the descendants will live in anxiety for [decades] to come. [...] with their colossal power and capacity for slaughter and destruction, nuclear weapons make no distinction between combatants and non-combatants or between military installations and civilian communities [...] The use of nuclear weapons [...] therefore is a manifest infraction of international law."[23]

General Dwight D. Eisenhower. He wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."[31][32]


Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[34]

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[35]

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.[35]




The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."[36][35]




Indeed, peddle that gnarled crusty geriatric leatherneck routine at someone else.

 

[Larkinn]

Your an idiot on this, WE did not nuke anyone for Revenge. In fact those nukes SAVED lives and ended a war that would have , if it continued, caused MILLIONS of dead , mostly Japanese. I have provided ample proof of this. Shall i go find you that link to SOURCE documents that prove Japan would not have surrendered with out their use?

Even assuming, which is a BIG assumption considering even after 2 nukes and a war with the Soviets did not budge the ruling members of the Japanese Government, that Japan eventually surrendered before we invaded, it would have been months, during which we bombed them, and they starved because they had no shipping left to bring in food and fuel.

An Invasion would have seen millions of dead Japanese , civilian and military. We would have lost hundreds of thousands, the predictions were 1 million casualties on the invasion force. Lets look at Iwo Jima , 1 in 3 military personnel that landed on that island became a casualty over 26 thousand, of which over 6 thousand died. 75000 were eventually landed on the island over all. Yet as I recall there were no where near that number of Japanese troops there.

The Japanese plan for defense of the Home Islands included the order that all civilians get bamboo spears and that they charge allied positions in human wave assaults to drive the invaders off the island. Further when that failed Saipan and Okinawa showed graphicly that the surviving civilian and military population would commit suicide rather than surrender. Nearly the entire Japanese race could have died on the first Island we invaded. And there is no reason to think the Army Generals that controlled the Government would have surrendered even then.

Well, you know, Iran nuking Israel might cause them to surrender, hence saving millions of lives. Its oh so easy to assume that massacreing the enemy is for the common good.

 

[Shogun]

Naw, people with his mindset can't pull themselves away from the crack pipe long enough to get anything accomplished.

Never fear, they just sit around in their nice cozy armchairs, pulling those disability/worker's comp/social security/welfare or trust checks and flapping their lips.

blah blah blah.. blah blah blah blah blah..

 

[Larkinn]

War is war.

Really? I sorta thought war was poop. Thanks for clearing that up for us!

When you've been attacked, and you take the battle to them and kick their asses,

Oh, be clear Allie. You aren't talking about kicking their asses, you are talking about murdering civilians who have nothing to do with the war.

it's pointless and without merit to then boo-hoo over the fact that you did so.

Except maybe to humanize us. But who wants that anyway?

The problem is, Shogun and others like him have had too many years enjoying the things that our soldiers paid for with blood. They've forgotten that no country can just exist peaceably and expect to exist for long.

Yes...the last time we invaded a country was in 1991. 15 years is way too long to go without invading another country. I mean we all know that Switzerland with its history of "existing peaceably" is in terrible shape, right Allie?

 

[doniston]

So -- what's the difference?
Explain why the bombing of Hiroshim was so much worse than the bombing(s) of Tokyo.

I did "NOT" say it was worse. I said that it6 was unnecessary, big difference.

 

[doniston]

Thank God that people with his mindset were not running the war.

Unfortunately, however, I fear that those with his mindset will be running a future war...

Did you pay attention to what you just said?That just shows you mindset.

Actually if people with his mindset were running thing, there would be fewer wars. I'm for that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I did "NOT" say it was worse. I said that it6 was unnecessary, big difference.

Yes.. and I said:

-How many civilains died in the 10 MAR 45 firebombing raid over Tokyo?
-How much of the city was destroyed?
-Compare and contrast that with Hiroshima.
-Explain why the bombing of Hiroshim was so much worse.

So, can you explain why it was worse, or not?

If its not worse, then why the uproar over the bombing of Hiroshima and not Tokyo?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Did you pay attention to what you just said?That just shows you mindset

Yes -- that people like that should never be put in a position where they need to make important decisions, especailly those where the lives of millions hang in the balance.

Actually if people with his mindset were running thing, there would be fewer wars. I'm for that.

No. There wouldn't. There would be more. Munich 1938, anyone?

 

[Shogun]

which pretty much makes your opinion the Stalin of that group, eh?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well, you know, Iran nuking Israel might cause them to surrender, hence saving millions of lives. Its oh so easy to assume that massacreing the enemy is for the common good.

That you support this drivel amazes me. I am going to have to change my opinion of your intelligence. Or is this just another case of you, providing a different view of things?

Be specific Larkinn... should we have dropped the bombs? Did we do it for Revenge? Do you believe millions of japanese would not have died if we had continued the war and invaded?

Or perhaps you think we should have done what Japan wanted and just quit and let them have everything they still held? That IS the only "Peace" they offered and eb=ven repeated after one nuke and a Soviet Invasion, further the Army that RAN the Government wanted to continue to demand it after both nukes were dropped.

I am fed up with you garbage. Be a man and actually answer the above questions. I won't hold my breath though, your track record on actually saying anything that could be called conclusive is abysmal.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Shogun your full of shit. I have provided documentation on at leasst 3 occasions proving your BULLSHIT statement is a lie,

Your opinion is garbage. If now your going to make statements as if they are facts PROVIDE evidence. For every piece of garbage you provide I have already provided SOURCE documents from the time that proof your a lying MORON on this issue.

Your always on about how you have "proved" something. Prove it.

 

[Shogun]

Shogun your full of shit. I have provided documentation on at leasst 3 occasions proving your BULLSHIT statement is a lie,

Your opinion is garbage. If now your going to make statements as if they are facts PROVIDE evidence. For every piece of garbage you provide I have already provided SOURCE documents from the time that proof your a lying MORON on this issue.

Your always on about how you have "proved" something. Prove it.

Are you disputing the quotes I've posted? I guess acknowledging the SPECULATION of your own assertion is a tad bit harder than dealing with the reality of what i've posted. We can BOTH post OPINIONS from viable people following nuking Japan. You seem to think YOUR speculation is, somehow, more viable than the very opinions of the men who were around to see it as the Pandora's box that nukes became. I tellya, you sure do save millions of lives by opening the door for cold war mutually assured destruction!


YOUR opinion, sir, is as consistent as the shit that I scrape from the sole of my boot after taking the dog for a walk. Indeed, make sure you shrug off Japanese civilians while acting like chicken little over 9/11. You can ignore the REALITY of sentiment following dropping the nukes but, again, who gives a fuck what you think anyway? call me a name full of curse words. It's how all great debaters function after their male virility goes the way of the dodo bird.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Are you disputing the quotes I've posted? I guess acknowledging the SPECULATION of your own assertion is a tad bit harder than dealing with the reality of what i've posted. We can BOTH post OPINIONS from viable people following nuking Japan. You seem to think YOUR speculation is, somehow, more viable than the very opinions of the men who were around to see it as the Pandora's box that nukes became. I tellya, you sure do save millions of lives by opening the door for cold war mutually assured destruction!


YOUR opinion, sir, is as consistent as the shit that I scrape from the sole of my boot after taking the dog for a walk. Indeed, make sure you shrug off Japanese civilians while acting like chicken little over 9/11. You can ignore the REALITY of sentiment following dropping the nukes but, again, who gives a fuck what you think anyway? call me a name full of curse words. It's how all great debaters function after their male virility goes the way of the dodo bird.

My "opinion" is not on the block. I have on 3 occassions provided SOURCE documents that prove the Japanese were not going to surrender, that in fact after 2 bombs and a Soviet Invasion the JApanese Army was not going to surrrender, the ARMY ran the Government, their opinion is all that mattered until the others got the Emperor involved. I provided a SOURCE document where he stated for the sake of the country after the bombs he was going to intervene and order a surrender, and even then, I provided SOURCE documents that showed the Army attempted a coup to stop him.

The supposed claim that Japan wanted to surrender before we dropped the bombs consisted of ( and I showed SOURCE documents for this) what they wanted was for the Soviets to get us to stop fighting them and leave them with what they had left, no disarmament, no entry into Japan, no loss of Manchuria, no Loss of Korea or Vietnam or Singapore.

But do keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.

Come on provide us some proof the Japanese were gonna surrender. That millions would not die if we invaded, that millions would not die as we continued to fire bomb them and starve them.

 

[AllieBaba]

Larkinn and Shogun would prefer living under the thumb of the Japanese Imperialists, or under anyone, so long as they aren't living under American rule.

What a couple of bozos. You'd whine the loudest and piss your pants the fastest if you were ever actually faced with fascist rule....

 

[Larkinn]

That you support this drivel amazes me. I am going to have to change my opinion of your intelligence. Or is this just another case of you, providing a different view of things?

I'm providing a different view. Its extremely easy to justify massacreing civilians when its the other side you are killing.

Be specific Larkinn... should we have dropped the bombs? Did we do it for Revenge? Do you believe millions of japanese would not have died if we had continued the war and invaded?

Or perhaps you think we should have done what Japan wanted and just quit and let them have everything they still held? That IS the only "Peace" they offered and eb=ven repeated after one nuke and a Soviet Invasion, further the Army that RAN the Government wanted to continue to demand it after both nukes were dropped.

I am fed up with you garbage. Be a man and actually answer the above questions. I won't hold my breath though, your track record on actually saying anything that could be called conclusive is abysmal.

I'm so arrogant that I know everything, but yet I never say anything conclusive, right RGS? I don't make conclusive statements because I am well aware of my own ignorance. Should we have dropped them? I don't know. I do, however, recognize the danger in saying we definitely should have dropped them, or saying the choice was obvious. The decision to kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians should never be obvious, nor should we forget that we cannot know what would have happened in an alternate reality. You can guess, but as we well know predictions about the future are often inaccurate.

I am also pointing out the tendency of most people, and you are no exception, to justify atrocities against the enemy while pointing out ones that are committed against ones own side. Think of the damage 9/11 did to this country. Now imagine 50 9/11s...not a pleasant thought. Ah, but when its against another country...in the guise of "war is war" and anything to win...well then it seems much more acceptable, eh?

Ask yourself this. Would you have been willing to nuke Miami and Dallas to end the war and save all of those lives? If not, why not?

 

[doniston]

Yes.. and I said:

-How many civilains died in the 10 MAR 45 firebombing raid over Tokyo?
-How much of the city was destroyed?
-Compare and contrast that with Hiroshima.
-Explain why the bombing of Hiroshim was so much worse.

So, can you explain why it was worse, or not?

If its not worse, then why the uproar over the bombing of Hiroshima and not Tokyo?

REPEAT:I said unnecessary, not worse. It is difficult to answer a false question.

second question.---same answer.

 

[Gunny]

Quite simply, if my neighbor attacks my kids while I'm at work, and I come home later and he attacks me with a stick, I'm going to pick up the nearest weapon or close facsimilie thereof and crush his f-ing skull.

Playing to lose is for losers.

 

[M14 Shooter]

REPEAT:I said unnecessary, not worse. It is difficult to answer a false question.

There is no such thing as a false question - you're simply trying to avoid answering the questions I asked. Why do you do that?

However "unnecessary" -you- find the raid on Hirosima to have been, the fact remains that people whine and cry and moan about the nuking of Hiroshima, and ignore the fact that the incendary raids on Tokyo killes as many/more people anbd destroyed more of the city.

And so, the questions I asked are perfectly legitimate.

So, either answer the questions, or don't bother responding.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Quite simply, if my neighbor attacks my kids while I'm at work, and I come home later and he attacks me with a stick, I'm going to pick up the nearest weapon or close facsimilie thereof and crush his f-ing skull.
Playing to lose is for losers.

And, to apply this statement to war:
If you don't go after your enemy with as much force as you can possibly muster, every time the opportunity to do so arises, you are unnecessarily extending the war -- which then only means that more people will die.

Once the bomb came to be, the ONLY viable millitary option was to drop it.