The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima

[Unkotare]

archive.ph

Which says EXACTLY what I said Japan did not offer to surrender they wanted a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines. You claimed I was wrong about that yet every time you link this it proves I was right. Again NO ONE was going to let Japan simply walk away from all the death murder and destruction they CAUSED.

Your reading skills are weak, old man.

 

[HenryBHough]

Yes I love traitors.

Congratulations!

You just won today's "Stating The Obvious" award!

 

[Quasar44]

One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “

Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?

No
But the bombs had to fall

Why?

The Japs would have fought to the end .
Millions would die in the coming US land invasion
It had to be done

 

[Quasar44]

Imperial Japan was as bad as Fascist Germany

 

[toobfreak]

The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima

My only regret is that we didn't drop 4-5 nukes on Japan after Pearl Harbor. Pound them back to the stone age for what they did to us!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

archive.ph

Which says EXACTLY what I said Japan did not offer to surrender they wanted a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines. You claimed I was wrong about that yet every time you link this it proves I was right. Again NO ONE was going to let Japan simply walk away from all the death murder and destruction they CAUSED.

Your reading skills are weak, old man.

LOL you didn't actually READ the article did you dumb ass?

 

[Unkotare]

One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “

Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?

No
But the bombs had to fall

Why?

The Jap[anese] would have fought to the end .
Millions would die in the coming US land invasion
It had to be done

That is the soothing myth that has been promulgated for the past 75 years. Casualty numbers for a hypothetical invasion are, by definition, speculative. An invasion was not the only other option than incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians in atomic fire. America's military leaders of the day recognized that Japan's military was all but defeated. The civilian population was starving and demoralized. It was a choice but it did not "have to be done."

 

[Dick Foster]

Imperial Japan was as bad as Fascist Germany

Maybe worse.

 

[Dick Foster]

One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “

Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?

No
But the bombs had to fall

Why?

The Jap[anese] would have fought to the end .
Millions would die in the coming US land invasion
It had to be done

That is the soothing myth that has been promulgated for the past 75 years. Casualty numbers for a hypothetical invasion are, by definition, speculative. An invasion was not the only other option than incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians in atomic fire. America's military leaders of the day recognized that Japan's military was all but defeated. The civilian population was starving and demoralized. It was a choice but it did not "have to be done."

Was Okinawa speculation, asshole?
Truth be told if we had not used the nukes and had invaded Japan in the usual fashion, far more Japanese would likely have died by thier own hand than were killed by both bombs added together. They showed exactly how they were going to act in Tinian and again in Okinawa. Get a clue, fool.

 

[Unkotare]

The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima

My only regret is that we didn't drop 4-5 nukes on Japan after Pearl Harbor. Pound them back to the stone age for what they did to us!

Do you have a number of civilians you would have liked slaughtered in retaliation for a military strike on a military installation not even in the United States? A military response was certainly called for. Defeating the enemy military was just. Deliberately targeting and incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians is not what America is about.

 

[Unkotare]

One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “

Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?

No
But the bombs had to fall

Why?

The Jap[anese] would have fought to the end .
Millions would die in the coming US land invasion
It had to be done

That is the soothing myth that has been promulgated for the past 75 years. Casualty numbers for a hypothetical invasion are, by definition, speculative. An invasion was not the only other option than incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians in atomic fire. America's military leaders of the day recognized that Japan's military was all but defeated. The civilian population was starving and demoralized. It was a choice but it did not "have to be done."

Was Okinawa speculation, asshole?

Want to try and focus on the discussion, champ? The bloodthirsty fdr had the opportunity to pursue peace via the surrender of Japan before Okinawa ever happened. You really think he cared about the lives of American servicemen, asshole? He didn't care about American civilians. He didn't care about the Constitution. He seemed to care a great deal about carrying water for Uncle Joe.

 

[Unkotare]

So again for those watching Unkotare and Gipper both claimed I was wrong when I stated that all Japan offered was ceasefire and return to 41 start lines and Now after over 100 pages of claiming I lied, I was wrong, I was a liar, Unkotare posts TWICE the supposed offer made by Japan to surrender, and GUESS what? It is what I said it was an offer for an end to the war by just stopping and returning to 41 start lines, no consequences for Japan at all and they keep Korea and China.

Do you have Biden Syndrome, old man? Read the article. There is even a list of terms offered - a list identical to the terms we eventually accepted after lackey truman carried out the ghoul fdr's last wishes from hell.

 

[Unkotare]

archive.ph

Which says EXACTLY what I said Japan did not offer to surrender they wanted a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines. You claimed I was wrong about that yet every time you link this it proves I was right. Again NO ONE was going to let Japan simply walk away from all the death murder and destruction they CAUSED.

Your reading skills are weak, old man.

LOL you didn't actually READ the article did you dumb ass?

One of us did.

 

[gipper]

Imperial Japan was as bad as Fascist Germany

It’s funny how Americans are so judgmental of other nations, but are completely unaware of the many heinous acts committed by their government. WTF!

 

[gipper]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​

​

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​

​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

I agree 3 days could have been 2 weeks !!!
The nukes were the only way to save lives and end the war

Another dupe.

Mass murder defenseless innocent women and children to save lives. Not logical.

You mean like how the Japanese murdered millions in China and the conquered territories, like that?

Yeah sort of very similar to ruthlessly bombing a defenseless nation seeking surrender. Imperial powers are all the same, but you’re too dumb to know it.

Wow are you a total ignoramus and lemming

You don’t know anything other than what the state told you in 4th grade. Get informed.

 

[gipper]

archive.ph

Which says EXACTLY what I said Japan did not offer to surrender they wanted a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines. You claimed I was wrong about that yet every time you link this it proves I was right. Again NO ONE was going to let Japan simply walk away from all the death murder and destruction they CAUSED.

Your reading skills are weak, old man.

Now that’s an understatement.

 

[gipper]

So again for those watching Unkotare and Gipper both claimed I was wrong when I stated that all Japan offered was ceasefire and return to 41 start lines and Now after over 100 pages of claiming I lied, I was wrong, I was a liar, Unkotare posts TWICE the supposed offer made by Japan to surrender, and GUESS what? It is what I said it was an offer for an end to the war by just stopping and returning to 41 start lines, no consequences for Japan at all and they keep Korea and China.

Do you have Biden Syndrome, old man? Read the article. There is even a list of terms offered - a list identical to the terms we eventually accepted after lackey truman carried out the ghoul fdr's last wishes from hell.

He’s got links from the CIA that he’s really proud of. LOL.

 

[gipper]

Too bad we did not nuke Germany but they surrendered

What a dumb fuck.

 

[HenryBHough]

It's been too long since..........

 

[Quasar44]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​

​

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​

​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

I agree 3 days could have been 2 weeks !!!
The nukes were the only way to save lives and end the war

Another dupe.

Mass murder defenseless innocent women and children to save lives. Not logical.

You mean like how the Japanese murdered millions in China and the conquered territories, like that?

Yeah sort of very similar to ruthlessly bombing a defenseless nation seeking surrender. Imperial powers are all the same, but you’re too dumb to know it.

Wow are you a total ignoramus and lemming

You don’t know anything other than what the state told you in 4th grade. Get informed.

What trash can nation are you from ??