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

[Unkotare]

And was the Admiral a member of the Big Six? Did he have any input as to the actual surrender in the Japanese government?

No? Then his opinion matters about as much as a bowl of dog snot.

Lots of yeahbutts.......

 

[Mushroom]

How many do you need? 1000? 100,000? More?

How about the writings of the only 6 men in the planet that really matter?

You know, the Big Six? The very ones you keep ignoring over and over again, and giving us the opinions of almost everybody but them.

Is like you keep telling us over and over about Germany about to surrender, but give us the opinions of everybody but Hitler.

 

[Mushroom]

Lots of yeahbutts.......

Not at all. Only 6 people had that power. Nobody else in the world.

I am sure I could find identical beliefs floating around that German was about to surrender, we did not have to do the firebombings, or let the Soviets destroy Berlin.

And we know for a fact that also is a lie. Because the Soviets were literally within a stone throw of the bunker Hitler was hiding in when he ate his Walther sandwich.

Ultimately, opinions are like an anus. Everybody has one, and a lot of them stink. I do not care about opinions, I care about facts. So unless you can present an opinion from one of the Big Six, it is meaningless.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Seems like you learned history from coloring books. Facts have been posted over and over again. You just deny and emote.

I've done what? The only thing that I have done was point out a clear fucking fact---without the bombs, the japanese god-emperor would not have unconditionally surrendered causing millions of more deaths for both sides. Its some serious crazy shit that you are claiming that isnt the case. If you think that coloring books teach common sense and actual history, then you should be doing some coloring of your own because you either know shit or are spewing it hoping that no one catches you with your bizarre off the wall claims.

 

[Mac-7]

try defending your position on moral grounds

I already have

the bomb saved lives and prevented a divided japan

 

[Unkotare]

How about the writings of the only 6 men in the planet that really matter?

You know, the Big Six? The very ones you keep ignoring over and over again, and giving us the opinions of almost everybody but them.

Is like you keep telling us over and over about Germany about to surrender, but give us the opinions of everybody but Hitler.

Long, well documented post about exactly that have been posted here over and over again. They are ignored and then the same argument put forth again. It’s just a circular waste of time. Make a personal moral argument about the topic of the thread without making claims that cannot be categorically supported one way or the other.

 

[Unkotare]

I already have

the bomb saved lives and prevented a divided japan

Speculation

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Seems like you learned history from coloring books. Facts have been posted over and over again. You just deny and emote.

No facts have been posted you and no one else has EVER linked to a reliable source for ANY of your claims.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Since there were verified attempts at offering terms of surrender (per significant evidence posted here many times), it is not such a great leap.

You nor anyone else has linked to ANY such offer.

 

[Mushroom]

Long, well documented post about exactly that have been posted here over and over again. They are ignored and then the same argument put forth again. It’s just a circular waste of time. Make a personal moral argument about the topic of the thread without making claims that cannot be categorically supported one way or the other.

Of course it's a waste of time. Because you never talk about anybody that actually has the power to negotiate such a surrender. Or that the actual leaders of the nation ever had any consideration of surrender.

Poopy, I am still laughing at your claims as they are worthless. Might as well try to claim some Private in the Iraqi Army in 1991 had the power to surrender in Kuwait.

 

[DudleySmith]

They did not lose the war. WWI ended in an armistice, not a surrender.

Which is why all the Allies agreed that this time around all of the Axis powers had to surrender, and they would not accept an armistice.

They got beat. Wilson's attempts to sign a unilateral peace with Germany behind his allies' backs made them distrust him completely and rather than chase the routed German army back into Germany they sued for peace in order to keep America from dominating he victory for its own benefit. The Germans were fully defeated and their front collapsed, which is how the allies later pushed through the Versailles Treaty with Germany unable to do a damn thing about it. That 'armistice' later became a major selling point for Nazis, claiming the 'stab in the back' rubbish. The terms dictated to Germany were terms offered a defeated enemy; they had no choice but to accept the terms, something they would not have done if they were still capable of fighting.

Anybody who doubts this can read Cataclysm: WW I as Political Tragedy by David Stephenson, by far one of the best and latest books out there on WW I.

 

[DudleySmith]

"Responding to a journalist's question in 1995 about what he would have done had he been in Truman's shoes, Joseph O'Donnell, a retired marine corps sergeant who served in the Pacific, answered that "we should have went after the military in Japan. They were bad. But to drop a bomb on women and children and the elderly, I draw a line there, and I still hold it."

Doug Dowd, a Pacific-theater rescue pilot who was slated to take an early part in the invasion of Japan if it had come to that, recently stated that it was clear in the final months of the war that the Japanese "had lost the ability to defend themselves." American planes "met little, and then virtually no resistance," Dowd recalled. He added, "It is well-known [now] that the Japanese were seeking to make a peace agreement well before Hiroshima."

Or take Ed Everts, a major in the 7th weather squadron of the Army Air Corps. Everts, who received an air medal for surviving a crash at sea during the battle at Iwo Jima, told us that America's use of atomic bombs was "a war crime" for which "our leaders should have been put on trial as were the German and Japanese leaders."

Anecdotal stories from a cook at Fort Sill or whatever don't amount to squat as 'proof' of anything. Out of 160 million people you could find at least 100 people who claim the moon was made of blue cheese.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

The Yellow Yell and Hollow Fools Follow

Pacifists are cowards and traitors. If Americans were aware of that, they would eliminate the Conscientious Objector draft exemption. And they would charge you with treason.

 

[DudleySmith]

The Yellow Yell and Hollow Fools Follow

Pacifists are cowards and traitors. If Americans were aware of that, they would eliminate the Conscientious Objector draft exemption. And they would charge you with treason.

Actually CO status didn't automatically exempt anyone from being drafted; lots of CO's served, and served in Nam. Not all CO's were pacifists, either; some had Constitutional objections and other reasons and were volunteers, not draftees.

 

[Markle]

Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs that "the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."

Dodging the issue. I am shocked, SHOCKED I SAY?

 

[Markle]

How many do you need? 1000? 100,000? More? How about instead of losing the argument on mathematical grounds you try defending your position on moral grounds that do NOT rely on assumptions that are in dispute to say the least?

 

[Mushroom]

They got beat. Wilson's attempts to sign a unilateral peace with Germany behind his allies' backs made them distrust him completely and rather than chase the routed German army back into Germany they sued for peace in order to keep America from dominating he victory for its own benefit. The Germans were fully defeated and their front collapsed, which is how the allies later pushed through the Versailles Treaty with Germany unable to do a damn thing about it.

Actually, they did not get beat. Not a single foreign soldier had stepped their foot inside of Germany. The entire "Western Front" was well inside of France when the war ended. What happened was that the German Government collapsed, and the new interim one requested an armistice that was granted.

They were not beat, their front did not collapse. In fact, they were already sending even more soldiers to the West after the end of the fighting with the Russians when their government collapsed. And would likely have rebuilt over the winter, and started an even stronger offensive when the snows melted.

Sorry, you have been listening to some really bad propaganda. There is a reason why WWI ended with an armistice.

 

[Mushroom]

Pacifists are cowards and traitors.

What a load of crock.

I am a pacifist, and have spent well over 20 years in uniform.

So pardon me, but blow it out your ass.

 

[Markle]

How many do you need? 1000? 100,000? More? How about instead of losing the argument on mathematical grounds you try defending your position on moral grounds that do NOT rely on assumptions that are in dispute to say the least?

In my humble opinion, after decades, if everyone agrees on an idea or plan, there is something wrong, something they are missing. Do you and your wife agree on everything, all the time? Of course not.

Were there not disagreements, strong disagreements on virtually every planned battle? Some went great, others failed. Operation Market Garden was presented to Eisenhower by Gen. Montgomery to preserve bridges needed for the allies. Patton argued against the plan as being impossible. Montgomery and Patton were not great friends. They detested one another. In fact, there was a movie made called "A Bridge Too Far". This was in September 1944 and it was a terrible failure. Montgomery was one of the most respected and successful generals of WW II. He was WRONG.

The bottom line is that dropping the two bombs, which we really had no clue if they would work or what would be the result, was successful in a grand manner. Yep, it was a crapshoot effort to end the war without sacrificing the lives of millions of others. If someone wanted to ignore the battle of Okinawa and the massive casualties, they were fools.

Unkotare, all you have are WHAT IFs. Don't even consider the fact that to the Japanese he was a God. The FACTS are that the Japanese would commit suicide rather than surrender even with hopeless odds. How can you deny that fact since the evidence is right there on film and still photographers?

What argument can you possibly make, moral or otherwise, for extending the war by at least a year with millions of more casualties?

 

[Markle]

Actually, they [Nazi Germany] did not get beat. Not a single foreign soldier had stepped their foot inside of Germany. The entire "Western Front" was well inside of France when the war ended. What happened was that the German Government collapsed, and the new interim one requested an armistice that was granted.

They were not beat, their front did not collapse. In fact, they were already sending even more soldiers to the West after the end of the fighting with the Russians when their government collapsed. And would likely have rebuilt over the winter, and started an even stronger offensive when the snows melted.

Sorry, you have been listening to some really bad propaganda. There is a reason why WWI ended with an armistice.

You're being facetious, right? You really cannot be serious.