Was Hiroshima Wrong?

[rightwinger]

Hiroshima....NO

Nagasaki.....Yes

Clarify

We got our message across with Hiroshima

Three days between attacks was insufficient time to assess what was happening. Nagasaki was overkill

 

[JBeukema]

Hiroshima....NO

Nagasaki.....Yes

Clarify

We got our message across with Hiroshima

Three days between attacks was insufficient time to assess what was happening. Nagasaki was overkill

So the North Tower got the point across and the South tower was overkill? It was all good until the second pane hit?

 

[Polk]

...You'll recall that the US invaded Iraq in 2003 and cited reasons mostly unrelated to 9/11 ('weapons of mass destruction.') A big secret American plan to raid the Middle East? No, but the US has invaded other countries there since 9/11.

Last time I checked, Iraq is a single country, but to get back to your comparison, you'd have to believe 9/11 made an American invasion of Iraq less likely. That doesn't seem like a very logical conclusion.

exactly. it made it more likely. there is no way iraq would have happened without 9/11.

I would not go that far, but it certainly did not decrease the likelihood.

 

[rightwinger]

Clarify

We got our message across with Hiroshima

Three days between attacks was insufficient time to assess what was happening. Nagasaki was overkill

So the North Tower got the point across and the South tower was overkill? It was all good until the second pane hit?

Actually ...they were both overkill

 

[JBeukema]

Evidently not, since America didn't get the message and get out of the ME. Kinda like the earlier bombings Japan didn't heed.

 

[manifold]

I understand perfectly why Al Qaida attacked us on 9/11. And I also accept that it's blatantly hypocritical to conclude their attack was morally reprehensible while dropping the A-bomb on Japan was somehow morally righteous. But in the end I don't give a shit. All is fair in love and war. I'm glad we used our 'big stick' to end WWII and because Al Qaida attacked us I support hunting them down like dogs and blowing their ******* brains out.

Whatever that makes me, I'm at peace with it.

True story

 

[rightwinger]

We could have saved 75,000 civilians in Nagasaki if we gave Japan more than three days to negotiate their surrender

 

[manifold]

We could have saved 75,000 civilians in Nagasaki if we gave Japan more than three days to negotiate their surrender

Maybe, maybe not.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Nuking Japan wasn't wrong. Sad thing is we had to wait so long to do it.

So why is this

okay


but this

isn't?

The 2 atomic bombs ENDED the war. Without both of them the Japanese Government would not have surrendered. Even one was not enough, the Military run Government refused to surrender, the second one caused the Emperor to order the surrender, which the Army tried to prevent with a Coup against the Emperor.

No bombs and we would have invaded a home Island. Such an Invasion would have seen the death of nearly every living adult on that Island. The Japanese plan of defense was to arm the civilians with bamboo stakes and have them wave assault the landing beaches. Saipan and Okinawa proved that if the civilians did not die in mass wave attacks they would have likely committed suicide along with their children to prevent capture.

Further, Japan was unable to provide food or heating materials to the Islands anymore. The winter would have killed thousands if not millions. And the Military Government KNEW this. They did not care, they refused to surrender.

The bombings SAVED lives.

 

[rightwinger]

We could have saved 75,000 civilians in Nagasaki if we gave Japan more than three days to negotiate their surrender

Maybe, maybe not.

We will never know

But I suspect the outcome of the war would have been the same if we had spared Nagasaki

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We could have saved 75,000 civilians in Nagasaki if we gave Japan more than three days to negotiate their surrender

Source documents prove that is a LIE. The Army controlled the Government and simply refused to surrender. Hell even after the second Atomic Bomb they refused. And after the Emperor ordered the surrender the Army mutinied and staged a Coup to try and stop the Emperors recording from being played.

Even with out the bombs Japan was doomed. They could not feed their people and they could not provide fuel for heating in the coming winter. The plan to repel the Invasion was bamboo stake armed civilians mass human wave assaulting the beach heads. The Government WANTED to die before surrender.

I keep providing this link, read it this time. SOURCE DOCUMENTS....

The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We could have saved 75,000 civilians in Nagasaki if we gave Japan more than three days to negotiate their surrender

Maybe, maybe not.

We will never know

But I suspect the outcome of the war would have been the same if we had spared Nagasaki

WRONG. No second bomb no surrender. The Emperor only intervened BECAUSE of the second bomb. READ the documents.

 

[JBeukema]

The 2 atomic bombs ENDED the war. Without both of them the Japanese Government would not have surrendered.

1)Our own governments records reflect a different belief

2)9/11 was supposed to END America's meddling in the ME

3)So now we dropped the bombs for the good of the Japanese? What, then, if bin Laden said ending America's meddling would save them from Allah's wrath? He would trhen be making the same argument you just forwarded

 

[JBeukema]

Maybe, maybe not.

We will never know

But I suspect the outcome of the war would have been the same if we had spared Nagasaki

WRONG. No second bomb no surrender. The Emperor only intervened BECAUSE of the second bomb. READ the documents.

Did you read Kalam's link?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We will never know

But I suspect the outcome of the war would have been the same if we had spared Nagasaki

WRONG. No second bomb no surrender. The Emperor only intervened BECAUSE of the second bomb. READ the documents.

Did you read Kalam's link?

I have SOURCE DOCUMENTS, actual documents from the Japanese Government and the US Government. No guessing, no supposition, no moralizing. The actual discussions that occurred. READ the link.

The Army ran the Military Government. They refused to surrender. After the first bomb all the offered was an end in place, no surrender, no lose of territory no disarming, no foreign troops in Japan. After the second bomb they STILL refused and only the intervention of the Emperor allowed for surrender. And even then the Army staged a Coup to stop the Emperor ( you know, their living God?) from surrendering.

Further the Army KNEW they could not provide food or heating materials for the coming winter. They planned to use human wave attacks with civilians armed with bamboo stakes. It is all there on SOURCE documents. You don't have to assume anything it is in black and white.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The 2 atomic bombs ENDED the war. Without both of them the Japanese Government would not have surrendered.

1)Our own governments records reflect a different belief

2)9/11 was supposed to END America's meddling in the ME

3)So now we dropped the bombs for the good of the Japanese? What, then, if bin Laden said ending America's meddling would save them from Allah's wrath? He would trhen be making the same argument you just forwarded

Nothing will convince morons and fools and I suspect you are both. Once again the link has US SOURCE documents as well. You do understand what a source document is right?

 

[rightwinger]

Maybe, maybe not.

We will never know

But I suspect the outcome of the war would have been the same if we had spared Nagasaki

WRONG. No second bomb no surrender. The Emperor only intervened BECAUSE of the second bomb. READ the documents.

Three days is all we gave them

No additional evidence of our new found power was provided by Nagasaki. If the Emperor was in a power struggle with the Army wouldn't more time been of assistance. We still had the second bomb....we could have dropped it any time

3 days
A week
A month

The outcome would have been the same but we could have saved 75,000 cicilians

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So the ends justify the means?

The goal was to save lives or didn't you understand that? The goal was met, both American and Japanese lives were saved by the use of the bombs.

You didn't answer my question. Do the ends justify the means?

In war? YES.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We will never know

But I suspect the outcome of the war would have been the same if we had spared Nagasaki

WRONG. No second bomb no surrender. The Emperor only intervened BECAUSE of the second bomb. READ the documents.

Three days is all we gave them

No additional evidence of our new found power was provided by Nagasaki. If the Emperor was in a power struggle with the Army wouldn't more time been of assistance. We still had the second bomb....we could have dropped it any time

3 days
A week
A month

The outcome would have been the same but we could have saved 75,000 cicilians

Do some reading. The Emperor REFUSED to intervene after the first bomb. He only acted after the second. He also knew about the coming winter and the military plans for suicide attacks.

 

[elvis]

WRONG. No second bomb no surrender. The Emperor only intervened BECAUSE of the second bomb. READ the documents.

Three days is all we gave them

No additional evidence of our new found power was provided by Nagasaki. If the Emperor was in a power struggle with the Army wouldn't more time been of assistance. We still had the second bomb....we could have dropped it any time

3 days
A week
A month

The outcome would have been the same but we could have saved 75,000 cicilians

Do some reading. The Emperor REFUSED to intervene after the first bomb. He only acted after the second. He also knew about the coming winter and the military plans for suicide attacks.

obama worshippers don't understand.