Who Would Pull the Trigger Today?

[Uncensored2008]

That is absurd. You think Japan could have fought for another four years. Oh brother, your reading about the events must have been terribly limited. Japan was a broken defeated nation incapable of defending itself in 1945. It's people was starving and destitute. It's military destroyed.

Did it ever occur to you that when the B-29 dropped those two bombs, it was the lone plane in the sky. No Japanese aircraft contested it. Does that not mean anything to you?

And to think Stalin capable of taking Japan, is foolish. The Russians had an army, but no navy, no significant air force and no nukes. The USA would have wiped him out easily had he tried to invade Japan, if it had chosen to.

So, Japan was utterly defeated and could not defend itself - but Stalin with bases across the sea of Japan could not have invaded?

Well, alrighty then...

 

[toxicmedia]

Toxic, you have no idea what is in that agreement or the shady deals that went on behind the scene. And it doesn't matter one iota. They just said yesterday, no inspections.
Tell me the details of the Cuban deal...

Let me try and understand the point you might be making....I provided details about an agreement that causes you to think Obama is a traitor.

Aaaand, it doesn't matter what's in the agreement?

What are you basing your accusations on?

 

[toxicmedia]

There is a lot of talk today, understandably on the 70th anniversary of the act, about the bombing of Hiroshima. It is a very complex moral and military question. I'm wondering if, regardless of your view of the decision 70 years ago, you would ever support the US making a similar decision under any circumstances today? If so, what would those circumstances have to be?

I've read a great deal about this, and it was the right decision. Another 4 years of war was not a reasonable option, nor was allowing Stalin to invade Japan.

That is absurd. You think Japan could have fought for another four years. Oh brother, your reading about the events must have been terribly limited. Japan was a broken defeated nation incapable of defending itself in 1945. It's people was starving and destitute. It's military destroyed.

Did it ever occur to you that when the B-29 dropped those two bombs, it was the lone plane in the sky. No Japanese aircraft contested it. Does that not mean anything to you?

And to think Stalin capable of taking Japan, is foolish. The Russians had an army, but no navy, no significant air force and no nukes. The USA would have wiped him out easily had he tried to invade Japan, if it had chosen to.

I wonder if your assessment of Japan's ability for continued armed resistance leaves a few things out.

If the invasion of the whole of Japan would have unfolded anything like the Okinawa invasion, we would have needed to kill 50% of Japan's population, including women and children, in close combat. We would have also needed to kill another 25% of any Japanese that didn't fight, but were simply standing near that 50%. Our troops in the Pacific were exhausted, and the American people at that time would have just assumed nuke it off the globe, because by that time we'd lost 250,000 men.

I think what I've heard is that invading the homeland would have prolonged the conflict "for years"...I'm not sure anyone can know for sure if 4 years was unreasonable. Estimates are tricky things. Like when the south predicted the war would be over in less than a year, in 1861.

 

[there4eyeM]

It was absolutely not necessary to invade Japan.

 

[there4eyeM]

England is in sight of the European mainland, but no one has successfully invaded since 1066, despite some powerful enemies that really wanted to. The Russians had no capacity for traversing an open part of the sea with significant numbers of troops.
But, so what if they had invaded?

 

[MisterBeale]

Maybe you should read the question again more carefully.

I know that much of the complaint is that Truman used nukes to back the Soviets off, but is that not entirely legitimate? Allowing Stalin to take Japan would have been an complete disaster.

What nonsense. Stalin was never going to be in a position to invade Japan.

 

[MisterBeale]

Not only is Iran Obama's go to guy but he has promised that if Israel fights back, we will support Iran.
Proliferation is what is going to happen now that we support a terrorist nation like Iran in their bomb assembly line goal. The culmination of that will be so many bombs going off that we will actually tilt this planet off it's axis.

Please source this nonsense with a link or be labeled a crack pot.

 

[there4eyeM]

Why would it have been a disaster to the US if Russia had captured a burnt out island that couldn't even support itself?

 

[gipper]

That is absurd. You think Japan could have fought for another four years. Oh brother, your reading about the events must have been terribly limited. Japan was a broken defeated nation incapable of defending itself in 1945. It's people was starving and destitute. It's military destroyed.

Did it ever occur to you that when the B-29 dropped those two bombs, it was the lone plane in the sky. No Japanese aircraft contested it. Does that not mean anything to you?

And to think Stalin capable of taking Japan, is foolish. The Russians had an army, but no navy, no significant air force and no nukes. The USA would have wiped him out easily had he tried to invade Japan, if it had chosen to.

So, Japan was utterly defeated and could not defend itself - but Stalin with bases across the sea of Japan could not have invaded?

Well, alrighty then...

Why have you chosen to misconstrue my post?

Stalin could have invaded Japan and the USA could have easily wiped him out. We had complete naval and air superiority over all of the Japanese islands.

You are reaching for straws in an effort to accept a stinking lying politician's heinous act. Why?

Do you contest the point that Japan was utterly defeated and could not defend itself in August '45?

 

[gipper]

There is a lot of talk today, understandably on the 70th anniversary of the act, about the bombing of Hiroshima. It is a very complex moral and military question. I'm wondering if, regardless of your view of the decision 70 years ago, you would ever support the US making a similar decision under any circumstances today? If so, what would those circumstances have to be?

I've read a great deal about this, and it was the right decision. Another 4 years of war was not a reasonable option, nor was allowing Stalin to invade Japan.

That is absurd. You think Japan could have fought for another four years. Oh brother, your reading about the events must have been terribly limited. Japan was a broken defeated nation incapable of defending itself in 1945. It's people was starving and destitute. It's military destroyed.

Did it ever occur to you that when the B-29 dropped those two bombs, it was the lone plane in the sky. No Japanese aircraft contested it. Does that not mean anything to you?

And to think Stalin capable of taking Japan, is foolish. The Russians had an army, but no navy, no significant air force and no nukes. The USA would have wiped him out easily had he tried to invade Japan, if it had chosen to.

I wonder if your assessment of Japan's ability for continued armed resistance leaves a few things out.

If the invasion of the whole of Japan would have unfolded anything like the Okinawa invasion, we would have needed to kill 50% of Japan's population, including women and children, in close combat. We would have also needed to kill another 25% of any Japanese that didn't fight, but were simply standing near that 50%. Our troops in the Pacific were exhausted, and the American people at that time would have just assumed nuke it off the globe, because by that time we'd lost 250,000 men.

I think what I've heard is that invading the homeland would have prolonged the conflict "for years"...I'm not sure anyone can know for sure if 4 years was unreasonable. Estimates are tricky things. Like when the south predicted the war would be over in less than a year, in 1861.

There was no need to invade. Japan had and was trying to surrender, but the fool Dirty Harry ignored them. Then he nuked them. Nice guy.

Have you ever asked yourself why did the jackass FDR demand unconditional surrender? Why did Truman honor it after the fool's death. Do you understand what that did?

 

[toxicmedia]

There is a lot of talk today, understandably on the 70th anniversary of the act, about the bombing of Hiroshima. It is a very complex moral and military question. I'm wondering if, regardless of your view of the decision 70 years ago, you would ever support the US making a similar decision under any circumstances today? If so, what would those circumstances have to be?

I've read a great deal about this, and it was the right decision. Another 4 years of war was not a reasonable option, nor was allowing Stalin to invade Japan.

That is absurd. You think Japan could have fought for another four years. Oh brother, your reading about the events must have been terribly limited. Japan was a broken defeated nation incapable of defending itself in 1945. It's people was starving and destitute. It's military destroyed.

Did it ever occur to you that when the B-29 dropped those two bombs, it was the lone plane in the sky. No Japanese aircraft contested it. Does that not mean anything to you?

And to think Stalin capable of taking Japan, is foolish. The Russians had an army, but no navy, no significant air force and no nukes. The USA would have wiped him out easily had he tried to invade Japan, if it had chosen to.

I wonder if your assessment of Japan's ability for continued armed resistance leaves a few things out.

If the invasion of the whole of Japan would have unfolded anything like the Okinawa invasion, we would have needed to kill 50% of Japan's population, including women and children, in close combat. We would have also needed to kill another 25% of any Japanese that didn't fight, but were simply standing near that 50%. Our troops in the Pacific were exhausted, and the American people at that time would have just assumed nuke it off the globe, because by that time we'd lost 250,000 men.

I think what I've heard is that invading the homeland would have prolonged the conflict "for years"...I'm not sure anyone can know for sure if 4 years was unreasonable. Estimates are tricky things. Like when the south predicted the war would be over in less than a year, in 1861.

There was no need to invade. Japan had and was trying to surrender, but the fool Dirty Harry ignored them. Then he nuked them. Nice guy.

Have you ever asked yourself why did the jackass FDR demand unconditional surrender?

What?......where did you get that?....Jappan "trying" to surrender?.....

The Japanese don't surrender, only the Emperor can surrender, and it took finesse beyond all imagination to get the Emperor to NOT side with the military and fight to the death. Have you ever heard of Bonner Fellers?

You've been paying attention to conspiracy theories again, or revisionist history.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What nonsense. Stalin was never going to be in a position to invade Japan.

Even though according to historical revisionists, it was Stalin alone who defeated Germany?

It is amusing that these stories directly contradict themselves.

{As late as August 22, 1945 the Soviets had serious plans in the works to invade Hokkaido, Japans north island. The job was to have fallen on the 87th Rifle Corps and was to commence on 8/21. There was unexpectedly heavy resistance on the Russian take over of Sakhalin however and the Hokkaido operation was moved to August 24 or 25. The landings would occur at Rumoi, and though the assault fleet could be considered rag tag in comparison to the American fleet, there was less resistance expected and the Russians were confident they could carry it out. This invasion of the Japanese homeland would be coming a full 2 months earlier than the planned Operation Olympic invasion of Kyushu. Even though the Russians were prohibited by the Potsdam agreement from moving into Hokkaido, the fact that they continued to fight the Japanese even after the Emperors August 15th surrender announcement would give the Russians an excuse to keep fighting and move into Hokkaido, Potsdam allowing for "contingency planning." Imagine the geo-political fallout from the Russians occupying Hokkaido and a divided postwar Japan. The threat of Russian occupation of Japan may have also influenced Trumans decision to use the A-bomb and thus hasten the wars end. Stalin canceled the Hokkaido invasion when he saw that Japans surrender was inevitable and further Russian advance would damage relations with the allies and possible lead to U.S. naval action, and possible conflict. Trumans firm stand with Stalin regarding Soviet incursion into Japan ranks as one of the most important decisions ever made by Truman.}


10 Alternative World War II Plans That Would Have Changed History - Listverse

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why have you chosen to misconstrue my post?

Stalin could have invaded Japan and the USA could have easily wiped him out. We had complete naval and air superiority over all of the Japanese islands.

You are reaching for straws in an effort to accept a stinking lying politician's heinous act. Why?

Do you contest the point that Japan was utterly defeated and could not defend itself in August '45?

Stalin was in process of moving to invade when we dropped the bomb - and is viewed by many historians as one of the motivations to do so.

 

[gipper]

There is a lot of talk today, understandably on the 70th anniversary of the act, about the bombing of Hiroshima. It is a very complex moral and military question. I'm wondering if, regardless of your view of the decision 70 years ago, you would ever support the US making a similar decision under any circumstances today? If so, what would those circumstances have to be?

I've read a great deal about this, and it was the right decision. Another 4 years of war was not a reasonable option, nor was allowing Stalin to invade Japan.

That is absurd. You think Japan could have fought for another four years. Oh brother, your reading about the events must have been terribly limited. Japan was a broken defeated nation incapable of defending itself in 1945. It's people was starving and destitute. It's military destroyed.

Did it ever occur to you that when the B-29 dropped those two bombs, it was the lone plane in the sky. No Japanese aircraft contested it. Does that not mean anything to you?

And to think Stalin capable of taking Japan, is foolish. The Russians had an army, but no navy, no significant air force and no nukes. The USA would have wiped him out easily had he tried to invade Japan, if it had chosen to.

I wonder if your assessment of Japan's ability for continued armed resistance leaves a few things out.

If the invasion of the whole of Japan would have unfolded anything like the Okinawa invasion, we would have needed to kill 50% of Japan's population, including women and children, in close combat. We would have also needed to kill another 25% of any Japanese that didn't fight, but were simply standing near that 50%. Our troops in the Pacific were exhausted, and the American people at that time would have just assumed nuke it off the globe, because by that time we'd lost 250,000 men.

I think what I've heard is that invading the homeland would have prolonged the conflict "for years"...I'm not sure anyone can know for sure if 4 years was unreasonable. Estimates are tricky things. Like when the south predicted the war would be over in less than a year, in 1861.

There was no need to invade. Japan had and was trying to surrender, but the fool Dirty Harry ignored them. Then he nuked them. Nice guy.

Have you ever asked yourself why did the jackass FDR demand unconditional surrender?

What?......where did you get that?....Jappan "trying" to surrender?.....

The Japanese don't surrender, only the Emperor can surrender, and it took finesse beyond all imagination to get the Emperor to NOT side with the military and fight to the death. Have you ever heard of Bonner Fellers?

You've been paying attention to conspiracy theories again, or revisionist history.

You are not informed. Japan put out feelers to surrender as early as 1943. By July '45 all they asked was for the emperor not be removed and tried as a war criminal, which Truman ignored, then nuked them, then agreed to it. Nice guy old Dirty Harry.

 

[MisterBeale]

Not only is Iran Obama's go to guy but he has promised that if Israel fights back, we will support Iran.
Proliferation is what is going to happen now that we support a terrorist nation like Iran in their bomb assembly line goal. The culmination of that will be so many bombs going off that we will actually tilt this planet off it's axis.

You guys ought to at least try to understand the "agreement", or you'll just be relying on someone elses opinion of it

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R43333.pdf

It's pointless reading it, there is a secret addenda to it that the congress, the administration and people are not allowed to read. So what's the point? If you don't know what they have, or how far they are coming along, and you aren't allowed to know, or don't care to know, how can you negotiate what to do about it? It seems what Trump said about terrible negotiators seems to be sort of on the mark. lol

John Kerry hasn't even seen one of the most crucial parts of the Iran agreement
Secret part of the Iran agreement - Business Insider

 

[toxicmedia]

I've read a great deal about this, and it was the right decision. Another 4 years of war was not a reasonable option, nor was allowing Stalin to invade Japan.

That is absurd. You think Japan could have fought for another four years. Oh brother, your reading about the events must have been terribly limited. Japan was a broken defeated nation incapable of defending itself in 1945. It's people was starving and destitute. It's military destroyed.

Did it ever occur to you that when the B-29 dropped those two bombs, it was the lone plane in the sky. No Japanese aircraft contested it. Does that not mean anything to you?

And to think Stalin capable of taking Japan, is foolish. The Russians had an army, but no navy, no significant air force and no nukes. The USA would have wiped him out easily had he tried to invade Japan, if it had chosen to.

I wonder if your assessment of Japan's ability for continued armed resistance leaves a few things out.

If the invasion of the whole of Japan would have unfolded anything like the Okinawa invasion, we would have needed to kill 50% of Japan's population, including women and children, in close combat. We would have also needed to kill another 25% of any Japanese that didn't fight, but were simply standing near that 50%. Our troops in the Pacific were exhausted, and the American people at that time would have just assumed nuke it off the globe, because by that time we'd lost 250,000 men.

I think what I've heard is that invading the homeland would have prolonged the conflict "for years"...I'm not sure anyone can know for sure if 4 years was unreasonable. Estimates are tricky things. Like when the south predicted the war would be over in less than a year, in 1861.

There was no need to invade. Japan had and was trying to surrender, but the fool Dirty Harry ignored them. Then he nuked them. Nice guy.

Have you ever asked yourself why did the jackass FDR demand unconditional surrender?

What?......where did you get that?....Jappan "trying" to surrender?.....

The Japanese don't surrender, only the Emperor can surrender, and it took finesse beyond all imagination to get the Emperor to NOT side with the military and fight to the death. Have you ever heard of Bonner Fellers?

You've been paying attention to conspiracy theories again, or revisionist history.

You are not informed. Japan put out feelers to surrender as early as 1943. By July '45 all they asked was for the emperor not be removed and tried as a war criminal, which Truman ignored, then nuked them, then agreed to it. Nice guy old Dirty Harry.

Where did you hear this? and exactly what do you mean by "feelers"

The few Japanese willing to "ask" for the Emperor to remain had to be sought out. So you obviously read up on Bonner Fellers between posts.

Can you show me where you're getting this stuff that seems to fly in the face of every account told by the people that were there?

 

[toxicmedia]

Not only is Iran Obama's go to guy but he has promised that if Israel fights back, we will support Iran.
Proliferation is what is going to happen now that we support a terrorist nation like Iran in their bomb assembly line goal. The culmination of that will be so many bombs going off that we will actually tilt this planet off it's axis.

You guys ought to at least try to understand the "agreement", or you'll just be relying on someone elses opinion of it

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R43333.pdf

It's pointless reading it, there is a secret addenda to it that the congress, the administration and people are not allowed to read. So what's the point? If you don't know what they have, or how far they are coming along, and you aren't allowed to know, or don't care to know, how can you negotiate what to do about it? It seems what Trump said about terrible negotiators seems to be sort of on the mark. lol

John Kerry hasn't even seen one of the most crucial parts of the Iran agreement
Secret part of the Iran agreement - Business Insider

So, were not allowed to know what you're outraged about?

Are you outraged because you can't know what it is?

Or just outraged in general?

 

[Unkotare]

The Japanese don't surrender....

This bit is very often very over done by people looking for comfortable generalities.

 

[MisterBeale]

Not only is Iran Obama's go to guy but he has promised that if Israel fights back, we will support Iran.
Proliferation is what is going to happen now that we support a terrorist nation like Iran in their bomb assembly line goal. The culmination of that will be so many bombs going off that we will actually tilt this planet off it's axis.

You guys ought to at least try to understand the "agreement", or you'll just be relying on someone elses opinion of it

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R43333.pdf

It's pointless reading it, there is a secret addenda to it that the congress, the administration and people are not allowed to read. So what's the point? If you don't know what they have, or how far they are coming along, and you aren't allowed to know, or don't care to know, how can you negotiate what to do about it? It seems what Trump said about terrible negotiators seems to be sort of on the mark. lol

John Kerry hasn't even seen one of the most crucial parts of the Iran agreement
Secret part of the Iran agreement - Business Insider

So, were not allowed to know what you're outraged about?

Are you outraged because you can't know what it is?

Or just outraged in general?

Who said anything about outrage? Frankly, I don't give a shit. I'm just pointing out that even our politicians can't understand the agreement, so of course citizens can't hope to.

I believe the whole thing is a set up.

Conservative partisans that are bellyaching about this whole thing are just shooting themselves in the foot. They simple don't understand globalist politics. They don't understand that both parties work together at the CFR and in international institutions, and that this deal has been orchestrated from the outset to give the west an excuse to go to war. That's exactly what the right wants in the first place. They should just put their stamp of approval on it and get on with it already. lol

Iran, OTH, has negotiated a deal, so that WHEN war comes, WASHINGTON will look like the bad guy. Thus, Russia, China, and probably with the increased economic integration this will cause, India and Brazil will be lining up with it.

But this has all been planned. This deal is just setting the stage for WWIII. It's very similar to Molotov Ribbentrop Pact - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

A complete farce that paves the way to complete war.

 

[MisterBeale]

Why else would enemies who want each other destroyed negotiate?