CNN & US Mil Confirm Weapon Tested @ China Lake on July 4-5

originally posted by: Krakatoa
Ike was, at that time, less a general and more a politician.

Yeah... so what?

...snip...

Appealing to authority is still a bad thing when only opinions are taken as facts.

Yeah, well, I'll take Ike's and the other dozen+ people who were in a much better position than you to know what was up, over your mere opinion, any day.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Krakatoa
Ike was, at that time, less a general and more a politician.

Yeah... so what?

...snip...

Appealing to authority is still a bad thing when only opinions are taken as facts.

Yeah, well, I'll take Ike's and the other dozen+ people who were in a much better position than you to know what was up, over your mere opinion, any day.

Haha...is this a school yard now?

"I'm rubber and you're glue...."

Is that better?




I'll take my family's direct involvement int that conflict, at varying levels of security and responsibility, over your cherery picking and ignoring of facts.

a reply to: tanstaafl

And we would have had to have ground troops at some point. They might not have had the air cover they once did, but they still had ground defenses. Air power doesn't win wars.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah, the plan was to take Okinawa by ground to make it a FOB. Build a runway there for bombers to use to reach the main island. People forget that the range of bombers then was NOT nearly what we have today. The Doolittle raid early on was a roll of the dice just to get bombers to launch from a carrier, with no fuel for a return trip. So, they had to crash in China (if they even made it that far). We could never sustain a long-term bombing attack without a closer FOB.

a reply to: Krakatoa

The B-29 was supposed to have the range and fly above where Japanese fighters could intercept them. They ended up having such horrible engine issues that they failed at both.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Krakatoa

The B-29 was supposed to have the range and fly above where Japanese fighters could intercept them. They ended up having such horrible engine issues that they failed at both.

And the fighter cover range was even more limited than the bombers range. The absolute need for a FOB was essential for a victory over Japan using conventional means. The best solution at that time, was attempt to "shock and awe" the Japanese leadership into a complete unconditional surrender. Only then would the Japanese population actually capitulate, since they were devoted to the Emperor, totally and completely. The only way to win in that scenario is from the top down.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
"Yeah, well, I'll take Ike's and the other dozen+ people who were in a much better position than you to know what was up, over your mere opinion, any day."

Haha...is this a school yard now?

"I'm rubber and you're glue...."

Is that the best response you have to direct quotes from the likes of Eisenhower, McArthur, Einstein, and others, that happens to differ with yours?

Ooh, ooh, Mr. Kotter!

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: tanstaafl

And we would have had to have ground troops at some point. They might not have had the air cover they once did, but they still had ground defenses. Air power doesn't win wars.

No, we wouldn't have had to invade on the ground. All we'd have to do is keep them from rebuilding, and that would have easily been done from the air.

Then, to achieve peace, we'd simply have to allow them the ability to save face. But no, we had to impose numerous anbiguous conditions (the Potsdam Declaration) that they could never accept (the potential loss of their beloved Emperor for one).

No, as much as it gives war mongers hard ons, I don't think it was necessary, and was only done as a real world 'test' to see just how these new weapons we had worked irl - that, and to send a message to the world that we now had the biggest stick in the world, and weren't afraid to use it.

This set us up to be just what the war mongers/military/industrial complex wanted - the world policemen and nation builders/dictator creators for the last 75 years.

a reply to: tanstaafl

You don't think, people didn't believe.... the fact of the matter is that no one knows what would have happened if they weren't used. Air power and blockades wouldn't have been 100% effective. Air power has never won a war, and all blockades have holes in them. Things could have dragged out for years with many more dead, or they could have ended in a week. We'll never know. The decision was made to use the bombs and end things.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
You don't think, people didn't believe.... the fact of the matter is that no one knows what would have happened if they weren't used.

Exactly...

So, obviously, that's a terrific reason to 'just do it', no?

Bah.

a reply to: tanstaafl

There were no good answers. We could have waited and watched while thousands or more died of starvation and disease, we could have invaded and killed or wounded millions, or we could have used the bombs.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Zaphod58
You don't think, people didn't believe.... the fact of the matter is that no one knows what would have happened if they weren't used.

Exactly...

So, obviously, that's a terrific reason to 'just do it', no?

Bah.

It was war. The best part of any war is it's swift and decisive end. Anything less it inviting doubt and more death and suffering. Yo may be OK with prolonging that death and suffering (in hindsight with nothing on the line for you personally), but I know my father and uncles ALL, unanimously supported it's use AT THAT TIME. They were there, they saw the fanatical zeal of the Japanese, both the military AND civilian populations. I prefer to take the word of those on the ground personally, who lost friends and brothers over your looking back and academic questioning almost 75 years later.

Would you sacrifice your family, friends, and children and risk their deaths based upon that type of blind hindsight?

Please.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I went to Saipan for work and got to see the cliffs where entire families threw themselves off because they were told the Marines would kill them all. It was incredibly sobering.

If it wasn't Japan with20 it would have been somewhere else just to prove it works, and how many countries had the bomb 20 years later. Might have been bomb against bomb against bomb. More might and maybe.

The rogue military/cia base beneath china lake was sploded by Q Team operatives who got control over the exotic tech, including the Space Force (been in existence for decades as we know) fleet of TR3Bs.

You already know Patriots are risking and frequently losing their lives on your behalf as we speak, but you might not know about the behind the scenes fight for the salvation of humanity.

It has recently escalated. Once it escalates, it cant last long. Not the way things work today. It's probably already over to be honest. Now we enter "nuremberg trials/nazi hunter" phase. Because they still exist. Their best toys have merely been taken away.

It's Trump's turn, and he has made his first move. Take down Epstein who leads to others, and destroy the "Hallways of Horrors" D.U.M.B.s in the southwest and their precious secret transportation/escape routes (tunnels).


P.S. I watched on the news the fire chief of Kern Co., when speaking of the fact there were zero deaths, call the earthquake a "successful operation".

"It was a successful operation." Those were his words.

Jesus please let this be real. ⛪

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: tanstaafl

There were no good answers. We could have waited and watched while thousands or more died of starvation and disease, we could have invaded and killed or wounded millions, or we could have used the bombs.

You forgot one other very likely option - the Japanese surrender under terms that allow them to save face.

a reply to: tanstaafl

They had the opportunity to begin negotiations with the US and work out a surrender that would, and chose to approach Russia instead. Hindsight is a great thing and gives you more options. At the time it didn't appear they wanted to surrender to the US. As far as the US government knew they planned to fight to the last child and had were trying to work out an agreement to get Russian help to fight an invasion.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
It was war. The best part of any war is it's swift and decisive end. Anything less it inviting doubt and more death and suffering.

I agree - yet you fail to acknowledge even the possibility that dropping the bombs may not have been necessary.

Blind hindsight much?

Yo may be OK with prolonging that death and suffering (in hindsight with nothing on the line for you personally),

Excuse me, but that was absolutely uncalled for. You have no idea who I am or what I I or my family was doing during that war.

And what have I ever said that could even be remotely construed as to my being 'ok with prolonging death and destruction'?

but I know my father and uncles ALL, unanimously supported it's use AT THAT TIME. They were there, they saw the fanatical zeal of the Japanese, both the military AND civilian populations.

They saw what they saw. But were they privy to what was going on at the upper levels, once the Japanese air force was decimated, and the military leaders on both sides knew with absolute certainty the Japanese were done?

The fact is, there were a lot of alternatives. You know what I would have suggested as an alternative? A demonstration - give a warning to the leadership, and drop some leaflets warning the civilian population, then drop a bomb just off the coast, where everyone could see it. Maybe a few people die from an ensuing tsunami, but at least it avoids the horrors of radiation sickness on the civilian populations.

I prefer to take the word of those on the ground personally, who lost friends and brothers over your looking back and academic questioning almost 75 years later.

And I prefer to consider all of the available evidence and situation, including the thoughts and opinions of the military commanders both in the field and at home, and think for myself.

Would you sacrifice your family, friends, and children and risk their deaths based upon that type of blind hindsight?

So, when was it exactly - hour, day and year - that you stopped beating your wife?

Please.

Exactly.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: tanstaafl

They had the opportunity to begin negotiations with the US and work out a surrender that would, and chose to approach Russia instead. Hindsight is a great thing and gives you more options. At the time it didn't appear they wanted to surrender to the US. As far as the US government knew they planned to fight to the last child and had were trying to work out an agreement to get Russian help to fight an invasion.

So, why not the alternative I suggested? A demonstration of the bomb, rather than wiping out two entire cities full of civilians, along with the horrors of radiation sickness, birth defects for decades, etc etc?