It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Hiroshima debate, emotionalism vrs history...

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Well I really like the BBC news and watch it several times a week but while watching their news about it they interviewed many Japanese folks about it and showed the destruction, loss of life the devastation to this day. Then for the American side just one old guy who was a vet and they asked him what he thought about it, if it was worth it? He said if it saved just one American life, and then it seemed to me they did not show the rest of what he said. If that is the case if they only showed part of what he said then it would seem they intentionally set out to make us look like a bunch of cold blooded cut throats who had concern for only ourselves. The truth is right now it is popular overseas to dislike Americans and it saddens me to see the British press do this.




posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 12:39 AM
link   
No, your right frosty, it is much better to drop them on major Civilian targets.



www.latimes.com
The Enola Gay exhibit also repeated such outright lies as the assertion that "special leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities" warning civilians to evacuate. The fact is that atomic bomb warning leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities, but only after Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been destroyed.

The hard truth is that the atomic bombings were unnecessary. A million lives were not saved. Indeed, McGeorge Bundy, the man who first popularized this figure, later confessed that he had pulled it out of thin air in order to justify the bombings in a 1947 Harper's magazine essay he had ghostwritten for Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson.

The bomb was dropped, as J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientific director of the Manhattan Project, said in November 1945, on "an essentially defeated enemy." President Truman and his closest advisor, Secretary of State James Byrnes, quite plainly used it primarily to prevent the Soviets from sharing in the occupation of Japan. And they used it on Aug. 6 even though they had agreed among themselves as they returned home from the Potsdam Conference on Aug. 3 that the Japanese were looking for peace. ..

Finally, Hiroshima's myths have gradually given rise to an American unilateralism born of atomic arrogance.

Oppenheimer warned against this "sleazy sense of omnipotence." He observed that "if you approach the problem and say, 'We know what is right and we would like to use the atomic bomb to persuade you to agree with us,' then you are in a very weak position and you will not succeed…. You will find yourselves attempting by force of arms to prevent a disaster."

We could not tolerate the possibility of a Communist Japan, Russia was officially entering the Pacific war, and even being completely aware of Japan's intent and desire to surrender, we dropped two atomic bombs on Cities, not military targets.
Shock and awe I guess.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Russia did not officially enter into the war in the Pacific with Japan till two days after the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.
Hiroshima drop on Aug. 6th, 1945
Soviets join the war effort in Japan controlled upper China, etc. on Aug. 8-9th, 1945
Nagasaki drop on Aug. 9th, 1945.






seekerof

[edit on 7-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 06:25 AM
link   
In my opinion it was wrong to use the bomb... However I understand them...



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
No, your right frosty, it is much better to drop them on major Civilian targets.


Sigh cities were military targets during the time and both cities has sig. military facilites threw out. Since the B-29 was no as yet equiped with a laser designator and a GBU-28, city busting was the standard of the time.

From Trumans own diary:


This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.

He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful...
www.dannen.com...


I realize that it is fashionable to protest the droping of the bomb and decry its use and go to great lengths to try to make its use an act of barbarism and accuse those responsable of crimes against humanity. But this is simply not the case. This is revisionist history at its best



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
I don't understand why you Americans can't think of other ways that the WWII could have ended. What happened to tactics like nautical blockade? even if you did not do anything but waited at your coast for Japs to invade, you would have easily won the war.

Another tactic could have been hide & seek in the Pacific. The Japanese would not dare get their carriers to invade USA, because they wouldn't know if, at the same time, their home land would have been invaded by USA.

I don't agree with the opinion that many more would have died if the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were not dropped.

First of all, another Perl Harbour was unlikely to happen.

Secondly, USA had superiority in air, as the battle of Midway proved.

Thirdly, the Japan's Battlefleet was already destroyed. The IJN Yamato was sunk at April of 1945, and the Japanese had very few ships.

Forthly, just like the Enola Gay, a plane could have bombed Japan's military infrastructure with conventional bombs so they could not built other ships like the Yamato.

Furthermore, the British have just discovered the radar. I don't believe the Japs had it, did they? it could be used to easily wipe out Japan air and naval forces.

Finally, after the destruction of Germany, almost all of Earth's forces would have helped USA fight against Imperialist Japan...The USSR especially with its huge army and fleet.

I believe that it would take one more year for the final and total defeat of the Japanese. In the meantime, few Americans would have died as the result of naval and air battles. Remember that during the whole WWII, very few Americans died in the Pacific, especially compared with those that died in European battlefronts.

If America would not have dropped the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, then they would have a few thousand more casualties, but they would not have had the stigma of being the only country to having used nukes so far.

Another point of discussion is: why drop two bombs? wasn't one atomic bomb enough?

Yet another point is: wouldn't dropping a nuclear bomb in a deserted island near Japan accomplish the same targets? wouldn't Japanese be scared and surrender?

From all the above, I can see that there was really no point in dropping the two atomic bombs other than showing to the world "who's in charge".
How foolish! Are you trying to use logic? Are you trying to make the case that the war could have been ended in other ways? You should know that athoritarian liberals, and neo-cons are not interested in such things. Both these groups believe that any population base that is unfortunate enough to fall into the clutches of facism is guilty in its entirity, inluding children. Plus, this issue provides the neo-cons with another opportunity to opine about the "necessity" of war; they get to parade their maturity before us as we are reminded that war "isn't fair", and "has no rules".



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 07:24 AM
link   
IT's a sad world where you have to watch a bunch of squirming idiots declare how right it was to demolish a city and cause utter devestation. It surprises me not in the least, but it still sickens me. Theres a few who just want to base all their justifications on tactical war strategy and clever thinking, justification being "We are the best, we had to act like the best", but let's be honest, the majority, in their hearts, are just pleased to have the power and the arrogance to do such a thing. It's all about winning, about being the number 1 country, the king of the castle.

War is wrong. America was wrong, Japan was wrong. But oh how America found away to turn wrong into satanicly wrong. The only thing that stops the "Pro-Bomb" folks from seeing the true horror is the fact that their fellow country-men won, their pride was intact, their own future and their own livliehoods and luxuries were saved, intact thanks to the burning of tens of thousands of foreigners. Wonderful.

[edit on 7-8-2005 by chebob]



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by chebob
IT's a sad world where you have to watch a bunch of squirming idiots declare how right it was to demolish a city and cause utter devestation. It surprises me not in the least, but it still sickens me.


Be carefull please personal insults add nothing to the debate of the topic. In regards to your less inflamitory comments:

It is nice to see how you can so easily get up on your soapbox and apply your morals and values to a differnet era and time. While we may decry such tactics now, it was simply a fact of the time and city busting was an acceptable tactic in War. You do realize there was a war going on right? No one has raised objections to the use of fire bombs over Tokyo, or Dresden, or Dollitles raid, or Pearl Harbor for that matter but focus on the use of Atomic devices. Aside from the technology are they any differeces between the final results? The bottom line that revisionist historians seem to forget is that there was a war on :shk:



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   
So basically, because it was acceptable then, it is right to look back and think "Yeah, we should have done that".

Like saying that because "so long ago" it was acceptable practice to burn people we thought were witches, it was right and justified that people with very limitied knowledge set fire to people they considered strange. IT was accpetable then, but we now know that it was WRONg, and SILLY. As we now know, and should have known then, that dropping an A-Bomb is WRONG, and SILLY, and an absolute attrocitie in any circumstances.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by chebob
As we now know, and should have known then, that dropping an A-Bomb is WRONG, and SILLY, and an absolute attrocitie in any circumstances.


SO you would find it acceptable to firebomb the cities instead? I find that your argument is not against the carnage of war rather against little boy and fat man. One bomber versus 1000 B-29 loaded to the gills with firebombs. How is it any different? Is it more or less of an attrocity? Yes you can go on about how radiation impacted people for years to come, but in the end the bombs worked as advertised.... that is they brought an end to the war. period.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Unfortunately, I oppose firebombing equally. Evil does not justify evil. IS it so that, because I oppose war in the first place, I have no right to comment on the blatant vulgaritys that occur in it? Not true, I have every right to express my disgust at what I see as the ultimate accumilation of war, total destruction. I don't mind being labelled a pink hippy tree hugging commie red "tulipwalking" peacenik, as long as I still have the right to voice dissatisfaction at acts of evil.

I find it hard to believe that someone who is opposed to the Hiroshima bombing must therefore be in favour convential warfare. They are all sick, the A-Bomb just happens to be THE sickest way of giving death en masse, and on the 60th anniversary of the event, I don't feel the slightest bit ashamed of voicing my opinion on it.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by chebob
I find it hard to believe that someone who is opposed to the Hiroshima bombing must therefore be in favour convential warfare. They are all sick, the A-Bomb just happens to be THE sickest way of giving death en masse,


Well ATS would be a dull place if we were all of one mind or opinion. Bethat as it may, how exactly would you have dealt with WWII? Go with the flow? Roll over and say die? Its easy with 60+ years as a buffer to be able to make such statements. Would you be willing to give up the very rights and liberties you are enjoying now, and I do mean right now expresing your opinions?



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   

as posted by chebob
They are all sick, the A-Bomb just happens to be THE sickest way of giving death en masse, and on the 60th anniversary of the event, I don't feel the slightest bit ashamed of voicing my opinion on it.


Neither do us "pro-bomb" folks, chebob.....




seekerof

[edit on 7-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   
There you go then, we all have our opinions and we are entitled to them. IS there anything else to say? I think your wrong you think I'm wrong, I don't there's much space for progress on that front so it's a pontless argument.

And as for what I would do in the event of World War 2 - I am not a country, I am not a civilization, an if I had such absolute power as to controll events world war 2 would not have happened, but history didn't work that way did it. So I'm assuming you mean "What would you do if you was plonked in the thick of it and had to make a decision", an unlikely scenario, but I assure you I would not take the A-Bomb path and I would feel better for it, whatever the number of Soldier deaths. Soldiers volunteer for war, civilians don't (even those buck toothed evil death machine Japanese civilians of Wartime Western Propoganda).



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Know much or read much on or about the Bushido Code, chebob?



seekerof

[edit on 7-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by chebob
Soldiers volunteer for war, civilians don't (even those buck toothed evil death machine Japanese civilians of Wartime Western Propoganda).


I guess you never heard of the draft (for the US) or the Bushido Code (for Japan) then, eh?

EDIT: Darn, you beat me to it Seekerof!


[edit on 8/7/2005 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Oh how those poor soldiers (made for killing) would have suffered at the hands of the deadly japanese public. And then, god forbid, they might have swam the channell and attacked your very own homes!! It may have been justified in terms of "winning the war", but not in terms of human lives and actual morality. You just cannot do something like that and proclaim it to be good in any context, because it simply wasn't.

You cannot justify dropping an A-Bomb on a city of civilians. IM oh so Humble O



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   

as posted by chebob
You cannot justify dropping an A-Bomb on a city of civilians. IM oh so Humble O


Sure I can.
Japan had no problem bombing civilain cities.
The Germans had no problem bombing civilain cities.
Etc.

If the atomic bomb roles and positions had been reversed, the Japanese and Germans would have struck likewise. Your argument then would be what?




seekerof

[edit on 7-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Sure I can.
Japan had no problem bombing civilain cities.
The Germans had no problem bombing civilain cities.
Etc.

If the roles and positions had been reversed, the Japanese and Germans would have struck likewise. Your argument then would be what?




seekerof


My argument would then be exactly the same. I do NOT condone Pearl Harbour or Hitlers actions or anything aimed at any of the Western countries. during the war, they are all wrong, thats a simple matter of moral logic.

No attack that causes innocent, peace loving people to lose their lives can be justified by any means whatsoever, whoever the aggresor. When, like in war, death leads to death, an eye for an eye, bomb exchanged for bigger bomb, I do not see the retalliation as justified, nor do I see the initial bomb as justified, it is just Evil + Evil = Evil Squared, however you look at it.

You believe there was no "more peaceful" or "less destructive" way to end the war, I disagree. Is there any more to the argument, I'm sure not going to change your minds as I likewise will not change yours, so whats up for discussion?



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 08:50 AM
link   

asposted by chebob
You believe there was no "more peaceful" or "less destructive" way to end the war, I disagree. Is there any more to the argument, I'm sure not going to change your minds as I likewise will not change yours, so whats up for discussion?



The discussion is a debate, chebob, hence the topic: The Hiroshima debate, emotionalism vrs history...

Thats "whats up."



seekerof

[edit on 7-8-2005 by Seekerof]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join