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.
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."
Originally posted by twitchy
No, your right frosty, it is much better to drop them on major Civilian targets.
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...
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".
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".
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.
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.
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,
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.
Originally posted by chebob
Soldiers volunteer for war, civilians don't (even those buck toothed evil death machine Japanese civilians of Wartime Western Propoganda).
as posted by chebob
You cannot justify dropping an A-Bomb on a city of civilians. IM oh so Humble O
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
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?