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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX
Besides, if it wasn't for the US, Japan would rule all of Asia.


And that would be a bad thing?

Don't you think that since the end of the war Japan already rule most of Asia through economic and industrial means?




posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
howmuchisthedoggy, economics has nothing to do with actual possession of.




seekerof



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
howmuchisthedoggy, economics has nothing to do with actual possession of.
seekerof


If that is what you believe fair enough. Having poor countries over a barrel with jobs and factories is of course not "owning" a country. Posession is a very subjective thing. The Saudi royalty having so much invested in the U.S. economy doesn't effect policy decisions does it?



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   

as posted by SomewhereinBetween
The dropping of those bombs was a vile and repugnant terrorist act! But obviously since it was America carrying out the terrorism, the terms and conditions of warfare, those like you scream about Iraqi insurgents not upholding, do not apply.

Save the terrorism rhetoric for those anti-nuke and anti-war rally's.
Apparently to you, Nanking was not an act of terrorism?
Banzai attacks and kamikaze attacks were not an act of terrorism?
The damn list can go on for your mis-mentioned use of terrorism when applying it to the dropping of the atomic bombs.

Save the "we" did not have to drop to their same level, cause in war, real war, the goal is to win and to win decisively and with the least amount of life taken in a timely fashion, thus negating further loss of life. To continue to spout that terrorism 'this and that' is ludicrous. War is simply one act of terrorism after another, committed by all sides involved, period.






seekerof

[edit on 8-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
War is simply one act of terrorism after another, committed by all sides involved, period.


That is true enough. Now let's go beyond the veil.

Why is war instigated in the first place? If it is instigated for less than noble reasons then surely it is no better than terrorism?

In relation to this thread, the acts of dropping Atomic bombs on Japan were acts of Terrorism. No amount of guff or doublespeak will ever change that.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
And there purpose was to bring Japan to terms.
Terrorism has succeeded again, huh?





seekerof



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
And there purpose was to bring Japan to terms.
Terrorism has succeeded again, huh?


Yes, their terms.

Sadly it was a precedent for state-sanctioned terrorism by the U.S. It succeeded then and it succeeds to this day. Thankfully, it seems the world is waking up to the doublespeak and the reign may finally be coming to an end!



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   
In your and some others applied sense of terrorism, just America commits acts of terrorism?
Btw, if such is true, care to name one nation that has not committed acts of terrorism?

To call one act of war an act of terrorism while disregarding other such acts by others is ludicrous. To simply insinutate that the dropping of the atomic bombs was an/the ultimate act or expression of terrorism is also ludicrous. A sin is a sin, and unless your a Catholic, there is no degrees to sin. Hence, one act of terrorism, such as the dropping of the atomic bombs, is simply an act of terrorism, such as the raping of Nanking, etc., etc.

War is hell, eh? As such, the goal is to win in a way that generates the least amount of loss of life. The dropping of the atomic bombs achieved its intended goals.




seekerof

[edit on 8-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Netchicken

But be sure if such views as you espouse were held by the people involved in planning the war back then we would either be speaking Japanese or German

.





[edit on 8-8-2005 by consprtrkr]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Seekerof, so then you are acepting that the US, being in a state of purpetual war, is a terrorist state?

Good for you, there is hope for everyone.


I see no reason to worry about the A bomb. It was tragic, and something horrible for sure. It also allowed the American domination, but lets not colourize all of history with the recent actions. America, by and large, is not a bad Country at all, and we should be thankful that it was them and not the Soviets that won the cold war.

The other thing that the A bomb did was to wake up the majority of people the why war is something to be avioded at all costs. If the American's would learn that lesson now, the world might get back to some normalcy.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetweenThe dropping of those bombs was a vile and repugnant terrorist act! But obviously since it was America carrying out the terrorism, the terms and conditions of warfare, those like you scream about Iraqi insurgents not upholding, do not apply.


What a completely uninformed, dim-witted, sarcastic, and absurd statement! Some of you folks should really proof-read what you are posting beford you hit that magic "Post Reply" button.........

Thoughts like these are probably the product of cursory 21st century high school history classes that spend a total of two weeks reviewing important events of the 1930's and 1940's. Go back to class. Read up about the American isolationist position, and how we were dragged, kicking and screaming into WWII because of European fascism and Japanese imperialism. Read up on the death grip that the Japanese military had on the Japanese society, and how the practice of bushido prevailed throughout the military. Did you know that the Japanese POWs returned from Russia after the war in 1905 became social outcasts, and were driven to suicide and madness? Do you know of the Japanese Military Code, which Gen. Tojo himself penned, which simply stated "Do not live in shame as a prisoner. Die, and leave no ignominious crime behind you"? Do you know that the average Japanese civilian understood American soldiers to be towering giants, hell-bent on raping and destroying all things Japanese? Indeed, there are countless examples of Japanese civilains committing mass-suicide when they were about to be overtaken by US forces. And knowing these things, which only paint a tiny fraction of the resolve and determination and fear and loathing which drove the japanese people to die defending their sacred homeland rather than to allow one gaijin to step foot on their sacred shores.....you would have preferred us to land a million men in an amphibious assault on the Japanese island of Honshu and defeat their combined military and civilain forces in a protracted land battle? And you believe that would have spared the Japanese the horrors and destruction of 2 atomic bomb attacks? Geez...nice trade off. Personally, I always preferred the version where we win the war that we didn't start, and we don't have to suffer half a million casualties to force our enemy to capitulate.

[edit on 8-8-2005 by Pyros]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   
If we ever have to learn a new language, or lose our soverignty it will be due to the neo-cons, and their pro-nafta, cafta, free trade, open border agenda. Outside invasion, and conquest of the U.S, in the 1940's, or now, is a farfetched idea. Remember that the pro-bomb opinions rest largely on the premise that it would have been incredibly hard to invade Japan, even after all the losses they had sustained, and they don't have our population, or natural resources.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Simple choice;
Control the amount killed vs uncontrolled killing....



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
First off, the firebombings of Japan and Tokyo killed and maimed more people than the two atomics being dropped did. And yet, people are having major grief over the US decision to use the atomic bombs, huh?


The drop of atomic bombs opened a new era of atomic warfare. If Hiroshima hadn't happened and all countries agreed to "no atomic weapons", then there would be no nuclear threat for US today.



Secondly, why should the Japanese have been issued a warning before dropping the atomic bombs on them?


Because killing 200,000 in 10 minutes is a very 'bad' thing to do?



We were at war; they were at war. There is no fair play or a heads-up message to be given.


War has its rules though.



Heads up warnings are useless in war anyhow.


Not at all. Making the enemy fear you is a major tactic. It has worked for over 25 years with USSR, remember?



In the case of Japan, they would have simply told the US to shove it, which they basically did.


You just don't 'shove' the threat of nuclear anihillation.



Germany should have warned Poland they were going to invade them.
Germany should have given warning that they were going to invade Russia with Operation Barbarossa.
Germany and Hitler should have given the Jews, Russians, Poles, Slavs, etc warning that they were going to be exterminated.
Japan should have given warning for Pearl Harbor.


Hey, are you comparing Perl Harbor with Hiroshima & Nagasaki? PH had 3,000 casualties, whereas H/N had over 200,000 direct victims and many more thousands dying from radiation.

Let's be serious here.



Give Japan a warning? Hell, one would have to ask, did not the firebombings of Japan and Tokyo give enough warning that the US would end this war one way or the other?


But they did not expect to loose 200,000 (mostly) civilians in 10 minutes.

But that's not the point. The point is that a globalized nuclear war will destroy all life on Earth.



Incidently, neither the firebombings nor the dropping of the atomic bombs changed or deterred Japan's resolve to fight on till the bitter end. It took the emperor of Japan to contradict the will and resolve of the Japanese miltary establishment to bring the war to an end.


So you should have just killed the emperor, then.



In war, you use every means at your disposal to win and end the war. This is not a charity benefit or a moral and ethical dissertation on how to be politically correct by giving a "warning."


You justify everything by the result...it is highly immoral. Let's just say that tomorrow North Korea develops a space-based weapon that can destroy USA with one blow. Should they use it without warning?



If the Cold War had gone south, would either the US or Russia have given a warning? Hell no. Strategic and tactical surprise is the name of the game. Its called first initiative or first strike, where surprise is of the essence. The only warning either would have recieved would have been when their early warning systems detected those incoming ballistic warheads/missiles and oncoming strategic bombers.

A warning? Please.


Oh come on! we are not taking about tanks and F16s here...we are talking about nukes...one nuclear bomb can kill 500,000 in 10 seconds, for Christ's sake. And the radiation can kill many millions afterwards.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Yes, Japan offered a conditional surrender, but apparently and either unknown to you or twitchy or simply not being mentioned, is that the Japanese conditional surrender offer was not good enough. It was not good enough because during the wartime conferences, specifically the Potsdam Conference, it had been decided by Roosevelt and Churchill, concerning Germany, Italy, and Japan, that conditional surrender would not be acceptable or taken. Lessons from WWI, regarding the conditional surrender of Germany and how that backfired into WWII, had shown that nothing would suffice but a direct unconditional surrender from those nations making up the Axis powers. Hence the rejection of Japan's conditional surrender.

A conditional surrender for Japan would have allowed them to possibly maintain their war territory gains---you know how people are steadily whining and crying over Israel and them maintaining certain war territory gains---as well as, maintaining their army, navy, etc, setting up another possible Germany WWI conditional surrender situation. No, the US and Britain set out to make WWII the last major coventional global war and the lesson from that would be that if you decide to go to global war and lose, you lose it all, unconditionally.

seekerof

[edit on 6-8-2005 by Seekerof]


What are you saying? Germany was totally destroyed after WWI. Their economy was a mess, and they almost had no fleet. USA, USSR and GB did not request an unconditional surrender from Japan in order to avoid getting Japan a 2nd chance at conquering the world! your argument is just silly. There was no way that Japan alone could take the whole world, especially after WWII! Please, use your mind before speaking!



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Blockade of what, with what? With out having the Japs try to blow the ships up?


Nautical blockade! you know, where ships block the major ports of a country!!!



You really think anyone would want to entice the Japs to invade mainland US? Have you lost your mind?


You obviously have no knowledge of war tactics. Waiting can be as painful as invading.



Zero US troops died dropping two atomic weapons. Hundreds of thousands could have died invading the mainland.


But there was no need to invade the Japan mainland! it was just an excuse made up for dropping the bombs! Japan was already destroyed from the fire bombing!



The US was doing this and it did not have the effect of Thin Man and Fat Boy.


Exactly! Japan had no fleet left! It was almost no threat!



The Soviet Union had just lost 10 million troops and many civilians and were hesitant of invading Japan who at the time posed no threat to them. They gave a minimum of 6 months to help the US after the surrender of Germany.


You and other posters here are stuck with the idea of invasion being the only solution. I was not talking about invasion, but using air and naval forces to take out the rest of military installations and other important targets.

Maybe the Emperor itself!



Obviously one bomb wasn't enough considering the time frame between the two. The dropped one then waited three days to see if the Japs would change their minds, and they didn't.


But the 2nd bomb just 'happened' to be a plutonium one that killed 120,000 people. Can you say "experiment"???



Dropping a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima didn't convince them. Would it have worked better if the 2 hundred million tons of bombs dropped by allies been dropped on deserted areas?


I don't think 3 days were enough. They barely have the time to realize what's happened. Give them a weekly warning, then blow a deserted island to smithereens.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   

as posted by masterp
But there was no need to invade the Japan mainland! it was just an excuse made up for dropping the bombs! Japan was already destroyed from the fire bombing!

And what you fail to understand is that a blockade of Japan would not have ended the war, nor would have a blockade coupled with strategic bombings. The Japanese, military and the civilian populace, were willing to fight and resist as long as necessary. You know, the Bushido code and the military code of honor, that both military and the vast majority of civilain populace rigidly followed? Blockade offered no guarentee that Japan would surrender unconditionally, while taking into account how fiercely they fought in the islands before evacuating into Japan.

As such, months would have went by to possibly a year or so, all the while, how many hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives would have been lost to disease, starvation, bombings, etc. versus the use of two atomic bombs, eh? Continue to spin this as you wish, but for all intents and purposes, the dropping of the two bombs saved more lives than all the other considered options. The decision was the best choice of all available options.






seekerof

[edit on 8-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   

as posted by masterp
What are you saying? Germany was totally destroyed after WWI. Their economy was a mess, and they almost had no fleet. USA, USSR and GB did not request an unconditional surrender from Japan in order to avoid getting Japan a 2nd chance at conquering the world! your argument is just silly. There was no way that Japan alone could take the whole world, especially after WWII! Please, use your mind before speaking!


Apparently, you need to re-read a decent history book, for I am not the only one who has mentioned the correlation that you are contesting as silly.




seekerof



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by masterp
But there was no need to invade the Japan mainland! it was just an excuse made up for dropping the bombs! Japan was already destroyed from the fire bombing!

And what you fail to understand is that a blockade of Japan would not have ended the war, nor would have a blockade coupled with strategic bombings. The Japanese, military and the civilian populace, were willing to fight and resist as long as necessary. You know, the Bushido code and the military code of honor, that both military and the vast majority of civilain populace rigidly followed? Blockade offered no guarentee that Japan would surrender unconditionally, while taking into account how fiercely they fought in the islands before evacuating into Japan.

As such, months would have went by to possibly a year or so, all the while, how many hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives would have been lost to disease, starvation, bombings, etc. versus the use of two atomic bombs, eh? Continue to spin this as you wish, but for all intents and purposes, the dropping of the two bombs saved more lives than all the other considered options. It decision was the best of all available options.






seekerof



[edit on 8-8-2005 by Seekerof]


You have no way of knowing that at all. No one knows what would have, or could have happened. All we know is what did happen, and what happened is generally looked at as a mistake from everyone with a moral centre.

I sometimes tend to agree that maybe the A bomb was a good thing because I figured it had smartened people up to the use of Nukes and what they really are. Ofcourse, in reality all that happened is a bunch of drunken hicks seem to think they can do anything they want because they have more Nukes than the next, and really, did we aviod anything or just save it up until some possible future so some inbred half wit can chuckle about turning deserts into glass.

Sad and pathetic from where I am.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   
"Sad and pathetic" is a transition of thought that would incorporate a number of facets yet to be explored and having no bearing within this topic or discussion.

Passer By


You have no way of knowing that at all. No one knows what would have, or could have happened. All we know is what did happen, and what happened is generally looked at as a mistake from everyone with a moral centre.


I know it as historical fact because it was a considered option placed, discussed, and studied [ie: projections for casualites and population losses, etc] by the Truman administration, the Interim Committee, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.



The strategy of blockade and bombardment looked to end the war by starving the Japanese population and trusting that the emaciated survivors surrendered. This strategy was supported by naval and air officers who later claimed it could have ended the war without the atomic bombs. While General Marshall told Truman in June 1945 that the air campaign could not end the war with Japan, I believe that there is good chance (though not certainty) that the advocates of bombardment and blockade were correct. There is no absolute certainty as to when the war might have ended under this strategy given the contingency of so many events and the belief among many Japanese officers that it would be better for the Japanese people to perish than to surrender.

Japanese historians maintain that ten million Japanese were on the edge of starvation when the war ended. Certainly the records of the early occupation period I examined brought home forcefully an extremely dire food shortage that lurched very close to a famine during 1946. Had the U.S. chosen to rely simply on the blockade and bombardment strategy and not use atomic bombs or an invasion, it would have killed a great many of these ten million starving Japanese, if not all. Would we be morally more at ease with this outcome? How many of them were children? I believe for reasons I set out in my book that had the war gone on for only days after August 15, the revised targeting directive aiming the B-29s at the Japanese rail system and the food shortage would have locked Japan on a course to a mass famine regardless of whether the war ended shortly after the rail system was destroyed or not. Thus, it was far more imperative for the Japanese that the war end abruptly in August 1945 than they have appreciated. And it was far more fortunate that events worked out that they did surrender then.

Victory in the Pacific




This report became the basis for an agreed statement at the Roosevelt-Churchill meetings in Quebec during September 1944. That pronouncement defined Allied military objectives in the Pacific as "invading and seizing objectives in the heart of Japan," after "establishing [a] sea and air blockade, conducting intensive air bombardment, and destroying Japanese air and naval strength." (4)

The US military leadership did not treat the situation as an "either-or" choice of invasion versus blockade and bombardment, but rather as a melding of the two strategic concepts. For General Marshall and those on the planning staffs who agreed with his view, the JCS/JPS report and the Quebec statement amounted to a commitment to plan, prepare, and ultimately carry out the actions they believed would be necessary to gain Japan's surrender on the "unconditional" terms demanded by the Allies.

The Final Months of the War With Japan: Signals Intelligence, U.S. Invasion Planning, and the A-Bomb Decision





seekerof

[edit on 8-8-2005 by Seekerof]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join