Anniversary of worlds largest Terrorist Attack

Well if thread has achieved anything, it has proven how some Americans see the rest of the world.

I have always been very pro -US however it does get harder everyday.

It seems most in this forum think that WW2 start with the bombing of Pearl Harbour. Just because the US didn't enter until 41 doesn't mean the Japanese weren't causing terrible atrocities already against other western countries.

We were sending help in the form of materials and the fighting tigers.

Australia has always been there to support the US. While we do not have the population we certainly do provide the strategic position.

You are excactly right. Australia has always backed the US even in the Vietnam war. We have forgotten the Aussies that died in that fight. Not right at all and if I could I would fix it but I cant. Just remember that this American knows the hardships of Australians against nazis, Japanese, North koreans...

Always remember, the US does love Australia, otherwise how do you explain Crocodile Dun Dee and Crockodile hunter and such?

And you know, if Australia was ever attacked, the US would be behind her. No question regardles of any leftists propaganda.

Originally posted by pavil


Is it that simple?
You seem to think that strategic bombing something that was accurate. It wasn't like the JDAM's of today. Even daylight bombing by the USAF was not accurate. Yes they hit their target but they also hit everything around it. Night bombing by the RAF was little more that drop it on the city and hope you hit the targets you were aiming for.


Do you still bomb the factory?

Yeah, you do. You perform "due diligence" to minimize civilian casualties and "collateral damage". You aim for the factory...you attempt strategic bombing.

Thank you for proving my point better than I ever could have. A nuclear bomb dropped on a major population center is not "strategic bombing"...it's mass murder.

Case closed.

Originally posted by Valhall

Yeah, you do. You perform "due diligence" to minimize civilian casualties and "collateral damage". You aim for the factory...you attempt strategic bombing.

Thank you for proving my point better than I ever could have. A nuclear bomb dropped on a major population center is not "strategic bombing"...it's mass murder.

Case closed.

So you would bomb an area knowing full well that civilians will most probably die
since the bombing will take steps to end the war sooner and prevent even further bloodshed? Thank you for proving my point as well.

How is dropping the Atomic bomb on Japan not an aspect of Strategic bombing? It totally broke the will of Japan to continue to fight, when other attacks failed to do so.

Strategic bombing aims to undermine a nation-state's ability to wage war, historically as a part of a total war strategy.

en.wikipedia.org...

The U.S. had firebombed Tokyo and other cities in early 1945, yet the Japanese did not surrender. The U.S. took the next step before Invasion was necessary to try and get Japan to surrender Unconditionally.

These fires were so hot they would literally ignite the clothing on individuals as they were fleeing. What was particularly horrifying was a lot of the women were wearing what were called 'air-raid turbans' around their heads and the heat would ignite those turbans like igniting a wick on a candle to start consuming the flame. The aftermath of the incendiary bombings lead to an estimated 100,000 Japanese dead. This may have been the most devasting single raid ever carried out by aircraft in any war including the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. en.wikipedia.org...

Japan did not unconditionally surrender as the Allies demanded till after the second Atomic bomb was dropped. As tragic as those bombs were, they saved far more lives in the long run by bringing an end to the war. That is of little consolence to the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who lost their lives however.

So, for you...and your ilk, "strategic bombing" means to kill as many civilians as possible in order push the enemy into submission, right?

Because that's what you just said. Instead of attempting the best attempt at strategic boming, you just said that dropping a nuke on a major civilian population center is a "strategic bombing".

I'm just trying to make sure I understand you here.

How is dropping the Atomic bomb on Japan not an aspect of Strategic bombing? It totally broke the will of Japan to continue to fight, when other attacks failed to do so.

You clearly don't know what the term means. Give it up.

Originally posted by Valhall
So, for you...and your ilk, "strategic bombing" means to kill as many civilians as possible in order push the enemy into submission, right?

Because that's what you just said. Instead of attempting the best attempt at strategic bombing, you just said that dropping a nuke on a major civilian population center is a "strategic bombing".

I'm just trying to make sure I understand you here.

To clarify for you and others, the ultimate aim of war and strategic bombing it to defeat the enemy the quickest way with the least casualties, in that order. You make it sound as if we had not already been using our "best attempt" at strategically bombing Japan and that we chose droping the Atomic Bomb out of the blue. The U.S. had discussed dropping one of the bombs in Tokyo Bay as a demonstration, but it was discarded as it was thought it would not cause Japan to surrender being used that way.

Typically strategic bombing involves targeting factories, harbors, rail lines and raw good targets ie. oil refineries, mines and the like. The main goal of that bombing is to reduce the enemies will to fight to such a level by either physical attrition or by breaking their morale that they surrender without any more effort. To say that the Atomic bombs dropped on Japan did not break the will of Japan to continue fighting is inaccurate. It was the straw that broke their back so to speak.

In that sense it was of very great strategic value, hence my use of the term "an aspect of strategic bombing". Would it have been more humane to bomb all of Japan's industrial and urban centers into rubble and have 750,000 - 2 million casualties at a minimum? Why is that considered more acceptable?

Was the Atomic bomb a horrible weapon to use, yes. Was it a weapon that prevented even more deaths by being used, yes. We had just unleashed a sustained bombing of Japan that ramped up considerably in early 1945 and it did not cause Japan to surrender unconditionally. The Allies had just defeated Germany and issused the Postdam declaration to Japan calling for unconditional surrender and threatning "prompt and utter destruction" of Japan should they fail to surrender unconditionally. The alternatives of continued destruction of Japan by air assault or an invasion of the Japanese Home Islands outright would have resulted in far more deaths and casualties than the A-bombs did.

Originally posted by pavil
In that sense it was of very great strategic value, hence my use of the term "an aspect of strategic bombing". Would it have been more humane to bomb all of Japan's industrial and urban centers into rubble and have 750,000 - 2 million casualties at a minimum? Why is that considered more acceptable?

Humane, Morality is all bull..... what really angers non-americans was that the USA used a weapon that at that time no other nation pocessed. Hence no retailiation and the USA could not get what it "deserved".

That and this whole nukes on japan thing has been spun into an "attempt of genocide" on the japanese which is utter BS. Were that the case we would not have accpted thri surrender and continued the war until they were exterminated.

If anything to me this thread proves many things.....

That americans are envied and hated....

Never mind the fact the USA has never used another nuclear weapon in war time ever again.

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
If anything to me this thread proves many things.....

That americans are envied and hated....

I hope that's not the true extent of your comprehension.

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
If anything to me this thread proves many things.....

That americans are envied and hated....

I hope that's not the true extent of your comprehension.

The problem is, these people don't seem to want to know or accept WHY Americans are so hated..... Furthermore, this clown thinks that its only non-Americans criticizing the U.S.... as if the only people who have a bone to pick with America are non-Americans, which is complete BS. There are millions and millions of Americans who are utterly ashamed and embarassed that we have to put up with these people who blindly follow their dear president, read and willingly accept every little thing they read in a high school textbook and refuse to show any regard for the lives of those who weren't fortunate enough to be born in the U.S.

Hiroshima/Nagasaki were acts of terrorism and barbaric murder and anyone who believes otherwise needs to pull that blood-soaked flag from over their eyes.

Originally posted by firebat

Hiroshima/Nagasaki were acts of terrorism and barbaric murder and anyone who believes otherwise needs to pull that blood-soaked flag from over their eyes.

Who the hell are you to decide what an event in history that occured probably before you were born is to be defined as? you were not there to weigh carefully the consequences and decisions that were made.

furthermore pehaps you wou would like to hear a "barabaric act of murder"....

The japenese of the ww2 era routinely abused prisoners and often executed them by lopping their heads off. Despite all the BS claims you make about America "murdering people" we usually dont lop prisoners heads off and starve them to death or subject them to testing of biological weapons.

If we had too many people who thought like you do there would of never been an end to ww2 since, as with the situation today, people like you would would use public pressure on our leaders to never have an end to war.

Originally posted by firebat
Hiroshima/Nagasaki were acts of terrorism and barbaric murder and anyone who believes otherwise needs to pull that blood-soaked flag from over their eyes.

All wars are barbaric and invole the deaths of countless innocent civilians. Been that way since man started keeping records. The best thing about a war is it's ending, the sooner the better. Regardless of how you feel about it, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war and saved even more lives in the long run. That it took the total destruction of two cities is a brutal lesson in how mankind can now wage war. BTW, most nations flags are "blood soaked" if you look hard enough.

Very well said Firebat. Voted way above

Good men like you restore our faith.

This is a troll topic. Plain and simple.

The OP saw that if he posted a topic like this, he would get many people giving him points for telling him these were not terrorist attacks.

Its too bad those people died. But its thier own leadership that caused the bombs to drop in the first place...


Not to mention:

Do you relise that the Fire Bombings of Tokyo are considered to be the most life lost in one night of any war act ever?

The first such raid on Tokyo was on the night of February 23–24 when 174 B-29s destroyed around one square mile (~2.56 km²) of the city. Following on that effort 334 B-29s took off from the Mariana Islands on the night of March 9–10 heading for Tokyo. After 2 hours of bombardment the wooden city of Tokyo was engulfed in a firestorm. These fires were so hot they would literally ignite the clothing on individuals as they were fleeing. What was particularly horrifying was a lot of the women were wearing what were called 'air-raid turbans' around their heads and the heat would ignite those turbans like igniting a wick on a candle to start consuming the flame. The aftermath of the incendiary bombings lead to an estimated 100,000 Japanese dead. This may have been the most devasting single raid ever carried out by aircraft in any war including the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Around 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city were destroyed in the fire storm. The destruction and damage was at its worst in the city sections east of the Imperial Palace. In the following two weeks there were almost 1,600 further sorties against the four cities, destroying 31 square miles (80 km²) in total at a cost of 22 aircraft. There was a third raid on Tokyo on May 26.

The firebomb raids were not the only raids on Tokyo; there were more regular raids using conventional high explosives. With the capture of Okinawa, the Eighth Air Force was transferred there from Europe and began its own raids. Monthly tonnage dropped on Japan had increased from 13,800 short tons in March to 42,700 tons in July (from 12,500 to 38,700 metric tons), and was planned to have continued to increase to around 115,000 short tons (105,000 metric tons) per month.

The firebombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities is considered a war crime by some. Unlike the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were at least partially intended to force Japan to capitulate immediately, fire-bombing, which killed more civilians in total, was carried out as a long-term strategy to destroy Japan's ability to produce war materials as well as undermine the Japanese Government's will to continue the war. In the context of total war, the large number of Japanese civilians killed by strategic bombing was seen as acceptable by the American administration. When reflecting on the campaign after the war, some expressed doubts about the morality of the firebombing. Curtis LeMay later said: "I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal." He felt, however, that his bombings were saving lives by encouraging Japan to surrender earlier. Former Japanese prime minister Fumimaro Konoe's statement that, fundamentally, the thing that brought about the determination to make peace was the prolonged bombing by the B-29s, lends support to this view.

Tokyo was not considered as an official target for the first nuclear attacks, although Tokyo Bay was apparently examined as a target for a non-lethal demonstration.

I think its time for the OP to get the facts right. You need relise that even after the USA killed 100,000+ people in one night and burned down most of japans industrial citys to the ground, the jap leaders were still not giving up.

The Nuke Bombs saved MILLIONS of lifes. If they didnt drop those bombs every city in Japan would have been burnt to the ground along with every person in Japan, untill they couldnt make chop sticks... or weapons.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 14-8-2006 by JbT]

Originally posted by JbT
The Nuke Bombs saved MILLIONS of lifes. If they didnt drop those bombs every city in Japan would have been burnt to the ground along with every person in Japan, untill they couldnt make chop sticks... or weapons.

[edit on 14-8-2006 by JbT]

You can say that it saved millions of lives all you want... but at the end of the day, we still nuked 200,000 civilians. You can justify it by saying it ended up saving lives and it may have... I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is the fact that we, as Americans, do and have always thought of ourselves as the ones to make all these moral decisions. We had no right to decide that those 200,000 people should die in order to save more. It's a conscience issue not a tactical issue. As I said in an earlier post, for me it's the same as what we're doing in Iraq or what the Israelis are doing to the Lebanese... we're killing innocent people, supposedly for the greater good of Iraq etc. I fundamentally disagree with condemning innocent people to their deaths for whatever reason, even if it is to "save millions more." Just because we CAN do it doesn't mean we should.

And besides, there is plenty of information out there that points more to the theory that the atomic bombings were a show of force for the Soviets and that they were primarily used to kick off the Cold War. There is plenty of information to back this up.

Originally posted by firebat

You can say that it saved millions of lives all you want... but at the end of the day, we still nuked 200,000 civilians. You can justify it by saying it ended up saving lives and it may have... I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is the fact that we, as Americans, do and have always thought of ourselves as the ones to make all these moral decisions. ...... I fundamentally disagree with condemning innocent people to their deaths for whatever reason, even if it is to "save millions more." Just because we CAN do it doesn't mean we should.

And besides, there is plenty of information out there that points more to the theory that the atomic bombings were a show of force for the Soviets and that they were primarily used to kick off the Cold War. There is plenty of information to back this up.

No offense to those that perished at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but how is it not ending the war early and saving at a minimum 500,000 per side, Japanese and American( as most historians believe), not the moral choice to make? Granted it is not a great choice, but that is what was left as of July 1945. You make the best of the cards you are dealt.

Would it have been more palatable for you for the US to invade the Japanese homeland Islands and battle for 1-2 years to subdue Japan to the state of unconditional surrender? Any way you look at it, the end of wars are devastating, there are no easy, simple choices.

For most of human history, wars have been awful, bloody affairs that end even worse than they begin. Hence, the need to avoid them whenever possible. Sadly, we repeat the same routine time after time.......


Quarterback history aside, the fact remains historically that Japan did not surrender unconditonally till the second bomb devastated Nagasaki. What if's are just that.

Originally posted by pavil

No offense to those that perished at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but how is it not ending the war early and saving at a minimum 500,000 per side, Japanese and American( as most historians believe), not the moral choice to make? Granted it is not a great choice, but that is what was left as of July 1945. You make the best of the cards you are dealt.

The reason I don't believe it to be the moral choice to make, as I stated in my last post, is that I don't believe it is America's role to decide who lives and dies on this planet. It is not our role to decide who should have their lives destroyed so that certain others, usually ourselves, may live... it's a selfish act. Assuming Israel continues to escalate its aggression towards Lebanon and Palestine, what would be the difference between them dropping a nuke over Damascus or Iran and what we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki? It's already been established that both Syria and Iran are the baddest apples of the bunch over there and ultimately, if Israel wants to survive, they're going to have to deal with the problem militarily, on a large scale. Those hardline Islamic fundamentalists would "fight until the bitter end" etc. Bush's own propaganda media compares 9/11, Iraq, Terrorism etc. to the situation in World War Two-- they call it World War Three. So let's say Israel decided to nuke Damascus or Iran because a conventional invasion, which is probably soon-coming, wouldn't get the job done or even be possible. We know what kind of resistance they'd face. So let's say that hypothetically, Israel just decided to drop a nuke over Damascus to cut short a long and bloody war. It might very well save lives. Because it would stop the terrorism, theoretically. But can you honestly tell me that the world would accept that? Do you really think that most people would accept that as a MORAL thing to do? Of course not... that's why it hasn't been done since WW2. My point is, we saw what kind of devastation resulted from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and it would be UNTHINKABLE to do something like that again. There's no morality behind it whatsoever no matter the reason.

Would it have been more palatable for you for the US to invade the Japanese homeland Islands and battle for 1-2 years to subdue Japan to the state of unconditional surrender? Any way you look at it, the end of wars are devastating, there are no easy, simple choices.

It would've been palatable for us to not have been forced into an orchestrated war like marionette puppets in the first place. The idea that the entire Japanese population would've fought to the bitter end is nonsense. The Japanese military were the ones in charge and they very nearly came close to stopping Hirohito's decision to surrender. It was the imperialistic Japanese military that forced the surprise attack in the first place, the same type of war-mongering that's now being down by our own Pentagon. EVEN SO... like I said, the U.S. was played like a piano into entering BOTH world wars, as was every other country that fought. Both "sides" were controlled by the same people..... until you realize that, there's no point for further discussion.

For most of human history, wars have been awful, bloody affairs that end even worse than they begin. Hence, the need to avoid them whenever possible. Sadly, we repeat the same routine time after time.......

So what's another 200,000 dead Japs, right?

Quarterback history aside...

Quarterback history? Or propagandist history altered to convince people like you that killing 200,000 innocent people is an acceptable thing to do?

[edit on 15-8-2006 by firebat]

For most of human history, wars have been awful, bloody affairs that end even worse than they begin. Hence, the need to avoid them whenever possible. Sadly, we repeat the same routine time after time.......

by firebat
So what's another 200,000 dead Japs, right?

I don't know how you extrapolated that from my comment. As I have repeatedly said, given the option of the A bombs or an invasion or continued aerial bombardment of Japan into rubble, either causing far more than 200,000 deaths. As horrible as the A bombs were, it was the best choice that could have been made given the situation in Mid 1945 to end the war as soon as possible. What's with the derogatory sounding comment?

Quarterback history? Or propagandist history altered to convince people like you that killing 200,000 innocent people is an acceptable thing to do?

Wars are nasty, vile things, that 62 MILLION people died in WWII should be evidence enough of that. There are choices that are made in war that leave you feeling neither proud or good about it. The are many instances of that in WWII including Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The choice of annilahting those two cities to cause Japan's unconditional surrender or having another 1 million extra dead and wounded in further hostilities is and example of one of those, dammed if you do and dammed if you don't situations. Either way many are going to die.

And yes it is Quarterback history since Japan did not formally surrender unconditionally till the second Atomic bomb was drop, that is a fact.

Originally posted by rich23
And a word on Pearl Harbor...

Firstly, ever since the Japanese had allied themselves with Germany and Italy, the USG had been trying to provoke them into war. The US blocked Japanese ships' access to the Panama canal, for example, and the ultimate sanction was a complete oil embargo.

And the embargos were the protest made by the US over Japans incursion into French-Indochina. It was an embargo, not a blockade. We did close the Panama canal to them and it was our legal right at the time to do so if you forget. And we then placed a complete oil embargo on them. Fair game. We pressured them diplomatically and legally. Theres nothing you can say because it is fact that Japan made the first move and after diplomatic pressures and all that jazz they kept moving into China. What would you expect?

weird how 200k civilians getting nuked somehow pales today in comparison to the 9/11 perpetrated by the aggressor on its own civilans, for a change.

RIP Hiroshima & Nagasaki!