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.

 

Japanese official: Dropping the A-bomb was inevitable

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 10:41 PM
link   


In fact, it wasn't until July, 1949, that the bomb was tested and found to be, one, workable, and, two, controllable.


Er umm Grady I think you refer to the trinity test of July (was it 1945 or 44 ?)




posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
However, did the US need to drop the A bombs on Japan? I have to say "yes". Invading the home islands would have resulted in horrendous losses for both sides.


I've read that if an invasion had taken place, the estmated casualties for Japan would've been in the millions while the American estimated casualties would've been in the the hundreds of thousands.

Still yet the question remains, did we have to use "The Bomb"? The answer is: It was war and it did save millions of lives.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
I've read that if an invasion had taken place, the estmated casualties for Japan would've been in the millions while the American estimated casualties would've been in the the hundreds of thousands.


But did any of those books explain why America was 'required' to invade Japan?
Why not give the Soviet Union landing craft so they can do the job; they were perfectly good enough to absorb the Wehrmacht, which would have required millions of American and British lives to fight, so why not let them invade Japan?

This has NOTHING to do with saving human lives, American or whatever else, and everything to do with geopolitical manouvering.


Still yet the question remains, did we have to use "The Bomb"? The answer is: It was war and it did save millions of lives.


What does it matter how many Japanese died considering the reality that the US allowed millions of Soviet soldiers and civilians to die fighting the superior armed forces of Germany practically on their own? Why is dropping poison on the enemy's home soil OK when you claim it will save their lives?


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Use of the atomic bomb was not inevitable.


Definetely not as they could have had a preace treaty months earlier.


In fact, it wasn't until July, 1949, that the bomb was tested and found to be, one, workable, and, two, controllable.


huh?


Moreover, Japan was given an opportunity to surrender, although we know that surrender for the Japanese was out of the question.


Rubbish and i know you MUST know better than this. Why do you insist on claiming that they were given a chance to surrender when it was completely unconditional? Why insist on unconditional when you could be saving American lives by accepting a few VERY BASIC compromises? Don't tell me the Atomic bombs were dropped to save American lives as that is a complete and utter lie.


They had a chance to surrender after the Hiroshima bomb was dropped and before the Nagasaki bomb was dropped and refused.


What were the terms the US offered before dropping the bomb?


While the use of the bomb was not inevitable, it was absolutely necessary to bring the war to an end.


Not true and i wonder why people keep claiming this. B-29 raids were laying waste to Japan city by city and it's ludicrous to argue that nuclear weapons were required.


In the end, probably a million lives were saved on both sides.


Which Roosevelt could have managed by not forcing Japan into a corner knowing full well that they would respond with agression. Roosevelt chose the war against Japan and it's one of those historic lies that Japan at that time had realistic options other than violence.


All the evidence leads to that conclusion, unless, of course, you ignore all the evidence.


I would say all the evidence points elsewhere but since your not even reading it how would you know?

Stellar

[edit on 5-7-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by sy.gunson
Er umm Grady I think you refer to the trinity test of July (was it 1945 or 44 ?)


You are correct. Bad eyes and too much haste.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Why not give the Soviet Union landing craft so they can do the job; they were perfectly good enough to absorb the Wehrmacht, which would have required millions of American and British lives to fight, so why not let them invade Japan?






What does it matter how many Japanese died considering the reality that the US allowed millions of Soviet soldiers and civilians to die fighting the superior armed forces of Germany practically on their own?
.


Your second quote answers the question in your first quote.


What were the terms the US offered before dropping the bomb?

Terms is not the point the offer was made, there decision from there on.


Which Roosevelt could have managed by not forcing Japan into a corner knowing full well that they would respond with agression. Roosevelt chose the war against Japan and it's one of those historic lies that Japan at that time had realistic options other than violence.

So your saying it was ok for Japan to bomb Hawaii because no other realistic options but it is completely wrong for the U.S. to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki because there were other options. Why is it that statement sounds jaded?


I would say all the evidence points elsewhere but since your not even reading it how would you know?


To use your own word, rubbish.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   
No internet the last few weeks so excuse this rather 'late' reply.


Originally posted by RedGolem
Your second quote answers the question in your first quote.


How do you figure it does that? I am not against killing people in war [ that would be rather stupid] but against the idea that a science experiment and political moves should be defended as 'humanitarian' gestures.


Terms is not the point the offer was made, there decision from there on.


Nonsense. If i tell you that you must unconditionally surrender and not promise not to starve to death tens of millions after the war ( how many Germans starved to death up until 1949?) why should i accept such a treaty when i am not sure i can yet inflict sufficient casualties on you to reconsider such terms? If the US really wanted to ended the war and save Japanese lives they could have made a acceptable offer before the dropping the bombs but instead they only did that AFTER the bomb and interestingly that's almost the same treaty the Japanese were willing to surrender to months earlier.

It's not easy to fool the ignorant but how ignorant must you be to believe that the American leadership acted on the basis of humanitarian concerns?


So your saying it was ok for Japan to bomb Hawaii because no other realistic options but it is completely wrong for the U.S. to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki because there were other options.


I said that the US government acted in ways that it well understood would drive the then Japanese leadership into aggressive action against at least the British commonwealth and very possibly even American holdings in the South pacific. If the American people were directly threatened one can understand this but they never were until their government invited attack by threatening violence but creating the conditions that made them vulnerable enough to invite attack.

Japan had plenty of theoretical options but not very many practical or realistic one' and for anyone with the remotest access to history books to pretend that the primary US government players at that time were 'shocked' by these attacks is a good lot of evidence that they are not here to reflect on anything other than how best to defend what they learnt back in high school.

It is 'wrong' , but sometimes a necessity to kill others but to force them, and their potential offspring, to become part of your science experiment is a whole new level of twisted. If there is to be killing then do and if you want to experiment on the unborn do it but know that i am not fooled by your claims that it's for the 'common good'. If you wish to believe in such twisted fantasies you have ever right but if you wish to make such beliefs known here i will employ my opportunity to object and point out the numerous logical fallacious and basic inhumanity of it all.


Why is it that statement sounds jaded?


If one does not read all that you wish to comment, on while misrepresenting what you did read, you are unlikely to reach conclusions that are not blatantly self serving.


To use your own word, rubbish.


And while you are allowed to have whatever uninformed/misinformed opinions you like they will not go uncontested here.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I somehow did not get around to thanking Sy.gunson for his posts which isn't nearly as bad as the four of five times i accused Truman when Roosevelt was very much alive and thus 'responsible'.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   
One very important point is that the atomic attacks on Japan ushered in a new era of the Military Industrial Complex in the US. Without atomic weapons and the raw fear engendered for all humanity by the Japanese attacks the global armaments industry would not exist anywhere near the scale that is seen today. I am sure that is a major reason the weapons were used on heavily populated cities.

However I remember speaking to many WW2 vets and they did not hesitate for even an instant about the use of the A bomb. Defeating the Japanese was not worth 1 American soldiers life... not one. Mind you the fellows I spoke with were combat vets frontline and had seen the worst of war.

Personally I believe a demonstration would have been adequate for an unconditional surrender. Especially if that demonstration had been conducted in Tokyo Bay.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by Leo Strauss]



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


Leo,
The Japanese new full well what the bomb would do. They had knowledge of the test in the Nevada Desert the day it took place. The Japanese high command had pictures that where found in archives after the war. In 1949 right after the Russians tested there first bomb, the NY times had an article about the test and referanced this fact in that article. I have tried to access the archives of the NYTimes, but I'm not willing to pay to do it. All the archives before 1960 are on Mirofliche and you have to go there to access them. I've seen copies of the paper at a local museum in a show of the aniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing!

Zindo



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   


Katsumi said

he dont know what he says, USA dropped the A-bombs to use the population as guineapig, the war was finishing and the USA had not tested yet... simple that


Katsumi he did know what he was saying. US and Japanese Governments since the war have kept the reasons secret because their disclosure would have proved the direct involvement of the Japanese royal family in horrible atrocities like the Rape of Nanking which was infact committed under the orders of a Japanese Royal Prince.

Prince Takeda was involved with Unit 731 which dissected thousands of people including Chinese and POWs without anesthetic whilst still alive.

Prince Chichuba was the real architect of Yamash ita's gold mostly buried in the Philippines. Several Japanese naval vessels (14 in fact) were loaded with gold under the orders of prince Chichuba and sunk in shallow waters around Manila Bay. The Prince ordered their crews to be machine gunned in the water to prevent witnesses.

General Yamas hita was hung after the war for war crimes which he was not personally to blame for. He was executed to silence him and shift blame and attention from Prince Chichuba.

Prince Chichuba who had a false identity as Kempetai Captain Wakayabashi also supervised the burial of gold in 187 mines or caves around Northern Luzon. He had the Japanese and Philippino labourers sealed in caves and buried alive with explosives.

Prince Chichuba's last task in the war was to seal caves on a hill above Hungnam with explosives to bury evidence of several Japanese A-bombs being build there.

After the war the Royal family was forgiven it's war crimes in return for Chichuba's assistance to recover the gold stash.

This was gold stolen from the banks in Singapore, Gold evacuated from France to Saigon in 1940, Gold evacuated from Holland to the Dutch East Indies and gold stolen from Burmese and Thai Buddhist temples.

Following the end of the War, Japan and USA split the gold 50:50.

The modern economies of Japan and USA were built on gold plundered from Europe and Asia with rape and murder. The truth about how WW2 ended in Japan has been kept secret to conceal this massive theft from the rest of the world.

Part of those secrets were Japan's own efforts to use the A-bomb against USA which would have succeeded had Russia not attacked Manchuria.

USA is just as much a thief of that gold as Japan was.

The people of Hiroshima were condemned to death in 1931 when the Militarists came to power in Japan so don't go blaming it on USA in 1945. Japan had used evil biological warfare during WW2 and were about to use nuclear weapons against the West.

On 28 February 1945 the Ju-390V2 aircraft (GH+UK) was flown to Tokyo from Norway carrying Major General Otani and plans for Japan to construct it's own Ju-390 bombers.

Reference for this are the memoirs of Reichs Armaments Minister Albert Speer and a recent book by U-234 radio operator Wolfgang Hirschfeld.





[edit on 27-9-2008 by sy.gunson]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join