Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Did you know that Hiroshma and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Those of you who condemn the U.S. should speak to a veteran. My relative who lived through the war in the Pacific is a learned man who devoted his life after the war to saving lives, and he has no doubt the bombing was justified and necessary. It is a shame we are losing those memories. If you could understand what he and his comrades (and the Chinese and other civilians) went through at the hands of the Japanese, you might have a different viewpoint.

Knowing what I know, much of which I don't have the stomach to even discuss, I think it was justified.




posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by prototism
Yes. It would have been justified. An atrocity, no less. But justified, yes. Because if Nagasaki was justifiable by us, then the same argument would apply to them.

Its simple. I don't understand what you are trying to prove.


The point "trying to prove" is that I doubt many people on this thread, at least Americans, would be so even-handed as to think that.

[edit on 12-11-2008 by Merriman Weir]



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

To the OP - OF COURSE they were legitimate military targets.

No question.




The target selection was subject to the following criteria:
(1) they are larger than three miles in diameter and are important targets in a large urban area
(2) the blast would create effective damage, and
(3) they are unlikely to be attacked by August 1945.


No mention of military bases as the criteria.


Hiroshima was described as "an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage."


So basically it was chosen because it would mean the entire city would be blasted away.


The Target Committee stated that "It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are
(1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and
(2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.

Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

The targets were chosen to maximize the blast radius and to maximize the psychological damage, so that the atomic bomb would be recognized by the World.


In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians.


[edit on 12-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 


I am an American in this thread that thinks it would not be justified by either side.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by prototism
Yes. It would have been justified. An atrocity, no less. But justified, yes. Because if Nagasaki was justifiable by us, then the same argument would apply to them.

Its simple. I don't understand what you are trying to prove.


The point "trying to prove" is that I doubt many people on this thread, at least Americans, would be so even-handed as to think that.

[edit on 12-11-2008 by Merriman Weir]
You're asking us to be devoid of any emotion or empathy. I can do that. I can see it from the outsider's viewpoint. It was a necessity.

Does that mean I would have the same viewpoint if I were a Japanese man, living in Nagasaki in 1944? Probably not. But can you say you wouldn't either?

[edit on 11/12/2008 by prototism]



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grumble
Those of you who condemn the U.S. should speak to a veteran. My relative who lived through the war in the Pacific is a learned man who devoted his life after the war to saving lives, and he has no doubt the bombing was justified and necessary. It is a shame we are losing those memories. If you could understand what he and his comrades (and the Chinese and other civilians) went through at the hands of the Japanese, you might have a different viewpoint.

Knowing what I know, much of which I don't have the stomach to even discuss, I think it was justified.


What, only American veterans can have an opinion on this? For the first 11 years of my life I lived with someone who'd been on various front lines of WWII for the duration of WWII: 1939-1945. He didn't agree with the Americans dropping atomic weapons on Japan either.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by prototism
You're asking us to be devoid of any emotion or empathy. I can do that. I can see it from the outsider's viewpoint. It was a necessity.

Does that mean I would have the same viewpoint if I were a Japanese man, living in Nagasaki in 1944? Probably not. But can you say you wouldn't either?

[edit on 11/12/2008 by prototism]


To clarify my own views on this, personally I don't think there was any justification in it, and that goes for any country that did it, whether it was Japan, Germany or America.

We're both even-handed in that respect, but disagree on whether it was justified. However, my issue is that I'd hedge a bet that the even-handedness aspect isn't a majority view. That the arguments proffered as to why America was right or justified in this by Americans wouldn't be acceptable (ending the war sooner rather than later, minimising further casualties &c) if it had have been Japan that dropped the bomb rather than the other way around.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
We're both even-handed in that respect, but disagree on whether it was justified. However, my issue is that I'd hedge a bet that the even-handedness aspect isn't a majority view. That the arguments proffered as to why America was right or justified in this by Americans wouldn't be acceptable (ending the war sooner rather than later, minimising further casualties &c) if it had have been Japan that dropped the bomb rather than the other way around.
I agree with you there; most Americans (most people though really, in a similar situation) are one sided, selfish and hypocritical thinkers.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 07:10 AM
link   
I think before any one should think about justifying this they sould look into what brought the US into the second world war.

To me it seams like Roosevelt and Churchill did everything they could to get the US involved in ww2.

A link that might be worth reading.

www.threeworldwars.com...



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


While grandfather Bush was making deals with nazis, and profits thanks to polish prisoners in camps.

But they didn't know.

But this kind of discussion allways revolves around the same pattern :
- if you're not american, you're not entitled to an opinion.
- if you are american and still disagree, you're not a patriot.

Leaves only one way to think about this all. And try find excuses, however pathetic they may be.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Whilst the bombing of Hiroshima undoubtedly forced Japans hand to surrender and could feasibly be justified as an alternate means to a bloody invasion of the Japanese homeland, an alternate theory on the destruction of Nagaskai was explained to me by a friend.

After Hiroshima, Japans military signalled to US generals that she was ready to surrender, not knowing how many more weapons of its kind would be used. At this point in the global conflict, Russia had been busily massing huge armies on the formerly Japanese held region of Manchuria and declared war on 8th August two days after Hiroshima and aimed to capitalise on the crippling strike

The US, fearing Stalin had the whole Pacific S.E. Asian region in his sights and the ensuing spread of Communist doctrine, ordered the dropping of the bomb on Nagasaki as a political threat of force to Russia the following day on 9th August

The plea to surrender immediately after the Hiroshima bomb was suppressed by the US mililtary and the bombing of Nagasaki publicly 'spun' to justify the surrender of Japan when she had already done so.

Nagasaki was nothing more than a pawn in the geo-political game, and nothing other than a war-crime.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by prototism
 


It was not atrocious, it was neceessary and justified. So civilians died, so what, that is war. War is necessary as well, it allows the winner to call the shots and thus make peace and prepare for the next war.

Why dont you look at stalins peacefull reign and his killing of 60 million disadents that would not follow communism, he killed civilians without dropping a single bomb, does that make it better?

Peacnik hippys make me laugh with their ignorance. War is never going to go away, people are greedy animals that always want more power and they will use others, start wars and murder civilians to see those ends always.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Great post to have on Veteran's Day.

Any city in Japan was a military target during WW2.

This isn't the days of drop a bomb and a pickup loaded with bad guys disappear because the bomb can be guided to it. If you dropped a bomb and it landed within 1000 feet, it was considered a direct hit. Hence, carpet bombing was done.

A bomb that can level a city was a God send. Hundreds of men's lives were spared flying missions while the target was destroyed. It's that simple.

Any war is a large crime with all the illegal actions that a human can think of, is accomplished. Thinking of just murder is simplistic thinking. This is why a nation that declares war must think it out and the consequences of all the actions.

Japan started a war without planning for a possible defeat. They had a military code of conduct that would not accept surrender and soldiers were slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands. They were not going to surrender which is why the nuclear bombs had to be used. Only the Emperor saw the need for surrender, he is what changed the minds of some of the war council on their involvement.

The average person who normally hates America, which even covers some Americans within this site, probably wouldn't know this fact.

Only until the first Gulf War did the Department of Defense order more Purple Heart medals. They were still using medals minted during WW2. This is how many wounded soldiers were expected from the invasion of Japan. Use whatever spin you want about how we killed innocent Japanese, but these guys weren't getting medals for VD treatment or stubbing a toe while strolling a peaceful beach during a beautiful sunset. The DoD had fought Korea, Vietnam, and several other sanctioned actions before running low on Purple Hearts.

Put whatever spin you want on this post, the Japs stated the war against America, Great Britain, China, Australia, France, and the Netherlands. All the great allies of the USA became involved in the Pacific before the end of the war. It wasn't just American lives saved by dropping these bombs.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by stinkhorn
Peacnik hippys make me laugh with their ignorance.


why is it ignorant to believe in the possibility of peace without resort to arms?



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 08:01 AM
link   
I read someplace they were trying to surrender but the president wouldn't accept it until after we droped the bombs.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Apparently some of you don't really comprehend what war means.

It is as simple as this, you defend your own, keep them safe. If that means the death of ever single last man woman and child of your enemy, so be it.

The only thing that matters in war is for your country to come out on top.

Then again, thats why I am not president of the United States, on 9/12 I would have dropped 10 nukes on Afgahnistan....you know...for the hell of it.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by stinkhorn
reply to post by prototism
 


It was not atrocious, it was neceessary and justified. So civilians died, so what, that is war. War is necessary as well, it allows the winner to call the shots and thus make peace and prepare for the next war.

Why dont you look at stalins peacefull reign and his killing of 60 million disadents that would not follow communism, he killed civilians without dropping a single bomb, does that make it better?

Peacnik hippys make me laugh with their ignorance. War is never going to go away, people are greedy animals that always want more power and they will use others, start wars and murder civilians to see those ends always.


It take it that if, post-Pearl Habour, the Japanese had been able to get to the American coast and decided to drop atomic weapons themselves, it would not have been atrocious and would have been necessary and justified?



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 08:21 AM
link   
justifacation is always seen through the eyes of the victor.The greeks were justified at troy,The british and french were justifiyed in ww1 even tho the war would have ended in 1916 if not for international bankers floating germany a loan to keep thier profitable war going,and we were justifiyed in iraq.The victor writes the history.Had germany won ww2 Hitler would have justifiyed the killing of innocent jews.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
If the Japanese and the Nazis had tried to end the war sooner themselves by dropping similar weapons on America, would it have been justified?


Hello? You forget that THEY are the ones who started the war. THEY are the ones who were trying to take over soverign nations. OF COURSE they would have used those weapons on us, anywhere they wanted.

AGAIN -

The fact is that the Japanese started the war.
The fact is that they wouldn't surrender.
The fact is that Hiroshima was one big war machine - everyone was in it.
The fact is that the US dropping the bomb SAVED AMERICAN LIVES.

In a war against another country that attacked you that's all that matters.
Saving the lives of your own and winning the war. They were one big machine aggressively trying to take over our country.


No mention of military bases as the criteria.

The entire city was a military machine.


The targets were chosen to maximize the blast radius and to maximize the psychological damage,

So what? It was an excellent choice. The city was a military machine. The psychological damage had to be done in order to break through their war mentality.


In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians.

... who were deeply involved in the war machine.

They started it. They wouldn't stop. We made sure it did and that the least number of Americans would die in the process.

If they didnt' want their people to die, then THEY shouldn't have went to war against us. THE END.


Originally posted by Merriman Weir
if ... the Japanese had been able to get to the American coast and decided to drop atomic weapons themselves, it would not have been atrocious and would have been necessary and justified?

WAKE UP. They started the damn war.
War itself is an atrocity and THEY caused it.



Originally posted by stinkhorn
Peacnik hippys make me laugh with their ignorance.

yep. me too.

[edit on 11/12/2008 by FlyersFan]



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   
can you look at another legitimate target .... Fallujah, Iraq ...
and the use of banned weapons - Whikey Pete use... >?

how are we ever going to wear the white hat with pride again...?






top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join