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

reply to post by Merriman Weir


What scares me even more than nuclear weapons is the revisionist history that is unfolding before my eyes. Slowly all of the atrocities committed by Japan are being swept under the rug by those who could care less about the truth if it does not advance their agenda.

History forgotten is bound to be repeated. Revising history could cause more deaths than a nuclear weapon ever could. It is inevitable though. The truth will be forgotten and history will repeat. It is the way of things.

reply to post by omega007


"Sure they were and Dresden, Germany was a good target too. All Europe and the United States knew it was a refuge for women and children and we bombed it night after night and killed tens of thousands......"

In exactly the same way the Germans had bombed British cities night after night, week after week, month after month, killing thousands upon thousands of men, women and children.

Let us also not forget, a huge arms factory was located on the outskirts of Dresden, and the city housed the workforce.

hnn.us...">Quotes by U.S Military Leaders WW2 regarding the use of the A~BOMB

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.....My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted the ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

Admiral William D. Leahy. 5-star admiral, president of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combined American-British Chiefs of Staff, and chief of staff to the commander-in-chief of the army and navy from 1942 - 1945 (Roosevelt) and 1945 - 1949 (Truman)

The atomic bomb) "was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion.....it was clear to a number of people...that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate.....it was a sin - to use a good word - (a word that) should be used more often - to kill non-combatants...."

Rear Admiral Lewis L. Strauss, special assistant to the Secretary of the Navy.

"No! I think we had the Japs licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit."

General George C. Kenney, commander of Army Air Force units in the Southwest Pacific.

Get over it.

The Japanese knew what they were doing when they started the war. They committed horrible war crimes and were full of macho-style fascist bravado. Just drop a couple of nice little atomic bombs on the bushido maniacs to end the war, okay?

And indeed I fail to see how these a-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were worse than something like fire-bombing cities like Dresden or Tokyo. The end-result is pretty much the same.

Based on what I have heard the Japanese are still crying about these bombs but not thinking too much about starting the war and their war crimes in China and elsewhere in East Asia...

Just get over it and pray that nobody will use nuclear weapons in the future, ok? They can be thousand times bigger today than the Hiroshima one!

Biggest nuke was Czar Bomba of the Soviets with about 50 megatons of kick and Hiroshima was just 12 kilotons. So it wasn't even a real strategic nuke by today's standards, just a little tactical one.

Maybe I sound a bit belligerent here, but I fail to see the Japanese atoning for their war crimes and I also fail to see how this nuking is so different from "normal" fire-bombing of cities.

I'm sorry if I'm assuming too much here, but it seems like your post is a justification for what was done there. I hope not.

If it is, it really doesn't excuse a thing. Because there are military headquarters there doesn't excuse murdering tens of thousands of civilians.

You don't make thousands pay for the mistakes of the few.

This piece of information isn't going to make most people who are disgusted with what happened suddenly realize that there was some justification for that kind of brutal overkill.

Whether or not it was justified, are we all at least in agreement that it was an atrocity?

Originally posted by ukuli
Get over it.

The Japanese knew what they were doing when they started the war. They committed horrible war crimes and were full of macho-style fascist bravado. Just drop a couple of nice little atomic bombs on the bushido maniacs to end the war, okay?

I think you should remember your words when the so called terrorists, who are supposedly getting ready to nuke us, drop a bomb on an American city and say it was all justified because of the horrible war crimes, torturing, and murdering we did to them.

Then we'll see how your views change when it happens to us from somebody who has the same reasoning you do.

They have every right to be crying about 50 years later. Don't we still go on and on about what happened at Pearl Harbor? Don't we still go on and on about what happened to the Jews?

And fire-bombing a city isn't any better either. But at least people have SOME sort of chance of getting out alive. With a nuke your completely screwed.

What about all the children that lived in those cities? Were they "bushido maniacs" full of "macho style bravado" too?

Guess those little toddlers had it coming to them.

Originally posted by mrwupy
Water under the bridge. Hopefully we learned something from it.

I think we did. We're not so prone to slaughter the innocent as we were in that time.

It still happens, but not on such a scale.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the lesson was learned.

Water under the bridge.

That's what my Ex husband used to say the day after he'd bashed me up.
That's what he now says about the fact that he shook our baby until he had permanent brain and eye damage.

Sorry, the aggressor never has the right to use that phrase.

It's easy to sit in a chair, and from the safety of your own home, justify the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians. There are so many reasons why it is wrong to say killing them was alright because it furthered a military goal. I sometimes wonder if most of humanity even has a conscience anymore...

How about using some Kantian reasoning, and ask yourself would it be alright if some country, say in the Middle East, dropped a couple of neutron bombs on densely populated cities next to vital military bases here in the United States, and you were in the blast radius. It furthers their military objective, and could potentially force withdrawal of troops out of the Middle East. War would end, and things would be alright? Of course you wouldn't have an opinion on the matter, you'd be a shadow - both in history and on the surrounding wall.

[edit on 12-11-2008 by Viral]

Dropping the bombs was justified in the context of the times. The civilian deaths due to the bomb were a fraction of what the Germans exterminated, and of what the Japanese massacred in China.

Sixty years after the fact people want to wring there hands over a supposed 'atrocity' be glad the war didn't go on any longer than it did.

US knew from previous fights that they would lose 200,000, like it sounds like a statistic. So they drop bombs and don't lose the troops. Bomber Harris would have had something to say. It is very sad that the example was not used to warn the Japs, but from an American perspective, keeping your troops very safe, it was inevitable. We should not haunt ourselves now. Not anymore.

Most of the vets that fought in the Pacific will tell you they were glad that the bombs were dropped, because they knew that the invasion would be bloody for them and the Japanese.

As the years go on, more and more of these guys are dying of old age. And more apologists are taking their place, saying that it was wrong.

From what I've read, the Japanese population was set to fight to the death. They had been told by their leaders that the Americans would kill them all and eat their babies. They felt that they had no choice in the matter.

Since this was all 60+ years ago, who knows what would have taken place?

reply to post by prototism

No. This was not an atrocity. Absolutely, positively - NOT!

Start over.

(1) War is two sides killing each other until one side is unable to kill any further, or unwilling to be killed further.

No ifs, but's or what-if''s. This is the way it works, regardless of who started it, regardless of the greater moral resolve, regardless of right or wrong.

Now, what is the next concept using pure logic can we determine?

(2) When you kill ENOUGH, (whatever that number may be) the other side quits.

There is a number, (whatever number that may be, that when hit, one side decides that the situation is beyond hopeless, regardless of courage, determination, skill, or moral resolve, the situation cannot be reversed) that threatens the entire survival of the people or culture that they cannot allow to erode further.

(3) To reach that number quickly is to end the suffering.

This is quite self-explanatory. If you are shot through the leg with an arrow, it is quite painful. Now you can elect to let the arrow or your leg rot, or you can bite the bullet and push it on through.

So what does that tell us?

The Masters of Warfare through the millennia have told us that it is best to use every weapon, every system, and every method available to make the war as brutal and destructive as you can on the front end, in order to save lives and extended suffering on both sides.

(4) To be most ruthlessly destructive is to be most merciful.

You don't have to like it, you don't have to instinctively embrace it, but you can't ignore it. That's the way it is, and wishing differently will not change the brutal nature of warfare.

You can hate war, and most soldiers do, but to ignore the basics and try to inject philosophical persuasions is beyond stupid. The most complete idiots are those who would argue against war, and express its negatives.

Here's a clue. You don't have control. You don't always have an option. This may be hard to digest, but your enemies just may have his own ideas, plans, and timetables.

Like it or not, personal preference aside, war is butchery. There is no enlightened way to war. The more civilized the war, the longer the war will continue without resolution, thus the greater suffering and the greater total deaths on both sides. Get in, close with, kill the enemy with unbounded authority, destroy everything he holds dear, completely break his heart, crush his will to fight, and when you kill enough, he will quit.

Then you are freed up to engage other enemies. The nicer you are, the more merciful, the more frequent the wars. There's always someone else that needs shooting. Always.

It's just that simple.

Once you get the basics down, the rest falls into place quite easily.
To consider anything in war an atrocity is beyond stupid.

Years ago when I was in another state, I talked to a former Japanese soldier who told me, "The atom bombs you dropped are the only reasons I am alive today. Millions of my generation are alive today because those bombs were dropped and ended the war."

Atrocity?

Some folks wouldn't know an atrocity if it smacked them right in the face.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Unfreak'n believable. :shk:

If you can't see the difference then you seriously need to get a new pair of glasses.

The Americans and allies were working TO DEFEND THEMSELVES against a country that had invaded. The Japanese were working to INVADE AND TAKE OVER a soverign country.

I'm not denying that. What I'm pointing out that the fact that there were American civilians taking part in the American war machine by helping to create ammunition, weapons and so on, as well as buying war bonds and actually being armed (because how dare the Japanese civilians have bamboo sticks to repel any invading force!) is actually no different than what some are saying to justify the bombing of Japan. "Oh noes!! the civilians were in on it too". The American civilians were in on it too, so would have the bombing of west coast American major cities been 'fair game' too? Anything other than 'yes' is hypocritical.

:shk: We were invaded. We kicked their butt. It's THEIR OWN FAULT. There is no reason for us to have surrendered to help them out.

Where did I say there was a reason for America to have surrendered? What I did say was to suggest, as an attempt in justification, that the bombing could have saved lives in the long run could equally be applied to Japan or the Nazis. Rather than take France, if Hitler had dropped an atomic bomb on Paris as a warning to the remainder of Europe, knowing that such action would bring an early end to war, you would therefore agree that it was the right thing to do?

Trying to reduce an argument to 'he started it' is a bit childish, to be honest. Whilst America hadn't gotten its hands dirty as such, it had made its bias pretty clear as to its involvement in the war prior to the attack on Pearl Harbour. To proffer any idea that America was 'innocent' and 'they started it' is a bit ridiculous.

You were invaded? Really? America was invaded? If you're talking about Pearl Harbour, then you were attacked. And it wasn't even the American mainland. That's not to diminish the seriousness of the attack or the American lives lost, but this really sums how out of synch America is with the war experiences of other countries. This is probably why September the 11th came as such a shock.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by Merriman Weir]

[edit on 13-11-2008 by Merriman Weir]

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by Merriman Weir

 

What scares me even more than nuclear weapons is the revisionist history that is unfolding before my eyes. Slowly all of the atrocities committed by Japan are being swept under the rug by those who could care less about the truth if it does not advance their agenda.

History forgotten is bound to be repeated. Revising history could cause more deaths than a nuclear weapon ever could. It is inevitable though. The truth will be forgotten and history will repeat. It is the way of things.

Who is sweeping Japanese atrocities under the metaphorical rug? I hope you're not trying to accuse me of that.

As for "truth". Whose 'truth' is that, exactly? America's?

Again, for the sake of clarification. I don't expect people to share my view on this. I don't think the use of atomic weapons or even the conventional bombing of civilian targets - by any side - was justified. I'm just interested in the hypocrisy of the double-standard in some of the posting. Arguments that are being used as justification as to why it was acceptable to drop atomic weapons on ostensibly civilian cities are equally applicable to America.

The idea that because the Japanese population was armed and ready to fight to the death with bamboo sticks and therefore it was right to kill them too is laughable when juxtaposed with the alleged Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto quote so many Americans are fond of, not to mention how many times I hear that Americans will fight to the death against domestic or foreign governments.

Similarly the idea that Japanese civilians were producing weapons of war. And? What, did I dream Rosie the Riveter and the posters for war bonds and the victory gardens?

Japan was so shattered by conventional bombing towards the end of the war to the point where no Japanese planes went up to intercept the new super flying fortresses that were razing its cities.

It was so bad that when the Japanese ran out of bullets for their planes, they simply instructed their pilots, who by that point consisted mostly of novice pilots, to ram the bombers. That's how bad it got.

Japan was running out of resources to sustain the war. Prior to the start of the war, they stockpiled supplies... Then of course it ran out since Japan is not a fuel/minerals rich country.

Japanese civilians were being given wooden spears and hand grenades, and told to throw themselves against invading marines in suicide attacks. They were told that the marines would rape the women, kill/eat their children, etc, if they invaded. The Japanese were that hardcore.

The atomic bombs may have been unnecessary, the firebombings alone killed much, much more civilians than the atomic bombs did. I think they intended to nuke another city (Maybe Kure?), but at the last moment had to switch targets due to weather.

Maybe the atomic attacks were the catalyst for peace... Even at that time some Japanese PTB's tried to cover up the attacks! Surrender was unthinkable to them, the Emperor not being all-powerful was unthinkable.

Was it right or wrong? I'm sure the Allies were worried that the Axis managed to get their hands on the bomb at that time and would use it against the Allies.

The fundamental argument here is that war is evil. If that is true, without exception, such that if one must prosecute a war to defend one's self or defend otherwise defenseless people (like most of the world's population during WWII), then yes, the dropping of the bombs was an atrocity, just like the firing of every single bullet was an atrocity.

So, turn the other cheek and die a martyr, or defend yourself by committing "atrocities."

It is a difficult question to answer and an issue we will not resolve, but I dare say that if the Allies in WWII were not willing to fight, we would not be here, or if we were here at all we would not be allowed to have this discussion.

Originally posted by Kailassa
Sorry, the aggressor never has the right to use that phrase.

JAPAN was the aggressor. They tried to beat up someone who was stronger. It was THEIR mistake. The fallout is their fault. Not ours.

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
Trying to reduce an argument to 'he started it' is a bit childish, to be honest.

No. It's the truth. What is childish is trying to blame America for something that came about due to the fault of the japanese. It's just more typical blame-america-for-everything bunk.


People have tried to educate ya'll about the war machine Japan was.
The Japanese were ALL part of it. They started it. They wouldn't stop. We finished it in a way that cut down on our own casualties. It was the right thing to do.

Thank God people understood this back then or else WWII would have ended differently.

I'm not going to bother trying to educate you people on this anymore.
Your minds are closed to the truth. Tell ya' what. Next time someone trys to kill you, to destroy you and your way of life, why don't you use 'reasonable force' to stop them ... you know ... just go hug them and offer them a cold soda or something. See how far you get.

OUT.

Whilst I completely agree with those who point out that an atrocity is an atrocity regardless of the justification or otherwise, I would just add this. The temptation here, because of the magnitude of the effect of these bombs, is to remove the act of dropping them entirely from the context in which they were dropped.

It is (or should be) impossible to discuss the decision to drop a bomb on Japan without discussing what preceded it, which was 8 years of inconceivably brutal warfare. To suggest that the bombs themselves were out of context is to underestimate the extent of the horror (for both sides) that had gone before.

My advice to anyone interested in the build up to the decision to drop the two bombs to end the war against the Japanese is to read George Macdonald Fraser's autobiographical account of the war in Burma in which he fought. Link here

I remembered that GMF himself had something to say about the use of nuclear weapons, and when I googled it, I found it here:

'[It] is now widely held (or at least it has been widely stated) that the dropping of atomic bombs was unnecessary because the Japanese were ready to give in . I shall say only that I wish those that hold that view had been present to explain the position to the little bastard who came howling out of the thicket near the Sittang, full of spite and fury, in that first week of August. He was half-starved and near naked, and his only weapon was a bamboo stake, but he was in no mood to surrender'.

Food for thought.

LW

Originally posted by FlyersFan
No. It's the truth. What is childish is trying to blame America for something that came about due to the fault of the japanese. It's just more typical blame-america-for-everything bunk.

America had already played its card before Pearl Harbour by being involved in Lease Lend for 8 months prior to Pearl Harbour. How exactly, is that Japan starting with America?

People have tried to educate ya'll about the war machine Japan was.
The Japanese were ALL part of it. They started it. They wouldn't stop. We finished it in a way that cut down on our own casualties. It was the right thing to do.

I've tried to educate you that America was no different than Japan in this. The American civilians were as part of the war machine as the Japanese civilians. Again, did I dream Rosie the Riveter, war bonds and Victory Gardens? To suggest that Japan were somehow different and therefore this is 'justification' is hypocritical.

Thank God people understood this back then or else WWII would have ended differently.

I'm not going to bother trying to educate you people on this anymore.
Your minds are closed to the truth. Tell ya' what. Next time someone trys to kill you, to destroy you and your way of life, why don't you use 'reasonable force' to stop them ... you know ... just go hug them and offer them a cold soda or something. See how far you get.

OUT.

Again, because you will read this, you're completely missing my point. Whilst I personally don't believe that atomic weapons were justified in their use, what I'm actually trying to find out with my posts is for those who do think it was justified - and which you obviously do - would you have had a problem with Japan dropping atomic weapons on America using the same argument that is being used to justify the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

It's not a hard question.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by Merriman Weir]