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

reply to post by ghofer


Most of the top generals? The ones who weren't doing any of the fighting anyway? Name them. You want to rely on the opinion of an American who fought in the European theater, and only later in reflection as a politician, made this statement? Hell, a politician, as Eisenhower was, would say anything to soften post-war feelings. During the war in Europe, he certainly didn't mind the firebombing which killed many, many more than nukes killed. Keep in mind also that Eisenhower wasn't a warrior. He was a clerk. A political creature that enabled his lofty position.

You'll frequently find that clerks, supply, finance, administrative, and other non-combative elements will frequently find elements of actual combat somewhat barbaric and distasteful. Surprised?

I always temper a statement from when it was made, from what perspective, for what purpose, and to what audience it was directed to. Anything a politician says will be suspect automatically, as the moment will dictate their position.

Your question was, "how could they bleed us dry when they were finished militarily?"

Exactly what do you mean, "finished militarily?"

The Japanese were in the identical position of being "pretty well finished militarily" when we assaulted Okinawa. Identical, same condition.

The Japanese, anticipating a certain homeland invasion, kept a lot of men and material from being squandered at Okinawa. Therefore, those at Okinawa had little to work with, but by digging in, preparing numerous lines of defense, and defending, they were able to generate quite a slaughter.

In fact, these "finished militarily" Japanese generated a greater slaughter on on Okinawa than both nukes together killed weeks later on the mainland.

Get past the generic conclusion that the Japanese "were finished militarily." That does not equate to an inability to prepare and fight a significant defensive battle for your homeland, on your home soil.

This overall conclusion would only suggest that the Japanese were incapable of generating any significant offensive operations against American, British, Australian, New Zealand, Indian, Burmese, and Allied forces.

An inability to generate a significant offensive is not the same as defenseless or impotent.

Why do the stupid thing and cost over ten million casualties, and closer to twenty million casualties spread over another year or so, when the entire affair can be wrapped up in days at a cost of 200,000 casualties?

You're telling me that you have an invasion force prepared, millions of people around the world are wanting to get on with this thing and end this war, and yet you're going to look those men in the eye and say, "boys, we have these terrible weapons here that could end the war in days, but we don't want to do anything distasteful here. So we're going in. Many of you will die, but this decision is much more palatable. For me. Good luck."

You're pulling your own . . . chain.

reply to post by pexx421


An embargo is not an act of war.

It's an election not to sell someone something.

If it's mine, and I don't want to sell it to you, too bad. You may not like it, but I didn't start shooting. I just refused to sell you what was mine.

Yeah, the bomber thing, and the code thing, and now the embargo thing.

Other than that, I'd say your research is spot on!

Actually an embargo from the US is also pressuring other countries not to ship to the country too, such as in the case of our embargos against Iraq, which led to the deaths of 500000 children prior to the war due to starvation and lack of medicine, and such as our similar embargos against Iran, Cuba, etc, embargos which have been shown historically to most horribly effect the poor and lower class. I believe i have read somewhere that this IS an act of war as defined by the UN, but i could be wrong.

Originally posted by pexx421
Actually an embargo from the US is also pressuring other countries not to ship to the country too, such as in the case of our embargos against Iraq, which led to the deaths of 500000 children prior to the war due to starvation and lack of medicine, and such as our similar embargos against Iran, Cuba, etc, embargos which have been shown historically to most horribly effect the poor and lower class. I believe i have read somewhere that this IS an act of war as defined by the UN, but i could be wrong.

Putting aside for the moment whether or not an embargo is an act of war, do you know why nearly the entire world placed an embargo on Japan? Do you realize it was an attempt stop Japan's naked agression against it's neighbors in Asia? Are you aware what Japan was doing to China?

Originally posted by dariousg
The day we ever willingly use another nuke on another nation is the day this world ends as we know it. Because that time will be the one where everyone who has them gets involved and this planet will cease to exist.

I do believe America would have attacked Iran with nukes at some time in the last 2 years if Bush had his way. And Russia would have responded, beginning WW3. But you have some heroes amongst your generals who knew the likely results of this and stood up to pressure, saving this planet from destruction.

After the first one it should have been enough. We SAW how massive it was. There was no need for the second one. Just the threat of the second one would have been enough. Yet our brave leaders made the call to do it again.

What no-one has brought up yet is this was a science experiment.
Little Boy, the Hiroshima bomb, was a uranium bomb using a gun type detonation system.
Fat Man, the Nagasaki bomb, was a plutonium bomb using an implosion detonation system.

Some people thought it was important to test both systems.
But not all -

Some of the Los Alamos scientists had circulated a petition asking President Truman to give Japan a warning and a chance to surrender before using the bomb. Some signed, some didn't, but the project remained a secret until the end.

James Franck, a Nobel Prize winner, had been urging the administration to avoid using the bomb. ...
a short quotation from the Franck report to give its flavor:
We believe that these considerations make the use of nuclear bombs for an early unannounced attack against Japan inadvisable. If the United States were to be the first to release this new indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world; precipitate the race for armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future of nuclear bombs.

Testing in an unpopulated area would not have given the data on the death rates and after-effects to be expected.

Originally posted by RKWWWW

... Second, Japan had been BEGGING for MONTHS prior to the bombing, to surrender to us with just one condition, that their emperor remain on the throne. We denied this and demanded only unconditional surrender, but after the bombs allowed their emperor to remain on the throne anyhow.....which shows that we just wanted to drop the bomb, and for reasons other than just their one condition. ...

Second, for a country to assume that they can dictate the terms of a unconditional surrender is absurd. Every allied country had signed on to the Potdam Declaration that defined the surrender terms. Japan chose to continue their official policy of never surrendering. That tens of thousands of Japanese had to die because Japan wanted to keep the Emperor in power is on them, not us.

Right. You admit you would prefer to cause the deaths of over 400,000 people, many of whom were children and babies, had no say in this war, rather than agree to their "godking" saving face?

Do you realise that after achieving its aim of getting both bombs dropped, the American government agreed to the original terms of surrender, allowing the emperor to keep his throne?

Whatever. The bombs worked. They saved millions of further casualties, and ended a war that the Japanese had begun.

This is what frequently happens when you start some **** with the wrong people. No one, and I mean no one, throughout the millennia, can and do war like Westerners.

A good thing to know.

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.

Been there, done that.

I once killed a man who had attacked me, and vowed to never kill again.

Several times since then I have had men try to kill me, and I've responded with love and helped them to change. There is a source of love that can fill you and help you once you get to know it. This is nothing to do with religion, it is a spirit which pervades the universe and is without judgement.

I'm not a pacifist, I'll defend myself if necessary, but I won't kill to save myself.
I would kill to save my children or to fight for my country if if was invaded.

Originally posted by dooper
Whatever. The bombs worked. They saved millions of further casualties, and ended a war that the Japanese had begun.

Millions?
How about you back up that ridiculous assertion.

This is what frequently happens when you start some **** with the wrong people. No one, and I mean no one, throughout the millennia, can and do war like Westerners.

A good thing to know.

The arrogance of America, as if being a child running around with a big shotgun is something to be proud of.

You'll learn.

Originally posted by DataWraith
Theres absolutley NO justification for an attack of that ferocity on ANY city whether the enemy of not. The US government of the day knew the power of the atom bomb , and knew that its a city filled with civilians and maybe a few military personnel. Every city has at least one base and its always been the same.

Im not condoning it but the concept of "City Busting" was an acceptable part of war in the day. It becomes very difficult to apply current ethics and morals using todays standards to those of the past.

Originally posted by Kailassa
Millions?
How about you back up that ridiculous assertion.

Its actually pretty simplistic eh?, take the numbers of casulties suffered at Iwo Jima, Saipan etc. and then project them into a full scale invasion of the Japanese home islands. Not to mention the huge numbers of civilian casulties the pre invasion bombardment would have casued.

The arrogance of America, as if being a child running around with a big shotgun is something to be proud of.

You'll learn.

Ah the arrogance of a revisionist historian

reply to post by Kailassa

You would question the millions of casualties if Japan were invaded? Hell, man, do some research. The US military deemed that the invasion of Japan proper would require a million American casualties. In fact, we are still using the Purple Hearts that were produced to that specific end.

Do some homework. You seem to do so well producing obscure opinions, so this shouldn't be that big of a deal to a probing researcher as yourself.

OK. I'll help. The invasion was called Operation Downfall. You get into that, and you'll find validation of just what I said. I don't pull these numbers out of my backside. You'll possibly find as well that the Australian Army had a bit of a problem with the specifics of the invasion. Or not.

The Japanese casualties were an extrapolation of the results of the battle and invasion of Okinawa. You can extrapolate those numbers yourself, and if you have a problem, any 12-year old can help you.

It's one thing to make assumptions, but you apparently don't know your history, and the numbers are right there for the taking. May I suggest that you do a bit of reading?

The arrogance of America? I specifically said, "Westerners." How do you spell WESTERNERS where you come from? A-M-E-R-I-C-A?

Sounds like another wannabe American. You and millions of others. Your national location is unrecognizable, so I'll assume that during the Second World War, the US probably helped pull your bacon out of the fire too.

And don't knock Americans with their shotguns. Scared the hell out of the Germans in the First World War, and picked up the name "trench sweepers." The Germans hated them so much, they insisted after the war that all weapons should shoot ammunition with Full Metal Jacket. Of course we used shotguns in the jungles against the Japanese, and again in Vietnam with great success. Even in the Middle East right now.

God, it's great to be an American! Nuclear technologies and bombs and all!

Don't you agree?

reply to post by dooper
What you and FredT both ignore is that Japan had already discussed surrender, on condition the Emperor could keep his throne.

When the Japanese surrendered, it was agreed that the Emperor could keep his throne.

So what invasion are you talking about?

None was needed. All that was needed was to agree to the Emperor keeping his throne before testing 2 brand new nuclear weapons instead of afterward.

reply to post by Kailassa


You don't read, do you.

Operation Downfall.

Give it a whirl.

reply to post by Kailassa


I do beleive that you are quite mistaken, Japan tried to get the Soviets to broker a deal that not only would have kept the Emperor in power but allow them to keep thier entire Imperial Empire and prewar boundries intact

It was hardly surrender

Some of these posts here repulse me. Japan caused the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by nuclear means, not America.

reply to post by FredT


FredT is quite correct - less of a surrender than a "lets pretend none of this ever happened, and go back to how we were, shall we?"

More exposition on the Japanese position prior to the dropping of the bombs can be found here.

I don't necessarily expect anyone to take the American Thinker at its word, but one of the problems with doing any research into the real position in 1945 is that the passionate arguments for and against the use of nuclear weapons has polarised the debate away from facts and towards political side-taking. By and large the right wing supports the action, the left wing does not.

I repeat the point I made earlier in the thread. We have had 60 years to work out the ethics and morals of nuclear warfare. Truman made a military decision, whether for the right or wrong reasons, before John Lennon, before CND, before the cold war, before the Cuban Missile crisis.... taking his decision out of that context does rational historical study a disservice. Both sides are guilty of this.

My own view, for what it's worth, is that Japan would on the balance of all the evidence have probably been beaten into a more total surrender without either using the nuclear weapons or a full-scale invasion. But I don't know for sure. Nor does anyone here, or any expert I have read on the subject. The only certainty is that America and her allies lost far fewer lives in the immediate aftermath of the bombs being dropped than they would have done had they not done so. What constitutes a potential death toll sufficient to justify nuclear attack is another matter. But as a fact, it stands thus.

LW

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by RKWWWW

... Second, Japan had been BEGGING for MONTHS prior to the bombing, to surrender to us with just one condition, that their emperor remain on the throne. We denied this and demanded only unconditional surrender, but after the bombs allowed their emperor to remain on the throne anyhow.....which shows that we just wanted to drop the bomb, and for reasons other than just their one condition. ...

Second, for a country to assume that they can dictate the terms of a unconditional surrender is absurd. Every allied country had signed on to the Potdam Declaration that defined the surrender terms. Japan chose to continue their official policy of never surrendering. That tens of thousands of Japanese had to die because Japan wanted to keep the Emperor in power is on them, not us.

Right. You admit you would prefer to cause the deaths of over 400,000 people, many of whom were children and babies, had no say in this war, rather than agree to their "godking" saving face?

Do you realise that after achieving its aim of getting both bombs dropped, the American government agreed to the original terms of surrender, allowing the emperor to keep his throne?

You are either ignorantly or purposely mischaraterizing Japan's terms of surrender prior to the nuclear blasts. Japan did not want surrender so much as it wanted "negotiated peace" involving numerous conditions, not just the issue of the emperor. At a minimum, the conditions included that the Japanese home islands remain unoccupied by foreign forces and even allow Japan to retain some of its wartime conquests in East Asia. After Japan had callouslly and cruelly allowed thousands of her citizens to die in nuclear blasts, THEN AND ONLY THEN were all unacceptable conditions dropped, save the one issue of keeping the Emporer.

Why would you want to distort the facts of history?







[edit on 19-11-2008 by RKWWWW]

“The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” - General George S. Patton

But in the grand scheme of things, dropping the nukes saved a lot of American lives, and that is what the U.S. military is supposed to do. Win wars with as little casualties on their side as possible. You can bet your grannies false teeth that most countries would do the same if the choice and situation was theres. God only knows what would have happened if it had have been Japan that had nukes, not America.
What we really need to be thankfull for is that facist Germany was prevented from making their atomic weapons in time. That would have been the worst possible scenario ever imaginable. And they were close, too.
There's multiple levels you can look at the bombing. As an entity, Japan really had it coming to them. But at the same time, at a humanist level, it was a tragedy for the civilians. War is a tragedy for everyone that ever lost someone they loved, no matter which side you are on. War is hell.

On a side note, the 2 bombs on Japan were of 2 different types; one was a fission bomb, the other was fusion.

Atrocity, ?

I do not condone the use of atom bombs for any reason. The circumstances must be analyzed. If the US did not use the 2 atom bombs (causing Japan to surrender), many more, perhaps millions of more lives, Japanese and American, could have been lost.

Millions of people dying vs thousands (nagasaki,hiroshima). It is extremely tough to weigh human life, but the lower the number is better.

I am not trying to play devils advocate, it was a tragedy for the innocent Japanese citizens, and thats not including radiation sickness/poisoning that persists for a much longer time.

Just hope that they have found peace and there suffering minimal.

Peace to all

Bubbapug1985