Hiroshima- Those brutal immoral American during WWII

Um, in case you didn't know your history. Japan hoped to sue for peace as they knew they couldn't win.

What an amazingly foolish and completly WRONG statement.
First about your "little slight: comment.
Was the Facist enslavement of Asia a "little slight"?
The Japanese hoped to destroy American naval power with Pearl Harbor,
against the advice of their best military minds I might add. they hoped that with the Pacific fleet destroyed America would sue for peace.
Very bad plan.
Militarly Japan los the war at Midway, yet they sacrificed the Navy, the JAAF, the JNAF and Japan itself before surrendering.
Quote Wiki all you want, you have no understanding of history, you are a classic example of revisionism. The threat the world faced from facist Germany and Japan was real, and you have obviosly no comprehension of the gravity of that threat.

reply to post by dooper

So we did the most humane thing, and saved millions of casualties and dead.

Okay, I get saving millions of casualties but how on earth did you save the dead? Do you know something we don't?

reply to post by Mintwithahole.


A casualty is properly defined as wounded or dead.

The dead are just dead.

Thus the differentiation.

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


This takes the cake. So according to you conspiracy theorists America hasnt accomplished a thing. I guess the fact that we even exist is just an illusion. We are all still in Britain being tricked by strange pictures that we are actually in the brave new world.
1. Nasa lies
2. We havent been to the moon.
3. and now, there is no atomic bomb.

Classic!

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by Mintwithahole.

 

A casualty is properly defined as wounded or dead.

The dead are just dead.

Thus the differentiation.

I'm sorry but you've lost me. I thought if you were a casualty then you were injured! The casualty ward in my local hospital is full of people who are injured or sick but who are expected to get better. Last time I looked I didn't see that ward full of corpses!
However, you're right about the dead. They are just dead!

None of this changes the fact that the Americans were quite within their right to drop the fat boy on Hiroshima. If the roles had been reversed you can bet your last dollar that Japan wouldn't have hesitated on dropping the nuclear bomb on an American city.

reply to post by grapesofraft


When I first joined ATS there was a thread about the non-existence of nuclear weapons. I remember there being no reasoning with the non-believers of nuclear weapons. I wondered when they would show up here.
I guess both of these threads are going to go downhill fast. Maybe it's time for me to go nuke my wife....

First ask yourself. How does the pacific fleet headquarters gets attacked by a fleet consisting of these numbers.

Mobile Unit:
6 aircraft carriers,
2 battleships,
2 heavy cruisers,
1 light cruiser,
9 destroyers,
8 tankers,
23 fleet submarines,
5 midget submarines,
414 aircraft

Easy, we didn't know they were there.
Uh, it was 1941, primative radar, no sattelites, no nothing.
I suggest you read some naval history, Japanese and American.
Read about the agonizing ( on both sides), searches to find the enemy in the Pacific. Read about the Decisive Battle theory of naval engagement. read how MOST all the discoveries of fleet positions were by a thread, how battle groups were moved on guesswork, intuition and luck.
READ SOME NAVAL HISTORY!!!!

reply to post by TrustMeImaSalesman


Want to compare Hiroshima to Pearl Harbor?

Well how many civilians were killed in pearl harbor (Not many, becuase the japanese struck at THE MILITARY)

How many civilians were killed in Hiroshima? 250k with continuing health problems of those who lived.

It's pretty barbaric if you think it's OK to bomb civilians.

reply to post by tamusan


Sounds like a plan. If I were you I would nuke my little asian wife but good. You are a lucky man, they are all so beautiful. I got a couple of little asian kids, now I just need me an asian wife to finish up the deal.

[edit on 8/7/2009 by grapesofraft]

reply to post by tamusan


Isaid it before here on ATS and got a barrage of hateful comments in return.....but here goes again:
I was told by a WWII veteran, whom swore this until his death-bed: that America Bombed its own ships in Pearl Harbour.
An inside job; reminds me of the world trade centres!
This apparently was ordered (much to servicemens disgust) to allow America a political reason to enter the conflict!!??

reply to post by Miraj


It is not barbaric to bomb civilians as long as they are not on your side. It is actually a good war strategy.

reply to post by KRISKALI777


Well since some guy you know told you that then it must make it true.

Want to compare Hiroshima to Pearl Harbor?

Well how many civilians were killed in pearl harbor (Not many, becuase the japanese struck at THE MILITARY)

How many civilians were killed in Hiroshima? 250k with continuing health problems of those who lived.

It's pretty barbaric if you think it's OK to bomb civilians.

It's meaningless to compare.
Read abot Japan during the war. Boo hoo.
You are upset about bombing civilianss?
how do you feel about mass rape, torture and murder of civilians?
I guess it was fine for Japan, as a matter of policy, to offer rewards to soldiers for killing civilians in China to insure non resistance.
a fav was to wrap a woman or child in Gasoline soaked blankets, the force the parents to watch them burn alive. another great time was to bayonet as many civilians as possible. That will keep em in line for the Greater asain Coprsperity Shere.
But i guess Fillipinos, chinese, Koreans, Thais etc don't count.
READ SOME HISTORY!!!

reply to post by Miraj

It's pretty barbaric if you think it's OK to bomb civilians.

Ever since man learnt to fly they have used that ability to drop bombs on their enemy. Killing innocent civilians is, like you say, barbaric- and immoral. . . but war brings the worst out of man. Killing the enemies civilians is a good way of destroying their resolve. It's not right, it's not pretty but thats war for you. . .

So I take it some of ya'll would have prefered that we launch a full scale ground invasion of Japan?

That makes sense... absolutely no civilians would have died if we had done that instead.

It was the least of 2 evils... thats just how it goes...

reply to post by grapesofraft


No need to get sarcastic, just throwng it out there. There have been other atrocities commited directly to American soldiers in other conflicts also, by their own command.
At any rate, seeing the info available regarding 9/11 I would have to say that I believe anything is plausable in this respect.

reply to post by Mintwithahole.


Mint, we're using military definitions.

Actually, a casualty is killed, missing, or wounded.

Total those up, and you have total casualties.

But if you want to be more specific of the nature of the casualties, you can specify.

More were killed in the fighting during 81 days of fighting on Okinawa than died in both atomic bombs.

That would include American military dead, Japanese military dead, and Japanese civilian dead.

reply to post by KRISKALI777


I would entertain the idea that we bombed Pearl ourselves. I won't argue on that point. It's the "nuke's do not exist" train of thought that gives me an aneurysm.

I'll be back later.

Oh. Grapesofraft. If you are serious give me a u2u. I will turn you on to a place to meet someone.

reply to post by OldDragger


Actually, we knew they were coming before their embassy did. And sat on our hands.

Originally posted by XTexan
So I take it some of ya'll would have prefered that we launch a full scale ground invasion of Japan?

That makes sense... absolutely no civilians would have died if we had done that instead.

It was the least of 2 evils... thats just how it goes...

So making the choice to kill civillians instead of choosing to try and not kill civillians, do you think there is no difference?

This is not about what if, statistics etc, nobody really knows what would have happened.

But I must say that if more people set good examples such as NOT killing civillians NO matter what, the future of this planet would be in a better state.

It's all about morals, morals change the world, it shapes it into the world you live in.

Do you think that by thinking that "the end justifies the means" it is setting a good example to the world, to our children?





[edit on 7-8-2009 by _Phoenix_]