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.

 

Use of Nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki: A more humane way to end the war just as quick?

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 


well every assassination needs to be promptly followed up by a regime change with a new successor that has ethnic/royal/racial (whatever applicable) ties to his/her predecessor and the nation in question.

That is what differentiates a untimely demise of head(s) of state in a tragic mishap from matyrdom and a call to arms against the assassination source.




posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
To the poster who said the Blitz of London does not compare to the bombing of Hiroshima, I agree.

However you simply have no idea what people like my mother (a novice nun & nurse) went through each and every day. The Luftwaffe bombers at night and the V1 and V2s during the day. 24 hours and day, day after day, week after week. It never ended.

You cannot imagine the sheer and abject terror of hearing a V1 flying over your city and the sudden silence as its engine cut out.

You cannot imagine the sheer terror and helplessness of waiting for the warhead to strike, not knowing if it is going to hit your street or even your home, knowing in your heart that your Anderson Shelter would not protect you.

You simply have no knowledge of what it was like to be walking along a street in London only to have it disappear in front of you as a V2 rocket exploded.

At least the people of Hiroshima did not know what was coming and that bombing mission was justified. Was the dropping of the second bomb necessary or even justifiable? In my opinion, no!

I believe Japan would have, probably would have, surrendered had they been given an ultimation, much like George Bush Snr in 1991 when he reclassified Biological and Chemical weapons as WMDs, which of course, they are not and threatened to use nuclear weapons against Iraq.

None of us know the politics of 1945 and none of us were faced with making the decision as to whether or not the second bomb should be used.

Incidentally, chemical agents are battlefield weapons whilst biological agents are theatre weapons.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by fritz
 


The US has always considered NBC weapons as WMD , that did not start with George Bush Sr, as early as the 1940s it has been the policy of the US and later NATO that Biological and Chemical attacks would be met with a nuclear response as the US and NATO countries maintain Chemical and Biological weapons in small amounts for test and training only. At least as of 1993 that was the case it might have changed by now.

[edit on 5/30/2010 by DarkStormCrow]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by DarkStormCrow[/url]

That well may have been the US position my friend, but I can state quite categorically that GB UK Ltd was able to engage any enemy with both Biological and Chemical agents, well into the early 70s!

We had a large stockpile of Anthax, Cholera, Smallpox and Brucellosis to name but a few.

Even today, stockpiles of Chlorine, Phosgene and Lewisite can literally turn up on long forgotten former ammunition storage sites.

Only about 5 years ago, a forgotten bunker complex of Phosgene-Oxime was literally stumbled upon in the Thetford Training area. Nobody knew it was there because records had been lost years before.

There are stockpiles of certain biological and chemical agents but these are for research purposes 'only' but can also be used when necessary to 'brew' some more if and when needed.

GB UK Ltd has never regarded biological and chemical agents as WMDs because, by their very nature, they do not produce mass casualties.

Yes Saddam Hussein killed whole villages with chemical agents (we did the same in Afghanistan and so did the Italians in Africa) but aircraft together with tubed and rocket artillery carried out the attacks.

If you knew anything about the volatility of such weapons, you'd know that these agents have very short life spans and are a double edged weapon to say the lest.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by fritz


.....Yes Saddam Hussein killed whole villages with chemical agents (we did the same in Afghanistan and so did the Italians in Africa) but aircraft together with tubed and rocket artillery carried out the attacks.


When did we use chemical agents in Afghanistan?
When did the Italians use it?

I certainly haven't heard anything about the UK ever using them and am not sure if Italy has ever had the capability.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Are you serious? This event occurred and there is nothing we can do about it now. Arguing about this seems a little ridiculous. It's also funny how some people forget what the Japanese did to the Chinese as well as other countries. The atom bombs saved a land invasion.

Edit to add: If you want to look up some of the atrocities committed by the Japanese look up "the rape of Nanking" that should suffice.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by FearfulButInterested]

[edit on 30-5-2010 by FearfulButInterested]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by FearfulButInterested
Are you serious? This event occurred and there is nothing we can do about it now. Arguing about this seems a little ridiculous. It's also funny how some people forget what the Japanese did to the Chinese as well as other countries. The atom bombs saved a land invasion.

Edit to add: If you want to look up some of the atrocities committed by the Japanese look up "the rape of Nanking" that should suffice.


Allow me to comment on your remarks exclusively. Especially the second sentence, because that is what I saw that caught my eye. Now, you are stating that by talking about events from our past is meaningless, and in this instance, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Well, with all due respect, this particular item of warfare needs to be discussed and discussed quite thoroughly. Especially, by those with their hands on the button and access to nuclear weapons. Humanity made one of its biggest blunders by going the road of deploying atomic weapons in WWII. It opened a Pandora's Box that we have not been able to put the lid on ever since. Plus, recently, we have rogue nations with or seeking nuclear weapons to use preemptively or defensively.

In that light, by talking about what transpired in the past is the only possible assurance that it may never happen again. So, by talking about what happened, and why "Fat Man," and "Little Boy," were deployed on the Japanese homeland is not only essentially, but crucial if we are going to avoid that dastardly act in the future. We are playing around with very concept of wholesale annihilation of human race by our own hands.

Now, it is well documented that the Japanese were ruthless enemies to civilians and combatants, however, what does that make the United States when it partook in the same activities by turning Hiroshima and Nagasaki into one big crematorium? That is something we have to think about?

Below are graphic photos of the victims of the Atomic Bomb. I wont post the actually video, because they are quite morbid and grotesque. Viewer discretion is advised.

www.youtube.com...

Here is a man on the street recreation of the Hiroshima bomb by the BBC.



With the videos above, and the severity of deploying such weapons, that is why we are discussing it today and for as long humanity occupies this little speck of dust we call Earth. Moreover, it prevented "Operation Downfall,"the US land invasion of the Japanese homeland, and the speculated wholes sale slaughter and decimation of not only US service members but the entire Japanese race and culture. We will know never the results of "Operation Downfall," because it never happened, but we do know the results of the atomic bombings of Japan. On a side note, both of my Grandfathers were WWII veterans who fought in the US Navy and US Army respectively, and I have family members who are Japanese. So, this particular topic is near and dear to me. That why I believe it is as relevant today, as it was then.



[edit on 30-5-2010 by Jakes51]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by hinky
 
Now to reference my quote. My father would have gotten his feet wet and had more combat experience, first hand not leading from the rear, than any person listed. Millions of Americans, in my generation, are alive because of the bombs." End Quote.

Your father and mine.
My Dad told me of men crying, himself included, when they heard the news, Japan had surrender.
He said they all knew, they'd have to of killed every person they confronted. They new after fighting on other islands, that every one was a threat to them and would kill them if they could.
My father survived two other island campaigns.
I really don't believe if Dad had been in the invasion of Japan, I wouldn't be here today and many of you wouldn't be here either.
By the way, Dad, He's still alive, yup!, 89 years old and lives with me every since Mother died.
There are many here that lurk that are in the age group of hinky and myself.
edit to add: It happened and I'm Happy some one had the BALLS / Gonads to make that decision.
Please stop Blaming America because you can't sleep. If you want to re-write history to make America the bad guys. You can BITE ME!

[edit on 30-5-2010 by guohua]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn[/url]

We Brits used Mustard gas - probably Chlorine, Phosgene or Phosgene-Oxime against Afghani villages in the 20s and 30s.

Spain used Mustard Gas in Iraq or North Africa during the same period whilst the Italians used Mustard Gas in Ethiopia and Abyssinia.

www.britannica.com...

Nothing to do with modern warfare as you probably suspected.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by fritz]



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by guohua
 


The point is the biting has begun. Militarily.. economically.. socially/culturally.. in almost every aspect of life on almost every other country on this planet.

I am sorry but I don't see how you can justify the life of your father (no disrespect to him) by killing civilians of another country. Its ... just unbelievable.

I hope your mindset is a minority in your country, for it just fuels hatred towards it.
If you'd taken time to go through the entire thread, you would realize that the intention is NOT to blame America, it is to understand the amazing human psyche; the extents it will go to (even in the most conducive and liberal places on this planet) justify atrocities to satiate itself..
What's the difference then? Between the best and the worst this planet has to offer?
You know what takes more balls than dropping the bomb?
Admitting that it was wrong. And I am happy to see that some people accept that here. Irrespective of whether they are American or not.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I'm sorry, but I don't see the aquisition of nuclear know how as being the Holy Grail

This unhealthy belief that certain countries hold, is simply beyond me! It is far more expensive to seek uranium and enrich it for the manufacture of weapons grade uranium.

Were I a master terrorist like Bin Laden, or a tin pot dictator, I would invest my pennies in a half decent petro-chemical industry or back of the cave lab.

From that half decent petro-chemical industry or that back room chemical lab, I would develop my biological and chemical agents.

Bearing in mind that my enemies could be kept in prisons, I would have an endless supply of human guinea pigs on which to test my agents.

The quest for the Holy Grail and membership of the nuclear club, is quite beyond most 2nd or 3rd world countries.

But two or three phials of Anthrax delivered to every home via the water supply, is the cheaper option of destroying your enemy.

Think about it for a minute or two and you'll agree with me.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus3
 

You know what takes more balls than dropping the bomb?
Admitting that it was wrong.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then what was right?
Firebombing? starvation? Just letting the entire nation of Japan commit suicide? Why are those deaths more ' moral"?
At the time, ( not your revisionist pretend world), the A bomb was'nt "THE ATOMIC BOMB", it was just a really big bomb. Not that special, just a huge bomb. It was called exactly that by the Japanese military when reporting to Hirohito,he was told it cause no more destruction than the usual firebombing raid ( true). It's only in the light of the last 65 years that you have the luxury of being so moral. You also have the luxury of sitting safe and sound instead of being in combat.
The ONLY truly moral objection would be pacifism, all the rest is posturing and gamesmanship.



[edit on 3-6-2010 by OldDragger]

[edit on 3-6-2010 by OldDragger]

[edit on 3-6-2010 by OldDragger]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   
So "America is anointed to win all over the world, therefore let kill 'em all with nukes, better they than we? "

let turn the cards - if America will be beaten finally (Babylon the Great) wouldn't be more humane to nuke as many bases as possible in the first strike that will last a minute?


"I sit as Queen...

www.biblegateway.com...
Revelation 18
"Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great!
She has become a home for demons
and a haunt for every evil[a] spirit,
a haunt for every unclean and detestable bird.
3For all the nations have drunk
the maddening wine of her adulteries.
The kings of the earth committed adultery with her,
and the merchants of the earth grew rich from her excessive luxuries."

4Then I heard another voice from heaven say:
"Come out of her, my people,
so that you will not share in her sins,
so that you will not receive any of her plagues;
5for her sins are piled up to heaven,
and God has remembered her crimes.
6Give back to her as she has given;
pay her back double for what she has done.
Mix her a double portion from her own cup.
7Give her as much torture and grief
as the glory and luxury she gave herself.
In her heart she boasts,
'I sit as queen; I am not a widow,
and I will never mourn.'
8Therefore in one day her plagues will overtake her:
death, mourning and famine.
She will be consumed by fire,
for mighty is the Lord God who judges her.

[edit on 3-6-2010 by Gliese581]

[edit on 3-6-2010 by Gliese581]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldDragger
Firebombing? starvation? Just letting the entire nation of Japan commit suicide? Why are those deaths more ' moral"?


What would have been right is the very purpose of this thread, right from the pilot post through the last ~10 pages.
The entire nation would commit suicide??!! Why in blazes..?
If the means of dispensing death are equally moral (or immoral), then any act is justifiable.

This includes the leveling of the towers on 9/11. Would you call that a terrorist attack or an act of war? By your definition, it is an act of war.
Were the attackers provoked You bet they were. State Dept. swashbuckling for the better part of the last 2-3 decades is that provocation.

Does it make such an attack ok? Not to me.



At the time, ( not your revisionist pretend world), the A bomb was'nt "THE ATOMIC BOMB", it was just a really big bomb. Not that special, just a huge bomb. It was called exactly that by the Japanese military when reporting to Hirohito,he was told it cause no more destruction than the usual firebombing raid ( true).


And so you mean that the usage was ill-formed and if the side effects would have been known, Truman+Byrnes would have thought otherwise?
Maybe Truman, Byrnes I wager not.
But this does make some sense, I agree.



It's only in the light of the last 65 years that you have the luxury of being so moral. You also have the luxury of sitting safe and sound instead of being in combat.


Whether I have been in live combat or not does not hold weight here in my humble opinion.
My definition of signing up to serve my country might be different from yours, perhaps the whole ideology of serving is different in our countries.
I hold no qualms about moral high ground; my country has taken part in military operations that I am not proud of. But I like to look at the justified actions as examples to follow and the unjustified ones as reminders and learning experiences. That is the purpose of this thread.

The reasons behind my perceived luxury of not serving my country at this moment are not as trivial as you lay them out to be. Serving is an honour and a fulltime commitment in my country, completely voluntary since the beginning. I may serve in the future or not. That does dictate whether I can debate here or not.
Are you saying that the justification for using atomic weapons on cities can be understood by veterans only? American veterans? Or veterans in general? Any country?



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus3
 


The entire nation would commit suicide??!! Why in blazes..?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why indeed! If you don't understand that concept, then you don't understand the situation ( at all) that the Japanese and Allies were facing.
Without understanding that much of the Japanese military, ( and they controlled the government), thought it preferable to destroy the nation than surrender. If you don't know that or believe it, you are woefully ignorant of the subject.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
reply to post by fritz
 


The US has always considered NBC weapons as WMD , that did not start with George Bush Sr, as early as the 1940s it has been the policy of the US and later NATO that Biological and Chemical attacks would be met with a nuclear response as the US and NATO countries maintain Chemical and Biological weapons in small amounts for test and training only. At least as of 1993 that was the case it might have changed by now.

[edit on 5/30/2010 by DarkStormCrow]


The US holds a policy that is kind of differant know.

Nuclear we won't use first. Although Obama wants it changed back to what you described.

Biological we will never use

Chemical we use as a last resort.

Fun fact #1.

Chlorine was the first chemicle weapon used. It was a favorite in WW1.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Miracle Man[/url]

Actually Miracleman, the first use of chemical weapons was discovered by Dr Simon James almost 70 years after the discovery of the bodies of 20 or 30 Roman soldiers in a tunnel they were digging during the seige of Duro-Europos.

These tunnels were being dug in order for the beseiged Romand to break out and attack the Persians in the rear.

Archeologists believe the toxic gas used - produced by mixing sulphur crystals and bitumen which, when heated, was pumped into the tunnel killing the Roman soldiers.

The so called Greek Fire was also a chemical weapon and used by most, if not all, naval units during this period - I think.

Also America HAS used chemical weapons especially in Viet Nam when Agent Orange [a Toxin derived from a Biological source] was used to defoliate the dense jungle.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by fritz
 


See you are wrong.

As was I.

Modern Chemicle war fare started during WW1.

The part where you are wrong is you questioning our no first use policy when it comes to chemicle weapons.

The Vietnam war was 30 some odd years ago, alot has changed since then. You don't have to believe me, ask anyone who has joined the army in the last 15 years. It is part of basic soldier knowledge.

You can also find it in FMs (get a pen its a doozy of a list, the answer is somewhere in there)

3-3 through 3-7
3-9
3-11
3-13
3-14
3-19

Everything the army practices with Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (other wise known as NBC) is in those FMs.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 


If you honestly believe that the entire Japanese nation would commit suicide unless the bombs were dropped (or in any other situation disadvantageous to the Japanese leadership) then I have nothing more to say to you.

Even using this as a liberal metaphor is preposterous..

And I'm supposed to be ignorant?!




posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus3
 


I strongly suggest you read some history.
Really.
From the Allied view, and the Japanese.
Really.
Question?
Do you think it's better to be a shattered gem or an intact tile?

[edit on 4-6-2010 by OldDragger]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join