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.

 

Dropping the Atomic Bombs On Japan Was Justified!

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
The Japanese knew they the American and British would concetrate solely on them, that's why they were trying to surrender.


They had known that since the Potsdam conference.

The Japanese no longer were able to manufacture equipment in sufficient quantity to keep fighting the Allies. However their bushido code, which was rammed down their throats from day one, did not allow for surrendering.

It took a large gesture before they finally realied the futility of continuing the war.




posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 12:44 PM
link   
The bombs were used as an experiment on people. Although hundreds had been tested before, none had been used on people. And have been a scare tactic (cold war) ever since.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 12:44 PM
link   


Authoritative Voices of Dissent

American leaders who were in a position to know the facts did not believe, either at the time or later, that the atomic bombings were needed to end the war.

When he was informed in mid-July 1945 by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson of the decision to use the atomic bomb, General Dwight Eisenhower was deeply troubled. He disclosed his strong reservations about using the new weapon in his 1963 memoir, The White House Years: Mandate for Change, 1953-1956 (pp. 312-313):

During his [Stimson's] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of "face."

"The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing ... I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon," Eisenhower said in 1963.

Shortly after "V-J Day," the end of the Pacific war, Brig. General Bonnie Fellers summed up in a memo for General MacArthur: "Neither the atomic bombing nor the entry of the Soviet Union into the war forced Japan's unconditional surrender. She was defeated before either these events took place."

Similarly, Admiral Leahy, Chief of Staff to presidents Roosevelt and Truman, later commented:

It is my opinion that the use of the barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan ... The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an 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.

If the United States had been willing to wait, said Admiral Ernest King, US Chief of Naval Operations, "the effective naval blockade would, in the course of time, have starved the Japanese into submission through lack of oil, rice, medicines, and other essential materials."

Leo Szilard, a Hungarian-born scientist who played a major role in the development of the atomic bomb, argued against its use. "Japan was essentially defeated," he said, and "it would be wrong to attack its cities with atomic bombs as if atomic bombs were simply another military weapon." In a 1960 magazine article, Szilard wrote: "If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them."

LINKIE



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 01:26 PM
link   
An article for all of you who think that the bombings were justified: Link



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mirthful Me

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
At the beginning of World War II, the bombing of civilians was regarded as a barbaric act.


You obviously haven't heard of Sherman's march through Georgia.



From source
World War II began on September 1, 1939, in Poland when the German Luftwaffe began to bomb military targets. When Warsaw continued to fight, German leader Adolf Hitler approved the dropping of five tons of bombs on the city, hastening Polands surrender. As German tanks rolled through the rest of continental Europe, Hitler used the example of the bombing of Warsaw to encourage submission. But with minor exceptions, there were no more bombings of civilian targets on either side. Hitler even released War Directive #2 that forbade bombing attacks on France or England except as reprisals.


Air Power WW II essay and source for quote.

The idea that civilian populations are off-limits in war is a constraint abandoned at first opportunity, or necessity depending on which side your on. The continued bleating (yes, the noise sheep make) of "war must be fair" demonstrates a lack of understanding of human basic instinct for survival. As I have said before, war must be the most horrific man made plague that can assail this squalid rock we call home, anything less would make it a palatable option.


I nowhere said it was not done.But in the early days of the war it was indeed regarded as a barbaric act. Im talking about how the majority of countries viewed those acts at the start. I also said it was a view that was dropped by all sides during the war.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
Um, YES. Dresden was a state-sponsored terrorist attack, the Bombing of Britain by the Nazis (targetting civilian populations) was a state-sponsored terrorist attack.


War is not state sponsored terrorism in the classic sence. Japan and the US were in a declared war. That is the whole point. Are you trying to create a Strwman Argument by trying to link a recognized war with terrorism?



However, as I pointed out, you were not there. You saying it was justified is not much compared to Eisenhower and Undersecretaries of State and Admirals at the TIME of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What's your qualification? History Major? Ex-Air Force?


No different thatn your or anybody else on the board. But if you want to throw sheepskins down ont he mat we can. No I persued History as a major, along with Undeclared and Psychology before getting my BSN. I am no more or less an expert than anybody else on this board. This would be a dull place if those were the criteria.



"Shock effect" equates with "terror effect".


Again: declared war....... By your logic, my granfather who jumped into france on D-Day is a terrorist.....




[edit on 9-8-2004 by FredT]



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 01:45 PM
link   
I wonder if people in the USA have ANY accurate info in their history books.

Similar to this whole Hiroshima fiasco (people DEFENDING the slaughter of innocents), I can't tell you how many times I've heard the case stated that the Americans WON WORLD WAR TWO for the rest of the world.

Never mind that the country that lost BY FAR the most soldiers was Russia. Never mind that Britain faced weeks of bombing. Never mind the THOUSANDS of Poles, Czechs, French, Hungarians, etc, who lost their lives fighting till their dying breath.


I heard a fantastic quote when I was arguing about this a few weeks ago with a friend.

"The United States has the most entertained and least informed people on the face of the planet."

When it comes to WWII, I think some of you Americans are reading an entirely different account of history than the rest of us (or basing it on Hollywood movies).

GREAT quote from the link that Eddie999 set up:


Anscombes point is worth following up. Suppose that, when we invaded Germany in early 1945, our leaders had believed that executing all the inhabitants of Aachen, or Trier, or some other Rhineland city would finally break the will of the Germans and lead them to surrender. In this way, the war might have ended quickly, saving the lives of many Allied soldiers. Would that then have justified shooting tens of thousands of German civilians, including women and children? Yet how is that different from the atomic bombings?


Let's hear some good rationalizations!



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by timberwulf
The bombs were used as an experiment on people. Although hundreds had been tested before, none had been used on people. And have been a scare tactic (cold war) ever since.


Actually only one had been tested.... Trinity. They still were not 100% sure that the small boy would work. It was a differnt type that the implosion device used at Trinity. I agree the Cold War policy of MAD kept our politicians in Check (Maybe not Curtis LeMay, god was he ever the loose cannon).



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo

I wonder if people in the USA have ANY accurate info in their history books.

Similar to this whole Hiroshima fiasco (people DEFENDING the slaughter of innocents), I can't tell you how many times I've heard the case stated that the Americans WON WORLD WAR TWO for the rest of the world.

Never mind that the country that lost BY FAR the most soldiers was Russia. Never mind that Britain faced weeks of bombing. Never mind the THOUSANDS of Poles, Czechs, French, Hungarians, etc, who lost their lives fighting till their dying breath.


When it comes to WWII, I think some of you Americans are reading an entirely different account of history than the rest of us (or basing it on Hollywood movies).

Let's hear some good rationalizations!




So you think America didnt have a Important role in WW2? If you dont then I would hate to see the history books you have read. The second front was one of the most important events of the WW2. If Germany could have focused the bulk of its forces on the Russian front that outcome could have been very different. If either Russia or the United States stayed out of the war the Axis powers would have won. The only thing that stopped America from getting bombed was thousands of miles of ocean. You have to remember that the US was fighting both the Japanse and Germanys at the same timw. Russia declared War on Japan after we nuked them.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by timberwulf
The bombs were used as an experiment on people. Although hundreds had been tested before, none had been used on people. And have been a scare tactic (cold war) ever since.


Actually only one had been tested.... Trinity. They still were not 100% sure that the small boy would work. It was a differnt type that the implosion device used at Trinity. I agree the Cold War policy of MAD kept our politicians in Check (Maybe not Curtis LeMay, god was he ever the loose cannon).


This may be OT, but I was reading an interview with Stanley Kubrick where he said that Curtis LeMay was his inspiration for the Dr. Strangelove character in the movie of the same name.

-koji K.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Jakomo,

I agree with you one hundred percent it is very sad indeed that US teachings of history through the US way, religiously revised and edited made in US books.

I came from another side even when Puerto Rico is part of US our books did not come from US now they do.

When I came to the US, I was surprised to see the type of bias material some of the books in schools are so superficial and over edited those children cannot get the facts straight and usually they get lost during the topics.

It is like anything in wish US causes thousands of people to die has to be justified. I wonder whenever I see a post about Iraq (war) when did the invasion in Iraq for freedom turned into a war in Iraq.

I see the history books ten years from now taking about US war against terrorist in Iraq and the so call liberation and invasion will be forgotten.

And for anybody that thinks I had not reason to talk about war because I was not born in US soil well I never knew my grandfather because he die for this country during the World war II he was an Italian American
.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Just thought I'd point out the (I'm sure coincedential) timing of this thread.

Today is the 59th anniversary of the dropping of the bomb on Nagasaki.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
This may be OT, but I was reading an interview with Stanley Kubrick where he said that Curtis LeMay was his inspiration for the Dr. Strangelove character in the movie of the same name.
-koji K.


I heard it was Edward Teller. Both fit the role to a tee. Tellar was pissed that they wasted time on the ABomb when they could have built a H Bomb.....



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
I wonder if people in the USA have ANY accurate info in their history books.
Similar to this whole Hiroshima fiasco (people DEFENDING the slaughter of innocents), I can't tell you how many times I've heard the case stated that the Americans WON WORLD WAR TWO for the rest of the world.
Never mind that the country that lost BY FAR the most soldiers was Russia. Never mind that Britain faced weeks of bombing. Never mind the THOUSANDS of Poles, Czechs, French, Hungarians, etc, who lost their lives fighting till their dying breath.


No Doubt many countries suffered a great deal during the second WW. How quickly though the efforts of the US is cast aside in YOUR revsionist historical accounts of the events of WWII. Perhaps you forgot to add that without US equipment and troops those of you so quick to point the finger at the US would all still be speaking German. Yes we would have been next, but countless Americans came and died on YOUR soil to save YOUR continent, YOUR land, and YOUR way of life.

Take a look at the rows of graves on the Normandy Coast. What did those men die for. The bottom line is this. Without US intervention in WWII Great Britan would have fallen eventualy to the Nazi's relentless march. Russia also benifited from lend lease items as did England.


I heard a fantastic quote when I was arguing about this a few weeks ago with a friend."The United States has the most entertained and least informed people on the face of the planet."


Perhaps, but the facts of WWII are just that FACTS. Perhaps now safe and sound your historians are rewritting history books to somehow diminish Americas contribution to WWII but really now. Pehaps in this area You are the uninformed?





[edit on 9-8-2004 by FredT]


kix

posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 07:59 PM
link   
To add even more salt and gasoline to this wond and thread....

I Saw at the history channel that the Jappannesse were going to drop a bomb with the bubonic plague in San diego or San francisco. They did not because the general in charge of Japan submarine Fleet did not lend one of his subs creu and a Shinden Kai (a aircraft) to deliver the biological bomb.

A super epidemic would have crippled the us even with the bombs, luckily it did not happen because maybe they would have won the war...! (the drop was scheduled for the 29 of July of 1945)

I do not endorse the use of the bomb but as they saying goes in Love and WAR everything GOES



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 08:40 PM
link   
We didnt kill 300,000 + troops with those bombs,it was civilians..Only other word justified to discribe dropping 2 nuclear weapons on japan is simply a holocaust...

thats all that realy can be said,we bought death to 300,000 civilians instantly.

No way to justify that..Its a shame.

Saddam dropped some gas and killed 10,000 civilians,we droped 2 nuked and slaughtered 300,000+ instantly

A complete disgrace

[edit on 10-8-2004 by bigtex007]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join