The use of nukes, a discussion on America

Originally posted by spinalremain
I also feel that the boms dropped to avoid a mainland invasion were completely justified. We must remember too that we were attacked while we were not at war 4 years prior.

Also, the bombs we dropped on Japan were only a fraction of what we can use today. The hydrogen bombs and fusion bombs are really incredible and make "Fat Man" look like a stick of dynamite.

It does rub me the wrong way when ppl say that America is evil because it's the only nation to use atomic weaponry in hostility. You cannot make a blanket statement like that while simultaneously dismissing all the surrounding data concerning the issue.

Wow. We agree on something.

Originally posted by spinalremain
What Patton actually said was "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

If we're going to quote Ole Blood N Guts, we have to include the use of his favortite word.

Apologies. Was going off the top of my head. Thanks for the correction.

reply to post by Iwinder


It's not just the US. The US has the biggest voice, but what about all the other surrounding countries? Wouldn't they have a say?

Of course, if you're just bashing America, then regardless of its (Amercas) position, it'd be wrong.

Originally posted by Dreamwatcher
There are some that would say the ending of WWII had more to do with Russia declaring war on Japan the day before the USA dropped "Little Boy", the second atomic bomb.


Aug 6, 1945 "Fat Man" dropped on Hiroshima.

Aug 8, 1945 Russia declares war on Japan, invades Japanese-ruled Manchuria.

Aug 9, 1945 "Little Boy" dropped on Nagasaki

Aug 14, 1945 Japan surrenders

I guess we my never know what caused the Japanese Emperor to finally surrender, but I would not discount Russia declaring war having a large part in it.

Or maybe Stalin put his hat in the ring because it was a done deal with the first nuke and he knew that it was all talk because of the US.

they could have easily just nuked a japanese maritime patrol or a base or something, not 2 civilian populations, which in my eyes was an act of terrorism and not the sensationalized kind, the real definition, to get the population to change it's ways through an act of fear, it was the greatest act of malicious intent in history, especially if what we are led to believe in theories around pearl harbour, about us drawing them into a conflict. then we see the result, american bases in japan and they eventually become westernized and defend their interests in that region.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by beezzer

Patton once said, "The object of war is not to die for your country. It's about making the other son of a bitch die for his."

I'll see your Generals quote, and raise you a General-President quote, I Win.
President Eisenhower, in his departing speech chose to WARN the American Public of the Industrial Military Complex, too bad no one was listening

President Eisenhower;
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

True. But misplaced power might also apply to. . . . . Iran just as well.

Originally posted by yourmaker
they could have easily just nuked a japanese maritime patrol or a base or something, not 2 civilian populations, which in my eyes was an act of terrorism and not the sensationalized kind, the real definition, to get the population to change it's ways through an act of fear, it was the greatest act of malicious intent in history, especially if what we are led to believe in theories around pearl harbour, about us drawing them into a conflict. then we see the result, american bases in japan and they eventually become westernized and defend their interests in that region.

War isn't about intimidation or acts of fear.
It's about winning. Period.

And you do what you have to do, in order to win.

This "Monday morning quarterbacking" is what drives me nuts! You need to stop thinking like a 21st century person for a moment and start thinking like a soldier who has been through 4 years of global war.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by mileslong54
reply to post by beezzer

 

Whether your the first to use a nuke or the last, it's wrong. So many innocent people died from Hiroshima that had nothing to do with any war and not to mention the suffering of those that didn't die from radiation and the tumors and cancer they got. It's a dirty weapon that affects everyone eventually with fallout and cancer.

edit on 18-1-2012 by mileslong54 because: (no reason given)

It was war!
Who gives a rat behind about causing suffering?

Were we worried about suffering when we bombed Dresen? Berlin?

War is all about causing so much damned sufferng that someone waves the white flag.

I agree.

We had NO choice but to use the "bomb".

Operation Downfall was the Allied plan for the invasion of Japan near the end of World War II. The operation was canceled when Japan surrendered after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Soviet Union's declaration of war against Japan. The operation had two parts: Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet. Set to begin in October 1945, Operation Olympic was intended to capture the southern third of the southernmost main Japanese island, Kyūshū, with the recently captured island of Okinawa to be used as a staging area. Later, in spring 1946, Operation Coronet was the planned invasion of the Kantō Plain, near Tokyo, on the Japanese island of Honshū. Airbases on Kyūshū captured in Operation Olympic would allow land-based air support for Operation Coronet.

In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.

In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7-4 million American casualties, including 400,000-800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

Operation Downfall


War is Hell.

This is why we never used the "bomb" again,and why we didn't have to.



S&F

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by yourmaker
they could have easily just nuked a japanese maritime patrol or a base or something, not 2 civilian populations, which in my eyes was an act of terrorism and not the sensationalized kind, the real definition, to get the population to change it's ways through an act of fear, it was the greatest act of malicious intent in history, especially if what we are led to believe in theories around pearl harbour, about us drawing them into a conflict. then we see the result, american bases in japan and they eventually become westernized and defend their interests in that region.

War isn't about intimidation or acts of fear.
It's about winning. Period.

And you do what you have to do, in order to win.

This "Monday morning quarterbacking" is what drives me nuts! You need to stop thinking like a 21st century person for a moment and start thinking like a soldier who has been through 4 years of global war.

High command never went through the pain of war, they were sitting comfortably in their quarters.
They had strategic interests from the get-go, one of them being the use of the atomic weapon.

reply to post by sonnny1


Thank you for that historical reference.

reply to post by yourmaker
Not true.

The Allies decided to use the atomic weapons on the Japanese in order to save American, British and even Japanese lives. The United States understood that Japanese government was preparing to sacrifice the whole nation to stop their invasion. In the air, the Kamikaze were ready to sacrifice themselves. American generals were predicting two to three million Japanese killed or wounded during an invasion.

President Truman wanted to issue a letter of warning giving an opportunity to surrender before using the atomic bomb. The letter warned the Japanese government that if they did not surrender completely, Japan would suffer "complete and utter destruction." The Japanese did not reply to the official letter, but the Americans knew the answer by reading the coded messages. Japan intended to fight to the death.

www.saskschools.ca...

reply to post by beezzer


No problem.


We have withstood the Cold War,without humanity destroying itself. America and the former Soviet Union and now Russia have tried to end the insanity. You have Nations like North Korea,and Iran stating peaceful purposes,with their Nuclear Ambitions,and North Korea actually making the bomb,regardless of sanctions,and World condemnation. Does ANYONE wonder why then,America feels like Iran is not going to comply with what the world community wants? A theology based regime of hardliners that believe wholeheartedly in the 12th Iman? Would they "use" one of the worlds most destructive devices to usher in that Religious prophecy? Did Adolf Hitler believe his reign would last 1000 years,and the Aryan Race was the only true sons of God?

Think about it.

reply to post by sonnny1
I agree.

America used the bomb as a weapon to end a war.

Other countries want to have the bomb to threaten, start a war, insure their regime continues, intimidate, bully, other nations.

The temptation is just too great, especially for weak-minded dictators.

It's also not just about USA telling Iran what it can and can't have. If people seriously think politics and running a country is that simple, then they really need a new hobby or to just stay away from these issues all together.

There's a reason the U.S. is telling Iran it cannot have nuclear weapons. There's a reason the U.S. is wanting to risk war and even nuclear war to make sure Iran doesn't get a hold of such technology. It's not about telling a country what it can and can't have.

Why do we tell Iran they may not posses a nuclear device or have a nuclear weapons program? But then allow North Korea to do so? Very simple. Iran is smack dab in the midst of the world's energy supply. No, not just the USA's, this is not about greed of oil as many would like to say or call it. Other nations depend on this energy supply as well. Other nations we do business with, ally with, and so on. These nations also have ties to other nations and so on and so on. If Iran becomes the pest it's aiming to be, they will do everything in their power to upset the way the world currently turns. They will without a doubt in my mind control the middle east and all of it's resources. The stakes are much higher here. This will completely upset the balance of the world one nation at a time. Complete domino effect were looking at here. Now do you all see why it's so important for the U.S. to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions? Now do you see why were not worried about North Korea as much for now? North Korea may become a viable threat in the future, but if that happens they will do something that will justify a harsh strike from the get go. None of this "world condemnation" act of the U.S. like we're getting with the Iran project.

What I mean is, North Korea is already hated or disliked by just about every country on the earth. North Korea offers no real goods, services, or resources to anyone. North Korea is also surviving by a thread most of the time which is eventually what will make them act first if they do decide to use some type of military force. When that happens, the world will see it and give the U.S. the go ahead. Iran on the other hand knows it can't act first and knows the world is watching. So many people also don't see the real threat that they are because most people just simply don't care or haven't looked at the situation deeply enough and thought out all scenario's.

I think we need to go in to Iran, strike hard, strike fast. Disable their defense capabilities that threaten the flow of the world the most. Disband any and all members of their current gov't, set up a more "world" friendly and by all means "saner" gov't. This latter play would be of course harder than planned out. So we strike the nuke sites and move on. This will save 1,000's of american and/or coalition soldiers lives, hundreds of thousands of Iranian's lives, and put so much fear in the minds of the current administration they will never even dream of nukes/nuclear energy again. They will throw out all uranium posters they have hanging in their bedrooms and toss out their mushroom cloud boxers. A few strategic nuke strikes will easily do the job, save lives, and stop any and all ambitions. And most importantly save the world. A few nukes lighting up the sky will seriously change some minds. If the nuke-in-my-backyard doesn't wake the Supreme Leader up, the Iranian's will wake him/them up so they won't see anymore nukes any time soon. Japan was a country that wasn't afraid to die, but when those nukes fell, they quickly changed their minds. I believe the Iranian's will to.

Once you think about it with an open mind, the U.S. doesn't look so evil after all.

Originally posted by mileslong54
reply to post by beezzer

 

Whether your the first to use a nuke or the last, it's wrong. So many innocent people died from Hiroshima that had nothing to do with any war and not to mention the suffering of those that didn't die from radiation and the tumors and cancer they got. It's a dirty weapon that affects everyone eventually with fallout and cancer.

edit on 18-1-2012 by mileslong54 because: (no reason given)

300,000 dead from the nuclear bombings compared to the projected 15 million dead had Operation Downfall (the US invasion of the Japanese Home Islands) been launched.

reply to post by beezzer


sorry that is a rubbish agrument, it never saved millions of lifes. Know your history Japan was in the process of defining its surrender when this happened. That is what i got taught in school in the uk. You may have been taught different in the us..

Although Japanese peace feelers had been sent out as early as September 1944 (and [China's] Chiang Kai-shek had been approached regarding surrender possibilities in December 1944), the real effort to end the war began in the spring of 1945. This effort stressed the role of the Soviet Union ... In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting.

www.ihr.org...


they wanted to test their new toys....

reply to post by J.Son79
Well said.

I have a question though.

If we were oil independent, do you then feel that we'd be more forgiving of a regime that wanted the bomb?

Originally posted by SG-17
300,000 dead from the nuclear bombings compared to the projected 15 million dead had Operation Downfall (the US invasion of the Japanese Home Islands) been launched.

Thanks for the numbers.

Truly staggering.

reply to post by purplemer

The Allies decided to use the atomic weapons on the Japanese in order to save American, British and even Japanese lives. The United States understood that Japanese government was preparing to sacrifice the whole nation to stop their invasion. In the air, the Kamikaze were ready to sacrifice themselves. American generals were predicting two to three million Japanese killed or wounded during an invasion.

President Truman wanted to issue a letter of warning giving an opportunity to surrender before using the atomic bomb. The letter warned the Japanese government that if they did not surrender completely, Japan would suffer "complete and utter destruction." The Japanese did not reply to the official letter, but the Americans knew the answer by reading the coded messages. Japan intended to fight to the death.

www.saskschools.ca...

I don't think it was just about testing new toys.

They wanted to end the war.

This showed that it did, indeed end the war.

reply to post by purplemer


BS.

Japan's secret cables intercepted and decoded by the United States failed to suggest Japan had any desire to surrender. James F. Byrnes memoirs suggest that there was no reason to delay the use of the atomic bomb. A decoded cable from Japanese militarists to Japan’s Ambassador in Moscow read: “We cannot consent to unconditional surrender under any circumstances. Even if the war drags on, so long as the enemy demands unconditional surrender we will fight as one man against the enemy in accordance with the Emperor’s command.” Byrnes said, “That cable, which we intercepted, depressed me terribly. It meant using the atomic bomb; it probably meant Russia’s entry into the war” (Sigal, 7).

Truman's Motivations: Using the Atomic Bomb in the Second World War