Nagasaki had it coming

[ilikeboobs]

Just saw this over the wire:

TOKYO - All nuclear powers should eliminate their stockpiles and Japan should turn its no-nuclear weapons policy into law, the mayor of Nagasaki said Thursday at a ceremony marking the 62nd anniversary of the world's second atomic bomb attack.

The city observed a moment of silence at 11:02 a.m., when the B-29 bomber Bock's Car dropped its atomic payload in 1945, killing about 74,000 people.

For the record, I don't give a crap. If you don't want to get killed, don't start a war. And asking people to get rid of their nukes is like asking fat kids to give up twinkies and cheetos.

Hiroshima deserved it, too. My only regret is that we didn't drop it right on Tokyo. And then on China and the Soviet Union. Why build them if you don't intend to use them? Stop wasting my money if that's all you're going to do!
:mad:

[9sublime]

When you go into a war, you expect the enemy (if you regard it to have any sense of decency, which America claims itself to have) to attack your soldiers and strategic military points. Not nuking primarily civillian cities with long lasting radioactive materials that will have dire and extended consquences.

Hiroshima did not deserve it. The Japense government deserved it, and its high ranking military officials.

Countries main reason for havin nukes is to scare every other country into a nuclear stalemate.

[Truth-Bringer]

Just saw this over the wire:

TOKYO - All nuclear powers should eliminate their stockpiles and Japan should turn its no-nuclear weapons policy into law, the mayor of Nagasaki said Thursday at a ceremony marking the 62nd anniversary of the world's second atomic bomb attack.

The city observed a moment of silence at 11:02 a.m., when the B-29 bomber Bock's Car dropped its atomic payload in 1945, killing about 74,000 people.

For the record, I don't give a crap. If you don't want to get killed, don't start a war. And asking people to get rid of their nukes is like asking fat kids to give up twinkies and cheetos.

Hiroshima deserved it, too. My only regret is that we didn't drop it right on Tokyo. And then on China and the Soviet Union. Why build them if you don't intend to use them? Stop wasting my money if that's all you're going to do!
:mad:


You're one sick, twisted demon. You need to go rent the documentary "Fog of War" - an interview with former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. He makes a stunning admission that if Japan had won the war, he and his superiors would have been tried as war criminals for the bombing runs against civilians in Japanese cities.

The history of war is written by the winners - but that doesn't mean their actions were moral or ethical.

[Castle]

You're one sick, twisted demon. You need to go rent the documentary "Fog of War" - an interview with former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. He makes a stunning admission that if Japan had won the war, he and his superiors would have been tried as war criminals for the bombing runs against civilians in Japanese cities.

The history of war is written by the winners - but that doesn't mean their actions were moral or ethical.
I certainly will not try to suggest that the citizens of Hiroshima or Nagasaki deserved their fate. However, since you are so quick to point out possible war crimes, allow me to expand on the subject. The Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese. They looted the countries they crushed and enslaved millions while exploiting them as forced laborers. Oh and yes, they forced women into prostitution for front-line troops. Many allied POW's were tortured and finally beheaded if they were lucky. There is plenty of blame to be doled out in the politics of morality. In the end it is still called war and those involved are in it to win.

From the comfort of our chairs we can play the "if" game all day long but the decision to use the atomic bomb on Japan was not made quickly or easily. We could have taken the conventional route and invaded Japan. All of their military and many of the civilian population were willing to fight to the death for the emperor. It was quite clear that the casualties on both sides would have dwarfed the losses in those cities so the gamble was - would the emperor see the futility in continuing the fight against the US. Thankfully he did and further losses were avoided.

I wonder what would be said in these forums today had we decided to throw everything we had at Japan (except the atomic bomb) and Japanese civilian casualties were in the millions before a declaration of surrender was reached.

I'm fairly sure I know.

-Castle

[steveox]

See that bomb made the Japs stop fighting.The samething if we used nukes on Pakistan and IRAN the terrorism would stop.

[Segep]

Ah, the old "might makes right" argument. I guess by that logic it would be perfectly acceptable to hack someone's computer or burn their house down in order to win a debate over the internet that has dragged on for too long. It would get them to stop, wouldn't it?

[Castle]

See that bomb made the Japs stop fighting.The samething if we used nukes on Pakistan and IRAN the terrorism would stop.
I'm afraid it is not that simple. The situation is entirely different today. I do not see the outcome in the middle east that we had in Japan. I believe a nuclear strike would be ill advised until Iran starts exporting nuclear weapons that eventually end up in American cities.

[9sublime]

Steveox, as we have already said, and me and castle (yes, strange I know) have agreed on, whilst the nukes stopped Japan, they wont stop the terrorists.

Japan is a country, with a defined set of targets, a defined army and a defined territory. Terrorists have no defined targets, troops or territory. Japan cannot function against nukes, individual or small terrorist cells cannot feasibly be nuked.

Destroying tens of thousands of civillian Muslims is only going to fuel terrorism in other parts of the world and turn Americas allys against them. To think that nuking is an easy answer is simply as naive as an eleven year old child playing army men in the mud.

At least, may I add as well, whilst Japans attack was sneaky on Pearl Harbour, they had the decency to attack a predominantly military target. War is war, and surprise is an element of warfare. Nuking and killing tens of thousands of civillians is exactly what you would condemn terrorists for, but as long as the bomb comes out of a US fighter jet onto an enemy of the US, its all fair.

[vyo476]

There is plenty of blame to be doled out in the politics of morality. In the end it is still called war and those involved are in it to win.

Yup. Ugly, but yup.

From the comfort of our chairs we can play the "if" game all day long but the decision to use the atomic bomb on Japan was not made quickly or easily. We could have taken the conventional route and invaded Japan. All of their military and many of the civilian population were willing to fight to the death for the emperor. It was quite clear that the casualties on both sides would have dwarfed the losses in those cities so the gamble was - would the emperor see the futility in continuing the fight against the US. Thankfully he did and further losses were avoided.

Unfortunately, I'd have to agree. We probably saved a lot of Japanese lives by using the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In an ironic sidenote, the firebombing of Tokyo actually killed more people than either atomic detonation.

I wonder what would be said in these forums today had we decided to throw everything we had at Japan (except the atomic bomb) and Japanese civilian casualties were in the millions before a declaration of surrender was reached.

I'm fairly sure I know.

I'm not so certain. There are enough "what if" scenarios that no matter which course of action we took, there would always be another path that, in hindsight, might have been better. That's the killer, though; there's no way to know.

In yet another side not, my grandfather worked on the Manhattan Project as a mathematician. I have a paperweight that the government made for him and a few of the other scientists with a piece of dirt crystallized by the radiation from the first atomic bomb set into it and a plaque reading, "June 15, 1945. St. Alamagordo, New Mexico. First Atomic Explosion." Apparently, it originally belonged to Enrico Fermi, but Fermi gave it to my grandfather (who wasn't quite important enough get one), saying that my grandfather would be able to look at it a lot sooner than he would.

Crazy stuff, huh?

[steveox]

Ah, the old "might makes right" argument. I guess by that logic it would be perfectly acceptable to hack someone's computer or burn their house down in order to win a debate over the internet that has dragged on for too long. It would get them to stop, wouldn't it?


I only wish i was that smart to hack into the pentagon Nuke Launch codes and then when the missles fires and head directly to IRAN and Pakistan i would be popping up an ice cold bud and be watching this.
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/b/b8/180px-ABCNewsSpecialReport.JPGhttp://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/7/75/250px-Cbsnewsspecialreport2004.jpg
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/d/d8/Foxnewsalert.pnghttp://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e47/steveox1961/fox4.jpg

[Castle]

I only wish i was that smart to hack into the pentagon Nuke Launch codes and then when the missles fires and head directly to IRAN and Pakistan i would be popping up an ice cold bud and be watching this.
So you seriously think we are at the point where a preemptive nuclear strike is a viable option? Have you thought of the fallout from a move like this now? Pun intended. Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely sure that Iran and North Korea would/will not waste a second in passing off nuclear devices to their shadowy scapegoats for use in the US, Britain or Israel. The real questions are, what do "we" do from now until then? How long before they are capable of making this transfer? Do we take the UN route of wait and see or do we pound their nuclear facilities into dust before they can. Once they have the nuclear material for a potential suicide operation, it is only a matter of getting it to its target. Personally, I am not comfortably letting it get this far as US borders are FAR too easy to breach at this time.

Unless we are looking at an imminent strike in the US, I think we could get the job done conventionally before it gets to this point. Will we? I really can't say. That does give me pause.

-Castle

[9sublime]

Iran and North Korea aren't stupid. They may give some types of weapons to terrorists, but they know that if the terrorists ever got nukes, before they hit American soil America would have blown their missiles right back.

The only reason a nuke was dropped on Japan was because nobody had one to fire back. Today, its either nobody fires a nuke or everybody fires one and we all go down.

Steveox, I don't think you're old enough to drink any kind of alcohol.

[Truth-Bringer]

However, since you are so quick to point out possible war crimes, allow me to expand on the subject.

Allow me to expand further on some American war crimes:

Why Do They Hate Us?
http://www.chaostan.com/whydotheyhateus.html


From the comfort of our chairs we can play the "if" game all day long but the decision to use the atomic bomb on Japan was not made quickly or easily.

B.S. They wanted to use their new "toys."

We could have taken the conventional route and invaded Japan. All of their military and many of the civilian population were willing to fight to the death for the emperor.

Or we could have accepted their conditional surrender.

Japan Tried To Surrender After Midway Defeat
http://www.rense.com/general72/jee.htm

The article he is responding to is:

Whitewashing Hiroshima: The Uncritical Glorification of American Militarism
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/kohls7.html

[Castle]

Iran and North Korea aren't stupid. They may give some types of weapons to terrorists, but they know that if the terrorists ever got nukes, before they hit American soil America would have blown their missiles right back.
You are 100% correct. Iran and North Korea are not stupid. However, there is no need to develop an expensive and elaborate delivery system like a missile when they have their choice of extremist groups more than willing to tote a warhead to its destination manually. Also, it's a plus to say "we didn't do it"

Allow me to expand further on some American war crimes:
We can quote examples of war crimes till we're blue in the face. You'll have to excuse me if I don't waste time bickering with you over this point. As I stated before, there is enough blame to be shared by all parties involved. I just wanted to make sure you didn't get away with making it all a one sided issue.


B.S. They wanted to use their new "toys."
Oh please. If this is your honest opinion then I am truly wasting my time here. The Japanese were attempting to use their German allies technology against us. Do you think for a moment that Japan would not have used the atom bomb if they were in a position to do so?! Why would we waste all the time, effort and money developing atomic weapons if it was clear that Japan would surrender under conventional military might and without massive losses on both sides?


Or we could have accepted their conditional surrender.
Oh really?! Was this about the same time that Japanese military leaders were attempting to prevent the emperor's surrender speech from ever being broadcast?

-Castle

[invest07]

The targeting of civilians is an unfortunate but very effective method of bringing a war to a close.

The first targeting of civilians in this country was done by the British against rebel civilians during the Revolutionary War.

Civilains were the primary target of Union forces during 1864 and 1865. (Anyone remember Sherman's march to the sea?) This was scorched earth with nothing left and virtually 100% directed at civilians. It was successful in bringing the Civil War to a close.

And the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unfortunate but effective in ending WW2. An American invasion of Japan would have unleashed destruction of Japanese civilians and cost up to 100,000 American lives. Those 2 bombs were well spent and no one in the US should feel even the slightest bit of guilt about this.

Nagasaki was closer to Tokyo than Hiroshima and the Japanese were bluffed into thinking Tokyo would be bombed next. The reality is that the US only had 2 working bombs.

We have lost the will to inflict civilian casualties during war and this has severely crippled the effectiveness of the military. If you remeber the invasion of Afghanistan, the only stories the LIB media ran at first were stories of civilians hurt.

This is part of the feminization of America and is something to be resisted at all costs.

[9sublime]

Every time an American civillian is killed in the name of any kind of war, be it between country and country or a Jihad or whatever, the US media condemns it.

But as soon as America are the ones killing the civillians, its fine is it? When that many innocent civillians die, its on par with terrorism. Plain and simple.

[Castle]

Every time an American civillian is killed in the name of any kind of war, be it between country and country or a Jihad or whatever, the US media condemns it.

But as soon as America are the ones killing the civillians, its fine is it? When that many innocent civillians die, its on par with terrorism. Plain and simple.

I'm not sure I see it that way. I've seen much of the American media place blame on our aggressive policy against terrorism as the cause for our casualties both civilian and military. While I absolutely hate to see the numbers stack up, I've not seen an alternative strategy to combat terrorism that makes sense to me. I would like to stress the word "combat" as our complacency of the past has proven to be ineffective to say the least.

The difference for me is intent. How do you avoid civilian casualties in a conflict like this? If the intent is to inflict civilian casualties then yes, it smacks of terrorism. If getting to the terrorists requires the risk of collateral damage then what? Raise the white flag? I don't think so.

It is not fine with me ANY time an American, Brit, Aussie, etc is killed as a result of terrorism. I will not however, subscribe to the notion that doing nothing about it will be better for all of us in the long run. Do you not believe that there must be swift consequences when Americans and Brits alike are targets?

-Castle

[9sublime]

The difference for me is intent. How do you avoid civilian casualties in a conflict like this? If the intent is to inflict civilian casualties then yes, it smacks of terrorism. If getting to the terrorists requires the risk of collateral damage then what?

-Castle


A nuclear bomb is hardly something that carries a risk of collateral damage is it? The intent was to obliterate an entire city, predominantly civillians. That smacks of terrorism, and you seem to know it.

[Castle]

A nuclear bomb is hardly something that carries a risk of collateral damage is it? The intent was to obliterate an entire city, predominantly civillians. That smacks of terrorism, and you seem to know it.
If we were not at war with a country whos intent was our complete destruction, I may consider your slant. If Japan had not initiated the war in the Pacific, I might reconsider mine. The intent was NOT to obliterate a city but to force Japan to consider surrender sooner rather than later. I suspect you know this. If harsh language would have delivered the same results, I expect we would have passed on the bomb. You dont agree?

-Caste

[9sublime]

At least Japan had the decency to attack Pearl Harbour, a military target.

Its no slant to say that America attacked two civillian areas, with no intent on trying to avoid collateral damage and avoid killing innocent civillians in order to terrorize Japan into giving up on the war.

Its no slant, its the truth.

[Castle]

At least Japan had the decency to attack Pearl Harbour, a military target.

Its no slant to say that America attacked two civillian areas, with no intent on trying to avoid collateral damage and avoid killing innocent civillians in order to terrorize Japan into giving up on the war.

Its no slant, its the truth.
You gotta be kidding me! Did you say decency! I'll give you this one back if you'd like to try it again. What was decent about the way Japan handled their Pacific campaign.

Unless you are completely unaware of Japans conduct during the war, I am surprised that you would attempt to use that word at all.

In order to get out of this revolving door, I'll finish my point with this. IT WAS ALL OUT WAR. OUR JOB WAS TO WIN IT! WE DID! THEY DIDN'T! Why is this complicated? The US will always be criticized for what it does or does not do. Then it will be criticized for how it did or did not do it.

-Castle

[9sublime]

IT WAS ALL OUT WAR. OUR JOB WAS TO WIN IT! WE DID! THEY DIDN'T!

-Castle

I believe the terrorists have the same mentality. Win at all costs, targeting millions of civillians indiscrimantly.

Japan may have been very cruel fighters to the American army, especially the POW's, but as a general rule at least they went for the people who could fight back.

I stand by my comment that what America did to Nagasaki and Hiroshima was far more of a cowardly terrorist attack than what Japan did on Pearl Harbour.

[USMC the Almighty]

I believe the terrorists have the same mentality. Win at all costs, targeting millions of civillians indiscrimantly.


The terrorists don't really care if they win, so long as they achieve their martyrdom.

[9sublime]

I'm pretty sure thats an opinion and that they do have other goals such as the West and Capitalism falling and everyone converting to Islam.

[USMC the Almighty]

I'm pretty sure thats an opinion and that they do have other goals such as the West and Capitalism falling and everyone converting to Islam.

You're right, that is their goal but I honestly don't believe that is their driving motivation.

[SW85]

When you go into a war, you expect the enemy (if you regard it to have any sense of decency, which America claims itself to have) to attack your soldiers and strategic military points. Not nuking primarily civillian cities with long lasting radioactive materials that will have dire and extended consquences.

Please. Invading armies have been sacking cities and putting innocent people to the sword since the time immemorial. No major power has ever done otherwise to my knowledge (including America at the time). What one national leader says in public does not somehow void more than a century of American history.

And keep in mind nukes were regarded merely as very large explosives at the time -- it was not seen as much worse to nuke a city than to pummel it with conventional explosives, which was what we had been doing to them constantly up to that point (and what their allies had been doing to ours).

The history of war is written by the winners - but that doesn't mean their actions were moral or ethical.

So?

Ah, the old "might makes right" argument. I guess by that logic it would be perfectly acceptable to hack someone's computer or burn their house down in order to win a debate over the internet that has dragged on for too long. It would get them to stop, wouldn't it?

What are you, eight years old? This was WW2, not an internet debate.

And in this case, might ended the war with fewer casualties than the alternative, so yes, it did make right.

[Castle]

I believe the terrorists have the same mentality. Win at all costs, targeting millions of civillians indiscrimantly.
Ah, so you will stop short of halting the advance of Islamic terrorism if it requires an "at all cost" mentality. If I'm a terrorist leader, thats exactly what I want the rest of the infidels to think.

Japan may have been very cruel fighters to the American army, especially the POW's, but as a general rule at least they went for the people who could fight back.
Not true at all. The Pacific war was not confined to America and Japan. Read up on what the Japanese military did to the civilian population of other Asian countries.

I stand by my comment that what America did to Nagasaki and Hiroshima was far more of a cowardly terrorist attack than what Japan did on Pearl Harbour.
.......and I stand by my comment that the US did what was necessary to put an end to the war and by doing so, reduced overall casualties significantly as opposed to a longer and more costly all out invasion of Japan.

-Castle

[9sublime]

Definition of a terrorist attack: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

What happened in Nagasaki: the calculated use of violence against civilians in order to attain goals that are political in nature; this is done through wiping out an entire city.

[Castle]

Definition of a terrorist attack: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

What happened in Nagasaki: the calculated use of violence against civilians in order to attain goals that are political in nature; this is done through wiping out an entire city.

So, in your mind, just about every war ever waged was an act of terrorism? Knowing full well that civilians would be killed, these wars were faught anyhow.

Terrorism is the wilful destruction of people (civilians) and/or property by people or organizations not acting on behalf of an established government. Just because you do not agree with the actions of an established government does not mean you can interchange the terms war and terrorism to suit your needs. This also applies if you do agree with a groups actions against a government.

Yes, Sometimes the difference between war and terrorism is nothing more than a technicallity but there are differences.

-Castle

[9sublime]

So, in your mind, just about every war ever waged was an act of terrorism? Knowing full well that civilians would be killed, these wars were faught anyhow.

No. Dropping a bomb on two civillian cities in full knowledge that every single person in it would die immediatly or get cancer from radiation posioning is an act of terrorism.

Terrorism is the wilful destruction of people (civilians) and/or property by people or organizations not acting on behalf of an established government.

Then why did you go after Saddam Hussein in a war on terror? As the ruler of a government, according to your defenition, anything he or his government did cannot be terrorism.

Just because you do not agree with the actions of an established government does not mean you can interchange the terms war and terrorism to suit your needs.-Castle


The bomb was a wilful destruction of civillians and their property. I think you are the one interchanging terms.


-Castle[/QUOTE]

[Castle]

No. Dropping a bomb on two civillian cities in full knowledge that every single person in it would die immediatly or get cancer from radiation posioning is an act of terrorism.
So killing countless more civilians in a full invasion of Japan would have been your choice? I suppose thats an easy one for you to make after the fact.



Then why did you go after Saddam Hussein in a war on terror? As the ruler of a government, according to your defenition, anything he or his government did cannot be terrorism.
Correct, but it was terrorism that he supported. What happened after that was war.



The bomb was a wilful destruction of civillians and their property. I think you are the one interchanging terms.
Again.........there was a war going on between two established governments. Just like every bomb that killed civilians in Germany, England, Poland, Russia, etc., etc., etc. Right or wrong, this has always been a product of war and terrorism but you need to accept the differences.

-Castle

[9sublime]

So killing countless more civilians in a full invasion of Japan would have been your choice? I suppose thats an easy one for you to make after the fact.

Killing civillians in true warfare is very bad when its collateral damage and accidental, but its not terrorism. Killing civillians by dropping a nuke on them is just a straight on terrorist attack on innocents.

Correct, but it was terrorism that he supported. What happened after that was war.

But you were on a 'war on terror'. If a government cannot be accused of terrorism, what the hell were you doing attacking it?


Again.........there was a war going on between two established governments. Just like every bomb that killed civilians in Germany, England, Poland, Russia, etc., etc., etc. Right or wrong, this has always been a product of war and terrorism but you need to accept the differences.

-Castle

I'm not arguing wether other countries have commited terrorist attacks by bombing innocents. England has, every country that bombs civillians for the sake of killing civillians.

All I'm trying to do now is make you see that dropping those nukes a terrorist attack.

[BigRob]

We could have taken the conventional route and invaded Japan. All of their military and many of the civilian population were willing to fight to the death for the emperor. It was quite clear that the casualties on both sides would have dwarfed the losses in those cities so the gamble was - would the emperor see the futility in continuing the fight against the US. Thankfully he did and further losses were avoided.


This is wrong. For a few reasons.

1. The Japanese government wanted to surrender; its leaders, military as well as civilian, rationally understood that the war was lost. But they had a determined attachment (irrational?) to the emperor. Japan would have surrendered, very possibly as early as June 1945, had its ruling establishment received guarantees of the emperor's personal safety and continuance on the throne. This should have been the first step in an American surrender strategy.

2. Any remaining Japanese reluctance to quit the war would have been quickly overcome by the second step, entry of the Soviet Union in August 1945.

3. American failure to accept and implement this "two-step logic" for an expeditious end to World War II was largely a result of the emerging Cold War and especially American concern over Soviet ambitions in Eastern Europe and northeast Asia.

4. The American public would have accepted some modification of the unconditional surrender policy in order to avoid prolongation of the war. The Washington Post and Time magazine advocated its abandonment; so did some United States senators. Many military leaders and diplomats-British as well as Americanconcurred.

5. President Harry S. Truman seemed inclined to give assurances on the emperor, then pulled back. He did so out of concern with Soviet behavior and with increasingly firm knowledge that the United States would soon have atomic weapons available. Coming to believe that the bomb would be decisive and anxious to keep the Soviet Union out of Manchuria, he dropped modification of unconditional surrender; moreover, he sought to prevent a Soviet declaration of war against Japan by encouraging China not to yield to Soviet demands beyond those granted at Yalta. In so doing, he acted primarily at the urging of James F. Byrnes, the archvillain in the plot.

6. Truman also refused to move on Japanese peace feelers, apparently in the belief that it was necessary to prevent a Japanese surrender before the bomb could be demonstrated to the world, and especially to the Soviet Union. The result was the needless destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and many allied casualties that need not have happened.

7. In subsequent years, the American decision makers of 1945 devoted considerable energy to the construction of a misleading "myth" that attempted to vindicate the use of the bomb by denying Japanese efforts at peace and by asserting grossly inflated estimates of American casualties that would have been sustained in an invasion of Japan.

Journal of American History, Vol. 84, No. 2

[dahermit]

Some facts that are generally overlooked in the atomic bomb use debate. More persons were killed by the firebombing of Tokyo than at Hiroshima. What is the practical difference between an atomic bombing that kills thousands, and a fire bombing that kills thousands. Other than the residual effects of radiation, nothing. If that be true, then calling an atom bombing of civilians a "war crime" and the fire bombing of Tokyo, Dresden, etc. is an emotional and/or disingenuous argument not worthy of debate.

[Castle]

This is wrong. For a few reasons.

1. The Japanese government wanted to surrender; its leaders, military as well as civilian, rationally understood that the war was lost. But they had a determined attachment (irrational?) to the emperor. Japan would have surrendered, very possibly as early as June 1945, had its ruling establishment received guarantees of the emperor's personal safety and continuance on the throne. This should have been the first step in an American surrender strategy.
Simply incorrect.
The Japanese cabinet was interested in setting terms for the surrender which included the continued existence of the of Imperial Throne. I'm sorry.....since when does the surrendering party dictate terms?

"Clearly the time to surrender had come. Incredibly, many in the military wanted to fight on, preferring death to capitulation"
-worldwar2database.com

If we were fighting the Japanese cabinet and not the Japanese military, revisionist historians would have my undivided attention.

7. In subsequent years, the American decision makers of 1945 devoted considerable energy to the construction of a misleading "myth" that attempted to vindicate the use of the bomb by denying Japanese efforts at peace and by asserting grossly inflated estimates of American casualties that would have been sustained in an invasion of Japan.
Again, it is convenient to base these assumptions on events that were avoided.
"The Emperor was sympathetic to the peacemakers. The Army members of the cabinet were not willing to give up, and Prime Minister Suzuki had to move carefully. If there was a perceived weakness in the cabinet, even the Emperor might be assassinated. The idea that the Emperor would support surrender was inconceivable to many in both the Army and the Navy. Suzuki cautiously sought out others on the cabinet, finding all but two generals in support. On July 28, the government issued a carefully worded response to the Potsdam Declaration, which unfortunately used a word with a double meaning. English-language broadcasts used the word "ignore" and the Western press picked up that sentiment. Truman announced he had rejected the peace offer and dropped the atomic bombs."
-worldwar2database.com

A limited and poorly worded peace offering without the support of most of the Army and Navy?! So convenient to criticize decisions that you did not have to make or take responsibility for.

-Castle

[BigRob]

Simply incorrect.
The Japanese cabinet was interested in setting terms for the surrender which included the continued existence of the of Imperial Throne. I'm sorry.....since when does the surrendering party dictate terms?

"Clearly the time to surrender had come. Incredibly, many in the military wanted to fight on, preferring death to capitulation"
-worldwar2database.com

If we were fighting the Japanese cabinet and not the Japanese military, revisionist historians would have my undivided attention.


Again, it is convenient to base these assumptions on events that were avoided.
"The Emperor was sympathetic to the peacemakers. The Army members of the cabinet were not willing to give up, and Prime Minister Suzuki had to move carefully. If there was a perceived weakness in the cabinet, even the Emperor might be assassinated. The idea that the Emperor would support surrender was inconceivable to many in both the Army and the Navy. Suzuki cautiously sought out others on the cabinet, finding all but two generals in support. On July 28, the government issued a carefully worded response to the Potsdam Declaration, which unfortunately used a word with a double meaning. English-language broadcasts used the word "ignore" and the Western press picked up that sentiment. Truman announced he had rejected the peace offer and dropped the atomic bombs."
-worldwar2database.com

A limited and poorly worded peace offering without the support of most of the Army and Navy?! So convenient to criticize decisions that you did not have to make or take responsibility for.

-Castle

I am not criticizing the decision to drop the bomb. Personally I think it was the right move, regardless of what the situation was with Japan, but I also think that those who argue that it was essential to winning the war are mistaken.

You cannot make the claim that everyone was willing to die for the emperor and then come back by saying what the emperor did would get him assassinated, that doesn't make any sense. If they were willing to kill him, then they were not willing to follow him to whatever end. You could argue that he was not the one really in power perhaps.

Whats the difference if we had allowed the emperor to stay in power? We did it anyway. It was the best move to make a quick transition to block of Soviet influence in Japan, it was going to be done regardless. It is hardly making a concession to the surrendering party (something the US has done before however).

All I am saying is that we knew we were going to need to leave the emperor in regardless, as a symbolic figurehead, so whats the difference between granting that in a treaty before the bomb was dropped to allowing it anyway after the bomb was dropped? The reason we dropped the bomb had nothing to do with winning the war in Japan.

[SW85]

Definition of a terrorist attack: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

All you've done here is define terrorism so broadly that it de-legitimizes war entirely, and that includes non-nuclear war.

Here's the arrangement, which you obviously haven't been clued in on: a state is any entity which monopolizes the legitimate use of force in the country it governs. War is the use of force by states against other states or non-state entities to achieve desirable ends. Terrorism is the use of force by non-state entities against states or other non-state entities to achieve desirable ends.

We have war because everyone agrees that if violence is inevitable, it's best to contain to as few sectors of society as possible -- that is, states against other states. Terrorism is bad not because it's violence (which is never, itself, inherently bad), it's bad because it's violence in defiance of the established order by which violence is permitted to be carried out. In the absence of that order, there is no reason for anyone to believe that government alone has the right to use force, even to do mundane things like enforce basic laws. The whole foundation on which society is built suddenly melts away if you unequivocally embrace terrorism or unequivocally reject the validity of war.

And even that kind of violence is never inherently bad: it's all contextual. The Warsaw ghetto uprising was precisely what I just defined terrorism as: violence by a non-state entity against a state. But no one (except David Duke and his sickening Holocaust-denying brood) would really define that as bad, would they? A few dozen people on the brink of death took up guns and fought for their lives against one of the most evil entities that has ever existed. Thus we can do nothing but judge the use of violence on the basis of its merits, from the perspective of our own value system -- does it achieve ends we find desirable? If so, we should think of it as legitimate. And what do you know, I guess that means might does make right.

This is a pitch-perfect example of why I can't help but laugh at liberals. You plead and scream about nuance, context, subtlety, that the world's not all black-and-white and that everything's relative, but on any issue of serious intellectual substance you cannot bring yourself to conform to those principles. Suddenly there's a definite good and a definite evil, and only the established powers ever fall on the evil side because we can't expect any better from the little yellow folk, can we?

No. Dropping a bomb on two civillian cities in full knowledge that every single person in it would die immediatly or get cancer from radiation posioning is an act of terrorism.

No, it's an act of war. Only an uneducated communist conflates war with terrorism.

Then why did you go after Saddam Hussein in a war on terror? As the ruler of a government, according to your defenition, anything he or his government did cannot be terrorism.

So? No one ever said it was, rigidly speaking, a war against terrorism. In fact, Bush made clear pretty early on that terrorist-sponsoring states would targetted, as well. The "war on terror" is a phrase, nothing more -- it implies no obligation. This is like complaining that we didn't go to war with every other nation in the world during World War II.

You're basically defending your opposition to Iraq on the basis of some cheap semantic parlor trick. It's frankly beneath discussion in polite company.

Killing civillians in true warfare is very bad when its collateral damage and accidental, but its not terrorism. Killing civillians by dropping a nuke on them is just a straight on terrorist attack on innocents.

Listen to yourself! You're judging by intentions, not results!

Who cares WHY we used nukes, or whether we did it with the DELIBERATE INTENTION of killing civilians? The end result is that fewer civilians died than the alternative.

You're putting worthless philosophical abstractions above the concrete well-being of human lives, both American and Japanese, and you have the gall to take the moral high ground with us?

[9sublime]

Are you at any point arguing that you didnt drop the bomb to kill civillians?

Are you at any point arguing that America paid no heed to collateral damage or minizing civillian casualties?

Are you arguing that killing thousands of civillians indiscriminatly for the sake of convienence in winning a war is not terrorism?

Listen to yourself. Three thousand American adults die in the twin towers attacks, and its a huge terrorist attack. Thousands upon thousands of men, women and children are killed or given radiation poising and its not.

[Castle]

I am not criticizing the decision to drop the bomb. Personally I think it was the right move, regardless of what the situation was with Japan, but I also think that those who argue that it was essential to winning the war are mistaken.
I am confused on your position here. Why do you think it was the right move to use the atomic bomb if it was not essential to winning the war? I would expect that the goal here would be to end the war as quickly as possible with the fewest overall casualties, specifically US casualties. Are you of the opinion that we used the bomb just for kicks?

You cannot make the claim that everyone was willing to die for the emperor and then come back by saying what the emperor did would get him assassinated, that doesn't make any sense. If they were willing to kill him, then they were not willing to follow him to whatever end. You could argue that he was not the one really in power perhaps.
As a figurehead, the emperor was worshiped by much of the population. Do you deny this? As an obstacle to continuing the the war effort, the Japanese military was not so fond of him. Assassination or at the very least preventing a surrender speech from ever being broadcast was certainly a possibility with respect to their military. Control the emperor or the people's perception of his wishes and control the people.

-Castle

[BigRob]

I am confused on your position here. Why do you think it was the right move to use the atomic bomb if it was not essential to winning the war? I would expect that the goal here would be to end the war as quickly as possible with the fewest overall casualties, specifically US casualties. Are you of the opinion that we used the bomb just for kicks?



I think it was the right move to use the bomb mostly to send Russia a message. It was not needed to win the fight in Japan as Russia was about to enter the war in the Pacific as well. The US however did not want any Russian influence at all in Japan as it was pretty obvious that Russia was going to be the next enemy, and the spheres of influences that were being established all over Europe.

I think that the casualties estimates are grossly overstated, and that we used the bomb to keep Russia out the Japan in the post war period, which I think was certainly the right move.

[SW85]

Sublime, you're behaving so ignorantly I'm almost inclined not to answer you.

I don't know why you have so little capacity to understand what's being said here. Use of nuclear bombs saved Japanese lives, it saved American lives -- in the long run it set up the ironclad nuclear deterrent that probably spared the lives of millions of Russians, Chinese, Koreans, Americans, Europeans, etc., during the Cold War.

You are complaining about "intentions." Who gives a **** about intentions, besides pampered communists like you? Results are what matters. If deliberately targetting civilians saved the lives of civilians and soldiers alike in the long run, nothing else matters, does it? If we'd done what you suggested, how many more would be dead, both from a land invasion of Japan and from the pursuit of the Cold War without the absolute knowledge of the horrible destructive capabilities of the bomb staying the hands of American and Soviet button-pushers?

Again, you can insist on conflating the words terrorism and war (which goes to show how utterly ignorant and prejudiced by your environment you are). And again, all this means is you're playing stupid little semantic word games on an issue that actually touched on whether or not people lived. You oughta' be ashamed of yourself, you wretched communist.

[9sublime]

Sublime, you're behaving so ignorantly I'm almost inclined not to answer you.

I think its more that you find yourself unable to find the diffrerence between a terrorist attack and dropping an atomic bomb.

I don't know why you have so little capacity to understand what's being said here. Use of nuclear bombs saved Japanese lives, it saved American lives -- in the long run it set up the ironclad nuclear deterrent that probably spared the lives of millions of Russians, Chinese, Koreans, Americans, Europeans, etc., during the Cold War.

Yes, and in the eyes of the Islamic terrorists of today, what they are doing is justifying the end result.

You are complaining about "intentions." Who gives a **** about intentions, besides pampered communists like you? Results are what matters. If deliberately targetting civilians saved the lives of civilians and soldiers alike in the long run, nothing else matters, does it? If we'd done what you suggested, how many more would be dead, both from a land invasion of Japan and from the pursuit of the Cold War without the absolute knowledge of the horrible destructive capabilities of the bomb staying the hands of American and Soviet button-pushers?

I'm not even questioning wether dropping the bomb was the best or worst move to do in accordance to the events at the time. I'm just trying to show you it was a terrorist attack. It was a terrorist attack, wether it was good in the long run or not is irrelevant to the point I am currently trying to put accross. I will argue wether or not it was the best move another time.

Again, you can insist on conflating the words terrorism and war (which goes to show how utterly ignorant and prejudiced by your environment you are). And again, all this means is you're playing stupid little semantic word games on an issue that actually touched on whether or not people lived. You oughta' be ashamed of yourself, you wretched communist.

I'm not a communist. I'm not even socialist thesedays. Its just you dont want to admit to yourself that your country committed an atrocity.

[Castle]

I think it was the right move to use the bomb mostly to send Russia a message. It was not needed to win the fight in Japan as Russia was about to enter the war in the Pacific as well. The US however did not want any Russian influence at all in Japan as it was pretty obvious that Russia was going to be the next enemy, and the spheres of influences that were being established all over Europe.

I think that the casualties estimates are grossly overstated, and that we used the bomb to keep Russia out the Japan in the post war period, which I think was certainly the right move.
Ok ..... well you assert that dropping the bombs would discourage Russia from getting in our business with Japan. So why then did they declare war on Japan on August 8, 1945? Hiroshima was leveled on August 6, 1945 and Japan surrendered on August 14.

Seems like too little too late if Russia had plans to get a foothold in the Pacific. it would also seem like Hiroshima did little to discourage Russia and more likely that it was a symbolic gesture on their part.

- Castle

[BigRob]

Ok ..... well you assert that dropping the bombs would discourage Russia from getting in our business with Japan. So why then did they declare war on Japan on August 8, 1945? Hiroshima was leveled on August 6, 1945 and Japan surrendered on August 14.

Seems like too little too late if Russia had plans to get a foothold in the Pacific. it would also seem like Hiroshima did little to discourage Russia and more likely that it was a symbolic gesture on their part.

- Castle

It ended the war before Russia had a chance to attack Japan, and therefore when Japan surrendered to the USA it meant that the USA alone would be able to handle the postwar period in Japan and keep Russian influence out of the Pacific. It was pretty clear that this point that Russia was going to be holding onto the liberated territories as buffers, and the USA did not want that to happen in Japan as well.

The nuclear bomb not only showed Russia that the USA had this terrible technology, but also ended the war quickly before Russia could attack and then have some stack in post war Japan.

Russia definitely had plans to get into the war in the pacific, it certainly was more than a symbolic gesture. I am saying that the war would have been won without the bomb, and with Russia coming in, Japan knew it was over, but the USA wanted Russia out of the Japan, so the bomb became a viable option to end it quickly.

Russia could not have known Japan was going to surrender, after all we did drop 2 bombs before they did. Also, knowing that Japan was weak like that they could have been trying to get in on the action to get some say in post war Japan

[Castle]

It ended the war before Russia had a chance to attack Japan, and therefore when Japan surrendered to the USA it meant that the USA alone would be able to handle the postwar period in Japan and keep Russian influence out of the Pacific. It was pretty clear that this point that Russia was going to be holding onto the liberated territories as buffers, and the USA did not want that to happen in Japan as well.

The nuclear bomb not only showed Russia that the USA had this terrible technology, but also ended the war quickly before Russia could attack and then have some stack in post war Japan.

Russia definitely had plans to get into the war in the pacific, it certainly was more than a symbolic gesture. I am saying that the war would have been won without the bomb, and with Russia coming in, Japan knew it was over, but the USA wanted Russia out of the Japan, so the bomb became a viable option to end it quickly.

Russia could not have known Japan was going to surrender, after all we did drop 2 bombs before they did. Also, knowing that Japan was weak like that they could have been trying to get in on the action to get some say in post war Japan
Well then this was a win-win situation. Japan surrenders and the Pacific war ends quickly. Russia cant extend it's influence into the Pacific theater as the war is won.

I never said the war could not have been won without the bomb - just that the cost would have been higher and the decision unwise. Your above points seem to bare that out. I can't imagine anyone in the US military brass wishing to extend the war and invite Russian influence. It makes no sense on either point.

-Castle

[BigRob]

Well then this was a win-win situation. Japan surrenders and the Pacific war ends quickly. Russia cant extend it's influence into the Pacific theater as the war is won.

I never said the war could not have been won without the bomb - just that the cost would have been higher and the decision unwise. Your above points seem to bare that out. I can't imagine anyone in the US military brass wishing to extend the war and invite Russian influence. It makes no sense on either point.

-Castle

Well in that case we are in agreement.